Homosexual advocates have long said that the redefinition of marriage will not lead to polygamous unions. Supporters of marriage between one man and one woman have disagreed. Well, recent efforts both at home and abroad seem to demonstrate that the supporters of traditional marriage are right.
Two recent stories, one from California and the other from Brazil, highlight the slippery slope of so-called same-sex "marriage." Both show that opening the door to homosexual unions and so-called same-sex "marriage," clearly paves the way for other alternative unions tomorrow.
On Monday, the California State Assembly approved legislation SB1476 allowing judges the ability to declare more than two parents for a child. The legislation applies equally to men and women, heterosexual and homosexual. Proposed by State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the bill passed with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.
"We live in a world today where courts face the diverse circumstances that have reshaped California families," said Leno. "It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents."
"This smacks of the state redefining parenthood," Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) told the Associated Press. "What's next? Are we going to parent by committee?"
Meanwhile, in Brazil, despite the Constitution's definition of marriage between a man and a woman, the country's first civil union between three partners has been registered. A Brazilian court earlier allowed homosexuals to marry under a "stable union" status.
Two women and a man living together in Tupã, in the northwestern region of Sao Paulo state, sought to publicly declare their status in order to guarantee their rights. The declaration was made three months ago, but became public this week. Notary, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues explained that there appeared to be no legal impediment to the union.
''We are only recognising what has always existed," said Domingues. "We are not inventing anything."
"We have to respect the private nature of relationships and learn to live in this pluralistic society recognizing different desires," said the vice president for the the Brazilian Family Institute, which favors homosexual and polygamous unions.
"This confirms everything we've been saying about the consequences of same-sex 'marriage,' said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "Commentators have tried to laugh, scoff, or dismiss this away. The question isn't a slippery slope argument. If marriage is simply based on the desires of adults and not the needs of children, and they view marriage as their right, there's a problem with our discourse. There is no right to redefine marriage. Once you embrace this new idea about marriage, the entire structure has to go away. These sorts of decisions make it clear that it's not scare-mongering to question the premises behind same-sex 'marriage.' Such unions lead to the consequences we see in California and Brazil, and that we've already seen happen in Canada."
"If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn't a man be able to have four wives?" asks Brian Hausknect of CitizenLink. "That's what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims. A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. Either marriage means what it's always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean."
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank goodness that big Christ the Redeemer statue is watching over Brazil and making sure the entire region stays innocent and pure. Oh, wait - there’s nothing innocent and pure about Brazil! I guess Christ the Redeemer is just a fallacy.
“Meanwhile, in Brazil, despite the Constitution’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman, the country’s first civil union between three partners has been registered.”
So what you’re saying is that if we legally define marriage as “between a man and a woman,” it might lead to 3-way marriages. So why is the Catholic church insisting on the same laws here in America?
If you’re going to grasp at any lame excuse to attack same-sex marriage, you should at least pick an example that doesn’t undermine your own political position.
WB -
Could it be that the courts, in our states and in other countries, are ignoring the will of the people, or their own Constitutions in pushing for a redefinition of something that’s already long been understood and defined?
Billy G, Christ the Redeemer in Brazil is a statue. If you’re going to ridicule a theology, don’t be inane.
Scripturally it’s wrong, & as a practising Catholic, obviously I would be opposed,but at least they’re being consistant about it.There’s no intellectually honest reason to limit the number of consenting adults in a legalized relationship once you change the gender requirements for marriage.
If you no longer discriminate due to gender, how can you then discriminate against number? Or familial relationship? Don’t “loving” adults have the right to love whom they choose?
When you pose this arguement to same sex marriage supporters they can be offended, but here you see it’s already a news item.
In my opinion, I think there is a financial as well as a sexual attraction to polygamy or polyandry. It makes economical sense in a poverty-stricken society to share ALL resources, and it\‘s not surprising that when a large number of people share a small house would encourage close contact.
.
As Catholics, you should be encouraged that such arrangements also encourage family growth—not everyone is strictly homosexual or heterosexual. There is also bisexual behavior that will produce children.
Family growth will be just fine without green-lighting objectively perverted sexual acts.
Kathleen posted on Thursday, Aug 30, 2012 1:32 PM (EST):
“There’s no intellectually honest reason to limit the number of consenting adults in a legalized relationship once you change the gender requirements for marriage.”
Sure there’s a good reason. Same sex marriage doesn’t require re-writing thousands of local, state and federal laws because it’s still based on a two-person relationship. How would you re-write custody and benefit laws based on the concept of marriage being open-ended when it comes to the number of people in it? There are very practical reasons why polyamorous relationships are extremely unlikely to be recognized legally.
Well, when you have step-fathers raping their 8-9 year-old stepchildren, it\‘s pretty obvious they don\‘t care much for religion, regardless of which statue is looking over them.
Kathleen: I think some people who currently believe consider themselves oppressed will be shocked to find themselves being labeled the oppressor in a matter of decades. I asked someone, if it’s all about love why polygamy and incest aren’t okay, and I didn’t get a reason—I got an emotional reaction.
Gloria: the main problem with your argument is children. Children aren’t just “resources.” They’re people. And having unrelated adults in the home is a significant risk factor for child abuse. I also question whether people who are in inherent competition with one another would really be inclined to share all that much.
cowalker: So what you are saying is that Brazil and California looked at all these good reasons, and subsequently flat-out ignored them? Or what?
enness ,
I seldom get honest answers to those questions, either.
