I can't believe it-I never thought it'd be a reality show

[Murphy101]

I'm not opposed to plural marriage-I'm opposed to people who keep saying God Said So. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, either. Frankly, I agree that the government shouldn't be anywhere near our bedrooms. I have pagan friends in poly relationships, I'm totally cool with that. Just don't spin the bible to say so.

 

Why is saying God/Bible Says So, but saying Because I Want It is okay?

 

I don't feel one needs the bible or God to believe this is wrong because history and logic says so.

 

somewhat OT

 

Why do people keeping using the term Fundamentalist, which means pertaining to fundamental beliefs, for people who they claim do NOT share the core beliefs of said religion being discussed.

 

Fundamental Muslims

Fundamental LDS/Mormons

 

If they are not practicing the core beliefs then they are NOT fundamentalist.

If they are then there is something to discuss.

 

I need another word for them.

 

To me, although I know what the intent of the phrase, it is confusing the issue.

 

Are people saying fundamentalist are a bit nuts because they actually practice the fundamentals of the faith? If so, why would someone align with a faith if they believe it wrong to practice it's fundamental tenets?

 

Just saying...

[Shawna in Texas]

 

I don't feel one needs the bible or God to believe this is wrong because history and logic says so.

 

 

 

 

I don't know. Are we talking about singular homosexual marriage or a plural marriage? I can't see how logically or historically that this could be wrong for homosexuals. As for a plural marriage, plural marriages back in Biblical times, I think would probably be quite different. Even singular marriages back then. Even singular marriages from 100 years ago.

[Tabula Rasa]

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.

 

 

Quote is from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm which is a long article that details common arguments against gay marriage and why the author believes they are not valid.

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html a link that lists some of the benefits that married couples are granted.

[Tabula Rasa]

If homosexuals are going to argue that marriage is a right that they deserve simply because they want it, then why does the same logic not apply to plural marriage?

 

I really don't think the argument is that they deserve the right to be married because they want it. It's an issue of civil rights. Before 1967 several states in the US had laws against interracial marriages. That was wrong. Just like I believe it is wrong to discriminate against homosexual relationships by not allowing the same federally given rights as heterosexual relationships through marriage. They deserve the right to be married because it is discrimination against sexual orientation which is not supposed to be allowed in this country. Why would this not be applied to plural marriage? Because they would have to adjust the current rights and benefits of marriage to accommodate the greater quantity of spouses. Can it be done? Yes, but it would be an overhaul of the current system where legalizing gay marriage wouldn't be.

 

I don't think marriage is a right, I think it is a sacrament.

I happen to believe marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman.

I understand your belief and you have every right to it. If marriage was simply a spiritual union between two people this wouldn't be an issue. However legal marriage does confer federal rights to married couples. As someone above said, technically polygamists can marry as can gay individuals but it is not recognized by federal law.

 

I'm curious why the homosexual marriage reasoning is not followed through to it's logical ends.

What logical ends?

 

But if one were to base a supposed right on claims made by the homosexual marriage movement, then it stands to reason that any demographic that can make the same claims should be able to claim the same supposed right.

Can polygamists claim the same rights? Can pedophiles? I guess I'm unclear as to what rights you referring to other than marriage. I would think the reason behind the claim for equal rights between homosexual and heterosexual couples would differ and be set apart from the claims of polygamists.

 

What is the point of legal marriage in this country?

 

And I would think bisexuals would not be served by either heterosexual or homosexual marriage, so demanding plural marriage would be the next logic "rights" issue to come about.

Being bisexual does not mean you have the desire to marry both a man and a woman. It also doesn't mean you have to have a relationship with both simultaneously.

 

Its clear we have two very different view points on this issue and I can now see why you made your original post. We aren't going to be able to change each others' minds (not that we are trying to) but I do like reading why you think as you do. We'll have to agree to disagree :)

Edited September 26, 2010 by Tabula Rasa

[Tabula Rasa]

Good question. The only interest that the government has in any relationship is children. The government doesn't care what happens in the bedroom EXCEPT that what happens in the bedroom, between one man and one woman, produces children.

 

Five men and one woman don't produce a child. Two women and one man don't produce a child. They don't all contribute. Only one of each sex will produce another living, human being. Two men do not produce a child. Two women do not produce children. Some heterosexual couples do not produce children. But heterosexual couples have the potential to produce children.

 

Moreover, heterosexual couples produce a child that they are both physiologically and emotionally invested in. Biologically, they are deeply invested. This biological link is why the government invests in them. Most societies, and certainly those in the West, decided a long, long time ago that this biologically connected unit was the most likely to survive and prosper. To produce thriving young. And so governments invested in that relationship, too. To be sure, other combinations end up with children as well, and thankfully so. And they can do very well also. People are vastly resourceful when they need to be. But with the limited resources of the state which belong to the collective taxpayer, that is the one relationship that the full weight of the state is thrown behind. Just to make things a little more likely to prosper. That is the motive. And the biological link makes for a reasonable and logical line in the sand against the slippery slope of various permutations of marriage.

 

Take away the government's investment in that one type of relationship and watch what happens. Look at the military benefits if you want an example. Give those resources to every possible combination of relationships and see how fast we go bankrupt. We are headed there so fast now it hardly matters, but that is another thread.

 

The state doesn't back marriage to give it legitimacy or because it is a right. It has no power to make "legitimate" or to bestow "rights"! It never had that power in the first place. The state backs marriages to hopefully encourage them to last for the sake of the children. Nothing more. It is a very practical purpose.

 

So, if consenting adults want to be married, they should not wait around for the state to recognize their union. But they should also not be hurt or resentful when the state (the collective taxpayer) doesn't recognize or fund their social experimentation. The state should have no obligation to do so.

