Robertson: Polygamy in the Bible Was Fine. Now It’s a Reason to Stop Gay Marriage.

Pat Robertson does us all a favor and explains to us why polygamy in the Bible was totally find on pragmatic grounds and wasn’t adultery, but today it’s such a horrible, evil thing that it’s a reason to prevent gay people from getting married.

He also cited biological differences between the sexes as a reason for polygamy in the Old Testament: “A woman gets pregnant and she has a baby and it occupies her for a whole year, whereas a man can impregnate 20, 30, 50, 100 women and not slow down a bit.”

Robertson explained that biblical figures who practiced polygamy were not committing adultery, claiming that the practice only became wrong following Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.

However, Robertson warned that polygamy will soon be legal in the U.S. because “there is no way under heaven” that it can remain illegal if same-sex marriage is allowed. (In reality, polygamy has not been legalized in any of the states where same-sex marriage is legal).

“As sure as you’re alive, we’re going to legalize polygamy and some of the women who have multiple wives seem to be pleased with it,” he added. “If a man in the Old Testament married two or three women, it wasn’t adultery because they were all married.”

I’m sure glad he cleared that up, aren’t you?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mr Ed

    1 – The Bible is the unerring word of God.

    2 – What the Bible says doesn’t mean what you think it means, the Humpty Dumpty clause.

    I was at a party when a christian made a point of telling people he wasn’t drinking because he was a Christian. I asked him what Christ’s first miracle was, wedding at Canaan water into wine. He went on to explain that while the word wine was used it really meant grape juice.

    The traditional marriage lot is much the same, polygamy, slaves, concubines, conquered virgins and paid off rape victims all mean one man one woman. Because Jesus or the words or something.

  • caseloweraz

    “As sure as you’re alive, we’re going to legalize polygamy and some of the women who have multiple wives seem to be pleased with it,” he added. [citation needed]

    Coincidentally, I just read the customer reviews of Robertson’s 1991 book The New World Order. They amount to a pretty thorough takedown.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    The correct response to the slippery slope to polygamy argument should always be, “Yeah. So?” As long as every participant is fully consenting, it’s not for anyone to tell other people how many people they can marry.

  • http://dharmaubuntu.wordpress.com/ Aspect Sign

    Actually, though I am not 100% I am recalling this correctly so if some one knows better please correct me, but as I recall in the language of the time the same word was used for grape juice as wine and I believe vinegar also. Though I think they used modifiers generally to be more specific such as referring to grape juice as new wine. As to the clip the one thing I hate to but have to agree with the bible thumpers on is that prohibitions against polygamy are no better justified than prohibitions against same sex marriage and are defeated by the same arguments. Now I don’t think that allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing polyamore even through the courts because there wouldn’t be enough public support.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002686842900 ChristineRose

    Jesus weighs in on divorce in Matthew 19. Divorce and polygamy were the two great marriage issues of the day, and it’s not surprising that a Rabbi representing a rogue Jewish sect would have been asked to weigh in on it. (If you prefer, it’s not surprising that someone stuck the teachings of said Rabbi onto whatever you think the historical Jesus actually was.)

    The thing is, there’s no polygamy passage. Jesus is made to stand mute. His followers were generally a strongly anti-sex group, but the most anti-sex among them also looked down on the Torah. You absolutely cannot conclude that Jesus was anti-polygamy. You can conclude that a lot of early Christians were thought that if you must do all that icky stuff you should do it with your one opposite sex spouse but it’s very interesting that Jesus isn’t made to advocate that position in the surviving versions of gospels.

  • theguy

    “claiming that the practice only became wrong following Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.”

    Wha huh buh? The rules changed? What was all that about inerrant, unchanging Truth (TM) direct from God?

  • Chiroptera

    theguy, #6:

    One thing that has always annoyed me about conservative evangelicals is their moral relativism.

  • Chiroptera

    Robertson explained that biblical figures who practiced polygamy were not committing adultery, claiming that the practice only became wrong following Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.

    Actually monogamous marriages were a Roman tradition. (That’s why the upper classes divorced so often. They could only be married to one person at a time, so when political alliances changed they had to divorce their current spouses to marry into the new allies’ families.)

    Christianity is basically Roman tradition and Greek Platonism with some Hebrew mythology grafted onto it.

  • peterh

    “Wha huh buh? The rules changed? What was all that about inerrant, unchanging Truth (TM) direct from God?”

    The Inerrancy Clause™ only applies to those selected cases where applying it would raise the claimant’s argument slightly higher than whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.

  • marcus

    Tabby Lavalamp @ 3 i generally agree, though I could see the facility of having marriage consisting of one legal spouse as far as far as the State was concerned, and then as many supernumerary spouses as anyone cares to arrange, for bookkeeping purposes if nothing else. However, my interest is entirely sociological, It wouldn’t affect me personally in any way.

  • grumpyoldfart

    Sadly there are millions of Christians around the world who saw that broadcast and said to each other, “Wow! Isn’t Mr Robertson just great? Did you see how cleverly he worked out the truth for us? Those silly old atheists just don’t have a clue do they?”