Posted on 12/04/2014 8:40:00 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Traditional marriage and family arrangements are changing. (I am talking here primarily about Western societies where Christianity and Judaism have been strongly influentialmostly European-based societies and those affected by them via colonialism and/or missionary endeavors.) For centuries monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage has been the norm with other arrangements, including marriage between close relatives, forbidden. Divorce and remarriage gradually became acceptable. Even many fundamentalist Christians and orthodox Jews have accommodated to it. Now, of course, even some evangelical Christian theologians are joining the movement for full marriage rights for people of the same sex. It appears to be inevitable that most states in the U.S. will eventually issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some Christian and Jewish leaders defend this trend as liberating, a movement of freedom and equality, continuing the trajectory of individual rights set in motion by the Enlightenment.
Im a person who, for better or worse, always looks at social trends (and trends in churches) and asks Where does the logic of this lead? I believe the logic driving the gay marriage movement leads inevitably to next steps in liberation from traditional marriage arrangements.
Whenever I mention this, however, many defenders of gay marriage argue that there is no massive call for legal polygamy or marriage between closely related persons. Or for abolition of government-regulated marriage. Be that as it may, my mind cannot help but wonder. If we could get in a time machine and go back to America (to leave aside for the moment other Western societies) fifty year ago (and Im old enough to remember that time) we would find that almost nobody envisioned a coming day when persons of the same sex would be permitted to marry. A few lonely voices called for that occasionally but there was no massive call for legal gay marriage. It was only a dream of a few people who stayed mostly quiet about it except among themselves.
Now we see cable television programs about polygamous marriages. (I put marriage in scare quotes only to indicate these are not yet legally recognized in any state and are, so far as I can tell, still actually illegal such that the husband could be subject to prosecution as could the minister or other officiating person who performed the weddings.) These mostly exist among so-called fundamentalist Mormons, but thats irrelevant to my point.
My question is not about a real or imaginary massive call for legalized polygamy; that may or may not happen in the future. (I suspect it will happen, but I cant prove it.) My question is only about logic. (So please stick to that if you choose to respond.) And it is only to those who advocate legally-recognized gay marriage: What purely rational or religious-based reasons can be given for continuing to criminalize plural marriage or to deny marriage licenses to groups?
Now, just to stave off an avalanche or even a trickle of comments based on misunderstanding. I am not here discussing the ethics of gay marriage, so do not respond as if I were. I am only asking advocates of gay marriage how they would argue against, if at all, legal plural marriage. And by plural marriage here I am only talking about arrangements where all the parties to it are knowledgeable, free adults and where there is no abuse or coercion.
So, to be very specific, let me give a hypothetical example: A woman wants to be legally married to two men. (I realize this would technically, legally be labeled bigamy but its still plural marriage so I am including bigamy in this question. My question would be the same if she wanted to be married to three men or to a man and another woman.) What ethical or legal arguments would you, who advocate and support gay marriage, give for continuing to prohibit plural marriage?
Then, lets take it a step further. Image a biological brother and sister who wish to be legally married. One or both of them will undergo voluntary sterilization to avoid the possibility of having children (who might have serious birth defects as a result). They can prove to the government that they cannot have biological children, but they plan to adopt. To those who advocate and defend gay marriage, which is the same as saying redefine marriage from its traditional definition, what rational or purely religious arguments can you give for prohibiting such a marriage? If such a couple sues for a marriage license, what reasoning should a judge use (if at all) to deny their claim?
In order to head off a flame war here, I will say the following: Here I am not advocating anything except calm, logical consideration of what changing traditional definitions of marriage might lead to. I will only post comments and respond to questions (as time permits) that honor that intention and invitation. Also, I am not assuming that religious arguments cannot be rational; I am only using religious (above) in the sense of reasoning that goes beyond nature alone. (I will not get into a wrangle over epistemology.)
The biggest thing I see holding legalized polygamy back - at least for a while - will be things like tax codes and inheritance laws. I can see endless legal battles and constitutional questions raised over which wife’s (or husband’s) children get survivor benefits, over figuring income for tax rates (can one wife file jointly, while the other separate?) and so on.
I do see it as a very real possibility though, in terms of a push for it being socially acceptable. If I were a polygamist (and I am not), I would argue that if we can accept the idea of two men or two women being married, why not a man and two women?
Of course, gay activist types pooh-pooh such notions, arguing they are separate legal issues. There may be some truth in that, but it is also true that judicial decisions have consequences beyond the courtroom. One you begin to redefine something that has been unchanging and as clearly defined as marriage, it loses that air of immutability and permanence. The door is opened to any group seeking to expand the definition to include their agenda.
You can do that now, the thing is that people want their marriage to be legal, just knowing it yourself doesn’t help much, for instance being in the military with a wife and kids, yet not legally married.
You bet!!
If there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage (which I dispute), then I don’t see how you can argue there is no constitutional right to polygamy.
In certain times and places (notably in ancient times) when there was a shortage of men--usually due to war--polygamy was allowed by God, simply as a practical necessity. A woman alone was then either a prostitute, a beggar...or dead. So, like slavery (where POW's became dead....OR slaves) polygamy was allowed, though never ideal--and never God's original plan.
Homosexual relationships though, by biblical morality, were NEVER allowed, period. They were always seen as a sign of the most depraved and corrupt people--hence our term "sodomy."
According to Dr. Gagnon, Old Testament scripture treats homosexual acts--on about the same level as incest--which in ancient Israel demanded the death penalty. Polygamy on the other hand--while warned about (Kings for example were warned about having many wives...and making treaties through marriages (a very common practice)), was allowed...
It took Jesus teaching--bringing back marriage to Adam and Eve--and thus limiting causes for divorce--which reminded God's people of the original design--of one man and one woman-- (thus by omission--condemning homosexual relationships....) so that the Christian church first banned polygamy for Church leaders and very soon after made polygamy unacceptable for all Christians.
homosexual “marriage”
plus
lowering the age of consent as far as possible
plus
polygamy
and what do you get?
Islamic Sharia Law.
(That’s the obvious goal, anyway...preparing USA for IslamoNazi rule)
or else, its all an amazing coincidence....
You may have to end up doing both if you want both a) A Christian Ceremony b) Official recognition. It is the way they do it in Singapore and some other countries.
When the day comes (it’ll happen by 2016, I think)....that in New Hampshire....a 45-year old lesbian will apply to marry a local 13-year old girl, with her mother’s consent (this is the legal deal that exists there)...the news media will sit there and finally start to ask some questions.
I do agree....polygamy is the next step and ought to be legalized somewhere within five years. There’s nothing logical anymore to prevent it.
Sure, some may already do that here, the point is that people can do whatever they want in private and always could, but most people want their marriage to be legal.
Gay’s would love nothing more than to see traditional marriage ridiculed and destroyed even more than what they have already done. The question to ask gays is why not normalize pedophilia. That is how they maintain, and grow their numbers.
How about unicorn marriage - this group can marry themselves every time they stick their heads up their own A$$es.
I want to marry my dog (not for the reason you maybe thinking). I would be able to get another tax credit, use ObamaCare for the Vet bills and take out life insurance. After all dogs don't live that long.
I also want to marry my sons, no estate taxes!
See how fun changing everything can be......
I imagine there are some fringe Mormons asking the same question, along with a substantial fraction of Muslims in our country. I expect polygamy to be the law of the land in my lifetime.
How would non-religious people marry using your model? Would it just be unavailable to them?
Polygamy has much more going for it than homosexual marriage - it is natural, it is scriptural, and in certain societies such as ours, where more women want husbands than men want wives, it is logical.
But more to the point: Every single legal argument, every court decision, which has enabled same-sex couples to marry applies with MUCH greater force to legal polygamy.
If the Supreme Court hears the right case, it will be legal, and very soon.
Wait until NAMBLA forces the lowering of consent. Then you will see homosexuals having group marriages with 6 year old boys.
This is what the homosexuals want more than anything.
I did at first. Sorry ‘bout that. Good post, I must say.
Jesus was pretty clear on that. So once a “town” rejects the Gospel, they basically are given over to depraved minds, in for a penny, in for a pound.
” I am only talking about arrangements where all the parties to it are knowledgeable, free adults and where there is no abuse or coercion.”
Who are you to say abuse and coercion are wrong? What about people who are coercionexuals? Who are you to stand on the courthouse steps and deny them their right to marry?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.