Author Topic: Once same-sex marriage is OK, polygamy's next (Read 8948 times)

Skip · « **on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 13:32:48 »

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/310327.html

Once same-sex marriage is OK, polygamy's next
Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: March 15, 2006 – 11:01 PM

The Minnesota Legislature is considering proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Many opponents claim that definition is antiquated and discriminatory. A committed relationship should be the only criterion for marriage, they say.

But wait. What if a person loves two people, or three or more? If "one man-one woman" is a discriminatory limitation on the choice of a life partner, on what grounds can the state logically restrict marriage to two people? The fact is, once you adopt same-sex marriage -- legally changing the standard for marriage from one-man, one-woman to a "committed relationship" -- there is no principled way to prevent its extension to polygamy or other forms of "plural marriage" or partnership.

Outrageous scare-mongering! say the amendment's opponents. Oh, really?

Did you catch HBO's new prime-time series, "Big Love," which premiered Sunday? It's about a Utah man married to three wives.

The creators of "Big Love" are a gay couple, Mark Olsen and Will Scheffer, who say that the same-sex marriage debate spurred their interest in the topic.

They seek to normalize polygamy by treating it in a "non-judgmental" way.

"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," Olsen told Newsweek. "We'd like them to be America's next great family," Scheffer told the New York Times.

"Big Love" is just a TV show, you say? But cultural expression can pack a powerful wallop - witness the much ballyhooed bid by "Brokeback Mountain" to normalize same-sex attraction. Influential voices are already calling for allowing polygamy. Last week, New York Times libertarian columnist John Tierney endorsed its legalization in a column titled "Who's afraid of polygamy?"

Acceptance of polygamy might already be on the horizon in Canada, which recently recognized same-sex marriage. In January a Canadian Justice Department report called for the decriminalization and regulation of polygamy, and warned the nation to prepare for a court challenge to two-person marriage. In a 2003 survey, 20 percent of Canadians said they are willing to accept polygamy.

Here in America, professors at elite law schools such as Yale and Columbia are laying the groundwork for legal recognition of committed relationships of three or more. Drawing on concepts borrowed from civil rights law, they say they aim to protect "sexual minorities" from discrimination.

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will open a Pandora's box. As a New Jersey appellate court judge wrote recently, if "marriage [is] ... couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what non-arbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to polygamous ... unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary for their self-fulfillment?"

What's the likely endpoint? Marriage may be redefined out of existence, and replaced by a flexible, contract-based system of government-registered relationships. So get ready. Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, "How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" Down the road it may be, "How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?" If we don't answer the first question with resolve -- making clear that "one man-one woman" is at the heart of marriage in Minnesota -- we may not have a chance to answer the second.

Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 13:32:48 »

OldDad · « **Reply #1 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 14:28:26 »

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

It is intellectually trendy to make fun of "slippery-slope" type arguments. The funny thing is, we see them coming to pass right before our eyes.

Thanks for the post, Skip.

OD

boringoldguy · « **Reply #2 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 14:48:50 »

Logicians reject the "slippery slope" argument as a fallacy, and according to the rules of logic, it is a fallacy. Logicians rightly point out that we draw lines and define boundaries all the time, and that there's no reason why we can draw them in one place instead of another.

However, this ignores what the "slippery slope" argument really says.

The rules of logic presume a discussion between parties acting in good faith, and without aims or goals or interests outside the format of the particular discussion.

The "slippery slope" argument really is an assertion that the presumptions supporting the rules of logic do not apply. It is a statement that the person making the argument does not trust the motives of the opposite party, and doesn't consider the opposite party to be a bona fide discussion partner.

In other words, when you make the "slippery slope" argument, you're really saying "I don't trust you; I think you're concealing your true goals, and therefore, I'm not willing to continue the discussion."

Quite often this is a reasonable, and even a true, thing to say. It's not illogical; it's extra-logical. It's a recognition that you can't play the game with somebody who won't follow the rules.

OldDad · « **Reply #3 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 15:36:35 »

BOG,

That's the clearest explanation I've heard on that and I appreciate it.

[praise] for you on that one, big guy...

OD

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #3 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 15:36:35 »

Follow @GraceCentered Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

normfromga · « **Reply #4 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 22:35:55 »

About three years ago, Senator Santorum of PA made similar remarks concerning an ongoing case concerning Texas' antisodomy laws: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything..."

