Defending Monogomy

[CTuck]

I was explaining why I don’t agree with the legal recognition of homosexual marriages when the person listening (of the opposite viewpoint) turned to polygomy. He had earlier made the argument that today’s society has different variables which, when considered, calls for the re-definition of marriage basically for the sake of justice. He used two variables the most; taxes, and the equal rights of persons. I replied that the taxes argument was really just a ploy and that the equal rights argument forgets that homosexuals are legally allowed to marry everywhere as long as it’s between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that if we were to seperate marriage from its foundational principles then it’s no longer marriage, like Christianity without Christ as fully God and fully man. That’s when he brought up polygomy, I’m pretty sure it was to question what I considered to define marriage. I put up a really bad argument, really just stumbled arround. I eventually conceded to not really having considered it. What would be a some good arguments of lagally prohibiting polygomy, or just considering it as part of the definition of marriage?

 

[Insight]

What would be a some good arguments of legally prohibiting polygomy, or just considering it as part of the definition of marriage?

One wife with Lord and Taylor credit cards is scary enough. Several?

God Bless

 

[promethius95945]

I was explaining why I don’t agree with the legal recognition of homosexual marriages when the person listening (of the opposite viewpoint) turned to polygomy. He had earlier made the argument that today’s society has different variables which, when considered, calls for the re-definition of marriage basically for the sake of justice. He used two variables the most; taxes, and the equal rights of persons. I replied that the taxes argument was really just a ploy and that the equal rights argument forgets that homosexuals are legally allowed to marry everywhere as long as it’s between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that if we were to seperate marriage from its foundational principles then it’s no longer marriage, like Christianity without Christ as fully God and fully man. That’s when he brought up polygomy, I’m pretty sure it was to question what I considered to define marriage. I put up a really bad argument, really just stumbled arround. I eventually conceded to not really having considered it. What would be a some good arguments of lagally prohibiting polygomy, or just considering it as part of the definition of marriage?

Uh… the religious proscription that one man will have one wife… The definition of a marraige is not that a man must marry WOMEN, it’s that a man must marry A WOMAN.

 

[TimothyH]

Genesis 1:26-27 is all that is required to defend and define marriage. It’s at the front of the book for a reason.

-Tim-

 

[mcteague]

All you people who use religious and theological arguments to support a civil definition of marriage seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy. No one objects to the church not performing gay marriages. And it would not be for forced to if our definition of marriage was expanded.

 

[promethius95945]

All you people who use religious and theological arguments to support a civil definition of marriage seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy. No one objects to the church not performing gay marriages. And it would not be for forced to if our definition of marriage was expanded.

Hey, the poster asked what proscription likewise forbid polygamy if marraige is defined as between man and woman.

Let’s be frank (and honest): the fact that the state gives marraige licenses is a case of government inserting itself into religious rites for legal convenience (and, originally, for taxes), hence why the government should get OUT of trying to redefine marraige altogether. In my perfect world, the government would only issue civil unions and marraige would be under the strict purview of the respective churches… but as long as the government continues to insert itself into what for millenia was a religious institution, it should cleave to the religious understanding of that institution.

 

[Insight]

All you people who use religious and theological arguments to support a civil definition of marriage seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy. No one objects to the church not performing gay marriages. And it would not be for forced to if our definition of marriage was expanded.

Expanded? What’s next? Marrying farm animals?

God Bles

 

[CTuck]

Since New York has passed the law recognizing same-sex marriages Archbishop Dolan has warned that this could lead to the legalization of polygomy. I thought it would be good to get this thread going again. So what would be a good defense of monogomy?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

All you people who use religious and theological arguments to support a civil definition of marriage seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy. No one objects to the church not performing gay marriages. And it would not be for forced to if our definition of marriage was expanded.

Yeah, all us people who use religious and theological arguments …

Better read this

Polygamists Make Their Move

This is what gay ‘marriage’ leads up to. It opens the door to other configurations.
,

 

[sw85]

I was explaining why I don’t agree with the legal recognition of homosexual marriages when the person listening (of the opposite viewpoint) turned to polygomy. He had earlier made the argument that today’s society has different variables which, when considered, calls for the re-definition of marriage basically for the sake of justice. He used two variables the most; taxes, and the equal rights of persons. I replied that the taxes argument was really just a ploy and that the equal rights argument forgets that homosexuals are legally allowed to marry everywhere as long as it’s between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that if we were to seperate marriage from its foundational principles then it’s no longer marriage, like Christianity without Christ as fully God and fully man. That’s when he brought up polygomy, I’m pretty sure it was to question what I considered to define marriage. I put up a really bad argument, really just stumbled arround. I eventually conceded to not really having considered it. What would be a some good arguments of lagally prohibiting polygomy, or just considering it as part of the definition of marriage?

Marriage serves the end of procreation. One man procreates with one woman.

All you people who use religious and theological arguments to support a civil definition of marriage seem to forget that we do not live in a theocracy. No one objects to the church not performing gay marriages. And it would not be for forced to if our definition of marriage was expanded.

It so happens that the rationale for marriage as a civil institution is identical to that of marriage as a religious institution: both serve the end of procreating, and ensuring that the children so produced are cared for.

What in the world is the secular rationale for homosexual “marriage”? So we can endorse their feelings? Nonsense.

Hey, the poster asked what proscription likewise forbid polygamy if marraige is defined as between man and woman.

Let’s be frank (and honest): the fact that the state gives marraige licenses is a case of government inserting itself into religious rites for legal convenience (and, originally, for taxes), hence why the government should get OUT of trying to redefine marraige altogether. In my perfect world, the government would only issue civil unions and marraige would be under the strict purview of the respective churches… but as long as the government continues to insert itself into what for millenia was a religious institution, it should cleave to the religious understanding of that institution.

Marriage as a civil institution and as a sacrament are entirely distinct. A couple can be married one way and not the other, or in both ways. They simply have the same name and (at least nominally) serve the same purpose, but in different ways.

There is therefore nothing to “get the government out of.” Unless you mean to argue that the state has no compelling basis to legislate on the well-being of children.

Since New York has passed the law recognizing same-sex marriages Archbishop Dolan has warned that this could lead to the legalization of polygomy. I thought it would be good to get this thread going again. So what would be a good defense of monogomy?

Realistically, there is no defense of monogamy for those who defend same sex marriage. Those who support the latter but claim to oppose polygamy do so solely out of their own prejudices, which will inevitably shift toward polygamy once our degenerate society’s cultural barometer moves that way.

If you separate marriage from its procreative context, after all, there would be no reason to limit it two people at all. Or even to human beings.