Polygamists next in line for marriage equality?

[holyrood]

Ask a racial minority if their families were intact back in the “good old days.” They had a lot better chance of living in an intact family than now. Working outside the home? My mom worked outside the home whenever she needed to or wanted to, which was quite often, and stayed home when she wanted to. Out of wedlock pregnancies were not celebrated, but neither were they a big dirty secret, but there were so darned few of them it hardly mattered.

Really? Really? So who cares that blacks were beaten, intimidated, treated like second class citizens, kept out of educational institutions, etc? Things were so much better for them because hey, while they couldn’t even vote their parents were together. As someone who comes from a “broken” family I’ll take my situation over that of a black person’s in 1940. That outlook is extremely offensive and I think most black people would strongly disagree that they were better off then.

…

Read what I responded to and what I actually wrote. I responded to the idea that things were so much better back then. The truth is they weren’t. Rather than pining for the past we need to move forward to solve our current issues. And I did say that every era had its problems. I also took issue with the idea posted by JimG that black people were better off during the days of Jim Crowe because they were more likely to have married parents.

Yep, BEL, read them both before I responded. But thanks for once more assuming. Nobody ever said, “Who cares that blacks were beaten…” etc. I seriously doubt anyone here thinks that.

Some things were better then, and as I stated, I am sick to death of people being unable to point out that we have problems now without being accused of ‘not caring that blacks were beaten.’

I read what you responded to. I read your response. I find it offensive.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yep, BEL, read them both before I responded. But thanks for once more assuming. Nobody ever said, “Who cares that blacks were beaten…” etc. I seriously doubt anyone here thinks that.

Some things were better then, and as I stated, I am sick to death of people being unable to point out that we have problems now without being accused of ‘not caring that blacks were beaten.’

I read what you responded to. I read your response. I find it offensive.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I pointed out legitimate problems and they were met with “blacks had more intact families and that’s better than now because now some live in poor inner city areas” and “my mother worked outside the home”.

I don’t care who’s offended by my saying that the past is not something we should long for. It was pretty much only good for white men. Women, minorities, and children all suffered a great deal.

Can’t we say that we want to work on keeping families together without pining for a dark past? Why is everyone so uptight about saying that the '20s, 30s, 40s and 50s weren’t that great? People stayed in bad marriages, abortion was still a thing, teens got pregnant and sent away and kicked out of school, mental health care was abysmal, ydrugs were an issue, etc. They had many of our problems and more.

So let’s take the lessons that we learned from that era and combine them with what we’re learning from this one and move forward, not backwards.

 

[laircy]

Marriage, in it’s traditional form (please note that the ancient Greeks, who are constantly brought up by gay advocates as having accepted and celebrated homosexuality, never considered it marriage) has always been marked by 4 distinguishing features (as far as I can tell):

1. Sexual license - although at any time in history there was some presence of premarital/nonmarital sex, society as a whole considered this to be illegitimate.  Through marriage, the couple gained the sanction of society to become sexually active together, with the understanding that this relationship would be blessed and honored by society.

2. Permanence - it was considered that, once married, the couple was expected to be responsible to each other for life.  They were now considered to be family, preventing either from leaving the other with responsibilities and no support.

3. Reproduction - although not explicitly stated in all cases, the early conception of marriage was the social and state recognition of a reproductive unit - a minimum of one man and one woman.  It was the establishment by social ritual of the foundation of a biological family, and as sexual license was granted, and since sexual intercourse is the means by which offspring are gained, it was assumed by all - the couple, the officiating party, and society as a whole - that a biological family would result.  In fact, it was for the stability of the resulting biological family that the ritual hallowing of the marriage was establized in the first place.

4. Exclusivity - It has been accepted as a rule by society in Roman and post Roman Europe and in the majority of other societies (not all) that the sexual relationship between the two married parties is to be exclusive to those two parties.  Even in societies where polygamy is sanctioned (thus, unconscionably, instituting a sexual double standard) at least the women are expected to limit their sexual activity to their own husband.  At any rate, in the tradition of western European civilization, marriage has demanded, in the eyes of society in general, rejection of any sexual partners outside the marriage.  While affairs have never been unknown - in fact have in many situations have been common - they were not socially sanctioned by the overt culture.

Now, let us look at what has happened in modern culture:

1. Sexual license is no longer a distinguishing feature in marriage according to mainstream society for the simple reason that mainstream society now views any consensual sexual congress to be legitimate.  Marriage therefore confers no change.

2. Permanence - we now have no fault divorce in all 50 states, and mainstream society does not bat an eye when someone divorces their spouse for no other reason than "he/she wasn't doing it for me anymore."  Either party to a marriage can unilaterally end the marriage at will.  Society exerts no pressure on a couple to remain together for life, and has no expectation that they will do so.

3. Reproduction - well, we can point to the overturning of the, up to now, universal male-female nature of marriage across history with the recent creation of a "right" to marry whatever sex you want.  But we don't have to look at something that recent.  The fact is that society has been gearing up for this for a long time.  Ever since the general acceptance of contraceptives, sex has been separated from reproduction in the public mind, and now the decision to get married is considered to be entirely separate from the decision to have children.  "Silly Catholics, marriage isn't about reproduction, it's about sex!  Only, we could already have sex before we got married, so why are we getting married again?"

