I do think the issues of gay marriage and polygamy are linked. That is, I do believe there are ethical or religious reasons to object to both, but I'm not sure there's a single compelling legal or legislative objection to either. (For that matter,
I'm not sure why the State is involved in marriage at all.)
As a Christian, I'm very much invested in
what the Bible says about homosexuality. And the Bible isn't too keen on polygamy either, even if it does record the polygamy of several patriarchs. But as a Christian, my faith places me in the role of a stranger and a traveler: someone who is not supposed to treat this world like my home. Therefore I'm not supposed to waste my time trying to make laws based on Christianity, or forcing nonChristians to act like Christians. 1 Corinthians 5 flat-out tells me that what nonChristians do with their lives is none of my business: I should worry about introducing people to Jesus before I worry about changing their behavior. Grace first, then sanctification.
And so Christianity doesn't really give me very much to base the laws of a democratic pluralistic society on. I could look to the theocracy of ancient Israel (i.e. the Old Testament) for inspiration, but that's old news, old wineskins. (
And besides, I'm a bacon-loving Gentile.) Christianity equips me for operating within a nation, even within an oppressive nation like Nero's Rome, but doesn't equip me for making a "Christian nation." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
So while I have religious objections against both gay marriage and polygamy, religious objections are not enough to make laws on. If I want to make a legal or legislative statement that "marriage should only be between one man and one woman," I need a legal or legislative reason to do so.
As I understand it,
the Founding Fathers were very much influenced and inspired by Locke's Natural Law. Compare the Declaration of Independence's
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" with Locke's three natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Estate. In short, the American system of government is based on the following premise: that the job and purpose of government is to defend the "natural rights" of its people.
This idea of "natural law" underlies both the Declaration and the Constitution.So, by this way of thinking, if you want to know whether the U.S. Government should or should not be doing a thing, you have to boil the government down to its essentials. Is this action protecting the Life, Liberty, or Estate of its citizens? (If you're not satisfied with this, the words of the Preamble of the Constitution work as a decent substitute: does this action establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare?)
When phrased like this, I don't see why either form of nonmainstream marriage should be prohibited for legal reasons. The only arguments I could muster against either are entirely religious and ethical in nature. The government should only deny marriage to people if such a marriage violates the goals and purpose of the government: that is, if it would infringe on someone's Life, Liberty, or Right To Property (such as in a marriage involving someone below legal age or involving a non consenting partner). Marriage is not a right--I wish people would stop saying it was--but it's also something that the government should have a good reason for denying. All the government needs to be concerned with is the protection of its citizens' life, liberty, and right to property--vague concepts like "decency," when separated from their religious/ethical sources, become nonsensical when they are used in government. The function and purpose of government is to protect its citizens and its citizens' rights. Going strictly by that as a guideline, there are only a few reasons that would justify denying someone State-marriage.
So in that sense, at lease, gay marriage is like polygamy. I think that these are two forms of marriage which are illegal in many parts of our nation without a good reason why they are illegal. And yet at the same time, I myself have ethical/religious objections against both.
(In other news, I've been looking for a place to toss this lit match. I think I'll just use that powder keg over there.)
How do we reconcile the legality of gay marriage and polygamy with our ethical and moral objections to them? Is it the government's responsibility to enforce moral stances or legal stances? Is there anything in scripture that can help us understand the conflict between religion and government?
True 
Comments (62)
The Declaration of Independence says we have the right to the pursuit of HAPPINESS. And it means exactly that.
It comes from Aristotle who determined that every human action has happiness as its end.
From Charles Montesquieu who was also a great influence on the Founders, comes the understanding that for a republic to flourish and endure its people must be virtuous.
So it is the governments interest to promote virtue. Thus religious freedom and its critical importance to happiness, education and government (see Article III of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787).
Finally, since America was settled by Christians, its culture, morality and world view are based on Christian values.
