Monday, July 25, 2011

Gay Marriage.....to polygamy?

My friend and blog partner, Elmer's Brother, sent me the article below, from The Economist, and attached this comment ........"And so it begins. Gay marriages are becoming legal and now the arguments for other non traditional families. And the advocates of gay marriage said this would never happen." (and others said it might)

Please read the article and tell us if you agree........thanks.

Marriage and liberty

Why pick on polygamists?

Jul 22nd 2011, 20:41 by W.W. | IOWA CITY
JONATHAN TURLEY, a law professor at George Washington University, is representing the family featured on the reality show "Sister Wives" in their legal challenge to Utah's law against polygamy. It's a big, unusual family. Kody Brown is "married" to four women and father to 16 children. "One of the marriages is legal", Mr Turley writes, "and the others are what the family calls 'spiritual.' They are not asking for the state to recognise their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone." Mr Turley goes on to make what I find to be a persuasive case.
The Browns have been subject to a criminal investigation for more than a year, but are not accused of child abuse or any crime other than having a particular kind of unusual family. Mr Turley notes that other families with similarly unusual structures are not picked out for persecution by the law. "It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners", Mr Turley observes. "But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and 'cohabits' with those partners, it is considered a crime." This certainly seems arbitrary. Indeed, the law positively encourages de facto polygamous families to organise into multiple households lacking the cohesion and economies of our culture's idealised single-household family.
Imagine the family of a twice-divorced, thrice-married woman with one child from each union. Let's say she's a stay-at-home mom who has custody of all the kids, and gets child-support payments from her first two husbands. So, children with three different fathers live together in a single household, supported by a portion of three different mens' income. How is this not de facto polyandry? How significant is it, really, that her first two husbands don't happen to live with their kids and her third husband? Suppose they move in. What then? Is it okay as long as they pay rent? As long as they no longer love the mother of their children, or vice versa? I say it's okay as long as everyone involved says it's okay.
Mr Turley wonders why civil libertarians haven't been more vocal in support of the right of polygamists to be left alone:
The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
But isn't polygamy, as it actually exists, a backward practice hostile to the interests of women? What about fundamentalist Mormon compounds in which children are raised in isolation, indoctrinated/brainwashed, teenage girls are married off to their uncles and impregnated, while surplus boys are ejected without the tools to cope with the outside world. Mr Turley replies:
Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.
I think this is the right way to think about it. I would add that conventional monogamous marriage was in fact an abusive, exploitative, patriarchal arrangement until very recently. In 1993, North Carolina was the last state to recognise spousal rape as a crime. (end of article)

(the author of this piece is not named by The Economist.  I can't blame them)

Our Australian blogger friend MK once wrote this comment at another blog and I thought there was a lot to it and so I print it here::
On the subject of gay marriage, from my personal view, the argument against it is the slippery slope one. If you allow two women to marry because they love each other, well you have to then allow 3 women to marry or four men, a brother and sister for example.

Marriage to me is a key component to the success of western civilization, we should not fiddle with it for the sake of satisfying a small minority of people. I know gay marriage alone has not led to the downwards slide of the west, but the overall undermining of marriage, morality and commitment most certainly has made its contribution.
z

57 comments:

Brooke said...

The author has a point... This is a slippery slope.

BTW, I LOVE that cartoon! :)

soapster said...

One the one hand you have true limited government folks. On the other you have folks that aren't necessarily for limited government on principle they just don't like BIG government when big government isn't promoting "their" issues.

If a flurry of women voluntarily agree to marry the same man I am perplexed as to why that is a problem for someone who believes in traditional marriage.

You can go on and on about the decay of society or some damn thing and I'd agree with you except whereas it'll be argued that the decay comes from not embracing traditional orthodoxy, I will argue that the decay comes from not understanding the concepts of individual liberty in a free society.

Z said...

Brooke, it's good, isn't it !
And, yes, many people are against gay marriage mostly for this very reason.

soapster, I'm wondering why one has to negate the other.
How would you explain with examples that decay comes from not understanding the concepts of individual liberties in a free society.

Z said...

Kody Brown...4 wives and 16 children. I had never heard of him until I saw him recently interviewed; he is bringing in another wife with her own children.

