As many of you know, Patrick Madrid has now joined Free Republic. He also hosts his own blog on which several articles have been posted on this topic. The author of both is Dwight Longenecker. Rather than point you to his blog, it would be much easier to copy them here in their entirety. (Hopefully, Mr. Madrid will be sympathetic, having spoken up against such a law),
Where we're headed
Dwight Longenecker
I was fascinated by the detail of one comment from a Canadian that folks North of the Border have put a new item on the liberal agenda: they want to recognise polygamy between people of various sexual inclinations.
Here's how the argument will go: Let's imagine things just ten or twenty years down the line.
By now homosexual 'marriage' is accepted as a mainstream alternative. But what about those people who live in a threesome? Why shouldn't they get 'married'? The permutations are endless: a homosexual man with another man and his wife, a lesbian with her girlfriend and her girlfriend's husband, a man who simply wants two or three or however many wives, a woman who wants to have two or three or more husbands. A man who's had a sex change living with another man and his wife....
When you think about it, there is even less Biblical opposition to polygamy than to homosexuality. In fact, as far as I know there is no Biblical condemnation of polygamy. In fact, you could say there is downright support for polygamy--the patriarchs were polygamous. Christians in Africa might support it as it is a part of their recent traditions. The Mormons would support it.
Liberal Christians would say, 'Isn't this a better alternative to divorce?' Instead of Sally divorcing John and marrying Harry she could just marry Harry too. That way the children would have not just one father but two! Wouldn't that be great! What a great big, loving family! Utilitarian arguments for polygamy are endless. By marrying extra wives or husbands you cut divorce costs, you lower your overheads, you can combine incomes and have a better standard of living, more hands to help with the children and housework, a renewal of the extended family... blah blah blah...
Think of the benefit for relationships. If George is married to Mildred, but admits that he sometimes has homosexual inclinations he doesn't need to sneak around and be hypocritial and deceitful. He doesn't need to 'repress' his sexuality. He can just marry his boyfriend and that way they can all be 'fulfilled.'
Liberal Theologians will call this 'triune marriage'. They will spin theories about how this reflects the Holy Trinity, and how it is a fuller, richer and more mature understanding of Christian marriage. Sexologists will explain how a marriage with homosexuality as an integral part will enhance and fulfill the 'maleness' and 'femaleness' in all the partners.
You know, without any authority and with a bit of imagination and you can make elephants fly.
I will post his story on the Anglican homosexual issue, separately.
Good question. I'm sure we will be looking at this ten or twenty years down the road if homosexual marriage is legalized in the US in the near future. The situation seems to be analogous to the laws regarding abortion during the mid '60s, with several states considering the legalization of abortion.
It's a sobering thought, especially considering the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
What's so special about the number 2, if marriage doesn't mean one man and one woman?
And how can they deny the wish of a 40 year old man to marry his 18 year old "consenting" daughter (or son)?
Certainly the biological arguement can't hold up. What if he has a vasectomy?
Why can't daddy marry ALL of his "consenting" sons and daughters as they hit 18?
Can anyone provide an arguement why not?