Why I kind of hope for legalization of "multiple partner marriage," i.e. polygamy, and other expanded definitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Faithdancer

Guest
It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.

I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
 
Faithdancer said:
It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.

I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
I understand your desire to prove the point that a government cannot define what marriage is, only accept what God has made it to be. But, it has already suffered a major blow - do you want to risk further deterioration of the family?
 
Faithdancer said:
I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Having already eroded the definition of marriage in the secular sphere, polygamy may be viewed as less unreasonable, especially in future generations. Give it 20 years; a younger generation might look upon it much like 20-somethings and 30-somethings look upon same-sex marriage today: “I’m not doing it, but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to forbid others to do it. After all, they’re good people, and they just want to love in the way they feel love.” :sad_yes:
 
Gorgias said:
I disagree. Having already eroded the definition of marriage in the secular sphere, polygamy may be viewed as less unreasonable, especially in future generations. Give it 20 years; a younger generation might look upon it much like 20-somethings and 30-somethings look upon same-sex marriage today: “I’m not doing it, but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to forbid others to do it. After all, they’re good people, and they just want to love in the way they feel love.” :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
Agreed. You can’t pour gallons of water into the soup and then complain to management that the soup does taste, look, or smell like soup anymore.
 
Faithdancer said:
It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.

I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
It could also have the opposite effect though. Once it is legalized, then an increasing percentage of the population might not view it as absurd.

I understand your sentiment, but I think we don’t want to wish for any more defeats that we already have suffered. If anything, polygamy being illegal while same sex “marriage” is legal allows us to point out the logical inconsistency of redefining marriage for one group but not for another. If polygamy is legalized, that inconsistency disappears.
 
Faithdancer said:
It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.

I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean and to an extent I agree with you. However I suspect the end result will not be people thinking that God’s definition of marriage supersedes the government’s - but simply that the govt has no business in the marriage business at all, full stop. I.e. a free-for-all and if someone wants to marry six people, that’s fine (long as it’s all consenting etc). I don’t think that’s exactly a great improvement but at least we do get away from the ridiculous situation that some groups (eg the Church) are effectively if not intentionally persecuted because of their own (more Godly) understandings of what marriage is.

Will gay people want to bolt the door behind them? I suppose some will but to be honest the same-sex marriage issue is caught up in a wider progressive (or ‘progressive’) movement which looks for exactly the same things for everyone (in its own way of course a noble cause if horridly misdirected). The whole point - the whole argument on which same sex marriage is advocated, is that everyone should be treated the same, so think even the most blinkered would appreciate the hypocrisy in not giving at lease tacit support to consensual polyamorous marriages.
 
=Faithdancer;13179707]It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.
Click to expand...
Well, the results will soon be in on gay “marriage”. Like all other non-traditional biological relationships, it has already been shown to have numerous disadvantages.
I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think they’ll be leading the charge.

A lot of them will probably shrug and laugh and say “well, if that’s what you want, go right ahead, it doesn’t affect me”.

And let’s not forget the reason it has so much support, not on principle so much, but because it’s :cool:, makes them look and feel good in front of those society is constantly telling us is “smart” and they get to be “in the moment”.
 
Gorgias said:
I disagree. Having already eroded the definition of marriage in the secular sphere, polygamy may be viewed as less unreasonable, especially in future generations. Give it 20 years; a younger generation might look upon it much like 20-somethings and 30-somethings look upon same-sex marriage today: “I’m not doing it, but that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to forbid others to do it. After all, they’re good people, and they just want to love in the way they feel love.” :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
As one radio announcer put it “there’s more historical legal precedence for polygamy than gay ‘marriage’”.

That doesn’t mean polygamy is right, but it could follow the same track gay “marriage” did. I think some people may have been silent on the issue because they lived together without marriage, were fornicating, using porn, ect. and may have thought “well, I can’t say anything or I’m a hypocrite and/or I just don’t care”.
I hope we can stop the bleeding as it is. We really should not be wishing for more evil just because a good chunk of Western society has made the awful decision to support so-called gay “marriage”.

We need to get back to traditional marriage, not degrade it more out of spite. :yup:
 
SuperLuigi said:
And let’s not forget the reason it has so much support, not on principle so much, but because it’s :cool:, makes them look and feel good in front of those society is constantly telling us is “smart” and they get to be “in the moment”.
Click to expand...
Do you remember the catch phrase, “on the wrong side of history?” A classic example of repeating a phrase so often it’s accepted as true, no matter how absurd it is. It was effective, though, because some Americans don’t realize when they are being manipulated by rhetoric.
 
