CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Group Marriage on the Way

Jul 17, 2007

Dumb ideas have the propensity to spawn more dumb ideas. Reckless social engineering tends to result in even more radical social changes. Give the radicals an inch and they will demand a light-year. Such is the nature of the never-ending radical agenda.

Call this process what you will: slippery slopes, defining deviancy down, or politically correct insanity, but the result is the same. Whenever we give in to the agendas of the radicals, they never stay content with their gains; they always demand more. This happens time and time again.

Consider when the institution of marriage was gutted to allow alternative arrangements in, such as de facto relationships. Those concerned about such downward trends warned that this would just be the beginning, and that even more radical demands would soon be made. They warned, for example, that homosexual marriage would next be on the agenda, but they were howled down in derision for even making the suggestion.

Of course homosexual marriage has now become a fact of life in many places around the globe, and those warning of the next logical step – group marriage – are also being ridiculed. But the truth is, the call for the legalisation of group marriage is well under way. Simply type the word ‘polyamory’ into Google, and see the million-plus hits that come up.

Many of these hits feature serious academic sites, arguing for the complete legalisation of such relationships. And they are on perfectly solid ground here. After all, if we are stupid enough to decimate marriage by allowing the legalisation of same-sex marriage, then why not allow group marriage?

Indeed, the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are exactly the same as those being offered for group marriage. Why can’t adults be allowed to do what they want? If it is consensual, what’s wrong with it? If these people really love each other, how can we stand in their way? Why should we discriminate against these poor individuals? Who says marriage has to be between just one man and one woman?

This exact argumentation used to justify homosexual marriage is now being used to push for group marriage. And there is a logical consistency between the two. Why should we allow marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples, but not threesomes, or foursomes, or whole football teams?

Elizabeth Marquardt, writing in the July 16, 2007 New York Times takes a look at how the growing push for polyamory is being aided and abetted by activist courts which are redefining the family. She begins,

“Sometimes when the earth shudders it doesn’t make a sound. That’s what happened in Harrisburg, Pa., recently. On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case, Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, involved two lesbians who were the legal co-parents of two children conceived with sperm donated by a friend. The panel held that the sperm donor and both women were all liable for child support.”

She continues, “The case follows a similar decision handed down by a provincial court in Ontario in January. In what appeared to be the first such ruling in any Western nation, the court ruled that a boy can legally have three parents. In that case the biological mother and father had parental rights and wished for the biological mother’s lesbian partner, who functions as the boy’s second mother, to have such rights as well.”

Well, maybe more is better. “Supporters of the rulings argue that if two parents are good for children, aren’t three better? True, some three-parent petitions are brought by adults who appear deeply committed to the child in question. In the Ontario case, the two women and the father all seem devoted to the boy. But in Pennsylvania, the sperm donor, whom the children called ‘Papa,’ was ordered to pay child support over his objections, and the lesbian co-mothers have already ended their relationship.”

And all this is inexorably leading to talk of group marriage rights. “Of course, sometimes the three adults might want to live together, which leads to a different set of concerns. As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, ‘If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.’ If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage? America, get ready for the group-marriage debate.”

She concludes, “Some situations involve a couple who wants the child, the sperm donor, the egg donor and the gestational surrogate who carries the pregnancy. If we allow three legal parents, why not five? Fortunate children have many people who love them as much as their parents do. But in the best interests of children, no court should break open the rule of two when assigning legal parenthood.”

As usual, the interests of the child are being trampled on as adults argue about how many new rights they can invent for themselves. Children are hurting enough already in today’s moonbat world, without opening the door to multi-parenting households and group marriage. But if all that nonsense does eventuate, don’t say we didn’t warn you.

www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[862 words]

20 Responses to Group Marriage on the Way

  • Civil union-like polyamorous cohabitation contracts (ie backdoor pseudo-group-marriages) are already legal in the Netherlands.

