Just One More Thing . . .

Note that it does not require a mandatory three, but rather a permissible three. Just as a polygamist at heart might voluntarily opt to limit himself to one spouse (for various reasons of his own), there is absolutely no reason in the logic of our relativistic and floundering marriage laws to require him to limit himself to one.

Keep in mind also that this logic is obvious enough to those who have been pushing for homo marriage. They are foolish, not stupid. They have only denied it for practical political reasons — so as to not give us a legit slippery slope argument. Once they have gotten the biblical definition of marriage out onto the slippery slope, then they will grant the argument, and indeed will start pushing for it.

Right now, as they press for same sex marriage in your state, they will look you straight in the eye and say that nobody is arguing for multiple marriage partners. Period. They will say that if you have a doctor, you can keep your doctor . . . no, wait, this is an active news cycle and I am having trouble keeping all the lies straight. Back on message. Once they have the law in place, they will grant your reductio — on age of consent, on polygamy, and on the bisexual thing.

So a bisexual is not someone who has to have every sexual act be a threesome. But if he wants it to, who is the state of Washington to tell him no? If he wants to be married to everybody in that particular bed, what principle gives us the authority to deny him? What in the logic of our current legislative process requires us to define marriage in terms of two people, no more, no less?

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

Would-be Tyrants obviously come from both sides of the political spectrum. To conflate polygamy with pedophilia is the height of hysterical propaganda. So-called conservatives should assiduously avoid such emotional manipulation, and not resort to the clumsy demagoguery characteristic of the authoritarian Left.

As we all know, many of the great patriarchs and leading figures of the Old Testament had more than one wife, and even the New Testament merely recommends that deacons, for instance, be the husband of only one wife (clearly implying that having more than one wife was at least tolerable, if not necessarily desirable.) And "that was then, this is now" doesn't suffice as an argument against the practice.

The same principle holds true for tolerating things like drugs and alcohol, as opposed to the Tyrannical thinking of Prohibitionists zealouts.

The fact that a Freedom might be abused is no excuse for criminalizing it. I, for one, can certainly be against pedophilia and gay marriage (let the gays call it schmarriage if they want) without having any cognitive dissonance regarding unconventional relationships, such as a husband having more than one wife.

Those who show such hysterical fear and opposition to polygamy apparently harbor an authoritarian impulse which far exceeds Christian notions of tolerance and free will, ultimately substituting narrow-minded individual and cultural prejudices in place of the Word of God. And that is flat out wrong.

"All things are lawful, but all things are not profitable." I Cor. 10:23. Those who wish to dictate personal choices for others should get off their dogmatic high horses and stop trying to act like they're wiser than God.

JMHO.

I have also always thought - better for a man to have more than one wife if, he can afford to support them, he is a solid Christian, insists they are the same and the children are brought up that way, than they be married to someone who may either abuse them or lead them away from God. There have been times in history too when there has been a lack of men because of their loss in wars. Better for a good Christian man to take on the burden of a woman and kids who may have otherwise starved or lived on the streets. Still he would have to be a better man than me as I have enough to do with one wife let alone many :)

Mel

“...is absolutely no reason in the logic of our relativistic and floundering marriage laws to require him to limit himself to one.”

To the state, marriage laws have no connection to any sort of logic beyond what judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks to use. Once it is decided, the state is happy to reward, enforce and punish no matter what, illogical or logical.

Freegards

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.