Why shoudn't three people get married?

[markeverett49]

An article from the UK Telegraph about two women and one man in Brazil whose recent “marriage” has sparked a heated conversation.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple

Note, I am NOT in favor of this! I post it here as a matter of general interest.

 

[pete_29]

As a male of the species, I don’t think I could handle being told I 'm wrong in stereo.

 

[tabycat]

As a male of the species, I don’t think I could handle being told I 'm wrong in stereo.

Twice the fun, twice the pain.

 

[Dale_M]

Quoting from the article

as Helen Croydon has pointed out, breaking the boundaries of monogamy is far from unusual. Plenty of marriages have three people in them. They’re just not legal ones.

 

[Scriptorium]

God made one man and one woman. The “third” is a child or God, depending on your viewpoint. Our whole existence shows that we are designed for another, not many others. Love is a communion of two, which produces a third.

And note how it is always polygamy, and never polyandry. This stuff is a direct affront against the teachings of Christianity.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Reminds me of a joke I heard about a year ago.

We were informed, after the SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and his four wives, that they had been living in that compound for four or five months, completely sequestered from the outside.

Well, rumor has it that Osama called the Navy SEALs himself…

 

[JimG]

To put a sarcastic twist on arguents for homosexual marriage, why should it matter how many people I love?

 

[AB_Juney]

After amassing a veritable library on the FLDS, this seems tame in comparison, though still not getting my aproval.

 

[sedonaman]

The advocate of social change has the burden of proof that society will benefit from his proposed change. IOW, the question should rather be, “Why should three people get married.” Since it was stated the other way, it is just another example of people not doing their research before asking “why not?”. Advocates of polygamy should turn to Reynolds v. The United States:

… The Reynolds Court was not speaking theoretically when it declared that polygamy could “fetter a people in stationary despotism.” Prior to statehood, Utah was a de facto theocracy. For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.

Brigham Young was simultaneously head of the church, governor of the Utah Territory, and a member of the boards of major businesses. Young decided where his followers lived, the crops they grew, where they shopped, the professions they chose–and who they married. There was little government beyond the church’s structure. Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory’s children remained illiterate.

Elections were understood not as forums for debate and decision, but as occasions for popular acclamation of God’s choice.

Underlying all this was a deeply communal ethic: Men and women were willing to defer to the church’s leadership for the sake of the broader Mormon society, even in so personal a matter as marriage–within which, of course, wives deferred to husbands. To antipolygamists, this was neither capitalism nor democracy, but a substitution of the rule of men for the rule of laws. Indeed, the ability of church leaders to command personal sacrifice and disobedience to U.S. law fueled resistance to federal enforcement of Reynolds. …
law2.byu.edu/marriage_family/news/5.29.6.htm

In short, it denies the equality of citizens.

 

[timotheos]

Polygamy.
Polyandry.
Same-sex marriage.
Inter-species marriage.
Contraception.
Abortion.
Divorce.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of better arguments for scrapping our whole modern custom of “love” marriage for the good old-fashioned arranged marriage.

"Love" is what has gotten us into this mess. In the arranged marriages, what does “love” got to do with it? Our parents knew us pretty well, and could size up other parents and their kids pretty well. Their picks would be, over the long haul, a heck of a lot better than ours, and that’s all that matters. And we wouldn’t be all caught up with some people wanting their particular brand of “love” to be included in the definition of marriage.

We need to take the “love” out of marriage. Sounds like a joke, but on a practical and definitional level, I am very serious.

Scary thing is, once you got past a knee-jerk “ridiculous!” reaction, you might come to realize that it would probably work. Perhaps the only thing, at this stage.

 

[maltmom]

As a male of the species, I don’t think I could handle being told I 'm wrong in stereo.

Two ears…one a piece.

I think it should be one woman and two men. Just kidding.

 

[Nate13]

Mankind is created in the image of the Trinity, 3 persons in one God. God who’s Son he loved so much that the love is in and of itself another person the Holy Spirit sealing them as one. Mankind created as man and woman who become one and who’s love sometimes is so great that it leads to a new person coming to being in their image and likeness.

 

[AB_Juney]

Polygamy.
Polyandry.
Same-sex marriage.
Inter-species marriage.
Contraception.
Abortion.
Divorce.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of better arguments for scrapping our whole modern custom of “love” marriage for the good old-fashioned arranged marriage.

"Love" is what has gotten us into this mess. In the arranged marriages, what does “love” got to do with it? Our parents knew us pretty well, and could size up other parents and their kids pretty well. Their picks would be, over the long haul, a heck of a lot better than ours, and that’s all that matters. And we wouldn’t be all caught up with some people wanting their particular brand of “love” to be included in the definition of marriage.

We need to take the “love” out of marriage. Sounds like a joke, but on a practical and definitional level, I am very serious.

Scary thing is, once you got past a knee-jerk “ridiculous!” reaction, you might come to realize that it would probably work. Perhaps the only thing, at this stage.

…My father was an emotionally abusive insert favorite bad word here and my mother was continuously strung out on crack. No, I don’t think I’d want them arranging a marriage for me thianks.

 

[sedonaman]

… I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of better arguments for scrapping our whole modern custom of “love” marriage for the good old-fashioned arranged marriage.
… etc.

The problem with this idea is that a valid marriage requires the consent of both those to be married.

 

[Flame4]

^ Perhaps by “arranged marriage” what was truly meant was marriages where the partners are set up by their parents. So arranged marriage doesn’t have to mean forced marriage. The two parties could still have the option to decline. After all, plenty of Catholics in the past had arranged marriages.
Now I’m not advocating for arranged marriages. I don’t think there is anything intrinsicly wrong about it, but I don’t think its meant for our time or culture (the modern Western World).

I don’t think love is the problem. I think its the lack of love- of sacrifical love- that is the cause these problems. Instead of being concerned for others and about the will of God, many have chosen to be selfish and only love themselves. Once we recognize that selfishness, I don’t think its any wonder that people decide the can have any thing, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is pleasurable for themselves.

 

[Nigel7]

Gen 2:24

"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (not “wives”), and they become one flesh."

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-24&version=NIV

 

[sedonaman]

^ Perhaps by “arranged marriage” what was truly meant was marriages where the partners are set up by their parents. So arranged marriage doesn’t have to mean forced marriage. The two parties could still have the option to decline. After all, plenty of Catholics in the past had arranged marriages.
Now I’m not advocating for arranged marriages. I don’t think there is anything intrinsicly wrong about it, but I don’t think its meant for our time or culture (the modern Western World).

I don’t think love is the problem. I think its the lack of love- of sacrifical love- that is the cause these problems. Instead of being concerned for others and about the will of God, many have chosen to be selfish and only love themselves. Once we recognize that selfishness, I don’t think its any wonder that people decide the can have any thing, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is pleasurable for themselves.

You are forgetting that arranged marriages in the past “succeeded” because there was a lot of social pressure to make them succeed. That social pressure no longer exists.

 

[FaithBuild18]

You are forgetting that arranged marriages in the past “succeeded”…

Yes! This is the point! Compare the divorce rates people!

Arranged marriages were around longer in Catholicism than unarranged marriages. As another said, they are not forced marriages. But people had sufficiently more moral fiber in the past than they do now in our era of self-satisfaction, hedonism, and pride, that they were generally willing to consent and make it work. Marriages that aren’t arranged place too much emphasis on the satisfaction of self than on the satisfaction of the other.

This is the model of modern marriage: YOU choose who is best for YOU. It is all about YOU after all. YOU are the only person that matters. YOU are the only person who can decide for YOURSELF.

To he/she who said her parents would not arrange a good marriage: Your point is invalid because under a system of arranged marriages, your parents themselves would not be married. They likely would not have been paired up with other similar members of society either. If one was dysfunctional, the plan would be to unite them with one who is functional, so that the dysfunctional member can be redeemed through the functional member. Thus you would have at least one parent capable of making a sound decision in arranging your marriage. Arranged marriages were not just randomly arranged. They generally made good sense, economically, educationally, spiritually, and morally (at least that was the plan).

 

[sedonaman]

Yes! This is the point! …

I put “succeed” in quotes for a reason.

 

[AB_Juney]

Yes! This is the point! Compare the divorce rates people!

Arranged marriages were around longer in Catholicism than unarranged marriages. As another said, they are not forced marriages. But people had sufficiently more moral fiber in the past than they do now in our era of self-satisfaction, hedonism, and pride, that they were generally willing to consent and make it work. Marriages that aren’t arranged place too much emphasis on the satisfaction of self than on the satisfaction of the other.

This is the model of modern marriage: YOU choose who is best for YOU. It is all about YOU after all. YOU are the only person that matters. YOU are the only person who can decide for YOURSELF.

To he/she who said her parents would not arrange a good marriage: Your point is invalid because under a system of arranged marriages, your parents themselves would not be married. They likely would not have been paired up with other similar members of society either. If one was dysfunctional, the plan would be to unite them with one who is functional, so that the dysfunctional member can be redeemed through the functional member. Thus you would have at least one parent capable of making a sound decision in arranging your marriage. Arranged marriages were not just randomly arranged. They generally made good sense, economically, educationally, spiritually, and morally (at least that was the plan).

WELL! I’m glad ot know that you’re the almight ruler of the universe and know exactly how well someones marriage would turn out! Good to know that two people who were compatible at marriage would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER change, and two people in a happy marriage would NEVER ABUSE their children! Good to know I’d have loooving parents then! You don’t know my parents! You don’t know who they are or who they were when they got marid, so WHAT RIGHT do you have to say they wouldn’t have seemed PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE the day they got married?

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard! Just because two people have a happily arranged marriage doesn’t mean they know their children! Oh, I want my irreligious child to be placed in a traditional Catholic marriage, taking away his or her free will and forcing what I want for them on them! Oh, my childs passion lies in the arts and music? That’s frivilous! I want you to marry a banker instead! Your dreams are stupid! Just because someone is “dysfunctional” or “functional” doesn’t mean they give a rats *** about their children being happy!!!

ANd I LOVE how you just DISMISSED the exact fact that breaks your stupid logic. They SUCEDED BECAUSE THEY HAD TO.

DIVORCE RATES? You…UGH! Let’s see, Victorian England; a woman couldn’t divorce her husband except on PROOF of adultery. Gee…I wonder how many women could even GET a divorce in those days, HMMM.