Of course he drew rude remarks from nearly all of the media's commentators for his callousness, but very few about his legal astuteness.

He was, like Ms Kersten, absolutely, if not "politically," correct.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #4 on:** Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 22:35:55 »

Jimbob · « **Reply #5 on:** Fri Mar 17, 2006 - 07:46:29 »

What a great way to put it, bog.

OldDad · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon Mar 20, 2006 - 10:18:53 »

Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post columnist, Fox News panelist and no slouch when it comes to liberalism, weighs in on this issue...

Quote

Blurring the lines
By Charles Krauthammer

Mar 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- And now, polygamy.

With the sweetly titled HBO series "Big Love,'' polygamy comes out of the closet. Under the headline "Polygamists, Unite!'' Newsweek informs us of "polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement.'' Says one evangelical Christian big lover: "Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle.''

Polygamy used to be stereotyped as the province of secretive Mormons, primitive Africans and profligate Arabs. With "Big Love" it moves to suburbia as a mere alternative lifestyle.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion,'' arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges'' (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. Was "Jules et Jim'' (and Jeanne Moreau), the classic Truffaut film involving two dear friends in love with the same woman, about an "activity'' or about the most intrinsic of human emotions?

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy had been sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world.

I'm not one of those who see gay marriage or polygamy as a threat to or assault on traditional marriage. The assault came from within. Marriage has needed no help in managing its own long slow suicide, thank you. Astronomical rates of divorce and of single parenthood (the deliberate creation of fatherless families) existed before there was a single gay marriage or any talk of sanctioning polygamy. The minting of these new forms of marriage is a symptom of our culture's contemporary radical individualism -- as is the decline of traditional marriage -- and not its cause.

As for gay marriage, I've come to a studied ambivalence. I think it a mistake for society to make this ultimate declaration of indifference between gay and straight life, if only for reasons of pedagogy. On the other hand, I have enough gay friends and feel the pain of their inability to have the same level of social approbation and confirmation of their relationship with a loved one that I'm not about to go to anyone's barricade to deny them that. It is critical, however, that any such fundamental change in the very definition of marriage be enacted democratically and not (as in the disastrous case of abortion) by judicial fiat.

Call me agnostic. But don't tell me that we can make one radical change in the one-man, one-woman rule and not be open to the claim of others that their reformation be given equal respect.

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

OD

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #7 on:** Tue Nov 20, 2007 - 18:01:13 »

Quote from: Skip on Thu Mar 16, 2006 - 13:32:48

They seek to normalize polygamy by treating it in a "non-judgmental" way.

Would it offend you to know that the Lord gave men plural wives?

How did the coming of Christ make God's moral absolutes not so absolute? After all, what is sin now was sin then, and vice versa.

Normalize? There are many men here in the West who have plural wives and who are not mormons. As a matter of fact, I know a Southern Baptist minister who has three wives. He's breaking no laws, for he has never sought Caesar's (City Hall) license for more than one at a time. No state has a law on the books making it illegal for a man to have plural wives here in America. The law only forbids the legal recognition of more than one at a time, and yet people assume that we have laws against a plurality of wives.

Interestingly, christian churches all over America routinely wink at all the divroce and adulterous "remarriages" going on within their own ranks, and hardly one word is ever said to those who practice this as a professing Christian. Many even offer "divorce recovery" classes to help divorcees quickly recover from the emtional shock and moral inhibitions (conscience) against going out and entering an adulterous union, with Caesar's (the state's) approval by way of licensure (of course).

In other words, serial polygamy is rampant within the ranks of the religious who regularly attend and support institutional church oragnizations all across America.

What an outflow of hypocrisy...

BTW&DM

Mere Nick · « **Reply #8 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 07:25:02 »

I suspect the practitioners of buggery pushing for same-sex marriages are a trojan horse for the dirty nightshirts who practice polygamy. And why should it be limited to marriage between humans? A man married a goat in Sudan.

and a man married a dog in India

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #9 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 14:33:17 »

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 07:25:02

I suspect the practitioners of buggery pushing for same-sex marriages are a trojan horse for the dirty nightshirts who practice polygamy.

I find your comments quite offensive. Why would you consider Abraham, a Patriarch of the Christian faith, a dirty nightshirt simply because he had plural wives? Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing, maligning men who true Christians look up to?

Quote

And why should it be limited to marriage between humans? A man married a goat in Sudan.

and a man married a dog in India

This is apples to oranges... [The Lord] blessed many men who had plural wives, some of whom received some of their plural wives directly from the Lord.

BTW&DM

[edited to remove personal attacks]

Quinn · « **Reply #10 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 15:01:05 »

To the best of my knowledge, a person would be quite correct in saying that polygamy is not expressly forbidden in the Bible (either the Old or the New Testament). But just because it’s not forbidden doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do in our time and culture.

Quote from: BeforeThereWas on Tue Nov 20, 2007 - 18:01:13

I know a Southern Baptist minister who has three wives. He's breaking no laws, for he has never sought Caesar's (City Hall) license for more than one at a time. No state has a law on the books making it illegal for a man to have plural wives here in America. The law only forbids the legal recognition of more than one at a time, and yet people assume that we have laws against a plurality of wives.

Polygamy today signifies a deep disrespect for the women involved. In ancient cultures when there were more women than men, and women had to be taken care of by men, it made sense. Now, it’s just insulting. If a woman wants to be in such a relationship, it signifies that she has little self-respect. These second and third "wives" you speak of have no legal protection whatsoever. They are no more than chattel, even if they don't recognize it. No one with self-respect would consent to live in such a relationship.

Quote

serial polygamy is rampant within the ranks of the religious who regularly attend and support institutional church oragnizations all across America.

What an outflow of hypocrisy...

You're absolutely right, there's a lot of hypocrisy out there. That's no excuse for advocating a system which is completely out of balance.

Just out of curiosity, do you also advocate plural marriage involving one woman and several men?

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #11 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 15:22:28 »

Quote from: Quinn on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 15:01:05

To the best of my knowledge, a person would be quite correct in saying that polygamy is not expressly forbidden in the Bible (either the Old or the New Testament). But just because it’s not forbidden doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do in our time and culture.

I accept and respect the fact that it wouldn't be a good thing for you personally.

Quote

Polygamy today signifies a deep disrespect for the women involved.

Could you elaborate on this in more detail. Thanks.

Quote

In ancient cultures when there were more women than men, and women had to be taken care of by men, it made sense.

The ratio today is still not balanced. The ratio difference is even more pronounced within our many church organizations. Perhaps you might want to rethink your assumptions.

Quote

Now, it’s just insulting. If a woman wants to be in such a relationship, it signifies that she has little self-respect.

This has the appearance of a knee-jerk reaction to something you've never observed within its wholesome context, which means that your comments are thus completely unqualified, and therefore just a personal opinion.

Quote

These second and third "wives" you speak of have no legal protection whatsoever.

Do you honestly think that a piece of paper from City Hall is a form of protection? Do you even know the history behind the marriage certificate? Have you ever studied it? Its beginning was a manipulative maneuver to get around existing laws in every state against interracial marriage. Many of our presidents had no such license for their marriages, which includes every one of our founding fathers.

Quote

They are no more than chattel, even if they don't recognize it. No one with self-respect would consent to live in such a relationship.

Your words literally scream your ignorance about this subject. I personally know at least 17 evangelical Christian families with plural wives, and not one of them matches your socially engineered bias.

Quote

You're absolutely right, there's a lot of hypocrisy out there. That's no excuse for advocating a system which is completely out of balance.

How is it out of balance?

Quote

Just out of curiosity, do you also advocate plural marriage involving one woman and several men?

That would indeed fall within the realm of the biblical definition for adultery. So, in answer to your question, no. Polyandry (a woman with more than one husband) is indeed a sin.

BTW&DM

Jimbob · « **Reply #12 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 20:41:29 »

BeforeThereWas, what exactly is your agenda, and why are you pushing this so hard the past couple days? Are you a polygamist?

Mere Nick · « **Reply #13 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 23:10:31 »

Quote from: BeforeThereWas on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 14:33:17

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 07:25:02
I suspect the practitioners of buggery pushing for same-sex marriages are a trojan horse for the dirty nightshirts who practice polygamy.

I find your comments quite offensive. Why would you consider Abraham, a Patriarch of the Christian faith, a dirty nightshirt simply because he had plural wives? Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing, maligning men who true Christians look up to?

Quote
And why should it be limited to marriage between humans? A man married a goat in Sudan.

and a man married a dog in India

This is apples to oranges... [The Lord] blessed many men who had plural wives, some of whom received some of their plural wives directly from the Lord.

