Is Robin Hood a Good Example of Living By A Higher Law?

QUESTION: So this is a theoretical question from my recent read of Robin Hood... I know technically he is stealing and breaking a core commandment, but he is also seeking after justice, trying to right the wrongs of another sort of thief, one which abuses those who are powerless to defend.  We have in D&D the concept of alignment. How one views laws of the land or society - from "lawful" to neutral to "chaotic". And also how one views the "laws" of life... Good, neutral, evil.  Robin Hood is the typical Chaotic Good archetype, seeing the laws of their present governments as corrupt and living by a higher law. But what does God say about this?  Thoughts?

RESPONSE:  I tend to look at core moral principles as inviolable, regardless of context, because from a Christian point of view, these laws are the very things that define goodness being derived from God's own nature. Therefore they are always right, even if it turns out wrong, and their neglect is always wrong, even if it turns out right.

I think Paul agrees with this when he responds to slanderers who accuse him of preaching lawlessness so that God gets more glory. He resists this "bad can lead to good" accusation by saying, 

Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Romans 3:8 

In other words, it is never right to say or do something evil, that good may result.  Ends do not justify the means.  I know there's lots of talk about situational ethics, and plenty of moral thought experiments where the ends seem to justify the means.  But the beauty of tying ethics to God is that there we find bedrock principles from which there can be no "progression"; no context, no subjective narrative, no relativity, just goodness. 

Now, you mention the laws of the land, which can fit into different boxes.  I fundamentally agree with this kind of evaluation.  There are laws above our laws.  Martin Luther King, who advocated civil disobedience, once said,

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’" - MLK

He's exactly right.  So the laws I'm thinking of are those just laws, whose justification lies in the very nature of God which is fair, benevolent and just.  About these laws, I think of them very much like I think about the truth and the beauty of math. The right formula is elegant and symmetrical and simple, but its beauty is not soft, not squishy, it's not indulgent of any imperfection, diminution, or flexibility. 

Robin Hood's stealing, which violates as you said,  a "core commandment" or as MLK put it, a "just law", only seems justifiable to us in a world marked by total brokenness. So it can seem expedient that wrongs chase other wrongs to mitigate them or reverse them.  The problem with RH is the same problem that occurs every time we attempt to right a wrong, but we find the thing standing in our way is a moral principle. That problem is our own hubris.

I would point out that the justification for Robin Hood is built on a presumption which his advocates rarely acknowledge: we presume to be sufficient judges of the ends, and also sufficiently in control that we know when to violate a transcendent moral principle and when not to. I mean here principles such as right to life, equality, fairness, truthfulness, respect, human rights.  We imagine that we know when and exactly how much we may violate these, in order to bring in a "greater good". This seems to me, to be God's territory alone. 

And surprisingly, God does what he asks us to do, for he has bound himself to himself, even if some more expedient course seems fairer/better.  Scripture says:

"If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." 2 Timothy 2:13.

What a fascinating way for Paul to put it!  He cannot disown himself.  Put the two words together and you'll see how stunning this language is.  "God" + "cannot".  Unlike our Muslim friends, there are many things Christians believe God CANNOT do.  And apparently, among these is the disowning of himself.  What does this mean?  

God, Paul says, cannot separate himself from his own good character, as if it was a mere expedient that he made outside himself, which he can manipulate, alter or ignore at will, like the physical laws of the universe.  The irony about laws is that we cannot break physical laws but we can break moral laws.  God is the opposite, God can break physical laws (we call this the miraculous) but he cannot break moral laws which are lodged intrinsically within himself.

Christians envision a Judge of the Universe who is perfect, precisely because that's who he IS, not merely what he chooses to do most of the time or promote in us.  Thus, he is bound in some sense, to himself.  He cannot himself do evil, that good may result . Because that would mean disowning himself.  This "inability" in God, includes being bound to the good moral principles by which he made us.  He is bound by himself into a covenant of non-coercion with us, because the love at the heart of himself and our purpose to love him back demands freedom.

So we see in God the unwillingness - the inability even - to violate the good principle of our free will, even if such violations would achieve the end of all human suffering. All God has to do is snap his fingers like Thanos and make the world good again, or go away altogether.  But he will not, because he cannot!  Not because he lacks the power, but because the Judge running things won't violate goodness (himself) in order to do good!

Yet we act as if we have more knowledge or control than God when we act like Robin Hood. Take affirmative action. I think it was judge Roberts who said, "finally the only way to stop treating people differently because of race, is to stop treating people differently because of race."  Just one example where we've found this to be true: you don't fix wrongs with other (well motivated) wrongs. In fact, we make things worse. 

This is true in banking, where all the rules that were gamely fixed by smart men prior to the collapse of 2008 - men who just about brought the world system to its knees - were all rules first designed to solve some perceived Injustice. They were rules like those allowing (demanding!) people with crappy credit to get mortgages.  Those rules were all about "giving" to the poor; ostensibly to help others and do good, by violating some principle of goodness, like truthfulness in reporting income or credit score or the value of MBS.

Then, as we all saw, in a terrible reversal of Robin Hood, our violations of truth and fairness in the name of good, wound up stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Same thing for the oligarchic powers who at the same time declared, "we must violate the principles of the free market to save the free market."  If some core moral principle lies beneath free markets (and I believe one does), then this was wrong even if it "turned out right" - and some might quibble that the world system being "saved" means things turned out right.  Delayed an inevitable and horrible day of reckoning may be be much closer to the truth, and kicking this can down the road for our children or grandchildren to eventually deal with, exposes us as reprobates, not Robin Hoods.

Isn't Eden our best example? "Eat the forbidden fruit, get your eyes opened, know Good from Evil" - which had to be a good thing, right??  Isn't knowledge always progress? No!!  Not if it's gotten the wrong way. Isn't more equity always right? No!!  Not if it's gotten the wrong way. 

Isn't this also what the last century of socialist experiments taught us? Take over the means of production by any means possible - Robin Hood writ large, encoded into political philosophy - to get us some more equality!! 100 years later, 100 million dead and counting.

OR, we could do what we can lawfully to bring more equity, while humbly submitting to that transcendent goodness behind: "thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)  And trust God with what results.

How Does Faith in Christ Affect Being Transgendered?

QUESTION:  I am a transgendered person (ftm) and am struggling with how this affects faith. Does the bible view being transgender the same way as it does being gay? Sorry if this doesn't make much sense.

RESPONSE:  Hi, and thanks for your brave inquiry into this difficult topic.  You make perfect sense.

First, I admit beforehand that any response you’ll read here will be inadequate as a final solution to the struggle you’re having.  So out of the gate, I want to remind you that while this kind of Q and A can begin (or move along) a dialogue with you and the Christian Faith, the dialogue will need human contact at some point.  This is best done in the Christian community, where we all allow our struggles to surface in respect-filled, and trusted relationships with fellow travelers on the Christian path.  Good Christian counsel cannot be undersold as a tool in helping to uncover all the issues involved in transgenderism, and how it relates to faith in Jesus personally.

Of course, you already know about the culture’s voice on this issue which has been loudly tone setting – especially in light of recent high profile cases of transgendered persons, Caitlyn Jenner being the most notable.  The clear and consistent message outside the church is that transgender is normal, natural, and amoral.  Further, the only solution to transgender given in the press and by most physicians is costly and invasive gender reassignment surgery.

You’re suspecting that the Church’s response to this issue biblically will be along similar lines as our response to the gay debate.  You're right in this way:  we believe in sexual design.  Christians believe the world is made by a Designer.  And while we believe there are things inside of nature that do not conform to God's design, at a fundamental level Scripture teaches us to look at creation and say, "it is good."

So when we look at sex, it is right there, in the creation narrative, "male and female" - a complimentary design, which is not only said to be "very good", not only a means to "fill the earth", it is also said to reflect the communal oneness within God himself (Gen 1:27)!  Our gender then, and the duality of it is intrinsically good and an unalterable part of God's design for sex.  Jesus would double down on all this too, when he affirmed and summarized this design as faithful, loving, permanent and heterosexual (Matt 19:4-9).

Now, for the non-Christian, one of the reasons a multiplicity of sexual options seems reasonable is that they do NOT believe in Design.  Neo-Darwinism is the lens through which we look at everything, including sex.  So if you are here through a series of biological and chemical accidents without forethought, planning or design, then sex can have no inherent meaning or prescription.  Thus, I'm bound only to follow my sexual feelings wherever they lead.

Well, Christians, having submitted to a Mind higher than our own, cannot go there.  So the question of your spiritual walk is of utmost importance, because devotion to Jesus changes how you look at Design. Jesus does not just save the human soul, he means to bring us back into God's good creation designs.  So the Christian brings their very life (including gender and sexuality) under his good leadership.

If that is true of you, then the design question has been forever settled - sex has an order to it, and a prescription.  Think about Legos.  You could use those however you wanted, you could throw them at people as a projectile, or try to eat them.  But just looking at them, you would know, this is made for building stuff.  People are given sex as a gift, and they can and do use it however they want, but you don't have to study sex very long to realize it was made for something specific.

Therefore, Christian opposition to forms of sexual expression other than faithful, heterosexual monogamy has nothing to do with hate or discomfort or lack of science training or phobias.  It has to do with design.

Now, the Christian transgendered person may have no real incompatibility with “faithful, heterosexual monogamy” as God's design – they may simply wish to live that good design for themselves by reassigning their gender.  In this case, transgenderism may appear very different than homosexuality.  Surgery may seem the answer to live out God’s good design!

Unfortunately, I think that reassigning gender is essentially an impossible wish physically, with broad and unsettling side effects, as I’ll explain below.  It seeks to fix something that isn't broken (the body) by calling something fine that's actually broken (the mind).  To put it in Paul's words, we should rather seek the transformation of our lives by the renewing of our minds, rather than being conformed to the world (Romans 12:1,2).

If you have transgendered feelings, realize that no one comes to Jesus without their mind needing to be renewed.  So your transgendered feelings do not put you in an altogether different position than the millions of people struggling with addictions, depressions, bipolar, or anxiety disorders.  I hope you’re not offended by the comparison with other mental illnesses.  Rather than offensive, I hope it's merely self evident:  a person with a man’s body and XY chromosomal structure will function best with a male persona IN that male body.  And to have a female persona in that male body is by definition a malfunction – a disorder.

So, is the fundamental problem in the mind (which can change), or in the body (which cannot fundamentally change)?  

But perhaps you dispute that the body cannot change.  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that sex change is “biologically impossible.” Dr. McHugh, explains that transgender surgery is not the right solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.  Transgenderism is actually a mental illness that merits treatment, and thus people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

He's collected studies that show the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people!  Also, Dr McHugh cites studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

The Christian view then, is that the promoters of gender reassignment as treatment for transgenderism are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their gender confusion as a right in need of defending, rather than as a mental illness that deserves compassion, understanding, treatment and prevention.

Take for example people who are “dangerously thin” and who nevertheless look in the mirror and see a fat person.  Their mental assumption about themselves is not in line with their actual nature, and this constitutes a disorder, which we call anorexia.  Here we CAN fix the mind in many cases, and no one thinks it's a good idea to try to fix an anorexic's body to make them feel thinner.  It's probably only because sex is involved with transgendered feelings that we don’t automatically use the exact same reasoning.  (Unrestricted sexual liberty, after all, is the idol of our times.)

For those who have had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”  At Hopkins Hospital they just stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

With the transgendered, as with the homosexual, we have observed that if a person has a personal desire and deep commitment to bring their feelings in line with sexual Design, great mental change is possible.  No change is possible without this, so abandon all attempts at coercive change for a husband, wife or child.  But change is even more probable, we believe, with the power of God in operation in the fully surrendered Christian’s life.

However, as my ex-gay Christian friend recently told me, they must not pretend or cover up their struggle – that will surely lead to frustration and probably a falling away from a faith they deemed “didn’t work”.

So the end game for the Christian transgendered person is not about Jesus “working” for them – it’s not about being happy – it’s not about being heterosexually attracted – it’s not about having all the right feelings – it’s not about sanctioning the feelings I do have – it’s about holiness!  The Christian doesn’t tell Jesus how the journey will go, he accepts the privations involved in obedience and straps in for the adventure of where Jesus and his grace will take them.

And likely that journey in Christ will not mean never wrestling with gender confusion again, but will mean being whole in Jesus, by faith forgiven and completed in Him, struggles and all, fully accepted, adopted, adored, and walking forward in trusting obedience.

For a fascinating personal story on this, go here.

Does 1 Corinthians 7:36 justify premarital sex for Christians?

Question:

I have a Christian friend who’s rendition of 1 Cor 7:36 roughly comes to "if a man is sleeping with his committed girlfriend/fiancé, they are of age, and need to, let him do the things he wants to with her (have sex), it isn`t sinful: let them be considered married." Does that interpretation have any merit?

Answer:

Thanks for the note. Glad you’re interacting with your friend on this, but I do think he’s very wrong about Paul in 1 Cor 7.

First problem in using 1 Corinthians 7:36 to justify anything, especially a very contentious idea (essentially he’s saying premarital sex equals marriage) is that this verse is notoriously difficult for Christians to understand/translate/interpret for just the 2000 years. It might not be expected of the average Christian to know this about this particular verse, but taking up just 4 or 5 different translations will show that the language here is far from clear. So making a bold statement about Christian sexual practise based on this one verse is ill advised out of the gate. The broad scope of possible meanings is shown in this sampling of translations:

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

KJV: 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.

ASV: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Darby: But if anyone think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

God’s Word: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

NLT: But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

The key to understanding this is understanding three Greek phrases, translated “his virgin” and “past the bloom/flower” along with “needs require”. As you could see from the above translations, “his virgin” could have THREE possible meanings.

- It could refer to a man's daughter.

- It could refer to a man’s fiancé or

- It could refer to man’s own virginity. (Side note: when translations say “she” is “past bloom”, the gender is inferred from “virgin”, there is no gender assigned in the Greek. So it could be “his” virginity.)

Let’s look at the strength of each these interpretations: Darby sees this verse as a natural follow up to Paul’s whole conversation in chapter 7 about virginity where he promotes celibacy. This verse then, would be the “application portion” of that whole argument. So, if a man finds he is violating his own virginity (IE. experiencing the ‘burning with passion” Paul mentions 7:9) and he’s getting along in years, the man is free to marry.

This is probably weakest of the three because the possessive of virgin is almost never attached to one’s own virginity but to a person, usually (but not always) a woman whom you, in some sense, possess.

So the second idea is that “his virgin” is his fiancé. This is how most modern translations see it and your friend would agree. This is probably stronger than the first view, weaker than the last view. But even in this view, your Christian buddy has inserted two ideas that aren’t in the text and have never been inferred by any translators or commentators that I’ve read, ever. His assumptions are

- that behaving improperly means “having sex with” and

- that “let them marry” means “let them be considered married.”


Three things militate against this view. One is the question of why Paul would call premarital sex "behaving improperly" and then turn around and tell those engaging in it, "let them do as they please." This is very perplexing.

Two, is that the "behaving improperly" is connected to the “past bloom” in some way. The way early Christians did engagement” was through arranged marriages. Moderns assume that cohabitation was an option back then, but it was almost unheard of. Why? Because a man sleeping with a woman was always sleeping with someone else’s property. So no one willy nilly “shacked up” – a father wouldn’t allow it. It wasn’t just dishonorable, it was economically disastrous – unless he was paying for those services through prostitution. Yes, it was not unheard of (see John 4) but very rare, usually with widows (which precludes 'virgins' obviously).

So most men would be engaged to a woman, selected by their parents, sometimes for years ahead of matrimony. This implies that the “past bloom” comment is connected to not treating her marriage rights correctly, rather than “having sex” with her. The man in question is delaying marriage (because of Paul’s encouragement of celibacy) but he finds that his fiancé is getting older and “needs require” he do something. Again, why? Because she (or he) is not fit or suited for single life.

Therefore it needs to be said by Paul to such a man – you can go ahead and take her freely as your wife. Get married, it’s not a sin. The verb tense in Greek will not allow, “let them be considered married”. The context makes this obvious. He’s considering what a man WILL do, not renaming what someone has already done.

Third, your Friend has not understood other Scripture. There is no state of cohabitation that Paul ever endorsed as lawful sex. Widows were perhaps cohabitating with renegade elders in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy) and there he doesn’t say, “let them be considered married” if they want to make it right. He considers them fornicators, and calls them to repent, “settle down and get married” (1 Tim 5:14). The only other cohabitating we know of was the one that came under discipline when a man simply took his father’s wife (I Cor 5). If the marriage arrangement was so slippery to Paul that we could wave our wands over any two fornicators at will and say, voila, “married!”, then why not say that about the man who took his father’s wife and avoid the scandal? (We incorrectly assume that the scandal was that the father was still alive, in all likelihood he was not.)

