Giving Polygamy a Chance

[G.Edward]

The question remains, and will be sorely pressed in our lifetimes, "Why just two people?"  So, how will we respond?  Does the church offer a distinct vision for God-pleasing relationship, or an ever-growing table of acceptable acronyms to designate the diversity of relationships we will bless?

Given that the Political Correctness Police have replaced the word "homosexual" with "GLBT" in ELCA-speak, how can they possibly expect those in the "B" category to be content with only one partner?

That's been answered numerous times before.

Yes, but the answers don't ring true.

[G.Edward]

"polygamy" literally: poly = many or often + gamos = marriage in contrast to mono-gamos = once married. When we redefined "monogamy" from "once married" to married to one at a time, we changed the meaning. I know some "traditionalists" who are literally "polygamist" -- that is, they have been married more than once.

From Dictionary.com:  -gamy
 
a combining form with the meanings “marriage,” “union,” “fertilization, pollination,” of the kind specified by the initial element: exogamy; plastogamy; allogamy;

also forming nouns corresponding to adjectives ending in -gamous: heterogamy.

Origin:  comb. form repr. Gk -gamía act of marrying


What's fascinating about this definition is the idea that it involves reproduction.  Here we've relegated reproduction to one of many possible reasons for a marriage.  Another departure from biblical intent.

[G.Edward]

And why stop at same gender relationships between two men or two women.  Isn't that kind of limiting, really rather narrow minded toward the potential in a loving relationship?  Why only two people in a publicly accountable relationship?  Why not three?  Or seven?  Seven's a nice biblical number.  So is three.  Doesn't a man with sixteen wives love them all and they him?  What about the woman who wants five husbands (all the better to keep her in the manner she is accustomed to)?  And along with the polygamists will come the neo-pederasts and the zoophiles (I hear dolphins, dogs, and sheep have feelings).  Push the logic of the social statement and you can just keep going and going until you fling yourself off the proverbial cultural cliff.

[G.Edward]

When we redefined "monogamy" from "once married" to married to one at a time, we changed the meaning. I know some "traditionalists" who are literally "polygamist" -- that is, they have been married more than once.

The idea of being "faithful" to one person for a time, and then another, and then another, usw. has a name:  adultery.

[George Erdner]

The question remains, and will be sorely pressed in our lifetimes, "Why just two people?"  So, how will we respond?  Does the church offer a distinct vision for God-pleasing relationship, or an ever-growing table of acceptable acronyms to designate the diversity of relationships we will bless?

Given that the Political Correctness Police have replaced the word "homosexual" with "GLBT" in ELCA-speak, how can they possibly expect those in the "B" category to be content with only one partner?

That's been answered numerous times before.

But I was hoping for an answer that made sense.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The question remains, and will be sorely pressed in our lifetimes, "Why just two people?"  So, how will we respond?  Does the church offer a distinct vision for God-pleasing relationship, or an ever-growing table of acceptable acronyms to designate the diversity of relationships we will bless?

Given that the Political Correctness Police have replaced the word "homosexual" with "GLBT" in ELCA-speak, how can they possibly expect those in the "B" category to be content with only one partner?

That's been answered numerous times before.

But I was hoping for an answer that made sense.

The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

[George Erdner]

The question remains, and will be sorely pressed in our lifetimes, "Why just two people?"  So, how will we respond?  Does the church offer a distinct vision for God-pleasing relationship, or an ever-growing table of acceptable acronyms to designate the diversity of relationships we will bless?

Given that the Political Correctness Police have replaced the word "homosexual" with "GLBT" in ELCA-speak, how can they possibly expect those in the "B" category to be content with only one partner?

That's been answered numerous times before.

But I was hoping for an answer that made sense.

The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

That is the answer that makes no sense. I am not saying it is wrong or that I disagree with it. I am saying that it makes no sense.

[wildiris]

Just to give you a little more to think about, how would you deal pastorally with this three-way-of-a-sort relationship?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14200855?source=most_viewed

There is no point in arguing hypotheticals when the Brave New World is already here.  And as a bonus question, how would posters here try to explain this to a Sunday School Class of kids?

Please have some patience with a guest commentor like myself.

[Charles_Austin]

Should such issues arise, I would - as I always do - explain the church's teaching on marriage and note that not everyone practices what the church teaches about marriage.
The Bible, however, doesn't offer too much guidance on what to do with custody issues involving sperm donors, same-sex couples, or adoptive parents.

[G.Edward]

No, it doesn't direct us in those places where we push the boundaries of technology and play god without really having worked through the likely consequences.  I suppose that is where - after the fact - humility and a generous dose of mercy come into play.  Before the fact the second commandment comes in handy.

[G.Edward]

Just to give you a little more to think about, how would you deal pastorally with this three-way-of-a-sort relationship?

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14200855?source=most_viewed

There is no point in arguing hypotheticals when the Brave New World is already here.  And as a bonus question, how would posters here try to explain this to a Sunday School Class of kids?

Please have some patience with a guest commentor like myself.

From the article:

SANTA CRUZ - In a case that arguably has far-reaching implications for gay rights, a Santa Cruz woman is seeking to maintain joint custody of 10-month-old twins that she and her former partner, the biological mother of the children, had agreed to raise.

As court battles over the rights of non-biological gay parents garner national attention, the Santa Cruz case contains a complicated wrinkle: The biological mother is now involved in a romantic relationship with the sperm donor, who has joined her in seeking full custody of their two boys.

The messiness that is real life, the kind of real life Jesus put on flesh to be in the middle of.  As an adopted child myself, I say the kid stays with the adoptive mothers even though I don't agree with homosexual adoption in general.  Most everyone can procreate; not everyone is gifted with parenting ability.  The biological parents have no claim IMHO.

[Lutheranistic]

As an adopted child myself, I say the kid stays with the adoptive mothers even though I don't agree with homosexual adoption in general.  Most everyone can procreate; not everyone is gifted with parenting ability.  The biological parents have no claim IMHO.

Except that, as I read it, one of the gay adoptive mothers is one of the biological parents, and now involved in a heterosexual relationship. I'm an adopted child too, but while the relationship between my biological parents was complicated back in the '50's, it wasn't this complicated.

[Dan Fienen]

To make it even more complicated there was no legal adoption made.

Dan

[Brian Stoffregen]

The answer makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure that you are living the answer that has been given -- regardless of how many people you might be sexually attracted to, you've limited your sexual behaviors to the one women to whom you are married.

That is the answer that makes no sense. I am not saying it is wrong or that I disagree with it. I am saying that it makes no sense.

So, you are saying that it makes no sense to you to remain faithful to your wife when you are sexually attracted to other people.

[Brian Stoffregen]

To make it even more complicated there was no legal adoption made.

At least in Arizona, the non-biological parent even in a registered domestic same-gender partner relationships is not able to adopt the child.