Does Old Testament Polygamy Justify Same-Sex Marriage?

Stand To Reason ^ | 08/20/2018 | Alan Shlemon

[KrisKrinkle]

I believe “same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms, kind of like “dehydrated water”.

[lepton]

Ummm. The Bible prohibits same-sex sex.

Until recently no one was daft enough - even in societies that accepted same-sex or even pedophiliac relationships - to call it marriage.

[metmom]

Exactly.

[jmacusa]

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

[jmacusa]

As the Devil is always trying to do.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

God’s allowing David and Solomon, whom He greatly blessed and favored, to have multiple wives and concubines is very confusing to young Christians. The only condemnation comes when David stole another man’s wife - and even then God says (through Nathan) that, had David asked for more of anything (including women, I assume) God would have given it to him.

I don’t approve of polygamy - one is enough! But it’s hard to teach a group of young people that God condemns it given the multiple examples in the OT.

[okie 54]

The Bible does in fact address marriage and homosexuality

[JAKraig]

You may not approve of Polygamy but certainly God did, it was a part of Jewish law. If a man died leaving a widow and he had a brother the brother was to take his widow unto him as wife and raise up the dead mans children and even give the widow more children to raise up unto the dead man so that the dead brother would have descendants.

This actually was a wonderful law. The widow did not become destitute as a widow would if her husband had no brothers and children grew up in homes with a man at the head. The young men growing up could see what a man was supposed to be.

Today in our society and in many throughout the world we hand off that responsibility for our brothers family to the state. We pay the state to absolve us of that responsibility but then the children grow up fatherless and then don’t know what it means to be a father, it does great harm to societies. The Jewish law was better.

Monogamy is pretty much a Christian thing. While the New Testament does not say much about it, there is a proscription that a bishop be the husband of one wife. There are even arguments about that. Some say that means that you must be married to be wise enough to be a bishop other say it means you can not have more than one wife. How in the world that Catholicism gets celibacy out of that is beyond me.

I have one wife. One wife is a great thing. My wife is a wonderful woman, a wonderful wife, a wonderful friend and a wonderful person all around but, I don’t think I could do two of her or more. I have heard stories of polygamy being a good thing for all the participants but I just can’t fathom it. I have a special closeness with my wife that I can’t envision working with three or more. I would think that polygamy would be a great burden for a man. I am reminded how difficult life was for Isaac, Leah and Rachel. Issac loved Rachel more than Leah. That had to be a difficult situation for all involved.

[af_vet_1981]

How in the world that Catholicism gets celibacy out of that is beyond me.

It comes from believing Jesus about:
1. Marriage
2. Divorce
3. Celibacy

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses one to twelve,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[JAKraig]

AM by af_vet_1981

By the way I’m a Navy “SS” vetran from 1968.

I’m sorry but to me your explanation of eunuchs is just wrong. It might be what someone preaches but it way off the mark.

A eunuch is someone who has no sex, as in they are neither man nor woman. Jesus talks about them in a variety of circumstances but none of them apply to celibacy as practiced by the Roman Catholic Priesthood. In order for these words of Christ that you quoted to apply the priest would have to cut off his gonads. In the time of Christ there were people who did that in a variety of religions and in a variety of classes of servitude. Men would become eunuchs at the command of their owners and then be stationed with the women of the house to be protectors or guards of them. There was no concern that they would have sex with them because it was impossible.

So again, unless the priests are making eunuchs of themselves they are not doing anything even remotely associated with what you quoted The Lord as saying.

Just to further drive home the point, celibacy was not practiced as a rule until the middle of the 12th century (1139 to be exact). That rule was not strictly enforced until a few hundred years later in the middle of the 16th century at the council of Trent. The Roman Church by the way is the only Catholic Church to practice celibacy. All of the other 7 Catholic churches allow Priests to marry. None of the other Catholic churches have a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood. Pope Francis had a study to find out how bad homosexuality was in The Church. The report came back and said that at least 18% of priests were “practicing” homosexuals and that that percentage could be as high as 58%. I do not think this is what Christ was talking about when He was talking about eunuchs.

The commandment to Adam and Eve was to have children, that commandment has never been revoked. Perhaps the Apostle Paul had a problem and had a good reason for not marrying but the other Apostles were married and had families. Celibacy promotes evil, in that it makes men unnatural, I have seen it ruin lives. Paul says that men “burn” and that they should marry in that case, it is not good to burn. Men in the Catholic priesthood burn too and since they live with other men they quench the fire in an evil way. I hope celibacy is done away with soon. I think it is the only way the Roman Church can be saved.

[af_vet_1981]

A eunuch is someone who has no sex, as in they are neither man nor woman.

No, God created them male and female. One who has made himself a εὐνοῦχος (eunuch) for the kingdom of heaven's sake is one who is celibate (abstains from sex) to be solely devoted to God.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

...

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Genesis, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse twenty seven ,
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses twenty five to thirty eight ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James