Polyamorous relationships involve three or more sexual partners. These partners may be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Polyamorists follow the LGBT community in promoting civil rights for themselves and acceptance of their practice as a normal alternative lifestyle. As we saw yesterday this is already legally practiced in the Netherlands.
The point that must be made here is simple—if the marriage debate is about civil rights then the gender of the partner is, at the end of the day, irrelevant! And if this is true then the number of people involved, as well as their age and kinship, should not be restricted since this would violate the rights of the individuals involved. If the issue is “rights” then were do we stop? Can a man marry his mother, a niece her uncle, a brother marry his sister? Should all such restrictions be removed? Some will admit this problem but many want to keep the debate focused on gays and lesbians and not answer this question. The reason seems quite obvious to me.
Question: Could our polygamy and incest laws be abolished over time? You bet. History shows it can happen and the Netherlands shows how a country that was deeply influenced by the Christian faith 100 years ago is now throwing off all such marriage laws.
Does incest have any meaning in the modern context? Yes, but you have to wonder for how long. Who draws the lines and where? If incest is just a relic of biblical fundamentalism who are we to say it should have any bearing on the modern rights debate?
In the Presbyterian Church USA this debate is raging. A recent move to accept gay and lesbian marriage came closer to passing than at any previous time. Advocates are gearing up for 2010 and believe they can finally win. Unless something happens to slow this effort it will, more than likely, soon pass. The denomination, which is already in great decline, will only shrink faster and the cancer of moral compromise will eventually destroy it.
There are several groups promoting the LGBT agenda in the PCUSA. One is called, interesting, the More Light Presbyterians (MLP). It lists 117 congregations in the entire denomination. That is 1% of the total churches in the PCUSA. What amazes me is that 1% can have such influence. MLP is seeking denominational support for its efforts and the executive director believes they will get it. When the polyamorist question was put to the director of MLP he said his group supported monogamous marriage. But, and this is the inconsistency that must be pointed out, the same MLP group supports full rights for bisexuals. This cannot be and proves the disingenuous stance of these civil rights advocates. Like good politicians they understand what people will do now and then how they can get what they want later if they win this present debate.
If you ever find yourself in a discussion about homosexual marriage ask the following questions: Do you also favor the marriage of bisexuals and close kin? You will find the conversation generally goes silent. Why? Well, if you take the “right to marry whomever you please” to its logical conclusion, as has been done in the Netherlands, there is no doubt where this leads.
Is any relationship between consenting adults acceptable legally? Morally? Within the church?
Several things are obvious to readers of the Bible, even those who oppose biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus highly esteemed marriage. He repeated the formula of Genesis regarding one man and one woman. (Advocates of same-sex marriage often say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so we should follow him in this pattern.) The relationship of a man and his wife, in marriage, is the pattern the New Testament applies to Christ’s relationship with his bride the church. Marriage, as the older wedding ceremonies clearly stated it, is an institution of God that should be honored by all and entered into soberly and carefully. It is not a civil right.
In Paul’s time homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender were all practiced openly. But in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Paul says some homosexuals had ceased to practice disordered sexual expressions. Why? Paul simply and powerfully says this is because: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.” This same Jesus still has the power to break sin in people’s lives. The shame is that the national leadership of the PCUSA knows very little about “this” power transforming lives. When the good news is exchanged for psychology and human wisdom the result will always be a loss of divine power. This message is needed not only in the Protestant mainline PCUSA debate but it is needed in the whole church in America today.
Comments are closed.
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
In Canada we are (unfortunately) further down the road than the U.S. on gay marriage. I remember several years ago when the government was making the changes to allow gay marriage, opponents would argue that this is a slippery slope which will lead to the acceptance of polygamy, incest, etc. At the time, I remember listening to radio shows where gay marriage supporters would dimiss this as fear-mongering bologna. Well, just last week the BC Supreme Court threw out the high profile case against two leaders of the Bountiful, BC community, who had been charged with polygamy. The official reason for dropping the charges was that the judge couldn’t find a prosecutor (the original prosecutors suggested the charges be dropped). Everyone knows the real reason is that the BC courts know they’ll lose the case and the law against polygamy will be struck down as unconstitutional. (Ironically, the defendants were going to argue that the law against polygamy violated their religious freedom.)
There is no logical point for this ‘slippery slope’ to end, because we have absolutely no objective moral code guiding us as a nation. I used to doubt these kinds of changes would happen; now I shudder to think how far we will descend, as all manner of sin becomes acceptable, and those who call it sin are increasingly the ones being charged as lawbreakers for ‘hate speech’ – this too is already happening in Canada.