I added MK's viewpoint of gay marriage creating a 'slippery slope' and it occurred to me that there is a confusion and even chaos in polygamous lifestyle situations. The children were interviewed and are JUST FINE with their whole situation...going from woman to woman to get what they need; they have choices of which mother's mood fits them for the day! The women are convinced that feeling special because of the love of one, faithful, constant man isn't so special; I don't know how they solve the sex situation.
Are they more evolved than most of us women and more 'open minded' as they know the man they love is in the next room making love to the 'other wife', or are they women who have such a terrible self image that they prefer to share a man like this, they don't feel they deserve what most of us women have had?

soapster said...

"soapster, I'm wondering why one has to negate the other."

It's simple. Individual liberty accepts that each and every individual shall decide for themselves.

You either believe in that concept or you believe that the purpose of the state is to dictate and enforce a social mores and thereby establish a traditional orthodoxy.

Accepting the former you can use the power of persuasion rather than in the latter where you use the power of coercion and force.

Agorism FTW!

Z said...

Soapster: So shall pedophiles roam free because we don't want to take their individual rights for the good of societal freedom?
Or because you feel polygamy's not dangerous to society, is that too stretched a comparison?

Gad, I can't believe we've come to the point in society where I have to 'argue' against this man who thinks having four wives and sixteen children is a great idea and Jonathan Turley's point of view that this should be honored.. "We've come a LONG way (down), baby"

Chuck said...

MK summed it up for me, slippery slope.

If we take Soapster's argument to it's logical conclusion we open the door to NAMBLA.

Z said...

chuck, funny you should say that.....pedophilia came to my mind, too, in my comment above yours.
How can it not?

Bob said...

There you go. Blame it on the Mormuns. They are not the only weird group in the country. There's always the Democrats.

Poor Mitt Romney will never get a break. After all, who wants the soprano section of the Mormun Tabernacle Choir as first ladies? Are there enough bathrooms in the White House?

Biologically speaking, males are naturally polygamous, but we let women vote and change the course of nature. The chicks have come home to rule.

If gay Mormun men married gay Mormin women, there would be a certain justice, there.

Epiphany follows: In every polygamous marriage, a man should have to have an equal number of male wives to female wives. That takes care of gay marriage and polygamy.

Notice how brainstorming a problem can produce a workable solution.

Sort of...

Always On Watch said...

Turley concluded:

Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.

And that's the side the law will be on within a decade, IMO.

Once marriage is "redefined," no holds will be barred.

soapster said...

Potentiality isn't a crime unless you wish to live in some Orwellian distopia.

Government exists (or at least it ought to) to protect individual freedom.

When a pedophile physically acts against another, government's rightful obligation is to protect the liberty of the victim by way of prosecuting the perp. There exists no right to harm another individual.

Forgive me if I can't make the leap as to how 5 women marrying a single man is a threat to your liberty.

soapster said...

Different states have different laws regarding age of consent but if I'm not mistaken, anyone under the age of 18 cannot legally enter into a contract thereby negating any argument about adults engaging in activity with minors.

Thersites said...

The slipperiest slope...

Pascal's "Pensees"

The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur.

Pris said...

As I have said many times, once same sex marriage is legalized and recognized as valid, marriage will eventually become undefined, and meaningless.

Pandora's Box has been opened, and now it cannot be shut. There will be all manner of demands for legal recognition of unions.

Bigamy, polygamy, siblings, parent-child unions, adult-minor, and on and on.

Of course it's a slippery slope. This was so clearly predictable, the only thing unclear about it is how long it would take before the first case comes to light.

This case encompasses the right to be left alone, not legal recognition, but that will soon be expanded to the right for marriage of numerous partners.


"You either believe in that concept or you believe that the purpose of the state is to dictate and enforce a social mores and thereby establish a traditional orthodoxy."

So, soapy, I take it then that given your argument, if the state dictates that sex education and homosexual education of children, which is the state enforcing a social agenda, you would say that parental rights are being violated?

If the state dictates what children can eat, are parental rights being violated?

If a child is obese, does the state have a right to remove that child from his parents, or is it their right to be fat? If not why not?

Why is it, that only traditional American orthodoxy is questionable?

I would say that liberty of the individual is much more exemplified in the conservative arena.

Yes, we do expect the state to respect traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but the left is in the process of govt. dictating every social aspect of our lives, like our individual, private right to pursue our own healthcare. When you can come here and denounce that, then we can talk.

Trestin said...

Amen!

The only I would add, is that the polygamy nuts are as much legitimate Mormons as the Branch Davidians were legitimate Christians.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Why stop at polygamy? Why shouldn't a person be able to marry an animal they love? Or perhaps objectum marriages? Or a combination of persons, animals and objects? Let the fetters be broken!

BZ

Z said...

I just found THIS PIECE ABOUT MORMONS AND POLYGAMY and thought you might want to read it.

cube said...

I'm not against gay marriage - they are free to marry whomever they wish - or civil unions, but I am against changing the legal definition of marriage to anything beyond one male and one female. That's one can of worms that should remain closed.

Scotty said...

The only I would add, is that the polygamy nuts are as much legitimate Mormons as the Branch Davidians were legitimate Christians.

Not if we look at the Mormon history. It was part and parcel of it's early days and leadership.

Having studied Mormonism, polygamy represents Mormonism in it's orthodoxy.

Z said...

Soapster, you're forgiven. You don't have to make any point for me, trust me.
It's not always my own personal liberty which comes first with me, it's my society and the upbringing of children. Liberalism has about ruined 2 generations of our kids in a million ways and I refuse to believe a child coming home to four mothers is beneficial to the kids or healthy for society.
Confusion is not what society's run well on.

Z said...

HERE is a typical NONBIASED Wikipedia report on Mormons and polygamy!! NOte the NON BIAS:

"Polygamy was probably a significant factor in the Utah War of 1857 and 1858, given the Republican attempts to paint Democratic President James Buchannan as weak in his opposition to “the twin relics of barbarism – polygamy and slavery.” President Buchannan, anticipating Mormon opposition to a newly appointed governor to replace Brigham Young, dispatched 2,500 federal troops to Utah to seat the new governor, thus setting in motion a series of unfortunate misunderstandings when the Mormons felt threatened in light of their past history.[3]"

So much of Wikipedia's like that....

This is like saying Buchanan just couldn't have felt he needed to protect women, children, etc., no........according to Wikipedia, it was ALL POLITICS.
Sort of like today with Obama's debt ceiling; it just can't be, to the lib media's mind, that Republicans think it's wrong to go into further and further debt! NO, it's has to be ALL POLITICS when they disagree with their hero Obama! :-)

TRESTIN IS CORRECT, OF COURSE:

"The public practice of polygamy by the Church was terminated in 1890 by the Manifesto issued by Church President Willford Woodruff in which he publicly declared “that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land."[2]

Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated."

Yet, tens of thousands still practice what's not actually a Mormon tenet anymore....and really wasn't that huge even years back, honestly.

Z said...

cube, I don't quite get your distinction........why not let that can of worms open if you're not against gay marriage?

Z said...

Trestin, I see, after reading a lot on this (though I have to admit, I have NEVER had Firefox crash so many times and only when looking up Mormon-related articles..is that weird, or what?)...anyway, it's clear that the Mormon Church was against polgyny (to be more exact) other than if/when one had a supposed revelation that that one person, or someone that person knew, should have more wives. right?

soapster said...

"So, soapy, I take it then that given your argument, if the state dictates that sex education and homosexual education of children, which is the state enforcing a social agenda, you would say that parental rights are being violated?"

The whole premise of a state run educational system is a violation of rights. Consider that even if you opt out you are still at the mercy of footing the bill thereby making it that much more difficult to finance an alternative means of education for your child/children. When you subject yourself to the state, you subject yourself to what it is that the state thinks is in your best interest rather than you AS AN INDIVIDUAL making your own choice as to what is best. Here’s a perfect example attesting to what I’m talking about. Here’s a section from the MN GOP standing platform:

”Republicans believe that parents, teachers and local school boards can best make decisions about our children’s education.”

I made a motion on the floor to strike teachers and local school boards from this section. This required a two-thirds majority from the floor. What do you suppose happened? These same Republican parents didn’t rise up to the occasion and then they cry foul when the “teachers and local school boards” start making decisions about “your children’s education”.

