Told You So....

[muff528 3]

billvon

>Who cares - if the government wasn't in the business of 'marriage' we wouldn't have
>any of these problems in the first place.

It would have been interesting indeed if the Supreme Court had returned the decision "federal and state governments have no right to discriminate against people based on their marital status;

This right here ^^^ ...key words being "federal and state governments"

Quote

any rights gained by marriage must be available to all."

This should be a moot point since the governments would not recognize marriage at all, and no special rights could be recognized by the governments either way.

This way, various groups could define marriage and conduct or deny weddings in any way they want without penalty, since the government has no interest. And, at their discretion, the members of one group may or may not recognize the marital rules of another group.

As far as children are concerned, new laws would need to be considered that favor, mandate, and enhance parental responsibilities. ...including enforcement and much harsher penalties for dereliction of those responsibilities. Regarding children, the government could still provide benefits in much the same way they do now (WIC, Head Start-type programs, tax credits, etc.), but with enforced penalties for abuse.

[Guest]

billvon

>Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it
>along with the rest of this wicked world!

I'd think he'd be happy that Deuteronomy 21:15, Exodus 21:10 and 2 Chronicles 11:21 were finally being followed, and modern men were finally starting to follow in the footsteps of Moses, Jacob, Esau, David and King Solomon.

After all, several prominent religious leaders are now quite strenuously pointing out that freedom of religion is an inalienable right, and that people who wish to marry in a way supported by their religion must have their rights protected. And there are several religions in the US who do practice polygamy, and they have Biblical precedents to fall back on.

True. But I don't ride to work in a chariot, either.

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

Broadly speaking, many of those examples are not much different than the rights and privileges multiple siblings already have vis a vis their mutual parents, or vice versa, and those things are generally doable.

Absolutely. Someone just has to do them. It's not as easy as saying "OK now you can marry more than one person."

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>Then let God be so inflamed with anger as to finally show Himself and deal with it
>along with the rest of this wicked world!

I'd think he'd be happy that Deuteronomy 21:15, Exodus 21:10 and 2 Chronicles 11:21 were finally being followed...

I'd think he'd be happy if people finally followed His original plan for marriage.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.




The verses you posted simply allow for polygamy in much the same way as divorce was allowed in cases of infidelity.

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.





If we go beyond a superficial glossing of the text, we can see that polygamy is not the ideal, but more likely an allowance to accommodate societal problems of the time.

The ideal standard for kings and leaders was not polygamy.

Deuteronomy 17:17
And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

1 Timothy 3:2
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...

Titus 1:5-9
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers4 and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

billvon

(I'd think he'd be happy that) modern men were finally starting to follow in the footsteps of Moses, Jacob, Esau, David and King Solomon.

Again, Your superficial glossing of the text overlooks the fact that it was because of Solomon's Polygamy that his heart turned away from God.

1 Kings 11:3–4
He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

I doubt he'd want us to follow in those footsteps...

Matthew 17:1-5
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; LISTEN TO HIM.”

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour