Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Marriage definition
6 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2008 - 12:44PM #1
Justly
Posts: 186
I just now happened to stumble across the now closed "Marriage" thread but found it interesting in light of my state having a constitutional amendment on the ballot this yr to ban gay marriage.  And  I understand the UCC has not adopted a pro polygamist stance as Jon talked about in the other thread.   But I hope you will allow me to jump in. 
 
  One of the arguments the proponents of the ban are using is the polygamist one.  Basically  they are saying what will stop polygamists from wanting their form of marriage accepted?   Or they also argue why not allow incestual marriages?

  I understand the concept of marriage being between 2 people thus bringing polygamy into question.  I believe Laura on the previous thread talked about 2 whole individuals coming together in marriage.  And I think if I read her post correctly, she may have meant the instances she sighted when both are not "whole" would NOT form a sacramental marriage. 

  But I didn't quite understand some of the other differences discussed such as the abuse and jealousy in polygamist marriages.  I believe it was Tawonda who also mentioned the inequality of women in a polygamist relationship.  But can't and don't  these same issues arise in some molygamous relationships as well?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2008 - 2:25PM #2
JonAtFaithUCC
Posts: 294
[QUOTE=Justly;538662]I just now happened to stumble across the now closed "Marriage" thread but found it interesting in light of my state having a constitutional amendment on the ballot this yr to ban gay marriage.  And  I understand the UCC has not adopted a pro polygamist stance as Jon talked about in the other thread.   But I hope you will allow me to jump in.  [/quote]

I hadn't realized that they'd locked the other thread.

 
[QUOTE=Justly;538662]But I didn't quite understand some of the other differences discussed such as the abuse and jealousy in polygamist marriages.  I believe it was Tawonda who also mentioned the inequality of women in a polygamist relationship.  But can't and don't  these same issues arise in some molygamous relationships as well?[/QUOTE]

Sure, jealousy can arise in monogamous marriages.  But the issue has a much bigger presence when you find yourself sharing your spouse with multiple spouses.  It's an inherent issue to these types of marriages that spouses will always need to address to prevent or minimize jealousy and conflict.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2008 - 8:14AM #3
Xpan_ur_mind_xpan_ur_heart
Posts: 9
[QUOTE=Justly;538662]I just now happened to stumble across the now closed "Marriage" thread but found it interesting in light of my state having a constitutional amendment on the ballot this yr to ban gay marriage.  And  I understand the UCC has not adopted a pro polygamist stance as Jon talked about in the other thread.   But I hope you will allow me to jump in. 
 
  One of the arguments the proponents of the ban are using is the polygamist one.  Basically  they are saying what will stop polygamists from wanting their form of marriage accepted?   Or they also argue why not allow incestual marriages?

  I understand the concept of marriage being between 2 people thus bringing polygamy into question.  I believe Laura on the previous thread talked about 2 whole individuals coming together in marriage.  And I think if I read her post correctly, she may have meant the instances she sighted when both are not "whole" would NOT form a sacramental marriage. 

  But I didn't quite understand some of the other differences discussed such as the abuse and jealousy in polygamist marriages.  I believe it was Tawonda who also mentioned the inequality of women in a polygamist relationship.  But can't and don't  these same issues arise in some molygamous relationships as well?[/QUOTE]

Well, truthfully the fact the US didn't allow Utah to achieve state-hood until Utah banned polygamy is a fairly significant and valid argument.  In fact, it may come down to the US having to actually define marriage.

Yes, I believe union that is not two, whole/adult/fully-aware, persons would not be sacramental.   I believe the sacramental part (two become one) is truly about creating life -- be it literal in the form of a baby or a medifor for the now joined life of couplehood (just as we are born again with a new life in Christ)

As for the abuse/ jealousy of polygamy look at the examples given in the bible (all end badly).  Also,  often polygamy refers to polygny (marriage to more than one woman) as opposed to polyandry (marriage to more than one man)  thus, the system often desides the man will rule over mult. women - a recipie that can easily lead to abuse.  But, you are right that abuse can and does happen in any form of relationship -- usually when one spouce is placed above/ rules over the other.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2009 - 8:21PM #4
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Hello. I see this thread hasn't been active for a while but I'd like to contribute a thought if I may.


Personally I don't think the US government should care what the Bible says, because American isn't a Christian nation. In honoring the separation of church and state, the government should base their laws on logic, ethics, and concern for the wellbeing of the society.


In light of that, I would expect incest to remain illegal because of the biological repercussions of incestuous unions (birth defects and so on) if nothing else (not that there aren't other arguments against it, but that's the most unquestionable to me).


As for polygamous marriages, I think it would open up a big can of worms and make things very complicated for a lot of parties, including the government itself, who - we must remember - is the entity which issues marriage licenses. Polygamous marriages seem like quite a headache for the bureaucracy so I don't see it happening any time soon.


The only reason I can see why someone - even the government - would be opposed to gay marriage is the belief that it is morally wrong. But since we have separation of church and state (officially, anyway, even if it's not always practiced), I think the government should not be biased toward one religion or another. I think there is nothing ethically wrong with gay marriage. Ethically wrong, by my definition, means hurting someone, or something that goes against any normal person's conscience, like killing, stealing, cheating, slandering, raping, etc. One doesn't need a particular religion to be ethical. Our doctors and lawyers take oaths of ethics. The government should base its decisions on that, rather than religious doctrine.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 3:56PM #5
Bevo
Posts: 561

"Ethically wrong, by my definition, means hurting someone, or something that goes against any normal person's conscience, like killing, stealing, cheating, slandering, raping, etc."


Same sex marriage goes against most person's conscience.  So, by the criteria you're espousing, same sex marriage should remain illegal.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 4:48PM #6
Intotheblue
Posts: 265

Dec 5, 2009 -- 3:56PM, Bevo wrote:


"Ethically wrong, by my definition, means hurting someone, or something that goes against any normal person's conscience, like killing, stealing, cheating, slandering, raping, etc."


Same sex marriage goes against most person's conscience.  So, by the criteria you're espousing, same sex marriage should remain illegal.




I disagree. I don't think it is against most people's conscience. They might not feel homosexual tendencies themselves, but that doesn't mean they think it's immoral for people who do to have the same rights they themselves have. I say this from my own experience, with what I've firsthand heard people say. Of course I haven't done an official survey asking every person on the planet, but no one has, so firsthand experience is as close as we can come to forming such conclusions.

Namaste.

.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~.~*~

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

"It is not our differences that divide us, but our inability to accept and celebrate those differences."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 07, 2009 - 12:35PM #7
Bevo
Posts: 561

Same sex marriage proposals have been voted down in 25 out of 25 States.  Same sex marriage violates the conscience of the vast majority of Americans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 6:51PM #8
Annitenth
Posts: 5

It's interesting to note that in the most recent polls (2012), Americans are split about fifty-fifty on whether or not they approve of same-sex marriage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:11AM #9
Tofayel521
Posts: 1

Even if this concern had a rational basis, a simpler solution to this problem would be to propose a constitutional amendment banning polygamy--which would be easily ratified--rather than fooling around with an anti-gay constitutional amendment that only one-third of Americans support.I'm not clear on what possible relationship this would have with same-sex marriage. Again, some states may require such training and some states may not, but the presence or absence of legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the issue. I know so far Bible does not support same sex. You may discuss on dmaucc.org regarding this topic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook