But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage....
March 24, 2013
"Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet."
"UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
186 comments:
Trouble in Paradise! Oh noes!!!!11!
Under what kind of math is two = three?
"Goddammit! We can't have no gol-durned Uni activists working out the logic of SSM to its logical conclusion now, can we? I mean, that's just gonna queer the deal for everybody!"
"Shhh! Don't talk about polyamory! Wait until after we get gay marriage before we start advocating for legal recognition of poly relationships! Otherwise, the antis will claim that gay marriage recognition will claim it's a slippery slope!"
For that matter, polygamy has a lot more historical precedent than gay marriage.
Antonin Scalia, you have a call on the white courtesy telephone.
Can't wait till we get to the "incest really isn't that icky" stuff.
For consenting adults, of course.
Hey, does this mean Hatman can marry all of his brothers at once?
(gene pool breathes a sigh of relief...)
Marriage means monogamy. If couples want a formal relationship that does not include monogamy, then they need to create a new social institution status instead of trying to hijack, and change, marriage. Monogamy plays a critical role in heterosexual marriages because heterosexual relionships can result in children and monogamy helps to keep the family intact which is good for the children and society. Obviously, monogamy does not play the same role in same sex relationships and if same sex couples want different rules rules, then they need to create their new social institution that uses those rules. The same with the small number of heterosexuals who are interested in polyamory--they need to create a new institution.
Marriage means monogamy. If couples want a formal relationship that does not include monogamy, then they need to create a new social institution status instead of trying to hijack, and change, marriage. Monogamy plays a critical role in heterosexual marriages because heterosexual relionships can result in children and monogamy helps to keep the family intact which is good for the children and society. Obviously, monogamy does not play the same role in same sex relationships and if same sex couples want different rules rules, then they need to create their new social institution that uses those rules. The same with the small number of heterosexuals who are interested in polyamory--they need to create a new institution.
OK, this is different from polygamy, that is polyandry (one woman, several men) or polygyny (one man, several women), right? One big free-for-all.
So, if they grant rights to the polyamorists, but not to the polygamists, is it like giving rights to unmarried homosexuals, but not giving them to unmarried heterosexuals?
Well, that didn't take long, did it?
Shhhh, we don't want to scare the rubes.
Boil the frog slowly.
Unitarians are communists.
I played with Dan Fogelberg in the Red Herring Coffee House in the basement of the Unitarian church on the campus of the University of Illinois over 40 years ago.
Great coffee house. Steve Goodman played there too.
But, the Unitarians are commies. Always have been. Getting laid in a wide variety of combinations was always a big part of the agenda, too.
Back in 1968, the commies at the Unitarian coffee house believed that world peace would be attained if only all men would turn bisexual and give other men blow jobs.
Gee, Carrie, way to write off the cultures of the earth who practice polygamy.
Carrie wrote:
> Marriage means monogamy.
Why, Carrie, how retro of you! "Marriage means monogamy?" Says who?
Marriage used to mean "one man and one woman." Now it can mean anything we want it to mean!
Oso Negro
Show me a culture that practices polyamory where you would want to live.
Oso Negro
Show me a culture that practices polyamory where you would want to live.
From an economic standpoint, does polygamy make sense?
Like I said before, I'm going to LMAO when WaPo & NYT have to defend the Mormons.
carrie said....3/24/13, 4:05PM
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
Now if you stopped your political narratives then you would actually know what this experimentation with "gay marriage" is really about!
Ikea is pushing polyarmoire.
It's the Lutheran way.
How many of those societies with polygyny, occasional or otherwise, actually amount to anything?
War does have a tendency to decrease the male population.
What were the lives like in those societies?
Brutish & short?
Or did the Dance with Wolves?
Unitarianism always seemed more like group therapy than religion to me.
Under what kind of math is two = three?
In the Equality math.
But religion or not, they clearly lack the conviction of their principles (to the extent they have principles) on marriage.
Seeing Red said...3/24/13, 4:25 PM
You are 100% correct. Because males did not live as long as females, due to hunting risks, war, hard labor, DNA, etc., for societies to survive the excess female population needed to be married for societies survival. Be interesting to see what the abortion experiment in China will produce with the shortages of females.
Is it possible to be a committed Unitarian?
The end question is : "What is the age-of-consent" for sheep?
Seeing Red said...
War does have a tendency to decrease the male population.
Why everybody is nervous about Red China.
hstad said...
You are 100% correct. Because males did not live as long as females, due to hunting risks, war, hard labor, DNA, etc., for societies to survive the excess female population needed to be married for societies survival.
Didn't work.
Even with polygyny, the Indians were outbred by those monogamous breeders.
When each wife of Big Snake has 1 or 2 kids, while Mrs Smith has 20, guess who wins?
So is polyamory the next culture that the liberals plan to whip up? Or is it going to be something else? That the left will whip up another culture war just as soon as they get same-sex marriage is as certain as the sun coming up.
As a Christian I’m appalled.... As a student of philosophy, I’m moved."
Big Mike said...
So is polyamory the next culture that the liberals plan to whip up? Or is it going to be something else? That the left will whip up another culture war just as soon as they get same-sex marriage is as certain as the sun coming up.
It's starting to look like polyamory, incest (consenting adults, of course), and maybe bestiality will all hit at the same time.
Pederasty will take a little time. Can't discriminate against NAMBLA, you know.
within a couple of years of getting gay marriage approved, the lefties will be pushing for polygamy and bestiality. it's all about love, no?
By all means, let's return to traditional marriage; wives are chattel to be acquired or disposed of as a man sees fit. They cannot own property, a bank account nor can they inherit money.
The fact is few really want traditional marriage, so please stop the bullshit.