    First Trio “Married” in The Netherlands
    …the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union…

    And a follow-up…
    A Marriage Made Up?
    A number of leftist and/or pro-gay American websites are now in complete denial.

    Mike Ray

  • As you say Bill, all this nonsense about redefining marriage started with the State recognition of de facto relationships. I hope the various Christian political activist groups take heed of this. As Christians if we are going to advocate for the strengthening of marriage, to be consistent in our argument, we must also recognise that the State benefits and recognition now given to de facto partnerships was a mistake. The State has no business approving and rewarding relationships that God calls sinful.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  • Multi parenting for a child? What next! Childen are hurting enough. Again the selfish, self centered ‘interests’ of the so called adults are in the forefront of their minds. Think of the child and the long term detrimental insecurity that he/she has to face. Wake up now and think of the future generation to come.
    Well done Bill for standing and supporting children of the future, one man and one woman for a committed life.
    Judith Bond

  • “Children are hurting enough already in today’s moonbat world, without opening the door to multi-parenting households and group marriage.”

    You say this like it’s proven fact. Yes, Children are suffering in today’s world that’s full of divorce…. aka REMOVING a parent. But you give no credible evidence as to why ADDING a parent would be, in fact, a bad idea and detrimental to children. There are already situations and have been for YEARS where kids are exposed to an additional “parent” of sorts. Just look at the Nanny industry.

    “As you say Bill, all this nonsense about redefining marriage started with the State recognition of de facto relationships. I hope the various Christian political activist groups take heed of this. As Christians if we are going to advocate for the strengthening of marriage, to be consistent in our argument, we must also recognise that the State benefits and recognition now given to de facto partnerships was a mistake. The State has no business approving and rewarding relationships that God calls sinful.”

    Oh where to start. First, if Christians want to strengthen Christian sanctioned marriages, I’m all for it. I think they should (look at their own backyards before trying to clean up the world). However, STATE sanctioned unions with all their benefits shoudl have NO… repeat NO ties to ANY religion or religious movement. If the State wants to give legal benefits for what they deem marriage, so be it. Churches and religious denominations certainly can make up their own rules as private entities but no State should be denying marriage in accordance with religious doctrine. The state has no business approving and rewarding relationships that God calls sinful?? Oh really? Well I guess that’s why we have a Constitution that forbids the mixing of Church and State. Your God calls it sinful… someone else’s God calls it ok. We are a Republic not a true democracy… which is a nice way of saying that just because your God’s followers are in the majority, doesn’t give them the right to bully other people because their faith is different.

    Tammy Leventer

  • Thanks Tammy

    The evidence is overwhelming: children are best served when raised by their own biological mother and father, not an add-on, not a live-in, not a committee, not a football team. It is up to you to disprove this mountain of evidence.

    Someone like a nanny may assist two parents, but can never replace them. And no one is calling a nanny the equivalent of a parent anyway.

    All this baloney about multi-parenting is just more radical social engineering designed to destroy the natural family, and replace it with any and every type of social arrangement.

    And the mother-father family unit cemented by marriage is a universal constant, not based on any one religion, but true across all cultures and religions. It is really the social engineers who are the bullies here, trying to cram their radical and destructive definitions of family down our throats.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Tammy
    The last time I checked I found that I was part of the community, the number of years that I paid taxes tends to verify this.
    Do you mean to say that the State should accept all that I have to give but because I do not agree with its beliefs I should not be entitled to any of its benefits?
    Do you mean that Christians should opt out of society entirely and leave everything to “free thinkers”?
    I also suggest that your comments about the “state” being called by God as sinful is unfounded, in fact God’s word states that all governments are God based and to be respected by Christians. The only reason for disobedience to state laws is when they are in direct opposition to God’s laws.
    I would dearly love to know from which facts you base your statement that “what God calls sinful everyone else calls O.K.”
    My experience with families totally denies this statement; you see, you do not have to be Christian to hold moral values regarding family and marriage.
    I am Christian and I do not “bully” people into accepting my beliefs. Much to the chagrin of “radical free thinkers” I do not accept their ideas and the response that I receive is extremely hostile, so I ask who are the bullies?
    No-one has ever pointed to Christians as being perfect but we do try to get it right because we have a perfect example in Jesus Christ.
    Jim Sturla

  • Marriage, since time began, has universally, with some variations here and there, been recognised as involving one man and one woman – till death parts them. Anthropologists will point out departures from this norm, but norm it is. As far as producing and raising the next generation, in order to guarantee the survival of a nation, let alone species, the heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage is overwhelmingly justified, in terms of the evidence, in claiming that it, and it alone, is the very building block of society. Only this partnership functions in terms of being able to supply the next generation with an essential sense of belonging, identity, affirmation, security, stability, solidarity and produce citizens who, without the need for heavy handed legislation or an oppressive police force, freely exercise courtesy, community, trust, loyalty, generosity, compassion, self-control and the ability to put the needs of others in front of one’s own.
    David SKinner, UK

  • Tammy. Firstly, my comments were directed to the Christian audience and I didn’t expect the humanists to agree. You have not disappointed me on that. Secondly, you assert that how the State defines marriage should have “NO ties to ANY religion or religious movement.” Oh really? In most Western nations including ours, the State’s model for marriage was indeed originally founded upon the Christian understanding of marriage. Now we find the humanists busy throwing out Christian concepts of marriage only to replace them with their own equally religious beliefs of what makes a marriage. Thirdly, your comments betray a faulty and populist understanding of the church and state relationship. The so-called separation of church and state was originally intended to prevent the State from either favouring or penalising a particular church sect, not to excise all Christian morality from law. The State is to be nonsectarian, not nonreligious – an impossibility in any case.

    In conclusion you are the one “bully[ing] other people” with your faith, not me. I’m happy to let you promote your religion and even try and get the State to impose your views about relationships onto the rest of us via legislation, but you should at least be prepared to concede that in a pluralistic democracy (which I presume you support, or do you prefer some kind of secularocracy?) Christians should be free to promote our beliefs concerning the proper and biblical role of the State.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  • Wow. Lots to respond to… some of it fairly defensive. interesting. My apologies if I jump around a bit.

    “As far as producing and raising the next generation, in order to guarantee the survival of a nation, let alone species, the heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage is overwhelmingly justified, in terms of the evidence, in claiming that it, and it alone, is the very building block of society. ”

    So what you’re saying is that because only a hetero-monogamous marriage can produce the next generation, then only that union should be valid? Ok, what about all the childless hetero/mono couples? Waht about older couples who are past child bearing/rearing years? Should they be banned from marriage too?

    “The evidence is overwhelming: children are best served when raised by their own biological mother and father, not an add-on, not a live-in, not a committee, not a football team. It is up to you to disprove this mountain of evidence.”

    An until the last… oh… 50 years?… FAMILIES traditionally/normally included extended generations… aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins. So what your evidence is based on really isn’t that overwhelming as the idea behind what constitutes a family has changed quite a bit VERY recently. Why can’t it continue to change as people… as FAMILIES… see fit? And exactly what does one family living with multiple adults (related or not) have to do with how YOU define your family? It doesn’t. So why are those who do not want to live in a poly situation so damn adament that such a situation should NEVER be allowed to exist? Non-related poly families may be new, but that doesnt’ mean they can’t work, don’t work or shouldn’t be allowed to work. The fact taht there is little evidence about them specifically (vs. my previous example of extended family) is ONLY because they’re so new. With more adults to carry the workload of raising kids, honestly I can’t see how people wouldnt’ be ok with that.

    “Someone like a nanny may assist two parents, but can never replace them. ”

    No one ever said another parent was going to replace the biological parents. However, that DOES happen all the time — see the number of divorces that end in step-parents.

    “Do you mean that Christians should opt out of society entirely and leave everything to “free thinkers”?”