To further illustrate my point on the matter I then immediately returned to the mic and made a motion to strike parents from that section. That got a good rise from the delegation that understood my previous motion.

”If the state dictates what children can eat, are parental rights being violated?”

Who accepts that the state may dictate what the children eat? Again, you subject your children and yourself to the state then you subject yourself to what the state dictates. Therefore, if you send your child/children to school without a homemade lunch then you subject them to the what the state decides. There are now instances where schools have prohibited children from bringing lunches from home and so yes this is a clear violation of rights. But then what can we expect from the state?Now, obviously it is a virtually impossible feat to get yourself completely out from under the thumb of the state but there are instances where individuals could do so and yet time and time again they don’t.

”If a child is obese, does the state have a right to remove that child from his parents, or is it their right to be fat? If not why not?”

If the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is deliberate neglect in said regard then they may take such action. In short however I’d say no. Individuals are not state property. And, as much as we’d hope that children don’t grow up obese and then end up with all sorts of maladies, we must be willing to accept that children are at the mercy of their parents decision making. As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

”Why is it, that only traditional American orthodoxy is questionable?”

Because the state holds a monopoly on force. Therefore, whatever orthodoxy the state is propagating ought to be subject to scrutiny and/or questioning. Now, if the state were truly committed to propagating and promoting individual liberty, each and every individual could still continue (just as they do today) to scrutinize individual behavior that they themselves might not condone or recognize but there would be no entity to dictate said orthodoxy through government edict. Such choices would be left to individuals.

soapster said...

”I would say that liberty of the individual is much more exemplified in the conservative arena.”

Traditional conservativism (classic liberalism) I would say yes. In the modern “conservative” arena not so much and there are a myriad of instances wherein they actually stripped individual liberty.

”Yes, we do expect the state to respect traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but the left is in the process of govt. dictating every social aspect of our lives, like our individual, private right to pursue our own healthcare. When you can come here and denounce that, then we can talk.”

And therein lies the internal struggle between you and the “left” for the reins of power. The left wants their party to hold the reins of power to (as you stated) dictate “every social aspect of your life”. You want your party to hold the reins of power to dictate traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

I on the other hand seek to hold my own reins over myself and use them to dictate my own course in life; a course which is wholly my own to chose.

soapster said...

"It's not always my own personal liberty which comes first with me, it's my society and the upbringing of children. Liberalism has about ruined 2 generations of our kids in a million ways and I refuse to believe a child coming home to four mothers is beneficial to the kids or healthy for society."

Don't get me wrong, I think that the family triad is probably the best environment to raise a child. Then of course what if the father is abusive would it be better for a child to grow up in a household with two nurturing women as opposed to an abusive father and a loving mother? Of course.

People need to decide A) what sort of society they want to live in; and B) what is the best means to achieve that.

Through force and coercion vis a' vis the state handing down edict after edict on how we should live and conduct ourselves.

OR, by persuasion in a truly free society wherein the prevailing majority will be the norm but wherein we accept that others might chose for themselves a different course?

I tend towards the latter and work everyday towards that.

Agorism. Google it.

Z said...

Soapster, I know what Agorism is, thanks.

I believe it's highly overrated and the results don't make for the best society anymore.
I also believe that people with values that uphold a healthy, moral society with conscience are dwindling and we will have to be ruled by idiotic government jerks in the future because our own consciences and goodness aren't doing that as they did for the last 250 years or so.
Is that the relinquishment of God in our society? Maybe.

Is it just laziness and adherence to the ridiculous liberal political correctness which seems to prohibit anyone from telling the truth about bad things which hurt in their hope of appearing OPEN MINDED? Maybe..probably.

Is it because, somehow, we even have to define GOOD and BAD for most people these days? MAybe.
I hope I'm making myself clear.......it's hard to describe, but I think a true open society of free market thinking cannot survive without goodness and goodness is being drummed out of our kids. Not a good thing. And of course "who is Z to say she knows what goodness is!?" THAT's how the real trouble starts........those who actually can't grasp what's really good or not.

soapster said...

"I think a true open society of free market thinking cannot survive without goodness and goodness is being drummed out of our kids."

If Republicans/Conservatives etc. truly and honestly believe this then they'll quit sending their kids to the goddamn state run schools and quit supporting vouchers as educational reform.

I can't even get them to change the platform to eliminate teachers and local school boards.

Agorism has done more for me than my local or state government ever has.

Z said...

"If Republicans/Conservatives etc. truly and honestly believe this then they'll quit sending their kids to the goddamn state run schools and quit supporting vouchers as educational reform."

Amen to that, and what a sad thing; when I went to school, I was taught history and how to THINK about the future, not indoctrinated, not expected to spew the teacher's thoughts.
And yes, there's something SICK about parents who homeschool or sent their kids to private school and still have to pay school taxes.

soapster said...

"And yes, there's something SICK about parents who homeschool or sent their kids to private school and still have to pay school taxes."

Not to mention people without children who pay into it.

Karen Howes said...

EXACTLY. Dennis Prager wrote a fantastic article about this back in 1993-- the basic thesis was that Judaism (and later Christianity) mandated sex-- which in most ancient civilizations took place between whoever-- to be only between one married man-woman couple. And this restriction turned out to be crucial for the success of western civilization-- and that removing them would spell disaster.

soapster said...

"Is that the relinquishment of God in our society?"

God is not a requisite for morality.

Z said...

"God is not a requisite for morality." Thus sayeth soapster.

Don't kid yourself, Soapster; one doesn't have to be a full-on CHristian evangelist to know that our morality comes from somewhere other than in ourselves....I'd have thought someone with as much respect for FREEDOM would understand it's when we give away that basic tenet that we start making ourselves gods and then there is no freedom....

Every atheist I know with a moral heart had parents who believed in God...I fear for when we get 2 generations from that.

Z said...

Karen, isn't Prager amazing? I can tell you we have at least 3 friends who were on the liberal side until we recommended they listen to him and they're much more conservative now and now understand what formed our way of thinking......it was almost a relief for Prager to work his magic on people we just couldn't get through to.

Interesting point about sex between man and woman; look at what was going on in Greece and Rome before faith reared its head and society was saved by less confusion, better commitment, etc.

Today, the things I hear about young people and sex are hair raising....the Seventies, during which I matured and learned the ropes, were no bible study, either (trust me) but we at least KNEW we weren't doing the right thing, you know?
Today, kids have 'hook up rooms' in college dorms so they can have sex with strangers if the urge overcomes them.

The other day on THE VIEW, Bristol Palin was on (someone sent me the video of the interview) and they were stunned that she's sworn off sex again until she's made a marriage commitment. Barbara Walters said "But, you're only 20 now, what if you don't marry until you're 30?" It's INCONCEIVABLE that some people actually can abstain from sex ...... when did this happen?
And is sharing bodily fluids with complete strangers in a bar better?

Scotty said...

"The public practice of polygamy by the Church was terminated in 1890 by the Manifesto issued by Church President Willford Woodruff in which he publicly declared “that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land."[2]

It was that edict that split the Mormons into two factions. One that stayed true to Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's early blessings of polygamy and the other that went to be represented under L.D.S. banner.

But even those that don't practice polygamy STILL accept the Mormon tenant of celestial marriages. Once a Mormon dies and then works his way to become a god he will have many wives.....

The god that the Mormons worship is a polygamist.....he has many wives.

Z said...

actually, Scotty, they might accept celestial marriage, but they mostly just don't discuss it as a church.

I believe Trestin is Mormon and I wish he'd come back to fill us in better on this.\
what god do you believe Mormons believe in? As I said above, they believe certain prophets are 'told' to have multiple marriages for the purpose of growing the faith.

Scotty said...

I believe Trestin is Mormon and I wish he'd come back to fill us in better on this.\
what god do you believe Mormons believe in?


I used to be,Z.

The god the Mormons believe in used to be a man. You see, as man is now god once was. They to believe that they will also become gods....

Z said...

Scotty, thanks for telling me that.
You obviously know a LOT about it.

What made you change, if you don't mind my asking?
It must be very difficult to buck the things you one believed; particularly if it's family who raised you that way. I know lapsed Catholics who sadly blame the faith instead of blaming the 'business' of the Catholic church but I believe that, while they don't practice Catholicism anymore (actually, most have left faith altogether), they feel guilt deep down inside.