 

I should also add that it is not just that the state bestows certain benefits on married couples to help them support children, the state also expects a certain level of responsibility from married people toward each other and their offspring. Thus we have alimony/patrimony and child support laws. In other words, it demands from those relationships in accordance to what it gives. At least it should. Perhaps that has not been stressed enough for too long.

 

I've never actually heard this argument or reasoning before so thank you for sharing it. But if we want to hold that all of that above is true, then why are couples who are infertile able to be married? There is no possibility of children to be considered. What about old age? Should a woman past menopause be unable to marry since there is no way her union would result in children? I also don't believe homosexuality is a social experiment so maybe that colors my judgment.

[Tabula Rasa]

I've never actually heard any polygamists wanting legal marriage. Perhaps they don't want their unions to be illegal but I don't see them striving to be mainstream either. They probably benefit more from remaining outside the system (in regards to welfare) then they do inside of it.

 

I just see a major difference between homosexuality and polygamy in a legal sense. I am a very firm believer in equal rights across the board but I see very little benefit to polygamists to legalize their marriages. However there are strong reasons for legalizing gay marriage. The arguments I see against gay marriage could very well be flung at heterosexual marriage. Imo either the government should stay out of marriage completely or any individual should be able to marry any other individual as long as both are consenting adults (and human :p)

 

So I guess I don't see how legalizing gay marriage would naturally segue into polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. They are just not the same.

[DianeW88]

It's not a jump at all. Remember the documentary of the mormons practicing plural marriage that were forcing young girls into plural marriage ? Someone went to jail for that , I believe ,and I think that is where they belong.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. Putting Gods name on it, as if He approves, is just one of those wrongs.

 

Please do not refer to these folks as "Mormons". They are not, nor have they ever been, members of the LDS church. Polygamy is forbidden in our church and anyone practicing it will be excommunicated. These people are a fringe group using a remnant of Mormonism in their teachings. Some of them refer to themselves as Fundamentalist Mormons. However, they have NOTHING to do with the official LDS church.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

Edited September 26, 2010 by DianeW88

[DianeW88]

Why is saying God/Bible Says So, but saying Because I Want It is okay?

 

I don't feel one needs the bible or God to believe this is wrong because history and logic says so.

 

somewhat OT

 

Why do people keeping using the term Fundamentalist, which means pertaining to fundamental beliefs, for people who they claim do NOT share the core beliefs of said religion being discussed.

 

Fundamental Muslims

Fundamental LDS/Mormons

 

If they are not practicing the core beliefs then they are NOT fundamentalist.

If they are then there is something to discuss.

 

I need another word for them.

 

To me, although I know what the intent of the phrase, it is confusing the issue.

 

Are people saying fundamentalist are a bit nuts because they actually practice the fundamentals of the faith? If so, why would someone align with a faith if they believe it wrong to practice it's fundamental tenets?

 

Just saying...

 

I agree. They are definitely NOT "Fundamentalist Mormons", because they are not Mormons at all. They have never been members of the LDS church, so to call themselves "Mormon" in any way, shape or form is a gross inaccuracy.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

[Tea Time]

I've never actually heard this argument or reasoning before so thank you for sharing it. But if we want to hold that all of that above is true, then why are couples who are infertile able to be married? There is no possibility of children to be considered. What about old age? Should a woman past menopause be unable to marry since there is no way her union would result in children? I also don't believe homosexuality is a social experiment so maybe that colors my judgment.

 

Now I am wondering, did you read the article that Critter posted? That article answers in very great detail all of the points that you have brought up in all your posts. It particularly has an excellent answer to your infertile couple and racial questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would review that article as my paraphrasing of it will definitely be lacking. However, I will try because it has crucial points that are integral to my post, and I do realize that many people will not read that article despite the fact that it is well worth the effort.

 

I have made the argument that the definition of marriage should remain as is because that term is based upon biology and the unique characteristic of the man/woman relationship which is the only relationship that is capable of procreation. It is true that not all heterosexual relationships are able to procreate, but neither the state nor the individuals in the relationship are able to determine that definitively for all time. With heterosexual copulation... you just never know, do you? ;)

 

The racial issue is the same. That terrible law fell for the same reason this one should stand. Biology. Basically it was unsustainable that interracial couples could not marry for the simple reason that biology said that they could procreate. There was no biological basis to deny marriage to couples who were able to procreate. Biological procreation is the definition of marriage at its core, especially where the state is concerned.

 

Please read Critter's article. It states it much better than I do.

 

At the end of the day this supposed right is not linked to anything. It is a desire. A desire that can be reasonably fulfilled within the framework of a state that is not overburdened with producing benefits for every possible combination of relationship. The issue is not about rights or feelings or religion or any of that. It is an issue of resource allocation by the collective taxpayer. A line needs to be drawn for civil and economic stability. It should be drawn where biology drew it. That is simple enough. Unless there is another agenda at work.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I agree. They are definitely NOT "Fundamentalist Mormons", because they are not Mormons at all. They have never been members of the LDS church, so to call themselves "Mormon" in any way, shape or form is a gross inaccuracy.

 

Right. THEY have chosen to label themselves fundamentalist Mormon/LDS. They are NOT practicing fundamentals of the LDS religion.

 

The mainstream LDS church has been striving for years to make the distinction known. It is true that the early church did practice polygamy but the practice has long since been outlawed and is grounds for excommunication. The LDS belief is that God has, at times throughout history, approved or 'called' some to polygamy, but that it is currently a forbidden practice on the Earth.

[Spy Car]

:iagree: Yup!! It doesn't take much more than a quick overview of the OT to see how bad of an idea it is. Paul also speaks of it in the NT for church leaders.

 

Saul/Paul also makes it clear that he's anti-marriage and accepts the institution only as a second-best compromise for weak-willed (carnally-driven) types who (unlike him) would fall into sin if they didn't have a legitimized sex partner in marriage. He argued that ascetic, marriage-less abstinence was best.

 

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of marriage.

 

Bill

Edited September 26, 2010 by Spy Car

[naturegirl7]

Reality TV and its lows are beyond belief - one of many reasons we are cable free :D

 

While personally I don't agree with multiple spouses at one time - I wouldn't mind seeing it legalized - simply so we could regulate it and prevent young girls from being married off at 13. And perhaps limit the burden on the social programs that are being utelized to support these families.

 

Personally - there is no way that I would EVER share my hubby. I simply could not do it. I am greedy when it comes to my man! :D

He is MINE. Just as my son is MINE. I wouldn't want to share mothering him either. I love love love being a wife and a mother, and I miss them desperately when I work. I hate knowing that someone else is filling the space where I belong - and that is just babysitting by Nana! LOL I would hate having Dh comes home after a hard day of work and having someone else feed him and listen to him vent. Or having someone else hear good new first. Nopers - doesn't fly in this house!

 

I personally just can't see how the benefits outweigh the complications. I think in an ideal sort of situation, with fully consenting and well adusted adults it could work well - but I wonder how often that situation actually exists? How many are there cuz it is all they ever knew vs because it is what is right for them?

 

The lack of rights of women and children in the majority of situations is what concerns me the most. You hear sooooo many stories of YOUNG GIRLS being married off by their parents. That is WRONG. PERIOD.

 

Honestly, I would be for legalizing it simply to make it impossible for YOUNG girls to be married off. Atleast wait until they are 18 before putting them into that sort of situation.

Growing up in a bubble, they have no frame of reference or knowledge of anything different - so of course they say that they are happy. But even if they are truly happy, a 13yo should not be getting married or having babies. If it happened in mainstream society that an older man decided to spiritually marry a 13yo - the cops would be getting involved. It is called child abuse! Or statutory rape. All across the country people freak out over teen pregnancies - but here it is encouraged. Not cool IMO. Psychologically and phsyically that little girl should not be having babies!!

Legalize it and take away the child abuse and pedophilia aspect!!

 

And how in the world is one man supporting 3, 4, 8 wives?? ANd the multiple children he fathers with them?? How much attention and love do 20+ kids truly get?? I can't see how it is logistically possible, even with sister wives to help...

Whether you have 20 babies within wedlock or 20 babies out of wedlock - you ultimately should be responsible for those babies! You should not be looking to the state for govt assistance to feed, clothe, and get medical care for these kids. The govt assistance is supposed to be short lived assistance to get back on your feet, but sooooo many people (all across the country in all walks of life) are abusing it. This though is a blatant abuse of the system.

 

Maybe it is just me, I don't seem to remember any of the nice old gents in the OT having social service programs to support their many wives and kiddos. They manned up and supported what they had, and didn't get more wives unless they could support them and the resulting dependents.

[Tea Time]

Saul/Paul also makes he clear that he's anti-marriage and accepts the institution only as a second-best compromise for weak-willed (carnally-driven) types who (unlike him) would fall into sin if they didn't have a legitimized sex partner in marriage. But he argued that ascetic, marriage-less abstinence was best.

 

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of marriage.

 

Bill

 

What it is is a ringing endorsement of celibacy, something that everyone can and should practice at certain points in their life. While the Church happens to teach these concepts and other concepts surrounding sexual relationships discussed in this thread, they are tied to the natural law and biology, and have roots in all major religions. But it is the honest practice of science that tells us the reasons why those boundaries have physical and psychological merit both for the adult parties and their offspring. Honest being the operative word.

 

All societal views toward sexual activity should strongly respect procreation and children rather than just the satisfaction of adult desires or else the tendency to slip into selfish and destructive behavior is inevitable. And that behavior inevitably ends up exploiting women and children, especially children.

 

Is it fear mongering to note that children end up HIV positive because of the behavior of adults? Then by all means, count me among the fearful because biology can be ruthless.

 

Again, thankfully in the US and most of the West, people can do what they would like to do within a broad framework of freedom so long as they are willing to cope with the consequences. However, they should not require all the collective taxpayers to applaud, endorse and fund everything they choose. To point this out is not bigoted, anti-gay, or fear mongering.

[Spy Car]

What it is is a ringing endorsement of celibacy, something that everyone can and should practice at certain points in their life.

 

There is a ringing endorsement of celibacy, with the inherent demotion of the alternative of marriage to an inferior practice. And celibacy is endorsed as the best "life-long" life-style, not as some temporary best-practice for "certain points" in a person's life.

 

And, obviously, a celibate life in "non-procreative."

 

 

While the Church happens to teach these concepts and other concepts surrounding sexual relationships discussed in this thread, they are tied to the natural law and biology, and have roots in all major religions. But it is the honest practice of science that tells us the reasons why those boundaries have physical and psychological merit both for the adult parties and their offspring. Honest being the operative word.

 

Teachings are mixed. On one hand biblical tradition (outside Paulist writings) is generally supportive of marriage and procreation (be fruitful and multiply). But then you have Paul, who argues celibacy is preferable. And celibacy is non-procreative (with one claimed exception).

 

An honest scientific examination of the Paulist ideal is that human perpetuation through procreation would be doomed where his position adopted as universal practice. Yet it is never-the-less advocated by Paul as the superior position.

 

 

All societal views toward sexual activity should strongly respect procreation and children rather than just the satisfaction of adult desires or else the tendency to slip into selfish and destructive behavior is inevitable. And that behavior inevitably ends up exploiting women and children, especially children.

 

Except Paul, who you brought up (not me) yielded to the idea of marriage not because he respects procreation, but rather, he doesn't trust that carnal (presumably heterosexual) men won't have multiple sex partners, so he figurers one is better than many. That is not a respect for procreation, rather a disrespect for sexual expression.

 

But respecting procreation is not at the top of his list, or he would not be promoting celibacy over marriage. KWIM?

 

Is it fear mongering to note that children end up HIV positive because of the behavior of adults?

 

I don't know. But if a child is born HIV positive, there is a pretty fair chance they had parents who were engaging procreative heterosexual sex. Otherwise I'm not sure what you are going for here.

 

Then by all means, count me among the fearful because biology can be ruthless.

 

Biology can be ruthless. Were everyone to follow the advice of Paul the human species would cease to exist in a hundred twenty years (or so).

 

Again, thankfully in the US and most of the West, people can do what they would like to do within a broad framework of freedom so long as they are willing to cope with the consequences. However, they should not require all the collective taxpayers to applaud, endorse and fund everything they choose. To point this out is not bigoted, anti-gay, or fear mongering.

 

:confused:

 

Bill

Edited September 26, 2010 by Spy Car

[Annabel Lee]

Any Christian who gets freaked out about polygamy has obviously skipped some material in the Old Testament.

 

 

I don't know if this has already been hashed over or not (sorry, didn't read past pg. 4 or 5), so apologies if I'm repeating. I feel it bears noting that according to most Christian beliefs, Christ brought a New Covenant. The Old Testament laws are satisfied under the New Covenant which now reigns in place of the OT laws.

 

Also, one of the OT laws was "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Examples of someone breaking God's law does not equal God condoning it. People throughout time have committed all manner of atrocity, breaking God's commandments (and such accounts are recorded in many religion's holy books). Hence the need for a New Covenant.

[Annabel Lee]

I don't know. But if a child is born HIV positive, there is a pretty fair chance they had parents who were engaging procreative heterosexual sex. Otherwise I'm not sure what you are going for here.

 

 

Those adults had to have contracted it from somewhere; usually the natural consequence of their own behavior (whether heterosexual or not; or even sexual at all) at some point in life. That's what I took it to mean.

[Tabula Rasa]

Now I am wondering, did you read the article that Critter posted? That article answers in very great detail all of the points that you have brought up in all your posts. It particularly has an excellent answer to your infertile couple and racial questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you would review that article as my paraphrasing of it will definitely be lacking. However, I will try because it has crucial points that are integral to my post, and I do realize that many people will not read that article despite the fact that it is well worth the effort.

 

I have made the argument that the definition of marriage should remain as is because that term is based upon biology and the unique characteristic of the man/woman relationship which is the only relationship that is capable of procreation. It is true that not all heterosexual relationships are able to procreate, but neither the state nor the individuals in the relationship are able to determine that definitively for all time. With heterosexual copulation... you just never know, do you? ;)

 

The racial issue is the same. That terrible law fell for the same reason this one should stand. Biology. Basically it was unsustainable that interracial couples could not marry for the simple reason that biology said that they could procreate. There was no biological basis to deny marriage to couples who were able to procreate. Biological procreation is the definition of marriage at its core, especially where the state is concerned.

 

Please read Critter's article. It states it much better than I do.

 

At the end of the day this supposed right is not linked to anything. It is a desire. A desire that can be reasonably fulfilled within the framework of a state that is not overburdened with producing benefits for every possible combination of relationship. The issue is not about rights or feelings or religion or any of that. It is an issue of resource allocation by the collective taxpayer. A line needs to be drawn for civil and economic stability. It should be drawn where biology drew it. That is simple enough. Unless there is another agenda at work.

 

I have read the article. Still formulating my thoughts on it. However I still do not buy the argument that same sex marriage naturally leads into plural marriages. The logistics are just more complicated legally.

[Tea Time]

I have read the article. Still formulating my thoughts on it. However I still do not buy the argument that same sex marriage naturally leads into plural marriages. The logistics are just more complicated legally.

 

But wait a minute, I did not make the argument that same sex marriage leads to plural marriage. I made the argument that states should only fund (with collective taxpayer funds) the single relationship that has the potential to produce offspring. I made the argument that this is the scientific definition for the term marriage. That is perfectly illustrated with the interracial marriage example where reason was followed to its natural conclusion. If we dilute that term to mean any cohabitational relationships then we will overburden the taxpayers for no good reason. And we will just have to come up with another term to describe this unique relationship as it will not cease to be unique.

 

Let us be honest. This is, as you said in another post, not about the spiritual or emotional union of adults. The state has no power to interfere with that just as it has no power to bestow rights or make things legitimate. This is about resources. Money. Power. To force the taxpayers to subsidize those relationships outside of the biological boundary invites controversy and demonizes traditionalists (conservatives) , invites abuse of the system, and wastes resources (when benefits are thrown at highly unstable relationships - and heterosexual ones are already severely struggling).

 

So you see, there is another agenda. The agenda is to give the illusion that the state does in fact have the power to bestow rights. This is necessary because rights have to come from somewhere. If they do not come from God, and we have long been teaching this, and now we see they do not come from nature or science (a new development), then they MUST come from the state (so the twisted logic goes).

 

Once we have established the falsehood that the state bestows rights and can interfere with personal relationships, the state can revoke rights and dictate relationships, and of course, crush the Church, which is one of the few large scale institutions that stand outside of the state. Power is the end game.

 

Consequences. Biology is ruthless. The heart of man, even more so.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Tea Time

[Spy Car]

Those adults had to have contracted it from somewhere; usually the natural consequence of their own behavior (whether heterosexual or not; or even sexual at all) at some point in life. That's what I took it to mean.

 

OK. But as you suggest transmission of HIV is not exclusive to one gender orientation.

 

Promiscuity (while mot the only means of transmission) the leading factor in contagion. Yet, rather than embrace social contracts that encourage monogamy for all, some would exclude homosexuals from entering into a legal marriage bond, while at the same time criticize them for not being either monogamous or celibate.