    Nope, never said that. What I am saying is that to give government sanctioned benefits to ONLY a portion of the population based STRICTLY on Christian doctrine (no homosexuals, no plural families) is wrong. It is bigoted against those who in fact do believe differently when it comes to religious values. I don’t think Christians should opt out of society at all. I think everyone has a place. But to force those doctrinated values down as law and attach state-sanctioned benefits? Nope… that’s wrong.

    “I would dearly love to know from which facts you base your statement that “what God calls sinful everyone else calls O.K.””

    My apologies for the use of the word everyone in the sense that … well… everyone. However, this country isn’t populated solely by those who believe in a Christian interpretation of God(s)’s word. For example, I have no problems living in a poly relationship because I do not believe in the adultery concept as put forth in the Christian 10 Commandments… and I’m certainly not alone in this sentiment. Yes, there are common values that a society must share in order to grow — murder is wrong, for example. But when it comes to strictly religious values… it simply shouldn’t be intertwined wtih state regulations.

    “Now we find the humanists busy throwing out Christian concepts of marriage only to replace them with their own equally religious beliefs of what makes a marriage. ”

    Not exactly. What we (and I don’t really consider myself humanist actually) DON’T want to see is state-sanctioned benefits tied to A particular religious compass. Fairness for all citizens in their choices is what I want, when those choices include consenting adults. Why does the marriage of 2 gay men down the street affect your status as married, or anyone elses? No one has yet to be able to answer that question without quoting Biblical passages or trying to convey what God’s will is. Here’s the answer — IT DOESN’T. As mentioned before, up til recently, the NORM for children was to be raised in an extended family household. No one replaced the biological parents, but simply helped run the house, helped raise the kids, and yet they WERE considered a family. Why is that so different than the couple who has another in their lives who also helps run the house, helps raise teh kids, and lives AS A FAMILY? Hint… the answer is teh same as the previous question.

    “Christians should be free to promote our beliefs concerning the proper and biblical role of the State.”

    sorry, no. there is no biblical role of the state, nor should there be. The bible is fine for the role and guidance of churches and even of individuals. I’m all for it. If that’s what you believe, more power to you… really. No sarcasm there at all. However, to use a book, a fictional book written, rewritten, interpretted and reinterpretted BY MAN, no matter how many people believe otherwise as the sole basis for the role of the state does NOT create a governing democracy… but a THEOCRACY. And I can guarantee that’s not waht the founding fathers (the Christians or the atheists) wanted when they began this journey 250 years ago.

    Tammy Leventer

  • I’m not sure how radical this idea of a child with multiple parents really is. Adopted children have two sets of parents, the adopting ones and the biological ones. Doesn’t parity of reasoning mean that adoptees should be prohibited from meeting their biological parents?
    Dante Mavec

  • Thanks Dante

    Not at all. Adoption is almost always about trying to remedy a bad situation. Usually the death or desertion of parents is the reason for adoption. Or parents may be unable or unwilling to parent, thus the need for adoption. Thus in most cases the biological parents are out of the picture, and substitutes are needed to help raise the child.

    That has nothing to do with the radical social engineers seeking to deconstruct the family, and their claim that any adult is as good at parenting a particular child as another. Again, the research is abundantly clear that children do best when raised by their own biological parents. Of course this is not always possible, but it should be seen as the ideal and the norm.

    And all this does not mean that others cannot play a role in the child’s development. The extended family has always been part of the natural family, and there is of course a place for grandmas or aunties, etc. But that is quite different to the creation of same-sex couple families, multi-parent families, and the like.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks again Tammy

    Why does the reality of extended families invalidate anything I have said here? As I mentioned in my reply to Dante, the natural family of course includes the extended family. And the extended family has a biological connection with the child. But the research is all about the effects of the absence of one or both biological parents, especially the father. Having an uncle or grandparents around is great, even more so if there is a missing biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the deliberate creation of alternative lifestyle families, as this article was all about.

