Friday, January 23, 2009

Canadian Polygamists Bring Gays Into Their Marriage Battle

From The Advocate:
The leaders of two Canadian polygamist groups are defending their "marriages" by referencing the nation's 2005 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, reports the Associated Press.
So we all know what's coming next. Shrieks and howls from the Christian hate groups about how the legalization of gay marriage leads to the legalization of polygamy - JUST LIKE THEY SAID IT WOULD.

A couple of things.

First of all, I'm not against polygamy. Pretty much simply because I'm not a judgemental asshole. However, unlike gay marriage, and for the sake of the arguments that will be presented by the anti-gay hate groups, there are some serious social consequences to the legalization of polygamy.

I've found this article to be an invaluable resource.

A few paragraphs:
One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems
The social consequences of polygamy are bigger than you think

Other things being equal [male to female ratio] (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. Monogamy gives everyone a shot at marriage. Polygyny, by contrast, is a zero-sum game that skews the marriage market so that some men marry at the expense of others.

[snip]

The social dynamics of zero-sum marriage are ugly. In a polygamous world, boys could no longer grow up taking marriage for granted. Many would instead see marriage as a trophy in a sometimes brutal competition for wives. Losers would understandably burn with resentment, and most young men, even those who eventually won, would fear losing. Although much has been said about polygamy's inegalitarian implications for women who share a husband, the greater victims of inequality would be men who never become husbands.

By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.
Also, remember that the comparison itself is fallacious. Same-sex marriage is about marrying 1 partner, polygamy is about marrying additional partners.

And of course, the motherload: Polygamy is Biblically approved!
biblicalpolygamy.com:

The purpose and outline of this web-site are simple:
As based only on the Bible, to provide

-the Exegesis / Argumentation Proofs in the Bible,
-the list of all the Polygamists in the Bible,
-and the examples where The Lord Himself is self-described in polygamous terms in the Bible,

all in a simple and easy-to-use web-site.
This is one I like to remember:
God said He GAVE Wives

Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

-"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
-"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
-"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
-"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving
2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
Check out what Focus on the Family's Citzenlink recently had to say:
Dr. Ron Jones, senior pastor of Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Va., has written an open letter to the new president.

"We will pray that God will grant you Solomon-like wisdom in all of the decisions you make."
And what is this "Solomon-like wisdom" like, you ask? Well it goes a little something like this:

1 Kings 11:3 "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray."
_______
Feel free to read the whole chapter. "God" never condemns his polygamous liaisons, just the idolatry it lead to.

6 comments:

Chew said...

So you're for gay marriage, but against polygamy? You can't argue and say it's inequality if you are also saying other's can't do it because you disagree with their beliefs then now can you?

However in the same attitude of what you just posted, one could say socially gay marriage would only hurt because for every 2 men who marry each other, and 2 women who marry each other, there would be 2 sets of parents who would not produce children naturally. The whole idea of the concept of marriage would be to become one together and produce children in a proper context.

The Christian see's that marriage isn't just a union of a man and a woman, but it is a convenant between a man, a woman and God. In the creation story God created Adam, and Eve from Adam. Man and woman are two parts who come together as one under God to produce children.

The issue homosexuals have is the issues of freedoms and rights, and not the actual "marriage". Lets keeps this clear. It is the rights and freedoms for equality under attack and not the ability to "marry".

Emproph said...

"So you're for gay marriage, but against polygamy?"

Did you even read what I wrote above?: “First of all, I'm not against polygamy.”

However, I am against hypocrisy. For example:

Chew: “for every 2 men who marry each other, and 2 women who marry each other, there would be 2 sets of parents who would not produce children naturally. The whole idea of the concept of marriage would be to become one together and produce children in a proper context.”

A typical anti-gay argument. Which falls apart upon understanding that you and your anti-gay friends are not against heterosexual marriages that cannot produce children naturally, nor are you against heterosexual marriages who have no intention of producing children.

And the anti-gay retort to that, is that those marriages are the exception. Which, according to that logic, gay marriages would also be the exception. In fact, gay marriages would be significantly more of an exception.

If gay people make up only 3-5 % of the population, that means that heterosexuals are at least 95% of the population. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that gay people get married at the same rate as straight people.

All non-procreating gay marriages wouldn’t come close to the amount of non-procreating straight marriages:

“According to the Census Bureau's 1998 Current Population Survey, a greater percentage of women of all ages are not having children. In that year, 5.7 million (or 18.4 percent) married women of childbearing age (defined by the Census as between 15 and 44 years old) were childless.”

If you and yours were truly against marriages that couldn’t or wouldn’t produce children naturally, you’d be fighting to make that the law of the land. As it stands, you’re just using that reasoning as a means to an anti-gay end.

It’s dishonest, and it’s unfair.
--
“In the creation story God created Adam, and Eve from Adam. Man and woman are two parts who come together as one under God to produce children.”

First of all, a literal interpretation of an Adam and an Eve, would mean that their family was an incestuous one. I’m not an advocate of it, personally or socially. But if it wasn’t a sin then, then it’s not a sin now. Or did you want to make the case that God changed His mind?

