Posted on 06/01/2015 2:56:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
For years, religious conservatives argued against same-sex marriage by saying that it would put society on the slippery slope to (horrors!) polygamy. Now comes the New York Times‘ Ross Douthat, a day late and a dollar short.
In yesterday’s column, Douthat seizes upon a new Gallup study that shows a broad shift to the left in Americans’ social values during the present century. The exception, he says, is on abortion, but actually it’s not an exception; the pro-choice position has gained some ground. The exception is adultery — where the old-time disapproval is holding firm at over 90 percent.
You’d think Douthat would take some comfort in that, but instead he leaps at the polygamy approval number, which has jumped from seven percent in 2003 to a not-so-whopping 16 percent. He sees it as “bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake,” even as he concedes that the only out-and-out polygamists are fundamentalist Mormons and traditionalist Muslims.
A couple of months ago, he had this to say about how a liberalizing American culture should go forward “on issues related to sex and marriage and abortion and homosexuality and more.”
One possibility, the one I favor and have argued for (for self-interested but hopefully principled reasons as well), is basically to allow a fairly wide latitude for these religious subcultures, with legal protections and a general tolerance that makes it relatively easy for the observant and traditionalist not only to worship and find fellowship but also to run businesses, schools, colleges, hospitals, etc. in accordance with their beliefs.
I’d have thought the principled position for Douthat would be to support a right to polygamy, along the religious freedom lines that he thinks are necessary to enable traditionalist believers to maintain their codes of conduct. Indeed, it would be interesting to know how many of those new supporters of polygamy are frequent churchgoers and how many not, or how many are Republicans and how many Democrats. Crosstabs, Gallup?
What’s certain is that the federal judge who threw out a hunk of Utah’s anti-polygamy law is a born-and-bred Mormon whose decision turned on the constitutional right of free exercise. If polygamy is to achieve legal recognition in 21st-century America, it won’t be because of what Douthat calls “the now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily-dissolved romantic contract.” It will be because of the increasingly robust view of religious liberty now being embraced by him and his kind.
To get past that dead-horse, let me point out that NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE does it say that.
Oh?
Genesis 2
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (not 4 or 5)
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (singular) (Not a half rack)
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Not wives)
Whinney!
heh heh heh...
Slightly off topic; but I knew a fella, who had a sister.
He married a lady who had a brother.
The sister and brother got married to each other.
Genetically, the children of each marriage were more like brothers and sisters than cousins.
(Would that make his sister also his sister-in-law?)
You don’t remember me, do you? There was that crazy weekend in Rio....
Yeah, that one!
Exactly. I look at the statistics and think about the Israelites dancing around the Golden Calf. Same as it ever was. When our leaders are weak and godless then so are the people....
x, Mark Silk does seem to think that he’s most clever. What Mark Silk fails to take into account is that we religious conservatives have recently adopted the policies of our Islamo-Moon God worshipping bretheren on the Arabian peninsula, and his impertinence requires us to remove his head from his neck for his own good.
Mr Silk shall deliver himself to the local mosque of our choosing, and he should wear his favorite collarless shirt.
The end result of the Homosexual Marriage scam has ALWAYS been the lower of the age of consent.
The ‘anything goes’ crowd want our children in a ‘bad’ way.
The support pedophilia is the dirty little secret of the hard core left.
Wonder where these society watchers were at in the 50s 60s and 70s when half of the adult population in the U.S was either swapping mates or wanting to.
I doubt we have to worry about polygamy with every one turning queer.
He was married to both women — supposedly “for eternity” — in the Mormon temple.
Far closer to normal than homo marriage.
No, not her! The other, hot one!
There are a few basic truths about Love: Real love is constant and doesn’t ebb and flow with the tide – lunar or hormonal. Real love is forgiving, even the most painful injuries must be forgiven.
Author and Proprieter??
But not in THIS thread!
Which argument are you carrying over?
|
To: 2ndDivisionVet; Elsie; All
One of the Mormon "apostles" -- L. Tom Perry -- just died this past weekend.
He was on his second marriage (married again as a widower). He was married to both women -- supposedly "for eternity" -- in the Mormon temple. So, per Lds doctrine...as soon as Perry & his two wives arrives make it to the highest celestial kingdom...Perry becomes an eternal polygamist. All from the religion that supposedly disavows polygamy! |
There is NO 'full doctrine' of Mormonism.
If there were; a person could find the secret 'sacred' rituals done in the temples somewhere in Mormon 'scripture'.
They do NOT exist.
Mormonism makes another bold claim: fullness of the GOSPEL.
It cannot be found in the BoM like this plaque so arrogantly claims!
Any one else want to see this proof?
I sure do!
bump
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
So let's break down the 3 key phrases or words of D&C 132:4, shall we?
The official Lds church curricula – Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual – defines "celestial marriage" this way: "The 'new and everlasting covenant' (D&C 132:4) is the covenant of celestial marriage, as President Spencer W. Kimball plainly stated: 'Though relatively few people in this world understand it, the new and everlasting covenant is the marriage in the holy temple by the properly constituted leaders who hold the genuine authoritative keys...' ('Temples and Eternal Marriage,' Ensign, Aug. 1974, p. 5) One can sense the importance of accepting this covenant by the emphasis the Lord puts in the following phrases: ...'If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned' (vs. 4). 'No one can reject this covenant and...enter into my glory' (vs. 4)..."
(Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 327, 1981, 2000)
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.