Christian values, values of virtue, state categorically that marriage is the spiritual union between a man and a woman and that homosexual copulation and lifestyle are unacceptable.
American Christians, like any other people on the planet have the right and true purpose to defend their values and their culture from what they view as immoral wickedness.
And the American Founders created a government that recognizes the critical importance of morality to the health, well being and happiness of its people.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Can you describe how the act of forcing your values on others is an act of defense? If the act of passing legislation prohibiting others is defense, what would offense be in that scenario? -Practicing homosexuality?
In my mind, this entire scenario is like a game that home-team "christian" coerced away-team homosexual to play. In my opinion, marriage rights should be allowed to homosexual couples ( http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples ). It should just be an understood given, within the limits like that the author of this post outlined. But in the game, team "christian" keeps scoring points -passing legislation to limit freedoms on others- and team homosexual is forced to play because it has an interest in gaining rights. So they want to score points, too. But the fact remains that team "christian'" is the aggressor -the one scoring points. And is, therefore, on the offensive. Even if one day in the future team homosexual beats the buzzer and scores a final point, toppling the other points of team "christian," it's a game that team homosexual was forced to play. You even use the word "promote" and not the true word: force. Forcing virtue is not virtue at all. In this analogy, it is the act of making the game a mandatory requisite for freedoms. The game is there for politics and the passing of laws and public policy and earthly disputes, for two opposing sides the clash and for one team to ultimately gain more points than the other. And sometimes Christians are players on one team or another.
But I think it's ridiculous to say that Christians, through government, are promoting virtue, and that Christians are "defending" their values.
It is a small segment of your entire post but I am frustrated with it because I think that sort of mentality is the core root of the problem with us Christians. Christians - that is, followers of Christ - are not in the business of war and winning earthly struggles. We rise up and fight when called upon, but this "defense" isn't defending at all. Passing laws is also not promotion at all. A promotion would be the encouragement of ideals by example in a free exchange of ideas and liberties.
The admittance that Christians are on the offensive would be a better attitude to have because it's just plain honest. Whether or not it is our duty to do this is a deeper conversation, but in my opinion it's a game Christians shouldn't be playing in this scenario.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - Any society that has laws or culture forces values on others. If you break the speed limit in the wrong place at the wrong time, just watch the cop force some cultural values on you to the tune of a big fine.
Your argument doesn't work because all law is based on discrimination. If you eliminate discrimination, you eliminate law and with that the ability to protect human rights.
Homosexuality is but one of many, many sexual preferences. It is folly to base human rights on a particular sexual proclivity.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Damn you're fast! I wasn't done editing!
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I agree with you, but in that scenario when a person speeds and has a higher proclivity to cause a collision, damage property and physically hurt me, it is necessary to limit those freedoms because the other driver's freedom to speed limits my freedom to my dent-less car and my life.
So within you're analogy, you're afraid gays will hurt you physically? They make your marriage license cheaper in value?
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - They limit your freedom to live?
@DanceofShadows@xanga - There is nobody limiting gays' freedom to live the way they wish to live. It's just that whatever living arrangement gays freely choose for themselves won't be called marriage.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Welp, I live in North Carolina where amendment 1 was passed and civil unions are prohibited - not recognized. So yes, they are limiting.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Way to answer my questions! Mean!
I find it absurd that any two humans cannot get married. As a Christian I don't think it is right for them to marry. But as an American, I think legally they must have that right. I can not and will not force my beliefs on anyone. A marriage certificate from the government has nothing to do with religion. I think years from now when our children are grown this is going to be a thing of the past, like slavery, and they are going to be amazed that this ever happened.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - Amendment 1 does not prohibit gays from seeking any living arrangement they want and explicitly says that gays are free to make contracts and other legal arrangements with each other.
So your claim that gays are being limited is false.
Marriage has a definition. Amendment 1 assures that the definition of marriage is not changed. Gays must learn to live with the definition of marriage now, just as they always have.
