![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/84\/2013\/07\/turing-mask-christian.jpg\" "\\"turing")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the fifth entry in the Christian round of the 2013 Ideological Turing Test<\/a>. \u00a0This year, atheists and Christians responded to questions about sex, death, and literature<\/a>. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIs there any reason that marriage (civil and or sacramental) should be limited to the union of two persons?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Yes for both Civil & Sacramental Marriage (opposing both), though for different reasons. I\u2019ll expand on Civil Marriage first. The state recognizes marriage through privileges for people who are \u2018married\u2019 in the eyes of the law for the purposes of raising a family. A man wants to live with another man and raise a family, that\u2019s not an issue for the law. It\u2019d be inappropriate for the state to differentiate here. However if a man wants to live with 2 women or 4, he\u2019s free to do so, but legally it becomes more complex. We don\u2019t have a mechanism for splitting marital assets between more than 2 people. How would survivor benefits work? Would wife #1 get as much as wife #4? Could giving legal status to this situation make fraud easier? The idea of a 2 person marriage is embedded too deeply in our law to open it up to legally recognizing polyamorous relationships.<\/p>\n Sacramental Marriage is a simpler situation. The promises of a Sacramental Marriage are more than just lip service in front of family and friends or the signing of a legal document. Sacramental Marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman and God, formed for the purpose of procreation. The authority that grants a Sacramental Marriage is beyond the reach of the state and granted according to God\u2019s own standards, and those standards are clear on what is, and what is not Sacramental Marriage.<\/p>\n \u201cIf your answer depends on religious revelation, could people outside your tradition reasonably disagree, or does your argument depend on truths that almost everyone can acknowledge\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n People get on together best when they don\u2019t impose themselves on their neighbors, nor that their neighbors impose on them. My own feelings on homosexual or polyamorous relations don\u2019t pass the smell test for legally telling people how they should be behaving, though I remain opposed to polyamorous Civil Marriage for reasons stated above. Similarly, Sacramental Marriage belongs in God\u2019s sphere, and the laws of that land there, so to speak, are clear. I don\u2019t know if this qualifies as revelation, but it\u2019s the way I see it.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhen, if ever, is it permissible or even obligatory to end a life?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n With our modern ability to manage pain, I have a tough time buying any instance of it being permissible, let along obligatory, to end a life. Someone lying sick in a bed or claiming they\u2019re just so sad they\u2019d prefer to have someone kill them isn\u2019t in the right frame of mind to make such a decision. There is a potential for a recovery that they couldn\u2019t possibly know one way or the other, and once you\u2019ve moved on you\u2019re on a one-way street. I\u2019ve been fortunate enough not to have had to witness much suffering, especially amongst loved ones who\u2019ve passed. Were someone\u2019s pain to be beyond acceptable management, and I\u2019ll admit an ignorance in this area, I might be more flexible in my views.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also the issue that once we would legalize the ending of life in that manner, that people would be pressured to do it. This is unacceptable, even if it\u2019s only in subtle ways. We owe our neediest people better than that.<\/p>\nPolyamory<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Euthanasia<\/strong><\/h2>\n