Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 14, 2020 21:47:15 GMT -8
This is simply the logical outworking of the decades-long effort to normalize same-sex relations and then redefine marriage to accommodate the concept of "marriage-as-consent." Eventually polygamy will have its own SCOTUS case somewhere down the road....
And no one seems to be concerned about those kids--who are no doubt being scarred by the out-in-the-open adultery their parents are engaging in.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 14, 2020 22:05:23 GMT -8
I always viewed the worse part of adultery or cheating to be the lying, doing something behind the back of the person you vowed to be committed to. The intimacy with another person, whether it involves sex or not is not what destroys a marriage, it is the deceit. People who are married can have close platonic friendships that are very intimate, but because that friendship is something the couple experiences together, it doesn't degrade the initial relationship.
While I can't envision myself being anything but monogamous, I do believe that people can intimately love multiple people simultaneously. I don't think it should be the governments position to dissuade people from making sincere commitments to each other. I wouldn't call it marriage, for that is defined historically as 1 man & 1 woman. Whatever you call it, a committed, loving relationship between people, be it a group of 2, 3 or 4, is something that should be encouraged.
I don't believe their kids are as scarred as they would have been had they been in a situation where mom & dad divorced, there was spousal abuse or just bad parenting. Yes it is unusual,but the underlying message of love & commitment is what is most important.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 15, 2020 7:15:43 GMT -8
In my opinion, those who claim to “love” more than one person of the opposite gender are much more likely to be experiencing filial affection or lust than actual love.
RSM is right: Sex is a happy byproduct of real love, but it is also a physical release that has more to do with biology (e.g. “getting your ya-ya’s out”) than with love.
In short, I do not believe one person can (real) love more than one at a time. One CAN have the hits for more than one, one CAN desire to be with more than one, and of course, one can have sex with multiple partners simultaneously or consecutively within a short time frame... but those aren’t love.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 15, 2020 7:39:34 GMT -8
I've never figured out what "real" love is for anyone but myself, and send a yellow flag flying when I see others professing some insight to it.
For the purpose of this topic, I'd defer judgement to the people engaged in it.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 15, 2020 8:06:28 GMT -8
I've never figured out what "real" love is for anyone but myself, and send a yellow flag flying when I see others professing some insight to it. For the purpose of this topic, I'd defer judgement to the people engaged in it. As can probably be assumed (but no discredit if one does not), I get my understanding of “real” love from the Bible. i won’t bore you with a grand theological lecture here (yet), but in the New Testament, the Greeks used three words, all of which we translated to “love:” - Eros: Is a love but more physical: better word is “lust.”
- Fileo: a brotherly love, say between friends, is more dependent on what you do for me.
- Agape: “Real” love, you put my needs and wants over yours; a sacrifice of self to and for another.
it is this last one I do not believe polyamores, homosexuals, or adulterers understand or experience.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 15, 2020 10:42:54 GMT -8
No doubt it's where you're getting your point of reference for the question of "what's love". But I'm pretty sure you believe non - Christians are capable of "real" love too...right?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 15, 2020 11:18:23 GMT -8
No doubt it's where you're getting your point of reference for the question of "what's love". But I'm pretty sure you believe non - Christians are capable of "real" love too...right? Oh yes, absolutely. That it is clearly defined in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not available to all. my observation, however, is there are not a lot of folks who know what it is and, so, the concept seems foreign. My first marriage, I did not know what it was even though I was a Christ-follower at the time. My own step daughter doesn’t know what it is: She “loves” as long as it benefits her (which is more like filial love than real love). Most people I know believe “love” is a warm, soft feeling and, once that feeling wears off over time, they “don’t love [him/her] anymore” (which are the exact words my first wife said to me after she moved in with her boyfriend. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 15, 2020 13:02:05 GMT -8
The people depicted in the HGTV episode are going to regret this someday--and their kids will be suffer the consequences of their parents' selfishness.
I do not assert this from a necessarily moralistic or Biblical perspective; common sense alone is sufficient to see the inevitable train-wreck.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 15, 2020 13:19:02 GMT -8
No doubt it's where you're getting your point of reference for the question of "what's love". But I'm pretty sure you believe non - Christians are capable of "real" love too...right? Oh yes, absolutely. That it is clearly defined in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not available to all. my observation, however, is there are not a lot of folks who know what it is and, so, the concept seems foreign. My first marriage, I did not know what it was even though I was a Christ-follower at the time. My own step daughter doesn’t know what it is: She “loves” as long as it benefits her (which is more like filial love than real love). Most people I know believe “love” is a warm, soft feeling and, once that feeling wears off over time, they “don’t love [him/her] anymore” (which are the exact words my first wife said to me after she moved in with her boyfriend. But did she say she was Sorry? Because real love means never to have to say you're sorry, Preppie. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 15, 2020 14:39:17 GMT -8
Oh yes, absolutely. That it is clearly defined in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not available to all. my observation, however, is there are not a lot of folks who know what it is and, so, the concept seems foreign. My first marriage, I did not know what it was even though I was a Christ-follower at the time. My own step daughter doesn’t know what it is: She “loves” as long as it benefits her (which is more like filial love than real love). Most people I know believe “love” is a warm, soft feeling and, once that feeling wears off over time, they “don’t love [him/her] anymore” (which are the exact words my first wife said to me after she moved in with her boyfriend. But did she say she was Sorry? Because real love means never to have to say you're sorry, Preppie. That’s true... but Ryan didn’t mention the prelude to an apology: One has to own one’s behavior. So of I don’t get an apology it COULD be “love,” or it could be she is not sufficiently self-aware. its a conundrum. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 15, 2020 15:53:52 GMT -8
...common sense alone is sufficient to see the inevitable train-wreck. Not necessarily. There are many examples of larger communal families that produce successful, well-adjusted offspring. Look at the parents of Osama bin Laden, for example. Or the Manson family. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 15, 2020 16:00:49 GMT -8
Not necessarily. There are many examples of larger communal families that produce successful, well-adjusted offspring. Look at the parents of Osama bin Laden, for example. Or the Manson family. Your avatar has Manson eyes!  |
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 16, 2020 8:32:21 GMT -8
This is simply the logical outworking of the decades-long effort to normalize same-sex relations and then redefine marriage to accommodate the concept of "marriage-as-consent." Eventually polygamy will have its own SCOTUS case somewhere down the road.... And no one seems to be concerned about those kids--who are no doubt being scarred by the out-in-the-open adultery their parents are engaging in. In American jurisprudence the only definition of marriage: a legal contract which establishes a special kind of kinship-- spousal-- where none existed before. That hasn't changed since same-gender marriages and families have been legally enfranchised. For the record: marrying many spouses at the same time is a straight-marriage tradition that has "defined" marriage for, at least, two millennia eh? Nothing new to the planet -- or America-- since same-gender marriages have been enfranchised; it's Biblical for chrissake. Can't blame polygamous marriages on the Gays, Sport; they're exclusively the inspiration of a straight kink. So, I think the a more logical question to ask is: if straight marriage, why not polygamy? |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 16, 2020 10:32:56 GMT -8
Might be challenging to work through any potential spousal benefits of a polygamous marriage, but assume it could be handled along the lines of tenants in common, as opposed to JTWROS that you'd have in real estate transactions. Would also assume any social security benefits would be divided in some formula, and health insurance, or other normally conferred benefits split as well.
So, good question...why not? Don't know enough about it to offer much more than off-the-cuff remarks. It'd be interesting to know the pros and cons, and why it was outlawed in Utah. I assume there were some unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by tubaornottuba on Feb 16, 2020 11:50:20 GMT -8
Might be challenging to work through any potential spousal benefits of a polygamous marriage, but assume it could be handled along the lines of tenants in common, as opposed to JTWROS that you'd have in real estate transactions. Would also assume any social security benefits would be divided in some formula, and health insurance, or other normally conferred benefits split as well. So, good question...why not? Don't know enough about it to offer much more than off-the-cuff remarks. It'd be interesting to know the pros and cons, and why it was outlawed in Utah. I assume there were some unintended consequences. The federal Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 made polygamy a felony. www.archive.org/stream/edmundsactreport00unitrich/edmundsactreport00unitrich_djvu.txt Plainly, the legal enfranchisement of same-gender marriages and their families, a hundred and thirty-two years later, wasn't/isn't an inspiration for the practice of polygamy in the US. There is no causal relationship. None. Marriage in the US is still a legal contract between only two consenting unrelated humans (since 2014 also regardless of their relative genders) which establishes a special kind of kinship --spousal-- where none existed before. |
|
