• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Polygamy should be legal

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
Why is God a bigot?
There can be found no bigotry in God, only sin in man. There is only righteousness to be found in God, but to the heart set on sin such a thing is foolishness.
I am no better than you. I cannot claim any righteousness at all apart from Christ. I do not hate you, and I cannot force you to believe or stop doing what is displeasing to God. Because, I would be a hypocrite if I were to say I am not as well responsible for many of the same crimes against Him. I am guilty, yes, I am guilty.
But I do know that without Him, there could be no objective and universal morality (I will respond on Friday to this on my theology thread). He has, not to be a bigot, but because He is just and perfect, given mankind His Word, to be sought and to be understood. For my good, and for my salvation, there is a standard of right living. Marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman, which God has perfectly knit together in love from the beginning, was is and always will be the only standard of righteous marriage.
Do I therefore look down on you all from a high horse, saying “lo, and see these deviant furries here given into marriage with two men, two women, and with many!” Absolutely not! I am here on earth with you, I am guilty, yes, I am guilty. I am as guilty as a fox can be! But I am a child of God, and the only righteousness I can hold on to, the only righteousness which will justify me before the just wrath of God against my sin, is Christ’s righteousness imputed to me by faith.

I love you all. You are all my fellow furries. I mean not to prostelyse or to be a hatemongerer. I am too unworthy to have the position of a judge. Marry whom you please, be it the law allows it now. But please do me a favor and let me share my only hope and true joy, and to disagree with where society is going. I do this because my conscience is bound to God’s Word. My heart is still with you Furries, you are my great friends. I do not condemn you, I cannot do that, I am far too sinful myself, and only God can truly judge the heart of an individual.
 
B

BahgDaddy

Guest
There can be found no bigotry in God, only sin in man.

When men declare war on each other, and kill each other off, it is considered evil, an atrocity. Yet if God kills entire civilizations, like in the Bible so often, it is just another day for him.

There is only righteousness to be found in God, but to the heart set on sin such a thing is foolishness.

"righteousness" and "foolishness" are common religious phrases used to invoke a sense of shame an inadequacy in people. Why can't you use the word of God to being happiness to people, instead of condemnation?

Because the very basis of Christianity (sin) is condemnatory. Instead of being able to build people up into positive, better versions of themselves, Christianity tears them down into malleable, susceptible, trodden people.

I am no better than you.

I am better than you, though, because I am good because I want to be. You are good - because otherwise God will send you to the fiery depths of Hell.

I cannot claim any righteousness at all apart from Christ. I do not hate you, and I cannot force you to believe or stop doing what is displeasing to God. Because, I would be a hypocrite if I were to say I am not as well responsible for many of the same crimes against Him.

You're not responsible for crimes against him, because you didn't ask to come into this world. It was forced upon you. Why would God create this world, and then blame everyone for being the way he created them? In humans terms we call that being "psychotic" or some such.

I am guilty, yes, I am guilty.

Guilty of what? Being human?

But I do know that without Him, there could be no objective and universal morality (I will respond on Friday to this on my theology thread). He has, not to be a bigot, but because He is just and perfect, given mankind His Word, to be sought and to be understood.

Here's some nice universal morality - do as you will, as long as you harm none. Short, simple, pretty hard to misinterpret.

For my good, and for my salvation, there is a standard of right living. Marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman, which God has perfectly knit together in love from the beginning, was is and always will be the only standard of righteous marriage.

What's the social utility of having marriage only between a man and a woman? To be fruitful and multiply? I think we've done enough of that.
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
I don't think the government should be all too involved with marriage. This should be an issue left for the church to deal with. But I do believe the covenant of marriage is between one man and one woman.
God damn you're like a vegan when it comes to your religion. Not everyone is a part of your religion and it should have no part in the lives of those who are not a part of it. You live your life and let others live theirs.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
@Felix Bernard

I’ll ignore all those economic and political questions I was asked, and the statements given that I disagree with. Because all that is off topic. However, I still stand by my original statements.
I would like to try a different approach if you consider my previous political and economic statements to be irrelevant, though I would contend they are very relevant considering government plays an important secondary role in marriage.

In an America where religious institutions preside over marriage solely, that directly contravenes the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is otherwise known as the separation of church of state." Allowing religious institutions to handle all functions of marriage would ignoring a cornerstone of our Constitution, which is meant to keep all citizens free. Obviously, this would be highly problematic for our legal system.

Practically speaking, whether or not citizens could be married would be at the mercy of religious officials rather than a usually impartial entity like the government, which just issues marriage licenses to applicable couples. Obvious individuals who would be excluded from marriage would be homosexuals, transgender individuals, and polyamorous individuals. Individuals of differing faiths would probably also be excluded, since many religious institution only marry individuals within the same faith. This would invalidate a large portion of the marriages in the United States. This would adversely affect millions of Americans.

Another practical consideration is that if you completely remove government from marriage, that also implies you are for removing government from divorce proceedings, which begs the urgent question of how assets, property, and child custody are divided between to prospective divorcees. Religious institutions do not and should not have powers to enforce such proceedings because this implies either a religious police force or law enforcement beholden to religious authorities, both of which are forbidden by the Constitution.

Yet another practical consideration in this scenario is that religious institution presumably have a say over whether married individuals can get divorced in the first place. Religious marriage ordained by the church are notoriously hard to dissolve or annul, as is the case with the Church of Latter Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church. This present a scenario where individuals can be trapped in marriages they should be allowed to leave, including abusive marriages or marriages where a spouse was cheating. They could forced to stay in the marriage by religious authorities that are against divorce.

There are valid concerns concerning governmental and religious involvement I would appreciate you answering.

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Seeing polyamorous relationships be legally recognized would be nice, and would solve some issues I personally have, but it's unlikely to happen in the social climate we're currently seeing in far too much of the western world. It would also involve some tough decisions regarding who can enter a polygamous marriage with whom, and whose consent is required.

If I were to take a guess I would say we're likely to see "circular" (everyone in a relationship with everyone) polygamy legalized sooner than "satellite" (one person with multiple spouses who are not in turn married to each other) or "chain" (person A married to person B who is also married to person C who in turn is also married to person D etc) marriages, simply because they most resemble the relationship norm, and least resemble unethical relationship behavior between nominally monoamorous people.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman.
The problem with this position is that it presumes that Christianity/Abrahamic religion is the original source of marriage and marriage-like social institutions, which is simply not true. If the/a Christian church says "we'll only perform monogamous heterosexual marriages", that's their business. But that does not obligate every other institution, regardless of denomination, to follow suit.

Shouldn’t be the case.
Marriage isn’t a legal issue. It never was supposed to be, and it never should be.
Marriage has to be. Inheritance is a legal issue, and marriage plays a part in inheritance. The right to make medical decisions for your family members if they are incapacitated is a legal issue, and marriage plays a part in that. Child custody in case of one parent's death is a legal issue, and marriage and/or adoption can play a part in that (as well as marriage playing a part in adoption). Citizenship is a legal issue, and marriage plays a part in the decision process in granting someone residency/citizenship. The legal benefits of marriage extend far beyond purely financial issues.

Current-day society is too complicated to not have a form of legal recognicion for long-term relationships.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
We will agree to disagree then. I don’t have a lot of time to explain all this. I am very busy and have an exam tomorrow. But I have answers for the economic question you’ve asked. Maybe sometime I can get to them.
 
Last edited:

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
I am better than you, though, because I am good because I want to be. You are good - because otherwise God will send you to the fiery depths of Hell.

I am good because I want to be as well. I am good because I am grateful, especially grateful for what Christ has done for me.
I am not good because I believe I will earn heaven because of it, because none of my good works can achieve the righteous standard God requires - only Christ’s imputed to me. I am good because I out of a heart of gratitude respond in good works.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
I do have views on adoption though. Only a man and woman should be able to adopt children. That I won’t back down from.
 

Kyr

Reeeeeee
Banned
Marriage is not a thing to get monetary benefits from, that is not it’s purpose. Marriage is an institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The two become one flesh, after the order of the binary creation of mankind. I do not considered same sex or polygamous “marriages” to be marriage at all, it is a profaning of marriage. But if someone wants to call it marriage, that’s their choice. That is not the government’s job. Legal benefits have no place in what God has ordained in marriage. Christ is the head of the man and the wife, not the state. And that is why the state needs to cut back on marriage benefits until it is entirely gone, and until it is purely a privatized thing to be held between the two, and God.
God exists because it was created by man, at the very least Christian dogma was created by man (the question of potential spiritual forces is better suited to your other thread). That's not to say it doesn't serve an important purpose, it's a moral code that factors in the forces of evil and suffering after all. However, i don't understand why the covenant of marriage is restricted to Men and Women. Maybe it was presented as such as a means to venerate the family, and put it on a pedestal of sorts (something i can fully understand), and i can understand how Gay marriages would fall short of the ideals of a venerated marriage. However, in modern times this is an issue of love, respect for your fellow man and, as it's woven into the fabric of society, legal considerations. Such marriages are free to be inferior in the eyes of God, but as a celebration of the union contained in marriage there's no reason Gay or Poly people should be barred. In essence, God is love after all, is it not?
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
I guess I’ll just say it then.
If it is inevitable that marriage be a legal matter, then it is the government’s duty to obey God’s moral law. This would mean only recognizing 1 man and 1 woman marriages. I do not believe the government is exempt from obeying God, I am very much what you would call a theonomist to some degree (like Greg Bahnsen). But I do agree with separation of Church and State as it was originally intended. The government ought not get into matters of denominational divide, or make laws requiring a certain religion be observed in a personal matter (they can’t force prayer, etc). Neither are they to be in charge of the sacraments or regulate the preaching of God’s Word. But I believe the government ought to obey God’s moral law, and the civil law ought ought to reflect this. God’s moral law is universal, no matter if you believe in Christianity and worship God or not.

There is my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
I guess I’ll just say it then.
If it is inevitable that marriage be a legal matter, then it is the government’s duty to obey God’s moral law. This would mean only recognizing 1 man and 1 woman marriages. I do not believe the government is exempt from obeying God, I am very much what you would call a theonomist to some degree (like Greg Bahnsen). But I do agree with separation of Church and State as it was originally intended. The government ought not get into matters of denominational divide, or make laws requiring a certain religion be observed in a personal matter (they can’t force prayer, etc). Neither are they to be in charge of the sacraments or regulate the preaching of God’s Word. But I believe the government ought to obey God’s moral law, and the civil law ought ought to reflect this. God’s moral law is universal, no matter if you believe in Christianity and worship God or not.

There is my opinion.
That's basically Christian Sharia Law. No thanks.
 

Mach

Ahead of the pack.
Banned
I guess I’ll just say it then.
If it is inevitable that marriage be a legal matter, then it is the government’s duty to obey God’s moral law. This would mean only recognizing 1 man and 1 woman marriages. I do not believe the government is exempt from obeying God, I am very much what you would call a theonomist to some degree (like Greg Bahnsen). But I do agree with separation of Church and State as it was originally intended. The government ought not get into matters of denominational divide, or make laws requiring a certain religion be observed in a personal matter (they can’t force prayer, etc). Neither are they to be in charge of the sacraments or regulate the preaching of God’s Word. But I believe the government ought to obey God’s moral law, and the civil law ought ought to reflect this. God’s moral law is universal, no matter if you believe in Christianity and worship God or not.

There is my opinion.
With all due respect, we either have a separation of church and state or we do not. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman is a legal act root in religious reasoning.

I would ask that we have less theological debates on this thread, since the theological theory is tangential to the topic polyamorous marriage or even marriage. I also request that @Felix Bernard address the very relevant legal, political, and social questions that @quoting_mungo and I have asked.

In particular, I would like to know how religious institutions would handle child custody, child adoption, divorce, and inheritance. Help me to understand the practicalities of you views and vision.
 
D

Deleted member 111470

Guest
Marriage is more like a legal event in my eyes. Having to sign up documents binding me to other people seems like the kind of thing I'd do if I was their boss.
I can just imagine the processes that are to be followed in the event of a divorce. Who gets custody of the children? How about material property including real estate? Money? Restraining orders?

I don't see why it shouldn't be legal... but I wouldn't consider being a part of a polygamy marriage.
 

Saiko

GTWT Survivor
I do have views on adoption though. Only a man and woman should be able to adopt children. That I won’t back down from.
Hah, unified but unequal. That’s a new one.
 

Connor J. Coyote

¥otie ¥otezer
I do have views on adoption though. Only a man and woman should be able to adopt children. That I won’t back down from.
That's ridiculous, with all due respect.

If that was the case (in actual law) and not just opinion - then imagine just how many orphans would go without loving, caring, and nurturing homes.. (it'd be a lot of them).

Florida had a "gay adoption ban" on the books for many years - and it was really horrible stuff - for many of the children and families that were impacted by it.. this ban helped no one, (but hurt many).

Whilst one may argue that (the traditional nuclear family model) is ideal (for rearing children), and in some ways I agree with that notion - it's not always the reality of what's actually available - for a child that has nowhere else to go.
 

DarkoKavinsky

ʎʇʇɐq ʇıq ɐ
As a pagan I find topics of monothestical religion being well... hamfisted in to be interesting.

It saddens me that marriage isn’t about love these days.

It seems to be more of status, a symbol, a legal stipulation and a good way to lose money these days.

Literally.

I want to be with somebody or somebodies until the end of my days, but I’d rather not have any establishment hold such privileges over my damn head.

So giving the right to call my mate, my spouse, wife or wives should be a notion agreed upon by us only and anybody else who says otherwise can go sound a cactus.
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
As a pagan I find topics of monothestical religion being well... hamfisted in to be interesting.

It saddens me that marriage isn’t about love these days.

It seems to be more of status, a symbol, a legal stipulation and a good way to lose money these days.

Literally.

I want to be with somebody or somebodies until the end of my days, but I’d rather not have any establishment hold such privileges over my damn head.

So giving the right to call my mate, my spouse, wife or wives should be a notion agreed upon by us only and anybody else who says otherwise can go sound a cactus.
I felt that last sentence oww. :confused:
 

Tattorack

Explorer
And in the true sense, not just a man marrying many women. It should also be legal for a woman to marry many men, and for a few men and a few women to marry each other.

In a world where all homosexuals can marry now, why have we overlooked this other basic sexual and societal freedom?

(If your only objection is "that's weird," remember - you're a goddamn furry. ;) )
I don't find marrying useful for anything. Marriage was created by various religions as some kind of way to make it official and legal for that time. That time has long since passed, meaning there is no point in marriage, only whatever religious values you apply to it.
So, since religion is responsible for marriage, it's up to the standards of the religion you're part of. If you're not part of any religion then there is no reason for you to marry and then you have the freedom of choice to have an intimate relationship with as many people that agree to have such a relationship.
 

PimpNuttz

Member
Marriage is not a thing to get monetary benefits from, that is not it’s purpose. Marriage is an institution ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. The two become one flesh, after the order of the binary creation of mankind. I do not considered same sex or polygamous “marriages” to be marriage at all, it is a profaning of marriage. But if someone wants to call it marriage, that’s their choice. That is not the government’s job. Legal benefits have no place in what God has ordained in marriage. Christ is the head of the man and the wife, not the state. And that is why the state needs to cut back on marriage benefits until it is entirely gone, and until it is purely a privatized thing to be held between the two, and God.
No.

Why is God a bigot?
Also no.

God dammit you guys, leave the big entity outta this.
 

ResolutionBlaze

Angry Local
Banned
For me there are few who practice polygamy that it really doesn't matter one way or another. They get around it anyway.

Thing is that you could pile up marraige benefits if you multiply them and that can lead to loopholes.

But I am not familiar with marraige benefits.

But if that is the case I find it very unfair that someone gets more benefits simply because they have feelings for multiple people. Put it in the records of you must but keep the benefits between one person or separate it across multiple people.
 
Top