“Traditional Marriage” Leads to Polygamy!

I debated a young man recently who is a celebrity in conservative religious circles. He is Ryan T. Anderson of the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation.

I found that in his book, Anderson misrepresented data about children raised by gay couples.  Another gimick he uses in all his presentations is to make gay marriage sound frightening by claiming  it leads to polygamy.

This claim gay marriage will lead to polygamy is absurd.  Polygamy is something entirely different and will happen, or not happen, depending on the legal and cultural variables.  It was common during Biblical times, perhaps because many men were killed in wars, but is not accepted in Western Society today.

What makes the cause-and-effect relationship of gay marriage leading to polygamy even more ridiculous is actual experience.  In the country of Kenya, gay relationships of any kind are a crime.  Certainly gay marriage is not under consideration.

But, the country just passed a law making polygamy legal.  One could conclude, therefore,  preventing gay marriage leads to polygamy, allowing it does not.

Sponsors of the bill to allow polygamy say the practice has been part of Kenya’s customs for centuries and for that reason should be considered legal.  Proponents of polygamy are like those opposed to gay marriage in the U. S, they favor ”traditional marriage”.

Africa is a growth area for the Christian faith.   Fans of “traditional marriage” are found among Christians everywhere.

I just wish they would get together and decide what it is.

http://www.bellanaija.com/2014/03/21/kenya-to-sign-polygamy-into-law-this-is-africa-says-the-males-female-kenyan-legislators-are-disgusted/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Kenya

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to “Traditional Marriage” Leads to Polygamy!

  1. Henry says:

    On December 13, 2013 the Browns won their case to be polygamists in the US. One of the arguments they used was a buggery law found to be unconstitutional. It is not coincidence they won their case in this age of loosened marriage definition.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 2:39 “the Browns won their case to be polygamists in the U. S…”

      The judge found Utah’s anti polygamy law to be unconstitutional. That laws against gay marriage are being found to be unconstitutional is the only thing polygamy and gay marriage have in common in the U. S. Cultural forces, tax benefits, estate benefits, etc., have made gay marriage popular. Has not happened with polygamy, although it could if things changed.

      What’s more interesting is the argument in Kenya that polygamy is traditional marriage, and apparently more popular than in the U. S., when gay marriage is a crime in Kenya. The message is stopping gay marriage will not stop polygamy.

      • entech says:

        … in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture …

        • Adam Heckathorn says:

          Notice these two scriptures imply that there were poligamists among early Christians but also implies it was put in a negative light (Titus 1:5, 6) .?.?.For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders; 6?if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under a charge of debauchery nor unruly.(1 Timothy 3:2) 2?The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach. notice this scripture implies it is adultery: (Mark 10:11, 12) 11?And he said to them: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          entech 4:15 “Luther stated that he could not ‘forbid a person to marry several wives for it does not contradict Scripture..’”

          I had never seen that. But, now it makes sense way Lutherans are so wild and crazy and permiscuous. :)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Yes Jon, you really should come over to a pot-luck supper. Some even mix red and orange Jello, with Walmart house brand whipped topping. The real hussies use lime Jello and finely shredded carrots, and a dollop of mayo on top. Lutheran men have been known to “jump the fence” to have a fix of that lime Jello and carrots. Nothing more tempting than that topping.

            But you really need to be a “Pro” to be miscuous. According to Jon’s word, that would not be us.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            As a big fan of Prairie Home Companion’s News from lake Wobegon And having lived in Blackduck MN I am well aware of the notorious nature of Lutheran potlucks.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I knew of a woman that substituted frozen peas with canned peas in her hot dish. Once you develop a taste for canned peas, it’s hard to break the habit.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        In regard to the song; “In Heaven There Is No Beer”, Scripture does not say there is no beer in heaven. I refuse to play that song, on the basis of it implying something not present in the Divine Word. Grinning face.