    And the real issue here is the wellbeing of the child. Research is clear that the safest place for a child to be is with his or her biological parents. As just one bit of evidence – out of hundreds – there is a 500 to 600 per cent increase in sexual abuse of girls in families where the adult male is not the natural father.

    But you social engineers do not seem to give a rip about children. It is all about the whims and fancies of adults to do as they please, regardless of the possible negative impact on children.

    And I have already dealt with Dante about your adoption furphy.

    Governments have always shown favour or provided special benefits to married families, simply because married families have conferred so many benefits on to the rest of society. As such, that has nothing to do with Christianity, but with the fact that marriage and family have been the norm throughout human history, and have been the best mini-welfare state around. Governments have acknowledged their special role, and benefited them accordingly. Governments have no obligation to favour or benefit any and all other types of relationships, especially those which by definition will have nothing to do with bringing in and raising the next generation.

    The fact that some heterosexual couples will not have children – for whatever reason – does nothing to undermine what I have just said. Marriage has always overwhelmingly been about the regulation of human sexuality and the rearing of the next generation.

    And yes it is clear that you disapprove of the Ten Commandments. But they have nothing to do with governments acknowledging and promoting ideal family structures, especially those which are in the best interests of the child, or with not granting special privileges to other types of relationships.

    And your arguments really begin to unravel when you talk about murder being wrong, and the need for some “common values,” but that there should be no religious interference in all this. May I point out the obvious here? You just told us you reject the seventh commandment (on adultery), but you now accept the sixth (murder). You are just picking and choosing. Why some and not others? The truth is, almost all major laws can be traced back to, and are based upon, religious belief systems, especially the Judeo-Christian worldview.

    You argue for a complete separation of church and state, yet fail to acknowledge that laws such as prohibitions against murder are deeply imbedded in religious and biblical worldviews. And if you reject religious notions of right and wrong, what is your basis of morality?

    I am afraid your anti-Christian bigotry is simply showing here. Your remarks are more a reflection of your animus to religion than to well-reasoned argumentation.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Tammy, you reject using the Bible “as the sole basis for the role of the state [because that] does NOT create a governing democracy… but a THEOCRACY.” You are wrong on two counts here. Firstly, a theocracy is a system whereby the religious clerics and the governing state authorities are one and the same, such as with Islamic fundamentalism. Secondly, Western democratic systems are overwhelmingly based upon a biblical understanding of the world. You are just showing your ignorance of history here. You will undoubtedly disagree, but the Christian God of the Bible established the concept of civil government as a civilising restraint upon society. It stands to reason then that government and society work best when Christian morality is used as the foundation for law.

    The alternative is that another moral system be substituted in place of the Christian one. You appear to be arguing for some kind of arbitrary and relativistic ‘moral’ system (and you are not doing a very consistent job of it either as Bill has pointed out above). And I repeat what I said before, your beliefs about what is right and wrong are just as ‘religious’ as anyone else’s. You appear to take some comfort in your stated rejection of Christian morality by appealing to the numbers (“I’m certainly not alone in this sentiment”), but may I remind you that truth is not and never has been determined by a majority vote or consensus.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  • Dear Tammy, On the issue that we live an age that is new and at the cutting edge of evolutionary development and that therefore you in some way represent pioneers of a brave new world is arrant arrogance, conceit, vanity and nonsense. Nothing is new. Read Ecclesiastes. The assertion you make that because poly /playdo partnerships are so new there is no evidence yet to suggest that they are having a negative impact on society is again utter tosh, ie “you wish,” perverse denial and self -delusion. I could point you to truck loads, nay warehouses, full of evidence. For starters try this:

