Ha!
Serial Polygamists upset at gay marriage.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for dropping by. Oh, the sources in my article said they want to be known as "serial monogamists." They feel the polygamists are on a higher plane of sinfulness and don't want to be confused or lumped in with them. 
God bless, Maureen
Oh by the way Chesterton's ghost stopped by last night to tell me it was okay to keep quoting him and to ignore that other ghost as an impostor. I am pretty sure my Chesterton haunting was authentic because the ghost of Hilaire Belloc was with him and he asked me if I had any wine available.
Boy, the ghost/ghosts of Chesterton gets around, doesn't he? Somebody said they thought the Chesterton I wrote about was actually GB Shaw in a fat suit. Maybe we ought to start a Chesterton sightings blog to sort the fact from the fiction. No wait, you and I are already involved in too many blogs as it is. We better leave that to somebody else. LOL
God bless,Maureen
Blog name: GK-Files
Motto: "The truth is out there."
Jared,
Hey, that's a good idea, and the rule is: the person with the great idea has to carry through with it.
God bless, Maureen
I was begining to think that I was the only one out there who just marveled and shook his head about some reactions to the California ruling...
We are so far through the looking glass on the divorce of marriage from pro-genitive sex and lifelong fidelity...
Well, all these folks that get married three times, don't have more than 1 or 2 children (if they even have any) and move on to the next...
At some point men who get jollies from other men were going to want property rights and benefits for their playmates. And who are these folks who have re-invented marriage in the fashion they have to oppose it?
The day is coming - just around the block, when your neighbor Muhammed is going to say "I want to be married three times too... just not divorced. Why do you discriminate against my religion?"
And what will anyone have to say to that?
Hey ASimpleSinner,
Thanks for dropping by and commenting! Yeah, that is where the whole polygamy things comes in again. Of course, my "sources" think that word is kind of icky and beneath them.
God bless & come back soon! Maureen
"Let's be honest"
How will gay marriage have an adverse affect on traditional marriage? In several countries there is an equivalent of marriage for gay and lesbian couples that goes under the name of a 'Civil Partnership'. It has nothing to do with church marriage and is carried out by a public official. In those countries where Civil Partnerships have existed for several years there has been no detrimental affect on traditional marriage. It would of course be difficult to extrapolate such an affect as the divorce rate continues to rise as it has done for decades. 'In-marriage violence and violence towards children are also increasing but, again, there does seem to be a peak in this due to the introduction of Civil Partnerships. As regards rape this is also on the increase for both men and women be they married or not. In recent years there has been an alarming increase in rape carried out by so called heterosexual men on Gay men. One would hope that the introduction of gay marriage will afford the partners increasing mutual protection. Fortunately the incidence of gang rape still remains low and we hope this will continue to be so. Hopefully we will never reach a position where gang rape becomes a tradition as it was, apparently, in olden times (Bible: Leviticus).
If we mean that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage then the onus is on us to prove it. In a recent program on British television those interviewed were asked what detrimental affect gay marriage had had on them personally. Although they were overwhelmingly against gay marriage none of them had noticed any tangible affect that it had had on them personally.
If of course one resorts to the old argument that it is in the Bible and it is a sin then maybe one should look again. The OT tells us that initially Gentiles could not be Christian unless they were circumcised but that pronouncement was eventually overruled. The Bible was also quite clear about the lending of money and the taking of interest therewith. There are similar pronouncements about segregation, slavery and the subordination of women in the Church.
If you wish for a more glaring example of the Churches' about-turns' in history look at the previous Pope's apology 'to Galileo' for his excommunication 400 years ago because he maintained that the Earth was round and the Sun was the center of the universe. I believe that there is still a society called the Flat Earth Society' who still think you can fall off the edge at the 'ends of the earth'. Does anybody take them seriously today?
Despite what is in the Bible the Church has changed it's mind on several important issues where so called sin was involved and it can do so again IF IT WANTS TO.
"Let's be honest"
How will gay marriage have an adverse affect on traditional marriage? In several countries there is an equivalent of marriage for gay and lesbian couples that goes under the name of a 'Civil Partnership'. It has nothing to do with church marriage and is carried out by a public official. In those countries where Civil Partnerships have existed for several years there has been no detrimental affect on traditional marriage. It would of course be difficult to extrapolate such an affect as the divorce rate continues to rise as it has done for decades. 'In-marriage violence and violence towards children are also increasing but, again, there doesn't seem to be a peak in this due to the introduction of Civil Partnerships. As regards rape this is also on the increase for both men and women be they married or not. In recent years there has been an alarming increase in rape carried out by so called heterosexual men on Gay men. One would hope that the introduction of gay marriage will afford the partners increasing mutual protection. Fortunately the incidence of gang rape still remains low and we hope this will continue to be so. Hopefully we will never reach a position where gang rape becomes a tradition as it was, apparently, in olden times (Bible: Leviticus).
If we mean that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage then the onus is on us to prove it. In a recent program on British television those interviewed were asked what detrimental affect gay marriage had had on them personally. Although they were overwhelmingly against gay marriage none of them had noticed any tangible affect that it had had on them personally.
If of course one resorts to the old argument that it is in the Bible and it is a sin then maybe one should look again. The OT tells us that initially Gentiles could not be Christian unless they were circumcised but that pronouncement was eventually overruled. The Bible was also quite clear about the lending of money and the taking of interest therewith. There are similar pronouncements about segregation, slavery and the subordination of women in the Church.
If you wish for a more glaring example of the Churches' about-turns' in history look at the previous Pope's apology 'to Galileo' for his excommunication 400 years ago because he maintained that the Earth was round and the Sun was the center of the universe. I believe that there is still a society called the Flat Earth Society' who still think you can fall off the edge at the 'ends of the earth'. Does anybody take them seriously today?
Despite what is in the Bible the Church has changed it's mind on several important issues where so called sin was involved and it can do so again IF IT WANTS TO. (CORRECTED)
Commenting by HaloScan
