USA Polygamy the Bible and God's Law

[MoreCoffee]

Yes it will be I think since gay marriage is legalized then other things will follow

Isn't same sex marriage already allowed under the USA constitution as it is interpreted by the USA supreme court?

 

[psalms 91]

Isn't same sex marriage already allowed under the USA constitution as it is interpreted by the USA supreme court?

Yup totally wrong but allowed at least for now

 

[Josiah]

I think there is FAR better support for polygamy than for same-gender "Marriage" (the very fact that there's a WORD for one but not the other suggests that). Now that the Supreme Court of the USA has declared that IT is above tens of thousands of years of human experience..... above tens of thousands of years of definition.... above families and religion...... and since it has declared that "marriage" has no meaning, then.... well..... the Supreme Court is likely to rule that marriage has no meaning. It has no basis whatsoever to deny polygamy (and I'm sure soon will). And then children marrying parents. And large groups marrying large groups (the Mouse Lodge all becoming one marriage) or perhaps a little old lady marrying her 15 Pekingnes dogs. After all... history doesn't matter..... society doesn't matter..... families don't matter..... religious doesn't matter... there is no definition of what marriage is or isn't.... there's just the absolute power of the Supreme Court of the USA to say whatever it feels like (if it has a majority of judges to go along with it).



.

 

[tango]

I think a large part of the problem is the word "marriage", because it means more than one thing depending on the context.

From a Christian sense when we talk about marriage we talk about a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

From a secular sense when we talk about marriage we talk about a secular contract recognised by a secular government in which two people exchange secular obligations for secular benefits.


From a Christian perspective marriage is what God considers marriage to be, whatever society may think.

From a secular perspective there really is no reason why any group of people shouldn't enter into a contract recognised by the government. If five people want to enter into an arrangement whereby all their possessions are considered owned by all of them, they have automatic next-of-kin entitlements, they can transfer assets between themselves without paying taxes and so on, why shouldn't they be allowed to do just that? And if they are allowed to do it, it makes little practical difference what name is given to that arrangement. Whether any or all of them are having physical relationships with each other really isn't anybody else's business.

Of course a related issue is the size and scope of government - if there were fewer taxes on things like inheritance and transfers, if people could nominate whoever they chose to be considered "next of kin" where things like hospital visitation was concerned etc then much of the secular benefit of the contract called marriage would be removed, meaning people would be less likely to seek something called "marriage" unless they actually wanted to make a lifelong commitment to their partner.

 

[Josiah]

I think a large part of the problem is the word "marriage", because it means more than one thing depending on the context.

From a Christian sense when we talk about marriage we talk about a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

From a secular sense when we talk about marriage we talk about a secular contract recognised by a secular government in which two people exchange secular obligations for secular benefits.

You have a point - however SAD.

Marriage was ALWAYS a matter of society and religion. UNIVERSALLY. In EVERY culture. In EVERY religions. And usually was one man and one woman (although polygamy certainly is not unheard of - just unusual; but same-gender "marriage" was unheard of; not even a word for it in any language!).

Thing is.... from Rome on..... INHERITANCE passed. And since Rome was as sue happy as modern Westerners, the issue of whether one was actually MARRIED to this person, came to be an issue.

In fairly modern times (last couple of centuries), for the sake of the COURTS in dealing with inheritance disputes, SECULAR GOVERNMENT got their big ______ involved in this (and religion and families and culture stood back and allowed it). But the ONLY issue was to insure that it was a matter of legal record for property rights. In other words, it actually had nothing to do with marriage per se, it had to do with INHERITANCE rights: who would get the farm. The State simply RECORDED the marriage - so that there was a legal record of such. The state didn't define marriage, it only RECORDED what happened. The CHURCH still determined who could and could not get married, divorced, etc. Yes, the church wanted to be sure no one was already married - thus the familiar part of the ceremony, "If there is anyone who has CAUSE why THESE TWO may not be wed, LET HIM SPEAK NOW or forever hold his peace."

But sadly, families and religious stood back and allowed the SECULAR GOVERNMENT to violate the separation of church and state, to violate the family. The STATE would now issue licenses... the SECULAR state (not religion, not families) would determine who is and is not married, who may and may not be married. Perhaps the biggest violation of the separation of church and state in all human history, the biggest intrusion into religion and culture ever seen. We stood back and allowed this violation, this instrusion. But of course, the SECULAR STATE is not culture, not the family, not religion, not the church. It has merely stuck its big ______ into this. For the reason you said, inheritance.

Here's the deal: The SECULAR state CAN and SHOULD govern SECULAR things (like inheritance rights). That's well within its rights and authorities. But it has NO RIGHT to impose itself on families and religion, to so boldly violate the separation of church and state, of family and state. Yes, the government CAN say "this union means there are inheritance rights" (and any other CIVIL - civil - rigthts IT may or may not choose to grant to any it may or may not choose to grant them to).
This is called a CIVIL UNION, a PERSONAL CORPORATION. And the government has every right to say that any woman over 80 and any number of dogs can be a CIVIL UNION so that any leaves all property to the others upon their passing." the SECULAR, CIVIL governement EXISTS to make those rules and acknowledge legal contracts. What it does not have the right to do is be God, to order religious cermonies, to OUT TRUMP thousands of years of human history, human culture, to redefine (or technically, UNdefine) tens of thousands of years of understanding, to violate the separation of church and state, family and state.

From a secular perspective there really is no reason why any group of people shouldn't enter into a contract recognised by the government. If five people want to enter into an arrangement whereby all their possessions are considered owned by all of them, they have automatic next-of-kin entitlements, they can transfer assets between themselves without paying taxes and so on, why shouldn't they be allowed to do just that? And if they are allowed to do it, it makes little practical difference what name is given to that arrangement. Whether any or all of them are having physical relationships with each other really isn't anybody else's business.

AMEN!

What the SECULAR, CIVIL government may not do is un-define "marriage" to accomplish that, to entirely intrude on religion and families, to strip this universal, cherish, honored, historic institution of all meaning and significance. If some people want to regard ten ladies and their dogs to be "marriage" why should the government care? IT'S NONE OF ITS BUSINESS anymore than if 14 people want to consider the moon to be god.

Of course a related issue is the size and scope of government - if there were fewer taxes on things like inheritance and transfers, if people could nominate whoever they chose to be considered "next of kin" where things like hospital visitation was concerned etc then much of the secular benefit of the contract called marriage would be removed, meaning people would be less likely to seek something called "marriage" unless they actually wanted to make a lifelong commitment to their partner.

In California (and I don't know how many other states this also applies to), BEFORE any "same gender marriage" rulings or laws were passed, it was ruled that it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basic of sexual prefeneces or relationship IN ALL CIVIL MATTERS. So, in California, it has - for a long time, long before all this, been ILLEGAL for any governmental agency to hinder "same sex" people from inheritance rights, visitation rights, adoption rights, joint-ownership rights. IMO, the issue of "rights" is irrelevant. But yes, it STILL is unsettled about whether same sex marriage gets the same FEDERAL tax benefits - although I seem to remember the IRS ruled that yes they do (I could be wrong there). I don't care if they get the same tax benefit - that's a CIVIL issue up to the CIVIL government and not something for the church to weigh in on. I believe in separation of church and state, it's the radical libs who are trashing it in this issue.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[tango]

You have a point - however SAD.

Marriage was ALWAYS a matter of society and religion. UNIVERSALLY. In EVERY culture. In EVERY religions. And usually was one man and one woman (although polygamy certainly is not unheard of - just unusual; but same-gender "marriage" was unheard of; not even a word for it in any language!).

Thing is.... from Rome on..... INHERITANCE passed. And since Rome was as sue happy as modern Westerners, the issue of whether one was actually MARRIED to this person, came to be an issue.

In fairly modern times (last couple of centuries), for the sake of the COURTS in dealing with inheritance disputes, SECULAR GOVERNMENT got their big ______ involved in this (and religion and families and culture stood back and allowed it). But the ONLY issue was to insure that it was a matter of legal record for property rights. In other words, it actually had nothing to do with marriage per se, it had to do with INHERITANCE rights: who would get the farm. The State simply RECORDED the marriage - so that there was a legal record of such. The state didn't define marriage, it only RECORDED what happened. The CHURCH still determined who could and could not get married, divorced, etc. Yes, the church wanted to be sure no one was already married - thus the familiar part of the ceremony, "If there is anyone who has CAUSE why THESE TWO may not be wed, LET HIM SPEAK NOW or forever hold his peace."

But sadly, families and religious stood back and allowed the SECULAR GOVERNMENT to violate the separation of church and state, to violate the family. The STATE would now issue licenses... the SECULAR state (not religion, not families) would determine who is and is not married, who may and may not be married. Perhaps the biggest violation of the separation of church and state in all human history, the biggest intrusion into religion and culture ever seen. We stood back and allowed this violation, this instrusion. But of course, the SECULAR STATE is not culture, not the family, not religion, not the church. It has merely stuck its big ______ into this. For the reason you said, inheritance.

The thing that gets me with so much of this is why the semantics are so important.

On one hand are the gay couples who, as far as I can see, can gain all the secular benefits of being married and yet aren't happy because their relationship isn't called a "marriage". It's hard to see why it matters so much what their relationship is called in law.

On the other hand are people who have no issue with gay couples having a relationship that is recognised as binding by the state, that is functionally identical to a marriage, but then get upset if the relationship is called a "marriage". It's still hard to see why it matters so much what the relationship is called.

Of course all the while are the serial monogamists who marry and divorce freely, who sleep around, who have open marriages, but who draw little to no ire from those who claim they seek to defend "marriage" because, even though they completely ignore anything God might have to say on the subject, they are one man and one woman at least putting on a good show.


One big issue is that if churches want to be the exclusive agents of the state then they have effectively decided to dance with the devil and shouldn't then be surprised if the devil turns on them. If the only way to enter into a state-sanctioned contract is to do so within a church then it is entirely reasonable that the flip side to the benefit is that the state gets to decide who can and who cannot enter into such a contract. The church's option is to play by the rules of the state, or withdraw from offering the state-sanctioned contract. If the state says gay couples can enter into such a contract and the church is a provider of such a contract then sooner or later the church has to either allow gay couples or decline to offer secular marriage services to anyone. In many ways an awful lot of the issue could be sidestepped if churches merely got out of the secular marriage business completely. Couples could get married in the eyes of the law in a register office and then couples who wanted a more lavish ceremony, or a religious ceremony, could do their thing afterwards. So from a Christian perspective a couple would take their secular vows before a judge and be legally married, and as a separate occasion (which may or may not be on the same day) have a traditional church service. The church service would carry no legal recognition and so churches could be much freer to determine, based on whatever criteria they chose, who would be eligible to partake of it. It would be much easier for a church to say "only available for members of good standing for a year or more". It might not keep people the church considered "undesirable" away but it would certainly make it harder for them to push the church around.

AMEN!

What the SECULAR, CIVIL government may not do is un-define "marriage" to accomplish that, to entirely intrude on religion and families, to strip this universal, cherish, honored, historic institution of all meaning and significance. If some people want to regard ten ladies and their dogs to be "marriage" why should the government care? IT'S NONE OF ITS BUSINESS anymore than if 14 people want to consider the moon to be god.

In many ways what the secular government is doing is merely redefining a contract that it created. If the secular government says "two people can enjoy these secular entitlements, but only if they are not of the same gender and if they are not related in certain ways", why shouldn't the same secular government change its own rules to say "two people can enjoy these secular entitlements but only if they are not related" or even "groups of any number of people can enjoy these secular entitlements without restriction"?

In the UK some years ago there was a case of two elderly sisters living together. They had lived together for their entire lives, neither had married and both knew that as soon as one of them died the other would be forced to sell their home to pay the inheritance tax on the other share. Had they been a lesbian couple they could have entered into a civil partnership to avoid the inheritance tax but, being sisters, they were not allowed to. In many ways this highlights just how destructive inheritance tax is rather than whether two sisters should be allowed to claim to be in a lesbian relationship to avoid the tax.

In California (and I don't know how many other states this also applies to), BEFORE any "same gender marriage" rulings or laws were passed, it was ruled that it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basic of sexual prefeneces or relationship IN ALL CIVIL MATTERS. So, in California, it has - for a long time, long before all this, been ILLEGAL for any governmental agency to hinder "same sex" people from inheritance rights, visitation rights, adoption rights, joint-ownership rights. IMO, the issue of "rights" is irrelevant. But yes, it STILL is unsettled about whether same sex marriage gets the same FEDERAL tax benefits - although I seem to remember the IRS ruled that yes they do (I could be wrong there). I don't care if they get the same tax benefit - that's a CIVIL issue up to the CIVIL government and not something for the church to weigh in on. I believe in separation of church and state, it's the radical libs who are trashing it in this issue.

If a couple has the right to file a joint tax return then it's logical to make that option available to any couple who are in a recognised committed relationship. At present the wording says "married filing jointly", so to accommodate same-sex couples either the wording on the form would have to change or the relationship would have to be renamed. If three or more people wanted to pool their resources in a manner similar to what we might expect in a marriage it's hard to see reasons why they shouldn't. Since it's unlikely the government will reduce its own size any time soon the only way to accomplish that would appear to be through polygamy, even if only because polygamy is likely to become lawful long before the government decides to stop meddling and scale back what it does. So we're right back to the question of whether a multi-person secular contract counts as a marriage, and whether or not the state is allowed to give whatever name it chooses to the contracts it creates.

