quote:I don't see how that's true. There have been many cultures that practiced polygamy. It's not always a religious thing. It's a marriage thing.
Name each one, and you will find religious precedence used in each one. I can understand you being ignorant to this fact, but it's true. Don't just trust me, go look it up yourself.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, Storm, you're saying that the acceptability of homosexuality is entirely dependent on world population and life expectancy?
Obviously, I never said it was entirely dependent. The question was, what has changed 'recently'. Life expectancy and birth rate are two answers that basically tie into one answer and I think a pretty significant.
quote: Doesn't that seem pretty arbitrary? Especially since opinions on world population differ so widely?
Let's put it this way, even if you, or someone, doesn't believe that global overpopulation is a serious issue(and I imagine I could probably google, literally, a hundred sources saying that it is), surely it's pretty evident that the world long ago passed the stage where it's a do or die frontier situation and that the need for every man and woman to be engaged in the process of reproducing the race has long since passed away? Olivet has made mention of this a couple times with her fruit fly analogy.
This doesn't refute any of the social and epistemological arguments that the discussion has basically revolved around these last few days, of how gay marriage will impact the societal landscape. The wonder of those arguments, because they are basically subjective, is that they'll never be proven or disproven. So, it's interesting that you bring arbitrariness as a point now. One man's functionality is another man's dysfunctionality. I submit that that the usual arguments are a lot more arbitrary than my point.
posted
I have trouble believing that polygamy is man-made, John.
It's too prevalent in the animal world, specifically primates.
I can understand you being ignorant to this fact, but it's true.
Now, maybe taking multiple wives is religious, as marriage is man/religion-made, but the act of a single male mating with multiple females seems pretty natural.
Then again, I don't think humans are monogamous at birth. I think, rather, that we're conditioned to be that way.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I haven't paid attention to this thread in a few hours, so I'm behind on answering for my opinions...
kat said:
quote:Bob, it's not just from the Bible, though.
I mean, you're applauding modern revelation because it allows change, but the modern revelation is currently saying... that's it's bigger than the shellfish thing. That it's against God's plan for all of us. That it's a sin that will destroy you. Not that God will destroy you for it, but that it will do it on its own and God wants to protect us from that. Modern revelation doesn't just clear up some wriggly points in the Bible - it's reiterated and emphasized this point several times over.
In the Book of Mormon, Alma states that sexual sin is the worst sin next to murder. I usually hate linking to things and expecting people to read them, but if you really want to know the attitude, the link will help.
So, in a switch, it wouldn't be going against a few controversial points Paul made. It would be negate itself.
Well, I guess my first counter is that while I honor the LDS tradition of modern revelation, I don't particularly buy into it. I can, for example, pray that the Ayotollahs all suddenly and forever renounce jihad based on a message from God without ever believing in Islam.
I'm not of your faith, so I don't have to worry about what a Scripture that is purely LDS says. Which is a good thing because I don't even worry much about what the Scripture I do believe in says. Well...that's not strictly true, I worry about it all the time. I just don't necessarily accept all of it as God's word. (and before we all dogpile on Bob, I DO in fact realize that this is hubris and sets me up as my own little demi-god deciding which scripture is right and which isn't. The alternative though is less appealing to me, to whit: accepting as Gospel that which was decided by some previous person who I don't even know I can trust. I just don't agree that God wrote it all AND directed the process by which it was decided which books are and are not canonical... It seems like a process I'd rather have well documented and up for review every five years.)
I just know that your church has a mechanism for change and I really hope it happens some day. That's all.
Of all the churches out there, I think the Baptists and the LDS are the most vehement about homosexuality, and homosexual marriage. I think they are both wrong on this point and while I can see the Scripture-based support for the current positions of the two, I also think that the Scripture or the use thereof is flawed. I think it's flawed only because the outcome is an attitude that I find indefensible in any other way BUT religious conviction. And I think that such things should be severely limited in Christian thought. Not everything can be a matter of one's faith. Some of it has to be (like Jesus is God). But most of what we believe as Christians should also be firmly grounded in a sense of fairness, honesty, openness and so on.
And I don't really think that limitations on private sexual behavior of consenting adults is even the province of religion.
Unless the person becomes dysfunctional in their pleasure-seeking, it's really not anyone's business.
I honestly don't even think God should care about it one way or the other.
My biggest question to God (or those who make shift to speak for him) on this issue is "Why do you even care?"
quote:while I can see the Scripture-based support for the current positions of the two, I also think that the Scripture or the use thereof is flawed.
To continue in the thread of beating the dead horse...
The LDS church's stance is not based solely on that disputed scripture. What it is based on - many scriptures and modern revelation - is unequivocal. There's no doubt.
*thinks* And you know, the mechanism for change that is in place is part of the surety, I think. Because if a change was part of the plan, it would have been/would be apparant.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something that someone mentioned earlier in this thread has been bothering me. I think it was Kat saying how homosexuality is a sin that will destroy someone.
How? And why?
I mean it...a life-wrecking thing? Simply because you are in love with someone who's the same sex as you are? How are the two women who have been together for twenty years, or the male couple who have been committed to eachother for years and are raising an adopted family destroy their lives? Isn't it...love, caring, whatever, any way you look at it? Isn't that what God LIKES?
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, just out of curiosity, what is it about being against homosexuality that you find un-Christian? Is it that it seems heartless to deny Heaven-endorsed sexual gratification to many of God's children? God allows many more severe life-long difficulties than that. But you know that already.
And I firmly believe that physiologically based same-sex-orientation will not exist in a ressurrected being. Nor will any other physiological mortal ailment. I do not believe homosexuality is an innate part of that person's soul. I believe that gender is.
I'm glad you asked. God made the world and everything in it. If you'll grant me that starting point, I think I can make it through to the end with a "justification" of my stance on this. And I recognize that's all it is...justification and nothing more. The firmness of my conviction in this stance goes beyond a justification to outright heresy, but that's for a whole 'nother discussion at a later date.
1. It is possible to study God through study of the Universe He created. In fact, God's creation is perhaps the best source of new knowledge of God because it is always and forever unfolding whereas other sources are relatively static and less yielding of new information.
2. All study of God (whether of Scripture or of His creation) is fraught with uncertainty. Not because of the subject matter, but because of who is doing the studying -- your basic flawed humans.
3. There's nothing that occurs naturally in the world that is not a reflection of God and God's will.
4. Okay, here's the biggie...homosexuality is a part of nature. It exists. It exists in humans and even in animals (although some dispute whether the behaviors involved for non-human animals are really "sex" or whether they involve true sexual "attraction.") I think there are at least some (if not all) homosexuals who come by their same-sex attractions as a product of their very nature, not a cognitive exercise, or some conditioned response learned during their upbringing. But no matter -- they're here and they're queer, deal with it. So, yes, I just believe that God made them that way.
5. Sexual attraction, like intelligence, the ability to reason, and empathy and all kinds of other wonderful things are truly gifts from God.
6. While it is possible to abuse a gift whether it came from God or not, I think such abuse would require willful disobedience. That is the nature of the first sin, and the most important commandment to protect us from sin. And love is never willful disobedience. Now, acting on love's feelings inappropriately can be...(as in pedophilia where the man asserts he really does love his victims). So we have to ask whether homosexual love is such an abuse, or not.
7. Here's the part where I truly depart from what the Bible appears to say (in Leviticus and in Paul) to go to what it is saying in spirit. If God made a person homosexual (which I assert is irrefutably true -- there are some who have a natural inclination to love members of the same sex), the mere fact of that attraction is not unnatural. It is just as much their gift as my gift of heterosexual attraction is mine...from God.
8. And then I inject a small bit of reason (which is all I have to spare). This tells me that there is no such thing as "generally shared evil." That our sins are specific to ourselves and our actions or sometimes thoughts. If this is true, then there is no good justification for the position that would lead anyone to be worried about another person's private life. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, but are engaging simply engaging in a behavior that both meets their God-given natural inclination with others who are also so inclined, it isn't a sin. In fact, it is celebrating God's gift and should be honored.
The only way this could be NOT true is if there is such a thing as "generally shared evil." That would be evil that basically permeates the world and has unforeseen ripple effects. So, for example, my PRIVATE lewd thoughts about another person cause someone who I never met, never will meet, and cannot possibly affect in any physical way,...to commit a crime. The butterfly effect of all butterfly effects. So to speak.
And, as scientific and spiritual understanding are both among the gifts God has given me, I have to tell you there ain't no way this could be true. Not unless we are ALL much more connected than we could possibly detect.
But, let's for a second take up a weakened version of the argument. That is, let's say simply that homosexual behavior is natural BUT undesirable state of affairs. If that is the case, we might want to suppress it for the good of those who are exposed to it. And, in suppressing it, we would expect it to naturally diminish if God were truly on this side in the fight.
Does anyone truly believe that there are demonstrably more homosexuals now than there were in the past? As a percentage of the population? I don't.
So, it's sort of like God is telling us, through the data...that it's something that is here to stay and not just a weird aberration.
It's part of His plan. We just don't understand it yet.
9. And so...my friends, I come to the following conclusion. That to fight against homosexuality is to actively fight against something that bears all the hallmarks of being part of God's overall design.
This has lots of implications. But I'm running out of time at the moment and this post is getting too long as it is.
So I'll stop there for now.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, is there anything that is evil in this world?
If it's the case that if we want to do something that must mean it is okay to do it because the want must come from God, that means there is nothing that we want to do that isn't right to do.
Your argument rests on the premise that there are no bad choices, because if the option exists, it must come from God, and therefore is a legitimate choice.
That obviates the principle of opposition in all things, and actually wipes the idea of God being good at all. Good doesn't exist in a vaccuum; it is contrast to what it is not. If there is no evil, no bad choices, there is nothing God is not. He isn't good - he just is.
That doesn't gently ignore a few Pauline scriptures. That wipes out the structure and premises of Christianity. If that's what you're going for, that's fine (your beliefs), but it isn't a mild departure.
quote:my PRIVATE lewd thoughts about another person cause someone who I never met, never will meet, and cannot possibly affect in any physical way
Like this... that doesn't contradict Paul, that contradicts the "he who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery in his heart" kinds of scriptures.
posted
Bob, I implied in my post that had the question that God does make people homosexual, he also makes them blind, deaf, mentally retarded, and a host of other things. Those things will always be with us too. I know that puts me in the category of people who think that homosexuality is a disorder, but so be it.
And I really think that for those who are thouroughly attracted to their own sex and not the opposite (or complimentary as was so beautifully put) will be judged with that taken into account. Just as God won't blame a blind man for not being able to see, God will not blame a fully homosexual man for not being attracted to women. I guess on this point, you and I actually come close to agreement, because I can't see a just God creating a homosexual man and then condemning him for it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your argument rests on the premise that there are no bad choices, because if the option exists, it must come from God, and therefore is a legitimate choice.
kat...this is totally and completely false.
I think I must've done a pretty poor job of explaining my position if you could even come close to this as an undertstanding of it.
Yes, there is evil in the world. It's just not an abstract concept. It is evil but it is also people's actions, not some vague distributed cloud of foul funk.
And if the concept of personal responsibility (for sin or anything else) is to mean anything, then the concept of "generalized evil" has to be false. We are the source of evil by our actions. Period.
Oh, and your thing about unequivocal and irrefutable.
quote:Second of all, since insurance, taxes, and other non-religious and non-census organizations began to give special privileges to couples. Since the whole of the free world has taken the word and defined it as such. Since polygamy is, in its very essence, a result of the religious concept, and religion has not "owned" marriage for a very long time.
So polygamy is wrong because the whole of the free world has defined it as wrong, but homosexuality is right, even though the whole of the free world has not defined it as such, right?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, I implied in my post that had the question that God does make people homosexual, he also makes them blind, deaf, mentally retarded, and a host of other things. Those things will always be with us too. I know that puts me in the category of people who think that homosexuality is a disorder, but so be it.
And I really think that for those who are thouroughly attracted to their own sex and not the opposite (or complimentary as was so beautifully put) will be judged with that taken into account. Just as God won't blame a blind man for not being able to see, God will not blame a fully homosexual man for not being attracted to women. I guess on this point, you and I actually come close to agreement, because I can't see a just God creating a homosexual man and then condemning him for it.
I totally agree with the last paragraph.
On the first...I don't necessarily see homosexuality as a disorder or derailment. I see it as part of a continuum -- from flaming hetero- to flaming homo-sexual and everything in between.
I don't think a "disease" or "deformity" model of the world works even for those things we call diseases or deformities, let alone something like sexual preference.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I meant the words and stance were unequivocal. You can disagree that that the words have authority, but not with what the words say.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, I don't think he's trying to place polygamy into right or wrong. I think he's trying to explain why the two issues aren't the same.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the source of my understanding that you were saying that if the desire to do it exists, it must come from God.
That means if the temptation exists, it's a legitimate choice from God. That means no bad choices.
kat, I tried to cover this obvious objection (I knew someone would raise it) by saying that gifts can be abused. And willful disobedience is where the real problem is...every time.
I do have to say, though, that from some perspectives doing "what comes naturally" is often indistinguisable from a lack of impulse control.
And, I think people need to have their conscience as a guide.
To do that, however, they need to have one. And they need to listen to it.
Many people have proven unreliable in this regard.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
celia, I fully understand that the two issues are not the same. It just seems to me that he's either dodging the question or discriminating against polygamy in the same way that others are discriminating against homosexual marriage. His argument that marriage belongs to monogamists holds even less water than the argument that marriage belongs to heterosexuals.
[ March 09, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have trouble believing that polygamy is man-made, John.
It's too prevalent in the animal world, specifically primates.
I can understand you being ignorant to this fact, but it's true.
Now, maybe taking multiple wives is religious, as marriage is man/religion-made, but the act of a single male mating with multiple females seems pretty natural.
I'm not ignorant to this "fact," though. In every one of those species, the relationships are inherently unequal. That's my point, bud. Why foster inequality? After all, the "natural" world is also very brutal and dangerous, yet we do not condone violence or brutality.
Jon Boy:
quote:So polygamy is wrong because the whole of the free world has defined it as wrong, but homosexuality is right, even though the whole of the free world has not defined it as such, right?
No, polygamy—as it has been performed by various civilizations—is inherently unequal, and that inequality is what is wrong. Homosexuality is not polygamy, which is why using them as if they were the same logical argument—comparing a sexual preference to a marriage arrangment that has been inherently unequal to females—is so flawed. It's apples and oranges, and yet you have continued to press the issue as if they were both the same.
katharina:
quote:Bob, I meant the words and stance were unequivocal. You can disagree that that the words have authority, but not with what the words say.
I think what Bob is saying is that they have authority, but not final authority to non-adherents of the faith. At least, that's what I said herePosts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, instead of just linking it, I'll repost the pertinent parts:
quote:I would posit that it's because in its current state, religious institutions have a comfortable scenario where they can not claim the word marriage for couples who either fail at marriage or are sinful according to their doctrines, and they don't have to admit that there are just people who get married for non-religious reasons (or for reasons outside of anything to do with religion). In this case, religious institutions don't have to admit that marriage doesn't belong to them, because once something is made known that is contrary to their doctrine, it's easy to shrug off as "oh, they were different people" or "that was before they changed and learned what it really meant." Such excuses have been used on this very forum, regarding the incredibly huge divorce rate among Protestant Christians. Religious institutions get to recognize the marriage without having to admit that they have no final say on who can marry, and then when something goes wrong, they can blame the individuals involved for not being adherent to their faith. The difference with homosexual marriage is that it wouldn't be able to be ignored by religious institutions as being outside of their realm of influence, which would make the institutions have to admit they don't have (and haven't for a long time) the final say on who can or cannot marry. In other words, it would force the "churches" (meaning institutions) to finally admit something that has been so for quite a long time, but has existed in a more comfortable (and convenient) form for them. If there's any reason to feel threatened, that's the biggest. Religious institutions are very used to being the final authority on Earth to their members, and a sign that their authority does not extend to those outside of their religions is threatening to those institutions. And it's scary to many members, since their institution feeling threatened in any way is met with claims of attack and persecution (real or, more often, imagined).
A non-LDS heterosexually married couple may not have been sealed in temple, but there is still the "hope" that those people will convert (thus be "made whole") and then be sealed; with homosexual marriages, this is a hope that is not possible. With non-Baptist or non-Pentecostal married heterosexual couples, they may not have been "born again" and baptized by a minister from that denomination, but the hope still remains that they can be converted (thus be "made new/whole") and baptized; with homosexual marriage, this is not a possibility. It is much the same with Catholicism, other Christian denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and Judaism—while the hope of conversion and completion is possible for non-members that are heterosexual, it's impossible for homosexual marriages to convert (and remain homosexually married). This means the church(es) can never give the final blessing on the marriage, even if it's done post-hoc. This means that the church(es) would have to admit that they are not required to give the final blessing on marriages any more, even though they haven't been required to do so for a very long time. After all, do churches have to give the final blessing in marriage to atheist couples, couples who do not follow dietary, traditional, or ritual laws today? Only according to followers of whatever faith is claiming it, not non-members.
Am I the only one who sees the double-standard in that? Or is everyone of different faiths here going to openly and honestly let those of other faiths know that their marriages are not sanctified and blessed according to their God?
So, beverly, are you going to tell people who are not of your denomination or faith, yet still having a faith of their own, that they are also wrong and not blessed by God? How about you, Jon Boy? I mean, if you're going to withold the right to believe that non-church-endorsed marriage is indeed not a "real" marriage (according to your faith), can you admit that these marriages that already exist are not worth the paper their licenses are printed on?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depression is not a disease. It is a continuum from being flaming joyful and grateful for a beautiful life to being flaming suicidal.
Schizophrenia is not a disease either. It is a continuum from being completely grounded in reality to being so obsessed by the hallucinations that you prefer them over your medication.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why would God not give us some directions to keep us from hurting ourselves by abusing the gifts he's given us?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we often enter into things freely without knowing what we are getting ourselves into.
Remember too that the polygamy laws are aimed at the traveling fellow with an unknowing bride in every town along his route.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't put words in my mouth, John. I haven never said that those outside my faith are not blessed, nor have I ever said that marriages outside my faith are not real marriages.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In every one of those species, the relationships are inherently unequal. That's my point, bud. Why foster inequality? After all, the "natural" world is also very brutal and dangerous, yet we do not condone violence or brutality.
In species' that practice polygamy, if there is inequality, it's because one or the other sex is already dominant. Even in the monogamous pairings of these species, there's inequality.
Conversely, male and female humans are becoming equal, if we're not really close already. Especially as physical strength becomes less important.
Yes, there's been abuse in the past. And there is in the present, too. But we've never given it a chance to succeed. Between the laws against and social stigma surrounding it, only the worst sort of people are practicing it. If it were more accepted, I'd think to see fewer of the stereotypical one man/eight wives scenarios than more equal group marriages.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leto, what are you quoting? By the nature of your questions, I assume you do not understand the LDS doctrine on eternal marriage. This topic belongs in another thread.
Ok, I see now, you are quoting yourself! Please be more clear next time, I was really confused there....
quote:Sopwith said Because we often enter into things freely without knowing what we are getting ourselves into.
Which is very similar to the sociological/ethical arguments against homosexual marriage. "We know better than the poor, deluded individual making that choice."
quote:Remember too that the polygamy laws are aimed at the traveling fellow with an unknowing bride in every town along his route.
quote:But if it were practiced in America today by free and willing participants, why should your belief that it is unequal prevent them?
In fact, if it's voluntarily entered into, why should it matter if it's unequal?
Because those who are being treated unequally have no way to change their minds later. If there's no choice, where does the allowance of pursuit of happiness end and endorsed mistreatment begin? As I already said, there are marriages that employ unequal treatment already. And within the confines of the law, these people always have an option out of it. In those predefined situations, the women were always the ones who were screwed out of a choice to get out of it. That's where the illegality (or, rather, the unconstitutionality) comes into play.
And seriously, people, there is already a thread devoted to this straw man. If you want to argue polygamy, why not do it there? Or, are you who are trying to twist what I say into an assumed contradiction going to admit that you are claiming that you believe polygamy and homosexuality are the same argument? After all, you can't say that you aren't arguing it as a straw man against homosexual marriages, and then make the argument as pertaining to homosexual marriages. That would be you contradicting yourselves, not me.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't put words in my mouth, John. I haven never said that those outside my faith are not blessed, nor have I ever said that marriages outside my faith are not real marriages.
