By your own admission, MajorMerrick, there is no way to verify the existence of your religion. Be that as it may, I can accept your first post, above, detailing the structure and demographics of your faith. (Not that you need me or anyone else to accept it.)
What I can't get my head around is some of the doctrine and aspects of belief that go with this faith of yours, namely:
The purpose of marriage and sex in our faith is to have children and provide a cemented social unit. Marriage then becomes a contract in which there are two portions– the vows said before religious authority, and the sex act itself. So, when I had my wedding night, it was witnessed.
Having witnesses is a demonstration of the willingness of the man to provide his partner with children and pleasure, as well as a test of his ability. It also demonstrates the willingness of the woman to submit her entire body to her husband and to bond with her sister-wives.
There is no other religious group (that I know of), even strict fundamentalist, convert-centred churches, that insist that the actual sex act between husband and wife be "witnessed" by others.
Moreover, how is this proof of anything except that sex has taken place? If PIV and/or anal sex on the wedding night is enforced/encouraged by the church, it seems to me that it doesn't so much "demonstrate the willingness of the woman to submit her entire body to her husband and bond with her sister-wives" as it's coercive and voyeuristic.
Tell me what eighteen year old virgin (for example) is really going to want her first experience of sexual intimacy, particularly anal sex - both of which often include some degree of pain and self-consciousness for most young women - to be witnessed, critiqued or documented one or more others? The only way I see this happening is if she has been indoctrinated into believing it's the will of God or of the "elders", or if she feels she has no choice in the matter.
How does it demonstrate the husband's "willingness to provide his
partner with children and pleasure, as well as a test of his ability" if the sex act is expected or enforced and has to be witnessed? It seems to me that all it would prove is that the male is ABLE to consummate the marriage. What if his new wife experiences pain and bleeding... what if she doesn't orgasm? Is he deemed deficient? What if the husband or wife turns out to be infertile?
Sex is supposed to be reserved for within marriage. This is where it has gotten difficult in my relationships. Same-sex relations between men are forbidden as it is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Same-sex relations between women is simply unmentioned, as it is unmentioned in Scripture.
My introduction of my girlfriends into my bedroom was not normal for my faith, but my husband and I agreed on it as a way that we could be together. As long as nobody really knew about it, no harm, right? However, my husband’s relationship with Renarde is entirely abnormal for our faith, and has caused quite a bit of stress.
Either way you look at it, your family/polycule seem to be cherry-picking parts of scripture and using technicalities (at best) or (at worst) knowingly acting hypocritically to suit your purposes. I think you know that, which is why it's causing you stress. If God or a omniscient higher power does exist - and I am not an atheist - surely He/she/it sees and knows what you do behind closed doors, even if the church elders and others do not. Therefore if something is against God or your faith, it's still "wrong" or harmful, even if no other human being ever finds out.
According to our standards, she could (and should) demand to be married at this point, and the rest of us should insist that they do so. My feelings toward this have been mixed, but the last few days I’ve felt more and more like I really disapprove of his relations with her unless they marry. It just doesn’t seem right, and I think that he has made a mistake that he ought to fix….and I made a mistake also in permitting it. I have no idea how to un-ring this bell.
As an elder or leader in the church, your husband already knows what goes against the teachings of his faith. YET he jumped at the chance to "help" Renarde "explore" her sexuality, despite them not being married. He committed a sexual act with her that is reserved only for married people. Moreover, if Renarde considers herself BOTH male and female, and chose to participate in anal sex with Ares, then it could be argued that Ares participated in homosexual relations (since you say this was Renarde expressing her "male" side.)
It seems to me that, in addition to your faith's practice of polygamy; the acceptance of sex between sister-wives (lesbian sex); and sharing the marital bed between many people who witness or participate in group sex... your own family's "tailoring" of your church's rules relating to sex has led to an overall loosening of the rules/boundaries/"morals" your church purports to uphold. How Ares/Renarde choose to resolve this is between them, however, unless one or more of his wives decide to force the issue by reporting the matter to the church council.
As I mentioned before, childbearing is a chief goal of marriage and sex. God’s people are encouraged to be fruitful and multiply, and sex is supposed to further this goal at all times. Birth control is not allowed. Neither men nor women are permitted “except for a time and by mutual agreement” to deny sex to each other. A man’s sperm is regarded as belonging to his wife or wives – available on demand. Its purpose is the production of children
Your church is not alone in this belief, or similar. However, the scriptures this "goal" was based on were written thousands of years ago, before the earth became vastly overpopulated and its resources more and more scarce.
Personally, I believe we should not be encouraging people to procreate without limit... but population control/birth control/abstinence is at odds with the Evangelistic nature of faiths such as yours, which rely on new blood to expand and further the cause. In my opinion, this is a pretty self-serving, short-term view of our joint future.
Male masturbation and/or sex with unmarried women defrauds wives of the nutrients/hormones/chemicals they need for proper mental balance and health, as well as the right to become pregnant. Sex between women serves a purpose. Since it is not forbidden in Scripture (being non-penetrative and non-procreative in nature) it is permitted. Prior to marriage, girls are able to relieve sexual tension with their female friends, which preserves chastity and prevents pregnancy outside of marriage.
You say women are permitted to engage in same-sex relations and/or masturbate to relieve sexual tension - so wouldn't adolescent and young unmarried males or widowers also have the same feelings that could be relieved by masturbation, in lieu of being left sexually frustrated or marrying prematurely just so they can have sex?
And since pubescent girls release an egg each month when they ovulate, aren't these eggs also potential/unborn children that are "wasted" if not fertilised? Yet it seems "every sperm is sacred" to quote Monty Python, but ova are not.
Practically speaking, women have a higher sex drive than men and a greater need for satisfaction.
This is a gross over-generalisation. (Some) women are capable of multiple orgasms, sure, and our sex-drives tend to peak later in life... but until then, male sex-drive tends to be higher/more urgent. Even among women with naturally very high sex-drives, our libido and willingness to participate in sexual activity can be negatively affected or limited by other aspects such as our general state of mind/mood, overall health, hormonal headaches and pain around the time of our periods, whether we're having a bad day at work or conflict with a significant other, etc etc. Men can also experience most of these things, certainly, however unless the man has a low libido in general, most healthy males don't usually experience a significant lack of drive/ability to perform until they hit middle-age.
As Scripture is silent on other issues and in fact has examples of families with more than one wife (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) then it is logical that polygamy/polyamory is permitted.
You classify your faith/sect as "Christian", MajorMerrick. As a former Catholic, it was my understanding that the Old Testament laws were supposed to be superseded by the New Testament, which contains the teachings of Jesus Christ. Using examples from Old Testament stories to justify plural marriage is once again another example of how many evangelical/fundamentalist groups cherry-pick what laws and practices they wish to uphold/promote.