• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st Century Issue

Wow great article. They definitely have the right idea going that, marriage should be a choice and not so discriminating. If more people had this mind set polygamy would be accepted by a lot more people. It seems as though people do not accept things that are not accepted by others, instead of having their own opinions and need/wants.
 
Sadly, parts of this article remind me too much of Nazis and Communists pointing fingers at each other and calling names. Such champions of freedom!

Schlafly, like much of the so-called "religious right", expresses a knee-jerk position (often equating homosexuality with polygyny, in clear ignorance of what God calls "abomination" as opposed to what He permits and even calls Himself!) that is in opposition to the Bible, while the administration does ultimately the same thing, for allegedly the opposite reason! (calling good 'evil', and evil, 'good' - anyone?)

[And note that NOWHERE does Schlafly actually mention the Bible!]

I can't help but wonder if they'll find to make polyandry OK, while forbidding patriarchal marriage as some type of "hate" crime, since it might be associated with "forbidden" verses in that Book!

Both "sides" will ultimately agree on one thing, I am sure: What Government ordains (like the "DOMA" in one case, "civil unions" in another) is the only thing that REALLY matters -- and they'll fight over who gets to rewrite the Law better than God did.

Color me skeptical. But I'm thankful that God is in control, and He has a sense of humor.
 
In my opinion, marriage should either be marriage, or there should be no such thing. Discrimination has never been ok in my book. Why should a man get more than one wife, and another man have no government right to love at all? There is a reason why these marriages are illegal, because it is not one man and one woman. Now, I'm not saying that the Bible allows homosexuality, nor should it, but marriage and politics should be left separate. In the end, people should be able to live a lifestyle that is how they feel/believe they should live as long as it is not harming anyone/anything else. I believe we ALL have the right to love, straight, gay, polygamists, anarchists, etc. etc. etc. etc. It shouldn't matter.
 
Something was bugging me about the article and Mark showed me what it was. I can't help but feel that even if they did allow polygamy they would somehow single us out as a target somehow and we would be even less acceptable than before.
 
Randy,

I think I will break your blog out into a separate thread. This one might be a good one to comment on as well.

Blessings,

Doc
 
I have always thought that "civil unions" should exist between "any adult human" and "any other adult humans". They should define all aspects of legal relationships between people. And *only* legal relationships.

"Marriage" should be a religious relationship between people, endorsed by a religious body.

The law should have no bearing on marriage and religious institutions should have no bearing on civil unions.

Why we have marriage all tied up in the law is just an example of a *lack* of the separation of church and state.
 
BexyandBen said:
I have always thought that "civil unions" should exist between "any adult human" and "any other adult humans". They should define all aspects of legal relationships between people. And *only* legal relationships.
Click to expand...

Actually, they already do, and have since even before the founding of the Republic. It is called "freedom to contract".

(And if that sounds at all like a punch-line, it is not. :!: ) The right to contract is explicitly protected under the Constitution, (more than once, actually) and the "five fundamental elements of Contract" were once taught in elementary Civics texts. Contract law has always been more than sufficient to deal with all of the issues (from insurance to hospital access to wills) that have been subject to so much contention lately. Free people are, by definition, free to contract for what they need for life, liberty, and the protection of property.

(And I can assure those reading that, in concept and in practice, there is no legal issue with a man having more than one wife without "benefit" of Caesar's license. I could buy a house, buy insurance and specify an arbitrary beneficiary, create a will or trust, , rent a room, or do any other Lawful thing by simple contract -- since it is truly no one else's %$@#!@ business what my sleeping arrangements are...
...so long as I do not attempt to "force" someone to "accept" my lifestyle, or --worse still, and a violation of the Commandent against theft and coveting, of course -- attempt to "force" another to subsidize it. This would be true for "gays" as well, were the real issue not to force approval and provision.)

I submit that the issue is both simple, and very well hidden, because it is the unalienable "Right of Contract" which ultimately was used to defraud folks of all their OTHER Rights. Remember, if you can sell your very soul to the devil, you can certainly trade your birthright for a bowl of food, or trade God-given Rights for "civil liberties" and a "social safety net".

The irony is how the problems which result from the fraud involved with serving "another master" always lead to demands for ever more fraudulent "fixes".

As a result, we are seeing that ancient and once-protected unalienable Right to Contract* being replaced, bit by bit, literally by another contract.




----------------------------

* For those of a legal bent, the technical issue is generally called "choice of law". Oversimplified, the "nexus" is "commerce", and it is contract under Common Law which has been supplanted, particularly for self-proclaimed "US citizens", by the Uniform Commercial Code, and ultimately by what is called "private law" or even "international law". (You see contracts calling for 'binding arbitration', outside of the court system, etc, for example.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top