4. Exclusivity - Well, society still expects this, for the most part.  Most of us still see affairs as illicit and cruel to the cuckolded partner.  But how long will this last?  After all, real sexual exclusivity is not expected.  You can have sex with someone else (probably a lot of someones) before you get married.  And if you get sick of your spouse, you can always get divorced and then have sex with as many other people as you want to after your marriage ends!  How long until the majority of people start reasoning that this limited period of sexual exclusivity is kind of arbitrary, and leave it behind (there is already a minority of people who have embraced this idea).

As far as I am concerned, the idea of marriage being limited to a couple (two people) is really just a function of the “Exclusivity” property. Once that is overturned (in society,not in law), there will be no problem with people marrying as many people as they want.

Marriage will have no defining characteristics. And, people will stop doing it, stop demanding it, stop caring about it.

And, I’m sorry if it’s wrong, but I look forward to that. Because when the people who demand that marriage mean nothing (and even though they do not realize that is what they are demanding, it is the result of their demands) are done with it, and have left it behind, then those who really care about it, and want it to mean something, can pick it up. We will be called primitive, they will say that we are clinging to a stone-age social institution that is irrelevant. I don’t care what they say. When they have finished ravaging it and have left it to us, we can make it MARRIAGE again!

Yes, thank you! That’s what I meant when I said I almost wish for it to become ridiculously egalitarian.

 

[PTL]

The struck down of DOMA opens the flood gate for everything. Anything will go except morality. Polygamy will be legal so will be anything else such as marriage within the family, brother and sister, brother and brother or anything else. That’s more scary than a horror story. America is on the way of destruction under this administration, speedily.

 

[Memaw]

Indeed, one poster worries that the new Supreme Court decision would lead to polygamy marriage or “underage” marriage of “adult-child” coupling and girls as young as 15. So it does have something to do with the subject at hand. She wrote:

“Though polygamists may push to be next, I think that the next push will be for a lowering of age of consent laws, thereby enabling ‘adult-young person marriage.’ I was going to write “adult-child” marriage, but the proponents will be careful to find a better term than that…”

I’ve often pointed out on this thread that there is no reason to believe Joseph was much older than Mary, but many, many have stated it is “tradition” to believe he was a man at least in his Sixties if not older.
Mary is thought, by tradition and mentioned many, many times on this thread, to be something like 14 or 15.
So if these ages offered by “tradition” is true, then this is the same marriage-age-coupling the poster is talking about in her worried post.

.

The Church as never stated that Joseph was so much older than Mary. 60 was a very old age for those times. I doubt a very old man could have traveled etc. like Joseph did to protect his family. Your talking about tradition, ( not Sacred Tradition) and that is not a teaching of the Church binding for belief. They married younger in those days because people did not live as long. But that has NOTHING to do with what our courts are trying to do today. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Vanny]

I was born in the 1950’s, graduated high school in the early 70’s, remember a lot of the 60’s. So not so old, but I definitely remember some of the pre-sexual revolution era as a child. I think family life and life in general was better then.
When I say this, I DON"T mean it as a blanket endorsement of the prior eras, including the 50
's. Of course there are things that have changed for the better,now. I would never want to go back to the days of segregation, and of course rights for the disabled were non-existent back then. But I think the false “sexual revolution” rode on the coat-tails of some legitimate civil rights issues,and womens issues, and has caused much woe in our society today. Just look at the news, for crying out loud!
I can’t help but wonder, why was it, when I lived in suburban southern California in the 1960’s, my friends and I could run around outside all day and not worry about being abducted? You could go to a movie without worrying about getting shot up?
I wouldn’t let my grandkids out of my sight in my neighborhood, now. Or go to a movie by themselves.
Now of course, people are sinners, and there has always been spousal abusers, child abusers, ect. There is no “perfect” era and won’t be until our Lord comes back. But I think our society now sees a level of violence and loss of innocence of childhood that did not exist before. I blame the free- sex movement which has loosed many demons.
As an aside, I would like to say that lots of women would like to stay home with their children, but can’t. I have not been able to stay home. Something is wrong there, too.
So working outside the home is not what “all” women want.

 

[moon1234]

One thing to keep in mind is that God tolerate Polygamy at one point in time. It is biblical and was allowed. It is simply a discipline now that marriage is between one man and one woman.

If anything, tolerating polygamy would be EASIER than tolerating sodomy. Sodomy has ALWAYS been listed as a grave offense against God. Polygamy does not have that same historical ban.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of legitimizing polygamy, but it is less offensive than sodomy.

 

[Corki]

One thing to keep in mind is that God tolerate Polygamy at one point in time. It is biblical and was allowed. It is simply a discipline now that marriage is between one man and one woman.

If anything, tolerating polygamy would be EASIER than tolerating sodomy. Sodomy has ALWAYS been listed as a grave offense against God. Polygamy does not have that same historical ban.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of legitimizing polygamy, but it is less offensive than sodomy.

It is true that polygamy has a historical and cultural standing that same-sex marriage does not. However, one man - one woman marriage is more than “simply a discipline”. All Christian marriages are one man - one woman, it is part of the doctrine defining the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[Memaw]

One thing to keep in mind is that God tolerate Polygamy at one point in time. It is biblical and was allowed. It is simply a discipline now that marriage is between one man and one woman.

If anything, tolerating polygamy would be EASIER than tolerating sodomy. Sodomy has ALWAYS been listed as a grave offense against God. Polygamy does not have that same historical ban.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of legitimizing polygamy, but it is less offensive than sodomy.

To say that God “tolerated” polygamy at one time, doesn’t mean He condoned it!. Didn’t Jesus say that from the beginning, one man one woman and the two shall become one.??? God Bless. Memaw