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)
@DanceofShadows@xanga - There is not one country on earth ever, that was founded in the name of homosexuality.
There is no religion ever that was ever dedicated to the worship of homosexuality. There were never any pagan gods or ancient literature dedicated to homosexuality.
That's because homosexuality is nothing more than a sexual proclivity.
It was never worth dying for or had any value other than a sexual vice until the late 20th century.
Christianity on the other hand is the dynamo that powered the rise of the greatest civilization in human history.
So why should Christians give up everything they have accomplished for a sexual vice that no civilization in human history ever valued?
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I guess you're talking about apples and I'm talking about oranges. My initial reply was to the language of your original post on this thread.
I do not argue the greatness of Christianity. Though I wonder if Christ would describe it the same way as you. There's something about meekness in the Bible.
That's a pretty closed-minded view. I do not agree with your notion that homosexuals having the provision to get married legally is a forfeiture of all "christian accomplishments." I even disagree with your touting of "christian accomplishments" because saying that Christianity is the cause for great civilization is like saying you are the reason the friend you led to Christ is saved. It is based on the false assumption that you are the root cause. Christ is the root cause not you. Civilizations come and go by God's will and not by "christian accomplishments."
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - To focus your wandering mind this conversation is about the legal provision of marriage as recognized by the state and government.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - You have not addressed or acknowledged the battering ram that I used to destroy each one of your arguments.
Now, after being blown away, you resort to "language", "legality".
Christian accomplishments ARE from God's will. After all Christianity came from God.
The attempted homosexual take over of Christian society certainly isn't from God.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Um read initial reply to your first posting.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I read over the past posts...I don't see any battering ram...
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I'll pray for you buddy!
Plank in eye!
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Hahahahahhahahahahahahahaha! Good job deciding to delete that post. Unless it was screened.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Surely the prisoner of love can watch his own language....maybe not.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - Care for the plank in your own eye. Isn't that what you told me? Follow your own counsel.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Last word!
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - This is where some people err. Many of the nation's founders were deists. Which is not exactly Christians.
@SolidStateTheory@xanga - There is no error.
Deism is the belief that God created the Universe and then walked away.
Nevertheless, God is mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence:
1. God the Judge.
2. God of Natures Laws
3. God of Providence
4. God the Creator
The Founders even put a prayer into the Declaration of Independence beseeching success.
The God that the Founders put into the Declaration of Independence was active in human affairs, not the deist God who has nothing to do with human affairs.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - The God deists spoke of are not necessarily one in the same as the Christian God. Do some research into the Founding Fathers. I do not deny there were many Christian ones. But there were plenty of Deists amongst them.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - I agree with Prisonerxofxlove when stating that Christians are on the defense. We are defending and trying to keep the definition of marriage as it has been defined for the first 235 years of our nation... because others are trying to change it.
All laws limit something to prevent negative consequences. I have no problem with admitting that the current definition of marriage intentionally has its limits. The same with laws that say stealing is wrong. Something doesn't have to bring physical harm to be wrong/illegal.
Arguing over when Christianity technically started is just a waste of time. Especially when the roots of Christianity have grown right out of the Hebrew culture that go back to the creation in Genesis. The Old Testament foreshadowed Jesus; His Spirit was there all along. When he became human isn't the beginning of our faith, just the technical name "Christian".
As I mentioned before... 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. Therefore, we must be careful in what laws we pass or change if we want our nation to remain blessed.
@SolidStateTheory@xanga - The God the Founders spoke is not the Deist God. It is the God of Judeo-Christianity.
This becomes totally obvious upon reading the Declaration of Independence.Please read the Declaration of Independence so you can see for yourself.
@agapeartbeat - There is no argument as to when Christianity started. It started when Christ was born. And there is no argument that Christianity teaches against homosexual copulation and lifestyle.
@agapeartbeat - thank you for your reply! This is the sort of conversation I was trying to have with @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga. The entire conversation got kind of skewed eventually. Did you see my original analogy though? About the game --
And I disagree with your stance on laws. I believe laws should be put in place so that the freedoms of one don't take away from the freedoms and rights of others. Just like the speeding analogy that prisonerxofxlove used and my reply to that. The problem wasn't physical harm, it was that another's freedom to be careless and speed would take away my freedom of my property and healthy life.
I agree with what you have to say about Christianity. Hence why I sometimes didn't capitalize and put that word in quotes.
I disagree with your claim that the defense is in the definition of the word marriage. That is what "christians" make the issue out to be, therefore they are somehow on the defense.
The issue is about rights given under the law - http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples - I mentioned the aggressive legislation of amendment 1, due to the fact that I live in NC. Under the NC constitution gay marriage was already not recognized. Amendment 1's legislation doesn't really add or subtract anything, it's just a further lock on preventing gay rights.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - My conversation with you was the sound of one hand clapping. In other words it was a waste of time.
None of the philosophical concepts contained in my comments penetrated the wall of dogma you have walling off your mind from the realm of reason.
@agapeartbeat - Did you actually read what this thread's author wrote? I found it compelling. My problem with prisoner w/e was his use of language and the continued use of the word "defense" -furthermore I did not agree with his use of promote.
I watched the video when you posted early in the blog. I found it thought-provoking, but misleading. Like...how they made out the man who's son was being read that two princes book. They acted like all he did was go talk to the admin/teachers. He had to break a law to be put in jail. He had to be doing something more...
I think that they shouldn't promote homosexuality in school the same way Christianity isn't promoted.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You still didn't answer my questions. Read the original post of mine. It's most telling. And I still want the last word.
@DanceofShadows@xanga - Is it so much of "a game" as it is two differing opinions that will never come to common ground?
ALL of us have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender. You have that right just like I do. Gay marriage is seeking to change or expand that... putting many on the defense to keep the original "right" as it is. Because... as the video discussed... if gay marriage passes, it will take away my freedom in the public schools in what ideals are forced on my children against our will; taking away our Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to direct the moral upbringing of our own children.
(And here is the man, David Parker's story: http://www.wnd.com/2005/09/32445/)... which I think proves the point of freedoms that will be taken away if gay marriage passes. Nowhere is there any record of this father being violent... he just disagreed with the school policies and attended a meeting to voice his concerns. The district attorney eventually dropped the trespassing charges, but the school refused to lift the restraining order which prevented the father from going to any of his child's school functions or to even vote because his district's voting location is at that school.
Gay marriage will also be one step closer in taking away my freedom of speech to simply state that homosexuality is a sin without it being deemed "hate speech" like it is in Canada. It will also take away the freedom of employers (such as religious institutions) who don't recognize gay marriage, forcing them to go against their beliefs in employee benefits.
@agapeartbeat - " We are defending and trying to keep the definition of marriage as it has been defined for the first 235 years of our nation."
Wrong. Marriage wasn't legally recognized until long after the founding of our country. Certain states began making it legally recognized one by one, and the definitions have been redefined many times, to update them to the ever-forward-pushing moral zeitgeist. For instance constitutionally protecting people from state bans on inter-racial marriages was a redefinition of marriage.
"if gay marriage passes, it will take away my freedom in the public schools in what ideals are forced on my children against our will"
A couple things wrong with this. For one, a repressed minority gaining the freedom of the privileged doesn't take rights away from the privileged.
Secondly, if your opposition to gay marriage is religious in nature, than it doesn't belong in public school curriculum.
Thirdly, your ideals suck.
"
Gay marriage will also be one step closer in taking away my freedom of speech to simply state that homosexuality is a sin without it being deemed "hate speech" like it is in Canada. "
This is an argument against hate speech laws, not gay marriage.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga -"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."
Developed Europe pulls ahead of America when it comes to health, literacy, education, life expectancy, violent/sex crime, poverty, I could go on... I don't know what real world measurements you are using to arbitrarily call the American system better than Europe but I have a feeling it is nothing more than stubborn ideology and blind patriotism.
Also, calling a country Christian because it was founded my (mostly) Christians is like calling Algebra Islamic because it was invented by Muslims. There are many quotes from the founding fathers establishing the separation of church and state and that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" ~ John Adams, Declaration of Independence coauthor.
Deal with it.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - I was referring to the common thought/belief or common sense that marriage was between a man and a woman, for nearly 235 years; even in the case of inter-racial marriage discussions.
Your comment "a repressed minority gaining the freedom of the privileged doesn't take rights away from the privileged." just doesn't fly. Rights being taken away... as those I listed... are still rights being taken away. Who is the minority and who is the majority doesn't change the fact that rights are being taken away...no matter how eloquently you word it.
It is interesting that my ideals suck, but you want to force your ideals on my children in the public schools even though it goes against my 14th amendment rights as a parent.
You may be correct about it technically qualifying as hate speech laws, but it doesn't change the fact that one does influence the other.
Here are some more John Adams quotes to "deal with":
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity..."