Secondly, man/woman, positive/negative, the parts fit, blah blah blah. I get it, we ALL get it. What you need to understand is that our love is AS real as man/woman love.

Imagine the spirit of a man, born with a woman’s body. That woman would be a lesbian, because her spirit would have a positive charge. On the inside, she would be male, and thus attracted to women.

The same with the spirit of a woman born with a man’s body, he would be a gay male. Being FUNDAMENTALLY feminine on the inside, he would naturally be attracted to men.

Male = positive charge
Female = negative charge

Gay male = negative charge in a body meant to house a positive charge.
Lesbian = positive charge in a body meant to house a negative charge.

Gay male = woman with a man’s body.
Lesbian = man with a woman’s body.

I’m not asking you to believe this, or to accept it. In fact I fully expect you to take this as confirmation of my/gay people’s sexual “confusion.” Not that other gay people would describe it like I just did, but they would agree that the attraction is fundamental, and that our love is just as intensely real as yours.

So if you want to convince us that that’s a “sin,” then you’ve got your work cut out for you.

The Bible says so?

If the Bible condoned homosexuality, what problem would you have with it then?

Man/woman/procreation may be the original design, but it is no longer necessary. 40,000 people starve to death and die of easily preventable diseases every day, not to mention all the children languishing in orphanages. And that’s not even the tip of the iceberg as far as human misery is concerned. In light of that, if you’re concern is with procreation, then your concern is with quantity of life, not quality.

If a couple adopts, and provides a loving home and a nurturing environment, that not only improves the entire world of that child, it improves society as a whole, because that child will know their self-worth, and will have a better chance of reaching their potential and fulfilling their life’s mission on Earth. The alternative is being kicked out onto the street at 18 to fend for themselves. What if it was you?
--
"The issue homosexuals have is the issues of freedoms and rights, and not the actual "marriage". Lets keeps this clear. It is the rights and freedoms for equality under attack and not the ability to "marry"."

The ability to marry is the most important right and freedom under attack. Because it socially confirms our equality, all other rights and freedoms fall into line after that. Which is why the anti-gay industry is so determined to prevent us from marrying, they’d no longer be socially recognized as superior.

Pride is the real god of the hate industry employees. It’s the purest form of idolatry there is, because it’s the love of self, not the love of love-itself (God). To mistake one’s sense of superiority for Christian Love, is the true perversion.

So again I ask you, if the Bible condoned homosexuality, what problem would you have with it?

Chew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chew said...

(sorry for the delete, had too many spelling errors)

The questions aren't if the bible would have said this or that..it's the fact that the Bible does say what it says and there's no denying that. I admit at times I don't exactly come across with my point clearly, so excuse me if it sounds a bit scrambled and not very well put together.

First off I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve single people story (and yes even a young earth approx. 6,000 or so years old and not millions Answers in Genesis )

Adam and Eve genetically were perfect, until sin occured. Genetically the pool has gotten more shallow as time has passed, and also the reason that incest isn't permitted. Science is beginning to show a common ancestor in history but thats not the topic at hand.

I should also revise my statment about the purpose of marriage to produce children. Marriage in a biblical concept is the proper way to have children, if a couple is able to, or feels led to. The bible says that children are a blessing from God.

Lets flip the coin here for a second and let me ask you this:

If a marriage between two people was only defined as between a man and woman under God, and had no other legal rights or privledges to it, except to be a covenant between a man and a woman, would you still want the same freedom?

If it meant nothing changed as far as how your taxes were accounted for, how benefits were handled, legally there would be no benefit to being married at all, is that something you would still desire to be available for homosexuals?

Here is an article that I think best represents this whole debate that continues to occur over and over.

Answers in Genesis Article

Even if we went with your argument:
So again I ask you, if the Bible condoned homosexuality, what problem would you have with it?

The point is still you and I are still sinners. Regardless of sexual orientation, I'm certain you've looked at another person in lust, which Jesus said is like committing adultery of the heart. If you hold hate or anger towards someone, it is committing murder in the heart. Have you ever told a lie? Even telling a lie is enough to condemn a person to the lake of fire. (revelation 21:8) So only covering 3 of the 10 commandments we'd already be condemned. So the point would still stand that you, (as well as I) need a savior to save us from the eternal punishment of our sins. Jesus, the Son of God, being perfect and sinless died as a atonement for your sins. He paid the price for you and me, and everyone. But you need to repent, and put your trust in Him.

Emproph said...

Fine, I need to repent. In fact let me do that right now before I forget.

“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my same-gender attractions because I’m all wigged out about the threat of eternal hell, but most of all because me and my potentially future partner bumping nasties offends Thee, my God, Who art all heterosexual and deserving of all my hatred for gays. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace, to confess the desire for love in my life, to loathe who I am, to find boobage, procreate, and spread the Anti-Gay Gospel far and wide, forever and ever, Amen.”

Thank you so, Chew, for setting me straight. Pun intended.

yoyo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.