Don't Mormons believe in the ONE GOD of the bible at all?

sue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

sue, sad to think we should redefine the term marriage for the bad morality of our culture; that's sort of the whole point of this, isn't it.
Actually, I think the royal couple lived together even longer than 2 years, with her diamond cross and their lovely prayer during the ceremony. It's clear we've neglected to teach The Word and so people don't have a CLUE what's proper and what's not.
And, of course, there are those who'll attack me, as usual, for even suggesting there is a PROPER all people should live by!

sue said...

But,Z, the whole point is that it is not these 'other types' of marriages that are forcing the redefining of the term.

It is that many, many conventional marriages have failed and - as you know - even Christian marriages.

So the blame does not entirely rest on gay marriage, polygomy, and the other things discussed in the post.

Marriage itself has not been proving to be the institution it was originally intended to be.

This is caused, of course, by the changes in our society through the years. One factor that I've always felt contributes to the failure of marriages is the independence of women. They now have jobs and their own money. This is not a bad thing, but most women are no longer forced to remain dependent on their spouse.

Sex and marriage has to be redefined, also. When I was growing up it was expected (probably unrealistically) that couples wait for marriage to have sex. That simply doesn't happen anymore - and probably never really did in most cases.

The cheating on a spouse is so widespread that whatever we hear about publicly probably means that
it is only the tip of the iceberg.

So you have people living together - sometimes for a number of years - a huge expensive ceremony, and then maybe or maybe not a lasting marrigage.

It is leaning toward the maybe not.


And sex itself also needs to be redefined - from what our Creator originally meant it to be for us.

But that's a whole separate subject.

Z said...

Sue, "But,Z, the whole point is that it is not these 'other types' of marriages that are forcing the redefining of the term."

I don't believe I ever said that.
Actually, I don't feel marriage needs redefining at all...that it often fails is not marriage's fault; as I said, it's people today who don't respect the institution as it is or was, who don't stay because they're not happy every second of the day..(which I once had one young divorcee tell me was the reason she divorced) etc.

If one has been married and says he or she never felt like leaving that marriage at one time or the other, that person's lying to us, by the way...in general.

It's the sticking together most of us were raised with, as we saw in our parents or grandparents, which holds us with our spouses and, most of the time, the marriage makes it back and one is happy one didn't leave.......I'm generalizing, but this is pretty normal. I'm sorry discipline and respect and commitment and compromise and sacrifice seem to be things of the past.
No relationship is sweetness and light every single minute.....doesn't mean the relationship, especially one which society has sanctioned for 2000 years, needs to be redefined.

I pity our children, mostly........women work outside the home and dump kids off at daycare then expect great kids later and wonder what happened. THey divorce and then kids are living in both homes or never see the parent they don't live with.

It's a mess! It's we who've become less disciplined, less caring for the next generation, more into self gratification at the expense of so many things.

Anyway, that's how I feel...I can see you don't feel the same and that's fine.......

I just don't see having to redefine marriage ... there are plenty of young couples I know who're marrying and are very happy....
I know many couples who never lived together first.....did you know the divorce rate is higher in couples who did?
I'd say a lot on that subject but I don't like to here because I know plenty of people who read this probably do live with their partners and that's their choice and I don't mean to judge.
and won't.

sue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scotty said...

What made you change, if you don't mind my asking?

I started to hear things that just didn’t feel right, deep down in my spirit. So, I started to do research.

I then started to find more and more inconsistencies with biblical Christianity. So much, to the point that I was to learn the most Mormon doctrine cannot be validated via the Bible. It requires the Book Of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants find those things. Along with all the other writings of the founding fathers.

It must be very difficult to buck the things you one believed; particularly if it's family who raised you that way.

My family was Christian; Mormonism got my attention shortly after I got back from Vietnam and out of the military. My family played into part of getting me out of Mormonism.

Don't Mormons believe in the ONE GOD of the bible at all?

No.

I won’t get into a bunch of theology but I would strongly suggest that you do some research on the subject. Don’t accept what I say. There are a great many of resources on the internet that can help you get some great insight into Mormonism. I’ll be more than glad to give you some sites, if you're interested.

Don’t accept what appears to be at face value……..Like many Christians, many Mormons don’t know the the deep down secrets of the doctrines of their belief system. It's not what it appears from the out side looking in!

Are Mormons Christian? Most top theologians will tell you no, as I will too!

Z said...

Sue, I don't know....that's my biggest question at the blog...but it ends with "How do we turn back the clock...to get Americans to love America again?"!!

But, seriously, what will it take people to understand that a committed marriage is the most amazing relationship going? ...when people just feel so lucky that somebody that terrific loves them enough to stick around and likewise?
Can that happen again? I don't know.
A marriage was never perfect..none was, but they stayed together. I have a friend married 69 years in February!

Elmers Brother said...

One of the reasons the Republican party was created was to end polygamy. The other was to end slavery.

Z said...

Who was the first republican pres, Elbro?
I read that Democrat James Buchanan was bent on getting rid of slavery and polygyny, too.

Z said...

ya, Scotty, I hear a lot who say Mormons aren't Christian and I do know they don't adhere to the Bible much at all and rely on 'revelations' from Brigham YOung and others........
Some say there's a huge push by Mormons now to get into gov't, to indoctrinate, etc, but I don't see the indoctrination happening..........I don't know.
I will say that I went to Salt Lake City for the first time last September and found it lovely but a little stifling. I almost felt ashamed when my sis and I went to visit the Tabernacle and I lasted about 8 minutes before I said "I HAVE TO and NOW".........I heard I'm not the first person to get that feeling. weird.

I like Mormons, they were VERY friendly and polite at the hotels and restaurants and shops there...very clean cut, family oriented. More Americans would do well following that example, but the 'revelations' to Young and the plates and all the unusual beliefs are too much for me.

Thanks

Scotty said...

Some say there's a huge push by Mormons now to get into gov't, to indoctrinate, etc, but I don't see the indoctrination happening..........I don't know.

The dominionist from the signs and wonders sector of charismatics are doing the same thing....

sue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nicrap said...

"Mr. Fraser, how was it that the popes and cardinals always had so many nephews?"

The tutor, an able young Scotchman, who acted as Sir Hugo Mallinger's secretary, roused rather unwillingly from his political economy, answered with the clear-cut emphatic chant which makes a truth doubly telling in Scotch utterance—

"Their own children were called nephews."

"Why?" said Deronda.

"It was just for the propriety of the thing; because, as you know very well, priests don't marry, and the children were illegitimate."


(Daniel Deronda. George Eliot.)

;)

Z said...

Scotty, "The dominionist from the signs and wonders sector of charismatics are doing the same thing...." really?

Sue, he was a Democrat, what do you expect!? (JUST KIDDING!!!) Yes, I read that, too...... but if ending slavery was really something he wanted badly, I can't rate him as bad!

FJ...just saw the movie Daniel Deronda and LOVED the story and the DVDs..(I recommend it to anybody who gets Netflix!)

You know, FJ......I know the leftwingers have trouble with this; but I long for the days when things were kept hush-hush. If the Catholic priests/popes, etc., screwed around, well, that's between them and their God, not me, and it wasn't worth showing a terrible example to the throngs who believed in their chastity and goodness.
But, heck, I'm so traditional that I resent Betty Ford for mentioning BREAST in public (tho I GREATLY admire her for having brought breast cancer into the forefront, that's for sure) and now we have Tampons, Laxatives, GAS relievers, and PENIS enhancers spoken of in terms that make me cringe. Oh, and Jane Fonda said the C word that ends with a T on one of the morning shows and blamed it on the fact that "It's just in the script I was reading!"

Ya, let people do wrong and cover it up.....let some things go unsaid in public.......I liked it then.

nicrap said...

...Now why would you say FJ when it was I, Nicrap, who posted the bit from Daniel Deronda?

Ya, let people do wrong and cover it up.....let some things go unsaid in public.......I liked it then.

...you simply disarmed me there. With your candor, if i may say so.

Z said...

Nicrap, not FJ. I don't know HOW I made that mistake :-)

By the way, where's the name NICRAP come from?

nicrap said...

...from my own backyard most probably. It's full of IT, if you know what i mean. ;)

sue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
spreadeagle72 said...

OHHHHH what a great coutry. What's next---- monkeys in moomoos as brides maids. Welcome to Babylon.