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

[frangiuliano115]

Gay marriage is a legal fiction. It’s all very black and white. If this were a private matter then none of these “debates” would exist, but the moment gay people demanded something which cannot exist as equal to marriage, that’s when the line was crossed.

The spiritual harm to Catholics who have accepted a lie is just as bad as those living in a false legal situation. If no one speaks up in the Catholic community, we will be held accountable before God. Private sin is private. Public sin is public.

Sin exists in all of us but it is between each one of us and God. Legalizing sin is going to call into question all involved. Those who were involved will have to answer to God just like the rest of us.

A sinner,

Ed

AMEN.

 

[phil19034]

Yes, some Protestant denominations. Far from all. I don’t take any personal umbrage, because I’m not in a Protestant church.

As far as the poll, I believe the one I linked to polled 40,000 people. That’s a rather sizeable sample size. I fear you may be in denial, though I wish you were right. Anyway if the numbers are true, then about 60% of Roman Catholics disagree with official church teaching on marriage. That means they are likely to vote in favor of same sex “marriage” at the polls, although of course that is moot point now.

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.ne.../religious-groups-on-marriage-equality-v3.png

I don’t believe that number reflects practicing Catholics. It includes people who identify as being Catholic but are not faithful, plus the ones who either never attend Mass or rarely attend. The dissent and non-Church attendees really inflate the number

 

[estesbob]

I don’t believe that number reflects practicing Catholics. It includes people who identify as being Catholic but are not faithful, plus the ones who either never attend Mass or rarely attend. The dissent and non-Church attendees really inflate the number

Meaningless poll. I’m for marriage equality. I’m not, however, for homosexual "marriage "

 

[edwest2]

Meaningless poll. I’m for marriage equality. I’m not, however, for homosexual "marriage "

What is “marriage equality”?

Ed

 

[estesbob]

What is “marriage equality”?

Ed

Single People of Opposite sex should be allowed to get married regardless of race, creed, gender or country of national origin

 

[frangiuliano115]

Single People of Opposite sex should be allowed to get married regardless of race, creed, gender or country of national origin

Huh?

Regardless of ‘gender’? I thought you said the ‘opposite sex’.

Isn’t the above already allowed by law??

God bless you

 

[Rau]

… 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).

Undoubtedly, no government (save one in a part of the world with a cultural heritage of polygamy, if one exists) would entertain such a thing. It would (a) be too much trouble, and (b) generate no votes.

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). … so I think even the most blinkered would appreciate the hypocrisy in not giving at lease tacit support to consensual polyamorous marriages.

The advocates of SSM will absolutely draw the line at 2 participants. They will argue that “number” of participants is an entirely different issue than the “sex” of the participants. [To raise the logical next step of polyamory in an argument in defence of marriage was always labelled a “slippery slope” argument…] They have no interest in broadening the basis of their pursuit of “rights” to encompass another group which has next to no community support! How politically dumb would that be?

The whole point - the whole argument on which same sex marriage is advocated, is that everyone should be treated the same,

Every man is already treated the same…Every woman is already treated the same…so long as you accept that marriage is the union we’ve understood it to be since the beginning.

SSM wishes to redefine marriage such that the absence of the sexual complementarity central to marriage is no longer an impediment to marriage, ie. is no longer relevant. The argument rests on a false idea about the nature of marriage - and that marrying the person one “loves” is everyone’s “right”, and the only consideration. It is portrayed as merely a matter of justness, but it is not that at all.

 

[Murmurs]

Undoubtedly, no government (save one in a part of the world with a cultural heritage of polygamy, if one exists) would entertain such a thing. It would (a) be too much trouble, and (b) generate no votes.

The advocates of SSM will absolutely draw the line at 2 participants. They will argue that “number” of participants is an entirely different issue than the “sex” of the participants. [To raise the logical next step of polyamory in an argument in defence of marriage was always labelled a “slippery slope” argument…] They have no interest in broadening the basis of their pursuit of “rights” to encompass another group which has next to no community support! How politically dumb would that be?