SuperLuigi said:
I hope we can stop the bleeding as it is. We really should not be wishing for more evil just because a good chunk of Western society has made the awful decision to support so-called gay “marriage”.

We need to get back to traditional marriage, not degrade it more out of spite. :yup:
Click to expand...
Young chlidren and babies born will now grow up in a society where same sex “marriage” is the law of the land. How are we going to get back to traditional marriage?
 
If the government wants to legalize polygamy, marriage between people and animals, a living human and a corpse, it will only show more graphically how the government serves the devil, and not Christ. Would I celebrate that? Of course not. But I don’t believe we will ever have a Christ-centered government in America and I also believe that America is going the way of ancient Rome, once Rome became decadent and abandoned its public morals.
 
Faithdancer said:
It’s simple-- the more absurd the government’s definition of "marriage’ becomes, the more apparent it will be that the government has no moral ground to decide what marriage is. Only God does.

I also believe that those who support same sex “marriage” will be the most vociferous in opposing any further expansion of the right to “marry,” and will want to slam the door and lock it now that they are in the barn, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Well, if all you say above could happen in a year, of course everyone would realize what tragic consequences govt rules would cause. The problem is that it takes a generation or more as you yourself, and gorgias, point out.

Also, I’d have to say that intelligent people I speak to have already realized that polygamy is on the way. It’s our ultra liberal and Godless friends pushng us toward the Rome Syndrome who will accept anything as long as it “doesn’t hurt anyone”. I guess they can’t see the harm caused by sin. (breaking God’s laws, which are also natural laws).

1 Corinthians 2:14

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are fooishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised.”

God bless you
Fran
 
Faithdancer said:
Do you remember the catch phrase, “on the wrong side of history?” A classic example of repeating a phrase so often it’s accepted as true, no matter how absurd it is. It was effective, though, because some Americans don’t realize when they are being manipulated by rhetoric.
Click to expand...
This is called propaganda. Repeat a lie often enough and portray it as a “good.”

Ed
 
The problem is that legalization of polygamy is exactly what many of these Godless activists want. They want God out of society. They want a return to the pre-Christian times of Rome and Greece.

Currently they only tell people what they want to hear “oh, we don’t support polygamy, etc.”. But they are lying. They support anything and everything that is contrary to Christianity.

God Bless
 
Faithdancer said:
Young chlidren and babies born will now grow up in a society where same sex “marriage” is the law of the land. How are we going to get back to traditional marriage?
Click to expand...
As they say in the NFL “It all starts up front”.

Parents and local religious education is the key. And it’s the same formula for the kids who grew up surrounded by the notion that contraception was fine, masturbation is “healthy” (believe me, it isn’t long-term) and living together without marriage/playing house is fine and should never be questioned or you’re judging them. :rolleyes:

If orthodox/conservative Catholics really settled down, had 3-7 kids, home-schooled them or sent them to a reputable school and REALLY raised them Catholic, we could take the world by storm in a few generations.

So-called gay “marriage” isn’t going to last, one way or another, for various reasons. For one thing, a lot of its support comes from popularity and cultural conditions in the West. Those same conditions yield to Islam and even to minority Christians in the USA.

If supporting gay “marriage” ever stopped being cool, especially in lieu of something like sharia law, I suspect its support would drop like a rock.
 
phil19034 said:
The problem is that legalization of polygamy is exactly what many of these Godless activists want. They want God out of society. They want a return to the pre-Christian times of Rome and Greece.

Currently they only tell people what they want to hear “oh, we don’t support polygamy, etc.”. But they are lying. They support anything and everything that is contrary to Christianity.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Pagan living, as in ‘no God.’ They are lying.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address - 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Pagan living, as in ‘no God.’ They are lying.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address - 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Ed
Click to expand...
Yes and I don’t support oolygamy any more than I support same sex “marriage.” I just want everyone, Christian and atheist and hedonistic pagan alike, to realize that civil “marriage” and holy matrimony are fundamentlally different. I believe the difference is irreconcilable. That said, I dont think hat the militant homosexualists wil be content until all churches are forced to perform same sex “weddings.” That is in keeping with the grand scheme of their puppetmaster…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top