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?

[Corvus]

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?

I don't think it explicitly does, but we have to consider the fact that sex is supposed to be solely for the purpose of producing children, which can't happen if a sexual partner is too young. I would guess that any marriage that can't be immediately consummated wouldn't be permissible, but then most would still consider children of about 9 years of age (when some girls reach puberty) as being still too young for sex. I would argue that unless the sexual act resulted in some sort of harm being done to the child, psychologically or physically, there is nothing wrong with it.

We must also conisder that in order to marry, parental consent would probably have been required.

Of course none of this is explicit, but if Christians did everything only by the letter of the bible, and not by the spirit and intent of the word, then they wouldn't be Christians, they would be pharisees.

[McCulloch]

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?

I don't think it explicitly does, but we have to consider the fact that sex is supposed to be solely for the purpose of producing children, which can't happen if a sexual partner is too young.

Then any marriage that cannot produce children are invalid? Mature adults beyond childbearing age cannot marry. Nor can adults who are infertile for any other reason?

I would guess that any marriage that can't be immediately consummated wouldn't be permissible, but then most would still consider children of about 9 years of age (when some girls reach puberty) as being still too young for sex. I would argue that unless the sexual act resulted in some sort of harm being done to the child, psychologically or physically, there is nothing wrong with it.

We must also conisder that in order to marry, parental consent would probably have been required.

Of course none of this is explicit, but if Christians did everything only by the letter of the bible, and not by the spirit and intent of the word, then they wouldn't be Christians, they would be pharisees.

But the implication of the thin edge of the web argument is that the thin edge (recognition of same-sex marriage) might lead to worse things (polygamy and pedophilia). But the writers of the bible explicitly condemned the lesser evil but you must deduce from the bible that the greater evil is, in fact, greater.

[Corvus]

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?

I don't think it explicitly does, but we have to consider the fact that sex is supposed to be solely for the purpose of producing children, which can't happen if a sexual partner is too young.

Then any marriage that cannot produce children are invalid? Mature adults beyond childbearing age cannot marry. Nor can adults who are infertile for any other reason?

I believe this has traditionally been the case. I vaguely recall one of the grounds for divorce in the middle ages was an unconsummated marriage. But the devil must have redefined marriage when we weren't looking to make it more about love between two people than about creating children.

I would guess that any marriage that can't be immediately consummated wouldn't be permissible, but then most would still consider children of about 9 years of age (when some girls reach puberty) as being still too young for sex. I would argue that unless the sexual act resulted in some sort of harm being done to the child, psychologically or physically, there is nothing wrong with it.

We must also conisder that in order to marry, parental consent would probably have been required.

Of course none of this is explicit, but if Christians did everything only by the letter of the bible, and not by the spirit and intent of the word, then they wouldn't be Christians, they would be pharisees.

But the implication of the thin edge of the web argument is that the thin edge (recognition of same-sex marriage) might lead to worse things (polygamy and pedophilia). But the writers of the bible explicitly condemned the lesser evil but you must deduce from the bible that the greater evil is, in fact, greater.

I only wished to address pedophilia, and will leave Christians to comment on the thin edge of the wedge. I have heard some people state that all evils are the same size and there are no greater evils. If we believe that all sins, no matter how many or how horrid, can be absolved through penitence and belief in Jesus, then I can see how it can logically follow that there is no lesser and greater evil. The people who oppose homosexuality probably do so more because of their own bias ("gays, ick!") or vague presumptions of what they think homosexuality will lead to, like the destruction of the family, than what the bible says, though it certainly helps to reinforce their point (making "gays, ick!" into "gays, unnatural!"). I would say it's more of a cultural phenomenon people are in the grip of, like the red scare.

[MagusYanam]

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?

I don't think it explicitly does, but we have to consider the fact that sex is supposed to be solely for the purpose of producing children, which can't happen if a sexual partner is too young. I would guess that any marriage that can't be immediately consummated wouldn't be permissible, but then most would still consider children of about 9 years of age (when some girls reach puberty) as being still too young for sex. I would argue that unless the sexual act resulted in some sort of harm being done to the child, psychologically or physically, there is nothing wrong with it.

Actually, here you have the 'varying standards' issue quite nicely encapsulated. What is 'pedophilia' in today's society? Legally, it would be sexual relations with a legal minor, correct (that is to say, someone under age 18 )? 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.

Then any marriage that cannot produce children are invalid? Mature adults beyond childbearing age cannot marry. Nor can adults who are infertile for any other reason?

I believe this has traditionally been the case. I vaguely recall one of the grounds for divorce in the middle ages was an unconsummated marriage. But the devil must have redefined marriage when we weren't looking to make it more about love between two people than about creating children.

If we're talking about the Middle Ages, then again we're going to run into problems. During the feudal era, the main driving force behind marriages (particularly in the nobility) was not solely procreation, but power as well. Case in point: the Habsburgs. It was common in the Habsburg Dynasty to marry not out of a desire to procreate, specifically, but to consolidate political power within their family. For example, when Maximillian I married Mary of Burgundy and became lord of Burgundy after her death.

As to the idea of marriage being more about love than about procreation, that can also be traced back to the Middle Ages (at least in Western society). The idea of courtly love, though at first meant to be independent of marriage and more a way of elevating the lady as an inspiration to her knight through Platonic admiration, diverged two ways. On the mainland, courtly love was still independent of marriage. In England, on the other hand, courtly love was later thought to be inclusive of marriage, going from mutual admiration to consummation to matrimony. This was the standard which most Western societies later adopted - except ours, apparently. For that, we can blame the Puritans.

[Corvus]

Then any marriage that cannot produce children are invalid? Mature adults beyond childbearing age cannot marry. Nor can adults who are infertile for any other reason?

I believe this has traditionally been the case. I vaguely recall one of the grounds for divorce in the middle ages was an unconsummated marriage. But the devil must have redefined marriage when we weren't looking to make it more about love between two people than about creating children.

If we're talking about the Middle Ages, then again we're going to run into problems. During the feudal era, the main driving force behind marriages (particularly in the nobility) was not solely procreation, but power as well. Case in point: the Habsburgs. It was common in the Habsburg Dynasty to marry not out of a desire to procreate, specifically, but to consolidate political power within their family. For example, when Maximillian I married Mary of Burgundy and became lord of Burgundy after her death.

True, but it's fairly clear that this is only a fringe benefit, rather than a goal of marriage, even if it was the motivation of more than a few marriages. This is much like the desire of property, and I regret that the days are over when I could have supported myself solely by making a wise choice in finding a bride (or brides).

[AlAyeti]

You have to remember that there is a history outside of the Bible that influence Christian politcs. Sexual deviates have not been kind to Christians over the years. Nero and Hadrian were homosexuals who left their mark on Bible believers.

In fact, sexual deviates are the most vocal in their hatred of Christianty. de Sade comes to mind. Pedophilia clergy are most commonplace within the history of Christianty.

Same-sex proponents are Sodomite "like!" We see how the sexual hedonist among us care about others needs and wants. It is not top of the list on a sexually licentious person's mind. AIDS is a perfect example of how deviates and the sexually licentious deal with responsibility.

Polygamy could be justified Biblically. Though it seems to be a leaning of the Israelites to fall into the practice of the peoples that they are around.

"For this reason a man leaves his father and mother. . ." and "The two will become one flesh," may show God's clear intention about marriage and waht a unoin is!

Pedophilia and Pederasty, is a declaration of war to a good parent.

Same-sex marriage is seen by the vast majority of Evangelical Christians, and also many others, as a way to legalize the indoctrination, or the "orientation" of children, "Our children," into the homosexual life. In fact it is being forced by law onto Christians and others that find homosexuals and their sex acts and life style detestable.

There can be little justification to accept something wrong because other wrongs are allowed to happen.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron in the most inflammatory of forced usage of the words. Polygamy and pedophilia, like the word marriage, are well defined. The issue should be why is there a force in the modern world trying to inculcate a usage of a word or words where there cannot be justification?

There is a thin edge because the sharpness of definition completely cuts away one thing from another. Only intolerance of the sexually deviant force the issues on a modern well-defined world.

Indeed, if we accept polygamy or pedophilia or "same-sex marriage," then society has truly descended into chaos where the individual decides and dictates normality and therefore there is no longer law or a society.

In an enlightened and intelligent society we should be able to set firm guidelines to right and wrong based on the developement of our next generation. If there is chaos and individual relativism guiding developing young minds then they will follow their teaching.

Look at the society now. Our youth are in crisis. Almost exclusively caused by sexual licentiousness.

[McCulloch]

Then any marriage that cannot produce children are invalid? Mature adults beyond childbearing age cannot marry. Nor can adults who are infertile for any other reason?

I believe this has traditionally been the case. I vaguely recall one of the grounds for divorce in the middle ages was an unconsummated marriage. But the devil must have redefined marriage when we weren't looking to make it more about love between two people than about creating children.

Then I'll have to tell my widowed mother that she cannot remarry since she is past childbearing age.

I only wished to address pedophilia, and will leave Christians to comment on the thin edge of the wedge.

But my whole point is about the implications of the christian's use of the thin edge of the wedge argument. I agree with the christians that pedophilia is horrendously evil. I just cannot see where their bible teaches that.

[McCulloch]

We are getting a bit off topic here.

My point was not whether polygamy and pedophilia are good or bad or even if homosexuality is good or bad. What I wanted to know, is from a biblica christian point of view, how can the thin edge of the wedge argument be validly used by a bible based moralist when the thin edge is something that the bible explicitly condemns and that the subsequent evils are things that can only be inferred from the biblical teachings (in the case of pedophilia) or something that, in reality, is not biblically condemed at all (in the case of polygamy).

[ST88]

McCulloch, you seem to be saying that homosexuality can't be a wedge issue based solely on the Bible. (Another way of putting it is the "camel's nose under the tent.") The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong, so there is no possible way to make a thin-edge argument -- is that right?

Yet this is what is happening.

In my experience, homosexuality is hated by the few, and at least tolerated by the many. But by allowing the Religious Right to frame the debate in terms of "recruitment" and "preference" the tolerant many are being broken down and brainwashed into hate-mongers. That it is taught as "wrong" in the Bible seems to make little difference -- as there are many things that are taught as "wrong" in the Bible that are accepted by the wider culture.

By falsely associating homosexuality with pedophilia, which does have an automatic hate reaction, the Religious Right offers the tolerant many an excuse to marginalize and abuse homosexuals in general, regardless of what other characteristics may define them as people.

Despite many religious wackos' insistence that homosexuality is an iniquitive choice, there is significant support for the biological-basis explanation. THIS is the real edge of the wedge issue. Because if homosexuals were born that way, were created that way by their creator, the idea of iniquity will have to be re-defined. Then perhaps some of the former tolerant will again become tolerant.

As for polygamy, I really don't see what the problem is. If some schmuck wants more than one mother-in-law, I say he gets what he deserves.