        • entech says:

          There is another song you should play, just imagine.
          You may say I’m a dreamer
          But I’m not the only one
          I hope someday you’ll join us
          And the world will be as one

          Doubtful as you suffer from bondage of the mind, but we will keep talking one ay you may listen.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            To-ay, Lennon speaks from the grave. One wonders which Yogi he is following now. Power to the flower.
            Will continue to listen.- – - Oh that’s right, He’s Dead.

          • Adam Heckathorn says:

            Doubtful as you suffer from bondage of the mind, but we will keep talking one day you may listen: My Father and I talk just about every day We have for years. For many years. As one of Jehovah’s Witness’s a lot of those conversations involved My Faith and His lack of Faith. As I charged forward promoting the faith a pattern began to emerge I would advocate for Bible principles only to find Myself and My family thrown under the Bus by the very people Who claimed to share My faith and The principles I was advocating for. What I found is in spite of what I wanted to be true; That Faith in and study of the Bible would naturally lead to ethical behavior and a better Society the opposite is true. Faith leads to accepting things that are not reasonable and looking at those without Faith or a different faith as some how less worthy of fundamental human rights. The Wikipedia article sighted gives plenty of examples of this, religious belief is destructive reasonable thought takes effort it is so much easier to let some one else do Your thinking for You. To strengthen the protection of fundamental Human rights will and has created a better Society. Today on the morning News Mrs. Obama was shown speaking persuasively for free speech in China. We have reasons for optimism.

          • entech says:

            The dead do not need to imagine, they either know or dead is actually dead.

            Strange though popped into my head, I remembered a funny euphemism, “Not lost just gone before”. :roll:

          • StanB says:

            Funny Adam how two people can come to the same conclusion from different paths. I was much more judgmental as a secularist/cultural Christian and more loving and kind once I started believing in God and having faith. Even my own brother, who thought I wasn’t too bad before, is impressed by the change in me.

            The Obamas talking about communication and transparency in China but hiding behind executive privilege at home is kind of amusing isn’t it?

        • noblindersonme says:

          Well I was going to comment but ‘wanna’ knocked this topic out of the park and into the next county with his great humor. Of course when this was tried at others times , it just went over too many heads.

          • noblindersonme says:

            Also I am glad Jon used the term ‘gimmick’ in his description of that ‘conservative religious celebrity’ style of debate . That is far too often the method used , and it is not just confined in that arena.
            And it is ‘gimmickry’ to make these simplistic cause and effect arguments.
            Gay marriage is becoming more acceptable -therefore ! polygamy ( incest bestality pick your poison) will proliferate geometrically!
            The public wants laws to ban ‘cop killer guns’ therefore this will lead most assuredly to a Nazi state of gun confiscation.
            “Global warming ‘ is a liberal crock concocted by the “greedy’ enviros , easily disproven because there were ice ages in the past.
            Today’s society has gone to double ‘h’ e hockey sticks because of the hippies in the 60′s . Yeah look how wonderful it used to be before. ” I saw it on TV on Leave it to Beaver!”
            .

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Noblinders, I find it interesting that allowing gay marriage leads to beastiality and incest. When the bible documents stories of girl initiated incest. The girls made their dad want them.. (Wow, some things never change throughout the eons).

            Incest was o.k. in the bible, so, by all standards, that means incest should be a christian thing to do… Hmm.. Maybe that’s how priests justify molesting kids… It’s the Christian God Ordained thing to do..

            And it has nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.. It’s permitted in the bible therefore it’s o.k.

            I don’t know why there’s always a cause and effect relationship drawn. Because gays can marry kids will be molested and humans will suddenly want sex with animals? Really?

            So, banning guns, will stop people from committing murder???

  2. Avatar of realist realist says:

    It would seem that those who want to use the bible as their guidepost to a moral life have to feel like whirling dervishes. How does anyone make sense of it? I still can’t get over using stoning as punishment. Are there religious conservatives who advocate for that? If it’s in the bible, then, accordingly, it should be OK. Selective application of dictates should tell us everything we need to know about biblical literalists.

  3. Michael Ross says:

    I was talking to a recent African immigrant at work who told me having two wives is much better than one because they fight between themselves and leave you alone. I never thought about that. Think its worth a try? If I did I’m sure the one I have would be out the door in short order and at my age I’m not up starting over with someone new.

  4. Fr. James says:

    Jon, I didn’t realize you did massive research to refute the truth that children raised in homosexual homes have a greater incidence of problems. No wait, you did no research. You just don’t like the results that research discovered.

    Now on to polygamy. If marriage is all about “love.” And you can marry whomever you love. And if someone says “no” and they are automatically a bigot. Then there is no reason that polygamy cannot be legalized. In fact by destroying any definition of marriage you make any relationship equal. If I want to marry a rock I can do so. Why should you impose your values on me? I love my rock! If a father and son wish to marry then who are we to say they can’t? Woody Allen has paved the way.

    The real issue is not Kenya, where in fact the Church forbids polygamy and those who practice it are not allowed to receive Holy Communion. It is the debasement of marriage in every culture. Ours has its problems and they have theirs. In the middle east Muslims marry 9 year olds. At some point they will demand that be respected.

    Catholicism on the other hand offers a striking view of marriage that is rooted in human nature and in fact goes beyond it. We see in man and woman a reflection of the very love of God. Compared to the shallow, puerile, and sterile view of marriage in our culture it is obvious which is the higher view.

    • Michael Ross says:

      Of course you (not actually you, being a priest) should be able to marry a rock. If Jon disagrees he IS a bigot. If I wish to marry a corpse, who is he to tell me I can’t. If he does he is hateful bigoted necrophobe. We all know Jon better than that. He is, after all, a “Freethinker”.

    • Adam Heckathorn says:

      Catholicism on the other hand offers a striking view of marriage that is rooted in human nature and in fact goes beyond it. We see in man and woman a reflection of the very love of God. Compared to the shallow, puerile, and sterile view of marriage in our culture it is obvious which is the higher view: If That’s true won’t that become apparent over time? No One is suggesting to take away the rights of Catholics to Marry or advocate for their view of Marriage in fact I will stand with You to protect Your right to live as You choose as long as part of what You choose is not to prevent Me to live as I choose.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Fr. James 4:42 “No wait, you did no research. You just don’t like the results that research discovered.”

      I’m sorry you, again, did not have time to read what I wrote. I wrote that Ryan T. Anderson, with whom I debated, has written a book making a case against gay marriage. In the book he and his collegue authors refer to reseach about children raised by gay parents.

      Anderson makes his own conclusions about what the research found. I looked at the actual article written by the scholar. He, himself, did not find the research discovered what Anderson et al claimed the research discovered.

      Anderson claim the research found these children were harmed. The researcher himself did not conclude this because the sample he had to work with was not adequate. Another scholar in the same journal critiqued the research and pointed to an obvious problem in categorizing the children. Children from long term stable relationships did the best, whether the relationship was between gay or straight parents.

    • Fr. James says:

      Adam, I have seen it in some beautiful marriages. While you may argue about the right to marry that doesn’t mean the right to marry whatever you want. Marriage is by definition something that happens between one man and one woman. That is what it is. You cannot have the right to marry a rock. It isn’t possible. No one has the right to something that doesn’t exist.

    • Wolfy32 says:

      What is the goal of Marriage.. Each culture has a different purpose for it. If it is to create a legal binding of human slavery, then yes, child / parrent marriages can occur to keep the children legally the property of whatever dominating sick owner requires it. Much of the civilized world is trying to do away with slavery, so, though this type of indentured servant, if you will, is a form of marriage, a majority of the world would give some form of facial recognition that this is wrong. Regardless of the legality, a parent / child slavery would be deamed wrong by a slim majority of the world.

