Skip to comments.Polygamy and Human Dignity
Posted on 06/29/2014 8:47:28 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The normalization of polygamy would undermine our commitment to human dignityour sense that each human being is to be valued as an end in him- or herself, and not merely as a means to others ends.
Conservatives have long warned that the redefinition of marriage sought by the proponents of same-sex unions will prepare the way for a further redefinition of marriage to include polygamy. Some liberals have already done their part to fulfill this prophecy by assuming that the argument over same-sex marriage is over and by beginning to argue for a normalization of plural marriages. As I have recently argued here at Public Discourse, I do not agree that the argument over same-sex marriage is or should be over. Nevertheless, because some liberals have started to defend polygamy, conservatives who want to preserve our moral inheritance need to think through what kind of arguments caution against this further step.
Defenders of conjugal marriage confront a problem here, because it seems harder to make a principled argument against polygamy than against same-sex marriage. The principled argument against same-sex marriage holds that marriage by its nature is ordered toward procreation. Since this cannot be said of same-sex unions, the argument runs, it makes no sense to recognize them as marriages. This argument is not availableor is not so easily availablein opposition to polygamous marriages. After all, to the extent that such marriages are heterosexual, they can be naturally ordered toward procreation.
Without denying the possibility of a strong principled argument against polygamyan argument based, say, in the nature of human sexuality and its natural purposesI would like here to venture a prudential argument against it.
A Prudential Argument Against Polygamy
The normalization of polygamy would undermine our commitment to human dignity...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Well, the Mormons are just licking their chops to get this going!
Polygamy would take away the reverence for marriage and reduce us to first class animals instead of a spiritual being. The heathens know what they’re doing. It’s exactly how Satan views us and us mentioned in the Satanic bible. We know where this thought originates from. The idiots are too stupid to figure it out though they can play a mean game of Minecraft and can text while they drive (until they crash)
Over the years, I have heard all these debates about homosexual marriage. And the liberals would laugh and ridicule anyone who said we were on a slippery slope to legalizing polygamy or group marriage, or adult / child marriage. The liberals ridiculed anyone who thought that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to legalizing other arrangements.
It remains to be seen where this goes, but, the same arguments made to justify homosexual marriage, namely that it’s all about who you love, consenting adults want to live their lives and have legal recognition, etc. — those same arguments can also be used to justify polygamy.
And if liberal judges who have been forcing homosexual marriage down our throats use the same legal reasoning, they will also impose polygamy on us.
God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a persons estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was married and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular States definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than Gods definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was Gods intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature can only be heterosexual.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assuming we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves married against Gods law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the States public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is normal. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
This applies to same sex couples as well as polygamy and polyandry. If government eventually assumes the power to “marry” these relationships as well, then our children will be indoctrinated as to how government defines “normal”, and the left will be happy to label anyone who believes otherwise as a “H8er” subject to sanctions where possible.
You didn’t know that Mormons taught polygamy as religious doctrine but were forced by the US Government to give it up?
Here’s a point of contact between end-stage Western leftists and Muslims. The Christianity they both hate grants no favoritism between Greek or Jew, free or slave, man or woman. Faithful Muslims are granted multiple women in heaven, relegating women to perpetual inferiority, whereas Jesus Christ says that we don’t marry in heaven.
Perhaps what is at root is a shared disregard for the reality of natural law which western leftists hold in common with Islamic fundamentalists. See a reprise look at Robert Reillys The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis at Catholic World Report, The Islamist Spring and the Wests Decline http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2544/the_islamist_spring_and_the_wests_decline.aspx .
“God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant.”
All on one side and most on the other don’t believe that, as far as I can tell.
Well, just for fun— what do you think of the state NOT “legitimating” or licensing homosexual or polygamous arrangements, but just not banning them either?
That’s the one thing they won’t do. They must let you know that they are in charge and control everything in your life.
All I know about Mormons is they wear holey underwear.
you are certainly correct about that!
well, it is just a hypothetical question anyway...
Anyone who believes that divorce and remarriage is okay, profoundly disagrees that marriage is a covenant.
When people decided to re-write the rules and make divorce so easy and so prevalent, they made it clear that they fundamentally disagreed with God and are above Him in the rule-making department.
Gay marriage is another step on that continuum, not a path on its own. Gays didn’t start the assault against marriage. People who got tired of their spouses and wanted “out” of their covenant with God did that decades ago.
Judao-Christian monogamy was tested against Muslim polygamy during the last 1,400 years. A case can be argued that this is the world’s longest running test of a social hypothesis. Unambiguously, it is the largest social experiment in terms of experimental populations.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the array of genetic diseases acquired consequential to 1,400 years of first cousin marriage, the subject of Muslim negative impact onall aspects of the male/female issue was never as well summed up as by Winston Churchill.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
I’m not in to polygamy but the first sentence in this article contradicts itself in a way.
It assumes that all polygamists are polygamists for ulterior reasons and totally misses the fact that while some may be in it for themselves, others may have altogether different reasons which tend towards the altruistic in varying degrees.
I didn’t have the desire to read the rest after that.
You bet, this IS creeping Sharia! Makes me sick when I hear people say this is about “love”.
This is to get marriage in the western world away from Christian marriage to Islam!!
The problem with the argument is that society has already leapt way passed polygamy in terms of threats to human dignity. Abortion on demand is a direct affront to human dignity, and it's been legal by judicial fiat since 1973 in this country.
Polygamy is the least of our worries. Three consenting adults committing to each other is perhaps a sort of theoretical threat to human dignity, since overall and given enough time it would tend to derogate from the Christian notion of the infinite value of each human should, but it is nothing like the very direct threat posed by things like abortion on demand, designer genetic engineering of children, homosexual propaganda in schools, and so forth.
News flash to all who oppose polygamy - far worse is already the law of the land. The legislature just hasn't figured it out yet.
You misunderstand me and I’m not the author of this piece.
Sorry, that wasn’t directed at you. I follow your comments and I think you’re one of the best posters on FR.
Well thank you. That’s very kind of you.
News flash to all who oppose polygamy - far worse is already the law of the land. The legislature just hasn’t figured it out yet.
...worrying about polygamy in our current cesspool of a culture is like a horse owner, having discovered that his prize stallion has bolted for parts unknown, then sits down and grouses that he didn’t eat all his oats before he left...
Conservatives have long warned that the redefinition of marriage sought by the proponents of same-sex unions will prepare the way for a further redefinition of marriage to include polygamy
while for the time being there is no reason for polygamy it is obvious that there were a reason in the past.
There have never been a reason for sodomy or bestiality.
It is the liberals that put polygamy in the same class with the other two so why go along with their false premise.
Any God believing conservative can see the difference, and if they are not believers they can still see the difference.
Homosexuality and bestiality is against human nature, you do not have to go to church or even to be a believer to know that it is an abomination.
“All on one side and most on the other dont believe that, as far as I can tell.”
And that is the point. A person who has studied Scripture can read what God says about marriage. For many others, the god of this world is big and bigger government. They like it that way because they can bend government to advance their beliefs, and when government decrees something, it establishes a moral force in their minds.
When I post what I did elsewhere, I sometimes get pushback from people who claim they are Christian but who look to government to “protect” marriage. The truth is that the more godly aspects of our lives (like marriage and charity) that we turn over to government, the more power over our lives we cede to it. We are amazed when we wake up to the monster we have allowed to put us in chains.
In this case the chains are in part that government will demand, backed up by the credible threat of deadly force, that we accept a definition of marriage that not only is contrary to God’s definition, but is intended in part to insult and marginalize people who accept God in their lives. Since when would anything think that “marriage” could be used as a weapon to help destroy society?
That day has arrived, at least in some jurisdictions that determine that it is a crime to decline to enable same-sex marriage by refusing to sell the happy couple wedding cakes or photography services.
To advance the legal case that a marriage between two people of the same sex is no different than a marriage as God defines it, the US Justice Department will base their arguments before the Supreme Court that a child does not need, nor have a right to a mother. 
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that Mormon-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
 DOJ: Children Do Not Needand Have No Right to—Mothers March 3, 2013 By Terence P. Jeffrey
...worrying about polygamy in our current cesspool of a culture is like a horse owner, having discovered that his prize stallion has bolted for parts unknown, then sits down and grouses that he didnt eat all his oats before he left...
“They like it that way because they can bend government to advance their beliefs, and when government decrees something, it establishes a moral force in their minds.”
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII, 1880
To the state, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols or the voting public think it can be at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it will ever be to the state.
“I sometimes get pushback from people who claim they are Christian but who look to government to protect marriage.”
That’s because anyone who thinks this way about the state and marriage is obviously a raging pro-gay marriage libertarian just like Pope Leo XIII. Or something.
It will not be Mormans suing to get polygamy reinstated, it’ll be 5 or 6 dykes that all want to get “married” to each other, and it be considered one marriage. The word for multiple partners in the sodomite community is POLY. Sodomites see nothing wrong with “loving” as many as they feel like “loving” and having an orgy every night in two king sized beds pushed together. And when the brainless US Supreme Court rules it’s legal, which they will have to after making sodomite “marriage” legal, the fatherless children of the 10 dykes all sleeping together will be sleeping in the adjoining room.
I sometimes get pushback from people who claim they are Christian but who look to government to protect marriage.
Thats because anyone who thinks this way about the state and marriage is obviously a raging pro-gay marriage libertarian just like Pope Leo XIII. Or something.
Well sometimes not. But they confuse the force of government with moral force of the eternal God. They can have faith that a government that is tangible to them can and will enforce its (secular-based) laws that for the moment at least happen to roughly agree with God’s law that they (roughly) understand. They can’t have sufficient faith that God’s laws are above and beyond government.
Strangely, they don’t ever complain about “hippie communes” or where young people increasingly don’t get married, but conduct their lives in faux-marriage relationships and faux-family units. (Any relationship that includes producing children without any commitment to be permanent enough to raise those children to adulthood is not a “family”.)
So, the argument they pick with my position that it is time to revoke government’s power over defining who is married shows they don’t care what kind of sexual morality people have, or how people who are not married conduct their sexual lives. So, what exactly is “marriage” to such people? I think they being reactionary conservatives, that is they are strongly attempting to conserve some aspect of society yet they cannot understand why except that it is “tradition”.
It is for this reason that I beg people who call themselves conservative and especially if they also consider themselves to be a follower of God, that they stop and consider what, exactly, they are attempting to “conserve” and why. Some things should not be conserved, but returned to their original roots in timeless moral law.
“They can have faith that a government that is tangible to them can and will enforce its (secular-based) laws that for the moment at least happen to roughly agree with Gods law that they (roughly) understand. They cant have sufficient faith that Gods laws are above and beyond government.”
Many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state, thats why so many accept the concept of gay marriage in the first place. It can exist because the state says it can, it comes in little pieces of paper. The paper denotes a contract with benefits and strictures between any parties the state chooses and can be broken and resumed as long as the state gives its permission again.
A lot of times those faiths that accept gay marriage wont even act on this belief until the state tells them that it also accepts gay marriage. Which might be more insane than buying into gay marriage in the first place.
“Polygamy would take away the reverence for marriage and reduce us to first class animals instead of a spiritual being.”
The Bible is peppered with examples of righteous polygamists. Curious, I never thought of King David as a first-class animal, but maybe he was. Religion is certainly part of culture, but in the case of polygamy, our objections to it may be more cultural than spiritual.
“Yet when the Son of Man comes, shall He find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8
That says it all. If it happens 200 years from now He will be probably be coming back to polygamous ‘gay marriages’ between child clones and animals with human brains, or some other evil impossibility the state decides to consider a marriage.
Here’s more goodness from raging pro- ‘gay marriage’ libertarian Pope Leo’s 1880 Arcanum:
“Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III, therefore, and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.”