What God thinks about us

Ravenscroft

Banned
Vote GOP!! :p

From the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
What is polyamory?
...several people are openly engaged in relationships with one another that could involve cohabitation as well as sexual promiscuity within the group.

It seems that polyamory is another form of wife-swapping.

So, how is this “ethical nonmonogamy?" Unfortunately, adding the word “ethical” to something doesn’t make it so. Why not have such things as ethical adultery, ethical bank robbing, or ethical embezzling? Does adding the word "ethical" to it make it okay? Of course not. Polyamory is nothing more than a euphemism to make something that is immoral appear to be moral.

When God is placed on the fringe of ethical relevance and rejected as the standard of morality, then everyone will do what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). As society’s morals become more lax, we will see an increase in sexual aberrations. In the 1960’s, society underwent a sexual revolution – and not for the better. Traditional Judeo-Christian values were largely abandoned. This laid the groundwork for the expression of other forms of "sexual freedom," such as the promotion of homosexuality, along with its assault on families. Polyamory is another manifestation of the lack of moral integrity that is rampant in countries all over the world.

We have to ask, where does it stop? Where does the moral slide stop, just this side of necrophilia or bestiality? There are no guarantees. Undoubtedly, those advocating polygamy will want social acceptance. Then, when the sexual climate is so tepid, perhaps pedophiliacs will become emboldened and want their rights to the sexual expression of what they might call “ethical pedophilia."

Without the guidance of God's Word and its restrictions against moral corruption, society will undoubtedly fall deeper into the abyss of sexual deviation. The necessary consequence is the attack and breakdown of the family, an increase of immorality in subsequent areas, and ultimately the demise of society itself.

Moral integrity is the glue that holds society together. Without it, we can have no society. Polyamory is simply another form of immorality that is growing and contributes to the demise of our culture.
 
This one impresses me -- who ever thought that OKC would be held up as a moral bellwether? much less that everything was fine until they included those damned polyists? :eek:
Dating Site Including Polyamory as Sexual Orientation Option

OkCupid is a popular dating website that is visited by millions of people each year. Its features are the epitome of America’s changing concepts on marriage, sex, and gender. In 2014 OkCupid launched features allowing users to choose from 22 different gender and 12 sexual orientation options to describe themselves. These include “straight,” “questioning,” “asexual,” “heteroflexible,” “sapiosexual,” “androgynous,” “intersex,” “two spirit,” “transmasculine,” “hijra,” and much more.

In January 2016 the dating site introduced some new options intended to satisfy what they perceive as a growing trend: “Couples Linking.” This new feature allows “people who identify as ‘married,’ ‘seeing someone,’ or ‘in an open relationship’ to find new individuals with whom to have relationships.” Reportedly this new feature is the result of 24% of OkCupid users being “seriously interested” in group sex and 42% being willing to date someone who is already in a relationship.

Really, all things have been deemed permissible by our culture, and dating sites are becoming more about gratifying sexual desires then anything else. A common argument for gay “marriage” is “if they love one another...” Acceptable is then based on a purely emotional argument where “love” is used to determine whether or not something is permissible. Of course, if this is the standard, then what is wrong with adultery, bestiality, polyamory, polygamy, or pedophilia? With no absolute standard, “anything goes” as man decides morality based on his own fallible opinions.

In our culture, so heavily influenced by evolution, marriage is thought to be just another thing that evolved along the way. And if marriage evolved before, then marriage can evolve again. But marriage did not evolve, nor is marriage some outdated government institution or social organization pattern.

Polygamy, polyamory, and homosexuality are outside of God’s perfect design and are therefore sinful.
 
Sounds like God's kind of pissed at us. ;)

I've tried in the past to debate against the notion that if there were no God there would be no ethics/morality. It didn't accomplish much, other than getting a better grip on my own position.

I do agree that it's about evolution: that the rise of belief in evolution has helped foster in the notion of changing ethical codes. Where I disagree is, I firmly believe evolution actually did and does happen, and I believe ethical codes change (or "evolve") too. I don't believe in a static God that created a static world and Book of Rules.

I also believe that society in the future will look different from society today. I don't believe that society will crumble, degenerate into chaos, or disappear. I have tremendous confidence in humanity. Humanity is rife with problems, but it also has the capacity, and tendency, to vastly improve over a long period of time. And there is no perfect, there is always room to improve. We won't follow a straight line toward that improvement, there'll be ups and downs. But I have great hope that the ups will eventually prevail.

I don't know where the slippery slope ends, or where it should end. That's a problem for future generations to solve. I just try to do the best I can, in my little corner of the world, with what little knowledge I have. This knowledge prompts me to okay anything that goes on between consenting adults. Which includes polyamory.
 
Oh, for god's sake (heh, see what I did there? ;)).

I generally end up one of the most "theistic" people among my peer group wherever I end up, even though I scoff at organized/dogmatized religion, and don't identify with any other label club than the theoretical "panentheist"...

But you bet that I'm very, very grateful that OKC includes a poly category. (I've recently made a profile there... not looking for dates or partnerships, I could just do with a few more new platonic acquaintances/friends/pen pals... and yes, not having judgemental monos scold me is kind of a big deal for compatibility IMO, even within "mere" friendships).

Seriously, if (a) god is judgemental instead of unconditionally loving and accepting his/her/its/their creation, I don't see him/her/it/them as worthy of my reverence, in the first place. All Is One In God. ;)
 
I like to keep track of this stuff, & note whether there's any calls for actual confrontation, or merely "God will be unhappy." There's so many "right-thinking" groups out there that have probably offered their opinions about nonmonogamy; maybe I'll look into the National Organization for Marriage sometime.

It's good to keep in mind that many of the "pro-poly" things we see in the media is simply because we're a novelty, a headline-grabber, a ratings boost for sweeps week. We're okay just so long as we stay close to the closet & embrace our jobs as sideshow freaks & general whores. Per those 2015 polls --
only one in four U.S. adults believe that polyamory is “morally acceptable.” The majority (56%) believe that polyamorous relationships are “morally wrong,” and 18% aren’t sure.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., people are just slightly less intolerant. There, YouGov found that just over one third (35%) of British adults find polyamory morally acceptable; while a slight minority (47%) consider it morally wrong, and 19% aren’t sure.
This varies directly with degree of religious fanaticism.
poly4.png


If you believe the polls, most of the nation is Christian (70%), with the largest clump being some Evangelical form (25%), followed by Catholics (20%). I doubt there's widespread support amonst them for "our side," much less those who would defend us publicly (even if they're personally gay, bi, poly, etc., or close to someone who is such).
 
Though I've been paranoid for years & used to track media attention to Wicca as far back as 1980, it's only in recent years I've gotten diligent again, & "gay marriage" is what set that off. I respected Orson Scott Card, right up until he started publishing rather bald attacks on the continued existence of homosexuals, specifically over the matter of same-sex marriage. Though a few of us sci-fi geeks dumped our Card novels in 2008, nobody else seemed to care much, & then Ender's Game was released.

Card issued a response (belatedly, as in 2013) which manages to be (IMNSHO) shockingly disingenous AND totally clueless AND simply whiny. In its entirety:
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
I'd read the 2008 piece when it was fresh. It's loaded with Right Wingnut catch-phrases, lies, distortions, & propaganda -- for instance, when you know what you're about to say will be blatantly intolerant even in your own eyes, then begin by screeching about how intolerant your enemies are. Everyone tells me that Card's a good (if orthodox) Mormon, & that's why I never want to see a Mormon POTUS.

Since then, the Deseret News has gone FAR out of its way to clarify that it's a personal opinion piece (pronounced "please don't boycott us!!"), & maybe isn't an official statement of Mormon belief (pronounced "please don't boycott us!!") even though Card IS an official in the Church as well as a staff columnist for the Mormon Times. You can read the whole thing, but here's some highlights -- the first sentence is the actual opening shot, & any emphasis is my intrusion:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

(In another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage.)

That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.

That many individuals suffer from sex-role dysfunctions does not change the fact that only heterosexual mating can result in families where a father and a mother collaborate in rearing children that share a genetic contribution from both parents.

When a heterosexual couple cannot have children, their faithful marriage still affirms, in the eyes of other people's children, the universality of the pattern of marriage.

When a heterosexual couple adopts children who are not their genetic offspring, they affirm the pattern of marriage and generously confer its blessings on children who might otherwise have been deprived of its benefits.

Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his.

Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.

These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions — even, in many cases, death.

Men routinely discard wives and children to follow the nearly universal male biological desire for diversity in mating. Adultery is now openly expected of men, even if faithful wives deplore it.

With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
When it was first published, I described it as Card fatwah calls for armed jihad against gay enemies, & upon rereading I stand by that.

And five years later, he blandly declares declares this fundamental & likely violent Culture War to be "moot," & then hides behind Teacher's skirts demanding "fairness" much as any other caught-out schoolyard bully.

Nowhere has Card had the nads to stand up, defend the context of his original rant, then clearly & unequivocally either defend that stance now, or present a modified version, or apologize for being wrong.

No, it's just "moot" & "stop picking on me!"
 
Last edited:
Um, there's no such thing as bad publicity? That's all I've got.
 
For the record, I don't think traditional marriage is in any danger. The "worst" that could happen is that, for example, more gay teens will feel better about being homosexual. I know Card doesn't like that, but truly, there will be plenty of married MF couples in the future regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

The claim that only MF couples are able (yea, even prone) to parent well is tiresome and ridiculous. If anything, gay parents who adopt are known for raising well-adjusted (and usually heterosexual) children. It's not about the gender and number of parents. It's about the parents acting with logic and love.

Re (from Ravenscroft):
"Nowhere has Card had the nads to stand up, defend the context of his original rant, then *clearly and unequivocally* either defend that stance now, or present a modified version, or apologize for being wrong."

Well said.

In defense of the COJCOLDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), they're not all like Card, some are tolerant and reasonable (about things like gay marriage).
 
For the record, I don't think traditional marriage is in any danger.
Unfortunately.

(Sorry, couldn't help the snark. You know I loathe that institution. :p )
 
Well for better or worse, it's here to stay for at least a very long time. That's my prediction anyway.
 
Heh, I like that song.
 
I find it useful to know my enemies.
 
Also with regard to that rubbish about gay marriage being a threat to traditional marriage...

I am then reminded of this gem...

https://youtu.be/o-id4GKsaQk?t=3m36s

...by Lewis Black, one of my favorite comedians.
 
George W. ... ya gotta love him.
 
Back
Top