      Many cultures start marriages without love, by doing arranged marriages. I had a friend that both of his parents selected his mate of equal political influence, equal cultural heritage, and where both of the parents got along the best. Then my friend spent 1 month getting to know her remotely and a week or so in person then they married and moved in together. He knew her a total of probably 6 weeks prior to getting married. I would guess there was a very limited form of love and connection prior to marriage. The marriage happened after the legal marriage. That was just three years ago. They’ve had a kid since and seem to be happily married still.

      So, father, one whom is unable to be married, What gives you the right to know what marriage is and define it for everyone else? Which, I think it’s very sick that priests are unable to be married, it’s no different than denying oneself food and water… It’s impossible to fight human nature, but, that’s another discussion all together. I think the least qualified person to define marriage is one that can’t get married, yet they fight the hardest to define it for everyone else. Heh. ;)

      Many people get married for different reasons. I think the most basic of marriage definition would be simple: Marriage is simply a legal binding contract that determines inheritence, tax law, and custody rights of children upon dissolution or death of one or both parents, and would be defined as a legal contract between two (or possibly more) humans. And it pretty just provides a legal couple a legal obligation to each other should the marriage be dissolved.

      In short… It’s nothing more than a legal contract. A partnership for business is a legal contract. A marital contract is just that a piece of paper defining two people in a business contract… One hopes the two are in love, and emotionally connected, but the state doesn’t determine that or care about it….

      It’s an ancient (pre-christian) ritual to prevent women and children from going destitute if the man decides to abandon his family on a whim… It’s not even a Christian ritual, but for some reasons, Christians, in all their arrogance, think they have the right, no the duty to control it for everyone else..

      • Fr. James says:

        Wolfy, I didn’t come up with the definition of marriage. Up until about 5 minutes ago everyone knew what it was. Now suddenly marriage is whatever we want. So marry that rock if you wish.

        What is the purpose of marriage? Two ends are found in marriage. Procreation and unity. Procreation is not possible for homosexuals. Unity is about complementarity and that is not possible for them either.

        What gives you the right to redefine a societal institution that has existed for thousands of years? It is you who are claiming that not me. My marital status means nothing, a red herring. Truth is truth regardless of whether I or you are married. One can live without being married, so it is unlike food and water.

        Let’s take your legal contract theory. So why can’t a mother marry her son according to such a contract? None at all. Do you think you have the arrogant right to refuse such a marriage?

        • Wolfy32 says:

          It’s legal for kids to divorce their parents, so, there must be some implication that parents are by default married to their parents by definition….

          So, yes, there is a legal contract between parents and children in place based on the US court system.

          Yes, you can survive without marriage, I meant without sex… Celibacy is the purpose of being unable to mary (as I understand it), though where the idea came from for adults to swear off sex is beyond me.

          Anyways, another issue for another day…

          as to the rest, propaganda that you’ve been spoon fed! Think freely from the box you’ve been put in… Not saying to give up on belief or faith. I believe there’s something in the universe greater than all of our thoughts. But, I don’t believe that being is found in a jar of baby food spoon fed to any of us.

          • Fr. James says:

            Ah so you do believe that children can marry their parents (although emancipation is not a divorce). I guess even incest is no longer taboo. If so then polygamy certainly isn’t.

            Celibacy is the free choice to not marry. No one is forced into it. It is chosen to pursue another vocation. It has a long history and not just in Christianity. We are celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God and to serve in an unrestricted way.

            The propaganda is what you receive daily and replicate in your posts. We are the ones who think independently. I am a convert, so if I was brainwashed it was into YOUR view.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            There’s religious propaganda with an agenda. There’s societal /cultural propaganda with it’s own agenda / purpose, and there’s governmental propaganda trying to serve the needs of all.

            The problem here is we have the religious (mixed with some cultural values) trying to impact the societal / cultural values at the governmental level.

            We have a government that gives us freedom (thank God) from the Catholic church, and well, freedom from the tenets of any church’s agenda.