Under what kind of math is two = three?
Under the same math that says one man/one woman equals oppression.
Joe said...
By all means, let's return to traditional marriage; wives are chattel to be acquired or disposed of as a man sees fit. They cannot own property, a bank account nor can they inherit money.
The fact is few really want traditional marriage, so please stop the bullshit.
No, some women don't want it (some, I suspect, would love having somebody else balance the checkbook).
From some of the guys here, it sounds like the only kind of marriage they do want.
This slope ain't slippery. No. Absolutely not. One thing cannot possibly lead to another.
If we say something is not the domain of one man and one woman, with a foundation in basic biological function, then what is special about 2? It would seem to be arbitrary discrimination.
Marriage is no more succesful in conservative couples than it is in liberal ones. No difference in divorce rates. All the angst over the "redefining" of an institution that conservatives don't honor any more than liberals.
As for all the Unitarian bashing, I guess it doesn't pass the "true Christian" criteria. Just like Glen Beck, the Mormon, who said that Obama wasn't a true Christian, LMAO.
If the court fucks this up, then it basically is nothing more than a tenured bureaucracy. Oh wait.
Inga said...
Marriage is no more succesful in conservative couples than it is in liberal ones. No difference in divorce rates. All the angst over the "redefining" of an institution that conservatives don't honor any more than liberals.
As for all the Unitarian bashing, I guess it doesn't pass the "true Christian" criteria. Just like Glen Beck, the Mormon, who said that Obama wasn't a true Christian, LMAO
Sigh, more wino ravings of retardation and alcohol.
Scott M why did you post that three times?
:)
Methadras said...
Sigh, more wino ravings of retardation and alcohol.
I just knew we couldn't get through this post without at least one of the two...
And, of course, the She Devil of the SS provides no verification for her contention...
Polyamory??
No way. It will never work. Women take that sex thing much too seriously.
Polyamory??
No way. It will never work. Women take that sex thing much too seriously.
From my admittedly limited encounter with polyamorist relationships women seem to be the driving force in those relationships. You see a lot of WMW relationships and MWM where the women are dominant.
Polygamy seems to involve more dominant men who engage in relationships with multiple women but where the women are monogamous.
Marriage is no more succesful in conservative couples than it is in liberal ones. No difference in divorce rates. All the angst over the "redefining" of an institution that conservatives don't honor any more than liberals.
Did you pull that out of thin air? How about a link or citation to a study?
I'm familiar with a study that claims that the divorce rate among evangelicals is the same as the general population. But I've never heard of a study that compared conservatives and liberals; evangelicals aren't necessarily conservative.
Evangelicals are most likely conservative. Let's not play games here.
Well, how about that citation?
"...Unitarian bashing, I guess it doesn't pass the "true Christian" criteria..."
Unitarian Universalists are not a Christian denomination. From the mighty Wikipedia:
"Contemporary Unitarian Universalism espouses a pluralist approach to religious belief, whereby members may describe themselves as humanist, agnostic, deist, atheist, pagan, christian, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, or assume no label at all. As of 2006, fewer than about 20% of Unitarian Universalists identified themselves as Christian."
@Inga,
I'm going to try to explain a simple concept to you that I'm sure you will deliberately fail to grasp.
The fact that people fail to live up to traditional religious conventions (i.e., they get divorced) does not invalidate those conventions.
In other words, sin doesn't cease being sin because people commit same.
Do I need to reword this a dozen times or so for you to get it... because I'll be glad to do that.
The slippery slope just got steeper.
Oh come on, they're Unitarians!
So, Inga, should we cease regarding murder as a sin because so many people commit it?
Perhaps legalizing murder would remove the shame.
To be fair, Unitarians do host great folkie coffee houses, and in some locations the coffee and pastries are suprisingly goood.
But Noooooooo, anyone who thinks that SSunions would lead to calls for other forms of "marriage" is delusional.
Not a Santorum fan, but I'm still waiting for apologies from all those who ridiculed him for speculating that calls for SSM would follow from striking down sodomy laws.
Note the divorce rates in red states and blue states
Don't kill the messenger.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/22/bill-to-repeal-of-colorado-adultery-law-signed/
Yep, just wipe those laws against adultery off the books- after all no one actually gets hurt. Wrecks a marriage, but hey, who cares about that? And surveys show that gay males wishing to get married for the most part don't intend on staying monogamous- after all variety is the spice of life. One sexual partner all the time? BOOORRRING!
Yep, no slippery slopes, just move along, nothing to see here...
Just don't get caught at it in sharialand- they don't care that you're just passing through on a business trip and letting off a little sexual frustration. They'll get out the stones for you...
ST, with all due respect, you aren't the best or most rational person to be speaking about right and wrong, after your rape debacle this morning.
Inga said...
here ya go
Apparently, Barna's data has come under some attack, to the point he says he "stands by it". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I also don't see any breakdown for the 2, 5, and 10 time losers who skew the 50% figure. According to the Census, about 90% of all first time marriages still succeed.
Nice try, though.
Inga said...
Note the divorce rates in red states and blue states
Don't kill the messenger.
Why not? Sounds like fun.
In any case, the headline is "Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast", not red vs blue.
If they're per marriage and fewer people get married in the Northeast, the divorce rate would be higher in the south, anyway.
And let's remember all those Democrats in states like VA, NC, and FL (the ones that vote in multiple states).
ST, with all due respect, you aren't the best or most rational person to be speaking about right and wrong, after your rape debacle this morning
No, he made some valid non-multiculti, politically incorrect observations about sexual relations on the other side of the world.
He's been there, you haven't.
So sit down, shut up, and maybe you learn something.
