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.)
“Gay marriage supporters are not suddenly going to get all shocked at polygamy.”
No, they won’t be shocked. BUT I suspect that they would hate it. If nothing else, it confirms that men belong with women.
I am only asking advocates of gay marriage how they would argue against, if at all, legal plural marriage.
While there are obviously men who want other men it is hate toward God that this is all about and not about rights but only in the name of rights.
The idea is to defy God and cause as many people as they can to do the same.
What better way to defy God than to legalize an abomination such as sodomy and putting choice on abortion.
Woman was made for man, I have no doubt the anti Gods hate that with a passion.
They will be shocked when the polygamists get large enough to impose Sharia Law and behead them.
Polygamy isn’t limited by sex in a society that allows same sexes to marry.
Mormons don’t have the large army they had at one time, they won’t be able to threaten Americans as they once did.
I don't know why you guys think that group marriage is going to be limited to hetrosexuals.
Agreed.
Doubt it. Who really wants to support Mormons to the extent that plenty of PC Support Islam? No one. Neither side of the political spectrum wants to sanction them. Christians don’t want them, Muslims don’t want anyone higher than them in authority, and liberals have no desire to uphold and make great speeches in favor of them. Muslims are a big corridor, because plenty of the left support and speak against concerns that people have regarding Islam. When it comes to pushing polygamy in, Muslims have it on the side, and they outnumber Mormons everywhere in a National population.
Yeah, I have a problem explaining Abraham and all the women and children he divided his inheritance among. A lot of Christians have a problem explaining that one.
But for the most part, I agree with your statement. Same-Sex “Marriage” is the highest on the pecking order because it gets at many major religions, even some of those who would sanction polygamy. It really is about hate of God and his religion more than anything else.
Not even a question of that, they don’t have the liberals pushing and backing them like the Muslims do. Any army they ever had would be child’s play compared to the US military anyways, and I am talking even whenever it was they came to be.
No, they wont be shocked. BUT I suspect that they would hate it. If nothing else, it confirms that men belong with women.
The saying is don`t try to compare apples to oranges but that would be easy compared to trying to compare Polygamy with homosexuality.
Yeah, I have a problem explaining Abraham and all the women and children he divided his inheritance among.
If it had not been approved by God it would not have been.
I do not think we need to apologize to people who question what our founding fathers of the bible did.
Some people has to make the Bible fit their ideal before they can except it.
But I have never saw any one who was ideal or lived an ideal life.
Sorry for the late reply.
If consenting adults want get married, get married.
You should not to have to ask the state for permission.
Homosexuals can get “married” now.
Exchange your vows, have a party, go on a honeymoon, whatever floats your boat.
Now, if you are asking for special or preferential treatment from the state because of your assumed new status, that is another question entirely.
Here’s how I see it. It’s already decriminalized, whether it is trumpeted or not. Nobody cares, for instance, if I was living in a home with however many women and had relations with them, and had children with them, etc.. If there is any cohabitation law, then it is not enforced. If there’s any goal with marriage, it is to legitimize criminalization of religion. Polygamy has nowhere near the potential as homosexual civil rights to do that. The only approach sensible in that direction would be to legalize it, criminalize it, and arrest the religions who reinstate it, but most people with any sense wouldn’t buy it. And that’s besides the fact that most people with half a brain recognize it for a house of cards in today’s world of no fault divorce and court battles over how inheritance splits up.
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.