1

Mmmm....once again Mr Carter is advertizing his short sighted nature for all to see...the analogy of the "five legged dog" is utterly flawed. the tail of a dog simply cannot function as a leg,namely,it does not possess the ability to support the animal or to help him walk or run so calling it a leg would be laughble...but a gay marriage serves all the same functions of a strait marriage without exception so there is no redifinition involved here...merely an expension of who gets to be recognised as a married couple.

and also Mr Carter is suggesting that all gay marriage proponents oppose polygamy in the same breath that they support gay marriage...that simply is FALSE...most i ve seen have no opinions on the subject other than to say that if its done between consenting adults they have no problem with it.

2

Mmmm....Ludwig seems to have trouble with the analogy. The point is that redefining doesn't change the nature of that which is redefined, as in "a rose by any other name..." Conversely, there is a change in the nature of what you wish to call "marriage" by changing it's components. A marriage consists, and has always consisted, of one of each sex, not related to each other (closely), with the ability to procreate if so decided. What Ludwig advocates is different, or at least different enough, that the word "marriage" does not apply. To make it apply, you'd have to redefine the word, thus making it mean something else, making it become something else. Most people, as evidenced by every state that has put the question to a vote, don't want this.

Of course not ALL gay proponents oppose polygamy. But I would say that Carter has missed that point a wee bit in that other potential or possible marital combinations are considered not likely by the gay marriage advocates. At least that's what they say publicly. They prefer to submit that polygamy, incestuous, and other possibilities are different than their issue. But they're wrong.

3

Again with the ominous "THEY"...who is "THEY? which individual(s) gay marriage proponent are you talking about and where can i see those "public" statements?

Marriage was for the greatest part of it history a contract to bring 2 houses together and form a bigger and more powerfull household...much of its history marriages were polygamous. Now if we could change the nature of marriage to limit it to 2 people who marrie out of love for one another (a recent developement historicaly speaking) as opposed to a political unions of one man and several woman (the actual traditional marriage),there is no reason why it cant be "changed" again...and again...and again.

4

If you let gay people get married, the next thing you know black men will want to marry white women and vice versa.

It's neverending. Liberals are never satisfied and that's why they must be debated.

God bless.

5

I would encourage all who are interested in the concept and history of 'marriage' to follow the link below and read the article. While I'm not Catholic, the historical perspective the article imparts is a reasonably good starting point for considering how we have arrived at the current crisis. Many thanks.

And BTW, I'm in a mixed-race relationship...can we lay off the racist stuff whilst having the conversation, or was that an (poor) attempt at humor?

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/articles/witte.html

6

Just an observation, friend, that marriage isn't what it used to be. Or were you talking about a different crisis?

God bless.

7

The reason polygamy is brought up is not because gay-marriage advocates support it, but because the logic they use can be used nearly verbatim to advocate other unions, including polygamy, polyamory, and incest between consenting adults.

I blogged on this in Civil unions between mother-daughter

8

"And BTW, I'm in a mixed-race relationship...can we lay off the racist stuff whilst having the conversation...."

Darn straight -- let's lay off the racist stuff! We don't want THAT to distract us from our sexism and homophobia.

(Hypocrite!!)

9

"The reason polygamy is brought up is not because gay-marriage advocates support it, but because the logic they use can be used nearly verbatim to advocate other unions, including polygamy, polyamory, and incest between consenting adults."

No the reason polygamy is brought up is as a distraction tactic to further muddle the issue. I also notice that you also threw the incest angle into the mix as is typical of your kind...i suspect it wont be long before we degenerate into comments such as "well we dont tolerate pedophiles and murderer so why should we tolerate gays?" so something to that effect.

10

All:

How utterly predictable.

The underlying evolutionary materialist worldview assumption, that marriage is an arbitrary social convention, a product of the accidents of cosmological, chemical, biological and scoio-cultural evolution, implies that it can be redefined at will.

But, to that Joe C has properly countered:

many of our fellow citizens appear to fall for the notion that a change of name causes a change in essence. A prime example is the attempt to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Simply calling such relationships “gay marriages”, they believe, will actually make them “marriages.” Such reasoning, however, is as flawed as thinking that changing “tail” to “leg” changes the function of the appendage.

In order to understand whether marriage can be legitimately redefined by the government we must first understand its relation to the state. Fortunately, we only have two options to choose from. Marriage is either an institution that has an existence and autonomy apart from the state or it’s a construct that only comes into being after being created by positive law.

To address that -- noises on the autonomy of institutions notwithstanding -- you need to address the driving worldviews, on comparative difficulties.

And, on that one, what is actually coming out is yet another moral absurdity flowing from the evolutionary materialist system and its implicit relativism and subjectivism.

This is what commenters will have to address if they are to get this one right.

BTW, the attempted comparison between a black man marrying a white woman and one man marrying another, is sickeningly absurd. When that is now joined to the allegation that to object to the second is tantamount to objecting to the former, and so one is a hypocrite to so object, let that serve as a wake-up-call on the implications of allowing the principle of arbitrary redefinition of morality driven by evolutionary materialist systems to go unchecked.

In short, we do not get to arbitrarily define or refefine to our preferences, basic morality and things connected to that: we may defy and deny them, but to our peril. So, I think we need to go back to basics: what is morality, and where does it come from? What is law, in that context, and can we have law that does not lead stratight to issues of justice thence morality? And, if we insist on justivcce does that not lead straight back to the creator who gave us value as creatures made in his image? Thence, what of the founding principles of the American republic and modern democracy?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The real hypocrisy here, in short, is plainly the hidden intolerance in the name of tolerance and humaneness on the part of such advocates for so-called gay marriage, who imagine that they can slip by the underlying worldview level issues and impose their worldview's moral [?] vison on the public, throught he pretence that law is merely an arbitrary convention subject tot he balances of power of whatever day.

By that principle, my ancestors had no justification for complaining of their kidnapping and sale into slavery. By that rule, my contemporaries have no basis for complaining about the institutions of Apartheid and the like. For, if morality in the community reduces to a power game and the accidents of whowver is more persuasive, then you have no-one but yourself to blame for losing the war. In short, the road being advocated leads straight to the horrible principle: might, makes right.

In this light, the arguments used in the attempt to jail pastor Gruen over in Sweden for including Rom 1 among 65 references on Biblical guidelines for morality and life, in a sermon to his congregation, is telling. [Not to mention what just happened over in VA, here.]

And, such advocates and their fellow travellers wish to complain about censorship?

Onlookers: let us wake up and stoutly defend true liberty, before it is too late.

+++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

11

Marriage is not being redefined by our Gov't. If you're a Christian, like me, then you to can continue believe that marriages that are solemnized in our churches are the real thing: husband and wife are an analogy of Christ and the Church. You can continue to believe that homosexuality is a degrading passion, and you can continue to attend a church that will not allow active unrepentant homosexuals to be members. All this, and you can still be in favor of allowing gay civil unions.

Because we've got BETTER THINGS TO DO than get worked up about gay marriage. This is what happens when theocons take over the government--they obsess over the sex lives of other people and the legitmate, urgently necessary functions of government get neglected.

12

The problem I have with lumping polygamy in with all the rest of the "marriage issues" is that the Bible never says that polygamy is a sin.

In fact, if you follow the logic, there were times in the Old Testament when God's law would have mandated it (the leverite marriage law didn't have a loophole for an already-married-brother.)

What we are doing is saying that sins that Old Testament Law would have us put to death for (homosexuality, incest, beastiality) could lead to something that (at times) God's Law mandated for His people - and we get all panicked about it.

We are putting Abraham, Gideon, David, Solomon - in the same category as "Adam and Steve."

13

Eryk's logic seems to be that if something has been abused by government in the past, it should be no big deal if the abuse is expanded. Well, I suppose it worked for progressive taxation....