            This prevents us having to pray 3 times a day towards mecca and being required to take communion every 5th sunday or whatever it is.

            You imagine everyone wearing Muslim garb to catholic services. What a mess. :)

            There’s a reason religions don’t get to dictate our laws. I suspect that drives the catholic church mad, since they seek to invoke thought control on society. Think like we do or else.

            I’m glad america gave us freedom from religious thinking. Eventually we will do away with many of these religioun invoked prejudices.

            If God made some people Gay, and some not, and then decided to sentence the gay ones to hell… That’s a very sadistic God…. When many of the catholic priesthood are gay already, I really don’t understand the double standard.. It’s o.k. for our priesthood to be gay, but you can’t be!! It’s reserved for us only!

          • Fr. James says:

            Government propaganda serves no ones needs. We simply tell the truth in season and out.

            Freedom from is not being interpreted in such a fashion as to inhibit those who exercise their religious liberty. To attempt to silence them or discriminate against them for their faith.

            I have seen no efforts to force anyone to pray. I once lived in a Buddhist country. When they prayed I simply stood there quietly and respected their rights. How about you folks do the same? Tolerance eh?

            We have gotten along for centuries and not dictated our faith. In the beginning we were a persecuted religion in a pagan culture. That seems to be our fate here in the US in the near future. It is YOU who wish to enforce your views on everyone else. As you say you will “do away” with religious “prejudices” and that will require “doing away” with religious people. It always does.

            God did not make homosexuality. That is a result of original sin. No one is forced to engage in homosexual acts and those who do can repent of them.

          • entech says:

            God did not make homosexuality. That is a result of original sin. No one is forced to engage in homosexual acts and those who do can repent of them.

            So it comes down to free will and original sin.

            This really means that your god, if such an entity exists, deliberately set up his creation to fail and then popped the idea into your head that he was the source of all morality. ?

            Are you really ordained in the church, you don’t talk like any that I have met.

            But never mind you still have Josh as a supporter, that must be some solace.

            We have gotten along for centuries and not dictated our faith.
            Never murdered a single heretic or anything like that :)
            Now it is all clear, or are actually a trainee script writer and you are using us to practise your comedy routines.

          • Fr. James says:

            entech, of course you have free will. He didn’t set us up to fail, we did that on our own. We are still doing it. The current heretics are religious people and the inquisitors are the atheists. In fact atheists could have taught the inquisition a thing or two. Do we really need to go over this kind of thing every post? Shall I mention Stalin or Mao again?

            Yes, I am ordained. As I pointed out not all faiths are exactly the same. Maybe you just haven’t talked to many clerics or perhaps you are just prejudiced.

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            Stalin and Mao are just really unclever ways of not violating Goodwin’s law.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            By your logic then, just so I understand this right:
            “As you say you will “do away” with religious “prejudices” and that will require “doing away” with religious people. It always does.”

            Let’s change the word religious prejudice to racial prejudice. So, now that we have tolerance for colored people, we’ve done away with white people? I don’t know, but there’s still many caucasions, there’s still many colored people, many of them friends with each other!

            By your logic we should be all dead because in order to eliminate prejudice one must eliminate the people…

            Very flawed arguement and reasoning.

            And as far as homosexuality being unnatural? Many animals in nature practice homosexuality, asexuality, and many other forms of sexuality. Animals are innocent, they didn’t become self aware (our original sin as I understand it.) Yet, they practice in unholy acts.

            It’s o.k. Father if you’re gay, we’d accept you, not condemn you to hell like the rest of the religious order would. I think I would have a lot more respect for religious orders if they simply told the truth about themselves as people. Were willing to admit they’re gay or straight and admit they have desires like every other human.

            Instead they pretend to be better than everyone else and pretend to not have any tendancies, and then judge others for having their own desires…

            It is a double standard. Sadly, I feel the church has hurt and destroyed many lives by controlling social lynch mobs, than building up people and being accepting of people as Christ was.

            Christ, in my humble opinion, would be very ashamed of today’s churches!

            Judging and enacting laws against people instead of helping build people up and help people be who they are.

          • Fr. James says:

            Wolfy, homosexuality is a behavior not a race. That shows the flaw in your thinking. Most abolitionists were Christians btw. There is no reason that I should approve of a behavior that I believe is immoral and hurts the person who does it.

            By natural I don’t mean nature i.e. animals. Humans are not just animals, although atheists think so when it suits them. Natural relates to what is natural for us as humans and what flourishes us.

            The real issue isn’t accepting homosexuals as people. We do that and do so in truth. The issue is that Christians are being treated as “racists” for their beliefs and discrimination against them is becoming legal.

            I don’t remember any Christian lynch mobs in Fargo recently. Perhaps I have missed that? However, in California after prop 8 there were mobs that committed assault and arson.

        • entech says:

          What about the Shabbat Bride and the Church as the Bride of Christ? How are nuns described?

    • Fr. James says:

      Jon, there was a study done on this issue. The author of the study was nearly academically lynched. Not because he was wrong, but because his conclusions did not fit the current propaganda. You can find it here:

      http://www.markregnerus.com/

      • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

        You offer nothing but circular reasoning and ONE highly-flawed study. Lots of marriages don’t result in procreation – what do you suggest be done with those? They obviously haven’t fulfilled the “purpose” of marriage. And nobody is telling your church who they have to marry, but your church is trying to keep loving couples from having a legally recognized civil marriage.

        • Fr. James says:

          Highly flawed? So that is why they wanted to tear him to pieces? He is the Gallileo figure of today don’t you think?

          Openness to live is what is necessary. That doesn’t mean that it will always result in offspring. But with homosexuals there is not even the potential for openness to life.

          It is YOU who are telling us that all must accept this new definition of marriage. You are imposing your view on the rest of us. This does harm by undermining all of society. And it can never be a marriage no matter what you might claim.

          • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

            Comparing Regnerus to Galileo is hilarious. What about all the studies out there that show that children of same-sex couples do just fine? Of course those are ignored of favor of the one bought and paid-for study that shows just what you want it to show. I heard the same shoddy reasoning back in 2004 from the ND Family Alliance, essentially that all social science is worthless because it doesn’t show that same-sex couples make bad parents.

          • Fr. James says:

            Bob, Similar treatment don’t you think?

            The only reason you don’t like the study is because it doesn’t say what you want it to say. The fact that he was persecuted for it is not problem for you.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            Christians didn’t invent marriage, nor did modern society, nor did nature. For all intents and purposes, I’d be happy with a society that didn’t have a concept of marriage. Why do we need to sign a marital contract anyways!? Plus, you as a priest can’t be married anyways, so why would you even care what others do?

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            Wolfy,

            You called it a marriage contract for a reason.

            Your question answers itself.

          • Fr. James says:

            Wolfy, in a way correct. Marriage is part of natural law and predates Christianity. That bolsters my argument.

            I doubt you would be happy in a society without marriage and family.

      • Avatar of realist realist says:

        I seem to remember a recent quote, “Who am I to judge?” You might want to apply this to yourself.

        • Fr. James says:

          You might want to read the whole quote rather then just repeat the part you think you like. Just today the Pope defended the traditional family. In Argentina he strongly opposed same sex marriage. Judging someones soul is one thing, but we can certainly judge the morality of acts.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Fr. James 7:18 “Jon, there was a study done on this issue. The author of the study was nearly academically lynched. Not because he was wrong, but because his conclusion did not fit the current propagada…”

        That’s the article I was referring to. I have it, and the follow up article he published the next month further elaborating on his findings.

        You seem to be taking the same erroneous conclusions Ryan T. Anderson took in his book. It’s popular among anti gay marriage political people to portray the findings as “proving” children raised by gay parents do not do as well in adulthood as children of straight parents. The scholar who did the research was careful not to make such broad and sweeping generalizations about his own work. That has been done by others with political agendas.