    Experiments in Living: The fatherless family
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Experiments.pdf
    Does Marriage Matter?
    http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs31.pdf
    Broken Hearts
    http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=142
    There are also several articles from recent issues of our Family Bulletin:
    Unicef report highlights importance of family structure for the well being of children
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=127#unicef
    Same-sex parenting: Is it in the best interests of the child?
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=127#same
    The state of the nation report: Fractured Families
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=126#state
    (includes link to the report itself)
    New UK study confirms benefits of marriage
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=125#new
    Family structure and child outcomes
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=123#fam
    The social and economic advantages of supporting marriage
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=122#social
    Youth ‘matters’, but what about marriage?
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=121#youth
    The future of family law
    http://www.famyouth.org.uk/bulletin.php?number=121#future

    David Skinner, UK

  • I’m agnostic. Religion has nothing to do with my gob-smacked horror that someone on an Australian based website is supporting ‘group-marriage’ – the word is an oxymoron! I’m no professor but this is just common sense to anyone with worldly knowledge gleaned even with a bit of TV. I studied anthropology at uni and am well aware of exceptions but anyone who is even slightly interested in, and respectful of, other nationalities’ valued traditions is well aware of what common factor – despite all other differences and changes over history – has shown itself to be successful and deservedly revered all over the world.

    Step families do it tough and they are to be admired for their efforts to give their children and step-children as loving and as stable as a life as possible – they know the pressure they are under. It boils down to their efforts to model the same teamwork inside the house that works in traditional marriages, plus they need to negotiate carefully with the extra family. Even with the best intentions, only the children themselves know how much they are constantly adapting to many different expectations depending on the day of the week.

    Caring extended families are fantastic of course – because that’s exactly what they are – added family members willing to help unconditionally because they are trying to support the parents to work as a team for the benefit of the child(ren). Extended family members don’t feel the need to equally own the marriage and children and/ or, worse still, to additionally have group sex together. The latter proposal of group-marriage supporters is repulsive and obnoxiously narcissistic. It is potentially fraught with inherently twisted and sorry outcomes for any hapless children of such unions.

    Why is there a need to muscle into the most enduring and successful union formed over aeons across all races and cultures? Imagine the complications and fall-out on the kids multiplied out – it’s already failed in hippie communes and cults where the parenting is diluted and children become confused and insecure. That’s why societies have sensibly aimed for the ideal building block of society – marriage.

    The “what about high rate of divorce” argument against hetero-marriage is a tired old chestnut. The reason hetero-marriages may fail is definitely due to the very same anti-religious ‘do-as-you-please’ pressures being foisted on society now. The longer you raise children with a spouse of the opposite gender the more you realise how nature designed it to be so. Children thrive on the inherent balance of two opposite gendered parents. Dad teaches positive things that Mum doesn’t have hard-wired in her and vice versa – and there’s no denying the research that supports these general truths. That is not to say there are exceptions to the norm – of course there are. However, there is a raft of international evidence that supports the intuitive success of this naturally-designed biologically-based union.

    As for having more adults equally claiming their stake in ‘sharing the load’, imagine having 3 or more overzealous parents hounding a child to do their homework, violin practice and basket-weaving when sometimes a child is only just coping with the pressures of life and needs a break from well-intentioned adults – as if modern life isn’t complicated enough for the next generation!

    Ann Bailey, Brisbane

  • SBS recently showed a program where two homosexual men in NYC ‘invited’ a woman to be part of their ‘relationship’. Eventually one of the men married her to formalize the arrangement. The other man fathered two children with her, but it was obvious from the start that he was just placating his male friend’s desire to be involved.

    The situation lasted about ten? years or more, however the ‘second-string’ guy wanted out as his relationship with ‘his man’ had deteriorated. At this point the vindictive nature of ‘payback’ encountered in many breakups occured. (Kids lose out again!)

    The whole sad story was not like the promos for the show, which implied this social engineering was cutting edge and that it worked.

    Michael Evans

  • 60 minutes (Channel 9 Australia) on 22 July 2007 aired a program about families created by using anonymous donor sperm.

    Underlying need for the teenage / adult children was knowledge of who they were (wholeness of self) and where they came from (historical self).

    For the mothers (many single) of these children who have now been able to identify half-siblings via internet sites, they seem to have adopted the new extended ‘family / families’ through the half-sibling relationships.

    The anonymous donors appear to want distance between themselves and the ‘donor’ children because of the potential legal responsibilities that could ensue.

    Also, the Bible speaks about the family in the many ways it finds itself today.
    The father, mother and children along with other relatives are probably most common then and now, the extended family.
    Jesus really had a step-father in Joseph. His siblings are step-brothers and step-sisters. (Only example of this type of family in history.)
    Moses was ‘adopted’ into Pharoah’s household. (Fairly common modern practice.)
    Slaves in Biblical times were often considered part of the ‘extended family’ as they lived in the household. (Not common in many parts of the world, but nannies are one type of modern equivalents.)
    Polygamous patriarchal Biblical marriages were usually full of acrimony, spite and payback. Abraham lacked faith by not waiting for Sarah to give birth, and Hagar’s concubinage was not a role model that God wanted man to follow.
    Homosexuality and bisexuality are never condoned in the Bible, and they are considered banned, deviant behaviours along with many other deviant sexual behaviours.

    Michael Evans

  • Ann from Brisbane, What a fantastic declaration of the truth!
    I believe that marriage has a serious purpose irrespective of any benefit it may bestow on individual participants or supporters, which is to procreate and produce a strong, creative, united, healthy and stable society. Sex, though as essential as a spark plug in an engine, is also, like it, a small and hidden component. However, marriage to be kept running involves many more active components, many of which have to be supplied by the extended family, the community and society.
    One can either get involved directly by marrying, or by supporting vicariously from the sidelines as grandparents, relatives, neighbours, teachers and members of the community – whether we derive any direct benefit from it or not.. This blueprint for marriage as being heterosexual, monogamous, enduring, non intergenerational and human is non negotiable. To introduce an amorphous and ephemeral model that has no constraints regarding gender, number, duration, age, generation or species will inevitabley pose a threat to traditional marriage; they are mutually exclusive and the latter unless destroyed , will inevitably eat up the former. There can be no compromise. It is either one or the other.
    Canon Dave Doveton said “The abandonment of the truth that marriage is a good, and an end in itself reduces the good of marriage to that of instrumentality. Where marriage is reduced to the means to companionship, the means to intimacy, the means to pleasure, the means to social standing or approval, or the means to any other number of socio-legal benefits (such as taxation privileges, medical aid benefits, adoption rights, etc) and I would add the means to romantic fulfillment, the creation institution of marriage has been deconstructed, from being a good and an end in itself to being a primary instrument to attain other ends.”
    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=784
    http://www.anglican-mainstream.org.za/Resources.html
    David Skinner, UK

  • Tammy you could be in for some turbulence here; you say:
    “sorry, no. there is no biblical role of the state, nor should there be. The bible is fine for the role and guidance of churches and even of individuals….”

    I have taken the liberty of modifying this assertion, and sarcasm is intended:

    “Sorry, no, there is no Darwinian role of the state, nor should there be. Evolutionary, humanist, atheist and Marxist writings are fine for the role and guidance of Secularist clubs. However to use fictional books like The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, The Atheist’s Bible, Thus spoke Zarathurstra, A Treatise on Human Nature, Emile, The Conquest of Happiness, and Das Kapital, etc, written by innumerable writers (whose lives were totally inconsistent with what they had written) as the sole basis for the role of the state does NOT create a governing democracy…..but TYRANY and DICTATORSHIP (eg Russia, China, Cambodia and North Korea).” Tammy open your eyes to see just how horrible and hopeless materialist fancies are. Show me one society, one person, whose life has been elevated to new levels of joy, peace, power, hope and love from reading that stuff.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Many commentators – like Ms. Marquardt – omit the important fact that when the same-sex couple split up, the sperm donor was granted shared legal and physical custody of the kids. The real lesson of this case is that you can’t obtain custodial rights to a child, then try to dodge out on any financial obligations.
    Jimmy Verner

Leave a Reply