 

According to Paul. heterosexuals can't be expected to live celibate lives (even though it would be better if they did) and endorses heterosexual marriage as the compromise from the ideal since it discourages (hopefully) promiscuity.

 

Why is the logic it different for homosexuals? If it is promiscuity that's the problem, why not encourage gays to enter into the same sort of marriage relationships that Paul supports for keeping heterosexuals out of sin?

 

Bill

[stripe]

Well, I was just listening to Rabbit Ears' "Johnny Appleseed," and it includes the claim that he thought God promised him three brides in heaven if he stayed pure on earth.

 

I was a bit surprised to hear that one a day after seeing this thread.

[Tea Time]

It is always nice to "see" you, Bill. I hope you are enjoying a great summer!

 

There is a ringing endorsement of celibacy, with the inherent demotion of the alternative of marriage to an inferior practice. And celibacy is endorsed as the best "life-long" life-style, not as some temporary best-practice for "certain points" in a person's life.

 

And, obviously, a celibate life in "non-procreative."

 

I disagree that there is an inherent demolition of marriage in the Christian teaching. That is quite a stretch. Please refer to Theology of the Body for Beginners by West for a complete treatment of Christian sexuality as it must be understood completely to comprehend.

 

Most people do not naturally lean toward celibacy. Making a case for having it be holy takes a firm teaching, and it could even lean toward sounding over stressed to some ears. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, this boundary does serve functions in society that are healthy for both adults and their offspring. There are consequences when people are not celibate when they should be.

 

In Catholic teaching, those called to a holy vocation are also called to be celibate so as to focus on the work of God. This marriage between God and clergy protects families against the dangers of an overburdened clergy - one that should be willing to die for their dedication to God, but ought not take a family along with them to that death. It is a tough calling, and yet it has endured.

 

Teachings are mixed. On one hand biblical tradition (outside Paulist writings) is generally supportive of marriage and procreation (be fruitful and multiply). But then you have Paul, who argues celibacy is preferable. And celibacy is non-procreative (with one claimed exception).

Celibacy has to have a strong case to support it, so perhaps it seems overstated to some.

 

An honest scientific examination of the Paulist ideal is that human perpetuation through procreation would be doomed where his position adopted as universal practice. Yet it is never-the-less advocated by Paul as the superior position.

 

Except Paul, who you brought up (not me) yielded to the idea of marriage not because he respects procreation, but rather, he doesn't trust that carnal (presumably heterosexual) men won't have multiple sex partners, so he figurers one is better than many. That is not a respect for procreation, rather a disrespect for sexual expression.

 

But respecting procreation is not at the top of his list, or he would not be promoting celibacy over marriage. KWIM?

 

I didn't bring up Paul, or religion in general, although others on this thread have done so. Religion is not my concern with this topic except for the small point I made in my previous post, but it is not using religion to support the heterosexual marriage definition. Please refer to my other posts to get my take on this topic. Your logic here about procreation certainly would be the same for homosexuality, so where the current cultural climate is concerned, it supports heterosexual marriage. I don't think it is a valid argument either way though, and I would not use it.

 

I don't know. But if a child is born HIV positive, there is a pretty fair chance they had parents who were engaging procreative heterosexual sex. Otherwise I'm not sure what you are going for here.

Well, I am pretty sure that the number of children infected with HIV within a monogamous, biological family unit is going to be very small by comparison to other demographics. Children are highly protected in many ways in a tight, biological unit. And that is a desirable outcome for a healthy and independent population. Independence is not favored by everyone, however.

 

Biology can be ruthless. Were everyone to follow the advice of Paul the human species would cease to exist in a hundred twenty years (or so).

 

The same is of course true of a homosexual population, but that is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage. It is also not any kind of argument against the Christian vision of family and marriage nor is it what we see in the Christian culture, regardless of what Paul may have taught. Other than trying to point out how irrational you think Paul was, I do not quite see where you are going here. It was tricky to disregard a long history of polygamy, so the teachings were fairly radical across the board. However they did succeed in changing culture, and for many centuries they held and were foundational for the rise of Western culture. For people who hate Western culture, this is interpreted in a different way though. It is a huge topic and far reaching. I don't think many here want to go there right now. Perhaps another thread?

 

:confused:

 

Bill

The last part was not aimed at your post, Bill. It is a general comment.

 

Again, it is a pleasure to "see you" on the boards!

[Tea Time]

OK. But as you suggest transmission of HIV is not exclusive to one gender orientation.

 

Promiscuity (while mot the only means of transmission) the leading factor in contagion. Yet, rather than embrace social contracts that encourage monogamy for all, some would exclude homosexuals from entering into a legal marriage bond, while at the same time criticize them for not being either monogamous or celibate.

 

According to Paul. heterosexuals can't be expected to live celibate lives (even though it would be better if they did) and endorses heterosexual marriage as the compromise from the ideal since it discourages (hopefully) promiscuity.

 

Why is the logic it different for homosexuals? If it is promiscuity that's the problem, why not encourage gays to enter into the same sort of marriage relationships that Paul supports for keeping heterosexuals out of sin?

 

Bill

 

I have already addressed this, Bill. Over and over. They cannot engage in the "same sort of marriage relationships" because it is biologically impossible. Nature and science say so. Not the government or religion. Why is this biological fact tossed aside? I have also explained that. Who can answer that? Do we really want the state to dictate relationships instead of nature? That is the crucial question!

 

Gays can live monogamous lifestyles. They can commit to one another. It is very healthy for them to do so. The state does not need to fund it as the state's interest in couples should be held in check (We don't want them in our bedroom, remember?). The state only has an interest in couples who are inherently able to procreate because the state has an interest in children.

 

The purpose of maintaining the current definition of marriage is not to suppress gays or polygymists who, like everyone, currently enjoy a level of freedom completely unheard of in history or in some other cultures right now; it is to suppress an overly invasive state and to help support (just a little bit in the limited way we are able) the raising of children.