Edbutcher, why don't you mind your own business, did I address you in my comment to ST? I don't think he needs a senile demented poodle to speak for him.
Inga: Note the divorce rates in red states and blue states
Don't kill the messenger.
Inga, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Ecological Fallacy. Ecological Fallacy, Inga. I'll leave you two alone to get acquainted.
Still, knowing our hostess' opinion on the subject of SSM, I appreciate her making this post available for comment rather than sweeping it under the rug. I think that there are many bloggers who would hide this rather than let down the side. Integrity is something to be cherished and in this case admired.
Many people would prefer that someone who is exposing their agenda keep quiet.
what Tammy explained I cant believe that any one can earn $8552 in 1 month on the computer. have you seen this link Epic2.com
Polyamory must be taught to schoolchildren by men who dress as women every other day, along with the mechanics of fisting, and the superiority of lesbians over other women.
It's for their own good.
Otherwise, they will become bigots, not fit for polite society.
"Contemporary Unitarian Universalism espouses a pluralist approach to religious belief, whereby members may describe themselves as humanist, agnostic, deist, atheist, pagan, christian, monotheist, pantheist, polytheist, or assume no label at all. As of 2006, fewer than about 20% of Unitarian Universalists identified themselves as Christian."
I take my earlier vacillation back. If it allows all of that, it is not a religion at all.
It may be a very fine organization with very fine members, but it is not a religion as that term is used by pretty much everyone who is not a Unitarian.
Inga, the CDC compiles a lot of data on marriage and divorce rates. See here for starters.
The results are interesting, but not in the ways you seem to want to believe. A few tentative conclusions:
1) Marriage rates are vastly lower in blue states than in red states. That is, about half as many people marry in Massachusetts as marry in Alabama.
2) The classic 50% divorce rate statistic is misleading. Half of marriages end in divorce, but far fewer than half of marrying people end up divorcing. That's because people who divorce once tend to do it again (and again).
These numbers can be tricky.
Truckee - I have spent a lot of time in Bahrain and could see living there. Polygamy legal. I would further note that the U.K. and Australia both recognize polygamous marriages performed elsewhere.
I should have followed point (1) above with this:
3) One would expect that there are more divorces in a place that has more marriages. That is, if you have no weddings, you ain't gonna have any divorces either. That's the Massachusetts example. When you have lots of weddings, like in Alabama, you're gonna have more divorces.
Math is hard!
Igna, But serial cohabitation happens a lot in blue states. Cohabitation break ups are just as nasty, but not recording by the government.
Be interesting to see what the abortion experiment in China will produce with the shortages of females.
It'll produce a war for all those frustrated young men to go off to, almost certainly.
"We whose names are hereunto inscribed, desiring a religious organization in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, which shall make integrity of life its first aim and leave thought free, associate ourselves together as the First Unitarian Society of Madison and accept to its membership those of whatever theological opinion who wish to unite with us in the promotion of truth, righteousness, reverence and charity among all." Adopted 1879, revised 1980.
Sounds more Christian than many churches I've attended.
This is bullshit. I'm a lifelong Unitarian and I've never heard of this group/debate/whatever. Met many gay married couples with children at services, but I've never met anyone who is, er, untraditional in a poly way.
The current debate raging for UUs is if headquarters should sell the historic Beacon street address, which is situated in a hard-to-maintain building.
knowing our hostess' opinion on the subject of SSM, I appreciate her making this post available for comment rather than sweeping it under the rug.
I had the same thought.
Sounds more Christian than many churches I've attended.
That is, if you toss aside most of the actual tenets of Christianity.
Unitarians are better Christians in the bumper sticker style of religious of discourse.
I'll bet the Unitarians aren't big supporters of the "integrity of life" when it comes to abortion.
Marriage means monogamy
No, it usually means polygamy.
The only commonality in marriage, across all human societies in all of history up to the 1990s, is that a person of the male gender married a person of the female gender. This was true even in the case of those societies that had homosexual marriages; it was universal that in such marriages one same-sex partner had assumed a social gender role of the opposite sex.
Evangelicals are most likely conservative.
I'm sure, Inga, that all the Democrat-endorsing black evangelical churches that are all over the country are happy with you declaring them "conservative". Maybe you want to go and do it to their faces?
The fundamental problem between same-sex marriage and polyamory isn't religious, or even cultural. It's tax law. You want to band together and be a big happy economic ashram? Start a corporation. Make it a nonprofit if it makes you feel more intimate and all.
I'm as strong an advocate for same-sex marriage as there is, but that is in lieu of what I think would be a far better solution: that the government (and the IRS) get out of the marriage business altogether. Let the government deal in households and let the people figure out their own marriages.
Perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to gay couples was the personal income tax and its governmental division of the marriage and unmarried.
Inga said...
Edbutcher, why don't you mind your own business, did I address you in my comment to ST? I don't think he needs a senile demented poodle to speak for him.
First, get the name right.
Second, clearly you have no rebuttal.
For anything.
Third, you have no trouble sticking your long Nazi nose into other people's discussions.
BRAVO, ARM ring any bells?
And fourth, you are the last one to castigate any church on their level of fidelity to the teachings of Christ.
I also don't see any breakdown for the 2, 5, and 10 time losers who skew the 50% figure.
You really know how to hurt a guy, eductcher. I'm just a 2 time loser though. I ain't gettin' hitched agin.
Edbutcher, edbutcher, edbutcher,
Still yapping?
So they have a lot of swingers?
Whoa...So when did Christ say that was ok?
So they have a lot of swingers?
I'm checking my Concordance right now.
I think it's somewhere in Matthew?
Inga,
Many thanks for your comments.
But the way I feel about it: I don't have time for prejudiced people. They are the same people who tell Reform Jews that they are not "real" Jews. They are small-minded people who are not worth our time.
But, yes, I've always thought of the Unitarians as the principle Christian Church of Group Sex.
Always worked out that way for me when I went there.
But the way I feel about it: I don't have time for prejudiced people.
Thousands, if not millions of trump points for the first sensitive soul to condemn the "prejudiced people."
That's always a winner. How we hate those prejudiced people. They're everywhere!
This is an interesting case of innumeracy promoting false philosophy. What would be the poll numbers on polyamory? What would be the divorce rates in SSM couples? If those rates are unexpectedly high, why might that be? Do people with conservative cultural mores tend to hew to conservative lifestyles more than those with liberal mores?
What would be the ideal drunk-driving breathalyzer amount? Should we imprison and impound for everyone caught, or should we concentrate on recidivist drunks?
How many chucks would a Chuck Todd chuck?
Back in the day, the Unitarian Church was also a good place to find a good pot dealer.
Perhaps I'm on the wrong side!
The Unitarian Church is great!
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05051.pdf The recognition of polygamous marriages in the U.K. is severely limited. And very, very recent. The PDF is from July 2012. And I'll wager any amount that the average British subject, if given a voice in the matter, would allow no recognition at all. Liberal mindset of the ruling class allows the camel to get the nose under the tent...
Wwww. But you appear, yourself, to be predjudiced against "small minded people".
Congrats, Inga! I do believe you found the only reference to Jesus in that entire website. I notice they don't refer to "Christ", though. Odd...
Also, there's this:
"Although the roots of both Unitarianism and Universalism are Christian, we are not now considered Christian."
So you can stop digging now.
Wwww. But you appear, yourself, to be predjudiced against "small minded people".
DADvocate said...
I also don't see any breakdown for the 2, 5, and 10 time losers who skew the 50% figure.
You really know how to hurt a guy, eductcher. I'm just a 2 time loser though. I ain't gettin' hitched agin.
Didn't know, my bad.
Would you feel any better if I substituted 3 for 2?
PS How hard is it to spell the name?
If I used the original family name, DeDuyster, I could understand...
Wwww. But you appear, yourself, to be predjudiced against "small minded people".
Small minded people have been taking a beating for decades.
How many miles does a small minded man have to walk
Before they call him a man?
The answer my friends...
What church is Christian enough? I grew up in the Assemblies of God churches. They preached that Catholics were idolaters and would not see Heaven. Who gets to say who is Christian enough?
So, you grew up a bigot, Inga?
That explains everything.
I want you to know that I, a Catholic, am morally offended. In fact, I'm weeping. Bitter tears just like Christ's moments before he was crucified.
You've victimized me most hideously, Inga! My self-esteem is irretrievably damaged!
Inga,
The grandmother of my spouse passed away a few years ago. She was a lifelong Congregationalist. Attended church every Sunday.
A few days after she died, a rather unpleasant person told my spouse that Congregationalists were not Christian.
I left the church at 18, ST.
The sin of bigotry can never be forgiven, absolved or left behind, Inga.
I've got you on this one.
Oh, my tears! My self-esteem! My butt-hurt!
Wwww, that's sadly funny, one of my daughters was married in a Congregational church, another was married this past fall by a Unitarian minister in a park in Madison.
Both are happily married.
Unitarians were good for naked weddings in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco back in my hippie days, which would be the early 70s.
And, back then, the Unitarian girls I knew were young enough that I wanted them to get naked.
My butt still hurts, Inga! Bigotry most foul!
"What church is Christian enough?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe one that actually claims to be Christian, for a start?
(Note: I have no particular beef with the UU's as such, just with people who insist on incorrectly categorizing them for political debating purposes.)
@Shouting Thomas,
Re: world peace if all men went bi and gave each other bjs.
Assuming that is true, I'm going on record right now as being firmly committed to war.
Inga,
Congregationalists and Unitarians have a lot in common. Both sects evolved from American Puritans in New England.
Many in both my family & in my in-laws. Along with Quakers, of course. :)
I made this very point in a post yesterday; that after accepting SSM there is no defensible standard that can hold up on who gets married and who doesn't.
It's like trying to get teenagers to agree to take responsibility for their actions in advance. Sure they will say "Of course, if I crash the car, I'll pay for it, and never ask for the keys again, but you know damned well it's just bullshit to get what they want, and they don't give a damn about the consequences. They just want what they want, and they want it now.
This is bullshit. I'm a lifelong Unitarian and I've never heard of this group/debate/whatever. Met many gay married couples with children at services, but I've never met anyone who is, er, untraditional in a poly way.
That's because they're being hidden!
Post it and it's true! Spring is here!
btw-
No one in my family has ever gotten a divorce.
Just saying. :)
Actually, this thread suggests that Unitarians are a LOT more hip and exciting then is actually the case. Going to church on Sunday is filled with bringing cookies for the tea after service, grandmothers, kids, and singing hymns off-key.
When I was a kid, I would have been a LOT more entertained on Sundays if services involved swinging, pot, and, these naked weddings ST seems to have attended.
I did get to dress up as a kangaroo for a play about Noah's Ark in Sunday School.
Shout, you are a hard man.
At least you try to be as often as possible.
ST, if I would've known you last fall I would've invited you to the swinging Bacchanal that was my daughter's wedding.(JK)
Summary: Their cause is just but the timing is off.
Who gets to say who is Christian enough?
Nicene Creed?
SSM is the Obamacare of social regulations.
Destructive, and intentionally so.
Assemblies of God churches don't recite the Nicene Creed, nor do Mormons I believe, probably even more Christian religions, so is Assemblies of God a Christian religion then?
