Now to legalize polygamy

Now that gay marriage is legal in many jurisdictions and broadly accepted, activists are taking up the cause of polygamy.  The liberal Washington Post religion columnist Lisa Miller is sympathetic:

This week, in one of his first public statements since this past summer’s anti-gay-marriage remarks, Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told an Atlanta television reporter that he supports “Biblical families.” This comment immediately gave rise to jokes questioning his familiarity with the Old Testament, where, as any Mormon elder can tell you, patriarchs such as Abraham, Jacob and David all practiced polygamy.

John Witte Jr., however, thinks it isn’t so funny. A scholar of religion and law at Emory University in Atlanta, Witte is working on a lengthy history of polygamy due out next year. He believes that polygamy is the next frontier in marriage and family law. If states are able to dismantle traditional or conventional views of marriage by allowing two men or two women to wed, then why should they not go further and sanction, or at least decriminalize, marriages between one man and several women?

This is the argument that Kody Brown and his wives, the stars of the reality television show “Sister Wives,” are making in a civil suit against the state of Utah. They are claiming that Utah’s anti-polygamy laws violate their privacy and their religious freedom. “The Browns want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith,” Jonathan Turley, the family’s lawyer, wrote in an op-ed this summer.

Beneath the sensationalism, there lies a real question. If Americans increasingly value their rights to privacy and liberty above historical social norms, then why should the state not legally approve other unconventional domestic set-ups? In his first chapter, Witte presents the problem this way. “After all,” he writes, “American states today, viewed together, already offer several models of state-sanctioned domestic life for their citizens: straight and gay marriage, contract and covenant marriage, civil union and domestic partnership. Each of these off-the-rack models of domestic life has built-in rights and duties that the parties have to each other and their children and other dependents. And the parties can further tailor these built-in rights and duties through private prenuptial contracts. With so much marital pluralism and private ordering already available, why not add a further option — that of polygamous marriage?”

This is an argument that makes defenders of individual liberties sweat, for few people like to be put in the spot of having to uphold a social taboo. But really. If the purpose of marriage is to preserve personal happiness, protect and raise children, and create social stability through shared property and mutual obligation, then why is polygamy so problematic if it occurs among consenting adults? The two-parent household may be an ideal, but real life is far messier than that. Children are raised all the time by groups of adults: there are exes and steps, adoptive parents and biological, mistresses and wives. Didn’t someone say it takes a village?

Witte is worried about this line of thinking. He sees the “sexual liberty for all” folks increasingly pressing their cases in law reviews, saying “those that oppose polygamy are just like the homophobes and the patriarchs.”

via Polygamy may be hot, but in marriage three’s still a crowd – The Washington Post.

Is there any Biblical reason why polygamy should not be legalized?  That is, set aside natural law arguments, what’s best for women, the needs of children, etc., and just focus on the Bible.  Clearly, the New Testament demands monogamy for church leaders, but that requirement doesn’t seem to be binding on everyone.  And, of course, polygamy was almost the norm in the Old Testament, in particular for leaders of the magnitude of Abraham and King David.

The defining texts for marriage, on the other hand, are those that refer to Adam and Eve, and Christ and the Church, and to “the two” becoming “one flesh.”  Those would argue against polygamy.  (Jesus doesn’t have more than one bride, contrary to the gnostic manuscripts being circulated, and the applications of this relationship to the vocation of the marriage in Ephesians 5 don’t really work for more than one spouse.)

And yet we cannot say that Jacob was sinning or defying God’s will when he took many wives whose progeny created the Twelve Tribes of Israel, can we?  The practice of Christian missionaries when a polygamist converts has been to make him put away all but one of his wives.  How can that be a good practice?  Doesn’t that do great harm to the wives who are abandoned?  And doesn’t this violate the definite Biblical prohibitions against divorce?

If we cannot make a Bible-only case against polygamy, does this mean that extra-Biblical reasoning is necessary, if in this case, also in other moral and legal issues?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.wordsofthislife.ca Brian Reynolds

    Hi all,
    See the current poster campaign (“Love Has No Gender”) in the schools in Toront Canada. Posters depicting “threesomes” – schoolboard officials deny that they are promoting polygamy and say the posters are really showing that a person can love people of two different sexes! The sodomites are in control of Toronto schoolboard see http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/10/bullies-schools-sodomite-agenda.html – but yes, polygamy is next.

  • http://www.wordsofthislife.ca Brian Reynolds

    Hi all,
    See the current poster campaign (“Love Has No Gender”) in the schools in Toront Canada. Posters depicting “threesomes” – schoolboard officials deny that they are promoting polygamy and say the posters are really showing that a person can love people of two different sexes! The sodomites are in control of Toronto schoolboard see http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/10/bullies-schools-sodomite-agenda.html – but yes, polygamy is next.

  • Pete

    @1
    Interesting. “Love” understood broadly indeed has no gender. Sex, on the other hand, considered from an anatomic and physiologic basis, would seem to obviously have gender(s).

  • Pete

    @1
    Interesting. “Love” understood broadly indeed has no gender. Sex, on the other hand, considered from an anatomic and physiologic basis, would seem to obviously have gender(s).

  • Michael B.

    “Is there any Biblical reason why polygamy should not be legalized? That is, set aside natural law arguments, what’s best for women, the needs of children, etc., and just focus on the Bible. ”

    Suppose you could find a Biblical mandate for monogamy. How would this be binding on non-Christians? More interesting are the secular reasons against polygamy. I suspect that the biggest beneficiary of anti-polygamy laws are what you could call beta males. If alpha males have multiple wives, and there is an equal male-female birth ratio, this means that many men would have no wife or children.

  • Michael B.

    “Is there any Biblical reason why polygamy should not be legalized? That is, set aside natural law arguments, what’s best for women, the needs of children, etc., and just focus on the Bible. ”

    Suppose you could find a Biblical mandate for monogamy. How would this be binding on non-Christians? More interesting are the secular reasons against polygamy. I suspect that the biggest beneficiary of anti-polygamy laws are what you could call beta males. If alpha males have multiple wives, and there is an equal male-female birth ratio, this means that many men would have no wife or children.

  • Orianna Laun

    There was a joke going around email a few years ago in which all sorts of people cam in seeking marriage licenses–a polygamist, two couples who wanted to keep marriage between the four of them, a man who loved only himself and wanted to mary himself, etc. At the end the judge cries, “You are making a mockery of marriage!” We should not be surprised.
    As for Biblical arguments against polygamy, one would have to ask how well it worked out for Abraham and Jacob. They had multiple wives and concubines based on human will. Had not Laban not pulled the old switch-a-roo, Jacob may as well have had one wife, not two (who fought for their husband’s affections and children). The question is, did God endorse polygamy, or did He use human frailty and turn it around for good? There is enough evidence in Joseph, Judah, and others to say it is a case of God turning it around. (I doubt God would endorse selling siblings as slaves or unknowingly impregnating one’s daughter-in-law because one thought she was a prostitute.)
    In the case of the kings, power in that culture was based on sexual prowess. More wives, more power. This is why Solomon is so offended when his brother asks for David’s concubines after David’s death. It was a clear power grab. Point is, again, polygamy was cultural, not religious.

  • Orianna Laun

    There was a joke going around email a few years ago in which all sorts of people cam in seeking marriage licenses–a polygamist, two couples who wanted to keep marriage between the four of them, a man who loved only himself and wanted to mary himself, etc. At the end the judge cries, “You are making a mockery of marriage!” We should not be surprised.
    As for Biblical arguments against polygamy, one would have to ask how well it worked out for Abraham and Jacob. They had multiple wives and concubines based on human will. Had not Laban not pulled the old switch-a-roo, Jacob may as well have had one wife, not two (who fought for their husband’s affections and children). The question is, did God endorse polygamy, or did He use human frailty and turn it around for good? There is enough evidence in Joseph, Judah, and others to say it is a case of God turning it around. (I doubt God would endorse selling siblings as slaves or unknowingly impregnating one’s daughter-in-law because one thought she was a prostitute.)
    In the case of the kings, power in that culture was based on sexual prowess. More wives, more power. This is why Solomon is so offended when his brother asks for David’s concubines after David’s death. It was a clear power grab. Point is, again, polygamy was cultural, not religious.

  • Charlton

    I think we can make a biblical case against polygamy from the Old Testament. The only marriage prior to the Fall, which is arguably the ideal, involved one man and one woman. After Adam and Eve sin, we can see differences between the wicked line of Cain and the godly line of Seth. In the seventh generation from Adam in the line of Cain, we have Lamech—a serial killer and the first polygamist. Part of his wickedness is in debasing God’s plan for marriage. Contrast Lamech with Enoch, who is the seventh generation from Adam in the line of Seth—he walked with God and apparently was taken to heaven without dying. Even with most of the patriarchs, polygamy appears to be a result of sin. For example, Abraham listens to his wife and marries her servant Hagar because he and Sarah do not really believe God’s promise to make Abraham a great nation. The Bible gives us plenty of examples of sin without explicitly denouncing them as sin–I think this is one of them.

  • Charlton

    I think we can make a biblical case against polygamy from the Old Testament. The only marriage prior to the Fall, which is arguably the ideal, involved one man and one woman. After Adam and Eve sin, we can see differences between the wicked line of Cain and the godly line of Seth. In the seventh generation from Adam in the line of Cain, we have Lamech—a serial killer and the first polygamist. Part of his wickedness is in debasing God’s plan for marriage. Contrast Lamech with Enoch, who is the seventh generation from Adam in the line of Seth—he walked with God and apparently was taken to heaven without dying. Even with most of the patriarchs, polygamy appears to be a result of sin. For example, Abraham listens to his wife and marries her servant Hagar because he and Sarah do not really believe God’s promise to make Abraham a great nation. The Bible gives us plenty of examples of sin without explicitly denouncing them as sin–I think this is one of them.

  • http://snafman.blogspot.com Snafu

    Polygamy is also on the agenda of the Green party youth organization in Finland. Funny, how simultaneously things evolve nowadays…

    Anyway, to the question. Old Testament exegetics professor Antti Laato at Åbo University (Swedish speaking university in Turku, not to be mixed with the Finnish University of Turku) and a devout conservative Lutheran himself, once made a persuasive case against polygamy relying only on the material within the Old Testament. One of his key points as that the Song of Songs was originally partly a criticism aimed at polygamy! Now, even if there may be no knock-down “dicta probantia” that nails the question once and for all, I do think that within legitimate theological pondering, monogamy can be justifiably favored against polygamy. Otherwise it would be very difficult to explain the fact that monogamy became the norm in Judaism and in the early Church.

    At least Finnish Lutheran missionaries do not make polygamists put away their wives, but they forbid him to take any more wives. If he does, he will be excommunicated.

  • http://snafman.blogspot.com Snafu

    Polygamy is also on the agenda of the Green party youth organization in Finland. Funny, how simultaneously things evolve nowadays…

    Anyway, to the question. Old Testament exegetics professor Antti Laato at Åbo University (Swedish speaking university in Turku, not to be mixed with the Finnish University of Turku) and a devout conservative Lutheran himself, once made a persuasive case against polygamy relying only on the material within the Old Testament. One of his key points as that the Song of Songs was originally partly a criticism aimed at polygamy! Now, even if there may be no knock-down “dicta probantia” that nails the question once and for all, I do think that within legitimate theological pondering, monogamy can be justifiably favored against polygamy. Otherwise it would be very difficult to explain the fact that monogamy became the norm in Judaism and in the early Church.

    At least Finnish Lutheran missionaries do not make polygamists put away their wives, but they forbid him to take any more wives. If he does, he will be excommunicated.

  • Tom Hering

    God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Eve and Evelyn and Evangeline. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Eve and Evelyn and Evangeline. :-D

  • http://snafman.blogspot.com Snafu

    I correct myself: monogamy can not only be favored against polygamy, but polygamy can also be justifiably prohibited.

  • http://snafman.blogspot.com Snafu

    I correct myself: monogamy can not only be favored against polygamy, but polygamy can also be justifiably prohibited.

  • Jeff

    What the Bible describes it does not necessarily endorse. The Bible describes sinful human beings (except for one). That they took multiple wives does not endorse the fact that they took them. Every time the Bible describes the ideal of marriage, it is always in the context of one man, on woman.

  • Jeff

    What the Bible describes it does not necessarily endorse. The Bible describes sinful human beings (except for one). That they took multiple wives does not endorse the fact that they took them. Every time the Bible describes the ideal of marriage, it is always in the context of one man, on woman.

  • Other Gary

    “polygamy can also be justifiably prohibited”

    @8
    It should be prohibited, but I’m not seeing yet how that would be done on the basis of citing Scriptural dictates. Yet you certainly are correct, Snafu, to argue Scripture as a whole seems to recognize monogamy as more in line with the essential character of marriage. I don’t see, however, that either Testament treats polygamy as a sin.

    We seem to be in that gray area between what is sometimes referred to as “God’s permissive will,” vs. “God’s perfect will,” as much as I don’t care for either expression.

  • Other Gary

    “polygamy can also be justifiably prohibited”

    @8
    It should be prohibited, but I’m not seeing yet how that would be done on the basis of citing Scriptural dictates. Yet you certainly are correct, Snafu, to argue Scripture as a whole seems to recognize monogamy as more in line with the essential character of marriage. I don’t see, however, that either Testament treats polygamy as a sin.

    We seem to be in that gray area between what is sometimes referred to as “God’s permissive will,” vs. “God’s perfect will,” as much as I don’t care for either expression.

  • Other Gary

    Jeff, what you say is true about how “the ideal of marriage” is presented in the Bible. The problem is in scaring up a _Scriptural_ warrant for enforcing why people disallowed from entering into a less-than-ideal form of “marriage.”

  • Other Gary

    Jeff, what you say is true about how “the ideal of marriage” is presented in the Bible. The problem is in scaring up a _Scriptural_ warrant for enforcing why people disallowed from entering into a less-than-ideal form of “marriage.”

  • Tom Hering

    … the ideal of marriage … one man, on woman. (@ 9)

    Freudian slip much? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    … the ideal of marriage … one man, on woman. (@ 9)

    Freudian slip much? :-D

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    There seems to be, in Scripture, a differentiation made between what is forbidden, vs things that are not preferred. Polygamy would fall into the latter class.

    Also, Michael B’s point is actually important: Where would one draw the line in these matters – make something binding on everyone? There might be an argument for things forbidden, but I have a hard time seeing an argument for things not preferred.

    BTW, a really sexist joke: A kid was asked at school, if having one wive id monogamy, what is having two wives called? His answer – stereogamy! :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    There seems to be, in Scripture, a differentiation made between what is forbidden, vs things that are not preferred. Polygamy would fall into the latter class.

    Also, Michael B’s point is actually important: Where would one draw the line in these matters – make something binding on everyone? There might be an argument for things forbidden, but I have a hard time seeing an argument for things not preferred.

    BTW, a really sexist joke: A kid was asked at school, if having one wive id monogamy, what is having two wives called? His answer – stereogamy! :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    We have no-fault divorce, and men must still support wives they have divorced and the children from those unions. Among the divorced wives of a dead man, certain criteria determine which of the wives may receive his Social Security survivors benefits, pension, etc. So, in fact as well as in law, we have long since legalized polygamy. We just don’t call it polygamy. Polygamy by any other name is still polygamy.

    Interestingly, both men and women who only have one partner in their entire lives have more children on average. So even nature can spot the winners.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    We have no-fault divorce, and men must still support wives they have divorced and the children from those unions. Among the divorced wives of a dead man, certain criteria determine which of the wives may receive his Social Security survivors benefits, pension, etc. So, in fact as well as in law, we have long since legalized polygamy. We just don’t call it polygamy. Polygamy by any other name is still polygamy.

    Interestingly, both men and women who only have one partner in their entire lives have more children on average. So even nature can spot the winners.

  • Jon

    It’s a challenge enough being married to just one spouse. Who needs more? Honestly.

    It seems about every instance in the Bible of polygamy, it’s never quite such a good thing. Jealously, strife, angst–all multiplied.

    Sheesh.

  • Jon

    It’s a challenge enough being married to just one spouse. Who needs more? Honestly.

    It seems about every instance in the Bible of polygamy, it’s never quite such a good thing. Jealously, strife, angst–all multiplied.

    Sheesh.

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #7,

    I don’t know–Adam had more than one rib!

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #7,

    I don’t know–Adam had more than one rib!

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Samuel Clemens, when visiting Salt Lake City, was asked for a Biblical argument against polygamy. And so I repeat it:

    Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

    Duh. :^) (another bad joke; what is the Biblical punishment for polygamy? Answer; you have more than one wife!)

    Seriously, the earlier commenters note well the Creation order, and the troubles of the patriarchs and kings dealing with multiple wives. For many, it was lethal. It’s worth noting as well that those in the OT who had multiple wives were commanded to provide all of them equally with food, clothing, and the conjugal duty, and that the kings were warned (Deuteronomy and Proverbs 31) of the perils of wearing oneself out for women.

    We can also infer from 1 Cor. 7 that most men will need a wife, and we can further infer that if we allow polygamy, more of them will be denied that comfort. We can also make an educated guess that something drastic will have to happen to make women choose not to have their own husband, but to share–as history and the Scriptures bear out. You send the rival husbands to war, or castrate them and use them as harem guards, right? Ask Esther. Plus, does Christ have one Bride, or many?

    The argument involves a little more work than prooftexting, but it’s certainly there.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Samuel Clemens, when visiting Salt Lake City, was asked for a Biblical argument against polygamy. And so I repeat it:

    Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

    Duh. :^) (another bad joke; what is the Biblical punishment for polygamy? Answer; you have more than one wife!)

