Polygamy

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Lost sheep sermon...

Link???

---

JB, go to the page I linked to the text that said "...Lost Sheep" and then CLICK ON the Lost Sheep sermon listed there -- you need Windows Media Player to view/hear it.

I think it's rather good.

[Gail]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Yes it could be, if redefining marriage is what is going on. I am not convinced that is the case, though.

Homosexuals seeking to marry are looking to pair bond monogamously with a life partner and enjoy the same HOUSEHOLD privileges and responsibilities that go with that: shared taxing, next-of-kin matters in hospital, etc. They are not looking to redefine marriage but to participate in it as homosexuals.

Polyamory is a completely SEPARATE ISSUE ENTIRELY and ought to be treated as such (IMO).

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Re: homosexual marriage- Redefining is a term that is being used up here in Canada regarding the laws pertaining to this issue

Just pondering how much of this would be necessary for polygamy laws to be adjusted

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You, the heterosexual, have the right to life-partner whomever you choose

---

But that's not true. 1)Stories of unrequited love are commonplace. Lots of people can't marry the person of their choice because that person does not reciprocate.

---

Entirely unfair -- you completely cut out the parentheses where I specified (provided they share your prefs and are willing). So #1 does not apply. I specified that already.

Quote:

---

2)I'm currently married, so I can't marry anyone. Why? Because we define marriage as one man and one woman. Should we care to change that definition, I might acquire another spouse.

---

The experience of love and the expression of it we call marriage: come these to be originated and defined of men (the state) or of God?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Re: homosexual marriage- Redefining is a term that is being used up here in Canada regarding the laws pertaining to this issue

---

Gail, by whom? By objective lawmakers or by persons trying to push an agenda? I'm unclear whether the term "redefining" is "loaded language" in Canada or not, is why I'm asking. It sounds loaded to me but I don't know if that's how it's intended. It has been used as loaded language here in the states (IMO).

[there buster]

I was referring to this:

Quote:

---

Ah but maybe that's not what scares some. Maybe some are afraid that the mere fact of having been raised by two moms or two dads will leave the children deprived of having homophobia instilled in them from the cradle, thus "jeopardizing" the next generation by depleting it of its core homophobe elements, thus "jeopardizing" the state ultimately as the third generation beyond will no longer feel the need to trample gays in the dirt and treat them like second-class citizens. Oh my, whatever would we do without our targets and scapegoats.

---

Since it was in reply to me, you appear to be classifying me with "homophobes." If not, I was mistaken.

In any case, I have not speculated on the motives or needs that cause others to disagree with me.

And what is this?

Quote:

---

This haughty-minded sneer

---

"haughty-minded" seems to assume what's in one's mind.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Truly, I believe that one father and one mother--dedicated to providing a well-balanced life for their children--is the most ideal situation.

---

As do I, Chrys, and of course we're all entitled to our beliefs and opinions -- I'm just saying according to studies that have been done, there is no evidence of children adopted by homosexual couples having (a) fared any worse nor ( had their sexuality "warped" in any way in comparison to adopted or live-born children of heterosexual couples. Them's the facts we have so far. It is, granted, a new phenomenon and thus new area of study -- but unlike divorce where it was seen immediately the dire effect on children, this has not turned up any immediately detectable dire effect.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Since it was in reply to me, you appear to be classifying me with "homophobes." If not, I was mistaken.

---

You were mistaken. I was referring to a certain type of reasoning extant out there in the world at large (among other types), being one of many "shoes" which, if it doesn't fit, I have no expectation of you to wear, and furthermore was not offered as one I thought you in particular were suited to wear. It was just an afterthought that occurred on the subject in general.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This haughty-minded sneer

---

"haughty-minded" seems to assume what's in one's mind.

---

To me it reflects how it sounds to MY mind. I should probably have used "haughty sounding" instead.

Now then, have you had enough attempted coal-raking (lawyering at me, putting me through the 3rd degree) to satisfy your ire at someone having had the audacity to tell you they didn't appreciate having that attitude thrown at them for no good reason? Or do you feel the need to slap me on the left side as well?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

also...

I have been fairly clear several times in posts as to what that entails.

My NFDMTTS rant..still gets support from those who are sensitive and tuned into what that is about.