Does the Universal Life Church count as "Christian? I'm an ordained minister--it cost be $50 bucks for the certificate. Had it framed and it hung for many years on the wall behind my desk chair..
(Let not ANYONE say I don't have a sense of humor..)
Aaaaaand here we go.
As I've posted numerous times before *this* will be the problem with with ok'ing gay 'marriage': if two people of the same sex can marry why can't three or ten?
And there is no way to stop it.
And the gays who claim that marriage is between TWO people regardless of sex are hypocrites for stating that three people or ten marrying is 'wrong'.
Florida Gulf Coast headed to the Sweet 16!
Fighting Illini Unitarian Potheads vs. U of Miami Thugs coming up!
Had an uncle who years ago attended the Unitarian church in Madison afew times.
We asked what it was like and he said 'Well they pray to "Whom it may concern"'.
While we are on the culture wars, here is an interesting article by Ross Douthat, one of the more avid culture warriors. While I may be a little hard on Bush at times, I am no where near as bitter as young Ross appears to be.
Inga, you are ignoring me. Why?
Sorry Bob, how am I ignoring you?
On the subject or religion and marriages- from limited personal observation. I note that mixed marriages between religious people of two different Christian denominations seem to work out better from a statistical standpoint then people marrying from the same church. I suspect the reason why is that before marriage, they have to reconcile some serious differences between them, so when they commit to marriage, they have more of an idea what they are getting into. My wife comes from a good Catholic family; she and one of her brothers married Methodists. Both those couples are still married- her sister and brother who married fellow Catholics are divorced- one more then once, adding to that failed marriage statistic.
Someone quoted above that often marriages fail AFTER a couple becomes born again. Not surprising- I've known more then a few born again types during my life. In most cases one half of the couple gets involved and becomes born again- and this creates enourmous friction within a marriage. Sometimes the other spouse goes along- for a while- thinking things will get back to normal. When they don't- well, irreconciliable differences. I suspect that ANY marriage where a spouse suddenly changes religious beliefs after marrying becomes unstable as the dynamics change. It's more visible among born again types because there are more of them. I imagine if a spouse of a reform Jew suddenly turned Orthodox there would be similar problems. Doesn't happen as often. Evangelicals- born again types- seek to convert others. Evangelicals and Mormons are the only denominations that seem to actively seek adult converts in the U.S. Anyone know the divorce rate among recenty converted Mormons? Bet it's high.
As I've posted numerous times before *this* will be the problem with with ok'ing gay 'marriage': if two people of the same sex can marry why can't three or ten?
You need to leave out somebody to serve as witness... like a designated witness... he can marry at the next wedding after the divorce.
Assemblies of God churches don't recite the Nicene Creed, nor do Mormons I believe, probably even more Christian religions, so is Assemblies of God a Christian religion then?
Retarded.
"Who gets to say who is Christian enough?"
"Nicene Creed?"
3/24/13, 7:53 PM
Jarby seems to be answering my question, by saying churches who recite the Nicene Creeds are the true Christian churches, so I'm asking him if those churches that are creedless are still Christian. It's retarded not to understand the question, NoNo.
Inga, perhaps I am not being direct enough. Not harsh enough.
You asserted, essentially, that conservatives are hypocrites because they divorce a lot. Then, when asked for evidence, you cited a crap site.
I'm saying your assertion and evidence are both bullshit. You don't know what you're writing. You want to believe it, because it fits your mindset. But you're wrong. That's a difficult thing to embrace, being wrong.
Shall I be more direct? I'm trying to be polite here.
Ah, now I remember why I ignored you Bob.
Ingarish. Retarded.
And then many of us can say "Slippery Slope? We told you so."
Inga, it is difficult to pay attention to the arguments that you don't like. I have that problem. It's beneficial, though. If you try to listen and try to read, you might learn something, or at least learn how to improve your own argument.
I remember reading, don't know if it was true, that Canada was going to lower the age of consent. NAMBLA or a front group was all for that.
I thought Progressives were for "Forward?"
How come we seem to keep going backwards?
Keep lowering the age of consent, some 30 y.o. perv will be boffing 13 y.o.s' soon enough and get away with it. This is just getting FITB all around.
Why is it always about sex with the progs?
Both my cites were good ones, sorry you don't think so Bob.
All old nurses on Althouse.blogspot.com are incoherent attention whores.
Inga is an old nurse on Althouse.blogspot.com.
Therefore Inga is retarded.
Inga, honey, I'm feeling nice tonight, so I'll say this as nicely as I can:
You're wrong. Unitarianism is not Christian today. To be a Christian church, one must accept Christ as the Savior. Not a "Wise man", not a "prophet", but a God-Savior.
This is why Islam is not Christianity. Muslims believe Christ worked miracles and was a prophet, but was not the Savior/God. This is why Buddhism is not Christianity. Buddhism believes Jesus to be one of many Gods, but the only god or the savior.Neither Buddhists nor Muslims would say they are Christians.
The Unitarian Church accepts the beliefs of Islam and Buddha as valid. It allows it's members to identify as Muslim and Buddhist as well as atheist. However, by definition, a Buddhist and Muslim and atheist are not Christian. The buddhist and muslim and atheistic beliefs directly contradict the idea of Christ as savior and Christ as sole god.
If a church accept as valid beliefs that say Christ is not god/savior, it's not a christian church.
QED.
Or, more simply:
"Unitarianism: where God is just a suggestion. "
I was married in a UU church and would love to be a member, if only I could find a UU congregation that wasn't also obsessed with hard left politics.
Inga doesn't accept what Inga doesn't like, because Ingarish is logikle.
