Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SBC’s Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage
Newsmax ^ | Monday, 25 Mar 2013 10:24 PM | David A. Patten

Posted on 03/25/2013 8:14:55 PM PDT by Olog-hai

With the Supreme Court set this week to hear two historic challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, pro-family advocates are charging that legalizing gay marriage would “inevitably” lead to the legalization of polygamy as well.

“No question about it,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview Monday afternoon. “If you make the ultimate value a person’s right to express their sexuality with another person and to have that identified as marriage, then how do you keep polygamy from happening?

“How do you keep consensual adult siblings from getting married?” he added. “How do you keep a consensual father and adult daughter from getting married? Incest and polygamy will come right after it.” …

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: demagogicparty; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; nambla; polygamy; sbc; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2013 8:14:55 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
If for no other reason than to avoid estate taxes, parents will marry their children -- even if the children are already married.

There will be no rules. Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

2 posted on 03/25/2013 8:17:23 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It’s a slippery slope, all right.


3 posted on 03/25/2013 8:18:09 PM PDT by District13 (Obama scares me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Polygamy’s nothing.

If we’ve arrived at a state in which the word “marriage” can be defined as anything we, personally, wish it to mean, then why can’t I “marrry” a sheep, or a dog, or a horse?


4 posted on 03/25/2013 8:18:40 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Didn’t someone somewhere marry a building?


5 posted on 03/25/2013 8:21:36 PM PDT by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
I could use an extra dependent for a tax deduction.

When can I marry my dog? (Besides, she's always happy to see me and never gives me any lip.)

6 posted on 03/25/2013 8:22:04 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

of course polygamyis next , hell if Roberts helps his homosexual family with his decision etc then all sorts of marriage is out there and certainly the lawsuits will follow but most of all

it will be the end of religious freedom churches , priests, adoption agencies all forced to go along with a sick sham because the law was passed by a handful of those who seek to benefit and a party which let in those who pushed a communist agenda, let them have a platofrm at conventions and let them run in our primaries like Paul


7 posted on 03/25/2013 8:22:37 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Traditionally, the consent of the other party is required. With animals, getting their verified consent may be an issue. However, if we are heading into a new Dark Ages, with heavy feudal overtones and a strong flavor of Might Makes Right, then I think the concept of consent will be waived. You can marry women who hate you — what does their opinion matter? And you can marry dogs and sheep — who will stop you?


8 posted on 03/25/2013 8:23:07 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer; Olog-hai

‘Cause if marriage means anything, it means nothing.


9 posted on 03/25/2013 8:23:28 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
SBC’s Land: Polygamy Will Follow Gay Marriage

Yes it will, but that unseemly sounding word 'polygamy', and its cousin 'bigamy', are already being discarded for the nicer sounded 'group marriage', which covers all possible combinations.

10 posted on 03/25/2013 8:25:58 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

I remember that one


11 posted on 03/25/2013 8:27:33 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I would add only that polygamy is a much, much smaller step away from traditional Christian marriage than "gay marriage." Polygamy was tolerated in the Bible, even mandated in the limited case of leverite marriage. Polygamy doesn't violate the natural law. Homosexual marriage does.

It seems like a no brainer to me. If gay marriage is constitutionally mandated, then polygamy is really just the merest corollary to that.

12 posted on 03/25/2013 8:27:46 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

Please try to keep up. Polyamory is next. You can marry anything. You can marry a tree if you want. Maybe even a forest.


13 posted on 03/25/2013 8:28:08 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: manc
...it will be the end of religious freedom churches , priests...

Christianity made it through those early years in the midst of pagan societies just like ours. Corinth comes to mind. Remember, "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" - Romans 8:31

14 posted on 03/25/2013 8:29:30 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

“‘Cause if marriage means anything, it means nothing.”

You mean if it means everything...


15 posted on 03/25/2013 8:40:02 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

question - do US civil unions preclude the ability to have multiple civil unions or more than two members to the union?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/30/big-love-in-brazil-three-person-civil-union-approved-in-sao-paulo/


16 posted on 03/25/2013 8:40:19 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog

True. Christianity will survive these “fabulous” changes in our society and probably come out of it stronger than ever.


17 posted on 03/25/2013 8:41:25 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Dennis Rodman married himself.


18 posted on 03/25/2013 8:43:10 PM PDT by ladyellen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Well if the pologamy people start donated millions and millions of dollars to the democratic party it may very well happen.


19 posted on 03/25/2013 8:43:42 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
If for no other reason than to avoid estate taxes, parents will marry their children -- even if the children are already married.

They could be like a marriage corporation where everybody in the family is married to everybody every generation. In a community property state, there would be no inheritance and I cannot even think of what other ramifications would come into play.

20 posted on 03/25/2013 8:44:17 PM PDT by oldbrowser (They are marxists, don't call them democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; xzins
If "Love" and equality is all that is important, then what is to stop brother/sister marriage, or mother/son or Father/daughter or mother/daughter or father/son or brother/brother or sister/sister marriages?

If we redefine marriage to mean any two or more consenting adults, then marriage means nothing anymore.

I will probably just get a divorce just so I will not be identified with a perverted institution.

21 posted on 03/25/2013 8:44:42 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; All

22 posted on 03/25/2013 8:46:07 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Cases of polygamy were not sanctioned by God. They are in the Bible as examples of sinful ways of life; not even Jacob got away with it without being burned. Abraham was monogamous apart from his tryst with Hagar. Isaac was never mentioned as being polygamous either, but monogamous with Rebekah. Esau was a polygamist. David and Solomon were especially plagued because of their polygamy.

The first example of a polygamist in the Bible is the first man to be named Lamech, a sixth-generation descendant of Cain’s line (from Genesis 4), and he is mentioned as being a shameless murderer to boot.


23 posted on 03/25/2013 8:46:11 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Agreed. Polygamy at least has a long history of acceptance, while homosexuality has almost always been viewed as a disgusting perversion of nature.

The Supreme Court banned polygamy in a decision in the 1800s, that basically said ‘This is a Christian nation and polygamy is awful’. However, the Supreme Court often reverses itself, and will have no rational basis for rejecting polygamy if gay sex turns into gay marriage.


24 posted on 03/25/2013 8:46:47 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Alas, Brave New Babylon.


25 posted on 03/25/2013 8:48:36 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

There was a woman who married the Eiffel Tower. Another woman “married” the Berlin Wall.


26 posted on 03/25/2013 8:48:51 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

That must be said with a terrific Italian accent.


27 posted on 03/25/2013 8:51:47 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

One woman claimed to have “married” the Berlin Wall. Another claimed to have “married” the Eiffel Tower.


28 posted on 03/25/2013 8:55:17 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fkabuckeyesrule

They will and are. Saudi oil, anyone?


29 posted on 03/25/2013 8:57:39 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

GMTA!


30 posted on 03/25/2013 8:59:16 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I always think of the show sister wives when the topic of polygamy comes up... I admit to being curious and having watched the show once or twice. I suggested perhaps If this man could have sister wives, then perhaps I could have brother husbands. This did not go over well....


31 posted on 03/25/2013 8:59:59 PM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
God mandated polygamy in the case of leverite marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Hebrew soldiers could take captured women as concubines. So, it just isn't true that the Bible rejects polygamy in all cases. It's disfavored, to be sure. Scripture after scripture in the NT makes it clear that Christian marriage is one man and one woman for life. That said, polygamy is permissible in certain circumstances in this fallen old world of ours.

In sharp contrast, sodomy is completely forbidden - in both the OT and the NT, not to mention all of Holy Tradition, the Natural Law, and the teachings of the Church for the last 2,000 years. St. Paul calls it an "abomination." Moses mandated the death penalty in all cases for sodomy (two guys).

Sodomy is a capital felony, polygamy is more like a minor misdemeanor in comparison.

32 posted on 03/25/2013 9:09:17 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: District13
It’s a slippery slope, all right.

Yup, the same slippery Slope that Dr. Land is on when he decides the SBC should support Amnesty.

You either choose to do the right thing in everything or you might as well just quit calling yourself a Christian.

Dr. Land with is support for Amnesty is nothing but a compromiser.
33 posted on 03/25/2013 9:09:18 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

And then there’s the issue of one spouse not being compelled to testify in court against the other.


34 posted on 03/25/2013 9:19:57 PM PDT by Mark85937 (If your cultural views conflict with the Bible, you need to examine your cultural views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Levirate marriage was not polygamous. Nor was the case of captive women becoming wives of Hebrews (Deuteronomy 21:11-13 says wife instead of concubine and mentions no polygamy). Don’t fall for the Muslim misinterpretations.

Look at the case of Tamar, who married Er, then Onan, and then was supposed to marry Shelah (who Judah in his faithlessness kept from marrying Tamar, not understanding why Er and Onan died and blaming it on Tamar erroneously). None of those sons of Judah had other wives. And Judah’s liaison with Tamar was never painted in a good light.


35 posted on 03/25/2013 9:26:13 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Levirate marriage was not polygamous.

Of course it was marriage. What else could it have been? Look, it's either marriage or fornication. It can't be both.

You're grasping at straws.

36 posted on 03/25/2013 9:28:02 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.

See? He has to marry her. Why do you resist this?

37 posted on 03/25/2013 9:29:59 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DManA
"Maybe even a forest."

The low information (retarded) voters have already married the 'Rat (Party) Party.

38 posted on 03/25/2013 9:30:49 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Note the special case of brothers living together. Once the other brothers get married off, they would not be living together.


39 posted on 03/25/2013 9:53:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
This whole charade is not about "love" but about the destruction of Judeo Christian civilization.

One of the aspects of Cloward -Piven. A "man" can put his male "wife" or soon to be "wives" on his medical ins. plan. They will soon get SS survivor's benefits. They already are getting federal and state benefits in many cases, all from a gubmint that is broke.

40 posted on 03/26/2013 1:38:50 AM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I support all sorts of polygamy marriages - even with non-human species. Why, because it will further debunk all these so called “marriages.” Then the Catholic Church which is the only surviving entity that says marriage can only be between one man and one woman for life (until the death of one of the spouses) will be the only one with true marriages. Then the Catholic Church will see its way more clearly to recongize no marriages other than those performed by the Catholic Church.


41 posted on 03/26/2013 3:08:51 AM PDT by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: District13

I want to marry my daughter and my cats. So what is the problem? Same-sex? Incest? Inter-species? Polygamy? Or the fact that my cat is underage?


42 posted on 03/26/2013 5:28:40 AM PDT by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eccentric

I want to marry my daughter and my cats. So what is the problem? Same-sex? Incest? Inter-species? Polygamy? Or the fact that my cat is underage?

...I could never even conceive of marrying my cat...she refuses to brush her teeth after eating a fish dinner...


43 posted on 03/26/2013 7:36:52 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All

Didn’t kennedy say Lawrence would NOT lead to legalizing homosexual marriage? He either was right or he was lying.


44 posted on 03/26/2013 7:48:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I’m waiting to see what happens when the gay “community” starts to see the dark side of gay marriage — gay divorce. On the other hand, that might lead to some needed reforms in divorce law.


45 posted on 03/26/2013 7:53:32 AM PDT by white trash redneck (Just one of B. Hussein Obama's "typical white people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Polygamy is biblical.


46 posted on 03/26/2013 7:57:20 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Estate taxes are tip of iceberg. The action is social security. I’ve been saying this for years. If loving your “spouse” is the only criteria then why should the government prevent me from “marrying” my granddaughter so she can collect my social security survivors benefits? Platonic marriage will become all the rage.


47 posted on 03/26/2013 7:58:10 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

There isn’t a single commandment sanctioning it. There are ones about not multiplying wives to oneself, though.

Something is not automatically “biblical” by virtue of being mentioned in the Bible. By that logic, people might think that what Jephthah did to his daughter was acceptable to God when it was not.


48 posted on 03/26/2013 8:02:12 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

honor thy mother and father.

not

father and father

not

mother and mother

not father and mother and mother and mother and mother and mother and mother

not

hippie comune.


49 posted on 03/26/2013 8:03:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

One of the biggest proofs that God is against polygamy is how Ishmael was not acceptable as Abraham’s son.

And if by “biblical” people mean that the Bible advocates something, then the slippery slope that they are on also might mean to them that the Bible advocates prostitution merely because Judah and Samson sought out prostitutes.


50 posted on 03/26/2013 8:13:19 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson