|
|
Since marriage is man-created institution, polygamy is not the same. You cant be born to lean towards wanting to marry many women.Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
But sexuality isnt man-made, its with you from birth for most people.
So comparing gay marriage to polygamy just doesnt work.
Why shouldn't someone who wants to be with many women not be able to do that and enjoy the legal perks that go with it? Comparing polygamy to being gay may not work, but comparing plolygamy to gay-marriage/civil unions certainly does work.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Hmmm. You might have Biblical support for that position. It would be nice if the christian right would take that up as an issue instead of trying to keep brain-dead people on life support.
Social Secuirty already recognizes serial marriages so you might be on to something.
Unfortunately, I suspect that your wife would take a dim view of you putting a sign in your front yard that read: POLYGAMY IS MY RIGHT!!!
There's no difference b/w state rights for polygamists and state rights for homosexuals.
As far as Biblical support, homoesexuality is more closely related to beastiality than to polygamy.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I'll let you Biblical experts discuss that. I was merely trying to support your claim that polygamy should be permitted in modern society since it appears that the Bible permitted it.
For the record, I don't support gay beastially........
You're blending two different arguments Salty. Don't you know you're supposed to separate church and state. My claim has nothing to do with the Bible. I'm merely highlighting the logical end to letting everyone who applies get married. It's hypocritical for some poeple to argue for Gay marriage and against polygamy. You can follow the path as far as you want...yes, even to the dreaded gay beastiality.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Ousted Evangelist Confesses to Followers
- By COLLEEN SLEVIN, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, November 5, 2006
(11-05) 13:08 PST Colorado Springs, Colo. (AP) --
Less than 24 hours after he was fired from the pulpit of the evangelical megachurch he founded, the Rev. Ted Haggard confessed to his followers Sunday that he was guilty of sexual immorality.
In a letter that was read to the congregation of the New Life Church by another clergyman, Haggard apologized for his acts and requested forgiveness.
"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.
"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.
Haggard resigned last week as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, where he held sway in Washington and condemned homosexuality, after a man claimed to have had drug-fueled homosexual trysts with him. Haggard also placed himself on administrative leave from the New Life Church, which has 14,000 members, but its independent Overseer Board fired him on Saturday.
In his letter, Haggard said "the accusations made against me are not all true but enough of them are that I was appropriately removed from his church leadership position."
He did not give details on which accusations were true.
The letter was read to the church by the Rev. Larry Stockstill, senior pastor of Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, La., and a member of the board that fired Haggard.
Youngsters were sent out of the room before elders began speaking about the church crisis.
"Worshippers are always challenged by crisis. And when tragedy and crisis strikes it is at that moment that you truly decide if you are a worshipper of the most high god. And today as the worship pastor of this church I am very proud of you," said the Rev. Ross Parsley, who has replaced Haggard.
"I am so grateful for the government system in place here at this church. ... The speed with which things were dealt with this week has been a testimony to the godliness, to the integrity and authority of the overseers of the board of this church," he said.
Haggard, 50, had acknowledged on Friday that he paid Mike Jones of Denver for a massage and for methamphetamine, but said he did not have sex with him and did not take the drug.
The Overseer Board, made up clergy from various churches, used stronger language.
"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct," the board said in a statement.
So, Johnny, are you in favor of polygamy or are you just against gay civil unions?
I could give you my initial response Salty, but to be honest with you, I'm sort of wading through all that right now. I'm really trying to figure out Christian responsibility in respect to the politics. I'm trying to tread lightly. Many first century Jews didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah because they were looking for a political messiah. Even the disciples didn't have this figured out. I'm concerned that the religious right may be putting way too much stock in politics. When Jesus establishes his Kingdom, He won't be sharing credit for it with anyone. Not GDub/Bill/Hillary/or even that crazy peanut farmer.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
My answer would be to remove any special treatment for being married. All people would then be treated as equals. One could argue that we want to support marriage because it is good for society. It has been shown that children raised by two parent families do much better than those raised in single parent households. So that would be a good argument for giving special status to married couples. However since gays can now adopt you could make the same argument. The simplest answer is to remove all special treatment and treat all people equal. I seem to recall something in the constitution about that.
I think the main issue that most people care about is benefits and insurance. This is being offered more and more by different companies, which is good.
There is a certain psychological effect of society blessing/endorsing a union of two people, as well. I really think that "marriage" could be held out as a religious ceremony and endorsement and "civil unions" could be the legal classification. If that were the case, the religious aspect would be separate from the gov't function. If some Gay couples wanted the "marriage" designation, I am sure some churches will be first in line to offer that, as well, but it would be up to each Church.
It is good that the private sector is picking up the ball. People that disagree then have the choice of no using that companies services or goods if they so choose.
Marriage should be back in the church as a religious rite and not a state run classification. If the state would treat all individuals equally and not hand out special treatment based on marital classification then we would have no need for this argument.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