Inga, that weird site you linked to is an obvious front for an atheist group. I've got nothing against atheists; they're theists like any other. But c'mon. Stop lying.
Here's the site.
OCRT Statement of Belief:
We are a multi-faith group. As of late-2012, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.
That's your citation, Inga?
I see they're against "transphobia," Bob. So, that's good.
From what I understand, the UK recognizes polygamous marriages as a way to combat welfare fraud -- wife #2 had been collecting welfare benefits as a single mother, so the recognition is intended to document that she does indeed have a hubby who can be called upon to support her. (Though from what I understand, the Brits are quite happy to dispense large amounts of welfare benefits to the poor of all sorts, from the "deserving" poor to any loafer who can't be bothered to even look for a job because the pay wouldn't be as generous as welfare.)
Under what kind of math is two = three?
Very late to the discussion, but here goes.
People having sex with people of the same gender should not be considered wrong. Denying the right of marriage to two same-sex people that love each other passes judgement that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Therefore denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is wrong. This seems to be the prevailing logic.
So that covers the Ls and Gs of the LGBT community. But what about the poor Bs? If you're bi, you might be in love with one person from your own sex and one from another. If you tell that person they can't marry both of the people they love at the same time, you are condemning their bisexuality. So they should be allowed to get married to two people at the same time. So two isn't the magic number, it must be at least three. Otherwise you are stating that bisexuals are beneath legal protection, yes?
And once you allow that someone might be in love with more than one person at a time, then restricting marriage to three people seems stupid.
By the time one gets to the Ts, I think everything is already covered.
...
Discussing this with the missus the other night (who holds a different position (ahem) on these topics), I came around to the position that I'm willing to accept all of these forms of marriage - just as long as we outlaw divorce for all but the most egregious of reasons. Basically, don't allow divorce unless the other person has done something so bad to their spouse(s) that it will land them in jail. And then I'm okay with it. This rule would apply to regular old two-person hetero marriages, too. I'm willing to bet that this would go over like a lead balloon.
www:
The Unitarian Universalist Church that Inga took her 'evidence' from specifically states on its website:
we are not now considered Christian.
...which is fine by me, if the UU's don't want to be Christians I'm certainly not going to raise a fuss. Why Inga (and, seemingly, you) are so desperate to pretend that the UU's are Christians when they outright say they're not is a bit of a mystery.
Paco, why do you think either myself or wwww are desperate to say or even prove they are Christian? Jews aren't Christian either, what does it matter? It's a religion that seems to embrace many Christian attitudes, as well as other faiths. I think it's great.
"As for all the Unitarian bashing, I guess it doesn't pass the "true Christian" criteria. Just like Glen Beck, the Mormon, who said that Obama wasn't a true Christian, LMAO."
3/24/13, 5:08 PM
That is what I said about Unitarians.They seem to embrace some of the best things of the Christian faith, good for them!
Mormonism most certainly isn't any more Christian than UU's IMO, yet they claim they are.
Hey, check it out. Whores took a shower, and put on some deodorant. Very nice.
C.S. Lewis has a good essay in which he points out that using the word "Christian" to merely mean "good" is to do violence to the English language. If we wish to praise someone, we already have plenty of ways to do so; "Christian" should refer to belief in certain doctrines, not moral praiseworthiness. The George Orwell wrote on much the same topic of people trying to convert words to mean merely "I like this" and "I dislike this", though without using the example of people trying to turn "Christian" into an "I like this" declaration.
If we deny any specific doctrines as defining "Christian", then the word becomes meaningless.
Jarby seems to be answering my question, by saying churches who recite the Nicene Creeds are the true Christian churches,
Not recital, merely adherence. The Assemblies of God do; the "Statement of Fundamental Truths" subsume, in different language, all the doctrinal points of the Nicene Creed. Baptist congregations generally don't have formal detailed statements, but adhere anyway. All are, by the creed-adherence criterion, Christian.
Mormons tend to reject the Nicene trinitarian formula, though some Mormons argue that they are in compliance. Mormons are Christian or not depending on how strictly you're using the definition.
Modern Unitarian-Universalism certainly does not consider adherence to any part of the Nicene Creed necessary; in this they are precisely as Christian as, for example, Mensa. That is, some members may be Christian while others are not, but the organization as a whole certainly is not a Christian denomination.
Sounds like a commitment clusterfuck, to me.
Bob Ellison wrote:
Inga, perhaps I am not being direct enough. Not harsh enough.
You asserted, essentially, that conservatives are hypocrites because they divorce a lot. Then, when asked for evidence, you cited a crap site.
Inga's a hypocrite because she calls conservatives bigots for standing against redefining marriage and says the only standard that should be used is whether people love each other, but has no problem restricting marriages for people who want to marry more than one person.
Since marriage is a civil right, then she is all for denying civil rights to people that love each other.
Can I call her a bigot?
jr565, not only can you call her a bigot, but I will!
(I love that paraphrase from a math professor.)
What's the difference?
! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>[W]hat I think would be a far better solution: that the government (and the IRS) get out of the marriage business altogether.
--Henry</blockquote>
Taken to its logical conclusion, your Government-Out-Of-Marriage principle would end all laws requiring me to coddle LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ-types at my place of business, rental apartments, etc. I could just boot out anyone whose, ahem, 'choices' offend me. Plus, Social Security goes bye-bye. I could go for that. Can libertarians? Nope, because in my experience they're really Cafeteria Libs.
RE: Jane:
For that matter, polygamy has a lot more historical precedent than gay marriage.
Sure. Unlike gay marriage, it's a viable form of social organisation. But that makes it more threatening. Gay marriage is really irrelevant to all but a vanishingly tiny minority of the population. It's absurd to think it could have a significant effect on society as a whole given how marginal the actual affected population is.
Polygamy, on the other hand, has a long established history. For most of history, societies permitting polygamy probably vastly outnumbered monogamous societies -- I think it's only in the past century or so that the number of people living in monogamous societies outnumbered the people living in polygamous societies. It represents an actual threat to the monogamous order. It's a viable alternative form of social organisation.
@Balfegor,
Sure, SSM would not be threatening if that were the end in itself.
But it isn't.
It is a bait and switch. It is a stepping stone toward an eventual goal.
It isn't entirely clear what the end goal is yet. It may be to gain acceptance for NAMBLA, it may be to sexualize all aspects of public life, it may be another avenue of approach to undermine religion along with the contraception mandate (where you either force Christians to go against their beliefs, or you threaten to remove their tax exemption for not following law, after you shift the goalposts from the 1st Amendment meaning "Freedom of Religion" to meaning merely "Freedom of Worship", in the same manner that Obama has already floated a trial balloon).
I think it is the 3rd, myself, but I'm not going to naively assume they will limit themselves to just one out of a sense or propriety or prudence.
carrie: "Marriage means monogamy. If couples want a formal relationship that does not include monogamy, then they need to create a new social institution status instead of trying to hijack, and change, marriage. Monogamy plays a critical role in heterosexual marriages because heterosexual relionships can result in children and monogamy helps to keep the family intact which is good for the children and society. Obviously, monogamy does not play the same role in same sex relationships and if same sex couples want different rules rules, then they need to create their new social institution that uses those rules. The same with the small number of heterosexuals who are interested in polyamory--they need to create a new institution."
@carrie: It's really refreshing to see sensible, sane comments about the role of marriage in society.
Healthy societies benefit from marriage because healthy societies continue to exist by having families transmit values to children, who grow up and embody those values and pass them on to future generations. The idea that marriage exists purely for "love" or some other idealistic notion is silly and false, yet that's the way discussions on this matter are always framed.
Having standards and passing judgment on others is passé and reflects a primitive and bigoted mindset. Pretty soon "two consenting adults" will turn into just plain "consenting persons" and then to "persons." And then there will be pressure to change it to "mammals" and then to "members of the animal kingdom" and then to "life forms."
Inga: Who gets to say who is Christian enough?
Why, Inga, of course: Sounds more Christian than many churches I've attended.
Must get awful noisy and crowded, all the voices in her head.
The UUs do a modern approach to Christianity that is 99% for eliminating rules concerning sexual morality under the Torah and insisting on a pagan laxity on morals. The only rule they enforce is that there can be no rules against any sexual practices. That approach to Christianity was first called Nicolaitanism.
It started as and remains a rebellion against a too strict an interpretation of the claims of authority of the scripture in sexual morality areas. They claim it works for them.
UUs are the Montessori School approach to doing religion. That's fine with me. I enjoy strength from faith and seldom abandon it to see what feels freer.
The test of the Nicene Creed is a bare minimum belief set to be a Christian. Refusing to believe any one of those proclaimed truths in the Creed effectively ends ones Christian faith and sets one out to build an alternative one.
The foundation of UU is sincere and in good faith , but much how Westerners view Buddhism, UU for many who are newly attracted to the congregation do it for feel good reasons where no one questions anyone or any thing. Moral relativism run amok.
Personally I love it when people question me on my faith, not only can I share it but I learn something new from a different point of view.
Moral relativism run amok amongst Unitarian Universalism doesn't get much more ridiculous and indeed hilarious as UUs accusing me of the archaic crime of blasphemous libel for blogging about UU pedophiles and rapists. . .
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.ca/2012/07/marc-andre-coulombe-stikeman-elliott.html
Robin Edgar,
I suppose you mentioned the pedophilia and rape that occured in the Catholic church over how many decades?
Yes please read Robin Edgar's blog, it appears he was even too "extreme" for the UUs. Very interesting.
Igna, its everywhere.
As for Robin, in Catholicism many people may believe to have a good faith belief a mirace have personally occurred, in which we have a scientific investigation. There at times divisions when a miraculous vision is determined not a miracle at all.
Re: Carrie's comment "Marriage means monogamy. If couples want a formal relationship that does not include monogamy, then they need to create a new social institution status instead of trying to hijack, and change, marriage. "
Actually Marriage does not mean monogamy- we have a divorce rate of more than 50%. Marriage as it is known days, is a joke. Yes, people want the right to love and be legally protected for lives they build. I don't care if it is 2 people of opposite sex, 2 people of the same sex or more than 2 people of any sexual make-up. The point is that all people building a life together should have the same protection to keep their properties safe, their kids in their homes and their assets protected in case of a partners death. THAT IS all the law should worry about.
Marriage does not mean monogamy- we have a divorce rate of more than 50%
No we don't; the U.S. divorce rate has never been 50 percent.
A few years ago some researchers extrapolated that in a few years the divorce rate would be 50 percent...but they were incorrect because since then the rate has declined. This assumption is now embedded in the popular culture as a "fact" but its never been true.
Micha Elyi said Taken to its logical conclusion...
I'll give you two clues. First, I specifically focused on tax law. Specifics are always more valuable than slippery slopes.
Second, I wrote "Let the government deal in households and let the people figure out their own marriages."
Note "households". The law needs some way to sort people out. Households offers one way.
When you think of how many people are shacking up (literally and figuratively) without marriage, "households" is not only useful, but imperative.
