You can make a good case about underage and unwilling "wives" of idiots like Warren Jeffs. Something similar about Muslim polygamy, in which a good % of the women effectively have no choice. Also, if you are going to make that an issue, some stats say that the number of Muslim polygamous households in the USA is well into the tens of thousands. The authorities go after Mormon sectarians but not a peep about Muslims. Was just thinking, Abraham --seems as if he has some slight importance-- was also polygamous, and what's that story about Rachel and Leah ? True, the NT recommends monogamy, that is more-or-less clear. I say this since concubinage was common enough in the first Christian centuries. Think that kind of thing lasted until fairly recently, in fact, at least some locations in Europe. "I'm pretty sure that most of them wouldn't know what the Bible says about most things." The NYT used to have a pretty decent religion writer, but he was just about the only exception.
Billy --------------------------------------------------- 5/5/2012 9:53:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Agreed, he didn't have to go there. On the other hand, it seems that the liberal NYT and its promotion of "Women's issues," would be more inclined to receive an anti-polygamy message than an anti-homosexual one. The latter is just being a Hater, anyway. And I'm pretty sure that most of them wouldn't know what the Bible says about most things. David _ "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz On 5/5/2012 12:22 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: As per usual, Mohler like various other religious conservatives, is waving the bloody shirt of polygamy as the next --or worse-- Huge Disaster in the "marriage wars." This is preposterous. And utterly stupid. It reminds me of Rick Santorum, one more religious believer, unwilling to do the least research into the psychopathology of homosexuality, grasping at what is taken to be an "obvious" horror, plural marriage, as if it is impossible to discuss all the serious problems with homosexuality and making those problems the issue. As if ( actually there is no "as if" about it ) it is too much trouble to do some actual research and actually become informed about homosexuality the mental illness. Mohler provides a service in pointing out the ways that the NY Times sometimes falsifies facts. But otherwise his argument is so much bad logic. I take it that Mohler regards Solomon as an evil king. I take it that he would like all of the Psalms of David ( who also was polygamous ) expunged from the Bible. I suppose that Esther, the wife of a polygamous Persian king, was an evil woman. And so forth...... Duh, polygamy is a separate issue. Clearly the Bible sometimes looks at this practice favorably, or simply as a phenomenon. Clearly plural marriage was part of the social scene among X number of Israelites in history and, for that matter, among Jews in parts of the world to the present day. Problems ? Surely sometimes. But this is drastically different than the Bible's testimony about homosexuality ( sodomy ) in 25 books of the text, from 10 books in each Testament, in 100% of cases as something which is condemned as one of the worst imaginable of all sins. What is so difficult to understand about this ? Billy ----------------------------------- Christian Post _Bigotry on the Ballot? No, Dishonesty in the Editorial_ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/bigotry-on-the-ballot-no-dishonesty-in-the-editorial-74424/ ) Sat, May. 05, 2012 Posted: 10:28 AM EDT ____________________________________ Many of the nation's leading newspapers serve as advocacy agents for the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Leading this charge for some time, The New York Times regularly promotes same-sex marriage in its editorials and news coverage. Even so, the paper's latest editorial serves as a display of how the argument for homosexual marriage is often pressed with what can only be described as undisguised intellectual dishonesty. In "Bigotry on the Ballot," the paper editorialized against Amendment One, the effort to amend the constitution of North Carolina in order to preclude the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. That question will be put before the voters of North Carolina on May 8, and the result will be an important signal of where the nation now stands on the question. No similar effort has yet failed when put before the voters of a state, but polls indicate that the vote in North Carolina may be close. The editorial begins: "North Carolina already has a law barring same-sex marriage, but the state's Republican-controlled Legislature is not satisfied. It devised a measure to enshrine this obvious discrimination in the State Constitution and placed it on the ballot of the state's May 8 primary election - a test of tolerance versus bigotry that ought to be watched closely nationwide." The paper has every right to editorialize as it chooses, and an editorial against Amendment One is no surprise to any informed reader of that paper. But look closely at the language used. The effort to limit marriage to the union of a man and a woman is described as "obvious discrimination." That is meant to insinuate that the effort is therefore wrong, and even immoral. But that is just not intellectually honest. Discrimination - even "obvious discrimination" - is not necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane society discriminates at virtually every turn, as do individuals. The law is itself an instrument of comprehensive discrimination. We classify some crimes as misdemeanors and others as felonies. We allow some persons to teach in our schools, but not others. We recognize certain persons as citizens, but not others. Often, we discriminate on moral terms. No sane person would ask a convicted child molester to be a baby sitter. No sane society would elect a known embezzler as state treasurer. These acts of discrimination are necessary and morally right. The real question is whether discrimination is right or wrong, justified or without justification. Calling any law "obvious discrimination" is not yet an argument. What the editors mean, we can presume, is that the proper line of discrimination should be drawn elsewhere, but this is not what the editorial states. In order to make this argument, the editors would have to summon the courage to define how the law should properly discriminate in defining marriage. No such courage is apparent. As a matter of fact, when the editors do acknowledge that the law must define marriage in some way, they offer an even more egregious example of intellectual dishonesty. Consider this sentence: "Opponents of marriage equality have never been able to show any evidence that any harm is caused to heterosexual marriages by granting all American adults the right to marry as they choose - because there is no such evidence." The editors demand "evidence" that heterosexual marriages will be harmed by the legalization of same-sex marriage, but this is an evasion. Legalizing same-sex marriage redefines marriage as an institution, leading to a fundamental redefinition of society. Opponents of same-sex marriage believe that such a redefinition, in itself, is a harm to the entire society. The larger problem with this sentence from the editors is the argument that the nation should grant "all American adults the right to marry as they choose." Really? I do not believe for a moment that the editors of The New York Times mean what they said - at least I hope not. The editorial is aiming for a conclusive argument, but the editors have made an argument I doubt they can own or sustain. All American adults should have the right to marry as they choose? All? This means the legalization of polygamy and incest. Proponents of same-sex marriage respond to such assertions with anger and vitriol, but they cannot deny that polygamy is a very real issue and that at least some American adults have demanded a right to marry their closest relations. Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, has argued that laws against polygamy are evidence of hypocrisy, and should be repealed. Stanley Kurtz of The Weekly Standard stated the matter plainly: "Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage." We are living in an age marked by what philosopher John Haldane calls "erotic entitlements." Those promoting these entitlements now demand marriage as the ultimate recognition and normalization of their relationships. The New York Times has the right to press the case for same-sex marriage, but it does bear the responsibility to make its arguments with intellectual honesty. Just where would the paper draw the lines of rightful discrimination in marriage law, and for how long will it be willing to hold those lines? R. Albert Mohler, Jr. ____________________________________ Copyright © Christianpost.com. All rights reserved. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
