| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating] UID:12670 Activity:low |
3/15 Two ministers charged by the state with violating civil marriage laws
by performing a gay marriage. Wouldn't it be easier if we just decided
that relegious marriage and civil marriage had nothing in common?
http://salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/15/ministers_charges/index.html
\_ why don't they charge the Mayors first?
\_ That's a bit extreme. Right now, religious ministers are licensed
by the state to perform civil as well as religious marriage in a
single ceremony as a convenience (and it means far fewer people
coming to the courthouse for civil marriages, which saves you the
taxpayer $$). Some countries don't allow for this and require a
civil ceremony. That seems like a reasonable system. It is what
will likely happen if same-sex marriage becomes legal (because most
ministers will refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies and will
likely not be allowed to perform any civil marriage).
\_ Yes, but then you have to decide what civil marriage means. If two
homosexuals can have a civil union which really just means a legal
contract, why can't more people sign on to it? Why not have legal
polygamy which grants the same benefits to groups as it does to
couples? Why limit yourself?
\_ All I'm saying is that it seems contrary to seperation of church
and state for a religious ceremony to hold any legal authority.
A marriage license should have no religious weight, and a
religious ceremony should have no legal weight.
\_ Does it really? ""Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..." There is less to separation of church and
state than is sometimes claimed.
\_ Actually, judges often times don't use the actual text
of the Constitution itself but rather the intent of the
text (which is why the Federalists Papers are often
consulted by Constitutional experts). In this case, the
first ammendment is loosely interpreted as meaning the
government shall not force a particular religion upon
the people. Don't know if that was the intent or not.
\_ There's also a lot of case law and precedant flowing from
that. It has been extended (by "activist judges") to
include all lower levels of government too.
\_ Religious ceremonies are just that. Ceremonial. They
already do not carry any legal weight. That's why you need
to go to city hall first and get a marriage license, etc.
If the signed and witnessed document is not returned to
city hall later, you're not married. You're single, right?
\_ If a black man and a white girl can get married, why not have
legal homosexual marriages? Why limit yourself?
\_ exactly. lets just allow everyone to do everything, sanction
and tax it. it feels good so do it! think of the children!
it takes a village. did I miss any?
\_ why limit ourselves to homosexual marriages. let's have
polygamous marriages.
\_ If you want to submit yourself to a denigrating
relationship or position of inferior humanity, knock
yourself out. Just don't expect society to pass a law
recognizing the legitimacy of such a relationship.
\_ How is it inferior? Society? So if society rejects
homosexuality, you will accept that?
\_ On the contrary: homosexual monogamy is about a
relationship between two equal partners. Polygamy,
by its very nature, begins to imply a hiearchy:
first wife over second wife, etc., with each
additional member of the overrepresented gender
adding to the overall importance of the under-
represented gender.
\_ On the contrary, homosexuality throughout history
has always been about unequal partners. Roman
men and their males slaves. Greek men and boys.
Prison daddies and their "wives".
\_ Contrast that with modern homosexual relation-
ships, wherein both partners are considered
equals.
\_ Similarly, polygamous relationships can
work in modern societies, where people
come together under their own free will.
\_ ...the weird thing (from my POV) is
that I find myself thinking that you're
right. My objections are based on bad
examples in the past, not mature, modern
relationships. That, and it gives me the
willies.
\_ Then you get stuff like one person extending their health
care to a dozen people.
\_ yes and why is that any different than one person
extending to only one person? why extend at all? why
not allow one to extend to 12, 50, 5000 if they're in
love?
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ You can be in love with 5,000 people, but it's unfair
to require employers, the gov't, etc to provide
spousal benefits to an arbitrarily large # of people.
\_ The current laws and policies are based on the
presumption that marriages are union between a
man and a woman. I am sure there are ways
to change it so that it caters well to a
society with polygamous marriages, or for
that matter, gay marriages. History is full
of polygamous societies with code of laws.
\_ All of which are/were based on the superiority
one gender over another. Disagree? Prove me
wrong: find me one (1) polygamous society,
historical or modern, in which one gender was
not considered less valuable than the other.
\_ This doesn't prove anything. Historically,
even in monogamous societies, one gender
is considered less valuable than the other.
Find me one society in history where
homosexuality is prevalent (eg. Rome,
Ancient Greece) where the relationship is
not often unequal (Roman with male slave,
Greek with slave boy, etc.).
\_ Point being that you're the one arguing
for historical justification of polygamy
whereas I'm not arguing for historical
justification of homosexual marriage.
\_ Incorrect. I was arguing against
using a small difficulty in the
current benefits system as argument
against polygamy.
\_ Yes, but at least the Bible supports this relationship.
\_ Using religious texts as the basis for civil laws...
what a great idea. Call me when we're stoning the
adulterers.
\_ umm. see the US Constitution, Decl. of Independen
ce
\_ it does? where??
\_ How many wives did Solomon have?
\_ yea, but Solomon sinned against God when
his many wives led him to worship many idols.
\_ Look Moses, David, Abraham, Jacob, Caleb,
Gideon and Solomon were all polygamous.
You can try and claim the bible is against
polygamy, but you are full of it.
\_ yes, the bible is full of sinners
but that is the point..
\_ Thanks for erasing the line from
Exodus that specifically states
that a man may have more than one
wife. In any case, the bible quite
specifically, in more than one place,
allows polygamy:
\_ the one that says man "can"
, David can also send Uriah to his
death, I can also murder tons of
people, but that doesn't mean
it's not a sin just cuz it's in
the bible. "can" != "may"
\_ How about when your brother dies
and you are commanded to marry
his wife, regardless of whether
you are married or not. Is that
a sin, too?
http://members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/poly-00.htm#3
\_ The bible does not prohibit polygamy. However, the
bible also does not "support [polygamy]".
The bible instructs the husband to love his wife as
he loves himself. Also the bible says that elders,
deacons and overseers (people in leadership positions
in the church) must be "the husband of but one wife".
\_ Nah, we just want gay marriage, not polygamy. After all,
interracial marriage is allowed, right?
\_ how do people turn what was normal then to not normal now? Back then
it wAs normal to have a polygamy; it was normal to marry cousins; it
was normal to get married at age 15...
\_ it was only 'normal' for those able to afford it which was only
the upper reaches of society. it is no different today. we
still have mistresses/concubines, etc.
\_ what I really mean is that people actually think it is weird
disgusting. When I saw on talk shows that people saying it's
sick to marry cousins, I was shocked because I don't have
that disgusted feeling seeing cousin couples. Especially
when one realizes there were many cousin marriages in the
US history. To see the society get brainwashed to actually
feel cousin marriages are disgusting is amazing. At this
point, I'm sure there are many people find polygamy
revolting
\_ Cousin marriages are not, in and of themselves,
disgusting. They do, however, entail a significantly
higher chance of producing offspring with rare
recessive disorders. Common taboos against cousin
marriages are the product of the very first attempts at
eugenics by the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if you
_want_ to inflict bizarre genetic conditions on your
offspring, one could very well argue that you're
engaging in prenatal child abuse and do not deserve to
have custody of your children.
\_ This is not true. I don't have time today to
google for this, but your genetics is wrong.
Do you have any source for this? -bio major
\_ What, apart from Punnett squares?
\_ http://csua.org/u/6fn (USA Today)
\_ "A 7 to 8% chance (of genetic disorder) is
50% greater than a 5% chance," says Philip
Reilly, geneticist and author of Abraham
Lincoln's DNA, a popular history of human
genetics. "That's a significant difference.
People counseling first cousins who want
to marry need to be very careful and clear
on this," Reilly says.
\_ There's a much greater chance of
genetic disorder in children born to
women over 35, and especially over 40.
\_ Women who have children after the
age of 35 should be throw in jail
for child abuse!
\_ That is for first cousins. For second
cousins, the effect is negligible.
\_ It depends what you mean by "significantly". The
effect is probably only noticeable in aggregate, when
cousin marriage is widespread for generations. There
are various arguments to be made against cousin
marriage. But the genetic aspect is probably not that
significant, apart from e.g. "double cousins" or known
family problems, especially when there are a lot of
other factors that society disregards such as older
women having children (increases % of problems) and
other analysis one could apply to particular couples.
\_ yea, we chinese practised cousin marriage for
quite a while, and we are only just slightly
retarded.
\_ well, a) even after inbreeding, it doesn't
take much "outbreeding" to bounce back. b) maybe
people were stupider or weaker than they would
have been? how do you know? c) The average
Chinese and Indians in USA are smarter than the
average slobs back in the home country.
\_ don't be too sure. these days, among those
with a choice, the smart ones stay home
cause that's where the exciting opportuni-
ties are.
\_ that's irrelevant to the averages. the
ones that came here are mostly on the
smarter side so their average is higher.
\_ In feudal Japan, it was uncommon for commoners to get married at
all. They practiced a kind of common law marriage.
\_ Most of the world still practices a kind of common law
marriage. -tom
\_ I made that up. -tom |
| 5/25 |
|
| salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/15/ministers_charges/index.html -> images.salon.com/error.html The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please try the following: * If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. |
| members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/poly-00.htm#3 -> members.aol.com/healinglvs/healinglvs/poly-00.htm THE BIBLE AND POLYGAMY BY MIKE SULLIVAN Copyright Notice: Copyright 1998 All rights reserved by Michael J. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any way without the written permission of the author. Now that weve eliminated that distraction, let me ask you a question or two. Could it be because after reading the Bible all these years youve just never been able to figure out why God never condemned polygamy? So when you saw the title of this link you thought, theres actually someone who thinks polygamy is not sinful? Exegetically its not hard to prove from the OT and NT that polygamy was and still is a valid form of marriage and is not sinful. Its really a matter of whether we want to follow tradition or Gods Word on this issue. In fact, in the case of David, God would have given him more wives had he asked for them, And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; God gave David these wives as a BLESSING, just as anointing him as king over Israel, protecting him from Saul, and giving him the house of Israel and Judah were also blessings from Him. When we study the OT law concerning polygamy, we find that when the singular wife is used, those laws could apply to monogamy or polygamy Deut. There is nothing in this text that supports the idea that only single men are to marry in this instance. This law protected and ensured the woman that her food, clothing, and marital rights and duties would not be diminished. This, as well protected the woman from the reproach of not being able to find another man to be her husband because she was no longer a virgin and, furthermore the reproach of possibly never being able to have children. The man, single or married, needed to be responsible for his fornication and the woman needed to be protected. The law commanded a man to marry the widow of his deceased brothers wife if he had no children with her Deut. It would appear that Solomon broke this law in that he multiplied three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines to himself 1 Kings 11:3. Solomon abused the right to take more than one wife and no doubt had difficulty in meeting the sexual needs of so many women. David, on the other hand, did not break this law, as was discussed earlier 2 Sam. Men and their wives were not put to death for having polygamous marriages! It is very important that we look to the Scriptures to define what adultery is instead of holding to a slanted Western definition of adultery. In the United States, adultery is seen as a married individual having sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, besides their spouse, married or SINGLE. United States law on this matter reflects the ideas of Roman culture and the apostate Roman Catholic Church and is not aligned with Gods law. Although not a polygamist in theology, my Online Bible records John Gill in his exposition of Ex. My Logos Enhanced Strongs Lexicon defines this Hebrew word for adultery naaph as women that break wedlock, and to commit adultery usually of man always with wife of another. The Scriptural view of the wife is that she is the property of her husband. Therefore, any man who had relations with her was guilty of breaking the 8th commandment as well, You shall not steal and was to be put to death along with the adulterous wife. As already discussed, if a single or married man had sex with a virgin or unmarried woman, he was commanded to marry her. The expression one flesh, insofar as it relates to the structure of marriage, refers to the indissolubility of a man and his wife within a marriage, whether it be monogamous or polygamous. This was our Lords point in quoting the Genesis passage, and in no way condemns polygamy. Far from being a certain revelation concerning monogamy, the Pauline usage would illustrate, rather the broadness and flexibility of this Old Testament expression. For Paul, this unity in the flesh is not confined to the conjugal union of one husband and one wife, nor is it limited to the bonds of kinship. This kind of unity is obviously not exclusive in the way that a monogamous union is supposed to be, for a man can become one flesh with any number of prostitutes. According to this use of the expression, it would follow also that a man becomes one flesh with more than one wife in a society which accepts this form of marriage. Polygamy Reconsidered, African plural marriage and the Christian Churches, Eugene Hillman, Orbis Books Maryknoll, NY, p167. If a sinful prostitute can become one flesh with many men, then why would it be inconceivable that a godly man like David could have been one flesh with the wives God gave him? Individually, each Christian that is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him 1 Cor. So it is important to recall that the real background to marriage in ancient Israel, the background against which the biblical passages on marriage are to be seen, was the larger