After all is said and done, there's a strong case to be made that this isn't even about a man and his fiancé. It’s might be about a parent and “his virgin” which would be a daughter still under a father's authority. There's much to commend this view, since it takes historical context and all the language here into account. If a reference to a parent, the “behaving improperly” makes clear sense attached to “past bloom”. This would mean a Christian father has heard Paul extoll the benefits of celibacy, but the father knows this isn’t “proper” for his daughter. And seeing that she is moving past marrying age, this requires him to make a decision. And Paul then grants such a parent the freedom to do as he sees fit: Give her in marriage, let her be married to her affianced, despite the benefits of the single life.

Most early commentators saw this as the obvious meaning (Paul had talked to singles, marrieds and divorced, it makes sense that he apply his message to one final group: Parents!) As one example, this is John Calvin on this passage:

But if any one thinketh that it were unseemly for his virgin. He now directs his discourse to parents, who had children under their authority. For having heard the praises of celibacy, and having heard also of the inconveniences of matrimony, they might be in doubt, whether it were at all a kind thing to involve their children in so many miseries, lest it should seem as if they were to blame for the troubles that might befall them. For the greater their attachment to their children, so much the more anxiously do they exercise fear and caution on their account. [439] Paul, then, with the view of relieving them from this difficulty, teaches that it is their duty to consult their advantage, exactly as one would do for himself when at his own disposal. [440] Now he still keeps up the distinction, which he has made use of all along, so as to commend celibacy, but, at the same time, to leave marriage as a matter of choice; and not simply a matter of choice, but a needful remedy for incontinency, which ought not to be denied to anyone. In the first part of the statement he speaks as to the giving of daughters in marriage, and he declares that those do not sin in giving away their daughters in marriage, who are of opinion that an unmarried life is not suitable for them.

In all likelihood then, this isn’t even about engaged couples at all, but about fathers and daughters and reflects the authority in 1st century culture that father’s had over “their virgin daughters” until marriage and the responsibility they took in seeing them well wed in that culture – in conjunction with Paul’s encouragement of singleness. In any event “do has he please” cannot be referring to two unwed people continuing to sleep together and have it ‘considered’ marriage. This is a pretty blatant example of reading into the text what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself.

How Can We Defend Traditional Marriage From The Bible When It Allows Polygamy?

QUESTION:  How are we to defend marriage in the public square as being between ONE man and ONE wife when Old Testament is littered with polygamy?  “I'm barren so I’ll give you my servant”??  When talking to a non Christian, this whole idea seems so discrediting. I think these women are crazy to let their husbands sleep with anyone else but my goodness, how come these men don't just say no?!?!

RESPONSE:  Great question and let me address your second question first because it relates to the Biblical ideal.  And that’s important because if we can’t establish a cohesive biblical ideal, then it does seem weird to argue for a set of sexual morals in society when our holy book doesn't even seem to have a consistent message itself.  The fact is, despite instances of polygamy, the Bible DOES have a consistent sexual ideal and design.  In fact, the occurrences of polygamy in Scripture help us respond to the challenge of homosexuality in the present as you’ll see. 

God’s sexual model is revealed on the first pages in the creation narrative (Gen 1-2) and the same model is affirmed throughout the Bible, most importantly by Christ himself who actually deepened our understanding of the importance of it (Matt 19:1-9).  Finally Paul indicates that faithful, loving, heterosexual monogamy was the only marriage model the Church affirmed (1 Tim 3:12).

Yes, intermixed with this simple model are descriptions of sexual models and customs that conflict with it, but those have to be understood in relation to the overall teaching of Scripture and their specific intent.  The first description of someone perverting God’s marriage model is Lamech (Gen 4) who is the first polygamist.  His actions are not put forward as a new ideal or a new permissible option for marriage… he’s an illustration of what the Fall into sin has done in perverting God’s good design. 

So now remember when I taught on the difference between PRESCRIPTION and DESCRIPTION in Scripture?  God never PRESCRIBES any marriage model except one:  one man, one woman, for life.  He often DESCRIBES many other models in his Word.  Polygamy being one.  “Levirate marriage” being another – that was when a brother in law was required to marry his sister-in-law if his brother died without leaving any sons.  These are examples of marriage practices that God doesn't specifically initiate, but in some cases “tolerates” or “manages” until the new creation period brought in by Christ – who comes to RESTORE God’s creation desires and designs.  Polygamy is a fundamental desecration of this larger design.

When the law comes and talks about polygamy, keep in mind that it is merely a temporary steward of God’s People to temper the devastating effects of sin – not God’s ideal order.  So, for example, Levirate marriage was a specific form of polygamy that God tolerates in his law after the Fall to help widows be cared for who wouldn't be otherwise without sons.  In the new creation period, however, this provision goes away as widows are to be cared for by the Church rather than find plural marriage partners (1 Tim 5:16).

Therefore, polygamy being practiced by Old Testament characters or being talked about in the law of Moses is not an endorsement or presentation of “just another lifestyle choice” or evidence of conflicting marriage models.  Contrary to what this internet meme is meant to convey:

Remember, polygamy PREDATES Mosaic Law.  Thus biblical polygamy laws, rather than mandate the practice, are there to manage the extra hardships that come with this preexisting condition, the insecurity, and jealousy and infighting known in all polygamous cultures.  

Hence, the law about polygamy in Deut 21:15-17 – it is a law requiring that non-favored wives NOT be treated inequitably.  The transcendent moral principle is about fairness, not condoning multiple wives – and the implicit acknowledgement is that polygamy creates no end of ugly family dynamics.  Abraham’s story illustrates all the problems which this law is meant to address – in fact, part of his story is to teach us the steep price he paid for violating God’s marriage ideal!

Having said that, we should notice there are underlying “noble” intentions or cultural mandates surrounding polygamy - which may be why God doesn't come out and specifically challenge it with Abraham or other O.T. figures.  It was common practice in those days to build your household through a slave-wife if your actual wife was barren.  While that seems crazy to us, keep in mind just how critical it was to have children in the ancient world!  Children were EVERYTHING.  They were your retirement fund, they were your police/security guards, your work force, your fire department, your food security, your medical insurance, all wrapped up in one.  So now let’s say your wife isn't having kids.  How would you like to live your life without any of those securities?  I’m not saying it was right according to God’s creation design, but the need for polygamy was felt in the ancient world deeply, because of the rampant loss of male lives at childbirth and in war and work (it was a dangerous world to be a man!) and the importance of children on your security.

Now, in the same way, our culture feels a need for homosexual marriage because of the value we place on sexual freedom.  Homosexual marriage would seem as crazy to them as polygamous marriage seems to you.  Changing cultural conditions make certain forms of marriage more palatable at certain times.  Well, God’s Word speaks with a timeless authority above temporary conditions like a shortage of males or barren females (them) or an overemphasis on the value of sexual freedom and personal autonomy (us).  God’s design is not swayed by the transitory winds of want – it’s founded in God’s own unchanging character and our ACTUAL needs as his creations.

So we are not that different from them.  I’m glad you brought up polygamy in relation to the national debate about marriage, because it illustrates how ALL variants to God’s marriage model have some “noble” rationale.  A shortage of males makes it seem only natural and permissible to multiply wives, for seemingly good reasons:  survival, even compassion – for unmarried women would most likely turn to prostitution to live. 

Well, in our society, because we put such a high value on sexual autonomy, when we find some people who are genuinely sexually attracted to members of the same sex, it seems only natural and permissible to endorse homosexual unions – in fact tolerance would seem to DEMAND it.  

However, though some OTHER good is upheld in these diverse marriage models (compassion/survival in polygamy or freedom/tolerance in gay marriage) the Bible still says  “it is not right to do evil that some good may result.” (Romans 3:8).  Violating God’s revealed, and narrow sexual design is never right even if it achieves some partial good.   Given God’s clear creation sex model, if it was not right to marry many women no matter the cultural condition of the ancient world, how can it be right to marry someone of the same gender in today’s world?

So the sexual design in the Bible, from first page to last page, is clear - difficult, narrow, challenging - but clear.