    Seriously, the earlier commenters note well the Creation order, and the troubles of the patriarchs and kings dealing with multiple wives. For many, it was lethal. It’s worth noting as well that those in the OT who had multiple wives were commanded to provide all of them equally with food, clothing, and the conjugal duty, and that the kings were warned (Deuteronomy and Proverbs 31) of the perils of wearing oneself out for women.

    We can also infer from 1 Cor. 7 that most men will need a wife, and we can further infer that if we allow polygamy, more of them will be denied that comfort. We can also make an educated guess that something drastic will have to happen to make women choose not to have their own husband, but to share–as history and the Scriptures bear out. You send the rival husbands to war, or castrate them and use them as harem guards, right? Ask Esther. Plus, does Christ have one Bride, or many?

    The argument involves a little more work than prooftexting, but it’s certainly there.

  • Dan

    “From the beginning it was not so.” I think Jesus makes a fairly convincing argument (Mt 19:1-12) that the overall perspective of the Bible is that marriage is intended to unite one woman and one man for the healthy raising of children.

    What the histories describe is not condoned. Nearly every major character who has multiple wives suffers because of it. Polygamy, also, was a result of “hardness of heart.”

    Matthew and Mark also make it fairly clear that Jesus’ doctrine of marriage was considered unfeasible, even in that day. So Jesus responds, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Given this, I wonder if what should be the norm for the church would be misplaced if set upon the society at large as a law, at least “for Biblical reasons.”

    There are plenty of compelling arguments for a traditional understanding of marriage that need no religious reference.

  • Dan

    “From the beginning it was not so.” I think Jesus makes a fairly convincing argument (Mt 19:1-12) that the overall perspective of the Bible is that marriage is intended to unite one woman and one man for the healthy raising of children.

    What the histories describe is not condoned. Nearly every major character who has multiple wives suffers because of it. Polygamy, also, was a result of “hardness of heart.”

    Matthew and Mark also make it fairly clear that Jesus’ doctrine of marriage was considered unfeasible, even in that day. So Jesus responds, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” Given this, I wonder if what should be the norm for the church would be misplaced if set upon the society at large as a law, at least “for Biblical reasons.”

    There are plenty of compelling arguments for a traditional understanding of marriage that need no religious reference.

  • Dan

    Oh, and fun literary connection – John Milton argued strongly for polygamy from the Bible.

  • Dan

    Oh, and fun literary connection – John Milton argued strongly for polygamy from the Bible.

  • Ellen

    “And yet we cannot say that Jacob was sinning or defying God’s will when he took many wives whose progeny created the Twelve Tribes of Israel, can we?”

    I think we CAN say that Jacob was sinning. It was not God’s will from the beginning to have more than one man and one woman in marriage, but Jacob too was a product of his culture. Sometimes we tend to idealize people in the Bible as being amazingly righteous and good when in fact they were just poor miserable sinners like we are. It points to the overwhelming nature of God’s mercy that he plucks sinners out of our self-created quagmire to serve His perfect purpose – in Jacob’s case, to bring about the Messiah who would save Jacob and the rest of us who sin daily in thought, word and deed.

  • Ellen

    “And yet we cannot say that Jacob was sinning or defying God’s will when he took many wives whose progeny created the Twelve Tribes of Israel, can we?”

    I think we CAN say that Jacob was sinning. It was not God’s will from the beginning to have more than one man and one woman in marriage, but Jacob too was a product of his culture. Sometimes we tend to idealize people in the Bible as being amazingly righteous and good when in fact they were just poor miserable sinners like we are. It points to the overwhelming nature of God’s mercy that he plucks sinners out of our self-created quagmire to serve His perfect purpose – in Jacob’s case, to bring about the Messiah who would save Jacob and the rest of us who sin daily in thought, word and deed.

  • DonS

    Once you legalize gay marriage, I can think of no earthly reason why things will stop there. In view of gay marriage, drawing a biblical line short of polygamy seems silly.

  • DonS

    Once you legalize gay marriage, I can think of no earthly reason why things will stop there. In view of gay marriage, drawing a biblical line short of polygamy seems silly.

  • Grace

    There are a number of combinations:

    Sep 01, 2012
    Three-way civil union in Brazil sparks controversy
    By Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY

    “One man and two women became the first people granted a three-way civil union in Brazil, CNN reports.

    The Brazilian public notary who granted the trio all of the legal benefits of marriage has set off a firestorm. Claudia do Nascimento Domingues is defending her move, calling the three a “polyfidelitous union.”

    Other polyfidelitous groups have reached out to her seeking the same civil union status.

    Domingues is studying the cases of a quintet (two men and three women) and another trio (one woman and two men).

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/three-way-civil-union-in-brazil-sparks-controversy/1#.UEZtFCJ_4dp

  • Grace

    There are a number of combinations:

    Sep 01, 2012
    Three-way civil union in Brazil sparks controversy
    By Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY

    “One man and two women became the first people granted a three-way civil union in Brazil, CNN reports.

    The Brazilian public notary who granted the trio all of the legal benefits of marriage has set off a firestorm. Claudia do Nascimento Domingues is defending her move, calling the three a “polyfidelitous union.”

    Other polyfidelitous groups have reached out to her seeking the same civil union status.

    Domingues is studying the cases of a quintet (two men and three women) and another trio (one woman and two men).

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/three-way-civil-union-in-brazil-sparks-controversy/1#.UEZtFCJ_4dp

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    When Christians start talking about this, mormons realize quickly that they have not read the bible they say they believe in. In all actuality, polygamy is more than tolerated. It is not commanded across the board, but in some situations it actually is mandated.
    Western societies reticence concerning polygamy predates Christianity. It is actually a case where pagan law was assumed to be Christian Law and endorsed by the Bible. In Roman society a man could only have one wife, this was for the purpose of tracking inheritance and so forth, and protecting the daughters of Roman citizens. However, it was expected that the men would have all sorts of illicit affairs, concubines and the like. It was that element of the arrangement Christianity killed.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    When Christians start talking about this, mormons realize quickly that they have not read the bible they say they believe in. In all actuality, polygamy is more than tolerated. It is not commanded across the board, but in some situations it actually is mandated.
    Western societies reticence concerning polygamy predates Christianity. It is actually a case where pagan law was assumed to be Christian Law and endorsed by the Bible. In Roman society a man could only have one wife, this was for the purpose of tracking inheritance and so forth, and protecting the daughters of Roman citizens. However, it was expected that the men would have all sorts of illicit affairs, concubines and the like. It was that element of the arrangement Christianity killed.

  • The Jones

    Dr. Veith,

    I’m sorry, but I just find the “Polygamy happened in the Bible, therefore, it is difficult to say that the Bible frowns upon polygamy” to be an extremely vacuous argument. It’s a line of thinking that ignores the difference between the definitions of “tolerate” and “approve.”

    There are instances in the bible where compassionate women boil and eat their children. (See Lamentations 4:10). By the same line of “polygamy is not frowned upon by the bible” reasoning, an argument could be made that boiling and eating your children is not frowned upon by the Bible.

    I just do not understand how this argument works. It is totally inane. Can somebody enlighten me? Is there something I’m missing? Just because God does not rain fire and brimstone on something, that doesn’t mean the default position is that he likes it absent overwhelming evidence to the other side. Why does this post seem take that position?

    “And yet we cannot say that Jacob was sinning or defying God’s will when he took many wives whose progeny created the Twelve Tribes of Israel, can we?” Yes we can. When has the Biblical position ever been that only sinless behavior is that which is incorporated into God’s plan? Rather than behavior being the mark of righteousness, instead belief is counted as righteous. That’s the way it has always been, from Abraham to us.

    I feel like I’m going crazy having to argue this. Were you actually just inviting the arguments against this position when you put this forward? Or do you seriously think polygamy is a real contentious moral issue that Christianity has not adequately answered?

    I’m just at a loss here. I don’t get it.

  • The Jones

    Dr. Veith,

    I’m sorry, but I just find the “Polygamy happened in the Bible, therefore, it is difficult to say that the Bible frowns upon polygamy” to be an extremely vacuous argument. It’s a line of thinking that ignores the difference between the definitions of “tolerate” and “approve.”

    There are instances in the bible where compassionate women boil and eat their children. (See Lamentations 4:10). By the same line of “polygamy is not frowned upon by the bible” reasoning, an argument could be made that boiling and eating your children is not frowned upon by the Bible.

    I just do not understand how this argument works. It is totally inane. Can somebody enlighten me? Is there something I’m missing? Just because God does not rain fire and brimstone on something, that doesn’t mean the default position is that he likes it absent overwhelming evidence to the other side. Why does this post seem take that position?

    “And yet we cannot say that Jacob was sinning or defying God’s will when he took many wives whose progeny created the Twelve Tribes of Israel, can we?” Yes we can. When has the Biblical position ever been that only sinless behavior is that which is incorporated into God’s plan? Rather than behavior being the mark of righteousness, instead belief is counted as righteous. That’s the way it has always been, from Abraham to us.

    I feel like I’m going crazy having to argue this. Were you actually just inviting the arguments against this position when you put this forward? Or do you seriously think polygamy is a real contentious moral issue that Christianity has not adequately answered?

    I’m just at a loss here. I don’t get it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It doesn’t matter how tenuous the arguments we come up with are, whether they’re based in descriptive scriptural passages oddly lacking any command, or merely appeals to utilitarianism by way of statistics.

    What matters is that Christians fight polygamy tooth-and-nail as it becomes more of a public issue. Sure, we should still make time to talk about Jesus, but there’s no reason one can’t kill two birds with one stone: just talk about how Jesus is opposed to polygamy. See? Easy!

    But even if the Bible itself doesn’t make it plain that polygamy is a sin, we Christians should in no way be hindered from making that plain declaration ourselves. After all, polygamy=gross. I mean, hello?

    Anyhow, I for one, welcome our new Culture-War debate topic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    It doesn’t matter how tenuous the arguments we come up with are, whether they’re based in descriptive scriptural passages oddly lacking any command, or merely appeals to utilitarianism by way of statistics.

    What matters is that Christians fight polygamy tooth-and-nail as it becomes more of a public issue. Sure, we should still make time to talk about Jesus, but there’s no reason one can’t kill two birds with one stone: just talk about how Jesus is opposed to polygamy. See? Easy!

    But even if the Bible itself doesn’t make it plain that polygamy is a sin, we Christians should in no way be hindered from making that plain declaration ourselves. After all, polygamy=gross. I mean, hello?

    Anyhow, I for one, welcome our new Culture-War debate topic.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – :) Agreed…..

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – :) Agreed…..

  • Grace

    - Below are a number of passages from 1 Timothy and Titus which clearly state the husband of “one wife” and “blameless” -

    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Timothy 3:2

    Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12

    ( Both bishops and deacons – blameless )

    5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

    6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

    7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

    8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

    9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
    Titus 1

    ( Clearly states “elders and Bishops” “blameless” )

    Passages to ponder. Wouldn’t this apply to all Believers to be “blameless” the husband of “one wife” ?

  • Grace

    - Below are a number of passages from 1 Timothy and Titus which clearly state the husband of “one wife” and “blameless” -

    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Timothy 3:2

    Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12

    ( Both bishops and deacons – blameless )

    5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

    6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

    7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

    8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

    9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
    Titus 1

    ( Clearly states “elders and Bishops” “blameless” )

    Passages to ponder. Wouldn’t this apply to all Believers to be “blameless” the husband of “one wife” ?

  • Jon H.

    Polygamy, it seems to me, can be argued from various sides, but hardly biblical only, given the patriarchs and kings. Yet Christians can’t agree on what the Bible says about the most basic of sacraments, teaching that one might think should be fairly plain. If we can call people Christians who bitterly deny the Lord’s presence at the Supper, why can’t we do the same to those with two wives?

  • Jon H.

    Polygamy, it seems to me, can be argued from various sides, but hardly biblical only, given the patriarchs and kings. Yet Christians can’t agree on what the Bible says about the most basic of sacraments, teaching that one might think should be fairly plain. If we can call people Christians who bitterly deny the Lord’s presence at the Supper, why can’t we do the same to those with two wives?

  • Tom Hering

    “An excellent wife, who can find?” Polygamists are like the folks who line up at the bargain-priced buffet place. Quantity matters more than quality, it seems. Or maybe they just have a high tolerance for indigestion.

  • Tom Hering

    “An excellent wife, who can find?” Polygamists are like the folks who line up at the bargain-priced buffet place. Quantity matters more than quality, it seems. Or maybe they just have a high tolerance for indigestion.

  • Michael B.

    Even if polygamy became accepted, there would be a bunch of logistics that our legal system would have to work out. How would spousal health benefits work? What about filing taxes? What happens during a divorce?

    But even beyond that, how common are relationships involving more than 2 people? It’s far from being widely practiced or accepted. I don’t have a problem if people want to be in “plural marriages”, as long as it’s consensual. But I wouldn’t expect government recognition of them any time soon.

  • Michael B.

    Even if polygamy became accepted, there would be a bunch of logistics that our legal system would have to work out. How would spousal health benefits work? What about filing taxes? What happens during a divorce?

    But even beyond that, how common are relationships involving more than 2 people? It’s far from being widely practiced or accepted. I don’t have a problem if people want to be in “plural marriages”, as long as it’s consensual. But I wouldn’t expect government recognition of them any time soon.

  • Other Gary

    Michael, you’re thinking the way I am. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am definitely AGAINST plural marriage, and you just raised a number of issues for why.

  • Other Gary

    Michael, you’re thinking the way I am. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am definitely AGAINST plural marriage, and you just raised a number of issues for why.

  • Jancis M. Andrews

    In 2011, Chief Justice Robert Bauman of BC Supreme Court listened to 13 groups arguing both pro and con S. 293 CC. proscribing polygamy. He brought down his decision on November 23, 2011, ruling that S. 293 CC is constitutional because polygamy is an anti-social act that harms all society, setting man against man in the hunt for a wife and family of their own (Nature has not provided even 2 women for every one man), harming children, and in particular contravening the equality rights of women as guaranteed under Canada’s Charter. Canada doesn’t want the shame of having concubines and harems in our country, thank you! We are a First-World, not a Third World nation.

  • Jancis M. Andrews

    In 2011, Chief Justice Robert Bauman of BC Supreme Court listened to 13 groups arguing both pro and con S. 293 CC. proscribing polygamy. He brought down his decision on November 23, 2011, ruling that S. 293 CC is constitutional because polygamy is an anti-social act that harms all society, setting man against man in the hunt for a wife and family of their own (Nature has not provided even 2 women for every one man), harming children, and in particular contravening the equality rights of women as guaranteed under Canada’s Charter. Canada doesn’t want the shame of having concubines and harems in our country, thank you! We are a First-World, not a Third World nation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    (Nature has not provided even 2 women for every one man)

    Nature also hasn’t provided men for men nor women for women, but that did stop Canada from approving and subsidizing via spousal benefits that anti social act. They even approved it based on the same arguments that polygamists employed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    (Nature has not provided even 2 women for every one man)

    Nature also hasn’t provided men for men nor women for women, but that did stop Canada from approving and subsidizing via spousal benefits that anti social act. They even approved it based on the same arguments that polygamists employed.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Tent, meet Camel’s Nose.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Tent, meet Camel’s Nose.

  • jd lindner

    If it is true that 80% of the national population identifies as some stripe of Christian, but 60% of that same population can’t name more than four of the Ten Commandments, then what do “Christians” as a force in public policy have to say that sounds different than a purely secular conventional vs unconventional argument?

    Further, if conventionals (Christian and otherwise) were to sway public opinion, what since Roe v Wade suggests that that opinion will matter if the issue is destined ultimately for a court?

    Now, suppose that all manner of “marriage” were allowed. (For this discussion, I oppose unconventional “marriage” of any kind on purely linguistic grounds.) What then? Collapse of Christianity? Probably not. It’s survived worse. So … what?

    It would be fine with me if the world conformed to principles that led me not into temptation, or caused me not discomfort. I believe the Muslim experiment is attempting this in some quarters. But very likely, our nation is on a slope and sliding in a direction some of us would not choose.

    Fortunately, at this point, we aren’t forced to choose against our beliefs or principles. None of us is forced to take on yet another spouse (of any gender/species/planet of origin). Our complicity in abortion is not overtly compelled. So far, we are being asked only to sit by (preferably quietly) while those who do choose the unconventional slide away with abandon.

    What then should be my response? One of the Ten Commandments gives me a clue: Love my neighbor as myself (and, thank God, not as my neighbor might prefer I love him). It suggests to me that I ought not to argue against un-Christian practices solely with an eye to creating a more comfortable, less gag-inducing society for myself. Rather, I should first live the Christian principles I espouse, and then be ready with a coherent reason for doing so. And finally, I should be prepared to live in a society that abhors me for my beliefs and then be ready to come alongside and care for my opponents if their slide ends up in a rougher than anticipated landing.

    Now my wife would say, “You want to marry how many people? Hey, borrow my husband for a week. Then we’ll talk.”

  • jd lindner

    If it is true that 80% of the national population identifies as some stripe of Christian, but 60% of that same population can’t name more than four of the Ten Commandments, then what do “Christians” as a force in public policy have to say that sounds different than a purely secular conventional vs unconventional argument?

    Further, if conventionals (Christian and otherwise) were to sway public opinion, what since Roe v Wade suggests that that opinion will matter if the issue is destined ultimately for a court?

    Now, suppose that all manner of “marriage” were allowed. (For this discussion, I oppose unconventional “marriage” of any kind on purely linguistic grounds.) What then? Collapse of Christianity? Probably not. It’s survived worse. So … what?

    It would be fine with me if the world conformed to principles that led me not into temptation, or caused me not discomfort. I believe the Muslim experiment is attempting this in some quarters. But very likely, our nation is on a slope and sliding in a direction some of us would not choose.

    Fortunately, at this point, we aren’t forced to choose against our beliefs or principles. None of us is forced to take on yet another spouse (of any gender/species/planet of origin). Our complicity in abortion is not overtly compelled. So far, we are being asked only to sit by (preferably quietly) while those who do choose the unconventional slide away with abandon.

    What then should be my response? One of the Ten Commandments gives me a clue: Love my neighbor as myself (and, thank God, not as my neighbor might prefer I love him). It suggests to me that I ought not to argue against un-Christian practices solely with an eye to creating a more comfortable, less gag-inducing society for myself. Rather, I should first live the Christian principles I espouse, and then be ready with a coherent reason for doing so. And finally, I should be prepared to live in a society that abhors me for my beliefs and then be ready to come alongside and care for my opponents if their slide ends up in a rougher than anticipated landing.

    Now my wife would say, “You want to marry how many people? Hey, borrow my husband for a week. Then we’ll talk.”

  • Pingback: What I Read Online – 10/12/2012 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia

  • Pingback: What I Read Online – 10/12/2012 (a.m.) | Emeth Aletheia

  • Steve

    Hmm…Legalizing polygamy is a divorce lawyer’s dream! Can you imagine the explosion of pre-nups or child custody lawsuits? Let’s keep the non-producer bottom suckers rich and regular people poor!

  • Steve

    Hmm…Legalizing polygamy is a divorce lawyer’s dream! Can you imagine the explosion of pre-nups or child custody lawsuits? Let’s keep the non-producer bottom suckers rich and regular people poor!

  • Joanne

    The two famous cases in which Luther and the Lutheran reformers were involved in were of course, the anullment of Henry VIII’s first marriage to Mary (who simply couldn’t be beheaded because she was the Aunt of Charles V, who as we all know was the King of Spain, the ruler of the Pais Bas, and the Emperor of the HRE, no no one is cutting her head off, so there must be an anullment).

    The other incidence was the bigamy (2 wives at one time) of Phillip, Elector of Kurhesse. Phillip was a randy, hot headed, and precipitous young man (a feckless youth), who staunchly supported Luther, until as an older man he switched to the second reformation of Zwingli and Calvin. Yes, the Hessians in Kurhesse are double Reformed to this day.

    The deal is that Phillip found his current wife not as hot as he would prefer. She wouldn’t wear the skimpy lingerie he’d bring back from Bruges and Venice for her. She just didn’t get his motor to run as fast has he would like, so he asked for a Gutachten (theological opinion report) from the theology faculty at Wittenberg (that would be Luther). Could he religiously marry a second wife, he had a hot little number already picked out who was raring to go.

    Now, I’m going to be unusually brief. The Lutherans said no to Henry’s anullment, and yes to Elector Phillip’s bigamy, if he and his second wife were very quiet about it, as if to tiptoe through the tulips. And, they were quiet, but when wife number 2′s mother heard of it, she went off the deep end with enough noise to be heard across the Alps. Perhaps the greater Biblical punishment against polygamy is having more than one mother-in-law.

    Both decisions of the Theological Faculty at Wittenberg (anullment no, bigamy yes) are common historical knowledge and much ink has been spilled upon them. The theological thinking gets quite complex, but the human condition is simple as pie. Needless to say, pie is what Luther had all over his face when Fox News got through with him. He rued the day he had ever allowed himself to become involved in Phillip’s very foolish desire.

    But, I simply don’t remember the Lutheran justification for the Elector’s bigamy, but there was a Biblical case made for it in the Gutachten. Someone should get that so we can all read it to see what Bible passages they used. But, I’ll bet they’ve all be used above both pro and con.

    Now personally, I’d just as soon leave us in the soup of serial polygamy that we are already in, as that works just as well for most women as for men, not really, but… I’m what is refered to as a high-maintenance type, it costs a lot of doe to keep me happy and in the same relationship, so one well to do healthy, reasonably goodlooking person has a chance to keep up with all the spending, shopping, traveling, resorting. If it takes 2 or 3 to pool their resources and they are the latin types so my poor body doesn’t get worn out (if you think Christianity changed anything about Latin men having women on the side, you are a child, dear one) it could work, theoretically, I suppose.

    But, it still sounds like a lot of work to keep 3 or 4 men coordinated, but that’s their problem.

  • Joanne

    The two famous cases in which Luther and the Lutheran reformers were involved in were of course, the anullment of Henry VIII’s first marriage to Mary (who simply couldn’t be beheaded because she was the Aunt of Charles V, who as we all know was the King of Spain, the ruler of the Pais Bas, and the Emperor of the HRE, no no one is cutting her head off, so there must be an anullment).

    The other incidence was the bigamy (2 wives at one time) of Phillip, Elector of Kurhesse. Phillip was a randy, hot headed, and precipitous young man (a feckless youth), who staunchly supported Luther, until as an older man he switched to the second reformation of Zwingli and Calvin. Yes, the Hessians in Kurhesse are double Reformed to this day.

    The deal is that Phillip found his current wife not as hot as he would prefer. She wouldn’t wear the skimpy lingerie he’d bring back from Bruges and Venice for her. She just didn’t get his motor to run as fast has he would like, so he asked for a Gutachten (theological opinion report) from the theology faculty at Wittenberg (that would be Luther). Could he religiously marry a second wife, he had a hot little number already picked out who was raring to go.

    Now, I’m going to be unusually brief. The Lutherans said no to Henry’s anullment, and yes to Elector Phillip’s bigamy, if he and his second wife were very quiet about it, as if to tiptoe through the tulips. And, they were quiet, but when wife number 2′s mother heard of it, she went off the deep end with enough noise to be heard across the Alps. Perhaps the greater Biblical punishment against polygamy is having more than one mother-in-law.

    Both decisions of the Theological Faculty at Wittenberg (anullment no, bigamy yes) are common historical knowledge and much ink has been spilled upon them. The theological thinking gets quite complex, but the human condition is simple as pie. Needless to say, pie is what Luther had all over his face when Fox News got through with him. He rued the day he had ever allowed himself to become involved in Phillip’s very foolish desire.

    But, I simply don’t remember the Lutheran justification for the Elector’s bigamy, but there was a Biblical case made for it in the Gutachten. Someone should get that so we can all read it to see what Bible passages they used. But, I’ll bet they’ve all be used above both pro and con.

    Now personally, I’d just as soon leave us in the soup of serial polygamy that we are already in, as that works just as well for most women as for men, not really, but… I’m what is refered to as a high-maintenance type, it costs a lot of doe to keep me happy and in the same relationship, so one well to do healthy, reasonably goodlooking person has a chance to keep up with all the spending, shopping, traveling, resorting. If it takes 2 or 3 to pool their resources and they are the latin types so my poor body doesn’t get worn out (if you think Christianity changed anything about Latin men having women on the side, you are a child, dear one) it could work, theoretically, I suppose.

    But, it still sounds like a lot of work to keep 3 or 4 men coordinated, but that’s their problem.

  • Joanne

    Legalized polygamy would be like as if the numerous suitors of La Traviata, La dame aux Camélias, could all marry Violetta and none of the heartbreak would have been necessary, oh, except for the consumptive death at the end. Yeah, I suppose that would still be fairly sad. But Alfredo’s family would not have minded his marrying down a bit, if he could still marry up later on. It certainly would make it harder for women to become fallen if so many opportunities for marriages were possible. There are considerable operatic advantages to polygamy, IMHO.

  • Joanne

    Legalized polygamy would be like as if the numerous suitors of La Traviata, La dame aux Camélias, could all marry Violetta and none of the heartbreak would have been necessary, oh, except for the consumptive death at the end. Yeah, I suppose that would still be fairly sad. But Alfredo’s family would not have minded his marrying down a bit, if he could still marry up later on. It certainly would make it harder for women to become fallen if so many opportunities for marriages were possible. There are considerable operatic advantages to polygamy, IMHO.

  • jane

    …And any of this changes your marital relationships how?? It’s not like those in gay marriages or polygamist marriages are asking any of you to join.

  • jane

    …And any of this changes your marital relationships how?? It’s not like those in gay marriages or polygamist marriages are asking any of you to join.

  • Grace

    Jane @ 39 “And any of this changes your marital relationships how?? It’s not like those in gay marriages or polygamist marriages are asking any of you to join.”

    Are you a homosexual or someone wanting to, or already in a polygamist situation.

    Nope, they aren’t asking any of us to “join in” – however, I most certainly don’t want them living next door to me, flaunting their personal lives, nor do I want them teaching children in school.

    IF these people are allowed to marry, then they can teach (if they are teachers) within our public school ALL ABOUT their lifestyle, it’s already been done.

  • Grace

    Jane @ 39 “And any of this changes your marital relationships how?? It’s not like those in gay marriages or polygamist marriages are asking any of you to join.”

    Are you a homosexual or someone wanting to, or already in a polygamist situation.

    Nope, they aren’t asking any of us to “join in” – however, I most certainly don’t want them living next door to me, flaunting their personal lives, nor do I want them teaching children in school.

    IF these people are allowed to marry, then they can teach (if they are teachers) within our public school ALL ABOUT their lifestyle, it’s already been done.

  • Kathryn Elliott Stegall

    Moral sex. What is it?
    We hardly know any more. Jesus Christ set the standard for sexual morality in response to the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”(Matthew 19:3)
    It’s really a question about the status of women. How important are they? Do they have any rights? Are there any limitations to how we treatthem?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17346242/Knight-on-a-White-Horse

  • Kathryn Elliott Stegall

    Moral sex. What is it?
    We hardly know any more. Jesus Christ set the standard for sexual morality in response to the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”(Matthew 19:3)
    It’s really a question about the status of women. How important are they? Do they have any rights? Are there any limitations to how we treatthem?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17346242/Knight-on-a-White-Horse

  • Pingback: Morning Roundup 10/18/12: Pastor Appreciation; Wax Interviews Keller; Polygamy | RSS // MAIL

  • Pingback: Morning Roundup 10/18/12: Pastor Appreciation; Wax Interviews Keller; Polygamy | RSS // MAIL

  • Regg

    Many states have legalized gay marriage, I have yet to see any comments that two men raising children, or two women raising children in a marriage is wrong, but yet they are granted there rights of freedom of choice. It is all over the bible that it is wrong, polygamy was practiced at one time, but everybody is all over that. You see if you are against either that is your choice. This country has ripped God out of schools, and will probably, if they have not already, will try to take God of our money, and the United States Flag. To sum this up, most of this country is so UNGodly that they will go against Gods law Levecticus chapter 18. But they would condemn 2 Samuel 12:8. Since polygamy was practiced and allowed by God in those times it will not be legal in this country simply because God allowed it. Gay marriage was never allowed so we legalize that because God did not approve that life style.

  • Regg

    Many states have legalized gay marriage, I have yet to see any comments that two men raising children, or two women raising children in a marriage is wrong, but yet they are granted there rights of freedom of choice. It is all over the bible that it is wrong, polygamy was practiced at one time, but everybody is all over that. You see if you are against either that is your choice. This country has ripped God out of schools, and will probably, if they have not already, will try to take God of our money, and the United States Flag. To sum this up, most of this country is so UNGodly that they will go against Gods law Levecticus chapter 18. But they would condemn 2 Samuel 12:8. Since polygamy was practiced and allowed by God in those times it will not be legal in this country simply because God allowed it. Gay marriage was never allowed so we legalize that because God did not approve that life style.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X