---

I know you have been -- but for whatever reason -- whether I've not been sufficiently tuned into what you're saying, felt we weren't communicating, did not retain what I read, or what, I still feel "in the dark". If you could spell it out for me what IS and is NOT a "NFDMTTS" -- maybe with a list of what to look for in each (one that is, one that isn't), I promise to hold onto it and refer to it from here on rather than keep asking you and/or keep being clueless.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The experience of love and the expression of it we call marriage: come these to be originated and defined of men (the state) or of God?

---

First by God:

Quote:

---

So God made Eve and joined the first couple in marriage. Lest we miss the significance of this, Genesis goes out of the way to clarify this union. "For this reason," the author tells us, "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'" Simple, straightforward: One man, one woman, one flesh.

--"Does This Tie Still Bind" SIGNS, July 2004

---

The state, recognizing the strictly secular benefits of this arrangement, codified it and granted those in it certain privileges. These attempt to offset otherwise uncompensated sacrifices made by the pair, which redound to the benefit of society at large.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

it's basically completely fine with polygamy

---

That's not quite true. The Bible is no more "fine with" polygamy than it is with slavery. God recognized that people could not be moved from a slave society to an egalitarian one in one giant leap. Even God compromises. Just as he did on divorce and polygamy. Jesus made it clear that God's plan was "one man, one woman, one flesh," because He quoted that text to the Pharisees.

In fact, the Bible record demonstrates that polygamy began as an act of direct defiance of God's sovereignty.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

to satisfy your ire

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not in the least upset. It was not my intention to rake you over the coals. I'm simply attempting to be precise.

[Dr. Shane]

An issue they have had in European countries that have passed civil unions is that more hetrosexual couples choose the civil union route instead of the marriage route. So when a country or state passes a civil union law it should still make marriage more attractive which can be done by only allowing married partners have tax breaks and social security benefits and not legally mandating companies to recognize a civil union partner as the same as a married spouse.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

In fact, the Bible record demonstrates that polygamy began as an act of direct defiance of God's sovereignty.

---

Ed, I would like to read more about this. Can you share where in the Bible this would be indicated.

[Nicodema]

If by God, then why would the state not see its own strictly secular benefits in alternative codifications? But if by the state, then there is naught sacrosanct to protect from alternative definitions in what is human and arbitrary. Hence my original post, rather, that portion thereof you mistook for some assumption of motive.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not in the least upset. It was not my intention to rake you over the coals.

---

Fair enough. It's something of a touchy subject with me. I have friends and family who are gay and I'm tired of seeing their impression of Christianity derive entirely from people who seem to have no better way to express their faith than to go out and find someone else's lifestyle they disagree with to "persecute". Not numbering you there unless you do so yourself. I'm just saying it frustrates the [censored] out of me. They (gay friends/family) readily acknowledge I'm not "one of those" -- they readily acknowledge there exists a version of Christianity, of following Christ, that is not heinous and offensive, intrusive and calloused. Yet it is the intrusive and offensive that wins in the end to drive them away, and I'm sick of seeing it.

While these people (those who persecute gays and others over lifestyle issues) THINK they are on a grand crusade to DEFEND GOD and DEFEND GOD'S TRUTH they are actually fighting against God (in my view) because they are SLAUGHTERING lost sheep instead of bringing them home to the fold, and DRIVING THEM OUT and making them KNOW their lack of welcome instead of going out into the streets and COMPELLING them to come in. And I have to share the most precious label on earth with this ilk: the label CHRISTIAN, and constantly defend it against they who are supposed to be my brothers who don't act a bit like the Jesus I know. So you will have to forgive me if my knee, too, jerks a bit on the subject.

Again, I'm talking about what I see going on in the world around me, not blaming you. But some of the things you said were reminiscent of some of the arguments they have used, and that troubled me. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean you condone their methods, and I certainly should have at least thought that far ahead.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The Bible is no more "fine with" polygamy than it is with slavery. God recognized that people could not be moved from a slave society to an egalitarian one in one giant leap. Even God compromises. Just as he did on divorce and polygamy. Jesus made it clear that God's plan was "one man, one woman, one flesh," because He quoted that text to the Pharisees.

---

Excellent. So glad you can see this, because it means surely you also can see the same is true about prescribed roles for men and women, correct?

We have in the beginning where they are either (a) created equally as two components to the whole expression of the image of God; or ( created equally as two types of the whole expression of the image of God, and we have in the NT the statement that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ.

If you can see it for polyamory and slavery then it becomes pretty obvious for gender roles and hierarchy, too. Sad to say, most men aren't willing to make the connection, even when they can see the principle you mentioned about slavery.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In fact, the Bible record demonstrates that polygamy began as an act of direct defiance of God's sovereignty.

---

Ed, I would like to read more about this. Can you share where in the Bible this would be indicated.

---

Me too -- I'm also interested -- does this have to do with Abraham and Sarah (trying to fulfill the promise with a concubine) or does it occur even earlier?

[there buster]

This is for both Chrys and Nico (I was away from my desk for nearly eight hours, that's why the delay).

Forgive me for quoting my own article, but I wrote it carefully once, and can't do much better now (I hope SIGNS won't care--they never put it online anyway) Please pardon the length, as well, but I think you will appreciate why I do so.

Quote:

---

But then came sin. The blight of sin affected every creature and distorted every relationship, including marriage. The human body no longer functioned perfectly. Some women could not bear children. Some men desired more than one woman, and some didn't want the one they had. Polygamy and divorce arose, neither of which God intended.

By the time God gave the law to Israel, women had ceased to be seen as "suitable helpers" and had come to be viewed as chattel, possessions to be acquired and disposed of. A man could divorce a woman by simply dumping her belongings outside his tent. The divorced woman often had to choose between starvation, begging, and prostitution. As an initial remedy, Moses required that men provide a bill of divorcement.

If God didn't approve of polygamy and divorce, why were these practices allowed? Why did Moses provide for the bill of divorcement? "'Because," Jesus said, “your hearts were hard." He reaffirmed God's original plan.

"'Haven't you read,' He replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female." and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one.'"

Not only did Jesus reaffirm marriage as "one man, one woman, one flesh," but He also used the Genesis account as His evidence. So if God didn't change the design of marriage, who did?

The fourth chapter of Genesis tells the story of Cain. It begins with Cain's birth and continues with the story of Abel's murder at Cain's hands. As punishment, God condemned Cain to the life of a vagabond, always on the move. To protect him from those who would seek revenge, "the Lord said to him, ‘Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.' "

There follows a list of Cain's descendants. While the narrative passes without comment over Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, and Methushael in a single verse, it devotes four verses to Lamech: "Lamech said to his wives, 'Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. 1 have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.'”

Here, then, is the first recorded challenge to God's model of "one man, one woman, one flesh," and it represents nothing less than a total repudiation of God's authority. The serpent had promised Eve that she could become

the same as

God. In this passage, known as the "song of Lamech," Lamech has the audacity to proclaim himself

better

than God. God provided

one

wife for Adam; Lamech took

two wives

for himself. God would avenge Cain's murder

sevenfold.

Lamech would avenge his own mere wounding

seventy-sevenfold.

Answering the Pharisees, Jesus attributed the changes in marriage to "the hardness of your hearts," Lamech, who first dared to challenge God's plan for marriage, displayed a pride-hardened heart that could boast of murder.

In the beginning, God designed marriage as "one man, one woman, one flesh." Christ Himself affirmed that, in God's eyes, marriage does not change. As the story of Lamech demonstrates, while we may think that we can change marriage, in fact all we can do is reveal how hard our hearts have grown.

Marriage hasn't changed. We have.

---

Questions?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Excellent. So glad you can see this, because it means surely you also can see the same is true about prescribed roles for men and women, correct?

---

Please don't misunderstand this reply. Without further definition of "prescribed roles," I simply cannot answer. There are certain physiological and develpmental issues (don't forget, my primary training is as an elementary school teacher) which cannot be wished away.

On the other hand, as the father of two daughters, I've never taught them that there are honest occupations or callings that they are forbidden.

So, without knowing what is intended by the phrase "prescribed roles," I cannot honestly answer.

Did God prescribe different roles for men and women before the Fall? Based on biological differences alone, I would guess yes. However, the Scriptural record is simply silent on the issue. In the face of that silence, as a conscientious student, there is no evidence of such that I'm aware of.

One prominent SDA likes to argue that women shouldn't be ordained, based on the fact that all the OT priests were male. True enough, but that whole system "passed away," so, without further evidence, I'd have to say it's irrelevant to the question of ordination. But that's

[there buster]

Quote:

---

If by God, then why would the state not see its own strictly secular benefits in alternative codifications?

---

The state's survival, and its ability to "secure" the rights of its citizens, depends upon a continual supply of children. Only heterosexual couples can provide those children, and civilize them. History has demonstrated that monogamy is the best arrangement.

(As an aside, monogamy was the law in the Roman Empire before the birth of Christ, and contributed to its strength; so it's not about Christianity).

Raising children demands sacrifices--financial and otherwise-- from married couples with benefit society, but which are otherwise uncompensated. To recognize and partially offset these sacrifices, and to support their vital functions, the state has granted certain privileges to such couples.

Homosexual couples cannot duplicate these benefits to society.

Should the state recognize other strictly secular benefits from other types of unions, it could codify them.

However, it should be said, that through durable powers of attorney and living trusts, many, if not all of the desired benefits can be realized without changing the law. These are different pieces of paper than a marriage license, but, in the end, they exist for a different purpose.

Quote:

---

if by the state, then there is naught sacrosanct to protect from alternative definitions

---

We don't want the state defining the sacrosanct in any event, do we? That's why my arguments concerning legislation are strictly secular.

[Bravus]

Incidentally, I haven't been showing the little 'off topic' graphic, but this is the polygamy thread, not the gay marriage thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And under your arguments about procreation, Ed, I find it hard to see the downside of polygamy...

[there buster]

It's difficult enough for a father to give attention to his children when he has one wife. Each wife requires attention, and with multiple wives generally come multiple children. This further complicates the father's task. Fathers are crucial to the development of healthy children, and healthy children are crucial to a healthy state.

# 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

[u.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.]

# 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

[Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.]

# 60% of repeat rapists grew up without fathers.

Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky, "The Developmental Antecednts of Adult Adaptations of Rapist Sub-Types," Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, Dec., 1987, p 403-426.

# 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father.

[uS Dept. of Health & Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999.]

# 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

[uS D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.]

# 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

[Center for Disease Control.]

# 90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother.

[Wray Herbert, "Dousing the Kindlers," Psychology Today, January, 1985, p.28.]

# 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.]

# 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse canters come from fatherless homes.

[Rainbows for all God`s Children.]

# 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father.

[uS Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988.]

# 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

[Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992.]

# 75% of prisoners grew up without a father.

Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, Alhambra, CA: Primrose Press, 1990.

# Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.

[uS D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999.]

In solely financial terms, fathering is a great benefit to society.

Polygamy, or polyamory complicates all those relationships.

The experience of Hagar and Ishmael may be extreme, but such rivalries among multiple wives is not rare.

[cricket]

Thank you for sharing this Biblical account, Ed. I've never before looked at Lamech's sins this way. It always confused me, but I never quite understood it. This makes a whole lot of sense. Again, thanks.

[there buster]

Like you, for a long time it didn't make sense to me. What's this strange guy doing, bragging to his wives? Then I noticed the spotlight (4 verses for Lamech, 1 verser for the rest) on Lamech.

When interpreting narrative, its the selection and sequence of episodes that matters. The author of Genesis clearly intends to highlight Lamech.

Also, Lamech is the last in the line of Cain. After him, God declares that "the thoughts of their imaginations were only evil continually."

Lamech's function in the narrative is as the culmination of the line of Cain. And he's the first one to have more than one wife. Add in the "song of Lamech" and you see the line of Cain reaching its limit of blasphemy. Rather than gratitude for sparing Cain, they became arrogant, believing God weak, and themselves all powerful.

In context, it's quite dramatic.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The state's survival, and its ability to "secure" the rights of its citizens, depends upon a continual supply of children. Only heterosexual couples can provide those children, and civilize them. History has demonstrated that monogamy is the best arrangement.

---

Given this, then, turn it around: do you (or do you think the state is wise to) want to see homosexuals driven into the closet again where they MUST reproduce to "hide" their true lifestyle? Think carefully about your answer here ...