Jump to content

Polyamory Approved


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Islam is bigger. 

Jacob 2 is not hypocritical. It is God’s will. SSM is not his will.

On the contrary, many do believe that gay marriage can be God's will.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What are some criteria that you think are valid?

Minimum marital age (which is related to, but still distinct from, consent) and kinship/consanguinity restrictions are the other main limiting criteria that come to mind.

How about you? Do you agree or disagree?

Are there other criteria you feel are important, from a legal perspective?

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The actual term used by the Church is "plural marriage" not polygamy.  A man married to two women in that context is mathematically: 

2 X (a man and a woman)

The fact that it's the same man in both cases doesn't change that the fact that each marriage in a plural marriage is independent in itself. It's not a man with a harem.

 

Bernard, this answer by Stargazer illustrates exactly what I meant when I said the Church wouldn’t have to change a thing from the Proclamation. In all it’s commentaries, legal briefs, and other rhetoric related to “defending [so-called] traditional marriage,” the Church has been VERY careful to always state it supports marriage between “a man and a woman,” and, unlike other conservative Christian Faiths, has universally avoided the phrase  “one man and one woman.” (I’d love to hear if anyone knows of any examples of the Church using the latter verbiage...).

Link to post
Posted (edited)

 

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Islam is bigger. 

Jacob 2 is not hypocritical. It is God’s will. SSM is not his will.

On the contrary, many do believe that gay marriage can be God's will.

Many believed at one time that the earth was flat. It wasn't flat, even when they believed so.

@Bernard Gui is saying that SSM is not God's will. Does God change his mind depending upon what many believe? I haven't noticed this happening much.

If there is a God at all (and there is), the only question is this: What is God's will?  Search the scriptures, Meadowchik; you will find not one provision that says God is OK with same-sex marriage. And man's decision to create it, love it or hate it, has no warrant and force or effect in the eternities.  Maybe that doesn't matter if there is no hereafter and no God.  But if there is no God, why are we even here arguing about the matter?

I recognize that you think that God has been misquoted, or that there is a provision for SSM that God hasn't yet publicized. We'll see, I guess.

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. We’ll have to agree to disagree. No one is “coming after” gays. 

Then just why did you post this thread and bring up the fear that gay marriage would lead to multiple spouse marriages would lead to this?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Then just why did you post this thread and bring up the fear that gay marriage would lead to multiple spouse marriages would lead to this?

I was under the impression that this was more of an "I told you this would happen..." thread than a "be afraid, be very afraid" thread.  Back in the day, even I could see that instituting gay marriage might lead inevitably to permitting polygamy, and possibly other interesting variations.  Have you ever read Heinlein's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Heinlein was quite inventive about the kinds of marriages that people could come up with under unusual circumstances -- although admittedly he never mentioned gay marriage (he wouldn't have gotten the novel published if he had).

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

Many believed at one time that the earth was flat. It wasn't flat, even when they believed so.

@Bernard Gui is saying that SSM is not God's will. Does God change his mind depending upon what many believe? I haven't noticed this happening much.

If there is a God at all (and there is), the only question is this: What is God's will?  Search the scriptures, Meadowchik; you will find not one provision that says God is OK with same-sex marriage. And man's decision to create it, love it or hate it, has no warrant and force or effect in the eternities.  Maybe that doesn't matter if there is no hereafter and no God.  But if there is no God, why are we even here arguing about the matter?

Many believe the Bible was not written by God.  Even more do not have the same belief that the Church has the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Your belief does not invalidate others beliefs.  Arguing what God believes is strictly a matter of personal belief in who God is and what He thinks.  It is fine to say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't believe God approves of gay marriage.  It is not fine to invalidate someone else's belief in God especially when you consider that less than 1% of the world believes in how you interpret the Bible.  Even the Church does not believe all of the things the Bible says. And there are many teachings and beliefs that the Church thinks comes from God that are not contained in the Bible.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

I was under the impression that this was more of an "I told you this would happen..." thread than a "be afraid, be very afraid" thread.  Back in the day, even I could see that instituting gay marriage would lead inevitably to permitting polygamy, and possibly other interesting variations.  Have you ever read Heinlein's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Heinlein was quite inventive about the kinds of marriages that people could come up with under unusual circumstances -- although admittedly he never mentioned gay marriage (he wouldn't have gotten the novel published if he had).

The argument that gay marriage would lead to multiple spouse marriage was used to make people fearful of the civil rights of gay citizens and what it would lead to.  This thread is bringing up those same fears and by members of a Church who actually practiced multiple spouse marriage.  If multiple spouse marriages are such a horrible idea, just why did the Church once practice it and say the idea came from God.  It didn't take gay marriage to lead to multiple spouse marriage back then, yet it still happened.

Link to post
55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary, many do believe that gay marriage can be God's will.

Many believe there is no God.  Belief is irrelevant to reality.  Determining God's truth and will are more important.

