If San Francisco has a fundamental right to sodomy, Salt Lake City has a fundamental right to polygamy and New York City to pedophilia...

Woe to those who enact evil statutes... - Isaiah 10:1a

This is a helpful piece demonstrating the irrational nature of arguments for legislation establishing a right to sodomite marriage. Here's an excerpt...

slavery (race)
injustices against Jews (ethnicity)
lack of equal rights for women (gender) 
genocide (race/ethnicity/nationality/tribe)
Each of these examples demonstrates prejudices against a group of people because of who they are, which should be contrasted with, say, the actions they perform. The actions a person performs do get judged, but we can’t say that if someone dislikes or even outlaws a particular action it is discrimination. ...it is impossible to be prejudiced against a person’s action. For example:

Is it prejudiced to condemn someone who doesn’t stop at stop signs?
Is it discrimination to object to someone who jaywalks at intersections?
Is it unjust to condemn someone who doesn’t pay taxes?

A man may argue sodomy is fundamental to his identity, but a similar argument may be made about any sin. Imagine all the Mormons just waiting to argue that multiple wives is fundamental to their First Amendment rights. Pederasts arguing that having sex with young children is who they are. A married couple announcing that killing their newborn children is who they are as persons, and they refuse to do it while their children are still in the womb.

You see, once Bryan McLaren and David Jones promote the legalization of sodomy, there's nothing barring them from promoting the legalization of bestiality and polygamy and infanticide. Each is an abomination before God and each has (or soon will have) a constituency group claiming their particular abomination is at the core of their personhood.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Didn't Luther marry a prince to his mistress, and asked why he should do such a thing, reply that he did not see it (polygamy) forbidden in Scripture, so neither could he, and better the man marry than remain in sin? (One whose love was his mistress--had been since before being married, and wife forced upon him?)

Perhaps comparable to the difference of slavery in the OT from that of the American south, ancient polygamy as conceived in ideal wasn't to be merely sexual, but to provide for women...but then again, knowing man's appetites, we know it very often was not despite the ideals. Having that in mind, I don't know whether we should compare homosexuality with polygamy--in one nature and nature's God is offended, in the other it might be said, "He may or may not be".

I think on these things because what if some day I am confronted with having to deal with a polygamous man? If one won him to Christ, then should he be urged to keep only one? I doubt that He who hates divorce would prefer that, and actually I know missionaries in some areas of Africa confront this very issue, and that they have decided they better not: indeed women in the area often prefer marrying men who will take multiple wives.

My conclusion to such thoughts was that such men and women should be charged to keep the bed holy, to not engage in debauchery, to not consider that many wives is better because there is more sexual potential or another body for labor, but to raise godly children and to know that an elders must be a "one-woman kind of" man. Thoughts Mr. and Mr. Bayly?

Dear John,

Polygamy is a difficult matter Scripturally, as you point out and Luther acknowledged. But keep in mind that from the beginning it was not that way, as Jesus said when He directed our attention to the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall: "the two shall become one flesh" (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). We can't mention often enough that, in the state of perfection prior to the Fall, God revealed the following essential aspects of marriage: it's man and woman, it's permanent, it's exclusive (the two become one--not three, four, or five), and it's patriarchal--Adam was created first, then Eve.

Likely I would not counsel for the separation of husband and wives in a culture where such unions were commonplace and polygamous husbands became Christians. Scripture commands husbands not to abandon intimacy with a less-favored wife and I think this law is instructive in polygamous cultures. However...

My purpose in mentioning polygamy is twofold: first, that we have a Mormon running for office, so it's got high visibility right now; and second, that an aversion to polygamy is still fairly universal among Americans and thus it's helpful to rub their noses in the places their illogic will inexorably lead them.


Add new comment