I am so sick of the omnipresence of the “gay agenda”. Colours on TV Ads, flags everywhere. Rainbows no longer signifying the peace and covenant between God and Man.. But a battle standard for the basest of arguments: that marriage is not a sacrament. I wish that there would be some honesty in the definition of homosexual and gay. For those who are afflicted with homosexual orientation are not gay. Gay is a life-style, and a choice. The media is forever labelling people as “gay” when in fact they are homosexual. There are people who are not really homosexual who live a consciously assumed gay life-style, this is why it seems that there is more than a 10% population who are homosexual. The homosexual needs pastoral guidance and compassion. He/She needs a forum to be listened to, and there ought to be a way for the individual serve the glory of God in integrity and openness. In my experience, the homosexual mind is very sensitive to Authority. Often this is the person who speaks of Authentic Expression and Authentic Leadership. This person thirsts for true community and authentic Authority. My premise is that the homosexual ought to be offered a way to give with the greatest generosity of life and limb. The person needs really strong guidance, guided with love and strength. St Paul writes to people who before their conversion were under the demon of desire and fornication. It is imperative that the Sipritual Guide be a priest with a real sense of Right Living. Confessors should never waffle, and should never use the the confessional or the Spiritual Guidance as a platform for a personal agenda. Because many homosexuals are very creative, they need really strong sometimes bootcampesque guidance… The person needs to hear the word NO. There needs to be an opportunity to consecrate him-herself to the Service of the Lord, either privately or in communities. Finally, it is really important that homosexual understand the Pathology of Homosexual Syndrome.
cowalker ,
You are correct in that I should have highlighted that there also is no ethically honest reason to discriminate against polygamists, as well as no intellectually honest arguement against polygamy if same sex marriage is legalized.
Re-writing laws for domestic courts is a legal complication, not an ethical one.And we already have ongoing custody issues between 3 parents in surrogate births & other alternative fertility options.
enness posted on Thursday, Aug 30, 2012 11:40 PM (EST): “cowalker: So what you are saying is that Brazil and California looked at all these good reasons, and subsequently flat-out ignored them? Or what?”
The California case has nothing to do with marriage or unions. In California: “The Associated Press said SB1476 was inspired by a 2011 California case involving a girl who was put into the foster care system because her biological father could not be ruled a third parent when her two legal parents were unable to care for her. The bill is intended to keep some future children out of the foster care system by giving them additional legal parents who have care-taking and financial obligations.” This kind of situation could result from an unmarried couple putting their child up for adoption rather than choosing abortion. It need not be a case of exotic parentage.
The case in Brazil concerns a civil union. A lawyer in the article describes the union as “illegal.” If you read the article it ends: “While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.” In fact, they can’t. Existing law does not cover the case. Would the government be required to split survivor benefits among any number of “widowers?” What is the legal relationship between the child of one “wife” and the other “wife?” These questions would have to be anwered through legislation. It would be much more difficult to redefine marriage as a legal relationship among any number of adults than it is to re-define it as a legal relationship between two adults of any gender.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues decided to ignore the law. Her decision has all the legal weight of a Massachusetts clerk of court’s refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple for religious reasons. In other words, none
True. We must need to recognize marriage for what it is meant to be, or it will be come the sand that gets blown by the wind.., like taking the foundation away from a house.,
You people should be ashamed before God. You write articles about women, their right to contraception and God
forbid anyone is homosexual. Yet no talk until now about how the church really feels about children who were raped in your church. Now the Father has apologized and I am nauseous from watching CNN.
Gloria - you are foolish. Let’s see how pro-polygamy you are when you come home and find your best friend on your husband.
I’d rather raise poor, destitute children than allow another person, male or female into the sacred relationship between me and my wife irrespective of the financial benefits. In fact, I’d sooner put a bag on her head and push her down the stairs than share her and I’d sooner she did the same to me than share me. If you can share your spouse then you obviously don’t care about them.
Polygamy has nothing to do with practicality and everything to do with lust and selfishness.
lillyann said, “You should be ashamed before God” I reply: I am constantly begging God for forgiveness, so no objection there, but my guess is that we should be ashamed for something specific. Let’s see: “You write articles about women, their right to contraception” I hope you realize that there are contraceptives and contraceptive acts initiated by men correct? And those are every bit as evil. Contraception desecrates the marital bond, offends against chastity, and is a menace to public morals. “God forbid anyone is homosexual.” It’s any sexual contact between same-sexes that is evil. But being attracted to someone of the same sex, while not normal, is not in itself sinful. “Yet no talk until now about how the church really feels about children who were raped in your church.” Again, any sexual contact outside of man and woman in a marriage is evil. That is what the Church teaches. Now of course there are examples of Churchmen engaging in evil acts and even covering it up, but these people should be expelled from the Church if found guilty. Also I’d add that society is working overtime to reduce or remove age of consent laws, so these objections tend to ring hollow. Frankly it sounds like you are protesting a caricature of the Church rather than the actual Church, so I invite you to look a little deeper.
I thought for a long time, marriage was a polygamous institution? Is that what you mean when you say “what it has always meant?” That makes no sense…
Posted by chchch on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 3:18 PM (EST):I thought for a long time, marriage was a polygamous institution? Is that what you mean when you say “what it has always meant?” That makes no sense…”
****************
From a Christian perspective,and as Christ stated in scripture, one man wedded to one woman defines marriage. That’s how God intended it from the beginning.But you’re correct that later on polygamy was (& in some places still is) practised.
Let’s just give the greenlight to everyone who wants to marry one, two, three persons, family members, children, dogs, cats, sheep…heck, the possibilities are endless! Then everyone will accept each other; peace and harmony will reign if we never ever tell anyone that they are wrong, their lifestyle is unhealthy or their choices are more selfish than beneficial for mankind.
Yes, let’s break down all the “barriers” that keep people so unhappy and see what shakes out in the end.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.