The exception, of course, is the Song of Solomon. Where the rest of the OT has a fairly uniformly puritanical attitude towards sex (not as puritanical as Paul, but still), the Song is quite clearly a book of erotic poetry. Whether it's meant to be interpreted mystically or literally, or indeed both ways, it's there for the reading, and although it serves no obvious purpose in the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, it's traditionally considered fairly important. And perhaps with good reason: I'm fond of saying that it's the book that saved the early Hebrews, since without it, they would have been too scared to procreate.

Actually, this discussion brings up an important point. It's not really possible (in a Christian context) to speak of “the Bible” as a uniform whole, since the Old and New Testaments are quite different in character. It seems to me — and perhaps I'm wrong — that the Old Testament is relatively uniform in outlook on most issues, far more so than the New Testament. Perhaps this is because the NT was compiled within the first couple of centuries after the time of Christ, so that people were still processing and having different reactions to his teachings (and the NT incorporates many of these reactions), whereas by the time the OT was solidified (apparently between 200 BCE and 200 CE), Judaism had already been practiced for centuries (the First Temple was apparently completed in the 9th or 10th century BCE), so there might have been more of a uniform point of view to canonize. But these are educated guesses; I'm no biblical historian.

* Polygyny is generally banned in most Jewish communities, but the ban can be lifted in special cases. For example, since a woman must accept a Jewish divorce of her own free will, the ban on polygyny is sometimes lifted when a man has received a civil divorce from a wife who is not considered mentally competent to consent to a divorce under Jewish law. This allows him to remarry legally. Women, by the way, have no such recourse to polyandry, which creates all sorts of interesting problems.

The exception, of course, is the Song of Solomon. Where the rest of the OT has a fairly uniformly puritanical attitude towards sex (not as puritanical as Paul, but still), the Song is quite clearly a book of erotic poetry. Whether it's meant to be interpreted mystically or literally, or indeed both ways, it's there for the reading, and although it serves no obvious purpose in the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, it's traditionally considered fairly important. And perhaps with good reason: I'm fond of saying that it's the book that saved the early Hebrews, since without it, they would have been too scared to procreate.

Actually, this discussion brings up an important point. It's not really possible (in a Christian context) to speak of “the Bible” as a uniform whole, since the Old and New Testaments are quite different in character. It seems to me — and perhaps I'm wrong — that the Old Testament is relatively uniform in outlook on most issues, far more so than the New Testament. Perhaps this is because the NT was compiled within the first couple of centuries after the time of Christ, so that people were still processing and having different reactions to his teachings (and the NT incorporates many of these reactions), whereas by the time the OT was solidified (apparently between 200 BCE and 200 CE), Judaism had already been practiced for centuries (the First Temple was apparently completed in the 9th or 10th century BCE), so there might have been more of a uniform point of view to canonize. But these are educated guesses; I'm no biblical historian.

* Polygyny is generally banned in most Jewish communities, but the ban can be lifted in special cases. For example, since a woman must accept a Jewish divorce of her own free will, the ban on polygyny is sometimes lifted when a man has received a civil divorce from a wife who is not considered mentally competent to consent to a divorce under Jewish law. This allows him to remarry legally. Women, by the way, have no such recourse to polyandry, which creates all sorts of interesting problems.

Just where does Paul say sex is “gross?” He doesn't say everyone has to be celibate. He just says it is a preferable way. What's muddled about his message? Are all his priorities weird or just some? Can you be specific? I'd love to have further discussion on this point.

As far as Old Testament smoting for sexual misdeeds, you're right, no one was killed by God just for sexual misconduct. However, Abraham, David, and Solomon, to name just a few, all paid a price for their sexual misdeeds.

Song of Songs is a great book. Some say it doesn't even belong in the scriptures because it is so racy. It certainly gives the one glimpse of sexual love from a narrative pint of view instead of as a rule. You have probably heard that some people even think it is an analogy to the way in which God loves his people and the way they should love him. Of course removing the sexual connotation and focusing on the complete adoration and the leaving behind others for the sake of the relationship with the lover.

As far as the Biblical view taken as a whole, sex is encouraged between husbands and wives, treated as a fabulous, sensuous, experience between lovers who should enjoy wholly each other's bodies, and something that has a distinctly spiritual connection to the person with whom one is having sex.

I believe there are some other ideas expressed, but before I go into them I want to research a little more so as not to misrepresent the scripture.