I'm not clear what marriage law has to do with discrimination law (your extrapolation eludes me). What concerns me most about my own formulation is how we define next-of-kin, guardianship, dependency, and a host of other legal issues that have always leveraged marriage as their baseline. Maybe everyone draws up a civil union. Unfortunately, like writing a will or organizing one's finances, most people won't bother.
Inga, trying to "neener, neener" The Church is really for naught.
Where do you think this stuff is leading?
The American Catholic Church will look positively progressive, and that's what's important.
You haven't figured out what this push is partially about yet?
If the US goes the way of Canada, we might want to prepare ourselves that common law marriage will be considered for whatever living arrangement is together for 2 years.
MadisonMan said...
Under what kind of math is two = three?
Under what philosphy is the limit of two persons more meaningful than the limit to opposite sex persons?
Just as gun rights activists rightly fight registration, those who care about the right of free association darned well better be at least a little ambivalent about any relationship between people being a matter of state record as well.
One used to be able to confidently appreciate the contrary-- when the State was in some kind of relative balance with the power of marriages as a vital institution. Maybe it's time for the State to be agnostic about our choices, instead of omnipotent.
Omniscient, argh.
From the BBC/Dr. Who article Insty linked to today:
...
He told online sci-fi magazine Starburst: ‘It happened after the first time I was invited to up to go and see a recording of the show, and he [Nathan-Turner] got a bit frisky, shall we say.
‘I was a bit taken aback; I was only 17 and . . . he said to me, “You’re so f****** provincial”. And of course I was f******* provincial, I came from Bishop's Stortford, I didn't know about anything.'
'I just thought I was in this kind of wonderland that was Television Centre, thinking it was an amazing place, and so I wasn't really prepared for anything really sophisticated....'
How many people have said, "Anything but 'missionary'" so far?
If nobody, then "First!"
In the US, we structure our State retirement benefits so that a lower-earning spouse gets benefits based on the higher-earning spouse's record, leaving lower-earning same-sex partners to cry foul. In other countries, they deal with "dependent spouses" by providing credits for years that a parent lost income due to being a primary caregiver for small children, but you don't get any "extra" if you work at a McDonalds while your partner is a CEO. In still other countries (e.g., the Netherlands), everyone gets a flat amount, which decreases if you live with someone -- married, partnered, cohabitating, etc.
If we're going to go whole-hog on redefining everything, then let's get rid of all the government benefits that are based on an assumption that one spouse earns little to nothing by being a caregiver to children, when they've now become generally applicable benefits that people think being married entitles them to.
'Carrie' said, "Marriage means monogamy."
But once you separate marriage from procreation (by calling unions "marriage" when you know that all such unions are inherently incapable of procreating, for example) why would you necessarily have to care about monogamy?
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
Oy. The Nicene Creed was written in the 400s. Chaldean churches were founded prior to this,and do not prescribe to it. They are still Christian- formed after pentecost, founded by specific apostles, refined by a martyr's fire.
The descendants of nearly all Puritans went off orthodoxy within two generations. All of them! It's kind of spectacular- First and Second Great Awakening were both fueled by people running screaming from standard New England doctrine. The experiments in living included group marriages built around corporations- Oneida- polygamous Mormon marriages- and straight-up cult-leaders with harems-
Mormons are Christians in the same way that Arminian, Arians, and Marcionites are Christian- that is, they hold beliefs variant from the main orthodoxy-- they do so over long periods of time, in great numbers, in great faithfulness. Just because someone tries to read out a congregation from the faithful does not mean they are not Christian. It means the pastor is a-historical. We aren't even doing respectably lunatic heresies in the USA, these days. Weak tea is our best guess.
I will add, most congregations read out anyone who claims for more than Jesus- the Methodists read out a minister who proclaimed the Shahadah, just this past year, for instance. There does seem to be a core sense of integrity, that we keep talking about and acting on, one way or another.
Re: carrie:
Marriage means monogamy. If couples want a formal relationship that does not include monogamy, then they need to create a new social institution status instead of trying to hijack, and change, marriage.
Polygamous marriage has a history and tradition every bit as old and respectable as monogamy. It's not a mere modern novelty like gay marriage. The Jews were polygamous in the old days. Up through the early 20th century, the same could be said of the Arabs and the Turks, both Muslim and Hindu Indians under the Raj, the Chinese, and a significant proportion of the Africans, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
The current view of marriage as monogamous is really just a Roman more, imported into Christianity during the period of the Empire, and thereby spread throughout the city and the world. Most other major religious and cultural traditions seem to have been perfectly comfortable with polygamy.
"I will add, most congregations read out anyone who claims for more than Jesus- the Methodists read out a minister who proclaimed the Shahadah,..."
Did he become an ordained Unitarian after that?
Inga, my blog post about a UU pedophile who raped preteen girls including "a female family" member was actually in response to the fact that his UU minister wrote up a blog post stridently attacking Roman Catholics for "the pedophilia and rape that occured in the Catholic church over how many decades" while making no mention whatsoever about the pedophilia and rape that occured in the UU church over how many decades. . . UUs are constantly criticizing Roman Catholic clergy sexual abuse while denying, ignoring and minimizing the sexual misconduct of their own abusive clergy. Thanks for prompting me to point out another shameful example of UU "moral relativism". . .
Inga said, "Yes please read Robin Edgar's blog, it appears he was even too "extreme" for the UUs. Very interesting."
Yes people should read my blog to see how outrageously hypocritical Unitarian Universalists are. I was "too extreme" in the first instance for organizing an inter-religious celebration of Creation which drove the militant atheist UUs nuts because they couldn't deal with having any God believing people in their so-called "church" let alone Muslims and Hindus in traditional dress. . . And, quite evidently, writing a few blog posts about convicted UU rapists is "too extreme" for the UUA.
Post a Comment