@LondonsMommy@momaroo - The redefinition of marriage to include gays forces their beliefs on American culture which is based on Christianity.
Why is it okay for gays to force their beliefs on a culture that believes gay marriage is immoral, but it is not okay for Christians to preserve their cultural beliefs that go back 3500 years?@outoftheashes
For once, I'll ignore the usual parochial approach Americans seem to take with everything, including such a universal subject as Christianity.
In a developed, modern democratic state, marriage is a legal secular contract. That's it. Therefore, all its citizens should be able to make any legal contract they wish.
Some people desire to take it further and make that contract before God. That's fine but it is beyond the remit of the state to enforce the religious views of some, even if a majority, on to reluctant citizens.
It is not a Christian act to impose "Christian" behaviour on people of other or no faith. The Christian's job is to set an example by their own behaviour, not by forcing their beliefs on others, as they have done for centuries. A modern democratic state is beyond that shadow of theocracy.
I would never vote for a politician who opposes Gay marriage or indeed, who enforces Sunday closure laws and other "Christian" activities. That is because the next step is a deeper persecution and we've been there a few times within the life span of people still living.
Stop imposing behaviour on others and behave yourselves. Set the example.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Um...this is all your point-of-view. You base your idea of freedom on your own conjecture and point of view. The oppressors rarely feel the plight of those they oppress. And the FACT is that they do not have the same rights under the law.
My statement about amendment 1 was only about Christians taking the offensive and attacking homosexuals through legislation, a nod to my original post.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - The issue is not the definition of a word: marriage. Ignorant "christians" believe that is what the issue is - the issue is provisions under the law and benefits. See my original post's hotlink.
So much for your promotion and defense.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - No, it isn't my point of view. It is the view of simple reason, an assessment of reality, Natural Law and the fact that it is unfair to expect 97% of the population to submit to a tyranny of 3% that upends 10000 years of human civilization.
@Lovegrove@xanga - There are a variety of modern developed states. The American modern developed state is different than the European model.
And it is perfectly natural for a culture to have its own values without a foreigner being parochial and calling it "parochial".
The American model has already shown its vast superiority over the European model in every respect except maybe cooking and wine making.
So Americans who want to stay American have no incentive to adopt those values that make the European model inferior.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - :o)
A good video to consider: http://www.frcblog.com/2012/05/the-problem-with-same-sex-marriage/
Christians will continue to stand for what they believe because part of what they believe is the principles of blessings and curses. Both can be applied to individuals or entire nations. We believe the laws we pass as a nation will affect our nation in one of these two ways.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Base your point of view on whatever you want.
stars upon thars....
when homosexuals are able to "marry" ...
then heterosexuals will simply have to find another word to distinguish
heterosexual marriage!
herriage?
@DanceofShadows@xanga - You are demonstrating that you are beyond reason. That means your mind is closed and any discussion useless.
If anyone can come up with an argument for gay marriage that has something more then "because" as the reasoning it would be impressive.
The truth is that gay advocates are asking Christians to give up their entire culture "because".
That just isn't good enough.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You completely ignored my questions, I tried to be cute about it. Check my earlier posts. You killed the conversation I was trying to have! I'm sad ~
1) You can't admit that Christians are on the Offensive and Forcing
2) Your Statements are opinion. How can you say that a homosexuals freedoms are not limited when you even admitted they can do whatever...except get married. You are limited by gravity...you can jump all you want, but you will fall back down. You can say you're not limited and jump on a plane....but you are still limited by gravity. Therefore FACT is that homosexuals are limited. Perhaps not to a certain degree in your mind, but by ignoring that they are, IN FACT, limited in comparison to heterosexuals shows your own closed mind.
So much for "christians" - you are the epitome of the problem.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - I addressed all your questions and concerns. Since Christianity was here first we are not the ones forcing anything.
We are merely protecting our culture.@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You're still not addressing the language. And no you didn't answer any questions of mine.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Lol homosexuality existed before "christianity" - read the Old Testament.