Are polygamy and pedophilia biblically wrong?

[McCulloch]

The reason that I bring this up is that christians and other religionists use the thin edge of the wedge argument against recognition of same sex marriage. Their argument usually goes something like this, "If we recognize same sex marriage then we will eventually have to allow polygamy and pedophilia." Saving the logical flaws of the thin edge of the wedge argument for another thread, there is an implication that christians believe that polygamy and pedophilia are worse sins than homosexuality.
As a humanist I agree with them on the point about pedophilia. Homosexual relations between consenting adults is a choice which cannot adversly affect anyone else. Pedophila is a crime. Sexual relationships should only be between consenting adults. Children are not capable of giving consent.
As a humanist I am more ambivalent about polygamy (and polyandry) but as a pragmatist, I don't believe that our society is ready for the legal quandary that multi marriages could pose.

What does the Bible say?

• Polygamy is taught by example and is never explicitly forbidden. So, is Polygamy right or wrong from the biblical point of view? Can one be as absolute about the answer as bible believers are about homosexuality, which is explicitly condemned in the bible?

• Pedophilia does not appear to be addressed directly in the bible. Now I know that sex with our own children is explicitly condemned in the bible. Sex with someone who is not your spouse is explicitly condemned in the bible. And sex with someone who is of the same sex as you are is explicitly condemned in the bible. But does the bible explicitly condemn marriage to a child? I think that we all agree that it should. But does it?

Is there any validity to the position of opposing the recognition of same-sex marriages based on one's opposition to pedophilia? Do christians believe that the crime of pedophilia is as bad, worse or not as bad as the sin of homosexuality? Is there any biblical basis for that belief?

[atheist_infidel0304]

As a humanist I am more ambivalent about polygamy (and polyandry) but as a pragmatist, I don't believe that our society is ready for the legal quandary that multi marriages could pose.

There is actually an early condemnation of polygamy in the Bible. In Genesis 4:19, Cain's son Lamech takes Adah and Zilah as his wives, the first mentioning of a polygamous arrangement in the Bible. What did God(or the writers) of the Bible think?

Verse 24 of the same chapter-
"If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

I've had point this out to me as the bible stating explicitly that polygamy is wrong. Then again, that makes one pause and consider what happened to the prophets and preachers who were polygamous and who had concubines--were they similarly admonished and eventually punished?, or do we take it to be that the early notion of amily including more than just immediage family members?

What does the Bible say?

• Polygamy is taught by example and is never explicitly forbidden

.

As quoted above, I don't think this statement is true.

So, is Polygamy right or wrong from the biblical point of view?

I'd say that it's cntradiction-key leaders were polygamous, yet Cain's son was supposedly punished for taking two wives.

In regards to pedophelia and homosexuality-I'll have to do some more homework before commenting on that.

[Chimp]

Your Genesis chapter 4 quote is not correct, at least it's out of context.

23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

[Vianne]

Your Genesis chapter 4 quote is not correct, at least it's out of context.

23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

I agree: this quote actually has nothing to do with polygamy in any way.

There are many cases of polygamy in the Bible which apparently had God's stamp of approval on them. Even Abraham took a concubine (Hagar) and fathered a child by her. Solomon had loads of wives.

Why? It was a tribal, patriarchal society. It is never forbidden. I don't believe child marriage is ever addressed either, mainly because children were often married off once they hit puberty. It's not too unlike the Middle East today.

[lacy16]

Polygamy is mentioned many times in the bible and there is no negatives mentioned except for basic household rules for running a home with multiple wives. As long as the man can take care of his family and provide for them the bible allows as each case to decide what there own limits should be.

As for pedophilia, the Bible leads by example. Back in the days of the Bible the women generally married young So for a woman of childbearing years to be at home with their father and mother would be a rare thing if she stay very long at all after her first period. Even now in the middle east its not age that says your old enough to marry its when the girl has her first period. Our teacher mentioned justa couple weeks ago that it was in the paper that a girl was married two weeks after she had her first period in a prearranged marriage. The girl had just turned eight. As for some comments that the woman or girl had to be married to have sex. Lot when the townspeople came to his house offered his daughters to the entire crowd for them to have sex with. Since these girls were still at home and unmarried it is a good assumption that they were under the age of their first period, probably 6-11 years old, Lot did this for two reasons, one was to protect his guest which were angels from God, and the second was a custom that urged the host to offer the best he had to a guest at his home. In this case though extreme to us now days was probably not that infrequent at the time for a host to offer his daughter to special guests.

Incest is another story, the Bible contradicts itself in so many places on this. There are many examples of religious and important figures in the Bible having sex with their daughters, even case where the young daughter initiate the sex with the father. On the other hand in some places in the New Testament it says its bad. My personal feeling is that it became morally wrong as alternate to their daughter became more available and easier to find.

So as for me I cannot judge a young girl wrong if she wants an older man even if it is her father or brother. Even as hard as it would be for me to swallow allowing my husband, when I get one, to have another wife I don't think its biblically wrong, I'm just glad its politically illegal.

[melikio]

During Biblical times, consummated marriages took place at far younger ages - it was common for a young woman to be married off by age 14 (at least, after the Babylonian Exile). Mary, the mother of Jesus, was purported to be age 15 when married to Joseph (I don't know whether that is reliable, however, so don't quote me). Nota bene: I'm not defending pedophilia in the least. I am, rather, arguing that using the Biblical Era (indeed, the Bible) as a precedent is going to be very problematic especially in discussion of this issue.

This is just one of the many issues, which show why RIGID ADHERENCE or strictly-literal interpretations of the Bible, just ends up being inadequate.

Let's face it: Kids having sex with "adults" (as we tend to define kids in America), can be (and is) problematic.

Various cultures can sustain certain practices (and not fall to pieces), while others cannot. What's too young/old for MANY given things, varies from culture to culture, age to age.

Here in the U.S.A., there are cultural reasons to allow and/or forbid certain behaviors. These things are not so "absolute" as they my seem, though any one of us may know them to be for our entire lifetime. Laws are reviewed and they evolve over time; even those interpreted or supported by the Bible.

Despite all of that, as far as "pedophilia" and "polygamy" are concerned, the overall concern of most who view it (negatively), are those who become victims as a result of those practices.

It is not unusual to hear about some consummate JERK (like the that nutcase, "Jeffs", that they just caught), who had more victims in his wake than most would want to count. Polygamy is something that doesn't have to be evil, but for some reason many men have done nothing but victimize people and abuse families through it. The record is clear enough (in this nation and others).

Pedophilia is not sanctioned, because the many effects of the crime are deemed unacceptable (at many levels in this society); most importantly, pedophilia is viewed by most (normal) people as a victimization of a child. Typically, lack of legal consent by one or more parties, helps to define laws prohibiting certain sexual actions.

Still, there are "cultural" qualifiers which modify or mitigate the possible views which people may possess about either pedophilia or polygamy. I don't think the Bible specifies anything near what America's laws tend to overall.

-Mel-

[wgreen]

I'm not sure that the argument you cite is biblically based. Perhaps those that use it are referring to polygamy and pedophilia beacuase they are condemned by society and are deviations from traditional heterosexual monogamy.

The argument is from the lesser to the greater, not lesser in a Biblical sense, but in the eyes of the public.

It also seems to make sense that once we abandon the traditional definition of marriage and sexuality, then how can we prevent the admittance of other deviations.

This includes polygamy. Though many men might not have a problem with it, I am sure women do, and the law currently does.

[melikio]

It also seems to make sense that once we abandon the traditional definition of marriage and sexuality, then how can we prevent the admittance of other deviations.

It may "seem" so, but if things are followed to a more "logical" conclusion, what you assume, does not necessarily follow.

Human sexuality has certain "gradients" to it overall (though not all views are "Christian"). The prohibitions to certain sexual practices are mostly related to culture (and/or survival) itself, not necessarily "religion".

But YES, how a culture interprets and applies religion, does certainly "influence" people's views on human sexuality.

-Mel-

[Noachian]

The Biblical times says, the old testement people who interfeared with children would be tortured and killed (not exactly humane)

[Prakk]

The marriage practice in scripture is actually PolyGYNY. A lot of commonplace marriages in Biblical times might have qualified under laws today as child abuse or pedophelia. Discussing these two topics together though, disturbs me.

Hugh McBryde

[micatala]

I think we can safely conclude that polygamy is not Biblically wrong. Even in the New Testament, polygamy is condoned.

For example:

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Paul says that on overseer (leader) must not by polygamous. Clearly, the implication is that other believers could be polygamous and this would be OK, as long as they do not want to be in church leadership. It also seems to me that if polygamy was not a fairly common practice at that time, Paul would not have addressed it.

As far as pedophilia, it does seem this is not explicitly condemned, and that it was probably practiced, at least using our modern definition.