CEV 17And the king must not have a lot of wives–they might tempt him to be unfaithful to the LORD.
Today’s NIV / UK NIV / NIV 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
The Message “And make sure he doesn’t build up a harem, collecting wives who will divert him from the straight and narrow.”
NLT 17 The king must not take many wives for himself, because they will turn his heart away from the Lord. And he must not accumulate large amounts of wealth in silver and gold for himself.

Graeme Cumming

The following article by Andrew Bolt, We Thee Wed, details a conversation between Jon Faine and a homosexual rights lobbyist in Victoria saying he knew of relationships with THREE men in them!
See www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19535166-25717,00.html

So it is happening right here in Victoria – how long til they want to register these relationships?

As to the Netherlands situation Jeremy mentioned… the man was married to a wife, then the two of them took out a co-habiting arrangement with a third woman – it was not actually marriage, but the media (and the man!) wrongly reported it as such…
See cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/10/decline-and-fall-in-netherlands.html
WND reported it as a ‘civil union’ – see www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46583

Jenny Stokes

I also wish to endorse Ian Brearley’s thanks to Bill for creating a site where we can come and safely ask the tough questions. This is no academic forum but a place where we can come in for fresh ammunition before heading out into that particular part of the battle field to which we are assigned. Because of this we need to pray for protection for him and his family from the enemy.

Thanks too for Michael, who could also have added those who want to get married to pavements and bicycles.

David Skinner, UK

Yes I have seen that around before, and it is most fitting here.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest? No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

Michael Whennen

A fair question. The short answer is, as I mentioned in the article, that not everything described in the Bible is necessarily approved of by God. Description is not the same as prescription. Some OT saints had more than one wife. But it was not God’s command or intention, and he in fact clearly speaks against polygamy in both Testaments. It is expressly forbidden in Deut. 17:17 and 1 Tim. 3:2 for example. God’s ideal has always been monogamous marriage.

The Bible is realistic about human behaviour, even that of God’s people. Their character and behaviour is honestly depicted – warts and all. But being honest about the shortcomings of the saints is of course no endorsement of particular behaviours and actions.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Regarding the Bible and polygamous relationships, didn’t prophets like Abraham and Jacob engage in such relationships? How would you explain that?

(I’m on your side in all of this, just looking for suggestions on what I might say to someone who poses this question to me).

Regards,
Tim Baker

The heterosexuals and the Playboy philosophy, in breaking down the barriers have given the moral right not only to the homosexuals to claim their share of the action (to public acceptance of their sexual activities) but also to those behind them who engage in paedophilia, incest, polyamory, polygamy, exhibitionism and even bestiality. Homosexuality has a reputation for risk-taking and extremism. This in turn, like a fire feeding off itself, is already encouraging heterosexuals to cast aside all restraint and seemingly outmoded inhibitions and to give full expression to their narcissistic instincts. All this is funded for and encouraged by the government’s own policies on sex education in schools.

Realising that family life is important for the well being of children, politicians now have to define what they mean by family and they have come out with their own “back-of-fag-packet” ideas of what constitutes marriage. Both put no limits on the genders of the partners, and neither, presumably soon, on number, age differences, duration and soon, even of species. The only stipulation placed by them is that commitment (for five minutes?) and parental involvement should form the basis for a family. What profundity! This is like saying that the only requirement for a game of football, is for the players to be committed to kicking the ball. But why should anyone recognise even these stipulations?

Some would say “What right do you have to impose your old fashioned morality of commitment and parental involvement on us? We can bypass your middle class morality simply on the basis that what you are demanding of us goes against our own natures; we were born the way we are; it is not in our natures to be in long term relationships or to possess maternal or paternal instincts.” (Since civil partnerships and gay adoption has been made legal, there is not exactly a stampede for either the registry office or the adoption agency).

www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031409.html (legalising of sex in public parks).
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2356730,00.html (incest)
…and of course paedophilia: www.tpuc.org/node/151 (Germany and EU to Legalise Paedophilia)

David Skinner, UK

If I recall correctly, polyamory is legal in the Netherlands where a man added a second wife not too long ago?

Jeremy Peet