This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jessica and Rachel and

#1TheRealJiraiyaPosted 8/14/2013 9:18:03 PM
And yet, in 2 Samuel 12:

“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’


Polygamy is explicitly declared to be something God gave David as a gift!

This indicates, to me at least, that verses about one man/one woman, while reflective of God's ideal Eden-esque design, is bendable based on the realities of this world, and not necessarily binding objective morality.

For any actual condemnation of polygamy, homosexuality, and other sexual deviances, we need either a Biblically founded rational reason or an explicit Biblical reference to shoot them down, rather than "God said man and woman, darnit!"

So, then, I am hear to make the case that homosexuality is not immoral, and the way I intend to make that case is by asking a series of questions.

Question 1: Would an Old Testament Jewish female have reason to believe that homosexuality was immoral for them? Why or why not?

Answering this question by pointing to some ideal Eden-esque standard or arbitrary example and declaring, without actual scriptural support, that that is the only divinely condoned marital structure obviously will not work. I point to the above example.

Bonus Question: Is polygamy immoral in the modern era? Why or why not?
---
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" -Isaiah 6:8
#2TheRealJiraiya(Topic Creator)Posted 8/14/2013 9:18:28 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#3DeadPresidents2Posted 8/14/2013 9:43:42 PM
Just going to skip right to the bonus question, if you don't mind.

Personally, I don't think that polygamy is immoral, so long as it's agreed upon. Given human nature, it's most often the case where we desire not only to have someone, but to have that same desire reciprocated fully--with no one else in the middle. I don't want to share my mate with anyone, because if I do there's no stability; who's child will she put first? Who's safety? Is she spending my hard-earned money on him?

If consenting adults can work their way around this, however, then more power to them. If three or more individuals can live with this lack of security, or even prefer it, then by all means, go ahead.

But just because I think that it's not immoral doesn't mean that I think that it's practical. The immediate reflex to my answer for many is undoubtedly, "oh, so you're okay with legalizing polygamous marriages then, right? Like how you would with gay marriage"?

And a few hundred years ago, I probably would have said yes. But our current legal system doesn't allow for it. Divorce is both available and rampant, there's now monetary implications to all manners of separations, plus legal guardianship; it really doesn't, in my opinion function properly. Contrast this with homosexuality however, which I consider almost wholly practical. There's no additions or subtractions to legal contracts, property is still worked out the same, etc. And no harm to the children either, despite what some may think. And new advances in science are finally allowing them to have children, soon entirely from their own gene pool. Much more practical for society than polygamy.
---
Me to this random girl : Mygirlfriendsayswhat? Random girl: What?
Me: Zing!
#4JonWood007Posted 8/14/2013 10:28:22 PM
As an atheist, my issue with polygamy is the fact that it's impossible to practically and fairly implement. It will either be 1) horribly sexist or 2) result in overly complex "chains" of marriages.

1) The first case is the result of standard polygamy. One man, many wives, or possibly one wife, many husbands. However, if we make it where one sex can marry multiple times and the other can't, that's sexist. And if we make it were one partner can marry multiple partners (regardless of sex) while the other can't, that also appears to be rather unfair.

2) We could allow both sexes to marry as many people as they want, but think of it this way. Person A marries persons B and C, who are married to A, and to D and E respectively, D is married also to persons F and G, while E is married to H, and so on and so forth. It's a total clusterfudge.

We could make it where all parties involved must agree to marry each other, but this could cause problems. One person disagreeing could cause discord in the whole relationship, or if we just let them in by idk, majority vote, where will it end. Will be have 100 people married to each other? 1000? What limits should be put on the size of a polygamous relationship?

These kinds of questions actually do undermine the "sanctity" of marriage. If you have craptons of people marrying each other, then...well...you might as well get rid of marriage altogether. If you want to be in a romantic relationship with multiple people, whatever, have at it, but on a practical level, considering the consequences of marriage, such complex system of relationships doesn't seem practical on the legal level at all.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying polygamy in the modern era is immoral (unless it's the sexist kind...and that's mainly a sexism issue). I just don't think it can be implemented practically.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#5takashi351Posted 8/15/2013 12:00:08 AM(edited)
DeadPresidents2 posted...
Just going to skip right to the bonus question, if you don't mind.

Personally, I don't think that polygamy is immoral, so long as it's agreed upon. Given human nature, it's most often the case where we desire not only to have someone, but to have that same desire reciprocated fully--with no one else in the middle. I don't want to share my mate with anyone, because if I do there's no stability; who's child will she put first? Who's safety? Is she spending my hard-earned money on him?

If consenting adults can work their way around this, however, then more power to them. If three or more individuals can live with this lack of security, or even prefer it, then by all means, go ahead.

But just because I think that it's not immoral doesn't mean that I think that it's practical. The immediate reflex to my answer for many is undoubtedly, "oh, so you're okay with legalizing polygamous marriages then, right? Like how you would with gay marriage"?

And a few hundred years ago, I probably would have said yes. But our current legal system doesn't allow for it. Divorce is both available and rampant, there's now monetary implications to all manners of separations, plus legal guardianship; it really doesn't, in my opinion function properly. Contrast this with homosexuality however, which I consider almost wholly practical. There's no additions or subtractions to legal contracts, property is still worked out the same, etc. And no harm to the children either, despite what some may think. And new advances in science are finally allowing them to have children, soon entirely from their own gene pool. Much more practical for society than polygamy.


Pretty much this.

To add to it, medical care is also an issue. What if spouse A becomes a Terri Shaivo and spouse B wants to keep spouse A alive and spouse C wants to cut life support? Personally though, I'm not against plural marriage, but there are an immense amount of legal issues that need to be dealt with first.

Gay marriage only involves changing "man" and "wife" to "person" and "person."
---
"Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies."-Brian
#6kozlo100Posted 8/15/2013 12:13:13 AM
Legal issues and complications is a cop out.

We live in a nation where the government can successfully navigate the legalities of regulating, controlling and/or dissolving a corporation with literally thousands of owners and potentially millions of interested parties, and you don't think we can handle more than two people being married to each other? No, we don't get to hide behind that. Examine the issue on its merits.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#7GuideToTheDarkPosted 8/15/2013 4:41:39 AM
TGJ if I could give you cookies I would. This topic, I like it.
---
My X-box One will be like God, in that it doesn't exist and I'll feel sorry for people who have one.
#8gamesrgreatPosted 8/15/2013 5:53:41 AM
GuideToTheDark posted...
TGJ if I could give you cookies I would. This topic, I like it.


All my cookies are belong to TGJ
---
D-Jesus aka Flash aka 3, Christ Bosh aka the Prophet aka Raptor Jesus, King James 3:16 The Miami Heat 2012 and 2013 Champs
#9ThuggernautzPosted 8/15/2013 6:39:10 AM
I would like to add to the cookie pile. But we must be wary of the cookie monsters who are sure to arrive...
#10AynRandySavagePosted 8/15/2013 7:09:20 AM
kozlo100 posted...
Legal issues and complications is a cop out.

We live in a nation where the government can successfully navigate the legalities of regulating, controlling and/or dissolving a corporation with literally thousands of owners and potentially millions of interested parties, and you don't think we can handle more than two people being married to each other? No, we don't get to hide behind that. Examine the issue on its merits.


We do that because more because we have to than because it's easy. There's not much of a good argument as to why we need to recognize polygamous marriages.