Anyway, I come back to the same place I was in the last post. Since when do churches, let alone governments, "make" marriages. Churches recognize and solemnize them because the union of a man and a woman has special import for their relationship with the Body of Christ, and indeed signifies the sacrificial love of Christ for His Body and the natural union into which we are drawn with Him.

Because governments granted certain legal privileges to spouses, they also had to adopt rules for deciding who was and wasn't married. Somehow, that morphed into government licensing and regulating marriage--as it predictably does to everything it touched.

The smartest thing to do is to make law "marriage-neutral" (and "race-neutral"), but that hardly seems likely in an environment where "rights" have become positive entitlements created by government out of (the abuse of others) thin air.

Joe's last post was titled quite well--marriage law is an absurdity.

Cheers,
PGE

14

Ellen, your argument is meretricious.

The law about marrying to maintain the name of a deceased brother isn't going to command polygamy. With no effort whatsoever you could see that the next eligible male heir would be the one upon whom the responsibility rested. The Law as recorded is not the whole of the legal wisdom of the day; it is a small body of ceremonial and statutory law with a large body of case law attached, often recorded in very cryptic form. A problem such as you mention would properly have been brought before the elders/priests, who would have arrived at a solution that fit the situation.

And as for the patriarchs, well, they were sinners. And, yes, we should and do make allowances for the cultural differences of their time and place--but, in the end, they are by no means portrayed in Scripture as perfect men, but as flawed men who believed in a perfect God.

Or did "Abraham our father was justified by faith" and "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" pass you by?

Take care,
PGE

15

Joe,

First a quibble, and then I'll get to the meat of my objection.

You say: "Gay marriage advocates, however, bristle at the idea that polygamists should have the same “rights” that they seek for homosexuals." I take you to mean that all homosexual marriage advocates so bristle. That simply is not true. (I'm a counterexample.) Moreover, it's not to the point. Even if all advocates of homosexual marriage were inconsistent in the way you suggest, that is no reason to hold that the state ought not recongnize homosexual marriage.

The legal issue is not at bottom a semantic one. Rather it's an issue of rights. The issue, succintly put, is this: ought the state extend to those in homosexual unions the same legal rights extended to those in heterosexual ones? What we call such homosexual unions is simply irrelevant. Call them 'harriages' if you like. But whatever you call them, the issues as yet remains untouched.

You suggest in your post that the state must, as it were, survey its people so that it might find how they join themselves together. With this knowledge in hand, you say, it must then make a decision about what rights to bestow on those unions it has found. Now, the fact on the ground is that many gay men and women and have joined their lives together and live much as heterosexual couples do. Perhaps it's not right to call such unions marriages. But even if that's so, then as I said above, no issue is as yet settled. Most homosexual couples think it a gross injustice that their unions, call them what you like, are not recongnized by the state. For all that you've said about the semantics of 'marriage', they might be right.

Last, the one substantive argument you offer seems to go like this: if the state recongnizes homosexual unions, it must also recognize all other unions as well. This is at best a promissory note. For all you've said, there might well be good reasons for the state to recognize homosexual unions but not those between, say, brother and sister.

Conclusion: you've not really taken up the hard issues. All the talk of semantics is just a distraction; and the one substantive argument is not at all developed. Nothing has been done to push the debate forward.

16

Whether they would articulate it this way, I suspect this is what most Americans mean when they claim that the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. The fact that such an argument even needs to be made shows how degraded and confused both language and law have become.

Indeed, this is true ASSUMING that the definition the gov't uses is in line with the true definition.

But what if marriage is a social construct that is created by the state? If we assume this is true then we must admit that the state has the right to change and redefine the meaning of marriage in any way it chooses. Naturally, this would be good news for gay marriage advocates. It is also be welcome news for polygamists and those in incestuous relationships. After all, if the government is allowed to expand the definition in order not to discriminate against homosexuals, then it should not exclude other groups either.

It might be good news for many polygamists (most of whom in the US are religious offshoots of the Mormon Church) but only for strictly utilitarian reasons. They would probably agree that gov't doesn't have the right to redefine marriage BUT the gov't is already doing that by refusing to recongize polygamy which they believe is established by God's word. Changing policy therefore would not be a redefinition in their eyes but bringing the gov't back in line.

Gay marriage advocates, however, bristle at the idea that polygamists should have the same “rights” that they seek for homosexuals. While they lobby for a redefinition of marriage, they want to do so in a way that includes same-sex unions but will still exclude other minority interests that they themselves do not recognize as legitimate. Their reasons for closing the marriage gate behind them are remarkably similar to the ones given by their opposition. Unfortunately, the irony of their “bigotry” appears to be lost on them.

I'm not going to chide Joe much more for this logical fallacy since this post is a 'rerun'. I'll address him more when he decides he has time to actually think new thoughts on the topic but briefly here is the problem:

We think something is defined as having A, B, C, D... Someone comes along and says for various reasons C is not a good part of the definition therefore it should be dropped. The style of argument above would be to assert that if C is dropped then there is no reason for B not to be dropped. Yet the reasons for dropping C do not apply to B in any obvious manner. It's a bit like saying if you disagree with Bush on the abortion issue then you must disagree with him on the Iraq War.

17

I really have enjoyed this site and the conversations here at the evangelical outpost.

Frankly, I have had enough of people like mumon and boontoon, whom are so prideful and hateful that they are even unable to attempt to understand other people's point of view. I have had enough of watching people be called idiots, stupid and intolerant because of their views.

Boontoon and Mumon, you two are everything that you claim to hate.

18

I'm a Christian of a conservative stripe. I believe that family means, father, mother, and, with luck and biology, children. Having said that:

If marriage is ONLY a spiritual exercise, then what are we to make of the union of non-believers who do not conduct their ceremony in a church or in front of a preacher/pastor/priest? Are these people married in the eyes of the church? I realize that there is the sticky issue of Catholic sacrements, and they may not think I'm married since I got married in a Baptist church.

I don't think we can go that far. Marriage is above all a social institution, recognized historically as the vehicle by which families are created, sustained, etc. It is apparent from the Scriptures that even pagan unions are recognized by God as marriage.

The reason to recognize marriages is precisely because marriage is for the protection of the family, particularly the children that result from that union. Historically, societies have distinguished between the children that result from a family and those that are born outside of the family. So family is the issue, and not so much the ceremony that begins the family.

Obviously no two males will ever reproduce from their union. Lesbians obviously can reproduce, but not as a result of their union. Homosexuality cannot be considered as the vehicle for reproduction, and therefore, cannot be considered "family" no matter how much love and attention may be given to a child living in those conditions. It is only recently that gay unions were considered from a reproductive perspective, and then only for lesbians, since, obviously, they are still capable of reproduction. Homosexual adoption is a modern nod to relationships long considered immoral, and as such are a social aberration, historically speaking.

So I think that means that a society has the ability to corrupt marriage as much as they have the right to corrupt everything else. Rights, as in the rights of polygamists, incest, or any other union that is not currently recognized by law, is really the result of
a) a judicial system that is broken
or
b) a legislative system that is broken.

Rights are conferred by the state on it's subjects. So that means that the state can define marriage as a right. They have attempted to do so with common law marriages, primarily to offer protection to the women and children involved in such relationships. The church traditionally has struggled with the concept that two people can shack up for a while, perhaps have a child or two, and be considered married, but the church has also recognized the need to protect children.

And that is the struggle: Do we allow our society to be shaped by a broken legislative or judicial system, or do we attempt (mightly) to correct these tendencies?

19

Gordon,

I most of your posts, I find this assumption (or something very like it): if one opposes my traditional and (I assume) Christian moral world-view, one must do so b/c one is some kind of ethical relativist.

This simply isn't so. I'm no relativist and yet I think that the state ought to recognize homosexual unions. (Indeed I think that such unions, qua homosexual union, bear no moral taint.) I think this because of a certain view I take of legitimate excertise of state power, viz. the state ought to bestow upon its people equal protection except in such cases where equality of protection would constitute a potentially great harm. (This is rough, I know; but it does get at the idea.) Recognition of homosexual unions does not constitute a great harm.

This principle of equal protection is, I think, at work in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are an attempt to spell out just how a state such as the U.S. might organize itself so as to guarantee equal protection.

It's very possible that, when some legislative body begins to draft the specific laws by which its people will be governed, it will act contrary to this basic principle of equal protection. Jim Crow was one example. The current legislative crusade against legal recongition of homosexual marriage is other. Both run couter to the basic principle of justice on which our country was founded.

Gordon, what you see as some kind of relativist rejection of all moral principle I see as an attempt to bring marriage law in line with the fundamental principle of justice that lies at the heart of our political system.

20

Gordon,

I most of your posts, I find this assumption (or something very like it): if one opposes my traditional and (I assume) Christian moral world-view, one must do so b/c one is some kind of ethical relativist.

This simply isn't so. I'm no relativist and yet I think that the state ought to recognize homosexual unions. (Indeed I think that such unions, qua homosexual union, bear no moral taint.) I think this because of a certain view I take of legitimate excertise of state power, viz. the state ought to bestow upon its people equal protection except in such cases where equality of protection would constitute a potentially great harm. (This is rough, I know; but it does get at the idea.) Recognition of homosexual unions does not constitute a great harm.

This principle of equal protection is, I think, at work in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are an attempt to spell out just how a state such as the U.S. might organize itself so as to guarantee equal protection.

It's very possible that, when some legislative body begins to draft the specific laws by which its people will be governed, it will act contrary to this basic principle of equal protection. Jim Crow was one example. The current legislative crusade against legal recongition of homosexual marriage is other. Both run couter to the basic principle of justice on which our country was founded.

Gordon, what you see as some kind of relativist rejection of all moral principle I see as an attempt to bring marriage law in line with the fundamental principle of justice that lies at the heart of our political system.

21

With no effort whatsoever you could see that the next eligible male heir would be the one upon whom the responsibility rested.

Of course. No effort whatsoever. HOWEVER - you should see that the marital status of the "next eligible male heir" would have no bearing on his eligibility - polygamy was allowed by the Law.

Or did "Abraham our father was justified by faith" and "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" pass you by?

What does that have to do with the question of polygamy?

Reading Genesis, one can easily see that Abraham was far from perfect. But what does that have to do with the question of whether or not polygamy is a sin on the level of incest or homosexuality?

I think that comment was to shut down the line of thought, rather than really look at it. After all, you could apply the same line of reasoning to homosexuality - don't you know that we aren't justified by what we do or don't do, but by our faith?

And as for the patriarchs, well, they were sinners.

Yes. But was polygamy one of their sins? (Can you show me in the Bible where a man was condemned for having 2 wives? - not "too many wives", but just two.)

Let us be careful not to label something as "sin" that the Bible does not.

Personally, I believe that polygamy would cause many more problems than it would solve and I know for sure I wouldn't want it in my life.

(This line of questioning is actually an assignment for a philosophy class - proving objectively that polygamy is morally wrong.)

22

Tim L

Boontoon and Mumon, you two are everything that you claim to hate

Thanks, I don't recall claiming to hate anything or anyone so I guess that's pretty good. Can't speak for Mumon though.

Frankly, I have had enough of people like mumon and boontoon, whom are so prideful and hateful that they are even unable to attempt to understand other people's point of view. I have had enough of watching people be called idiots, stupid and intolerant because of their views.

You just don't like the fact that I take apart people's posts and point out their errors. If I just sat around calling them names you'd probably love me.

Scott
The reason to recognize marriages is precisely because marriage is for the protection of the family, particularly the children that result from that union. Historically, societies have distinguished between the children that result from a family and those that are born outside of the family. So family is the issue, and not so much the ceremony that begins the family.

Obviously no two males will ever reproduce from their union. Lesbians obviously can reproduce, but not as a result of their union. Homosexuality cannot be considered as the vehicle for reproduction, and therefore, cannot be considered "family" no matter how much love and attention may be given to a child living in those conditions. It is only recently that gay unions were considered from a reproductive perspective, and then only for lesbians, since, obviously, they are still capable of reproduction. Homosexual adoption is a modern nod to relationships long considered immoral, and as such are a social aberration, historically speaking.

This all works well until you confront the case of the elderly couple long past child rearing years who find each other late in life and get married. This is almost always viewed positively by everyone and never a perversion of marriage. Likewise the infertile couple who marries and adopts children are not considered to be 'not family'. Usually when these counter examples are brought up people who argue along these lines begin to engage in a huge amount of convoluted special pleading.

23

Yes. But was polygamy one of their sins? (Can you show me in the Bible where a man was condemned for having 2 wives? - not "too many wives", but just two.)

A good point. If polygamy was the custom of the day then that's all the more reason for God to have been very clear and tell people specifically that it was not allowed. After all, idol worship was also the custom of the day and God had no problem at all clearly telling people to knock it off.

24

Gordon,

I most of your posts, I find this assumption (or something very like it): if one opposes my traditional and (I assume) Christian moral world-view, one must do so b/c one is some kind of ethical relativist.

This simply isn't so. I'm no relativist and yet I think that the state ought to recognize homosexual unions. (Indeed I think that such unions, qua homosexual union, bear no moral taint.) I think this because of a certain view I take of legitimate excertise of state power, viz. the state ought to bestow upon its people equal protection except in such cases where equality of protection would constitute a potentially great harm. (This is rough, I know; but it does get at the idea.) Recognition of homosexual unions does not constitute a great harm.

This principle of equal protection is, I think, at work in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are an attempt to spell out just how a state such as the U.S. might organize itself so as to guarantee equal protection.

It's very possible that, when some legislative body begins to draft the specific laws by which its people will be governed, it will act contrary to this basic principle of equal protection. Jim Crow was one example. The current legislative crusade against legal recongition of homosexual marriage is other. Both run couter to the basic principle of justice on which our country was founded.

Gordon, what you see as some kind of relativist rejection of all moral principle I see as an attempt to bring marriage law in line with the fundamental principle of justice that lies at the heart of our political system.

25

Boonton, since, as I believe, the family is for the protection of the children in an environment that societies historically have accepted, I don't think that any adoption issue negates the premise. Your premise applies equally to younger couples unable to have children, or couples that chose to adopt for other reasons.

My definition of family still applies. I stand by my original statement that family means a father, a mother, and, with luck and biology, children. Adoption that produces that same formula, with the possible exception of luck, bilogy and reproduction, has been recognized historically as acceptable. Since homosexual couples cannot produce as a result of the union of the partners, it doesn't apply. Admittedly I have relying on a moral philosphy that is under attack, but that does not change the human view of family, and marriage, that marriage is the establishment of family.

The bottom line: what will our society look like and how do we influence it in the direction we feel is good. Homosexual unions, polygamy, incest, and even heterosexual shacking up is not good, by my definition and apparently by the majority of Americans.

26

We're still putting something that God allowed (and regulated) in with that which got people put to death.

Homosexuality, incest, pre-marital sex (if the girl was a virgin) were all capital crimes.

Polygamy was not. Do I think it's distasteful and not very useful? Yes. Can I call it "sin", especially in the category of homosexuality and incest? On what basis?

27

Actually, ellen, pre-marital sex was not a capital crime unless the woman was betrothed.

28

Boonton, since, as I believe, the family is for the protection of the children in an environment that societies historically have accepted, I don't think that any adoption issue negates the premise. Your premise applies equally to younger couples unable to have children, or couples that chose to adopt for other reasons.

Scott, I predicted that convoluted reasoning would soon be deployed but I was wrong:

My definition of family still applies. I stand by my original statement that family means a father, a mother, and, with luck and biology, children. Adoption that produces that same formula, with the possible exception of luck, bilogy and reproduction, has been recognized historically as acceptable. Since homosexual couples cannot produce as a result of the union of the partners, it doesn't apply.

You simply glossed over the problem. Hetrosexual couples that 'reproduce' through adoption are ok in your book but not homosexual couples. Why? No reason given just because you say so.

29

Actually, ellen, pre-marital sex was not a capital crime unless the woman was betrothed.

Deut 22:21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

I read that as "if a woman gets married and is not a virgin, she gets stoned to death". Does it matter if she lost her virginity before or after she was betrothed? (understanding that sometimes betrothel took place very early in life)

30

Boonton, one of us missed the point. My point:

"I stand by my original statement that family means a father, a mother, and, with luck and biology, children. Adoption that produces that same formula, with the possible exception of luck, bilogy and reproduction, has been recognized historically as acceptable. Since homosexual couples cannot produce as a result of the union of the partners, it doesn't apply"

Unlike many liberal states, I would not allow homosexuals to adopt children. Yeah, I know. I am beyond the pale.

If the state can grant the privilage to adopt children to homosexual couples, it can also withdraw the right to adopt children.

31

Boonton, Let me say upfront, I missed your point. apologies.

The reason that I would not allow homosexual adoption is that I consider homosexuality to be an aberrant life style, and therefore we should protect children from it.

Again, beyond the liberal pale.

32

family is for the protection of the children in

We explored this in quite a bit of detail in a previous thread. My view on family's origin and purpose is more complicated but I believe more realisitic.

1. Humans are social animals. We hear this often but we think it just means we like being with other humans while, say, a giant squid would rather be alone. It has a much harsher reality. Humans only survive well in groups. A human beign alone in the wilderness will almost certainly soon be a corpse. The 'wilderness man' who can supposedly survive off of nothing but his wits is largely a myth...Rambo, Tarazan and other incarnations exist only in fiction not the norm of humanity.

2. Human reproduction is very time consuming, energy consuming and quite frankly dangerous. We just don't drop our litter on the ground and expect them to walk in a few hours. We have to care for them for years before they are even at the point where they can begin to fend for themselves.

3. As a result human sexuality is such that it drives people into small groups. It's clear we have much more sex drive than we need for reproduction. It's not there because someone tuned the 'sex dial' too far to the right. It's there because a huge sex drive pushes us to hook up with a regular partner. This is better for us because, as #1 shows us, we are very vulnerable alone. Being with someone else reduces the risk. If one is sick the other may be healthy and so on.

From this you get the real foundations of human families. They are needed for physical survival and prosperity. We often forget before you can care for kids you have to care for yourself. Everything beyond this is just tinkering with the motor to find the best settings.

Polygamy has some advantages to it:

1. It makes it so that the richest men have their wealth spread out among several women rather than just one.

2. More than two people further spreads the risk. There's a chance two people may get sick at the same time but a lower chance that all three.

However polygamy has problems that are usually more serious than its benefits:

1. Relationships do not scale arithmatically but expodentially. A 3-person relationship has many more dynamics and complications than a 2-person relationship. Jealousy increases the risk that the relationship will fail to do its primary job of promoting the security of the individuals inside it. Anyone who watches HBO's 'Big Love' sees this played out very well. What would be a rather simple relationship problem in a 2-person marriage (a wife spending too much on the credit cards, dividing time between work and home, husband being sexually tired etc.) becomes high drama in a 3-person marriage. High drama is great TV but most people would rather have limited amounts of it in their life.

2. Mathematically polygamy ends up producing a 'surplus male' problem. Very simple, if 1 out of 10 men marry 3 women then that means for the 9 remaining men there are only 7 women. Needless to say the remaining 9 men probably aspire to not one but three wives so there's going to be a core of men who are not able to marry. This creates all sorts of problems. In the US the small communities of fundamentalists who practice polygamy have 'dumped' young teenage boys in big cities in order to keep them from competiting with the rest of the men. In China there's evidence that a 'surplus male' population of just 5-10% dramatically increases rates of violence (China's 'surplus male' problem is caused not by polygamy but by selective abortion by families to ensure they get a male son).

A society where polygamy is the norm has a disadvantage to a society where it isn't. Even more than that, since gender distribution is roughly equal and most people get married at some point it is mathematically impossible for polygamy to ever be a majority form of family. Even in countries like Saudi Arabia one wife is the more common rule rather than two or three. Or as my friend from Bangladash told me, technically you can marry more than one woman in his country but anyone who did would be considered a laughing stock.

This is not to say that the disadvantages of polygamy in a society are fatal. They probably can be addressed but the fact remains they are disadvantages.

Now as far as I see gay marriage has the advantage in that it promotes survival and individual security. Since raising children is not a solitary task anything that improves the community as a whole is good for children.

This is why when we hear of the two 70 year olds who find each other late in life and marry we are happy. Not because we think there's some outside shot they could conceive and have kids (in fact, we'd probably be horrified if they told us they were going to fertility doctors to see if they could have kids). Rather we are happy because we feel they are more likely to be secure and prosperous together rather than alone. That makes it more likely they could help with the children of younger couples rather than being a burden on them. Likewise 'Uncles Adam and Steve' are better off being strong together than alone and possibly in need of our aid and charity.

33

The reason that I would not allow homosexual adoption is that I consider homosexuality to be an aberrant life style, and therefore we should protect children from it.

Again, beyond the liberal pale.

What does aberrant mean really? Unusual? By that reasoning an ultra-Orthodox Jewish couple would also be aberrant because they would be unusual...even in Israel. Distasteful? Children are hardly shielded from distasteful things and children generate as many distasteful things as they do cute and adorable things.

Does it just mean bad? I could accept that. I don't have a problem saying that, say, a family of petty criminals shouldn't adopt children. However I would look at the situation in context. If the alternative was for the child to languish without anyone I'd say better to have flawed adoptive parents than none at all. Likewise say I had to place a child and there were two fine couples but one had a very good and very secure job while the other one had been laid off. I'd have to give the point to the first even though I hardly think people should lose their children if they become unemployed.

But in using 'bad' I can easily defend my judgements here. I didn't just declare that petty crime is bad but I can articulate an argument why such a lifestyle makes one less fit than a law abiding person. Likewise I can mount an argument for how the unemployment of the one couple is bad (meaning not immoral but 'not good) because it makes them less stable. In both cases my judgement is not a blanket declaration but an argument that could be either refuted or supported by examining the facts more carefully.

What's striking about your statement is not that it is 'beyond the liberal pale' but that it is less of a judgement than a thoughtless declaration. You provide no guidence, nothing for thinking people to latch onto in support of you. Only a blind statement that we either have to accept or reject. But since you are engaging us on a thread devoted to debate and commentary I don't believe you just want us to go along with you out of blind loyality. I have to believe you can articulate an argument for your position rather than just a declaration.

34

Boonton: On your reason #2 (male surplus). If polygamy were acceptable and more widespread, could the male surplus have the effect of encouraging young men to excel, rather than spend many of their young adult years glued to a video game?

A while ago there was an article (I think it was this one that gave a few interesting thoughts.

35

Today's post is filled with so many logical fallacies that it's hard to know where to begin. Among other errors, Joe creates a false dilemma by stating that marriage is either completely separate from the state or it is created by the state out of thin air. I can see many other options, including a combination of the two that Joe mentioned.

I grew up in a church that taught that marriage was for life, no matter what. The church refused to recognize the legitimacy of divorce, except under very strict conditions. Even then, the divorced person could not remarry. "What God hath joined together, let no man put assunder." Under their teachings, Joe, you are still married to your first wife. You may think that your current marriage is a leg, but it's only a tail.

36

Boonton: On your reason #2 (male surplus). If polygamy were acceptable and more widespread, could the male surplus have the effect of encouraging young men to excel, rather than spend many of their young adult years glued to a video game?

That would be an optimistic hope. Many people say polygamy is abusive for girls but actually women can be quite powerful in a polygamist society. Not only is it more equal for women (instead of one women getting Donald Trump or George Clooney two or three can get him) men must compete more for women. Not only can your girlfriend dump you for any other single guy, she could also dump you for any married guy too!

So yea there's powerful incentives to compete for men but I don't think they are positive. At the end of the day, just like musical chairs, it is a zero sum game. No matter how well everyone plays there will be losers and winners and the winners are almost certain to be the most ruthless and the losers will probably be the people who most need to be 'settled down' with a marriage.

From what we see of polygamy in the US and gender imbalance in China I don't think 'surplus males' are a net benefit for society. Perhaps a society could develop institutions to make it a positive, to emphasize the 'excel' part rather than the ruthless part but this is a bit like saying maybe a society could find a way to make communism work. Yea maybe but right now why enter into something we know starts with a net disadvantage?

37

My question goes back to: does that make it morally (or Biblically) wrong? Especially to put it in the same group of offenses that earn death?

38

The U.S. government, for example, can decide to “recognize” the state of Israel but it cannot redefine the country in a way that contracts its border to exclude the Gaza Strip. The U.S. either recognizes Israel as it defines itself or it rejects its legitimacy altogether.

This is false. It is commonplace for countries to recognize other countries but to deny their self-defined borders. The USSR and Japan recognized one another for decades but each disputed the other's claim to the Kirile Islands. The same is true for the UK and Argentina with regard to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. The US formally trades with Taiwan and addresses it as a distinct country ("the Republic of China"), but officially recognizes only mainland China ("the People's Republic of China"), which claims Taiwan as part of its territory; the Taiwanese government, at the same time, considers itself to be the sole Chinese government and declares its official capital to be Nanjing, on the mainland - claims that are rejected by the entire rest of the world and which are laughable in the face of physical reality. North Korea has formal relations with South Korea, but officially regards it as part of the same country, which again the rest of the world denies. Facts are slippery things.

On the larger point, whether "[m]arriage is either an institution that has an existence and autonomy apart from the state or it’s a construct that only comes into being after being created by positive law", that's an obvious false dichotomy, but never mind. More to the point, it's not enough to say that "marriage . . . is an institution that has an existence and autonomy [?] apart from the state" - you have to say what that existence is. Marriage can be many things, and has historically taken many forms - if there is, as you claim, some sort of "true" marriage that exists independently of any attempt to define it by stipulation, then the only possible conclusion is that the vast majority of marriages throughout history were false.

In other words, since there is one and only one form of "real" marriage, and marriages have taken vastly many forms over the centuries (taking into account who, how many, at what ages, by whose decision, by whose authority, for what reason, with what prior relations between one another, by what procedure, with what permanence, and with what degree of consent people have gotten married), your position requires you to believe that almost no one throughout history has actually "really" been married. Everyone else in the history of the world was just shacking up, or at best no better than gays in civil unions, deluded into thinking their relationships were real simply because they believed in and had committed themselves to them under the prevailing cultural practices of their times, when they were in fact just a pathetic sham.

Any time your beliefs require you to make patently absurd and offensive claims, on essentially no grounds at all, about virtually the entire world except yourself, and then insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong because God told you so, you're off the deep end. Swim back and stop insulting people just because they didn't ask your permission how to live.

39

Well I don't think anyone here thinks any of the offenses you listed merit the death penalty. I wouldn't make polygamy illegal. From what I understand a family like the one depicted on 'Big Love' could actually be prosecuted if uncovered.

I would say that just like with a market economy, there is no need to regulate people who want to try such experiments. For some people, like the hyper-motivated always working man on the show they might make it work for them. I think most people, though, will find the arrangement more trouble than its worth and there's no need to use the law to 'force people to only put round blocks in round holes'.

I would object to expanding marriage law to include polygamy for a some simple reasons that I do not believe applies to gay marriage (non-polygamous of course).

1. Since the social benefits do not seem to exceed the social negatives I think the burden is on pro-polygamists to make their case for expanding the law.

2. Unlike gay marriage, this is a true expansion of the law. There are numerous possible versions of polygamy and if we decided to have it there's no clear 'default'. For example, what happens in a three person marriage if one wants out? Are the two left married or does the whole thing dissolve and the two people have to choose to marry as a couple? What happens if the family cannot agree on some major decision? Suppose a man is sick and cannot make his own medical decisions. What happens if the wives do not agree? Are women allowed to marry multiple men or just men marry multiple women?

How gay marriage would work legally is simple, it would work just like straight marriage. If, for example, a dispute erupted the legal principles used to settle it would be exactly what are used today for straight marriages. But those principles work on two-person marriages. Many cannot be expanded in a clear and obvious manner to 3+ marriages.

To use an analogy, gay marriage would be like installing a Dos program on a Dos computer. It has its own unique traits but it is essentially compatiable with the underlying operating system. When opponants of gay marriage pretend that adopting polygamy would be 'just like' adopting gay marriage ('cause, after all, all changes are exactly equal!), that's like trying to install a program written for a MAC-OS on a Windows box. In theory it could be done with great modifications, judgement calls and other changes but there's no getting around the two differences differ greatly in both magnitude and kind.

40

Sorry - that should have been "past tense" - earned death.

The reason I emphasize this is because of the tendency to call polygamy "sin" and put it in the same category as incest, homosexuality and beastiality. God called these things "sin" and (under the Old Covenant) they earned death.

I'm questioning whether you can use the Bible to put polygamy in the same category as the rest.

41

Ellen,

I'm certainly not at the top of the list here in terms of experts on the Bible but I think you are correct, there is little or no Bibilical text that prohibits polygamy and certainly nothing that equates it to incest, homosexuality and beastiality.

The Bible has always been read with one eye on the text and another on tradition. For example, there is no text in the Bible that specifically says Jesus never married. Yet the understanding has been that Jesus never took a wife despite this lack of actual text. I believe the prohibition on polygamy is likewise based more on tradition than actual scripture.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Many traditions have good solid reasons behind them even if they don't jump out at you. But I think you're correct, it is unfair of gay marriage opponants to pretend that polygamy is equiliviant to incest.

42

"BTW, the attempted comparison between a black man marrying a white woman and one man marrying another, is sickeningly absurd. When that is now joined to the allegation that to object to the second is tantamount to objecting to the former, and so one is a hypocrite to so object, let that serve as a wake-up-call on the implications of allowing the principle of arbitrary redefinition of morality driven by evolutionary materialist systems to go unchecked."

The arguments being trotted out now against same sex marriages are structurally identical to those that were trotted out against mixed race messages. If you rejected the logic of the latter but now employ the same logic for the former, then you're gauging morality by the standards of your own sympathies and antipathies, not by something external to you, whether that be God, the Good, the Right, Truth, etc. That is, you're caught up in a might makes right, power philosophy, which is the essence of hypocricy, irrespective of any ad hominum arguments you might employ to the contrary.

Pray God Open Your Eyes.

Amy

43

BTW, the attempted comparison between a black man marrying a white woman and one man marrying another, is sickeningly absurd.

Amy is correct - we may think that the comparison is sickeningly absurd today, but remember that the state's right to restrict interracial marriage was not declared unconstitutional until 1967 with the "Loving" decision.

(BTW - this is part of the reason for my insistence on clearly defining what is "sin" and what is not)

"...Long after most public officials had discarded the blatantly racist justifications originally used to enact miscegenation laws, county clerks continued to refuse marriage licenses to interracial couples, claiming that they were merely carrying out the requirements of laws they were obliged to obey whether they wanted to or not..."

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

from the same article, here is a list of arguments used in court against interracial marriage.

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

44

Again with the gay marriage thing...sigh.

Recent studies in the UK, along with regular polling in the US, strongly suggest that homosexuals make up something like 5% of the population. That's 15 million people in the US alone. That's more than there are Asians or Jews (each ~3% of the population). So one huge reason we are facing the gay marriage issue is because they are such a huge minority group.

And that's the same reason why gay marriage is not a slippery slope to worse things: because we don't have millions of people demanding to marry their brother or their pet duck.

I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but these people are not going to disappear. And I'd rather have them in monogamous long-term relationships (preferably attending church), then out single having causal sex, etc. etc. So I do think that we have to give them *some* sense of security with each other (hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, etc).

45

If polygamy were acceptable and more widespread, could the male surplus have the effect of encouraging young men to excel, rather than spend many of their young adult years glued to a video game?

I think it would be more likely to create a pool of frustrated, aggressive, and dangerous young men. The most successful may be those that excel at fighting, but it's probably not the sort of excellence we want to encourage.

One example of this might be the 19th century Zulus. If I remember correctly, they practiced polygamy and institutionalized aggression by creating regiments of bachelors who were forbidden to marry until after they had fought. It worked as a method of conquest until they scared the British badly by exterminating a British army at Isandhlwana. The British bought in more troops, and the rest is history

I seem to recall reading that the PLO used to "defuse" its young terrorists when they were no longer needed by marrying them off.

Encouraging vigorous competition among young men for a limited supply of marriage parters would probably be much more disruptive to a peaceful liberal democracy than gay marriage would ever be. I wonder what will happen to China and its neighbors when the current surplus of male children matures.

46

Personally, I have no problem with polygamy. Yes, it is more complicated than monogamy (whether straight or gay), but the principle I follow is that consenting, mentally competent adults should be free to choose their own family arrangement.

On a practical level, we must all acknowledge a huge difference between the issues of gay marriage and polygamy. If gay marriage were legalized nationwide tomorrow, there would be tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of gay and lesbian couples who would immediately get married.

But what would happen if polygamy were legalized? I assume that the few thousand polygamists would legalize their arrangement. But do any of us really think that large numbers of the rest of us would decide to suddenly become polygamous? If someone is into that, they can already practice it by just living together in groups. How many people do you know who do this? I don't know any. This may be sexist, but I don't see many American women comfortable with the idea of sharing their man with another woman. While plenty of guys would love to have multiple wives, I don't think they would fancy being part of a woman's male harem.

47

The situation in China is different because the young men have no chance.

If the numbers of men and women were roughly equal, then a hard-working young man would more than likely be able to win a young woman's heart.

At any rate: does that make polygamy morally wrong? It might make it impractical, but not wrong.

48

Marriage as "traditionally defined" is the union of a man and woman blessed by God.

The government can recognize the relationship as a contract, but it cannot recognize a "marriage". The only way that would be possible would be if you believed that the Government was God or God's representative on earth. Is there anyone here who thinks that? Raise your hand.

The government can reorganize a contract between two people or between one and many right now. "Gay marriage" does not change any of that or make any of it more or less likely.

You don't believe that a gay or lesbian monogamous couple, who are married in their church to each other constitutes a "marriage". That perfectly fine with me. But I don't share the same religion as you do, nor the same beliefs in God. How can you deny my religious freedom without endangering your own?

Insisting that our government must define marriage the sacrament, in civil law is blasphemous at best, and a foolish throwing away of your religious freedom at worst.

Your like those members of the GOP that keep praising this President's expansion of Presidential powers, while forgetting that eventually there will be a Democrat in that same office.

Christianity isn't Islam. Its supposed to be based on the power of God, not the power of the State. Quit imitating Sharia, its a bad idea for everyone.

49

Ellen: RE: the Bible and polygamy.

The creation narrative in Genesis 1&2 makes clear that God's ideal is one man and one woman together for life in a mutually monogamous marriage. Jesus is recorded in three of the Gospels stating that marriage was meant to be a man leaving his father and mother, cleaving to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh. This is God's ideal. It is clearly stated. There are other more oblique references to monogamy being God's ideal throughout Scripture.

Let me answer the questions that I know are sure to be raised by this statement (some already have been):

God's clear ideal is one man and one woman together for life. This means that divorce, even though regulated for Israel in the Old Testament (BTW these laws do not automatically carry over to the church in the New Testament), is clearly not God's ideal for anyone. Neither is remarriage after divorce. Neither is cohabiting outside of marriage. Neither is homosexual activity. Perhaps part of the reason that people are so unclear about homosexual relationships in Scripture is that the church lately hasn't been real clear about the Bible's teachings on marriage in general. Hope this helps.

50

So, Cheesehead, do you think we should outlaw remarriage after divorce (or perhaps set up a religious council to determine which divorces are scriptural?

Or is it ok to deviate from "God's ideal" in regards to divorce/remarriage, but not gay marriage?

51

God's "ideal" is for man and woman to stay in Eden, also. Sin caused Adam and Eve to leave the garden, but leaving the garden was not the sin.

Is polygamy ever called "sin"?

2 Samuel 12:8
I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

God gave David multiple wives. Was God causing David to commit the sin of polygamy by giving him multiple wives?

(I knew a plural family years ago from another country. Would you call their marriage sin?)

52

One example of this might be the 19th century Zulus. If I remember correctly, they practiced polygamy and institutionalized aggression by creating regiments of bachelors who were forbidden to marry until after they had fought. It worked as a method of conquest until they scared the British badly by exterminating a British army at Isandhlwana. The British bought in more troops, and the rest is history

It's interesting to think that the 'male surplus' exists because male-female ratios are about 50-50. If you had a society that suffered a chronic, long-term male shortage then the 'surplus' would not be a problem of polygamy. This might have applied to cultures that found themselves in neverending conflicts and wars.

The Mormons and Muslims may be being more than just cute when they sometimes say that polygamy was proper only at a particular point in history. If a society had a long term male shortage polygamy would be an advantage because it would ensure that there would be no 'female surplus'.

The government can recognize the relationship as a contract, but it cannot recognize a "marriage". The only way that would be possible would be if you believed that the Government was God or God's representative on earth. Is there anyone here who thinks that? Raise your hand.

I agree, the gov't though does not claim to speak for God. When it 'recognizes' or 'institutes' or whatever a marriage it is simply doing so for secular purposes such as property division, assigning responsibility for debts etc.

Cheesehead:
The creation narrative in Genesis 1&2 makes clear that God's ideal is one man and one woman together for life in a mutually monogamous marriage. Jesus is recorded in three of the Gospels stating that marriage was meant to be a man leaving his father and mother, cleaving to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh. This is God's ideal. It is clearly stated. There are other more oblique references to monogamy being God's ideal throughout Scripture.

Oblique is right. As has been pointed out a polygamous culture, for reasons of mathematics, still needs to be majority monogamous. That Genesis only has one man and one woman does not mean that God is saying 'no polygamy'. That's a stretch. Also isn't there a Jewish tradition that holds there were two 'original' women? Eve and Lilith before her? To someone thousands of years ago, when most of the Bible existed among a collection of numerous written and unwritten stories and traditions, it would be pretty hard to distill a strong anti-polygamous message.

Jesus's statement does seem stronger but it still doesn't follow. Polygamy in Biblical times still held marriage to be between a man and woman. A man was married to each woman individually. The women were not married to each other. If a man with two wives died, for example, that was the end of the marriage. The women did not continue as married to each other.

53

The reason that this is important is that - if - we are going to entertain the notion of redefining marriage (or not), we had better know what the definition is.

If we claim to be "keeping" the definition of "one-man-one-woman" as God's definition, we had better make for darn sure that God actually defines a heterosexual-polygamous marriage as sin.

54

The case of David's polygamy is interesting in light of 1 Kings 15:5:

For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Also, Duet 21:

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

55

Remember (comment 21), my stake in this is actually a philosophy paper...due right now.

It's very difficult (if not impossible) to prove that polygamy is either immoral or a sin.

Because there are those that use an action in an immoral way, it does not follow that the action in and of itself becomes immoral

56

No one says the government should define marriage. Just the opposite. The government should recognize any marriage done in a church.

Why should the government be able to prohibit the church from marrying who they want to marry?

57

Paul, in my state it is a crime for a pastor to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple (any couple) who has not been sanctioned by the state to marry.

In the act of requiring a license, the state grants permission to marry. In order to grant that permission, the state has to have guidelines concerning they will give permission to.

58

Amen to Patrick (Gryph).

To Cheesehead, a different, more qualified, Amen. Yes, God's ideal in creation was (and remains) one man and one woman for one lifetime. However, God permits deviation from that ideal for various reasons, and sometimes for His own undisclosed reasons. Incest was necessary for at least one or two generations. Polgamy was quite common under the Old Covenant, judging by the way it was regulated and the practice of the patriarchs.

To Ellen and SamChevre, the penalty for pre-marital sex was marriage, unless it was not discovered until later (and then the male partner got away with it).

Getting back to Joe's analogy, marriage is BOTH a divinely-authored institution AND a social construct. The divine institution is quite simple - a man and a woman join together and become one flesh. No muss, no fuss, no ceremony and no forms to sign - a few minutes of mutual pleasure and a spiritual reality is born, regardless of the intent of the parties or lack thereof.

In the patriarchal society of the Old Testament, if you "took" a woman, you owned her - unless she was already owned by someone else, then you were both in trouble.

59

"The divine institution is quite simple - a man and a woman join together and become one flesh."

Hey, yo -- hold 'em horses. What cause do you have to believe that in the three Gospels, Christ is giving a definition of marriage, not an example of a valid marriage, especially given all the other references throughout Scripture to Divinely sanctioned non-one-man-one-woman marriages? Christ does not say, "only" and he doesn't say "...is the definition." So where the heck are you getting this from? Your private intuitions?

60

My friends I am convinced that the exhausting discussion above is pointless. Consenses morality is no proof against doing wrong-Germany in the 1930's. We are left to whether one accepts the scriptual prohibitions as valid or not. I will not attempt to catelog my ethic in reguards to this issue. Your ethic should be formed by exposure to the scripture and to the spirit of God. If you do not believe in God then you are a slave to your experience and the particular paradigm that you are tatooed with.

I have a gay brother. I believe it is sin. I love my brother. I trust in the justness of God to sort it out. Love is not only mercy. I await the judgement of God, knowing that although I am not gay, I have alot that needs covered by grace. I hear pride on both sides of the arguement.

I feel that homosexuals are seeking equality and believe marriage is a great step in that direction. As much as I love my brother I don't believe this is the right step. Progress should not be viewed only by forcing changes in traditional standards. I have never been been able to convince my brother of my ethic, nor he mine.

In the end I say put it up to a vote. Judges will just split the nation. My God melt our hearts where we can hear each other.

61

"Consenses morality is no proof against doing wrong-Germany in the 1930's."

"In the end I say put it up to a vote."

Huh?

62

Cheesehead wrote;

The creation narrative in Genesis 1&2 makes clear that God's ideal is one man and one woman together for life in a mutually monogamous marriage. Jesus is recorded in three of the Gospels stating that marriage was meant to be a man leaving his father and mother, cleaving to his wife, and the two becoming one flesh. This is God's ideal. It is clearly stated. There are other more oblique references to monogamy being God's ideal throughout Scripture.

I have to take issue with this, Cheesehead. It may have been God's ideal but no longer.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7

Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul is clearly advising that it is better not to marry. One might ask, how can that be so when it is our command to be fruitful and multiply?

I think it is pretty simple really. In a marriage we must divide our time between our spouse and our Lord. It would be wrong for me, as an example, to leave my wife and children in order to give 100% of my time to preaching the gospel. A married man must give of himself to his wife and children.

An unmarried man can give all of his time to the Lord.

What about being fruitful and multiplying? Christ said remain in me and you will bear fruit.

John 15:4

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me.

You'll notice that the Lord says he is the groom and we are the bride. Together, we bear fruit. This means that we go into the world and through the Gospel (Good news) we bring new children to God.

So we are no longer commanded to be fruitful and multiply through sexual copulation, but we are fruitful through a relationship with Christ by spreading the Gospel converting souls to become His children.

Therefore, I believe your assertion is incorrect.

Best is not one man and one woman joined together. Best is to take Paul's advice and to remain single. Second best is to marry, if you must. Finally, to take more than one woman as a spouse.

But simply because one situation is preferred over another does not make the other situations a sin.

63

While I disagree with Brian from Idaho, I want to thank you for being honest.

Is anyone besides me tired of hearing religious conservatives say that they are against gay marriage because it is untraditional, unnatural, harmful to society, different, will weaken the "institution of marriage," etc.

The truth is that evangelicals oppose gay marriage for one reason and one reason alone: they believe that homosexuality is a sin.

They have a right to think that. Many of them also think premarital sex is a sin, blashpemy is a sin and remarriage after an unscriptural divorce is a sin. Some think working on the Sabbath is a sin. Yet our laws in those regards do not reflect Christian doctrine.

Evangelicals must learn to differentiate between their Christian doctrine and the laws of a democratic society.

To paraphrase Jefferson, "My neighbor's sexual orientation neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

My social studies teacher in junior high taught me that in a free society, my rights end where my neighbor's rights begin. Why should one group of people have the right to deny rights to another group simply based on the idea that it offends their religious sensibilities?

My advice to religious conservatives opposed to gay marriage:

1. Be honest about why you oppose gay marriage.

2. Realize that it is not the job of the state to enforce Christian doctrine. IOW, we do not live under a Christian sharia.

64

Amy:

I have little desire to engage in a back-forth on this. I will note briefly on your:

AMY: The arguments being trotted out now against same sex marriages are structurally identical to those that were trotted out against mixed race messages.

I think that: if you think that recognition of the historical, biological, social and spiritual factors that underly marriage's proper definition as being between a man and a woman is structurally identical to an ill-founded argument that men and women of different races should not marry, something is very wrong with your logic.

BTW on interracial marriages, perhaps the most famous in history is that of Moses to Zipporah. Yep, THAT Moses, of the Pentateuch, and the decalogue. In short, those who advocated fro racism and tried to wrench the Bible in its support, have not got a leg to stand on.

Here is Paul, before the Areopagus, on the unity of the human race:

AC 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

In short, racism has not got a biblical leg to stand on.

Since I have already had an exchange with you on the subject of marriage, I will simply note to onlookers that Jesus has something to say on the nature of marriage and how it is a part of the Creation order for humanity. This comes out by direct implication in an answer on the issue of divorce:

MT 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

MT 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' 5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It is explicit that Jesus approves the Creation order for Marriage, and notice that it is explicitly connected to the process of family life, sexual union and childbearing, thus the sequence of generations, both in Mt 19 and in Genesis, which Jesus cites. Jesus then goes on to show that event he easy divorce game -- so typical of collapsing western culture -- is in stubborn opposition to God's will.

The definition of Marriage, and the implied historic Christian biblical stance, are plain.

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

65

One more thing.

I'd like to hear an evangelical respond to the recently released report that Massachusetts, the only state with legal gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

66

Gordon, you may be aware that some racist groups have used (and probably still use) Acts 17:26 as a proof-text for the idea that each race should stay in its designated area ("and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live").

67

Note that ex is correct regarding Gordon's quote of MT 19:4:

MT 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' 5 and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The word 'only' is indeed missing. Presumably a man who marries two women unites with each one to become 'one flesh'. As I pointed out before traditional polygamy still has the 'male and female' idea at its center. A man married to two women is still married to each woman seperately. Should the man die the women are not married to each other, however should a woman die the marriage between the man and remaining woman continues intact.

It only seems like this passage forbids (or looks down upon) polygamy because that's what we expect it to say because it has been thousands of years since polygamy was ever accepted in Judeo-Christian culture.

68

Much of the ado about gay marriage focuses on perceived inequality and injustice. But such inequality does not in fact exist. It is an artifact of a dishonest intellectual sleight of hand. The present laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples apply equally to heterosexuals and self-identified homosexuals alike even while their effects are disproportionate. Laws against larceny apply to thieves and non-thieves; only thieves find them troublesome.
The argument supporting "gay rights" morphs shared behavior into identity and identity into a minority group whose behavior should be sacrosanct precisely because the idea that minority groups should be defended against the intolerant majority resonates so well in our culture. This expropriation of the moral language of the civil rights struggles to cover actions and behavior rather than race or ethnicity has given a patina of respectability and earned wider support even when it has been found especially odious by some of the veterans of that earlier struggle. The illegitmacy of this argument is underscored by the wide, nearly inexhaustible applications that can be justified under its rubric. If equal treatment under the law is the leg of the dog, the attempt to earn approval for the behavior of the tail by calling it a leg is wrong.

69

i have a five legged dog. does that mean we can redefine marriage? i don't think it has anything to do with what we can or cannot redefine. i label this post as lame cuz, just like my five-legged dog.

70

Ex:

I will make a last comment for now. For, I think a few words are in order on your:

Is anyone besides me tired of hearing religious conservatives say that they are against gay marriage because it is untraditional, unnatural, harmful to society, different, will weaken the "institution of marriage," etc. The truth is that evangelicals oppose gay marriage for one reason and one reason alone: they believe that homosexuality is a sin.

1] First, this is outrageous! For, the plain underlying agenda is that opposition to homosexual agendas is religiously motivated and thus illegitimate. But in fact, the issue is that there is an underlying worldview question you have dodged: where do rights come from? And relative to the underlying atheistic secularist agenda you -- on track record in this blog -- carry with you, how can they be sustained in the face of the implication of evolutionary materialism: might makes right?

2] Precisely because such unnatural -- i.e. against he natural order -- unions DO have implications for society, for the socio-cultural environment in which I raise my children, for my freedom to speak my mind in church even -- note what happened to Pastor Gruen in Sweden!, for even my offering an apartment or a room in my house on the rental market, these are not at all as you describe:

Evangelicals must learn to differentiate between their Christian doctrine and the laws of a democratic society. To paraphrase Jefferson, "My neighbor's sexual orientation neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

3] In sharpest contrast, my neighbour's sexual preferences and habits may in fact become a massive and potentially massively destructive intrusion into my community life, my education life, the price of my health and general insurance premiums, my family life and even the safety of my children, perhaps even my health given the implications of disease statistics relative to demographics.

4] Further to this, notice the underlying evaded point -- lost in the attack on evangfelicals, those bogeymen. The actual agenda pushers in action: we can co-opt a few professors and educators, judges and media figures, then push rulings and propaganda to "redefine" fundamental social institutions to suit our whims and fancies.

5] Anyone who dares question this game is demonised and dismissed as a bigot or worse. In short, we are seeing a very familiar and highly hypocritical pattern: there is an assumption that morality and law are essentialy arbitrary and consequenceless, so it is a matter of clever rhetoric then using state power to push an agenda. On that, I will observe that the socialists learned the hard way that there are unanticipated, unintended consequences to policy, and when one plays with an animal as complex as society, these may be far bigger than any intended ones. [Especially, onlookers, observe that if it was a matter of insurance and inheritance, it is an easy matter to make standard form contracts. That is just what is NOT being done,m because the agenda is to transform society without giving time or room for people to think though where this will all end up and make decisions in their own time. That is why courts have been used, not ballot initiatives. For shame!)

6] That is, there are serious social and moral issues at stake here, that cannot be dodged through the subterfuge that tit is just religious bigots imposing their agenda on the rest of us. Indeed, are we not looking at precisely secularist bigots imposing their agendas on the rest of us?

++++++++++

$0.02

GEM

71

kwbr,

Your argument is transparently fallacious. In a sense, bans on homosexual marriage do apply to heterosexuals; they apply in the sense that, if heterosexuals were to become homosexual, they could not marry. But this does not imply that those laws are just. Consider this analogous case. Let us say that we passed a law which made public nudity a capital offense. In a way it applies to everyone; everyone is such that, if they appear nude in public, they can be put to death. But even though the law is universally applicable, it is nonetheless outrageously unjust.

Conclusion: universal applicability has nothing to do with the justice or injustice of a law.

72

Franklin, You are confusing rightness with justice. Universal applicability and evenhandedness in enforcement have everything to do with justice and equality. But the law itself, however justly applied, could still be a moral abomination.
My point is that any argument for or against the idea of gay marriage has nothing to do with equality and attempts to address it in that way are a red herring.
Laws relating to marriage express the government's interest in stability and the resulting public benefit. Support for or against any definition of marriage should be confined to that if they are to carry any weight in the public square. Individuals can make any personal associations they want without government imprimatur.
In passing, because the idea of idea of right or wrong laws (as opposed to the evenhandedness of their application) was raised by your post, I feel compelled to address the old chestnut, "You can't legislate morality!" Intended to stop an argument, it instead betrays stopped thinking. All legislation is inherently moral, even administrative law finds ordeliness a moral good, and by definition compels moral behavior. We must legislate morality. The alternative is immorality. The question of what is in fact moral is open to robust and respectful debate and should not be foreclosed prematurely.

73

Gordon: "First, this is outrageous! For, the plain underlying agenda is that opposition to homosexual agendas is religiously motivated and thus illegitimate."

Me: Not quite what I said. But I would maintain that a position that can only be sustained by appealing to religious teachings has no place in a liberal democracy.

Gordon: "But in fact, the issue is that there is an underlying worldview question you have dodged: where do rights come from? And relative to the underlying atheistic secularist agenda you -- on track record in this blog -- carry with you, how can they be sustained in the face of the implication of evolutionary materialism: might makes right?"

Me: Who's doing the dodging here? I guess the best defense is a good offense, eh, Gordon? If you can't make a legitimate case, then attack your opponent. You need to learn to distinguish between the "is" of evolution and the "ought" of ethics. One can be a Darwinist in regard to biology without being a Social Darwinist on ethics.

Gordon: "Precisely because such unnatural -- i.e. against he natural order -- unions DO have implications for society, for the socio-cultural environment in which I raise my children, for my freedom to speak my mind in church even -- note what happened to Pastor Gruen in Sweden!, for even my offering an apartment or a room in my house on the rental market, these are not at all as you describe:"

Well, Gordon, gays are still here whether or not they can get married. What do you propose - putting them in concentration camps to protect you from their evil influence. Are you afraid you might get cooties from them? They might not want to rent an apartment to an evangelical. Should they have that right?

Gordon: "In sharpest contrast, my neighbour's sexual preferences and habits may in fact become a massive and potentially massively destructive intrusion into my community life, my education life, the price of my health and general insurance premiums, my family life and even the safety of my children, perhaps even my health given the implications of disease statistics relative to demographics."