I predict it will be polyamory. That means committed sexual and quasi-familial relationships between three or more people. Think polygamy, only sometimes with more men than women, and throw in bisexuality. You can do the math.
Unlike homosexuality or transgenderism or polygamy, there is nothing organic biologically or societal that would propell this. This would exist out of no necessity perceived or otherwise, but only as pure hedonistic choice. People only indulge in excess when they can afford to do so usually, or they pay a steep consequence thru bankrupcy , financial or otherwise….It would be hard and complicated to live this way.
First polygamy: it seemed to exist in the past for compelling reasons of survival. high infant mortality, more women than men, tribalism, children as retirement plan, women as property….. indeed, God does not seem ever really critical of this system.
Gay Marriage: The compulsion for gay marriage exists because the law is written in man´s heart.
on the one hand st paul rightly suggests that it is almost impossible to remain chaste without being married, and even then advises sex to be abstained from only by mutual agreement and for a very limited time. He also says that celebacy is a gift of God that only the very few possess. so better to marry than to burn with desire ala Romans chapter 1. So where does this leave gay youth full of hormones but for whom it would be a gross sin to marry someone of the opposite gender, and who realize chastity is to be desired?
Gay men and lesbians know in their hearts that undisciplined sex has not good end. They are therefore willing to subject themselves to the same sexual discipline that a real marriage requires. This is rather remarkable I think, in view of the fact that this is supported by no one societally, not even other gays really.
Just think of how difficult marital fidelity seems to be for even heterosexual marriages even with all the societal support they have to remain together. Serial polygamy by way of divorce yet increases…how many churches say “you need to stay celebate now for the rest of your life.” The churches would empty rather quickly, including a large group of pastors and teachers were this enforced…..
You can gather from this that the urge to have an ordered life sexually may be even greater for many homosexuals and lesbians than it is for most heterosexuals today paradoxically.
No I predict that serial polygamy will become the rule rather than the exception, and that the church will not say much about this threat to marriage at all. Instead they will focus on the defense of marriage act and other such nonsense as though gay marriage offers any threat at all to conventional real heterosexual marriages. The speck in someone elses eye……
What MIGHT happen, is that youth, ever wanting to shock their parents, might mimick gay or transgender traits to bait their elders as a fad, but they will not in fact really be gay or transgender because that is not really a choice they could make. Anymore than any of you could imagine “chosing” to fall madly in love with someone of the same gender. huge yuck factor here.
What I want to know is what the female Pastor was doing at the conference for Polyamory. Her topic was “Love and Marriage in Bible Times”.
I’ve actually carried on a discussion, by e-mail, with a polyamorist who objected to something I said on my blog. I can report that he sounded sincere, and was able to make a feelings-based argument. Which means he can play well on TV, and Dr. Veith is probably right.
Polyamory is big on college campuses. As another way to split rent & keep all the emotions in the small circle. I’m not sure polyamorists will labor for marriage or legal standing, but as a definite expansion of “friends with benefits,” it can be sincerely meant and based on the ideology that relationships make their own rules with other intersecting relationships.
I don’t know that the push to polygamy is in the future, as we’ve seen a few things in Utah where people were citing “gay marriage” precedents as a reason to legalize polygamy.
And actually, contrary to Frank’s assertion, I believe that the push to polygamy is not a matter of survival as much as it is a trait of abusive, warlike societies. For example, many of Joseph Smith’s wives were taken from their lawful husbands with no divorce, and while the husbands were still living.
The same thing goes even today for the modern “fundamentalist” Mormons, who take many wives for themselves, charge the rest of us for welfare to keep up their homes, and push their own sons out of their own communities because they have no prospect for marriage.
(much the same kind of thing as with David and Bathsheba, really….”she’s hot, therefore she’s mine, **** the consequences” kind of attitude)
You take a look at the data, and polygamy is not about survival. It’s about flat out greed.
#5 Bike Bubba
I would have to agree with you Bike. I was thinking of ALL the old testament patriarchs when I commented. I was not thinking of modern polygamy in nono-survival level countries.
I re-read the article.
Part of this maybe has to do with general immorality and greed. People light up talking about this sexually, but what has been lost is the extended family. and the extended nuclear family filled alot if not most of the needs these people actually seem to claim here.
we have withdrawn first to nuclear family as mom and dad and kids, and now divorced moms and dads and kids. our social responsibilities and obligations shrink accordingly and accordingly our sense of belonging and the security that comes with that.
What also strikes me is that gays are very rapidly moving as fast as they can in the direction of legally binding monogamous relationships and away from this.
Heterosexual society , according to most of you, plausibly seems to be destined in the exact opposite direction as their future.
What is wrong with this picture? And it´s the homosexuals still who are depicted as having unbridled lust for one another ala romans one????!!!!
Doesn´t look that way does it now? google gay marriage and see the difference in mindset from this article.
Frank, even the patriarchs didn’t take multiple wives (and hence extra mouths to feed) out of survival, but to get more heirs. They were wealthy and powerful, at least by the standards of the time.
And homosexuals rushing to embrace marriage? Not yet. Currently in Massachusetts, there are probably about 200,000 homosexuals, but only 8100 “marriage” contracts have been enacted. That’s about 8% or less of the total–hardly what I would expect if it was the big thing.
You’re right that heterosexuals are making a mess, though.
Spare me the notion that gays are, in a sense, going straight by embracing marriage, while heteros sink deeper into the slime of sexual sin. I think two more plausible and more accurate conclusions might be made here. 1) It is the gay population who hopes, through marriage, to undo eons of sexual sin, and, 2) Both sides are trying desperately to make wrongs into right/bad into good. Everyone wants to do that which is not allowed; but not everyone wants to commit sin. So we all of us work–desperately, every day–at making our sins into good deeds. It takes more than consensus and the human will, though, to make this so.
dear sister organshoes,
I can see and agree with what you are saying in part.
but you maybe are thinking too monolithically?
I am not trying to spare you anything at all dear sister organshoes.
feel free to address a homosexual in the second person. you are dialoging even now with one.
What you say does not fit me, therefore it does not fit some mythic and monolithic “gay population” you might infer from our interactions here.
there is no “them” . there is diversity. there is no gay agenda or organized cabal at work. i doubt that gays think of “eons of sexual sins”. wierd. no one thinks in terms of eons. most human beings are doing good to exist just day to day.
In society there are hedonists, and those who aspire to morals. there is little distinction here that can be predicted by whether someone is gay or heterosexual.
that is probably really my point.
homosexuality does not = sodomy, does not = romans chapter 1. I for example, have never lusted after another human being in my entire life. I have my flaws. many in fact. that just does not happen to be one of them. and I am a gay man. I know alot of heterosexuals for whom romans 1 is a better fit at the coarse level of idolatry.
I hope that makes sense to you organshoes. it is unjust to over generalize or group people in certain ways and then assign a group stereotype. make sense?
again bike. it is probably unjust to paint any group stereotypically. there is no “typical ” homosexual, black, heterosexual, or asian…..
To imply typical in this way is rather blatant prejudice. I am not saying you are doing that, and I am sure you would agree with this.
bike , do you happen to know what percentage of the hetero population over age say 16 is marrying? how many are on their second and third marriage? this question is not to make a point. I am just curious and it would lend some perspective to your comment. thanks!
#7 bike bubba is it also possible that the patriarchs took multiple wives for lustful and sinful reasons as well?
dear sister organshoes.
by the way , if you have questions about my existence, feel free to ask. better to seek out information than to form opinions in a vacuum or with second hand information yes?
FW#12, it would be easier to folks to address you on this matter if you had your own blog… it would seem a little weird to take up all the space on the good doctors blog to chat with one commentor, even though he is known by all who frequent the Cranach.
fw: I offer this quotation of yours: >You can gather from this that the urge to have an ordered life sexually may be even greater for many homosexuals and lesbians than it is for most heterosexuals today paradoxically.< Perhaps if I too had prefaced any uses of the terms homosexual, gay or heterosexual with either of the words many or most, I’d have been spared the accusation of stereotyping. Frankly, fw, I was purposely parroting you. Guess I’m an inept parrot.
#13 frank gillespie.
point duly noted.
Frank, certainly the patriarchs took wives for lustful reasons; that’s David & Bathsheba in a nutshell, as well as the Pharaoh and Abimelech trying to take Sarah from Abraham. I’m just saying that it tends to be somewhat abusive, and a tendency of a warlike society that “needs” to liberate men from the constraints of family life. King takes 1000, he’s got a fightin’ batallion, no?
And while one might object to trying to “pigeonhole” a group, there is yet a good place for statistics, including the fact that 92% or more of Massachusetts homosexuals aren’t opting for “marriage.” For reference, about 2/3 of heterosexual adults marry, and a bit less than half of those will divorce.
Statistical enginer that I am, I can figure out that the two populations differ in more ways than one from these numbers. There’s a lot of smoke and noise coming out of the “gay marriage” camp, but not much going on below it.
#16 Bike Bubba
It would be interesting to see what would happen if society would encourage gays to marry for public health and policy reasons…..
I am pretty sure that if our society made it socially unacceptable to marry somehow, that people would then just quietly shack up. I know alot of old folks who shack up and don´t marry so they don´t lose social security income. it would probably start to look like that. maybe it already does?
so about 1/3 of heterosexual adults marry in the real meaning of marriage. that is an extremely surprising statistic to me bike.
I assume you have a way to filter out remarriages.