community of the family and the clan. Marriage was not understood primarily in terms of the husband-wife relationship, and certainly not in terms of an exclusive relationship between only two persons. Marriage was regarded as a social instrument required for the preservation and continuation of families and clans. Through daughters being married into different families, there was a mutual strengthening of kinship bonds-each family giving its own flesh and blood to other families. The definitive ratification of marriage was achieved neither in sexual intercourse, nor through mutually fulfilling interpersonal relationships, but by the birth of a child. Marriage was mainly a social function with the emphasis on family, and barrenness was the worst of calamities. Without children, especially a son, the family name was blotted out of Israel cf. Marriage in the Old Testament is never understood without this instrumental significance, and its meaning is always presented within the framework of patriarchal values and social structures Polygamy Reconsidered African plural marriage and the Christian Churches, Eugene Hillman, Orbis Books, p145. Flesh has a wider social or kinship meaning found frequently in the Old Testament cf. Hillman points out that In this broader social sense, a wife may be regarded as becoming one flesh with her husband. Hence, it is possible for several wives to be at the same time one flesh with the kinship group of the same husband. Polygamy Reconsidered African plural marriage and the Christian Churches, Eugene Hillman, Orbis Books, p153. He also points out, each husband-wife relationship, whether in a monogamous or a polygamous marriage, is for the Jews of the Old Testament a foundation for new kinship bonds which bind and extend families and clans into a unified people ibid. The carnal and kinship unity thus signified by the expression, one flesh, is not confined exclusively to only two persons. According to this usage we may say, therefore, that the several children of one mother are one flesh with her, by reason of their unity in generation and in maternal love. The relationship between the mother and each child, respectively, may even be regarded as a union of two in one flesh, without thereby excluding the other children from this same relationship with their mother. So, by reason of a socially valid polygamous marriage, a man may be conjugally united with each of his wives, respectively, as two in one flesh-both in a carnal sense and in terms of kinship. The sacramental symbolism is originally based on the covenant union of Yahwehs love for his chosen people, who were many different persons, clans, and tribes-yet one bride, one family, one flesh, one body. The covenant union, as described by Jeremiah in terms of a polygamous marriage, may have little meaning for Christians in the Western world; Therefore, in this sense, it is true that we are not under the law but under grace. B Israel and her laws moral and socio-political standards of justice are applicable for us today because they stem from ... |
| csua.org/u/6fn -> www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm Research downplays risk of cousin marriages By Richard Willing, USA TODAY Marriage between first cousins, long a major legal, social and religious taboo, is far less likely to produce abnormal children than is commonly believed, a study by leading genetics researchers says. Stigma still attaches to these unions, says Robin Bennett, a genetics counselor at the University of Washington and the studys lead author. Theres a lot of misinformation out there that is really holding back some cousins who want to try to have children, Bennett says. Bennetts team, which included researchers from Stanford University and the National Society of Genetic Counselors, spent more than two years studying health statistics on the offspring of first-cousin marriages in North America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The researchers concluded that children of marriages between cousins inherited recessive genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, in 7 to 8 of cases. The study suggests that doctors and genetics counselors not discourage cousins from procreating. Instead, it says, they should take family disease histories and offer ordinary genetic services such as fetal and newborn disease testing. The study is in the April edition of the Journal of Genetic Counseling. Despite the findings, some genetics specialists say they will continue to urge caution. A 7 to 8 chance of genetic disorder is 50 greater than a 5 chance, says Philip Reilly, geneticist and author of Abraham Lincolns DNA, a popular history of human genetics. People counseling first cousins who want to marry need to be very careful and clear on this, Reilly says. Scientists say there are at least 5,000 diseases caused by inherited mutations called recessive genes. Possessing a single copy of the mutation is often harmless, but if a copy is inherited from each parent, the result can be death or chronic disease. Because first cousins share a pair of grandparents, the chances are greater that each will pass a copy of a bad gene to their child, triggering the disorder. Cousin marriage has been widespread in rural societies, where it serves to keep money and property within families. The practice is still popular in much of the Muslim world, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Genetics researcher Alan Bittles estimates that 20 of marriages worldwide are between relatives who are first cousins. Genetics counselors say there are no exact figures for the USA, but experience suggests that about one marriage in 1,000 is between first cousins. The Roman Catholic Church requires cousins to get special permission before they marry. |