I'm not putting words into your mouth (Jon Boy). However, don't you believe that a homosexual marriage would not be a real marriage? Isn't that saying the same thing? Why or why not? Are you going to tell me that God endorses marriages that are not LDS, even when those marriages are Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Islamic? Why or why not?
beverly:
quote:Leto, what are you quoting? By the nature of your questions, I assume you do not understand the LDS doctrine on eternal marriage. This topic belongs in another thread.
I don't need to know the doctrine of LDS marriage, because the LDS church has no final say on who I may or may not marry. The point I'm making, both in the quote (which is my own words) and here is that if you are going to claim the invalidity of homosexual marriage as not being condoned by God according to your faith, then are you prepared to admit you feel the same way about marriages of other faiths?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point I'm making, both in the quote (which is my own words) and here is that if you are going to claim the invalidity of homosexual marriage as not being condoned by God according to your faith, then are you prepared to admit you feel the same way about marriages of other faiths?
Nope. Read my very first post on the thread "Not to continue beating a dead horse..." and you will perhaps understand this a little better.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because those who are being treated unequally have no way to change their minds later. If there's no choice, where does the allowance of pursuit of happiness end and endorsed mistreatment begin? As I already said, there are marriages that employ unequal treatment already. And within the confines of the law, these people always have an option out of it. In those predefined situations, the women were always the ones who were screwed out of a choice to get out of it. That's where the illegality (or, rather, the unconstitutionality) comes into play.
Women got the short end of the stick in traditional monogomous heterosexual marriage. Why is this relevant here? If the laws can provide protection from unequal treatment in monogomous marriage (at least to the extent we think it's still worthwhile), why can't it in polygamous marriages?
quote:And seriously, people, there is already a thread devoted to this straw man.
I'm responding to your inconsistent remarks in this thread. Saying over and over again that it's a straw man does not make it so. You quickly abandoned your position that polygamy was only religiously-induced when you realized how untenable it was. Now your apparantly on some inequality kick but still haven't reconciled why willing participants should be prohibited from engaging in polygamy.
See, my reasons for supporting legal recognition of homosexual marriage don't lead to the contradiction with banning polygamy. Yours do. You need to reconcile them somehow. Hysterically saying "Straw man! Straw man!" doesn't do it.
quote:After all, you can't say that you aren't arguing it as a straw man against homosexual marriages, and then make the argument as pertaining to homosexual marriages.
Of course, I'm not raising it as a strawman against homosexual marriage, since I favor legal recognition. Here's a clue for you - it's possible to disagree with you and not oppose legal recognition of homosexual marriage.
I'm pointing out the utter inconsistency of your own arguments equating opposition to legal recognition of homosexual marriage to bigotry, when that same reasoning applies to polygamous marriages.
posted
Dag, I know practicing polygamists. Ones who went into it fully knowing the situation.
Now, fifteen years in, troubles are arising for the third in the group, the one who doesn't have any legal marriage rights, the one who has been caught in something that she can't extricate herself from, the one who found that a marriage works best between two equals.
One can make polygamy legal, but not equal. A nation could set forth laws, but cannot guarantee against dominance of one against the many within the relationship. You can legislate equal rights and responsibilities within the relationship, but cannot prevent later wives in the marriage from being delegated to subservient roles.
Look at the societies that permit and promote polygamy that exist in our world. Look at the roles of women within those families. Even among the Mormons, the woman's role was subservient to the male and her rights were more curtailed than those of the man, and this is looking at it from a more enlightened perspective.
Polygamy, in practice, just doesn't work in the society we have strived to establish in the United States, because it actually works against equality of station and respect.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, don't you believe that a homosexual marriage would not be a real marriage? Isn't that saying the same thing? Why or why not? Are you going to tell me that God endorses marriages that are not LDS, even when those marriages are Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, or Islamic? Why or why not?
I believe that God approves or monogamous heterosexual marriages, and occasionally polygamous heterosexual marriages. Marriage is an important institution, so even if people aren't going to be sealed in the temple, it's still important for marriage to exist on earth.
From the leaders of my church:
quote:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Nowhere in there does it say that God only approves of Mormon marriages.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I am not the only one who realizes how completely illogical Leto sounds for all his laborious explaining.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Beren is a member-number bigot!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
