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

[revert_jen]

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.

…]
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.

I hope you’re right, but I’m afraid your thought processes are too logical. I’ve already heard pro-abortion folks saying things like they have to change their literature, because using the word “she” to describe an abortion client is not fair to (however they put it, I forget, but in effect) a pregnant woman who thinks she is a man. There are some locutions that I will never get accustomed to. Now, in addition to “his husband” and “her wife” we can add “his abortion.”

The problem is that the type of feminist who thinks that women and men are exactly the same is already handicapped by the fact that it’s not true, it never has been true, and almost everyone knows it’s not true. And in fact, the majority of people don’t want it to be true, either, which sometimes seems to matter more than whether it is or isn’t actually true.

Since that sort of thinker doesn’t have much idea of dignity (in the sense I’m about to use it), the Church’s idea that men and women are different but are “equal in dignity” has no ground to sprout from. It may appear to them that if men and women are different, then one must discriminate against the other as part of nature or something. Or that considering that men and women are different, it wouldn’t be possible for them to perform equal work and therefore equal pay would be a silly idea. So the only way women can possibly get treated fairly in the workplace is if women and men are the same.

Those of us who understand the Church’s teaching on women, and very many others who at least have common sense, know that the thought processes I have described above aren’t really logical and also spring from some false premises. Women and men can add the same amount of value to an organization without doing it in exactly the same way (and in many cases, the more diversity in the (name removed by moderator)ut, the better the end product), and also that in many things women and men can both add value in the same way without having to be inherently the same.

So, to bring us back to where we started, I think the “women and men are the same” argument is one of those things that some people still say, but very few people believe in, and so counting on its appplication to transgenderism to create a divide among the liberal thinkers is possibly over-optimistic.

Just a quick note on the original post in the thread. I haven’t read the entire thread, but I skimmed over it and I don’t think this point has been made explicitly yet. One of the basic moral principles is, “You may not do evil that good may come.” There are many reasons for that, but one of them is the possibility that the evil may not bring about the good after all, in which case you have just added to the evil in the world with no benefit at all. So I have to say that I absolutely do NOT hope for legalization of polyamorous marriages. I do not wish the damage to souls that would happen by the growing acceptance of legal adultery.

–Jen

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Don’t apologize. It’s me. My brain isn’t as sharp as it used to be.

I agree with the first pp.

In the second you make an interesting point I hadn’t thought of:

"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, "

It makes sense NOW. But the way things are going I can just hear: So what if my girlfriend is 14 - who are we hurting?? It doesn’t even have to include marriage, but the removal of most pedophilic laws. (concerning age of consent). THEN maybe we could get to the marriage question! I mean, I’m getting ready for everything.

And yes a legal democracy could end up being inconsistent with God’s teachings. How many times must we hear that WE can obey God all we want, but why should the entire society obey God? Herein comes Natural Law.

Or are we going to kick that out the window too??

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

**For Revert_Jen and CompSyGuy
**
New Birth Cerificate proposed by TN:

Parent no. 1
Parent no. 2

Wait. Who’s going to be parent no. 1???
I’m the MOTHER. I want to be no. 1 - !!!

Whoops. That goes against my feminist ideals.

Hmmmm. This is a toughy.

THINGS ARE GETTING TOO WEIRD!!!

God bless you
Fran

 

[Murmurs]

**For Revert_Jen and CompSyGuy
**
New Birth Cerificate proposed by TN:

Parent no. 1
Parent no. 2

Wait. Who’s going to be parent no. 1???
I’m the MOTHER. I want to be no. 1 - !!!

Whoops. That goes against my feminist ideals.

Hmmmm. This is a toughy.

THINGS ARE GETTING TOO WEIRD!!!

God bless you
Fran

Ok, I quit now. :banghead: uch:

 

[revert_jen]

**For Revert_Jen and CompSyGuy
**
New Birth Cerificate proposed by TN:

Parent no. 1
Parent no. 2

Wait. Who’s going to be parent no. 1???
I’m the MOTHER. I want to be no. 1 - !!!

Whoops. That goes against my feminist ideals.

Hmmmm. This is a toughy.

THINGS ARE GETTING TOO WEIRD!!!

God bless you
Fran

I freely admit that I have no idea what this post is about.

–Jen

 

[frangiuliano115]

I freely admit that I have no idea what this post is about.

–Jen

You made some interesting points in your post.

So it seems to me that we’re getting ready for the future. Or maybe the future is already here.

The state of Tennessee is preparing to modify their birth certificates. They will no longer say"mother" and “father” referring to the parents of the newborn but as “parent no.1” and parent no.2".

The rest of my post is a joke because the above could create problems too, with feminists for example. I mean, everything is getting just too out of hand.

What about: M (male) F(female) O (other) and I read that colleges may have up to 6 designations.

I’m just trying to keep myself amused while the world goes crazy.

God bless you
Fran

 

[revert_jen]

You made some interesting points in your post.

So it seems to me that we’re getting ready for the future. Or maybe the future is already here.

The state of Tennessee is preparing to modify their birth certificates. They will no longer say"mother" and “father” referring to the parents of the newborn but as “parent no.1” and parent no.2".

Well, I guessed (but wasn’t sure) that TN meant Tenessee, but I didn’t know about the birth certificates, which just made the whole post mystifying.

I suppose we should just be glad that TN is still only including two “parent” fields. You know it’s only a matter of time before people want three or four… :doh2:

–Jen

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well, I guessed (but wasn’t sure) that TN meant Tenessee, but I didn’t know about the birth certificates, which just made the whole post mystifying.

I suppose we should just be glad that TN is still only including two “parent” fields. You know it’s only a matter of time before people want three or four… :doh2:

–Jen

Yes. My heart shudders.

Uffa.

Maybe it’s time for Jesus to come back?

God Bless
Fran

 

[frobert]

I agree with other posters, I don’t think polygamy will face any more opposition than gay marriage.

Based on recent polls that does not appear to be a reasonable assumption. Regardless, from what we know now how long to you think it will take for polygamy to be morally acceptable.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Frobert,

I think the polls are incorrect!

Just to make this quick:

pornogaphy- largely unacceptable 33%



That gave me a good laugh just before dinner. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry. They make more money than google, microsoft and, I think, amazon COMBINED. People are addicted for goodness sake.

It’s one thing to BELIEVE something and it’s another thing to LIVE IT. Depends how they asked the question on this poll.

Oh, and check out “married men and women having an affair”. 7% highly unacceptable.
some more rolling emotions…

If only it were true!

I was listening to EWTN this morning and they were talking about the polygamy issue. They were saying that some institutions with big money want to push this through within 3 years otherwise it’ll take 20. I don’t know who they were talking about I’m sorry to say - masons, maybe, and the such.

That’s it.

God bless you
Fran

 

[Rau]

Based on recent polls that does not appear to be a reasonable assumption. Regardless, from what we know now how long to you think it will take for polygamy to be morally acceptable.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/2mtb4bi9wuinds3fihiwoq.png

Polygamy does not have the benefit of some decades of advocacy. But it is part of the religious practice of some people. Certainly, at the present time, SSM advocates will be (and are) among the least likely to support it. Their interest lies in aligning with “ordinary married people”, rather than other minorities that have gained minimal acceptance.

Polygamy is illegal throughout the U.S., which in itself is enough to encourage an “immoral” assessment by many people. So be careful in assessing polls.

 

[frobert]

Hi Frobert,

I think the polls are incorrect!

Fran

Glad you got a laugh out of it. Of course you can believe polls are incorrect but statistically how far off base do you think they are? 3%, 5%, 10%…?

Here is a more recent poll by age group:



Polygamy is down from 14% in the latter poll.

We make assumptions based on available facts and there really is not much legal or moral fact to support polygamy. From the lack of facts or even minuscule evidence to the contrary some people would question the motivations of those who keep insisting on a slippery slop.

 

[frobert]

Polygamy does not have the benefit of some decades of advocacy. But it is part of the religious practice of some people. Certainly, at the present time, SSM advocates will be (and are) among the least likely to support it. Their interest lies in aligning with “ordinary married people”, rather than other minorities that have gained minimal acceptance.

Polygamy is illegal throughout the U.S., which in itself is enough to encourage an “immoral” assessment by many people. So be careful in assessing polls.

However you assess the polls you have not provided any facts or evidence of why anyone would assume that polygamy is the next step. My guess, that outside of a few politicians and questionable blogs/publications, it is merely a personal belief.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Glad you got a laugh out of it. Of course you can believe polls are incorrect but statistically how far off base do you think they are? 3%, 5%, 10%…?

Here is a more recent poll by age group:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/ifguqeihsuc9tezkuaqfuw.png

Polygamy is down from 14% in the latter poll.

We make assumptions based on available facts and there really is not much legal or moral fact to support polygamy. From the lack of facts or even minuscule evidence to the contrary some people would question the motivations of those who keep insisting on a slippery slop.

The title of the poll is Moral Issues Americans Find Highly Unacceptable.

But then on the graph is says: % Morally Acceptable, so I had to keep looking back up to make sure I was undersanding.

I still say it depends on how you ask the question. How you ask the question, as I’m sure you know, will give a different result. So the question could be put in such a way as to achieve a desired result.

I don’t know the percenage, but as I look around me it sure doesn’t seem right!

Like check out Married Men and Women Having an Affair 10% acceptable.
Huh? WHO are the having the affairs with??? If only 10% of the population find it acceptable?

Polygamy down from 14%. Okay. Who knows how they asked the question.

But I’m interested in your statement:

**We make assumptions based on available facts and there really is not much legal or moral fact to support polygamy. From the lack of facts or even minuscule evidence to the contrary some people would question the motivations of those who keep insisting on a slippery slop.
**

“There is not much legal or moral fact to support polygamy”. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, this is how SSM started out. First acceptance and then equality and so on till we have legalized “marriage” between SScouples.

Where is the legal support for this? Wasn’t the govt supposed to protect marriage so as to have a stable society and environment for our children?

And I’m one of those slippery slope believers. You don’t see this happening with just about everything?

Yeah. I think we’re headed for some strange stuff!

God bless you
Fran

 

[Rau]

However you assess the polls you have not provided any facts or evidence of why anyone would assume that polygamy is the next step. My guess, that outside of a few politicians and questionable blogs/publications, it is merely a personal belief.

How polygamy is viewed today is not hugely relevant as that can change as we have seen. The idea that 2 men could enter in to an intrinsically sexual relationship under the auspices of the State surely had similarly low statistical support (on moral grounds) in the past.

What is significant is the logic that says that if it is fundamentally just to afford 2 women or 2 men the right to marriage, by redefining marriage, how could the same flexibility be denied to others with a similarly valid cause - genuine polygamists whose culture has supported such relationship models for centuries.

Logical consequences ought not be branded a slippery slope if doing so has the purpose of dismissing the logic. Slippery slopes arise when there is no logic.

 

[Thorolfr]

What is significant is the logic that says that if it is fundamentally just to afford 2 women or 2 men the right to marriage, by redefining marriage, how could the same flexibility be denied to others with a similarly valid cause - genuine polygamists whose culture has supported such relationship models for centuries.

Logical consequences ought not be branded a slippery slope if doing so has the purpose of dismissing the logic. Slippery slopes arise when there is no logic.

Considering that polygamy has been practiced in some cultures as you say, “for centuries,” allowing polygamy wouldn’t even count as redefining marriage if we look at it globally and outside of western culture. And saying that polygamy has been around “for centuries” is really an understatement. It’s more like “for millennia.” Personally, I’m not against polygamy for consenting adults who want to do this.

 

[Rau]

Considering that polygamy has been practiced in some cultures as you say, “for centuries,” allowing polygamy wouldn’t even count as redefining marriage if we look at it globally and outside of western culture. And saying that polygamy has been around “for centuries” is really an understatement. It’s more like “for millennia.” Personally, I’m not against polygamy for consenting adults who want to do this.

It is a redefinition as we westerners understood it, just as redefining it to ignore the sex of the participants was a redefinition. Both changes offend our Christian traditions too.

Is the Lutheran Church ok with polygamy (subject to legal accommodation)?

 

[Thorolfr]

It is a redefinition as we westerners understood it, just as redefining it to ignore the sex of the participants was a redefinition. Both changes offend our Christian traditions too.

Is the Lutheran Church ok with polygamy (subject to legal accommodation)?

So are you saying that Christianity is a western religion? Even in the Middle East where Christianity began, polygamy has a long history, including within Judaism.

And I’ve never asked my pastors if they’re OK with polygamy or not.

 

[Rau]

So are you saying that Christianity is a western religion? Even in the Middle East where Christianity began, polygamy has a long history, including within Judaism.

And I’ve never asked my pastors if they’re OK with polygamy or not.

No, I made 2 separate points.

Is every moral question in the Lutheran Church up to individual pastors?