I think 25 years ago the cause of SSM would have garnered very few votes in most countries where it is now the law, so don’t hold your horses on that one!

Every man is already treated the same…Every woman is already treated the same…so long as you accept that marriage is the union we’ve understood it to be since the beginning.

The idea of SSM, and a much broader movement that encompasses it, is that (not unreasonably) people should not have their particular facilities or rights constrained on the basis of their gender (or sex). So by that token sex (or gender) should not be a valid constraint on who one chooses to marry, should one want to marry.

Now there are some things that are simply logically impossible because of biology; we can’t expect men to breastfeed babies, and we can’t expect women to be allowed to join certain golf clubs (it’s only 2015 for heaven’s sake…it’s not the future). But yes men and women are essentially treated the same - all men like all men and all women like all women, but as different categories of people.

SSM wishes to redefine marriage such that the absence of the sexual complementarity central to marriage is no longer an impediment to marriage, ie. is no longer relevant. The argument rests on a false idea about the nature of marriage - and that marrying the person one “loves” is everyone’s “right”, and the only consideration. It is portrayed as merely a matter of justness, but it is not that at all.

This is exactly the point; marriage (rightly or wrongly) was felt to be arbitrarily and unfairly limited to particular circumstances. Why does it matter if a secular, society definition of marriage doesn’t match up with ours any more? If it is as harmful morally as so much suggest, then the simply course of social evolution will see it wither and die soon enough. Worry about things that really matter.

 

[Rau]

The idea of SSM, and a much broader movement that encompasses it, is that (not unreasonably) people should not have their particular facilities or rights constrained on the basis of their gender (or sex). So by that token sex (or gender) should not be a valid constraint on who one chooses to marry, should one want to marry.

That statement is to take the proper definition of marriage as subject to the idea that it must in fact include SSM. If there is a justified need to provide some legal rights to persons who don’t satisfy the criteria for marriage, then options are:

• Redefine Marriage;
• Address the needs of those seeking said rights.
  Your response prefers the first option, and its implications for family and the begetting and education of children.

This is exactly the point; marriage (rightly or wrongly) was felt to be arbitrarily and unfairly limited to particular circumstances.

It was not arbitrarily defined - it was defined consistent with the unique, society building capacity of the sexual union of man and woman. It was not unfairly limited, but rationally applied. It was applied in accordance with its definition. If there is a requirement for something else – see the options above.

Why does it matter if a secular, society definition of marriage doesn’t match up with ours any more? If it is as harmful morally as so much suggest, then the simply course of social evolution will see it wither and die soon enough. Worry about things that really matter.

As a Catholic Murmurs, not supporting SSM (), I assumed you’d already know why it matters. Governments declaring that sexual unions of two men, or of two women, are just natural variants of marriage, and an alternative means of family formation, and just another natural means for the “acquisition” of children (eg. via surrogacy) and their upbringing, is an absurdity. And as something which is morally harmful, it may well wither and die in due course (though prostitution has not…), but I take no comfort in that thought given the wreckage it will leave.

 

[Rau]

I think 25 years ago the cause of SSM would have garnered very few votes in most countries where it is now the law, so don’t hold your horses on that one!

That remark is quite irrelevant to the point I made. Individual causes can fire up at any time, and work to gain support. But once a cause has garnered substantial support, it is hardly going to broaden its claim to encompass another group which has nearly no support. That would simply be to sink the ship.

It also should be apparent that the pro-SSM case seeks to have accepted an equivalence of same sex unions with opposite sex unions. That is not done by muddying the waters by buying into polygamy.

I viewed a video of a debate between 2 Australian senators recently debating SSM. The pro-SSM senator (a lesbian woman with a partner and 2 children) was asked whether polygamy deserved to be supported on grounds of “fairness” and logical extension (or words to that effect). “Absolutely not” she declared. Moving beyond 2 people introduces completely new and inappropriate factors, quite distinct from the question of sex of the parties…

So you see Murmurs, its not an hypocrisy for an SSM advocate to oppose polygamy if it serves the cause at hand.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That remark is quite irrelevant to the point I made. Individual causes can fire up at any time, and work to gain support. But once a cause has garnered substantial support, it is hardly going to broaden its claim to encompass another group which has nearly no support. That would simply be to sink the ship.