In some ways we can see that particular terms have specific significance to specific religions. It would be nice if the state could recognise that but at the same time we can't create a situation where any faith group can declare a particular term to have a specific meaning and effectively redefine the language to suit themselves.

One thing to consider is what practical difference any of these changes, current or future, would actually make. To take a simple example, as a man I don't believe I should be marrying another man so I married a woman. Problem solved.

 

[tango]

But sadly, families and religious stood back and allowed the SECULAR GOVERNMENT to violate the separation of church and state, to violate the family. The STATE would now issue licenses... the SECULAR state (not religion, not families) would determine who is and is not married, who may and may not be married. Perhaps the biggest violation of the separation of church and state in all human history, the biggest intrusion into religion and culture ever seen. We stood back and allowed this violation, this instrusion. But of course, the SECULAR STATE is not culture, not the family, not religion, not the church. It has merely stuck its big ______ into this. For the reason you said, inheritance.

Just focussing on this bit because I think it's worth the attention.

Having allowed the state to define what counts as marriage the church has very much lost the right to make its own rules. The church effectively allowed the state to define marriage, while remaining the exclusive provider of such marriages. As the saying goes, if you dine with the devil you'd best sup with a long spoon. It seems to me the church has danced with the devil, the church has allowed the state to pick the tunes, and now doesn't want to dance any more.

Since the situation has got to the point where the state becomes more intrusive maybe the best thing to do is for the church to step back and not do marriages at all, at least nothing that would be recognised by the state. But that raises a question that seems to get ignored...

What does it take to be married in God's eyes?

 

[Josiah]

The thing that gets me with so much of this is why the semantics are so important.

On one hand are the gay couples who, as far as I can see, can gain all the secular benefits of being married and yet aren't happy because their relationship isn't called a "marriage". It's hard to see why it matters so much what their relationship is called in law.

On the other hand are people who have no issue with gay couples having a relationship that is recognised as binding by the state, that is functionally identical to a marriage, but then get upset if the relationship is called a "marriage". It's still hard to see why it matters so much what the relationship is called.

From the gay perspective, it's about RESPECT and RECOGNITION, it has nothing to do with rights. I conclude this because:

1. In California anyway, they already had the rights BEFORE this whole "same sex marriage" thing began. In CA (and I don't know how many other states and countries), it ALREADY was ILLEGAL to discriminate in any way based on sexual preference or relationships: in money matters, in employment, in everything. EQUAL RIGHTS for inheritance, joint ownership, adoption, visitations, etc., etc., etc. The only question was federal IRS rules (the state not being able to control that, but I think the IRS has determined equal rights there too). THUS, nothing in terms of "rights" is gained by their legally being married. And when there were many seeking to get CIVIL UNIONS legalized in CA, who protested? It wasn't the Christians (many of whom, LIKE ME and my parents FIRMLY supported that!).... it was the gay community.

2. The pitch is respect. Respecting such couples, granting them equal acknowledgement, approving of them. Actually, this is logical. Marriage - after all - is foundationally a blessing. Society blessing that couple, accepting them as joined in this ancient, universal way. The ceremony is a BLESSING. Marriage is NOT just the legal aspects that it has in modern, western nations and the complexities of legalities - THAT had already been achieved. They want the BLESSING, they want the whole of culture, soceity to say: We bless you in this.


I have several 'gay' friends..... two of which live together (they are not however formally married - I don't know why, I've never asked). One of which is an active member of my Lutheran church. I have no "beef" with their orientation or with them. As a group, as a whole, the gays that I MYSELF know are all very nice and good people. And while I DO have a PERSONAL "issue" with gays having sex, it's no different than the PERSONAL issue I have with unmarried straights having sex (no worse) and less of an issue than I have with married straights "cheating." What bothers me in all this is the UNDEFINING of a very, very ancient, universal, cultural - familial - religious institution by a bunch of egotistical American judges. I think the SECULAR, local state goverment certain can determine civil rights and monitary issues, but it has no right sticking its big _____ into ancient, universal, human, cultural, religious institutions. It CAN establish civil unions because such has entirely to do with secular, legal, financial issues - things the secular government is suppose to manage. But it's the enormous violation of church and state, government and religion/family that I object to. This is probably the biggest violation of church and state in history, the biggest intrusion of the secular state into cultural - religious - familial matters ever. And by the same "libs" who scream "Separation of church and state!" I think that I should respect the CIVIL rights of gays.... and as a Christian am to love unconditionally..... but the SECULAR state BLESSING their "marriage" by striping the thousands old universal human institution of any meaning is wrong and offensive. California, USA: GET OUT OF MARRIAGE! It's none of your business.

Of course all the while are the serial monogamists who marry and divorce freely, who sleep around, who have open marriages, but who draw little to no ire from those who claim they seek to defend "marriage" because, even though they completely ignore anything God might have to say on the subject, they are one man and one woman at least putting on a good show.

Good point. It may be a lousy marriage but it's MARRIAGE.

One big issue is that if churches want to be the exclusive agents of the state then they have effectively decided to dance with the devil and shouldn't then be surprised if the devil turns on them. If the only way to enter into a state-sanctioned contract is to do so within a church then it is entirely reasonable that the flip side to the benefit is that the state gets to decide who can and who cannot enter into such a contract. The church's option is to play by the rules of the state, or withdraw from offering the state-sanctioned contract. If the state says gay couples can enter into such a contract and the church is a provider of such a contract then sooner or later the church has to either allow gay couples or decline to offer secular marriage services to anyone. In many ways an awful lot of the issue could be sidestepped if churches merely got out of the secular marriage business completely. Couples could get married in the eyes of the law in a register office and then couples who wanted a more lavish ceremony, or a religious ceremony, could do their thing afterwards. So from a Christian perspective a couple would take their secular vows before a judge and be legally married, and as a separate occasion (which may or may not be on the same day) have a traditional church service. The church service would carry no legal recognition and so churches could be much freer to determine, based on whatever criteria they chose, who would be eligible to partake of it. It would be much easier for a church to say "only available for members of good standing for a year or more". It might not keep people the church considered "undesirable" away but it would certainly make it harder for them to push the church around.

I think this "fear" is founded in many countries where there is a strong historic and legal power of the state over churches. In the USA, I doubt this will happen. Even now, if a Baptist preacher refused to marry a couple (for any reason - maybe mixed race or whatever), he is legally permitted to do so. His religious conventions are upheld. Now..... there has been a LOT of attention on persecution of florists, bakers, etc. who have claimed religious convictions to refuse service for "gay marriages", a LOT of fear that this will be applied also to churches and clergy, and it might, but there is a strong, strong legal tradition here of placing churches (and their clergy) in a quite unique category. It could change, however. As tragic as I see that..... what has sat back for the last 200 years and permitted the state more and more power over marriage?

In the UK some years ago there was a case of two elderly sisters living together. They had lived together for their entire lives, neither had married and both knew that as soon as one of them died the other would be forced to sell their home to pay the inheritance tax on the other share. Had they been a lesbian couple they could have entered into a civil partnership to avoid the inheritance tax but, being sisters, they were not allowed to. In many ways this highlights just how destructive inheritance tax is rather than whether two sisters should be allowed to claim to be in a lesbian relationship to avoid the tax.

Now that the USA has declared that "marriage" has no meaning, no definition - I think all this will very soon be handled. "Marriage" will simply be ANY group of persons (perhaps also pets) who create a personal corporation. the STATE will have total control over it - finally taking it entirely from humanity, culture, history, families, religion - the biggest violation of church:state in history. "Marriage" will only be a stollen word. Old lady and her 5 cats - it's "marriage" because marriage means nothing - or anything. Stripped of any significance, any meaning, any importance beyond the legal and financial stuff of a personal corporation.

If a couple has the right to file a joint tax return then it's logical to make that option available to any couple who are in a recognised committed relationship. At present the wording says "married filing jointly", so to accommodate same-sex couples either the wording on the form would have to change or the relationship would have to be renamed. If three or more people wanted to pool their resources in a manner similar to what we might expect in a marriage it's hard to see reasons why they shouldn't. Since it's unlikely the government will reduce its own size any time soon the only way to accomplish that would appear to be through polygamy, even if only because polygamy is likely to become lawful long before the government decides to stop meddling and scale back what it does. So we're right back to the question of whether a multi-person secular contract counts as a marriage, and whether or not the state is allowed to give whatever name it chooses to the contracts it creates.

In some ways we can see that particular terms have specific significance to specific religions. It would be nice if the state could recognise that but at the same time we can't create a situation where any faith group can declare a particular term to have a specific meaning and effectively redefine the language to suit themselves.

One thing to consider is what practical difference any of these changes, current or future, would actually make. To take a simple example, as a man I don't believe I should be marrying another man so I married a woman. Problem solved.

Good points!




- Josiah