[Spy Car]

It is always nice to "see" you, Bill. I hope you are enjoying a great summer!

 

Thank you. We had a great summer, and (despite a major Indian summer heat-wave hitting this weekend) we are now into autumn-mentality, although I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not sure which season we're officially in at the moment. Either way, best wishes to you :001_smile:

 

I disagree that there is an inherent demolition of marriage in the Christian teaching. That is quite a stretch. Please refer to Theology of the Body for Beginners by West for a complete treatment of Christian sexuality as it must be understood completely to comprehend.

 

I was clear about delineating between other teachings and those of Paul (who to my mind often argues the opposite message of other sciptures). But for Paul's position I'd point you to 1 Corinthians 7 which includes:

 

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband....

 

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

Most people do not naturally lean toward celibacy.

 

If we accept this as true, then isn't it more humane to accept that homosexuals might have as difficult a time as heterosexuals with leading celibate lives, and giving them the same sort of opportunity to form legal marriage bonds of the same sort that limit (or mitigate) promiscuity among the heterosexuals?

 

In Catholic teaching, those called to a holy vocation are also called to be celibate so as to focus on the work of God. This marriage between God and clergy protects families against the dangers of an overburdened clergy - one that should be willing to die for their dedication to God, but ought not take a family along with them to that death. It is a tough calling, and yet it has endured.

 

I hate to point out that celibacy in the clergy does always work out perfectly as world-wide scandals continue to reveal.

 

 

Well, I am pretty sure that the number of children infected with HIV within a monogamous, biological family unit is going to be very small by comparison to other demographics. Children are highly protected in many ways in a tight, biological unit. And that is a desirable outcome for a healthy and independent population. Independence is not favored by everyone, however.

 

I'm more than equally convinced that no children with HIV (or otherwise) have ever been created through monogamous homosexual relationships. KWIM?

 

Other than trying to point out how irrational you think Paul was, I do not quite see where you are going here.

 

In a spirit of civility I would remind you that you raised the issue of Paul's teachings on marriage, I'm just trying to explore the logic of those teachings.

 

It was tricky to disregard a long history of polygamy, so the teachings were fairly radical across the board. However they did succeed in changing culture, and for many centuries they held and were foundational for the rise of Western culture. For people who hate Western culture, this is interpreted in a different way though. It is a huge topic and far reaching. I don't think many here want to go there right now. Perhaps another thread?

 

I happen to love Western culture, and it sounds like we agree that over time changing cultural attitudes have lead to improved cultural conditions over those of more ancient biblical times. I just think we still have a ways to go on

 

Again, it is a pleasure to "see you" on the boards!

 

Thank you.

 

Bill

Edited September 26, 2010 by Spy Car
Over hyphenated

[Mekanamom]

I agree. They are definitely NOT "Fundamentalist Mormons", because they are not Mormons at all. They have never been members of the LDS church, so to call themselves "Mormon" in any way, shape or form is a gross inaccuracy.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

 

My 2 cents:

 

No, they are not Mormons.

 

I CAN see why they would see themselves as fundamentalist LDS, since they are living a principle established by the original/early LDS church.

 

The commandment they are following is still present in mainstream LDS scripture.

 

That is where the confusion comes in for most people not associated with the LDS church. According to your existing scripture, you have been commanded by God to accept this principle. D&C 132.

 

Even though mainstream Mormons do NOT practice polygamy, they used to, and the idea is still there in the foundations of the church and in the description of the afterlife.

 

I am not defending the FLDS, by the way. Just pointing out what I believe the source of the confusion is between the two groups.

 

So in short... No- FLDS are absolutely not LDS. But I can see how they may consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

[Tea Time]

Well, I was just listening to Rabbit Ears' "Johnny Appleseed," and it includes the claim that he thought God promised him three brides in heaven if he stayed pure on earth.

 

I was a bit surprised to hear that one a day after seeing this thread.

 

Candy is often given to children as a reward. But it is not good for them, and wise adults will abandon the idea. Wise adults cannot be manipulated by the idea of post-death brides. To be so manipulated is childish. (@Bill: Paul has some wise words here about putting away childish things, but, Bill, I know you don't want to hear from Paul, so I won't quote him. I did not bring up the teachings of Paul. Someone else did. And I think you are very civil, and so am I. But we both still seem to get banned from the board at times, and I don't want that! This is not snarky, Bill. I really do respect your aversion to him and will try to continue to make my arguments outside the teachings of Christianity for most subjects. I have brought it up only as sideline points or to answer others, not ever as my logic for maintaining the definition of marriage.)

 

Sometimes things are better in theory than in reality, and humans largely abandoned pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, and polygamy on the large scale (meaning governments have not subsidized that behavior in a long time). There were probably good reasons for that. Christianity (sideline argument here), other major religions, and evolution seem to be in agreement on the issue. But the state wants to take on the role of God(religion)/nature to usurp power for itself, so here we are contemplating them again. It seems to be working, too.

 

Before anyone leaps on me for lumping homosexuals in that dubious group, I am not suggesting that they are all moral equivalents of each other. I am only suggesting that they are outside a very specific biological boundary that was written in nature before we can imagine. There are good reasons to respect that natural boundary (which exists to produce and protect children not for the whims of adults) when we form public policy on the grand scale. Emotionally supporting monogamy in general is good for society as well, and no one is withholding monogamy from anyone, but we do not need the state to support it in all variations of relationships.

 

I think I have covered everything I want to say and am starting to repeat myself. I would encourage people who stumble on this thread to read the article posted by Critter (page 8, I think?). It say it all better than I have. Please, if you want to respond to my posts, please read them all and try to follow the entire context of what I have said first. I will not likely respond unless something not already covered comes up.