BTW&DM

[edited to remove personal attacks]

You're "offended"? Go tell it to the lady at the convenience store because she might actually care. She might even offer to let you marry her dog. One of the reasons practitioners of The Peaceful Religion practice polygamy is so that it will be easier to sell the idea of suicide bombing and 72 virgins to the guys who got stiffed on the marriage front.

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #14 on:** Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 23:21:02 »

Quote from: jmg3rd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 20:41:29

BeforeThereWas, what exactly is your agenda, and why are you pushing this so hard the past couple days? Are you a polygamist?

Agenda? None.

Polygamist? No.

When people cast the negative light of sin upon polygyny, they condemn the Patriarchs of the Christian faith to the pits of Hell. Most do it out of ignorance, others out of hatred for the TRUTH. Paul demanded that we "Prove ALL things..." If I have an agenda, then it is this. Proving all things begins somewhere, and marriage is one such area with enough of a power-punch to get some people thinking about just how fallible conventional/social dogmas can be, given how powerful such things really are in the minds of the less critical intheir thinking toward what they see and hear in the secular and religious worlds around us.

If one can't cease from putting down the great fathers of our faith, then they have little else left for a foundation upon which to errect their theological understanding. No man or woman can have a solid faith under their feet if they are following another christ of their own making, or someone else's making. Christ Jesus warned that there were and will be many false christs, and that we are not to follow them. I take Him seriously. There are many false christs today in our insitutional church organizations, and if I can use something as powerful as marriage to shock some people out of their lethargy toward the great need for more people to take responsibility for their beliefs, then great.

There's no need for anyone to become defensive when confronted with a truth they were never prepared to handle. Read the word of God without the social blinders on, and it will speak for itself through His Spirit (1 John 2:27) if one simply asks. Knee-jerk reactionism only serves to snuff out any possibility for exploration of the TRUTH, thus reestablishing the status quo, as if it were infallible. The status quo may be more confortable, but it certainly wasn't something Christ Jesus relied upon for the strength of His powerful words and instructions.

BTW&DM

Quinn · « **Reply #15 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 06:16:54 »

Quote

The ratio today is still not balanced. The ratio difference is even more pronounced within our many church organizations. Perhaps you might want to rethink your assumptions.

Women make up 52% of the world's population. Not exactly a huge majority.

Quote

Do you honestly think that a piece of paper from City Hall is a form of protection? Do you even know the history behind the marriage certificate? Have you ever studied it? Its beginning was a manipulative maneuver to get around existing laws in every state against interracial marriage. Many of our presidents had no such license for their marriages, which includes every one of our founding fathers

Yes, a "piece of paper" does provide legal protection in this society of laws. The history of the marriage license is irrelevant.

Quote

Could you elaborate on this in more detail. Thanks

I did elaborate. If you weren't so busy answering each sentence, you might have gotten the gist of the whole message.

Quote

I personally know at least 17 evangelical Christian families with plural wives, and not one of them matches your socially engineered bias.

Oh, please -- MY socially engineered bias? You don't know me. Or anything about my biases. You're making assumptions. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen no argument in favor of the social status quo - only an argument for equality for women. But you see what you want to, you interpret the way you want to, and find concepts that are not there.

You just want to stir the pot. Have fun with that.

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #16 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 07:38:18 »

Quote from: Quinn on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 06:16:54

Women make up 52% of the world's population. Not exactly a huge majority.

I've heard various figures, and most of them do indeed place women in the majority where population is concerned. In the ideal environment, the ratio would be perfectly matched. However, we don't live in an ideal world. As I had said before, within our institutional churches, the ratio is even more pronounced, with women far outnumbering men by more than the social figure. Christianity Review revealed this some years ago in one of their publications, decrying the lack of maritally eligible men within organized religion for all those single women seeking a godly husband. The article talked much about believing women having to marry men who were either unbelievers, or unchurched. I won't say that I agreed with all that magazine's conclusions as to WHY there's such a desparity in the numbers of men, but it did indeed acknowledge and confirm what I've been hearing from ministers for years.

Quote

Yes, a "piece of paper" does provide legal protection in this society of laws. The history of the marriage license is irrelevant.

Indeed? Well, I dare say that single women have just as many protections in our culture as married women. Those married couples who don't have a certificate providing legal recognition of their marriage can enjoy almost every benefit enjoyed by couples who have one. Therefore, the assumption that there's a moral crisis for not having one is found quite lacking, both biblically, and legally, regardless of the decades of false teachings eminating from pulpits that not having one is the sin of "shacking up.". No law on the books of any state requires that a couple acquire a certificate, legal recognition, for their marriage. If they desire such recognition, then they can get it. Otherwise, it's not a requirement.

Quote

I did elaborate. If you weren't so busy answering each sentence, you might have gotten the gist of the whole message.

Well. SNAP! What a response...

Quote

Oh, please -- MY socially engineered bias? You don't know me. Or anything about my biases.

Well, you made it quite clear in your statements.

Quote

If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen no argument in favor of the social status quo - only an argument for equality for women. But you see what you want to, you interpret the way you want to, and find concepts that are not there. You just want to stir the pot. Have fun with that.

If this were indeed true, then I would never have asked you for any clarifications. Instead, you chose the lower path, and continue parroting what appears to be the politically correct "equality" wild card. If you're not willing to reveal the extent of your use of that term, that's fine. However, your reactionary refusal to answer my inquiry tends to portray a measure of uneasiness in your stance.

By the way, I've never run across anyone before who whined about my address of each point I found important. Very telling indeed, and very diversionary. Having read your post, you never did fully qualify your use of the term, so perhaps you have something to hide, or really aren't sure how to define it in relation to this discussion. Either way, you're on the losing end of the stick when you refuse to qualify your use of key words you've grasped as your weapons of choice.

Very telling indeed...

BTW&DM

Jimbob · « **Reply #17 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 08:24:33 »

Quote from: BeforeThereWas on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 23:21:02

Quote from: jmg3rd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 20:41:29
BeforeThereWas, what exactly is your agenda, and why are you pushing this so hard the past couple days? Are you a polygamist?

Agenda? None.

Polygamist? No.

I find it hard to believe you have no agenda when you're riding this hobby horse all over the forum at a full gallop.

Quinn · « **Reply #18 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 11:51:59 »

For someone with no agenda, you sure are, well, shall we say, adamant, in your statements. Spealing of "telling".....

Uh, let's review...who was the one who quoted me sentence by sentence (twice!) and "whined" about everything I said? No, it wasn't whining, it was more like making fun. Did you enjoy that? Did you feel like a Christian doing it?

Sure, single women have legal protections. So, are you saying that in those 17 plural marriages that you are so intimately familiar with, EACH AND EVERY ONE of the women is a financially independent career woman who does not at all depend on her husband?

I'm "parrotng the PC equality wild card"? On this forum? ROFL! Sorry, but you haven't been here very long, have you? So let's say I am doing that. Can you say that what you're advocating treats women and men as equals? Or do you care?

Since you're so good at quoting me, would you please quote the part where my "socally engineered bias" was "quite clear"?

I can only assume you're trying to entertain us all with your amusing opinions, because you're doing such a good job of it.

Johnb · « **Reply #19 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 13:44:54 »

I don't buy the slippery s. theory either. Polygamy has been tollerated by God and is still praticed is several countries today. Same sex marriage has never been accepted by God. Later Johnb

janine · « **Reply #20 on:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 22:54:07 »

Sure. Same-sex marriage being allowed IS the open door onto the well-lubricated beginning of the slippery slope down to plural marriage... of multiple men to multiple men.

Mr. J · « **Reply #21 on:** Sun Nov 25, 2007 - 16:58:43 »

Befor there was,

Lots of folks push their agendas under the banner of "Christianity." Perhaps because they heard their favorite political position from the pulpit as a kid. Perhaps the intentions are pure. (Though we know what the road to hell is paved with!)

But be the person to point out what is actually in Bible and watch the fangs and claws flash! The taste for blood becomes rampant!

People find it very difficult when the Bible doesn't agree with their opinion, especially when their opinion has been preached from their favorite pulpit (be it religious or secular). I think we all find ourselves in that situation at times.

Thanks, BeforeThereWas, for just being straight.

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #22 on:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 - 12:23:30 »

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 08:24:33

I find it hard to believe you have no agenda when you're riding this hobby horse all over the forum at a full gallop.

Marriage is a hobby hourse?

Either you don't really mean what you said, and are simply trying to be cute, or you don't want to accept what I've said. I simply responded to a number of statements in different threads made about polygyny.

What's so sinister about that?

Demonizing my participation because you don't like the topic is hardly a balanced analysis. If you can prove your case of my being wrong, then please do so. It really is that simple. I have nothing to hide.

Do you?

BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #23 on:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 - 12:39:53 »

Quote from: Quinn on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 11:51:59

For someone with no agenda, you sure are, well, shall we say, adamant, in your statements. Spealing of "telling".....

You asked, and I answered. Are you saying that I'm a liar? Do you have a reason to believe that I'm lying? Does your disagreement with the topic make me legitimately suspect?

Quote

Uh, let's review...who was the one who quoted me sentence by sentence (twice!) and "whined" about everything I said? No, it wasn't whining, it was more like making fun. Did you enjoy that? Did you feel like a Christian doing it?

I can assure you that I wasn't making fun of you or anyone else. I might apply some comparative anomalies that may have some humor, but I'm not poking fun at you. I'm speaking with a straight face, although I may smile at times when observing some other things going on around me where I am right now.

However, your dislike of my quoting you, in order to maintain the context and integrity of my responses, leaves me with nothing but a question mark.

Quote

...are you saying that in those 17 plural marriages that you are so intimately familiar with, EACH AND EVERY ONE of the women is a financially independent career woman who does not at all depend on her husband?

Most are, some are not. I don't see that those who don't measure up to your subjective measuring stick of acceptance are of any less value in their marriage than those who have careers. Are you one of those people who looks down upon homemeakers?

Quote

So let's say I am doing that. Can you say that what you're advocating treats women and men as equals? Or do you care?

How do you define your use of the term "equals"? You have no idea what I'm advocating since you obviously haven't read all my posts on this topic.

Quote

Since you're so good at quoting me, would you please quote the part where my "socally engineered bias" was "quite clear"?

I'm not proficient at quoting what's between the lines. You leave yourself vastly open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I may very well have miscalculated you. I admit that, and am willing to admit error where it exists. That's why I asked for clarification, and all you offered was taunts in response. What other assesment was I supposed to presume in the absence of qualifying responses?

Quote

I can only assume you're trying to entertain us all with your amusing opinions, because you're doing such a good job of it.

Well, they say that laughter is the best medicine...

...then there's the concept of a time and place to exhibit integrity.

Are you willing to define your use of the term "equal", or do you prefer to stick to your tact of avoidance?

BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #24 on:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 - 12:41:30 »

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 13:44:54

I don't buy the slippery s. theory either. Polygamy has been tollerated by God and is still praticed is several countries today. Same sex marriage has never been accepted by God. Later Johnb

Very well said.

BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #25 on:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 - 12:43:11 »

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 22:54:07

Sure. Same-sex marriage being allowed IS the open door onto the well-lubricated beginning of the slippery slope down to plural marriage... of multiple men to multiple men.

That is indeed a legitimate concern. I'm not at all in favor of legalizing anything in addition to monogamy. It should remain just as it is.

BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #26 on:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 - 12:50:35 »

Quote from: Mr. J on Sun Nov 25, 2007 - 16:58:43

Lots of folks push their agendas under the banner of "Christianity."

This is so very true.

Quote

But be the person to point out what is actually in Bible and watch the fangs and claws flash!

That's exactly what Christ Jesus was confronted with when He spoke with the parasees and scribes. They were indeed offended by the truths of which He spoke. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me when the fangs and claws begin to lash out. All the God-boxes combined in the world STILL can't contain Him.

Quote

People find it very difficult when the Bible doesn't agree with their opinion, especially when their opinion has been preached from their favorite pulpit

Oh, my. This is so true. That's why there are so many debates over doctrinal topics such as predestination, dispensationalism, prophecy, election, trinity, et al.

Quote

Thanks, BeforeThereWas, for just being straight.

Straight from the hip...so to speak...

Thanks.

BTW&DM

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #27 on:** Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 12:09:57 »

Quote from: James. on Thu Nov 22, 2007 - 08:24:33

I find it hard to believe you have no agenda when you're riding this hobby horse all over the forum at a full gallop.

What I seek is legitimate appologetics against the teaching that it's ok for any man to run out today and acquire plural wives. There's a website I found where they advocate this, and the usual, fallacious, canned answers don't work. These people have studied their Bibles very well, and have effectively shot down all the typical answers made up, or mimmicked, by those who THINK they know their Bibles, but really do not.

If I'm going to be an affective witness against these people's false teachings, I MUST approach them with argumentation that's truly representative of what the Bible teaches.

Does anyone else have anything that's scripturally based, rather than misrepresentative, added by yourself or someone else, or is a total distortion of the known facts?

Anyone?

BTW

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #28 on:** Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 20:14:32 »

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Nov 21, 2007 - 23:10:31

You're "offended"? Go tell it to the lady at the convenience store because she might actually care. She might even offer to let you marry her dog. One of the reasons practitioners of The Peaceful Religion practice polygamy is so that it will be easier to sell the idea of suicide bombing and 72 virgins to the guys who got stiffed on the marriage front.

I'm not sure how you think you know all that, but I'm sure some found it amusing. We must be careful with humor, because some people take it more seriously than they should.

Its interesting that folks who know we're called to be honest, which means that it's wrong to draw false parallels because of it being the same things as lying, are willing to sacrifice their integrity on the altar of "winning at all costs."

Polygyny was a reality in the lives of the Patriarchs LONG before islam was ever known to this world.

My agenda, however, is to find legitimate appologetics against modern men running out and getting additional wives for themselves. False parallels and corrupt argumentation won't work against those people who know the scriptures better than most, and with whom I'm dealing at the moment.

I need something that has more substance than, for example, the false parallel of Adam having one wife, as well as all the other canned responses most people seem to know by heart, and yet use without one thought about the cost to their own integrity. Such people seem to enjoy surrounding themselves with others just like themselves.....people who have no real love for the TRUTH, and yet who fool themselves so completely that they can do it all with a clear conscience.

BTW&DM

chosenone · « **Reply #29 on:** Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 21:31:40 »

Beforetherewas
Maybe try looking back at the hundreds of posts on this subject on this forum, mostly started by memphis Dwight, who is trying to persuade himself that God wants him to take a live in lover, as well as his wife. Many of us have quoted many many verses from the Bible to show that it isnt Gods desire or will for men to be 'unfaithful to the wife of your youth'.
My advise is not to waste time to try and argue with them, or convince them of anything, as they will never listen. They are a tiny tiny minority, mainly Mormoms, who want so much to have sex with lots of women, that they will use anything to convince themslves that it is OK. Let God deal with them in His time and in His way. As my very wise, faithful, and godly husband said to me, why waste your time on them, it isnt worth it, as they will never listen.

JMT · « **Reply #30 on:** Fri Nov 26, 2010 - 10:39:35 »

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 21:31:40

As my very wise, faithful, and godly husband said to me, they will never listen.

Beforetherewas,
I agree with the edited quote (

Sorry Chosen

)...it comes to a place of just

and it is best to walk away from the "argument" because that is all it has become. Ears have closed off and no listening is happening, its more like sport and competition of who is right and who will win.
Who knows what God will do with the seeds you share, but I really believe there is a time to stop sewing and let God and His Spirit do the growing...in His time and will there will be a harvest.

May God honor your efforts when you are lead to speak and may He give you the discernment to know when its time to walk away.

Blessings!

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #31 on:** Sat Nov 27, 2010 - 22:34:20 »

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Nov 25, 2010 - 21:31:40

As my very wise, faithful, and godly husband said to me, why waste your time on them, it isn't worth it, as they will never listen.

I think they'd listen if I had a legitimate apologetic from scripture.

Also, that group isn't mormon, and they seek to marry plural wives for life.....or so they say.

What do I say to them when they state that the Patriarchs having plural wives is no different than a man today desiring plural wives?

In other words, if it wasn't sin then, then who is it sin now; considering that the coming of Christ didn't make any changes to the foundations of His moral absolutes?

I hope you can see the dilemma with which I'm faced on that question. I have no answers.

BTW

chosenone · « **Reply #32 on:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 02:17:15 »

I cant see the dillema at all, dont waste your time trying to argue with people who refuse to be 'faithful to the wife of their youth'. Men like this want lots of women, thats what it comes down to. They want to treat women and children as second class citizens and lie to them, telling them that it is Gods will for them to have to share their husband instead of 'each woman having her own husband' as the Bible says.
Maybe just concentrate on doing right yourself and leave them to Gods judgement. They will never listen, until the Holy Spirit convicts them.

BeforeThereWas · « **Reply #33 on:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 09:30:28 »

Quote from: chosenone on Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 02:17:15

I cant see the dilemma at all, dont waste your time trying to argue with people who refuse to be 'faithful to the wife of their youth'.

Well, it isn't so much an argument as it is a discussion. The exchanges are very cordial, and nobody is getting angry. I simply present my case, and they counter with their own information from the scriptures.

Something earthshaking (at least, for me) I learned very quickly is how I was using the same type of fallacious argumentation we Christians reject when used by cults in defense of their own doctrines. I couldn't believe I had fallen into that trap, but it's a very prolific practice (and very hypocritical) among us Christians I hope to avoid in the future.

Quote

Men like this want lots of women, thats what it comes down to.

That's what I thought. What they asked me is if I was going to remain consistent by pointing that same finger of accusation at the Patriarchs of our faith as Christians. "Are we now their accusers?" they asked me.

I gotta admit, that brought me up short. So, I then resorted to the claim that they were simply acquiring plural wives because that was the practice back then to replenish the earth's human population, and that we no longer needed to bother with that. I was challenged to find where the Lord ever withdrew His command to be fruitful and multiply.....

Needless to say, I had no reference for such a command.

In actuality, it was after I posted that one the other day and went to the mall that I realized how feeble it was. I used it because it seemed reasonable at the time, but then I realized we're talking about moral foundations, not population. I violated all the rules of discussion by using a diversionary tactic rather than staying the course.

Quote

They want to treat women and children as second class citizens and lie to them, telling them that it is Gods will for them to have to share their husband instead of 'each woman having her own husband' as the Bible says.

So, do I tell them that the Patriarchs of our faith are also guilty of having violated the principle of remaining faithful to the wives of their youth? I need to know for sure because I don't want to look the fool because if men today are guilty of that charge, then the Patriarchs are equally guilty since God's moral absolutes didn't change with the coming of Christ Jesus in the flesh.

Also, what do I tell them when they remind me once again that the Lord GAVE men plural wives, and that the logical conclusion to the parallel you've drawn, of it being a violation of remaining faithful to the wives of a man's youth, essentially makes God Himself guilty of having violated His own command?

In other words, what I'd be telling them is that the Lord is guilty of having violated all those first wive's marital standing when He gave their husbands plural wives.

That one gives me a headache because I verified the truth that the Lord gave David at least two of his already plural wives, as revealed by Nathan the prophet when he was speaking in the authority of "Thus saith the Lord....."

Do you suggest that I say to them that the Lord isn't guilty where David is concerned since David had allegedly already violated that principle since he already had five wives by the time the Lord gave him two more? Upon reflection, based on what you've said earlier, each subsequent wife would be yet another violation of the "wife of they youth" parallel you've drawn. Is that correct?

Quote

Maybe just concentrate on doing right yourself and leave them to Gods judgement.

That's not so easy for me, because if they're living in sin, they need someone to challenge them with legitimate, scriptural application. Here's why I say that:

Ezek 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

I take that very seriously because for me to do otherwise, I'd be in direct disobedience to the command of the Lord. In my heart, He has sent me to those people to warn them, but I can't do that on the basis of flawed apologetics.

Quote

They will never listen, until the Holy Spirit convicts them.

I think that's true of us all. I realized that I had become far too comfortable with relying on my feelings about things, and that I was allowing those feelings to govern my theological viewpoint rather than reading the word of God for what it actually says. These people have challenged me to divorce my feelings from my Bible reading, which was similar to removing the blinders of socially engineered theology from my eyes so that the Lord's word could speak to me from the simplicity of its clear language:

2 Cor 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

That verse speaks volumes to my heart, and it's a privilege to share it with others.

BTW

chosenone · « **Reply #34 on:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 - 10:25:00 »

befroetherewas
I would rather trust and believe the millions and millions of mature and godly Christian men over the centuries who teach and know that 'faithfullness to the wife of their youth' is what God wants and desires, rather than a tiny tiny number of people(I have never ever met one in my 39 years as a Christian)) who have taken it upon themsleves to think that they know better then God, and want to be unfaithful tp their wife and have sex with several women. I have absolutely no respect for men like this who exploit women and children and who use them for their own desires and even tell them that this is Gods 'will'. The plain fact is that it is illegal to be married to more than one woman at a time anyway.
Just leave them alone, live your own life, and let God deal with them as and when He thinks is appropriate(and He will).

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Once same-sex marriage is OK, polygamy's next (Read 8948 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board

boringoldguy

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

JMT