I don't think the government should ever accept more than two people in a legal marriage (lol taxes)
"Porforis" wrote:
I do not understand this argument, nor its close cousin: "But what about insurance?" It makes no sense. Does an insurance company have a harder time figuring out how to insure a company that has 500 employes than one that has only 5? Do insurance companies find it more complicated to insure a family with 4 cars versus only one car? More to the point, do insurance companies find it harder to insure families with 10 kids versus 2? My father had 10 kids and we always had insurance. Why would it be more difficult to insure (or tax) 2 wives or 3 husbands? And that is not even getting into the issue of tax advantages for marriage, which I don't think should exist to begin with. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing families, whether through tax credits, tax deductions, or more overt forms of welfare. There is no reason why married couples should have advantages over singles before the law. And even if they should, other countries seem to be able to handle the paperwork of plural marriages just fine.
And seriously, is the paperwork for a plural marriage really more complicated than that required to keep track of the intricate relationships involved in the blended families that are so common these days? I know a college student here whose parents have both been married multiple times and who consequently has 9 siblings, only one of which is a full biological sibling. If the government can manage to keep such a bizarre situation straight, why couldn't it keep track of a family with multiple spouses that actually stayed together? That is what actuaries and bean counters are for.
C'mon, do you really believe that the US (or Canadian government) is going to even attempt passing a law that would mandate who/whom any religious organization can or can not marry?
"vikesrule" wrote:
Is it really such a stretch? The government already has: It says (in most states) that gays cannot marry. It says that more than two people cannot marry. In the past, it was illegal in many, if not all, jurisdictions for blacks to marry whites. In some jurisdictions it was legally impossible for slaves even to marry each other. For that matter, in some states a young person can get married at 14, in others it's not allowed until the age of 16 or 17, and still others one must wait until 18. The government has long been in the business of saying who can and who cannot marry.
You seem to imply that "evangelical Christians" should not be allowed their beliefs.
"vikesrule" wrote:
I imply nothing of the sort. I state pretty clearly that by ceding sovereignty over these matters, which should be the purview of religion alone, to the state, the churches are endangering their ability to practice their beliefs. I unquestionably
do believe that churches should have the absolute right to decide whom they will and will not marry. If a church holds a sincere belief that it is wrong for two men, three women, or a man and six women to marry, it should without question be able to practice that belief. But in lobbying for laws that mandate one-man-one-woman, the churches are implicitly handing over the authority over that decision to the state. Sure, the state seems beneficent now, but the tides of politics come and go. There is no reason
not to believe that a future regime might reverse its stance and mandate that churches perform gay marriages in order to keep their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt statuses.
What is your definition of an "Evangelical Christian" NSD?
"vikesrule" wrote:
Whoever labels himself an "Evangelical Christian." Yes, I know other groups (like the Catholic Church) are in the anti-polygamy camp, but it is evangelical Christians who are the most outspoken and politically active.
You and I may or may not agree, but we each have the right to our own thoughts/beliefs.
"vikesrule" wrote:
Indeed, and as I have stated very clearly, that is precisely why I consider lobbying for government-mandated monogamy is a tactical mistake. It is bringing the government into an area that rightfully belongs to the people and (if applicable) their God.
Furthermore, having the right to one's own belief is not the same as having the right to legislate that belief onto others. By legislating heterosexual monogamy, Christians have denied those who might want to practice other beliefs the chance to do so.
I believe that convictions, thoughts, and practices should co-exist on the common market. If they are worthwhile, they will appreciate in value; if they are not, they will diminish. Monogamy advocates militate against polygamy and homosexuality as though they are so appealing that were access granted, most people would not have the self-control to resist them (which is a peculiar notion to say the least). The fact is, both homosexuality and polygamy are fringe lifestyles that, even if they were entirely legalized, would only be practiced by a very small proportion of the population, as the examples of the Netherlands and Belgium have proven.
The only reason it remains politically expedient to keep homosexuality and polygamy illegal is
because they are practiced by such small minorities -- groups that happened not to be liked by the majority.
considering your obvious disdain of religion,
I strongly object to this statement. Having disdain for certain practitioners of a religion is not the same as disdaining the religion. Though I freely confess that I resent having to hide my life from my own Church, simply due to an interpretation of morality that the Church itself admits is not based anywhere in the Bible (indeed, as at least one prominent Catholic author has admitted, the Bible rather tacitly supports it) but is based solely on Holy Tradition and more more or less Roman ideals of romanticism. If the Church could actually provide a solid biblical basis for its objections, it would be a totally different matter.
That would make sense if it were true. The fact is, gay marriage (in the United States) only has about 40% of the population in favor. This is across most demographics. A bill has never been introduced in Washington because it wouldn't get past the Democrats let alone Republicans.
"vegomatic" wrote:
I am not sure what your point is. Most Americans claim to be pro-life, yet abortion remains very legal over 40 years later. Most Americans also claim to be opposed to Obama's healthcare plan, yet it is still in effect. Just because a majority of Americans claim to believe one way or the other doesn't mean the laws will reflect that. Laws are often passed to appease the loudest interest groups, not necessarily to benefit the majority opinion.
It's an error to assume it's Christians alone that are a barrier to such a notion. But there are indeed a strong force within the issue.
"vegOmatic" wrote:
I never said I assume that. I hold the most resentment against the Christian community because they tend to be the most outspoken in the imposition of their morality on others, and because that was the community in which I was raised (and in which I still live and thus must practice a double life). On this issue, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians happen to be aligned not only with radical feminists, but also (ironically enough) with a lot of gay-rights advocates, who have realized that it is not politically expedient for their cause to come out in favor of other alternative lifestyles and thus loudly proclaim that they want to be good little monogamists every time their opponents point out that after legalizing gay marriage, there is no logical reason
not to legalize polygamy.