It also should be apparent that the pro-SSM case seeks to have accepted an equivalence of same sex unions with opposite sex unions. That is not done by muddying the waters by buying into polygamy.

I viewed a video of a debate between 2 Australian senators recently debating SSM. The pro-SSM senator (a lesbian woman with a partner and 2 children) was asked whether polygamy deserved to be supported on grounds of “fairness” and logical extension (or words to that effect). “Absolutely not” she declared. Moving beyond 2 people introduces completely new and inappropriate factors, quite distinct from the question of sex of the parties…

So you see Murmurs, its not an hypocrisy for an SSM advocate to oppose polygamy if it serves the cause at hand.

You two are doing just fine and I don’t mean to muscle my way in, just would like to affirm that RIGHT NOW the SSM group will not be muddying any waters re polygamy rights; however those seeking to have more than one partner in a marriage scenario will be doing their own gathering and making their own demands. If it worked for the SSM crowd… And at SOME time, I’m sure they will agree - they’ll have to because the same logic they’ve applied to their causes will have to apply to ANY cause. But why should they subject themselves to becoming unpopular right now (by supporting polygamy) when all is going so well for them.

Re the video you saw:

"was asked whether polygamy deserved to be supported on grounds of “fairness” and logical extension (or words to that effect). "Absolutely not" she declared. Moving beyond 2 people introduces completely new and inappropriate factors, quite distinct from the question of sex of the parties…

So you see Murmurs, its not an hypocrisy for an SSM advocate to oppose polygamy if it serves the cause at hand."

Interesting. Gee, isn’t this what the SSM movement did? They introduced completely new and inappropriate factors [quite distinct from how marriage has been conceived from the beginning of civil time].

God bless you
Fran

 

[Murmurs]

The idea of SSM, and a much broader movement that encompasses it, is that (not unreasonably) people should not have their particular facilities or rights constrained on the basis of their gender (or sex). So by that token sex (or gender) should not be a valid constraint on who one chooses to marry, should one want to marry.

That statement is to take the proper definition of marriage as subject to the idea that it must in fact include SSM. If there is a justified need to provide some legal rights to persons who don’t satisfy the criteria for marriage, then options are:

• Redefine Marriage;
• Address the needs of those seeking said rights.
  Your response prefers the first option, and its implications for family and the begetting and education of children.

I don’t think my statement was about that, was it? I said that those who support SSM have a different definition of marriage from others (between two people, regardless of gender, for mutual partnership). Since their broader definition of marriage by implication includes the traditional one, and since having that broader definition would not constitute harming the rights of anyone else, the state has gone with that broader definition.

You’re right, of course - if there’s need to provide rights for marriage for those outside the old criteria, then you have two options (your 2nd option is satisfied by choosing the 1st, of course). This is just what happened; the state’s view of what constitutes marriage was changed. I’m not sure what the issue is (maybe I misread you?)

It was not arbitrarily defined - it was defined consistent with the unique, society building capacity of the sexual union of man and woman. It was not unfairly limited, but rationally applied. It was applied in accordance with its definition. If there is a requirement for something else – see the options above

You two are doing just fine and I don’t mean to muscle my way in, just would like to affirm that RIGHT NOW the SSM group will not be muddying any waters re polygamy rights; however those seeking to have more than one partner in a marriage scenario will be doing their own gathering and making their own demands. If it worked for the SSM crowd… And at SOME time, I’m sure they will agree - they’ll have to because the same logic they’ve applied to their causes will have to apply to ANY cause. But why should they subject themselves to becoming unpopular right now (by supporting polygamy) when all is going so well for them.

Sorry I probably didn’t express that well. I actually quite agree with both of you. I didn’t mean that a legalisation of polygamy is on the horizon, or that it is garnering support from equal-marriage activists (as you point out, apart from a tiny fringe, it’s not)…what I meant was that it may well have its own movement for support, at some point in the future. And just because very few people today support the idea, doesn’t mean that polygamy won’t have its own day some point in the future. The comment about “25 years” was that c. 1990, few people would have thought that many countries in the world would have legalised same-sex marriage at this point, even if they hoped that they might. My point was that we can’t predict the future - I quite agree many contemporary proponents of SSM do not support polygamous marriages.

God bless you,

M xx

 

[estesbob]

I

This is exactly the point; marriage (rightly or wrongly) was felt to be arbitrarily and unfairly limited to particular circumstances. Why does it matter if a secular, society definition of marriage doesn’t match up with ours any more? If it is as harmful morally as so much suggest, then the simply course of social evolution will see it wither and die soon enough. Worry about things that really matter.

Marriage is still arbitrarily limited to particular circumstances. For instance you can’t get married if you’re intended spouses is a close relative or not of legal age set by the state or is already married. There is not a single argument put forth in support of homosexual marriage that does not equally apply to incestuous and polygamist marriages . Although there are problems with incestuous marriages as far as birth defects goes this obviously would not be a problem if, for instance, a father married his son or two sisters got married .

Of course as Catholics we are fortunate to have the guidance of Holy Mother Church when examining these issues .:
MARRIAGE

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
*

As Catholics we know that the Church is receptacle of truth and that truth is the same whether one is a Catholic or not . Accordingly we could never support same-sex marriage because that is supporting egregious sin that endangers the souls of those participating in it . We are called to spread the Gospel and we cannot spread the Gospel by supporting sin whether among Catholics or non-Catholics .

 

[Rau]

The idea of SSM, and a much broader movement that encompasses it, is that (not unreasonably) people should not have their particular facilities or rights constrained on the basis of their gender (or sex).

That’s generally right, and that is how it has always been in connection with marriage.

So by that token sex (or gender) should not be a valid constraint on who one chooses to marry, should one want to marry.

No - that is a different statement. That statement denies the pre-existing definition of marriage. Marriage has always meant something very particular - and for that reason, a man cannot logically marry a man.

I said that those who support SSM have a different definition of marriage from others (between two people, regardless of gender, for mutual partnership).

You mean, they “made up” a new definition, and have successfully argued that everyone should adopt it and all its logical consequences.

You’re right, of course - if there’s need to provide rights for marriage for those outside the old criteria, then you have two options…

No, that statement is confused. Two men don’t require “rights of marriage” - that statement assumes the very issue in debate - it only makes sense if you have already adopted a new definition of marriage!

What rights is it that are required by a same sex pair (perhaps more than 2 in future as you’ve said) of persons who wish to have a close relationship with each other? Note that pro-SSM advocates do not draw any line at the marriage licence. They are adamant that they have every right to now beget children (in some cases, requiring the services of a 3rd and even a 4th party to provide genetic material). We have already seen “equality wars” raged over the “need” to include in children’s story books used in schools examples of same sex parents. After all - on what basis, acceptable to SSM advocates, could a bias be shown to exclude same sex parents? Thus, children must be taught, from their preschool days, how (in the opinion of SSM advocates) families are formed. And yet we are told SSM doesn’t need to affect the rest of us

But why is it absurd, that’s my point? If the state is in the business of marriage at all (good reason for it not to be, but it is), then why is making a regulation about what ‘marriage’ is, for the state’s purposes, absurd?

The State did not create marriage and nor did the Catholic Church. The State provided a legal framework to support its existence in society, and protect its members and their children under various circumstance. And that legal framework happens to be called marriage too. The legal framework was synonymous with the marriage (relationship) between the two persons. Now, we’ve decided there is another kind of relationship and we’re going to call it marriage too. It is patently absurd.

polygamy …what I meant was that it may well have its own movement for support, at some point in the future.

It exists now. As does the group arguing to lower the age of consent well into childhood. But the point you made was it would be hypocrisy for the SSM advocates to not support polygamy - I agree with you - but as I demonstrated, they are entirely unwilling to support it. There is no issue of social justice being pursued. It is about securing an equivalence of two things plainly not the same.