        I’m not going to go into the findings because they involve technical issues discussed among social scientists. I’ll only reassert the study did not make a sweeping finding children raised by gay parents turn out worse, all other things being equal.

        I’m not saying differences will never be found. I’m saying we don’t know yet.

        • Henry says:

          Jon:“I’m saying we don’t know yet.”

          Yes. Let’s put the kids to the test with no data.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 12:53 “Yes. Let’s put the kids to the test with no data.”

            We do have data. It shows kids from long term stable relationships do well, regardless of gay or straight. The younger they are when they start with gay parents the better they do.

            Because gay marriage is new, gay relationships have not been, in general, as stable as heterosexual relationships. Hopefully that will improve now that the legal status has changed.

            Let’s then ask, what parential arrangement has the least success? It is single parents. What can we do about that? Nothing much. Like in many gay situations, the parent is a biological one. Unless you want the government to take children away from the biological parents without good reason, children will be raised by these parents.

          • Henry says:

            Your 10:29 and 1:46 are conflicted. Which way do you want it?
            1. We don’t know yet.
            2. We do have data.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:00 re: Do we have data, or, do we not as to how children raised by gay parents compare to children raised by straight?

            According the what the study referred to by Fr. James, children of both do about the same, quite well. We don’t know if one situation does slightly better than the other because its difficult to compare equal circumstances. The data show children of single parents do a little worse than either. But, mostly they do fine.

            So, do we have some data. Yes. Do we have data to “prove” children do better in heterosexual homes than homosexual, no.

            If we had data showing one circumstance resulted in more successful children than another, it would not be of much use except politcally. We can’t change much.

          • Fr. James says:

            Jon, that isn’t what the study says. Why else would they attack the author?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Fr. James 3:39 “Jon, that isn’t what the study says. Why else would they attack the author?”

            I assume you are talking about the study comparing children raised by gay vs straight couples. I have the original article itself in front of me, and, a follow up article published the next month by the researcher in which he further modifies the implications of what he found. I’m sorry you do not.

        • Fr. James says:

          I am pro-natural marriage. That makes you anti-natural marriage. Political agendas indeed. If the author was wrongly interpreted then why did they want to destroy him and his career? I don’t think they cared if he was right or wrong. If it was utterly proven that children were harmed they would sweep it under the rug to avoid the conclusions.

  5. David says:

    Jon – I don’t think the argument is that gay marriage leads to polygamy. Rather the argument is that with a definition of marriage being – “be with the one you love!” there is no reason to prohibit polygamy. If we are to define marriage as such then denying polygamists the right to marry seems arbitrary and capricious to me. If marriage is defined as such, I can see no reason to deny polygamists the right to marry a hundred wives. I would love to hear a gay marriage supporter explain to me what is wrong with polygamy. They seem to want to be against it or do not want to admit that they are in favor of it.

    I don’t think we can look at issues with regard to adults marrying children as it logically has its own issue. One could be in favor of gay marriage but be against a man marrying a boy based upon arguments on the age of consent (one could similarly rule out sheep, dogs etc. based upon an idea of consent).

    Incestuous relationships however cause some problems. If two brothers or two sisters love one another – why can’t they be with the one they love. I suppose a brother and sister marrying would similarly be okay with the “be with the one you love” definition as long as they didn’t procreate, but maybe even if they did. Who are we to judge? I would be interested to hear an argument against such relationships by a proponent of gay marriage. Once again there is no logical argument that I can think of which would prohibit such arrangements under the new definition of marriage.

    What I don’t see is a state’s interest in the “be with the one you love” definition of marriage. Despite several people’s claims this does not create stable relationships. One need only look at the divorce rate to obliterate that argument. It does not create stable ways in which to transfer property at death. One may be stuck trying to divorce the one they no longer love and have a sizeable chunk of their estate go against their wishes. It does not guarantee that when you are on your death bed the people you love will be able to visit you in the hospital. The one you love may not be the one you are married to. So why would the state be interested in creating super contractual relationships based upon love? I can think of no rational basis.

    Granting specific rights to those that are married give married people additional rights. It is the promotion of an idea or a definition of that institution or super contractual arrangement. One cannot talk about gay marriage without re-defining marriage. If we do not need to redefine marriage to accommodate gay marriage then there would be no need to change the law. There is no law which states homosexuals are not allowed to marry. It only states what marriage is (or was). So in order to accommodate gay marriage we must redefine marriage. The question then is what state interest are we promoting by redefining marriage? There is none.

    The reason gay marriage is being promoted is because people do not want to be mean to gay people. This is noble, but misguided. Allowing people of the same sex to call their union marriage confuses what marriage is, which in turn causes heterosexual couples to misunderstand the concept. If marriage is as transient as the feeling of “love” then it really is not very binding. Some very astute people will logically conclude there is no reason to get married other than to throw a big party and get gifts. So they may forgo the “piece of paper.” What then happens is we have more single mothers. We get more broken homes. We get more children growing up without fathers. We get more poverty. The effects of a diluted definition of marriage is what I am against.

    What’s ironic is that as the heterosexual couple conclude that the “piece of paper” has little value, the homosexual couple wants to get married. Thus, marriage becomes a sort of government approved love. For many years those on the far left have been interested in deconstructing marriage because it served against the idea of community and carried with it ways in which men could bring down women. Now the tactic is to strip marriage of meaning which tragically hurts women and children.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      David 6:58 re: allowable concepts of marriage

      I will concede some factions of the marriage argument make the case it is about the slippery slope–if gays are allowed to marry any definition of marriage is open for consideration. (There have been countless public statements that gay marriage “hurts” heterosexual marriage but we’ll leave that aside for now.) Slippery slope arguments are made all the time, I make them myself sometimes.

      First, many slippery slope argumentst are predicted that never come to pass. Thus, it is not inevitable there will be group marriages just because gays are allowed to marry.

      Second, marriage has been defined in many ways over the course of the human experience. Arrangements we consider to be taboo have been thought to be favored by the divine at some other time. What is considered the choice of the divine is driven by what societies need at some point in their history. Incest has been very common. King Tut was the deformed product of generations of incest. One has to assume it was considered a necessity by the religion at that time. Probably there was some practical reason like defense of the dynasty or kingdom as well. Incest was so common and approved of the ordinary people laws had to be put in place prohibiting it. Marriages were needed which crossed family and tribal boundaries so mutual defense pacts could be established.

      Polygamy remains an approved practice in various places. It’s origins have been necessity, a shortage of men or women and children, and its justification religious. We don’t approve of it in Western societies, but we have no need for it either.

      The argument for gay marriage is that laws prohibiting it are not working. Prohibition laws mess up people’s finances and personal caregiving. While Justice Douglas’ decision made a remark about “love”, the fact is gay marriage has practical economic benefits to the couples involved and benefits for the larger society. Two person households are lower cost ways of providing food and shelter. Households are more likely to not require public assistance. Single family households are more likely to go into poverty and require assistance from society.

      The reason polygamy households will not be approved now, if ever, is because they do not offer benefits to the broader society. If, generations from now, something changes and polygamy is seen as the logical way to organize households, things might change and religion will, like it always does, find a way to accomodate. Several states, like one nearby us, Iowa, has seen no increase in polygamy or requests for it to be legalized.

      We have to remember, prejudice has often been at the heart of laws about marriage. I’m not saying it is in your case, but it’s been there. I’ve heard there were hundreds of bills offered in Congress over the decades to prohibit nationally marriage between the races. I suppose it was argued interracial marriage would lead to polygamy.

      • Fr. James says:

        You seemed prejudiced toward polygamists and incestuous marriages. Just like prohibiting interracial marriage. So that must make you a…

        Such factious “logic.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>