 

Thanks to everyone for an interesting and civil discussion on a very difficult subject. Best wishes to everyone for the coming week.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Tea Time
clarification of a point.

[DianeW88]

My 2 cents:

 

No, they are not Mormons.

 

I CAN see why they would see themselves as fundamentalist LDS, since they are living a principle established by the original/early LDS church.

 

The commandment they are following is still present in mainstream LDS scripture.

 

That is where the confusion comes in for most people not associated with the LDS church. According to your existing scripture, you have been commanded by God to accept this principle. D&C 132.

 

Even though mainstream Mormons do NOT practice polygamy, they used to, and the idea is still there in the foundations of the church and in the description of the afterlife.

 

I am not defending the FLDS, by the way. Just pointing out what I believe the source of the confusion is between the two groups.

 

So in short... No- FLDS are absolutely not LDS. But I can see how they may consider themselves to be fundamentalists.

 

Yes, they may have picked and chosen some beliefs from our church's history and then slapped the FLDS label on themselves.

 

But in our church, in order to be considered a member, one must be baptized by proper authority by someone in the mainstream LDS church. None of these folks have ever done that, so attaching themselves to the LDS church in any way just simply isn't true. That was my only point, not that they haven't taken our doctrines, corrupted them and used them to suit their own purposes......which clearly, they have. Unfortunately.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

[missmoe]

I didn't read all of the replies, but my understanding is in the FLDS church marriages are arranged. So, the whole courting thing sounds hokey to me. I recently read Escape by Caroline Jessop and it provides a disturbing review of plural marriage within the FLDS church.

 

That being said--I have the show scheduled to tape tonight. I'll watch it without my kids!:tongue_smilie:

[Tea Time]

I hate to point out that celibacy in the clergy does always work out perfectly as world-wide scandals continue to reveal.

 

 

I can never see how pointing out the horrific effects of failing to follow Church teachings somehow diminishes Church teachings. There are many more good priests than scandalous ones. To focus only on the bad ones is an injustice to the many good ones.

 

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G.K. Chesterton

 

I would be surprised if this issue and/or the Crusades were not brought up every time the word Catholic is mentioned. It may be worth discussing briefly because it is how the Catholic Church is being silenced just like you see the Mormons being silenced and discredited because of the actions of a few rather than their formally stated teachings (see it at work on this thread). This furthers the entire agenda that I have pointed out where the state steps in and takes the place of the Church supposedly because it will be too wise to make the same mistakes other human beings seem to make. :confused:

 

Highly organized institutions, like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, are major targets for this campaign to silence any organization that stands apart from and inbetween the people and the state. Families are targeted by redefining marriage and other methods because they are highly decentralized and require a different tactic to dismantle.

[Mekanamom]

Yes, they may have picked and chosen some beliefs from our church's history and then slapped the FLDS label on themselves.

 

But in our church, in order to be considered a member, one must be baptized by proper authority by someone in the mainstream LDS church. None of these folks have ever done that, so attaching themselves to the LDS church in any way just simply isn't true. That was my only point, not that they haven't taken our doctrines, corrupted them and used them to suit their own purposes......which clearly, they have. Unfortunately.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

 

Yes- but they are not claiming to be mainstream LDS.

 

Now, like I said, I am NOT defending this group or sympathizing with them whatsoever. Just addressing the reasoning behind why they feel justified in calling themselves fundamentalists.

 

According to what I have read (and I am no expert) they feel that it was their group that stayed true to the fullness of the gospel, and that the mainstream LDS group is the one that broke off from the true church when it was decided to abandon the practice of polygamy. In less delicate terms, from what I have read, they view mainstream LDS as an apostate group. So, they call themselves the fundamentalist group.

[amey311]

Yes, they may have picked and chosen some beliefs from our church's history and then slapped the FLDS label on themselves.

 

But in our church, in order to be considered a member, one must be baptized by proper authority by someone in the mainstream LDS church. None of these folks have ever done that, so attaching themselves to the LDS church in any way just simply isn't true. That was my only point, not that they haven't taken our doctrines, corrupted them and used them to suit their own purposes......which clearly, they have. Unfortunately.

 

 

I think the FLDS members argue that the mainstream LDS church is the one which is picking and choosing based on pressure from the Federal government ;) And that group still has a prophet, and they use the Priesthood structure, so I'm sure they believe (quite justly) that they are a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - they follow the Doctrine and Covenants of the church right up to that major chism that happened related to polygamy.

 

Other major faiths have had similar breaks, and we still see it. I've known Catholics who don't consider a baptism at a Lutheran church to be legitimate (or any other protestant denomination). When I was growing up, a friend spent the night with us and went to Methodist church with us in the morning. When she went home that night she had to go to Sunday evening mass because she hadn't been to "real" church.

 

While I understand that the mainstream LDS church wants to distance itself from the FLDS (and other LDS splinter groups; there are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism - not just the group at the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas [formerly of Colorado City, AZ/Hildale, UT], and not just in the US) for MANY reasons, I think it's slightly disingenuous to say that they cannot attach themselves to the LDS church in any way.

 

It's a bit like the Presbyterian saying "oh we're NOTHING like the Catholics! those people think that the wine turns into BLOOD!" when so many of the other basic tenets of the church are similar (and while I've named two denominations here, it could be any - the basic tenents of all the Christian denominations are basically the same with some areas of disagreement). To an outsider, the differences are pretty slight.

[DianeW88]

I completely understand your arguments. It's just unpleasant to be linked in any way to a group who abuses children and forces others into relationships against their will. I'm only trying to stress (as you both have so kindly done), that these are NOT the beliefs or practices of the mainstream LDS church and that those types of behavior would result in ex-communication from our church. It absolutely breaks my heart to hear the stories that come out of some of those compounds.

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

[amey311]

I completely understand your arguments. It's just unpleasant to be linked in any way to a group who abuses children and forces others into relationships against their will.

 

I'll bet there are loads of Catholics who are feeling the same way.

 

I'm sure it's difficult to hear outsiders (those not in the faith) talk about what's "wrong" with it.

 

Argh. There was something more conciliatory I was going to say but I've got boys running all over my house right now and I keep getting distracted to ask if they'll walk, is hockey gear packed, does guest have all his stuff packed up? etc.

[Critter]

"I was clear about delineating between other teachings and those of Paul (who to my mind often argues the opposite message of other sciptures). But for Paul's position I'd point you to 1 Corinthians 7 which includes:

 

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband....

 

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." --Spy Car

 

 

 

This made me think of some quotes I came across recently:

 

"What else gives rise to so many heresies, except that the Scripture, which is excellent in itself, is falsely interpreted?" --St. Augustine

 

"The devil can quote Scripture to his purpose."-- Shakespeare

 

I don't really think we need to bring Scripture into the discussion about the purpose of marriage, natural law will be sufficient. The editors at NR said it very well, "Marriage exists, in other words, to solve a problem that arises from sex between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity." They said a lot more that made a very good defense of traditional marriage, but I can't quote the entire article here.

[Shawna in Texas]

I don't really think we need to bring Scripture into the discussion about the purpose of marriage, natural law will be sufficient. The editors at NR said it very well, "Marriage exists, in other words, to solve a problem that arises from sex between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity." They said a lot more that made a very good defense of traditional marriage, but I can't quote the entire article here.

 

Is that true anymore though? I got married because I was in love and wanted to spend *forever* with my boyfriend. It was purely a romantic notion. It didn't solve any problem. My sister just recently went to the courthouse to get papers. She and BIL have 3 kids and have been together since they were 13. He finally wore her down.

[Spy Car]

 

"The devil can quote Scripture to his purpose."-- Shakespeare

 

 

Awfully bad form, I must say :blink:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I can never see how pointing out the horrific effects of failing to follow Church teachings somehow diminishes Church teachings. There are many more good priests than scandalous ones. To focus only on the bad ones is an injustice to the many good ones.

 

Who said there were no good priests? But it remains that there is a world-wide problem of abuse and cover-up by senior officials who knew of the abuse and didn't stop it. It is shocking to the human conscience.

 

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G.K. Chesterton.

 

After 2000+ years it's hard to argue that there has been a lack of time.

 

QUOTE=Tea Time;2063463] I would be surprised if this issue and/or the Crusades were not brought up every time the word Catholic is mentioned.

 

The Crusades??? Really?

 

The abuse scandals are not ancient history. Again, you raised the celibate priestly orders, not me.

 

QUOTE=Tea Time;2063463]

It may be worth discussing briefly because it is how the Catholic Church is being silenced just like you see the Mormons being silenced and discredited because of the actions of a few rather than their formally stated teachings (see it at work on this thread). This furthers the entire agenda that I have pointed out where the state steps in and takes the place of the Church supposedly because it will be too wise to make the same mistakes other human beings seem to make. :confused:

 

:confused:

 

Those are some pretty big leaps, I don't follow the "logic."

 

QUOTE=Tea Time;2063463]Highly organized institutions, like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, are major targets for this campaign to silence any organization that stands apart from and inbetween the people and the state. Families are targeted by redefining marriage and other methods because they are highly decentralized and require a different tactic to dismantle.

 

There is no effort to silence the Church. I think Catholics and non-Catholics alike would like to see the Church face the abuse problems straight on and to reform itself and do better going forward. But the State isn't looking to take over the Church. Seperation of Church and State is a fundamental American value that I (and virtually all Americans) whole-heartedly support.

 

Bill :patriot:

[*********]

On second thought, nevermind.

[vonfirmath]

Is that true anymore though? I got married because I was in love and wanted to spend *forever* with my boyfriend. It was purely a romantic notion. It didn't solve any problem. My sister just recently went to the courthouse to get papers. She and BIL have 3 kids and have been together since they were 13. He finally wore her down.

 

But just because you can get married for any reason whatsoever does not mean the government has an interest in your marriage if you do it for frivolous reasons.

 

For most of history, marriage had little or nothing to do with such a transitive concept as love. If marriage was just because of the convenience of the partners' emotions, then there would be no reason for the government to get involved at all. The two would engage in a private contract. perhaps even just writing it down on paper if they felt that their emotions were likely to change.

 

The government only gets involved to try to protect the results of such unions (which, throughout most of history, there has been little way of avoiding. Birth control is still fairly new in history) and to be able to say, at the end of life, who inherits what. Since only legitimate children could inherit (and in the line of royalty, of course, there was even more reason to know for sure who was eligible!)

Edited September 27, 2010 by vonfirmath

[Tea Time]

After 2000+ years it's hard to argue that there has been a lack of time.

That is okay, Bill. As a believer in theistic evolution, I think it took a pretty long time for God to call us sons and daughters. It seems reasonable to me that the rest is going to take a while, too. I will be patient with myself and my fellow human beings. God has all the time in the universe. ;)

 

"How can we face the gods till we have faces?" C.S. Lewis

 

It may be worth discussing briefly because it is how the Catholic Church is being silenced just like you see the Mormons being silenced and discredited because of the actions of a few rather than their formally stated teachings (see it at work on this thread). This furthers the entire agenda that I have pointed out where the state steps in and takes the place of the Church supposedly because it will be too wise to make the same mistakes other human beings seem to make. :confused:

 

:confused:

 

Those are some pretty big leaps, I don't follow the "logic."

 

 

I am not surprised you do not see my logic. The important thing is that that plenty of people do.

 

Take care now! Enjoy that Indian summer if you can. Here in Texas it is getting pretty old! :tongue_smilie: