You Can Smell The Gamma White Knight Fear

A thread at Vox’s has now run over 950 comments, although it’s been put in moderation and is now moving at glacial speed.  It started off on the subject of my last post and moved on to the subject of polygyny and girl-on-girl sex.  Yes, guilty as charged.  For those of you who’ve seen me do this elsewhere before and wonder why I do this every year or two, part of it’s developmental and part of it is looking for patterns.  As far as the argument goes I think it’s as developed as it’s going to get but I believe I’m finally seeing patterns of behavior associated with this argument and it don’t look good.

I’ve been through all the arguments before, so on this particular thread I took a new approach.  I decided to grab the “third rail” of polygyny and bring the issue of “sleeping arrangements” and female-female sexual contact to the forefront and deal with it head-on.  After months, my primary opponent was reduced to this:

I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin. Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.

The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?

Look at that:  He said an attack “cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.”  That’s an admission of defeat because according to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 “where there is no law there is no violation” and “there is no sin imputed when there is no law.” These passages define what sin is in the general sense, that is, applicable to all people for all time. In order to make a Biblical case that “it is a sin” where God was silent, one has to add to the Law, which is specifically forbidden at Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.

In other words, a Biblically correct case for sin on this issue cannot be made without either violating Scripture (adding to the law) or engaging in intellectual dishonesty (lying about what Scripture says). The argument is mature and ready for live audiences, it just needs a little polish.  This is my exegesis of the matter:

If God had wanted to declare female-female sexual contact to be a sin, He would have done so. God chose not to do so. He didn’t forget and He didn’t accidentally leave it out because God is perfect.  In Leviticus 18:22-23 God universally prohibited certain classes of sexual acts, but look at the sequence:

  • Men with men: prohibited
  • Men with animals: prohibited
  • Women with animals: prohibited
  • Women with women: *TOTAL SILENCE*

All other prohibited sexual contact is relationship based.  God’s inclusion of women with animals as universally prohibited  indicates He chose not to prohibit or condemn women with women.  Quite often we see the male pronoun used to represent both men and women, but in some areas of the law we see both men and women mentioned.  This generally means the men and women are being treated differently.  Numbers 30 is another example, with the Law of Vows.

Where there is no law there is no violation and no sin is imputed when there is no law (Romans 4:15, 5:13) means sexual contact between women is not sin.  Adding or taking away from the Law is prohibited (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), so Romans 1:25-27 cannot be construed as a prohibition or condemnation of whatever the women might do sexually with each other without placing Paul in violation of Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 with respect to what he wrote in Romans 1:25-27.  I’m pretty sure Paul’s response to that charge would be “May it never be!”

After that are the minor quibbles that try to paint polygyny in a bad light. 

  • Deuteronomy 17:17 says the king is not to multiply wives so more than one is wrong.
  • God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve and Amy.  The definition of marriage is one man and one woman because this is how God created marriage.
  • Can you show me where God gave polygyny explicit moral approval?
  • 1st Timothy 3:2 Elders and Deacons are to be husbands of one wife, so obviously there are problems with polygyny if it keeps a man from assuming leadership.

God claimed to be the husband of two wives (Israel and Judah).  See Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23.  If God did it how can you claim it’s morally wrong?  In 2nd Samuel 12:8 God took credit for giving David his 8 wives and said He would have given him more if that hadn’t been enough.  Obviously 8 wives is not “multiplying” wives and God was pointing out that the multiple wives were a good thing and I’d call that explicit moral approval.

In 1st Timothy 3:2 the word translated as “one” is “mia” and it can mean “first,” “one,” or “a”. (article adjective) — and is used elsewhere by Paul in those ways.  Let’s see how this works: The [bishop, elder, overseer] should be… the husband of his first wife.” (or, “a wife”, if you prefer. Both are better, or at LEAST equally good, renderings.)  There is another textual argument but there isn’t much point in making it.

  • Show me where God established or commanded polygyny

God established marriage (with no regard to the number of wives) at Genesis 2:24 when God gave the man the authority to initiated marriage but didn’t limit the man to one wife.  God commanded polygyny at Deuteronomy 25:5-20 in the law of the Levirate (childless wife to marry her husband’s brother if her husband dies in order to carry on his name).

Based on that exegesis this is the challenge he was responding to:

Either show me where God said sexual contact between wives married to the same man is sin, or show me your delegation of authority that allows you to arbitrarily step into another mans’ family and declare something to be a sin when God didn’t.

Again, this was his response:

“I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.  Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.

The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?

He also put out a call for help, saying

“I [am not] trained in Scripture. I am a laity, doing my job. If there is anybody of the faith, who has the training and intellect to lead this battle I appeal to them to step forward”

“Artisanal Toad’s argument is, as I have stated previously, attractive and coherent within the mano-sphere. It does nothing less than invite lost souls into a false doctrine under the label of Christianity. Like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.”

He admits there is no passage anywhere in Scripture that prohibits or condemns female-female sexual activity, then ignores Romans 4:15 “Where there is no law there is no violation” and Romans 5:13 “there is no sin imputed when there is no law” and then calls it a “false doctrine” and says “like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.”  This is a guy who cannot let go of the false tradition he’s been taught all his life.  He calls polygyny a sin and defends monogamy even though he knows it’s a losing proposition for men.  Why?  Because tradition?  I wonder.

So, I ask the question: why do men fight and white knight so hard over this subject?  Why is the idea of two or three naked women enjoying group sex with their husband so frightening?  I made one off-hand comment about the popularity of lesbian porn and the screeching was amazing.  I was called a serpent, trickster, degenerate, tempter, a vile reptile, satan, the dark one, a heretic; I was accused of leading my brothers into sin, of being corrupt, of wallowing in sin, of desiring only the pleasures of the flesh…  it was amazing.

On top of that it seems like this issue brings out the blue-pill, gamma, churchian white knights in droves.  Why?  Because it destroys their blue-pill gamma worldview?  Just like this kid I’ve been arguing with, he already knows he’s wrong but he can’t allow himself to admit it.  Why would an otherwise bright and very logical man act this way?

Oh- and he’s quite sure the sweet little wives are being violated in bed, commanded by a husband acting like Caesar who makes them do that which is against God’s will for their lives; convinced they hate every second of it.  He truly believes they need to be rescued and it is the duty of the church to step into their marriage and straighten things out.

Why do so many Christian men white knight so hard over this?  Maybe for some of them it’s baggage from the past, but I’m about convinced a man’s reaction to polygyny (and all the possibilities available with multiple wives) is a good indicator of his socio-sexual rank.

From alphas and a lot of betas there’s no objection in the practical sense and the benefits are obvious and substantial, but people just don’t do that.  These guys play by the rules and doing something like this could threaten their position, so they’ve either got the balls to agree and maybe even go for it, or they shrug their shoulders and say “I’m OK with what I’ve got.  If we get divorced I’ll think about it.”

From the lower betas and high deltas a lot of suspicion and logical concerns come to the surface but these can be dealt with and if they’re aware these guys already know they’re prime candidates for divorce court drama.  Then come the questions.  Lots of them.  After that it’s frame and state control with a reasonable level of game.  Most of the guys I know with multiple wives started out as lower beta or mid to high delta.  The structure makes them situational alpha.  The rest (unsurprisingly) are sigmas.  I have yet to meet a guy I’d call a serious alpha with more than one wife.

From the lower deltas, gammas and omegas, I get fear, loathing and hatred.  They will stop at nothing to find an objection or reason why monogamy must be enforced.  I’m fairly sure at least some of them see the acceptance of polygyny as the final nail in the coffin that forever imprisons their hopes of finding a wife.

Acceptance of polygyny would change the entire SMP and MMP landscape for both men and women but especially for men.  Let’s say you’ve got a tall, reasonably good looking, successful guy that marries a solid 8.5 beauty.  He’s feeling like he’s at the top of the game until he meets an average-looking guy with three wives going from 6.5 to 7.5.  And… wow.  They’re feminine, sweet and submissive.  When he tells them to do something (hey- why doesn’t he ever be gentle and just ask them?) they smile and do it.  Immediately.  Then he notices his wife is treating their husband differently and after a while starts being deferential, almost submissive! He’s thinking “Why is she acting that way toward him but not me?”

Anybody that understands game knows the answer.  Multiple wives is massive pre-selection bias and a huge demonstration of high value.  He comes across as alpha and she’s attracted.  She begins to mimic the behavior of his wives (deferential, submissive, obedient) to fit in with the herd and doesn’t realize what she’s doing (competing for his attention).  Later, alone with hubby, she isn’t as attracted to him, throws a few shit tests his way and he picks up on that too.

How does that make him feel?  Like he just met a serious threat that needs to be destroyed.   How much more so the gamma?


This entry was posted in Assisted Intercourse in Marriage, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to You Can Smell The Gamma White Knight Fear

  1. It seems to me obvious that Scripture does not condemn polygyny. It also seems obvious that Scripture does not command it. I am unmarried, but with the lack of an affirmative command, it seems to me that a Christian ought to obey the anti-polygamy laws that exist (Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17) until those laws cease to exist (which I foresee in the near future).

    • Moose

      You are making some unfounded assumptions. First, is that obedience to the government means a man can’t have more than one wife. This is incorrect. Further, it begs the question of what a marriage is. If you examine my previous post you’ll see that it’s possible to get married without a marriage license and have a private marriage. The bigamy laws apply specifically to licensed marriages only. So, if a man marries several women all at once without a license there is no law broken and no issue with respect to obedience to the state. Or, a man can gradually assemble his harem without the benefit of license, marrying under a written marital covenant. Either way, the state has nothing to do with it.

      As to whether Scripture commands a “normal” monogamous marriage, that’s difficult. While certainly the natural function of men and women is to marry and gave children, there is no general command to do so. I repeat, there is no general command to get married in any way. While Paul said it is better to marry than to burn he also advised NOT to get married. In fact, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 is the specific command under specific circumstances to engage in polygyny, the levirate marriage. Finally, nowhere in Scripture is there any differentiation between monogamous or polygynous marriage. There is only “marriage.”

      This subject also calls into question what marriage is. According to the Supreme Court (which is remarkably consistent with Scripture) a marriage is formed by “Present words of assent.” In other words, the agreement of the two parties to marry, followed by the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation after that holding themselves out to the community as being married.

      Polygyny is NOT illegal because the only marriage the state recognizes as a marriage is a licensed marriage. Polygyny is merely a form of marriage that the state cannot recognize as being a marriage, thus there can be no charge of bigamy. The state would then be forced to look at the marital covenant as a cohabitation contract. That is where most of the protections come from at this point. One cannot get divorce raped if one is not married.

      • I think you may be reading a little more into my comment than what I said. I have long held (based off of 1 Cor 6:16, Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5, and Mark 10:8) that basically sex=marriage in the biblical sense, so we agree that a licence is not a necessity to be biblically married. We also agree that there is no positive command to marry, either to one woman or several.

        That being established, I seem to remember reading stories about people being prosecuted for bigamy under common-law marriage laws when they had no marriage license for any of their marriages. My guess would be that state laws would vary to some extent, and that what would be completely legal in one state would result in possible prosecution in another. It appears that only a few states still have common-law marriage statutes, but it appears Utah’s is particularly designed to give the state control over unlicensed marriages.

        • Sex does not equal marriage because the one essential for marriage is commitment and legitimacy. If the individuals are legitimately able to marry and the commitment to marry is there, the sex seals the deal. Otherwise it opens a wound.

          Keep in mind that almost all bigamy prosecutions are driven by women. When all the women understand and agree to share, they don’t file charges.

          Things have changed. There was a recent federal court case WRT Utah, the effect of which was to say that bigamy can only be prosecuted in cases of licensed marriages. Multiple wives is one of those issues in which the state cannot recognize it as a marriage due to public policy issues. I guess I need to write another post explaining how it works and why, but in today’s legal environment polygyny (with a signed marital contract/covenant) is the only safe marital route a man can take. Monogamy is essentially dead at this point.

      • tteclod says:

        Let’s explore Matthew 19 a little more.

        10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

        11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

        12 For there are some eunuchs [men without dicks], which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs [men without dicks], which were made eunuchs of men [somebody cut off his dick]: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake [a man who cuts off his own dick]. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. [If you’re up for that, go for it!]

        This puts Saul’s admonition to marry rather than [fornicate] is a much different context. It seems to me that the advice is this: if you want to use your dick for more than peeing, marry. Yes, marriage is hard; tough shit: the alternative is being dickless (if your eye offends you…). Moreover, extrapolation to polygyny favors marrying another woman over adultery – again, it’s an alternative to sin.

        But I’m atheist, so what do I know?

  2. Sex does not equal marriage because the one essential for marriage is commitment and legitimacy. If the individuals are legitimately able to marry and the commitment to marry is there, the sex seals the deal. Otherwise it opens a wound.

    Note the word “basically” in my post, which denotes an oversimplification.

    Things have changed. There was a recent federal court case WRT Utah, the effect of which was to say that bigamy can only be prosecuted in cases of licensed marriages.

    I was unaware of this, and I imagine a number of others who don’t follow the issue closely may be as well. I would recommend you include this when making your argument so that you can establish A) No prohibition by God, and B) No prohibition by Caesar. Just my two cents.

  3. jack says:

    When debating the social and personal merits of polygamy (not the scriptural merits), it seems to me that a clear distinction must always be made between multiple wives and multiple lovers.

    I am a Christian, and certainly no alpha, but I will gladly admit that my base programming would cause me to desire many women as lovers, because variety. That said, I can’t for the life of me gin up a desire for multiple wives. Perhaps this is because the marriage 2.0 environment has made me skeptical of having even one wife.

    The only way a multi wife arrangement could be sold to me would be to first make me an oil tycoon, or whatever, and then place me in a nation where divorce court does not exist. Sure, the Sultan of Brunei may as well take a couple hundred wives. It probably costs the same, and if it buys the girls off by giving them some status among the concubines (I bet THAT is a mean-girls site to behold), what’s the harm?

    But yeah, multi wife is not probably alpha in the West, because an alpha will just run the soft harem until he tires of it, and decides to pick the best option for raising his kids. So he will select a hot, and probably seldom-ridden “good mom” type. No alpha in the West would subject himself to the nightmare of giving multiple women any more legal power over him than already exists.

    As far as the religious/Biblical implications, I think there is a valid argument that God is okay with satiation, but is not particularly keen toward decadent or gluttonous behavior.

    Sin is a slippery topic, and the New Testament does not claim itself to be the entire law. Is woman on woman sexual contact a sin? It might be an unrevealed sin, or it may not be. I certainly agree that there appears to be no scriptural prohibition, and the examples listed in the post demonstrate the very conspicuous absence of girl/girl.

    I don’t really have much of an opinion, but I would be hesitant to marry a girl with a history of this, mostly because I would assume that she was a sexual loose cannon, and perhaps prone to decadence and promiscuity. But that is playing the odds more than it is some kind of rule.

    As a Christian, I am going to probably play it safe and avoid a threesome with a couple girls, but…. I will be watching the evidentiary proceedings here with, shall we say, slightly more than passing interest.

    • That said, I can’t for the life of me gin up a desire for multiple wives. Perhaps this is because the marriage 2.0 environment has made me skeptical of having even one wife.

      A poly marriage is the only safe marriage in the marriage 2.0 legal environment. It works like this: First, no marriage licenses, the marriage is by covenant with a written marital covenant (contract).

      The State cannot recognize a poly marriage as a marriage because public policy says a marriage is 2 people who obtain a statutory marriage under the authority of a marriage license. No marriage means no divorce, no splitting assets or alimony. Not being able to recognize it as a marriage the contract is best interpreted as an enforceable cohabitation contract.

      Assume three wives. Husband needs to get them all pregnant and preferably at least a couple of children from each wife. One wife works full time in the home as a SAHM and the others work outside the home. That means three earned incomes coming into the household so the standard of living is high, as is security. If one person loses their job it isn’t a huge crisis.

      What the women want is his attention but with three wives they have to compete for it and they’re competing against the other wives. The only way to “win” is to give hubby what he wants: a pleasant, sweet, feminine and sexually available wife. She can’t use sex as a weapon (he’ll go jump one of the others) and she can’t nag or be bitchy because he’ll spend time with one of the others.

      The structure makes him more aloof and dominant (attractive) while the wives can get their emotional needs met with each other. A policy of “all moms are “mom” to all kids” means the women will bond to all the children.

      If one woman wanted to leave the issue would be custody and child support, but giving her custody would mean separating siblings. In addition to that, husband still has an intact household with other moms in place while cupcake would be leaving on her own. Best interests of the child policy means custody would probably be awarded to the husband, which means she would be paying child support.

      The structure of the poly marriage places the incentives on staying in the marriage and penalizes leaving the marriage. It also curbs bad behavior because the wives are competing within their own little herd and loyalty is one aspect of that. In the case of a woman tempted to lie and make a domestic violence charge, she knows the other wives will be unlikely to back up her story and would probably say she was lying.

      Incentives matter. The husband gets what he wants and the women get what they want. After a few years and a few kids each the whole thing is so tied together with the husband in a dominant position that it becomes extremely difficult to break it up, which is just the opposite of what we have with marriage 2.0

  4. jack says:

    More power to anyone who wants this. It sounds like too much to manage for my simple tastes.

    Of course, I am single and enjoy the freedom and solitude. You’ve described the best-case scenario. Isn’t there a worst-case as well?

    Although the incentive to stay thin in order to compete for male attention is an attractive idea. Monogamous marriage all too often leads to fat wives.

    But nothing is thinner than a woman who is trying to reel you in while single.

    • Christian men who believe in the concept of no sex outside of marriage are between a rock and a hard place. Simply put, polygyny is the only safe marriage structure left today.

      The worst case scenario is going to be dependent on the contract they sign. Keep in mind that this kind of arrangement is governed by private law in equitable contract. I suppose the worst thing that could happen is the husband is as blue-pill as the day is long, supplicates to the women, generates first disgust and then contempt to the point they stop competing for his attention and start competing to see how bad they can treat him.

      The idea of the marriage is predicated on the husband having a good grasp of the feminine imperative, feminism, socio-sexual behavior and excellent frame and state control. Frame and state control go a long way and tight game is all the edge he needs.

      Keep in mind that there are multiple levels on which the women will compete and loyalty is one of them. One of the axioms of herd behavior is opposing the herd will get you punished. The structure makes the wives their own herd and it’s mission is to preserve the marriage so loyalty to the marriage is loyalty to the herd.

      Anyway, monogamy is an open ended invitation to assist the husband in emotional and financial suicide. If a guy wants kids and wants to see them raised by both mom and dad up until adulthood, this is the only reasonably safe bet out there. There are no guarantees and I’ll listen if somebody else says they’ve got a workable solution but I haven’t heard any yet.

      What gets me is all the Christians who whine about how bad it is but won’t face the fact there’s a working solution straight out of the Bible. The issue is so polarizing that people who are normally pretty peaceful come out swinging if I bring up the subject and it brings out the gamma white knights in droves.

      • Adam Alan says:


        So you’re setting up a situation that structurally and legally reduced the risk as much as possible; though obviously not completely.

        Do we have any hint of how much game reduces the risk of divorce in monogamy?

        [AT] It’s purely anecdotal, but game in a marriage will keep the wife from getting frustrated and prevent the contempt she’d otherwise develop for a supplicating husband.

        How much does polygyny reduce it? Does polygyny reduce the risk enough to make up for the extra risk involved with adding extra wives?

        In other words, if the risk of divorce in any given marriage is 50%, if polygamy doesn’t reduce the risk, two wives means you’re guaranteed a divorce. Not quite, I mean, its a coin toss. But typically yes, two wives means one divorce on average. Which is FAIL.

        [AT] No, you’re trying to compare apples with oranges. If you look at the example of what happened in China (they westernized their divorce laws) the divorce rate exploded to upwards of 50% after the women realized they could get cash and prizes they didn’t work for by divorcing their husband. When the law was changed to stop that the divorce rate plummeted. Incentives matter and in my opinion it’s the legal structure of monogamy and no fault divorce that causes the divorce rate we see. Polygyny effectively removes such a marriage from that legal environment and reverses the incentives such that the women are rewarded for staying in the marriage and penalized for leaving.

        So right out of the gate its a fail unless polygamy significantly changes the dynamic for the better. You’re also proposing some of the wives work outside the home, which also raises the risk of infidelity.

        As well, since the risk of divorce with non-virgins is much greater (likely 80%+), and there arn’t enough virgins to go around and they have the cards to hold out for monogamy, polygamy had better pack a pretty powerful punch at preventing divorce.

        Now virginal wife is said to have about a 20% divorce hazard. If you’re going to get married, the Red Pill types would say virgin, or extremely low count. So if you’re pushing polygamy over monogamy as workable, we have to beat that level.

        What you’re saying SOUNDS good, but will it actually work to dramatically reduce the divorce risk?

        [AT] From what I’ve seen of polygynous marriages that are arranged under a well-written marital covenant, the answer is yes. Just the act of signing such a document means there is a clear understanding of what is expected in the marriage and a clear description of the rights and responsibilities of all parties to the marriage. I know families in which all wives are “Mom” to all the children. Literally. When wives have babies around the same time, they nurse whatever child is hungry regardless of whose child it is. In other words, they bond with all the children, which makes leaving that much harder. Combined with the way incentives are arranged, this sort of thing makes it very difficult to leave the marriage. That isn’t saying it won’t happen but this is an effort to arrange the incentives in such a way that staying in the marriage and working things out is the most painless way to go and leaving the marriage maximizes the pain.

        I’d also love to chat with you via email about this and other related questions if you would contact me.

  5. RichardP says:

    AT: I’m adding some thoughts to the stew. I’m not arguing for or against any of the points you make. These questions are rhetorical. I’m not expecting an answer. I’ve not read the Vox thread to which you refer. And if I gave myself several days, I could probably write something shorter. But I’m writing on the fly here, off the top of my head. Hence, the length. Hopefully you pick up on the logic I’m trying to define here.

    1. What creates a union of which God says “let not man put assunder”?

    We know the modern state does not create this union – since those words were spoken before the modern states existed. But – who can point to specific words in the Bible that explicitly state the “what” that creates the union of which God says “let not man put assunder”. The first words spoken on this issue simply state “here’s the reason a man will leave mother and father and cling to his wife” (Genesis 2:24). Matthew and Ephesians quote this. But, here, “wife” is simply stated. How a woman becomes a wife is not defined – beyond the “cleaving together” imagery.

    2. From a spiritual standpoint (not a social one): Can one man have the union described at Point 1 above with more than one woman at the same time? AT, as you have pointed out, the Bible contains examples where this has happened and God has blessed the man involved. In other cases, as you have pointed out, God actually commanded this behavior.

    2. What is adultry? (Having sex with a person who is the spouse of another?) Adultry is called sin in the Bible.

    3. What is fornication? (Having sex with someone who is not your spouse?) Fornication is called sin in the Bible.

    4. Is there any way to have God -approved sex with someone not bound to you according to Point 1? I’m thinking the answer is “no”. Sex with the spouse of another (adultry?) is called sin in the Bible. Sex with someone who is not your spouse (fornication?) is called sin in the Bible. (What other kind of sexual congress is there that is not covered by either of those two definitions??) What sexual relations do not constitute sin in the Bible. So far as I can determine (and this is what I was taught growing up), only sex within the context of Point 1 above is not called sin in the Bible – even if we can’t specifically define what creates the union of which God says “let not man put assunder”.

    5. If the only sex that is not called sin in the Bible is that sex which exists within the context of the union described at Point 1 above – you now have the basis for calling certain behavior “sin” – even tho that particular behavior is not specifically described in the Bible and called sin. That is, we cannot automatically accept that certain behaviors are OK just because the Bible does not delineate them and call them sin. This idea is based on the logic developed below.

    6. AT, you are familiar with the logic based on “THIS” and “NOT THIS” (mutually exlusive). Where the Bible says that only “THIS” is OK, we can legitimately conclude that every.single.”NOT THIS” is not OK – even if the Bible never mentions them by name. We exercise that type of logic in all walks of life, without even giving it a second thought. Why do we then have such trouble applying it to the Bible? (rhetorical)

    7. The perponderance of Biblical evidence suggests that sexual relations within the context of Point 1 above are the only sexual relations that God does not consider sin. We can say with some certainty that Point 1 = “THIS” and only “THIS”. If this logic is correct, then we can say with the same certainty that every “NOT THIS” is sin – even if the Bible does not list it by name. All we are allowed by the Bible is “THIS”. That is all we need to be told. If we understand what “THIS” actually is (if we have been given the “law” and are not without it*), we can reasonably be expected to recognize things that are “NOT THIS” – even though that “NOT THIS” is not listed in the Bible. And we can reasonably expect to be held accountable by God for engaging in “NOT THIS”. Because we know what “THIS” is. And we know we are given permission only for “THIS”. And, so – engaging in “NOT THIS”, something different from what “THIS” is, is truely not of faith. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. *(One of the four “new” commandments given to Gentiles in Acts 15 is to not engage in sexual sin.)

    8. The perponderance of Biblical evidence suggests that sexual relations within the context of Point 1 above are the only sexual relations that God does not consider sin. Are we really acting in faith when we insist that sexual congress between folks of the same sex is part of what God included in “THIS” – defined at Point 1 above?

    9. The sexual relationship between the one man and his many wives at Point 2 above can reasonably be argued to fall into the “THIS” of Point 1 above. But – can the sexual relationships among the multiple wives of that one man at Point 2 above be considered to fall into the “THIS” of Point 1 above. Is the “therefore what God hath joined together” that exists between the multiple women and the one man (that joining together that makes the sexual relationship OK) something that also exists among/between the women? Does the “THIS” of Point 1 above also exists between/among the women, so that sex between/among them becomes OK in God’s eyes?

    10. AT, I can’t quote specific verses from the Bible to prove the answer one way or the other to the questions asked in the previous paragraphs 8 and 9. But I have reasonable doubt that sexual relations among the same sexes in Point 2 are included in the “THIS” of Point 1 above (I doubt that God creates a union between two of the same sex of which he says “let not man put assunder). Many others have that same reasonable doubt. Therefore, I come to this point in my reasoning: “We” doubt that God intended the “THIS” of Point 1 above to extend to same-sex couples. Therefore, “we” have to doubt that God thinks sex between same-sex couples is OK (since the only sex that is OK is the sex which occurs in the context of the “THIS” of Point 1 above. Therefore, if “we” claim that sex between the women of Point 2 above is OK – in the face of the doubt “we” have that God thinks sex between same-sex couples is not OK – then “we” are acting in doubt and not in faith. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But, in the spirit in which this verse is presented in the Bible, my doubt does not make the sexual behavior among the women in Point 2 above a sin. It only makes it a sin if I engage in same-sex sexual activity. The women in Point 2 above would have to doubt before before they could be accused of ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’

    11. If you can get your head around the logic of ‘only “THIS” and never ever “NOT THIS” ‘, then you can begin to understand that all the wrong stuff doesn’t have to be spelled out. Because, if the acceptable stuff is spelled out, we can be held accountable for being able to “see” every instance where what we are doing is not even close to what was defined as acceptable. In such a situation, we never ever have an excuse for doing “wrong”, even if it is not spelled out in the Bible. We have been informed of what is “right”. Being enlightened in this way, we have been given the ability to recognize everything that does not match what is “right”. We have been given the ability to distinguish between right and not right, between good and not good (both sets mutually exlusive). If we’ve been told what the “right” is, the Bible doesn’t have to tell us what the “wrong” is. The “wrong” is whatever is not the “right”. Where we have been told what is good, what is right – we can figure out the difference between good and evil, between good and not good, all by ourselves.
    Don’t know that I agree with all of this, but it is good fodder for a discussion.

    • Adam Alan says:

      Is there a book chapter and verse calling an act a sin? If so, it is sin. If not, it is not sin. That is what the OT is there for, to teach us what is sin. Its really this simple.

      If it takes you 15 paragraphs to try and set up an argument for the sinfulness of an act, you know you’re on the wrong track.

  6. alex says:

    The bible clearly forbids lesbian sexual relations:

    Romans 1:24-27 ESV /

    Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

  7. Alex, you got that one wrong, and here’s where you’re wrong.

    Take a look at Leviticus 18:22-23 and look at what is forbidden:

    Men with men, forbidden, death penalty.
    Men with animals, forbidden, death penalty.
    Women with animals, forbidden, death penalty.

    What didn’t we see? Women with women. The law is absolutely silent on the subject, so we look at Romans 4:15 “Where there is no law there is no transgression” and Romans 5:13 “where there is no law there is no sin imputed.” There is no law on the subject, so sexual contact between women cannot be a sin. However, you claim Romans 1:26 is a prohibition on such activities. This is where your problem is.

    Paul, who wrote the book of Romans knew exactly what Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 said:

    “You shall not add to the word I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” and “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”

    Romans 1:26 must be read in light of Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13 and Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. To make the claim there is a prohibition on female-female sexual contact in Romans 1:26, you’re actually claiming that Paul violated Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 by adding to the law. The same guy who wrote (just a few chapters later) that where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. You may want to look up the definition of the word “imputed.” Then take a look at Romans 14 (again, same author and same book). Who are you to judge the servant of another?

    Boil it all down and what you have is Romans 1:26 saying the women were in an inappropriate relationship in which they rejected God’s plan of being wives and mothers in submission to their husband. In the same way, men rejected God’s plan, rejecting “the natural use of women” by refusing to be husbands and fathers. Further (take a look at that conjunction- “and”) they compounded that by violating Leviticus 18:22 “burning with lust the committed indecent acts and received the due penalty in their own bodies.”

    Yes, I know that you won’t agree, but the bottom line is if you want to claim Romans 1:26 is a prohibition of female-female sexual contact you’re also claiming Paul added to the Law in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. If you want to slander Paul like that you also call into question everything that Paul wrote and now you’re squarely at odds with 2nd Timothy 3:16-17

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s