  • Like 1
Link to post
37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Many believe there is no God.  Belief is irrelevant to reality.  Determining God's truth and will are more important.

That's where your problem is, precisely. Belief about God's will is not the same as God's will. Whenever you think you have it, the most you'll ever have is your belief of what God's will is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Many believe the Bible was not written by God.  Even more do not have the same belief that the Church has the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Your belief does not invalidate others beliefs.  Arguing what God believes is strictly a matter of personal belief in who God is and what He thinks.  It is fine to say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't believe God approves of gay marriage.  It is not fine to invalidate someone else's belief in God especially when you consider that less than 1% of the world believes in how you interpret the Bible.  Even the Church does not believe all of the things the Bible says. And there are many teachings and beliefs that the Church thinks comes from God that are not contained in the Bible.

You know what frustrates me?  Most of all, what frustrates me at this moment is writing what turns out to be a very cogent and well thought out (IMHO) response to an interesting post like you have posted here, and then upon clicking Submit have it drop immediately into the bit bucket with no chance of recovery!  When will I learn to copy it into my clipboard before clicking Submit??  

I am afraid that you have been deprived of a Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You know what frustrates me?  Most of all, what frustrates me at this moment is writing what turns out to be a very cogent and well thought out (IMHO) response to an interesting post like you have posted here, and then upon clicking Submit have it drop immediately into the bit bucket with no chance of recovery!  When will I learn to copy it into my clipboard before clicking Submit??  

I am afraid that you have been deprived of a Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. 

 

Yeah that is frustrating.  It happens to all of us.  And it is so random, you never know when it will. happen.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Minimum marital age (which is related to, but still distinct from, consent) and kinship/consanguinity restrictions are the other main limiting criteria that come to mind.

How about you? Do you agree or disagree?

Are there other criteria you feel are important, from a legal perspective?

Minimum age is important but how does one determine a universal age of consent? My mother was married at age 16. Adults who are closely related, naturally or medically unable to bear children, and are consenting?  When this issue came before the court earlier, the question was raised here about the reasons for restricting the number to two adults. Looks like that restriction is being successfully challenged. It seems to me that once marriage was defined as a relationship between consenting adults, there are very few legal restrictions that can’t be challenged. I’m hard-pressed to think of any other than age.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I was under the impression that this was more of an "I told you this would happen..." thread than a "be afraid, be very afraid" thread.  Back in the day, even I could see that instituting gay marriage might lead inevitably to permitting polygamy, and possibly other interesting variations.  Have you ever read Heinlein's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? Heinlein was quite inventive about the kinds of marriages that people could come up with under unusual circumstances -- although admittedly he never mentioned gay marriage (he wouldn't have gotten the novel published if he had).

Yes, that is precisely the intention of this thread. At the time of the earlier discussions, there was no question in my mind that the number two would go away, but many here rejected that notion. If marriage is a relationship between consenting adults (however we define adult) then numbers are irrelevant. That appears to be what is happening now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

What signs are you referring to?

Controversial and debatable efforts to normalize the disorder and virtual child pornography.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's where your problem is, precisely. Belief about God's will is not the same as God's will. Whenever you think you have it, the most you'll ever have is your belief of what God's will is.

That’s the most we all have. The real problem is finding what God’s will is. How do think that is done?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

The argument that gay marriage would lead to multiple spouse marriage was used to make people fearful of the civil rights of gay citizens and what it would lead to.  This thread is bringing up those same fears and by members of a Church who actually practiced multiple spouse marriage.  If multiple spouse marriages are such a horrible idea, just why did the Church once practice it and say the idea came from God.  It didn't take gay marriage to lead to multiple spouse marriage back then, yet it still happened.

Jacob 2.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Bernard, this answer by Stargazer illustrates exactly what I meant when I said the Church wouldn’t have to change a thing from the Proclamation. In all it’s commentaries, legal briefs, and other rhetoric related to “defending [so-called] traditional marriage,” the Church has been VERY careful to always state it supports marriage between “a man and a woman,” and, unlike other conservative Christian Faiths, has universally avoided the phrase  “one man and one woman.” (I’d love to hear if anyone knows of any examples of the Church using the latter verbiage...).

I understand the distinction and the careful wording, but in light of Jacob 2 any deviation from “one” or “an” must meet a strict condition. I suppose we could be keeping our options open for that possibility, but I think reinstate is remote. Do you think that the chosen wording (as you interpret it) can only be applied to one man marrying several women one at a time, or could the reverse also be possible...one woman marrying several men? Seems to me that argument could be made.

Quote

Despite what much of media and entertainment outlets may suggest, however, and despite the very real decline in the marriage and family orientation of some, the solid majority of mankind still believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. They believe in fidelity within marriage, and they believe in the marriage vows of “in sickness and in health” and “till death do us part.” L. Tom Perry, April 2015

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage —the marriage of one man and more than one woman. By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President. Gospel Topics “Plural Marriage”

Quote

To help students further understand the principle you have written on the board, suggest that they write Jacob 2:27, 30 in their scriptures near Doctrine and Covenants 132:34. Invite a student to read these verses aloud. Point out that monogamy (marriage between one man and one woman) is God’s standard for marriage unless He commands otherwise. D&C and Church History Seminary Teachers Manual Lesson 140

Quote

Based on what you have learned, how would you respond if someone asked you if Latter-day Saints practice plural marriage? (Help students understand that Church members practiced plural marriage for a time in obedience to the Lord’s command, but that practice ended long ago, also according to the Lord’s command. Marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise [see Jacob 2:27, 30].) ibid, Lesson 153.

Quote

The Lord went on to speak about plural marriage and His covenant to bless Abraham with an innumerable posterity for his faithfulness. From the beginning, the Lord had ordained marriage between one man and one woman to fulfill His plan. Sometimes, however, the Lord authorized plural marriage as a way to raise up children in righteous families and bring about their exaltation. Saints Vol.1

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post

If we get protests outside temples again can you guys play some epic siege music during the whole thing?  Add this track to the playlist, pleeaaaase.  I'll be cheering the victor on from behind my monitor. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Controversial and debatable efforts to normalize the disorder and virtual child pornography.

Such as....? Examples, please.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Minimum age is important but how does one determine a universal age of consent? My mother was married at age 16. Adults who are closely related, naturally or medically unable to bear children, and are consenting?  When this issue came before the court earlier, the question was raised here about the reasons for restricting the number to two adults. Looks like that restriction is being successfully challenged. It seems to me that once marriage was defined as a relationship between consenting adults, there are very few legal restrictions that can’t be challenged. I’m hard-pressed to think of any other than age.

Legislation determines the age of consent, which varies state to state.

And I agree that it’s dubious at best to restrict consenting adults who are closely related but unable to have children. The issue of marital restrictions based on consanguinity is ultimately related to avoiding genetic birth defects in any potential offspring... if fertility is not a concern, restrictions are hard to justify.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Jacob 2.

Do you expect the entire world to believe the BoM to make their wedding decisions. It doesn't change the fact that the Church practiced multiple spouse marriages and that had nothing to do with gay marriage.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's where your problem is, precisely. Belief about God's will is not the same as God's will. Whenever you think you have it, the most you'll ever have is your belief of what God's will is.

That's only true if you think God doesn't interact directly with man.  It's not guesswork or belief where divine interactions occur.

Link to post

If you knew , nothing doubting, what the Lord's will was for you, would you obey? What if you knew  from personal direct revelation what the Lord's will was for all humans , would you preach it to all and sundry or keep it to yourself? 

History has shown me that the Lord allows all kinds of good and evil actions and ideas to proceed until humans are fully ripe and further until they are fully rotted so that there is no excuse left. 

Good luck deciding who gets to marry whom when the world can't come to grips with who is killing whom. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If you knew , nothing doubting, what the Lord's will was for you, would you obey? What if you knew  from personal direct revelation what the Lord's will was for all humans , would you preach it to all and sundry or keep it to yourself? 

History has shown me that the Lord allows all kinds of good and evil actions and ideas to proceed until humans are fully ripe and further until they are fully rotted so that there is no excuse left. 

Good luck deciding who gets to marry whom when the world can't come to grips with who is killing whom. 

There's an old school concept of God that comes from high Church Protestantism and Catholicism that's along the lines of after the sermon on the mount, God more or less didn't intervene in mans affairs as he did for the Jews back in the day.  He suffered watching his son die and his chosen people sell him out not to mention the mother of Christ suffer through it all, not to mention the harrowing of hell.  Sure, there may have been miracles here and there.  While i'm not a believer by the rubric most here state side go by (esp. nowadays, it's so entitlement ridden) I won't deny, who knows maybe things like what happened to St. Francis did happen.  Point i'm getting at, far as I can tell that is something along the lines that the Church in Europe still goes by, let them have civil marriage but it will never happen in the church via the sacrament of marriage.  People here are entitled to no end and it has just blown up exponentially this year, people have no idea the pandoras box they opened, no one will be coming to their rescue if things get bad.  I say let it happen, they chose to be entitled and step on those they deemed less than themselves, lets see how that plays out when there's nothing to keep them away from the rage of the mob.

I say this to you because you served this country honorably, I have a soft spot for vets, you guys get treated like dirt here, that's inexcusable.  The guys I know who are still in?  They're worried if we get into a full blown war with someone.  Most here are not fit for service, even if we had a draft it would be a nightmare.  Esp. after how my life has been, if I saw half these entitled idiots being torn apart i'd feel nothing as I ran in the other direction.  If people are so petty as they are now, I say let em reap the whirlwind.  Too many good men/women like yourself have served, if they can't see past their own entitlement and understand that your rights end where someone elses begin, then they deserve whatever happens.  You're in one of the troublesome states, with covid-19 spiking again, hope you and yours are staying safe.

 

BTW, happy belated 4th and thank you for your service. 

Edited by poptart
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...