 

[frobert]

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.

Be careful about what you wish for.

In general, polygamy is legal in about 25% of countries.

Source…

Whereas only twenty countries have approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide out of 196 countries. That is polygamy 2.5 to 1 for SSM. Same sex marriage has a long long way to go to catch up. I suspect most people in the US, regardless of orientation, are satisfied with the status quo.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Marriage is still arbitrarily limited to particular circumstances. For instance you can’t get married if you’re intended spouses is a close relative or not of legal age set by the state or is already married. There is not a single argument put forth in support of homosexual marriage that does not equally apply to incestuous and polygamist marriages . Although there are problems with incestuous marriages as far as birth defects goes this obviously would not be a problem if, for instance, a father married his son or two sisters got married .

Of course as Catholics we are fortunate to have the guidance of Holy Mother Church when examining these issues .:
MARRIAGE

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
*

As Catholics we know that the Church is receptacle of truth and that truth is the same whether one is a Catholic or not . Accordingly we could never support same-sex marriage because that is supporting egregious sin that endangers the souls of those participating in it . We are called to spread the Gospel and we cannot spread the Gospel by supporting sin whether among Catholics or non-Catholics .

Oh. I see. Your post no. 65 is tongue in cheek.

Okay.

l like what you say above: “The truth is the same whether one is Catholic or not.”

Very good. Truth is truth, or there is NO truth!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

**MURMERS **makes the folllowing statement:

“My point was that we can’t predict the future - I quite agree many contemporary proponents of SSM do not support polygamous marriages.”

I must be missing something and do not have the time to go back and reread all your posts and Rau’s posts.

I’d just like to say that you CAN predict the future. The opponants of SSM were always worried that it would come to same sex persons being lawfully allowed to be married, using the same formula (of marriage).

Way back in the beginning when LGBT (referred to as homosexuals back then) were just requiring that they be TREATED equally (not being set on fire on park benches) and in a civilized manner, everyone decent, which is the majority of persons, agreed. But yes, we started to go down that slippery slope you spoke about (or was it Rau?) and it was immediately understood and feared.

Also, if you don’t use God’s laws concerning marriage, and everything else in civilization, (spoke about this in prev post and will not repeat) eventually ALL proponents of SSM will have to agree to everything since they themselves used the same arguments to gain acceptance of their cause - which led to SSM.

I’m sorry. Either I’m not understanding, or you’re not understanding that by your rules there is no end to who can get “married”. I use quotes because marriage is a specific idea as put forth also by others and is a natural law and cannot be changed by the govt - which the supreme court has already done and incorrectly so.

If the govt can change natural law we’re in big trouble. Just look down the road 25 or 50 years. Which you say cannot be done…

God bless you
Fran

 

[Murmurs]

**MURMERS **makes the folllowing statement:

“My point was that we can’t predict the future - I quite agree many contemporary proponents of SSM do not support polygamous marriages.”

I must be missing something and do not have the time to go back and reread all your posts and Rau’s posts.

I’d just like to say that you CAN predict the future. The opponants of SSM were always worried that it would come to same sex persons being lawfully allowed to be married, using the same formula (of marriage).

Way back in the beginning when LGBT (referred to as homosexuals back then) were just requiring that they be TREATED equally (not being set on fire on park benches) and in a civilized manner, everyone decent, which is the majority of persons, agreed. But yes, we started to go down that slippery slope you spoke about (or was it Rau?) and it was immediately understood and feared.

Also, if you don’t use God’s laws concerning marriage, and everything else in civilization, (spoke about this in prev post and will not repeat) eventually ALL proponents of SSM will have to agree to everything since they themselves used the same arguments to gain acceptance of their cause - which led to SSM.

I’m sorry. Either I’m not understanding, or you’re not understanding that by your rules there is no end to who can get “married”. I use quotes because marriage is a specific idea as put forth also by others and is a natural law and cannot be changed by the govt - which the supreme court has already done and incorrectly so.

If the govt can change natural law we’re in big trouble. Just look down the road 25 or 50 years. Which you say cannot be done…

God bless you
Fran

Fran I nearly always manage to cause more confusion than I end!! Sorry about that!

I think the point is that while the future perhaps points a certain way we can’t be sure of it. There may never come a time when polygamy enjoys widespread support. However as you point out it is legally inconsistent with many arguments made in favour of SSM (and especially the pretty awful wording of the Obergefell ruling), to allow SSM and then ban the practise of polygamy. (Just to be clear I don’t support this, despite all the devil’s advocate-ing that I do here! - I have at best very mixed feelings about SSM, but from a legal perspective I do see the inconsistencies in banning either).

From this perspective, I agree there is no ‘end’ as to who can get “married”. I might not like it but I think to say otherwise is inconsistent. I’m not sure I think marriage is itself derived from natural law though. Two-person relationships reasonably can be, but marriage from the legal perspective is “just” an institutional recognition of the relationship. It’s essentially just a contract, and to deny some people the right to make that contract on the basis of arbitrary factors like gender, or even having made another similar contract already, is legally inconsistent (to prevent eg minors, which is to say those legally incapable of making this kind of responsible decision, from marrying, is an entirely different matter of course, and is also why there would never be a legitimate legal argument in favour of people marrying their dogs or grand pianos; whereas a business with a contract to give support to another company, can’t really be barred from making the same contract with another company providing they uphold the provisions of the first, and for the 1st contract to prevent making the 2nd one would be to arbitrarily have one company interfering in the business of another).

Now you and I and millions of others believe matrimony to be something more than just this “contract”, but whereas our definition (which we understand to be the closest approximation to God’s definition) can be encompassed by this broader legal one, without accruing any detriment to ourselves, the same is not true the other way around. I will be the first to admit that apart from anything else this attitude just depressingly highlights the individualistic and atomised society most of the developed world has become, but sometimes a legal democracy ends up entirely inconsistent with Godly teaching and if you hold democracy to be important then sometimes you get rubbish decisions.

 

[estesbob]

Oh. I see. Your post no. 65 is tongue in cheek.

Okay.

l like what you say above: “The truth is the same whether one is Catholic or not.”

Very good. Truth is truth, or there is NO truth!

God bless

Not tongue-in-cheek but obviously poorly written as it seems to have come across as I supported homosexual marriage

 

[CompSciGuy]

I agree with other posters, I don’t think polygamy will face any more opposition than gay marriage. However, I think there will be another dividing factor. I think that for many who are morally liberal the transgender movement is sort of becoming that splitting or tipping point. It seems like liberal activists and social justice warriors are trying to launch the pro-transgender ideals full-force into our culture before really formalizing what the transgender movement is ultimately about and making it compatible with other liberal ideas. I think it is going to do a lot of damage to their cause and we are going to reach a tipping point or a limit to what people are willing to believe or accept without question.

An example of this is how much of the transgender movement has clashed with feminism, another liberal movement. I remember watching a video by abcnews about a transgender “girl” named Jazz, and in the interview she tries to explain how she “thinks like a girl and acts like a girl but her body is like a boy.” This statement is the basis for many pro-trans arguments but it relies on blatant sexist stereotypes and flies in the face of feminism. Jazz also talks about how she hates having a penis and really wants to have breasts like the “other girls” at school and wears a padded bra just to fit in. She is currently taking hormone therapy and is looking forward to having a sex reassignment surgery. This whole idea that a transgender person has to dramatically change their appearance, as well as undergo destructive hormone therapy and major reconstructive surgery in order to truly “be themselves” contradicts the whole premise of transgenderism: that gender is a social construct and not determined by biology, genetics or physiology. It also kind of contradicts what we have learned about beauty and femininity, reducing it to makeup and girly clothes and big breasts. It really grinds against what feminist and liberal thinkers have taught for the past 50 years or so and either it will require a complete change in the way we approach these issues, or it will fall flat on its face.