Open Marriage?
I read an article about a polyamorist. The article is interviewing a polyamorist whose name is Robyn. When asked what is polyamory, she replies “polyamory is a romantic relationship with more than one person. It is usually a committed relationship, but polyamory can come in all forms. One form is called polyfidelity — it means that there is a committed relationship between the people, and they are sexually faithful to each other. There can be three people in the relationship or more.”
I’m sorry, but the first thought that came to mind when I read her definition is “like a dog in heat.” That is the imagery that this lifestyle brought to my mind. Reading the whole article did nothing to dispel that distasteful imagery.
What people choose to do among themselves is really none of my business. However, since this was an article for public viewing and she allowed a photo of herself to be publicized on the article and the internet; I am free to comment publically. Incredibly, the article is published on a parenting site called Mom Logic along with a photo of her three children (the two minors have their faces blocked).
Her 18 year marriage that also was a polyamorist relationship ended and she is in a new relationship, also a polyamorist relationship. I can just picture this scenario. “Honey, I have a date tonight. I need you to babysit. I’ll be home late tonight. Don’t bother me as I’ll be otherwise engaged all night with my new lover.”
According to the interview, the next morning, the lover, her full time partner and the children will sit down for breakfast together. Her partner also brings home lovers. I assume it is she who spends the evening entertaining the children while he is otherwise engaged.
At the end of the interview, she stated that she has been asked or told “You’re going against God.” She replies “well, whose god are you talking about?”
She only need concern herself with the one and only God, the God of the bible. It is Him who she will stand before. She has the option and freedom of choosing any lifestyle for herself. In the end, all of mankind will give an accounting of their lives before the holy and righteous God. However, for now, she is not concerned with “whose god” she will give an accounting.
Related posts:
Are you kidding? This is some kind of joke right? Now I have never read your site before, but I see one of your “Top Posts” along the side is called Tolerance. I didn’t read it, but I assume you’re not arguing AGAINST the concept. You should really look a lot more into Polyamory before comparing the idea to “dogs in heat” not that it’s particularly offensive, more so because it’s a very ignorant thing to say.
Since there seems to be a fairly strong Christian theme on this site, I’m curious if you’re familiar with the amount of polygamy (specifically polygyny) practiced in it. Or are you one of those Christians who starts with their prejudices and bends their religion to fit them?
No, I am not one of those Christians who begin with a prejudice and bends theology to fit. To the contrary, I am one of those Christians who allow the Word of God to form my ‘prejudice’ (to use your terminology). I would post the scriptures in which God delineated what constitutes proper sexual relationships but I suspect that would not be of any value to you.
Take care,
I see that you neatly avoided addressing the tolerance issue and the biblical case for polygyny. So, by all means go ahead with your examples. Would they perhaps include:
Exo 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
2 Sam 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. (Note the plural)
Deu 25:5-6 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
I’m curious how you, to use your own words, allow the Word of God to form your prejudices in these cases.
I honestly did not think you would be back. I thought you stumbled on my blog, said what you wanted to say with no intention of returning. My apologies and my bad.
The verse in Exodus 21:10 is vastly different from the article. The woman in the article is not taking another husband but having sexual partners to satisfy a sexual desire. Also, like it or not, women did not have multiple sexual partners in scripture. In all the verses you quotes in the OLD TESTAMENT, it was men who took on more than one wife, not women taking on multiple husbands. The husbands were responsible for feeding, clothing and providing separate homes for each of their wives and providing for the children of those unions.
Regarding Deuteronomy 25:5-6, that was specific law that had to do with making sure the dead person had a son to carry on and inherit. It was to carry on succession of the dead person’s name so that his name would not be blotted out.
Regarding tolerance, have you read the tolerance post? If you did not read it, basically what I said was that those that take issue with Christian beliefs are no less tolerant than Christians. You are intolerant of my views and have so demonstrated by your response to my post. Am I not as entitled to those views as much as you are entitled to your views? Tolerance is defined as “To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit; to recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others); to put up with; endure.”
By your very actions on my blog, you are demonstrating that you are in opposition to the views that I hold as a Christian. By the same token, I am demonstrating that I oppose your views. You have demonstrated that you do not ‘respect’ my views — and I have no issue with that. You are not tolerant of my views.
When the vote for same sex marriage came up, those that opposed same sex marriage voted against it and those that were for same sex marriage voted for it. Each side opposed the other and voted to prohibit the other side.
There are many issues in the world in which I live that I am in opposition to. Yet, as I said in my post on tolerance, I accept that this is the way things are. I respect it in the sense that I accept it as they way things are.
The very definition of being intolerant is something you and I are guilty of. I am no more guilty of intolerance than you are. You oppose my view and you do not respect my views or beliefs. You are as guilty of that which you accuse me of. However, I do not deny that I am not tolerant of certain things. I simply accept them as the way things are.
Be well
First I feel I must say it’s a credit to you that you are willing to engage in debate and to be respectful in your arguments here. Although we obviously disagree in many areas I respect the way you have conducted yourself and I hope that we can continue to maintain a mature discussion.
That being said I must respond to a few things in your latest posting. It sounds as if you agree that plural marriage is indeed condoned in the Bible as long as it takes the form of Polygyny and not Polyandry. Is your problem with Polyamory then that no marriage takes place or that it respects equality of the sexes? If the former, may I suggest you take up campaigning for legalized polygamous marriage? If the latter, I am not sure what I could say to convince you that a man and a woman should be afforded the same privileges, respect and opportunities if your own moral sense tells you otherwise.
Secondly, I am not really sure what pointing out that my examples were from the OLD TESTAMENT (emphasis yours) was meant to convey. Are they not as valid? Is the unerring word of god subject to revisions or does it merely have an expiration date? As far as I know, assuming you do believe in God and the absolute truth of the bible as His holy word (which I personally do not) then you aren’t really allowed to cherry pick which bits are the “important” ones.
As far as your comments on tolerance, I should say that I have not read your tolerance article, but I think you are suffering from a bit of a conceptual error as to the definition of the word. Merriam-Webster’s definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance) is as follows:
Tolerance (noun)
a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something
To be tolerant of something, in this case an alternative lifestyle than your own, would mean you simply chose not to participate in it yourself, but had no problem allowing others to do so. I run into this cognitive dissonance time and time again amongst very religious persons and I must say it drives me a bit nuts. What exactly makes you wish to exert your code of behavior on others? The Bible (and other holy books) lay out codes of behavior. You choose to follow them and tell people that they ought to do the same. Okay fair enough, but where I get lost is when you attempt to FORCE people to obey these codes against their will. That’s the very definition of intolerance. It’s not enough that you are a Christian, everyone must be a Christian for you to be happy.
How can it possibly be a good thing to use laws to force people into your definition of morality? Into your religion? Can you even get into heaven if the only reason you didn’t sin was because it was against the law?
I feel I am a very practical person when it comes to tolerance. I have no problem with you holding your views until the time comes when you try to tell me how to live. THAT is the difference between your version of tolerance and mine. Which is why I resent you saying, essentially that we’re both intolerant and neither of us is better than the other, so it’s a wash. That’s simply not the case. The day I support making monogamous marriage illegal, will be the day we are equally intolerant. Not before.
Thank you for your compliment. As you probably noticed, your comments are automatically posted on my blog with no moderation. After your first post, your comments are automatically approved because, while you obviously took exception to my blog post, you were polite. I, too, appreciate how you are approaching me.
Plural marriage was indeed condoned in the bible; however, this is the Old Testament. Despite that, there is no prohibition of (at least that I know of) except in 1 Timothy and that is with respect to the elders or leaders of the congregation. However, God made marriage between one man and one woman (and to get into that, we would have to discuss theology and I’m not sure you want to go into that). But no, He (as in God), did not explicitly state that He is prohibiting what He allowed in the Old Testament.
My problem with Polyamory is that there is no marriage and has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. I would not campaign for legalized polygamous marriages for several reasons. One is simply because of the age or time in which we live has changed our worldview. We don’t live in the ancient days of the Israelites and do not think like them. For instance, my grandmother is from an old country and she married at 13. At 13, here in the United States, I was climbing trees and making tree houses. I was just starting to notice boys let alone getting married and raising children. What was okay in her day in her country does not work here. She was raised different from me and her worldview was different from mine. We had VERY DIFFERENT worldviews. I use that example as an explanation why I would not campaign for polygamy — we simply do not think like they did. Marrying girls off at a young age is not something that our society is able to handle. Women today are outside the home working and are not willing to share a husband. I could go on and on but I think you probably understand what I am trying to say.
Regarding your statement about me pointing out Old Testament verses — it was only meant to discuss what you brought up point by point, as I am doing now. I am not attacking you or the verses you pointed out, I am showing you why I disagree.
I agree with you COMPLETELY that I am not to ‘cherry pick’ what verses I want and what verses I don’t find acceptable to my life. In reading the bible, not everything is for everybody. For instance those taking the Nazarite vow were to refrain from drinking any fruit of the vine and to not cut their beard or hair. That is not something that I choose not to do because I don’t want to. It was never meant for me. I am female and I’m not an Israelite. It can never be applicable to me. The same is with a vast amount of verses in the Old Testament such as sin offerings. I will never need to take an animal and cut its throat as an offering for my sin. It would be helpful if I knew which verses you believe I am discarding that I should not. Perhaps I will agree with you and learn something (and I do not mean that sarcastically).
As to your last paragraph, I also looked up the word tolerance. I am not suffering a bit of conceptual error. In fact, if you read my post on tolerance, you will see that I quoted as follows: “To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit; to recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others); to put up with; endure.”
I do disagree with you in its application. I do not agree that to be tolerant, it simply means “you simply choose not to participate.” What I do accept is that there are lifestyles or practices that are I find distasteful based on my views as a Christian but I accept them. The two women who live next door to me who are lesbians is not a lifestyle that I condone. Yet, I accept that they are my neighbors and I am friendly with them when I encounter them.
You said “What exactly makes you wish to exert your code of behavior on others?” I can only speak for myself and not other Christians. I do not expect that non Christians will adhere to the code of behavior layed out in God’s word. I will go as far as to say, it does them no good to adhere to the moral standards of the bible IF they are not redeemed by God. There is no eternal benefit. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, if there is a vote at the ballot, my conscious does not allow me to vote against the word of God. That is the same with you — you will vote your conscious. Your conscious obviously will differ than mine but you will do as I do and that is vote your conscious.
To be honest, I was shocked that the California same sex marriage passed. I voted my conscious expecting the initiative to not pass.
You said “How can it possibly be a good thing to use laws to force people into your definition of morality? Into your religion? Can you even get into heaven if the only reason you didn’t sin was because it was against the law?” I am in 100% agreement with you here. No one can be forced into Christianity and legislating out a sin will not gain any one an eternity in the presence of God. I already know that same sex marriage will eventually be allowed in my state. It’s a matter of when, not if. Multiple sex partners, while I find it extremely distasteful, is here to stay until the end of time.
I do disagree with your example when you said “The day I support making monogamous marriage illegal, will be the day we are equally intolerant. Not before.” The reason I disagree is you have given no indication that a monogamous marriage is something you oppose morally as to your conscious. It probably makes no difference to you whether someone wants to be in a monogamous marital relationship or they want to try another alternative lifestyle. As an example, it makes no difference one way or the other whether someone wants to drink alcohol or not. If someone wants to drink, I do not care and if someone chooses not to drink, again, I don’t really care.
Lastly, I realize that there are some, well maybe a lot, of Christians who try and tell other people how to live. I have always disagreed with that because Jesus’ whole message was repent and believe and THEN change takes place. What you have to understand is that Christians have a vastly different worldview than you do. Again, speaking for myself, I can only vote my conscious and that entails NOT voting against the word of God.
Until you can vote against your conscious, I stand by my statement that you are as intolerant as I am. I am willing to admit that I am wrong. It won’t be the first time and it certainly won’t be the last time. If you can show me how I am less tolerant than you, I will thank you for pointing out something that I needed to learn. But before you do, read my post on tolerance and read my post on why I voted against same sex marriage. I had a homosexual thank me by email for posting my views and he understood why I voted as I did. Obviously he did not agree but understood my voting my conscious.
In looking back through your latest post, I almost don’t know where to begin. The things you are saying don’t make any sense together. You say:
“My problem with Polyamory is that there is no marriage and has nothing to do with equality of the sexes.”
then go on to say that you don’t support allowing plural marriage. And you don’t even bother to defend the part where you say it has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. You say:
“However, God made marriage between one man and one woman (and to get into that, we would have to discuss theology and I’m not sure you want to go into that).”
Well by all means produce some evidence or make a case to support your claims as I have done in all my posts. I definitely do not prefer you to just state things as facts, with no discussion.
You do actually address the issue of polygamy in the bible, once again pointing out that it’s from the old testament, even though you’ve stated that you are not in favor of cherry picking. But your arguments as to why it should no longer apply are to compare it to letting 13 year olds get married and why we no longer perform animal sacrifices. I’m sorry, that is where you lose me. How are any of those things relevant?
Finally I once again believe you simply are not looking at the definition of tolerance. If you vote against say gay marriage being legal or polygamy, or anything else you are doing what you say you disagree with. Attempting to legislate away sin.
You don’t get a free pass because it is your sincere belief that something is wrong. Lots of people have sincere beliefs. You are free to try and convince them of your point of view, but if they are not hurting you, or impinging on your freedom, then quite simply where do you get off telling them what to do? If a Muslim majority rose up in this country and began telling you that you couldn’t drive a car or be alone with a man you weren’t related to or married to, or enroll in colleges, would you care whether they were acting out of sincere beliefs? Of course not.
You CANNOT be tolerant of something that you are trying to prohibit. Those words are mutually exclusive. You have to see that.
I think we are on different pages. I think my response from last night may have been disjointed as I was tired and it was late. I’ll try to be more coherent this time
I want to comment on your statement:
Of course I see that. That statement alone shows me that we are on different pages. I did not claim that I was tolerant. In fact, I claimed that I was not tolerant. You’re trying to prove to me that I am intolerant and are frustrated but I have already agreed with you. What I said is that I accept things of this world. Accepting things of this world does not mean I tolerate them. I would like to illustrate using something that is not bible related but may explain what I mean.
I have a macaw. Sometimes he bites me and it really hurts. I am not tolerant of his biting in any way. In fact, I try and prevent it. However, I accept that because of the nature of macaws, I will get bit on occasion. I neither am tolerant of his biting nor do I condone it. I try and prevent it but the fact of the matter is that I accept the fact that life with a macaw will entail occasional biting.
This is how I approach polyamory or other issues that come against the bible. I simply live with it. I cannot change it but if there’s a ballot that I can vote on, I will exercise my right to vote as much as you do.
To keep this less disjointed, I will quote you piece by piece and respond.
I can’t defend that it has nothing to do with equality of the sexes because it has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. Maybe I am not understanding what you are getting at. Maybe you are referring to the Old Testament where men had more than one wife but women only had one husband. The only thing that I can come up with is that you believe I took great exception to the story because the person being interviewed was a woman and I would take less exception than if it were a man. Let me assure you that this is not the case. This was a “mom” magazine so the person we are dicussing is a woman. I can assure you that if it were a “dad” magazine and the father was saying that he brought home different sex partners, I would be as equally disgusted. Is this what you were refering to regarding “equality of the sexes?”
I said that God has not forbidden polygamy in the New Testament except for what I referenced in my last response to you. However, it is not a command to either do it or not to do it. That is my personal preference based on the world and culture in which I live. It’s not something I desire so I am not going to go out and campaign for something that I do not desire. That’s just plain stupid. You accuse me of “cherry-picking” from the Old Testament but there is not a single command to either marry multiple people or not to marry multiple people. I honestly do not know what scriptures you think I am choosing to ignore because it doesn’t fit my views.
Again, I am not claiming that I am tolerant. I am claiming that I accept things as they are. I voted against same sex marriage and in my mind, I thought it was a lost cause. If I was a betting woman, I would have bet money that it would not pass. I voted because one day I will stand before my redeemer and I would have no explanation to give as to why I voted against His commandment.
My voting does not always involve biblical principles but it still can trample on something someone else wants to do. If it’s on the ballot, I will vote my conscious whether it involves a biblical principle or not.
Yes I do get a free pass and hopefully you would too. Have you ever heard of the North American Man/Boy Love Association? It is organization of homosexual men who wish to change legislation aboloshing the age of consent so they can have sex with young boys in a consensual sexual relationship. I sincerely hope you are not supportive of adult men having sexual relations with minor boys and would, if it were on a ballot, vote against allowing such a thing. And I am sure that when you do vote, you vote on issues that does prevent another group from something. Maybe you vote to have bonds on homeowners for school revenue, maybe you voted against it. Someone always wins and someone always loses. You are taking issue with moral issues but on certain moral issues, I would venture to say you would also vote prevent something even if it did not affect you personally.
As far as I am concerned, people can have as many sex partners as they wish as many times as they wish. It’s none of my business and it does not affect my life. When homosexual marriage is made legal in my state, it also will not affect my life. But I will NOT under any circumstances, vote against the word of God. That will not happen.
To be clear, I am not tolerant. I neither respect it nor tolerate it. What I do is accept it as the way of this world and live my life according to the laws of the land in which I live. I neither have to respect nor tolerate it to be polite to those that I disagree with.
Lastly, as to the article, I am entitled to my views as much as you are entitled to your views. You take exception to my views and you are welcome and entitled to that. I never said it should be outlawed. Any adult man or woman is free to choose to have as many sexual partners as they wish. They can have a block sex party if they want. But I am entitled to have my personal view that it is repulsive and disgusting.
You certainly are entitled to your opinions and your personal views. As is everybody else. Your views are not special though, because you believe they are directives from a god. As such they deserve no more respect than any opinions you have based on your political affiliation, for example. You are free to argue your views and others are free to argue theirs. It’s a marketplace of ideas. However your special interest group (so to speak) is not content to try and win out in the marketplace, it seeks to compel others to it’s way of thinking, both historically and currently.
The reason I am tolerant and you are not is because so long as your lifestyle is not affecting mine, nor hurting others, I respect your rights to practice your beliefs. You demonstrably do not feel that way. So, going back over your posts where you say:
“I am no more guilty of intolerance than you are.”
you are in fact, wrong. Your examples of a bird biting you or men intending to statutorily rape young men are ridiculous and only meant to be sensationalist. But you know that. You picked them for that very reason. A relationship between multiple consenting adults is a far cry from NAMBLA and you know it. I would think you would be ashamed to mention them together. Your tests, however, fail the test for tolerance because they are causing you harm (in the first example) or causing others harm (in the second.)
However you yourself have admitted that gay marriage or plural marriage harms you not one whit. Your saying you would have to explain why you voted against god’s commandment is a false argument. You would have been voting against requiring others to obey the commandment against their will. That is not the same thing at all. What you do by voting to forbid other people to do something which you believe is against god’s word is to do what you said you were not in favor of doing, as stated here:
… I realize that there are some, well maybe a lot, of Christians who try and tell other people how to live. I have always disagreed with that …
Moving on, you say:
“This is how I approach polyamory or other issues that come against the bible.”
However the bible clearly condones polygamy. It, perhaps, does not encourage it, but it certainly does not forbid it. However polyamory cannot become polygamy if it is illegal to do so, and you would not legalize plural marriage. So
I don’t really see what choice people would have here. The answer I think you would pick here, were the circumstances reversed, is to practice your beliefs to the extent allowed by law. Which is what it appears polyamorous people are doing. I believe what this comes against really, is your own personal grossed out reaction and not the bible, which is not what you are claiming.
Finally as to your quote:
“…on certain moral issues, I would venture to say you would also vote prevent something even if it did not affect you personally.”
I have to disagree. I would not prohibit any behavior on moral grounds even if I disagreed with it, provided it wasn’t hurting others. Take the quote of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
My gut feeling is that you are allowing the “ick factor” to cloud your judgment here and then disguising it as morality. You find the idea of group sex, multiple sex partners w/out group sex, and even homosexual sex to be a disgusting idea. Which is fine. It doesn’t give you the right to make those choices for others, as I’m sure you wouldn’t like them to make your choices for you.
The sad part really though is you are making the common error with both polyamory and homosexuality, and letting the sex cover up the real point of the whole exercise, which is love. If you are in love with multiple people, or a person of the same sex, then it’s only natural that you would want to be with them sexually. That isn’t the cause of the love, it’s the result. The problem with a sexual relationship outside a person’s “norm” is that they miss they focus on the sex and miss the love. Seen through those lenses, any relationship looks dirty and grimy.
I’ve read your response. It’s late so I’ll answer you tomorrow but I think we’re coming to and end. I’m willing to discuss this as long as you want. However, I will agree that I am allowing my ‘ick’ factor to play a role but the ‘ick’ factor does not necessarily have anything to do with morality as found in the bible. Some things that I find gross is not necessarily immoral or prohibited in the bible. Some things are just the culture in which I live.
Like it or not, someone is always affected by our vote at the polling booth. Christians do not want their children taught in schools about ‘different types of families” such as two mommy or two daddy households. This has been forced upon us and the right to swing has not ended at the where our nose begins. Yeah, it does affect us — and Christians vote, if they win, affects you.
Why in the world would you not want your children to be taught about different types of families in school? They are a fact of the world as you pointed out earlier. You can’t keep your children locked up in a box, they eventually have to become adults and go out in the world. Advocating ignorance isn’t a formula for healthy adults.
I should rephrase. I don’t want the schools teaching these issues as a morally correct lifestyle. That is how they teach it which is contrary to God’s moral laws. Of course I would want children to know about what is in the world because they have to live in the world. I knew a couple that did not teach their children that there were evil people in the world that kidnapped children. Their children had no concept of safety as far as strangers.
Christian children should be taught about the different ways people live but that is a moral issue that should be left to the parents to teach, not the school. Christian parents are forced to allow their children to be taught moral issues that contradict their moral values.
I disagree with you here. School shouldn’t teach religion, but they should teach respect for others and teaching kids about things they are likely to see in the world is absolutely their job. If little Timmy in class has two mommies or two daddies then schools need to explain enough about why that is so that Timmy doesn’t feel like an outcast and the other kids don’t feel like they need to smack Timmy in the face at recess for being “different.”
It’s not about what you believe here. You don’t get to tell your school not to teach your kids that black kids are just as good as white kids because you don’t believe it, for example.
Of course you are perfectly well within your rights to teach your points of view to your children, but all the rest of society is well within its rights to do the same. Again this is the marketplace of ideas concept.
Children are probably the meanest group of people. Here’s a short list of things that I remember that kids were teased about.
Being fat
Being too skinny
Pimples
Ugly clothes
Funny looking nose
Crooked teeth
Being poor
Being a nerd
Dorky looking father
Frumpy mother
Wearing eyeglasses (I was teased about that, LOL)
Bringing uncool food for lunch
Not wearing designer clothes
Wearing hand me downs
Having a funny name (I remember this one little girl in my 2nd grade class, she was mercilessly teased)
Wow, I could keep on going, the list really is endless. Children really are cruel to each other. Should we have classes on all issues that kids tease about? Eliminate this one thing, and kids are still going to be mean and nasty to each other and tease about something.
A no bully policy across the board or no teasing policy would be fine and that includes teasing a child about the type of family he or she comes from. But this is not good enough, you would like to see the values of Christians trampled on as the school teaches moral issues that go against the word of God. But you take great issue about being told what you can morally do and yet, find some good reason that the rights of Christians to teach values to their children be trampled. That’s the “fist that meets the nose.”
p.s. I am going to meander over to twitter and see what’s cooking
You’re confusing two issues. I’m not limiting your freedom to tell your kids what you want them to believe. I’m interested in preventing you from controlling what other people tell them to believe. There is absolutely no fist meets the nose issue here at all. That you think there is, suggests to me that you feel it is your ‘right’ to control absolutely all that your child sees and hears. Not only is that not possible, short of locking the child in a cellar, it is in NO WAY your right whatsoever. Your child is not a piece of property, he or she is a human being that you are responsible for caring for, until they can do so for themselves. If you don’t think that your ideas will win out in a “marketplace of ideas”, tough. That is what our country is all about.
I’d really like to hear your opinion on the example from my previous post. Should you be allowed to call your school and prevent them from teaching your child that black people are the equal of white people, if you disagreed with that philosophy? And if not, wouldn’t that be stepping on their parental rights?
As for me wanting to see the values of Christians trampled as schools teach moral issues, what in the hell are you talking about. That’s quite a lot to read into what I’ve said. All my points have been to promote the idea of personal freedom. For you, for me, for children, for everyone. For you to claim I’m trying to bury your agenda and crush it beneath mine is ridiculous. I’m perfectly willing to let both sides be heard and let everyone choose for themselves.
P.S. When we first started talking about schools mentioning alternative lifestyles, specifically gay couples, I envisioned this coming about because a student had two same sex parents. As I read your responses, it appears that you are envisioning something like a “Gay lifestyle class” which I don’t think any school anywhere is attempting to implement. Perhaps I’m wrong on that, and if so I would be interested in whatever examples or information you may have. Or just a clearer idea of what it is you are opposing in that regard. We might be on different pages here.
You are insisting that your moral beliefs be taught to children against the desire of Christian parents. You want to exert control over Christian children to ensure that your moral beliefs are instilled in Christian children.
Yes, it is the right of parents (whether Christian or not) to control all moral issues in bringing up their children. Parents do control what their children see, at least they should. They should control what video games they play, what television shows they watch, how much television they watch, whether they want to take them to church or other religious services or not, whether they want to prevent them from attending religious services. It is not my right to step in and tell you what moral values to instill to your children. It is your right to decide when your children are allowed to date. If your child was at a sleepover at my home, I would not go against your moral values by taking them to Sunday morning service if you did not want your children to attend a Christian service. Perhaps you are Jewish or Muslim or some other religion. I would ask permission or at the very least, let you know that I plan on taking the children to service so you would have the option of either saying okay or picking up your child. If you were Jewish and kept kosher, I would not feed your child bacon while at my home. I would purchase food all the children could share including a Jewish child who kept kosher at home. If a child came from a Muslim home, I would not prevent them from doing their Muslim prayer.
As well, if a child stayed at my home whose parents were same sex partners, I would not force my values on the child. That is very confusing to a child and I would not try and make a child wonder about his or her parents. That’s not fair to the child.
I did see your example about black & white folks but did not address it purposely. I cannot even fathom teaching a child that my race is superior to another race. I do not have prejudices based on color or race. I have other prejudices that are unreasonable but it is not something I would instill in a child. I will give you an example though I am sure you will take me to task over. I take the train to work but I won’t sit next to a heavy person. I don’t like their body touching mine because they spill over into my seat. Using a real prejudice of mine, I would not stop or petition a school to prevent them from teaching that heavy people are less valuable or not equal to normal size people.
Your right, my child is not my property. But it is my duty to bring them up in the best way I know and that includes teaching them moral values that are in accord with God’s standard. It’s a disservice to a child to teach them opposite values. When they are older, they can make those value decisions for themselves. You infringe on Christian parents when you teach them that what their parents teach is wrong.
You said “For you to claim I’m trying to bury your agenda and crush it beneath mine is ridiculous. I’m perfectly willing to let both sides be heard and let everyone choose for themselves.” That’s fine for adults but not children who are still learning values and are not ready to make those adult decisions. A child goes to school and is taught a particular moral value and then comes home and the parents inform the child that what they’re being taught is wrong. Kids are unable to make those value based decisions and it’s simply confusing. Schools should stick to the three “R’s” and refrain from teaching in opposition to the values that parents are trying to instill in their children.
Children are not allowed to pray nor bring a bible to school. I understand and don’t take issue with separation of state & religion. That was supposed to mean that the state could not teach a particular religion and not intended to mean that we are prevented from reading our bible or praying in a state sponsored entity. Our children are prevented from doing something because it offends another to watch someone read their bible or pray.
When at the voting booth, I ask myself what would God ask of me when casting my vote. And that is how I vote. My eternity is with Him and anyone who doesn’t like it, is like you said, that’s what our country is all about.
Lastly, you said: “P.S. When we first started talking about schools mentioning alternative lifestyles, specifically gay couples, I envisioned this coming about because a student had two same sex parents. As I read your responses, it appears that you are envisioning something like a “Gay lifestyle class” which I don’t think any school anywhere is attempting to implement. Perhaps I’m wrong on that, and if so I would be interested in whatever examples or information you may have. Or just a clearer idea of what it is you are opposing in that regard. We might be on different pages here.”
No, I was not referring to a “gay lifestyle class.” As far as I know, there is no such thing. What there is, is story books for young grade school children that instead of Dick and Jane with a mommy & daddy (like when I was a child) it has Dick and Jane with two mommies or two daddies. It then goes on to speak in language targeted at young children that there are different types of families and all are good. So now a Christian parent (or another religion such as Judaism or Islam) has to unteach what the child learned in school.
There is also a group (I don’t remember the group’s name off the top of my head), that goes to schools with a questionnaire that children fill out so they can determine if anyone has a leaning towards homosexuality. They then target those children to help them come out. They’re doing this with really young kids that barely know what sex is.
Christian parents are increasingly keeping their children out of public schools because they are forced to allow their children to be taught moral values in opposition to their moral values. More Christian parents are availing themselves of homeschooling or private Christian schools.
I just allowed my daughter to start homeschooling today; she begins on Monday. I’m nervous about it because I want the best education for her. I wish I could afford Catholic school. She is smart, sweet, and creative. She is actually very beautiful and I think that is part of the problem. She is usually the most popular girl in her class, but when one girl decides t hate her for it–it means she gets called names which really hurt her feelings. I was teased something awful in school so I guess that allowed me to understand the situation a little better. The whole thing was about her not watching Hannah Montana…I don’t think HM is a good role model for young girls.
Update:
I met with her teacher and gave her some time at home to relax so we got to the root of her problems. I’m so happy! She is back in school and is doing great. I would love to protect her from all things, but in truth-she has to make good choices–and since I’m her mom-I can help her-but I can’t make all the choices for her.
G-d bless:)
I hear ya, it would be great to protect the little ones from all things but that’s not possible. In fact, even if were possible, it would set them up for failure in their adult lives.
Your little one is blessed to have a mom that stands by her but allows her to make age appropriate choices.
God bless,
Please. I’ve tried many times to explain and each time you get it wrong. Giving a child (or an adult for that matter) a different point of view (repeat after me) is NOT “exerting control over Christian children to ensure that your moral beliefs are instilled in Christian children.” If you beliefs are so weak that any exposure to an alternative point of view will destroy them then they deserve to be destroyed. I really don’t understand what is so hard about this concept that you refuse to acknowledge it again and again and again. It sure is frustrating though.
It’s interesting that you brought up homeschooling. I’m sure you think I would be against it. As a matter of fact I’m not. If it means that much to you to have your ideas and only your ideas heard by your child that you are willing to home-school your child or place them in a religious school, I don’t have a problem with that. Again, I’m all about personal freedom. In this case I think there is a potential for abuse. Some children who are home-schooled whether for religious reasons or other reasons ARE going to end up pretty messed up. It’s sad but there’s no way to fix it other than by reducing freedom. And of course many home-schooled kids will end up just fine, if not in a superior place than kids in a conventional school.
But if you don’t choose to do this you have to accept that your child will get an education based on facts and societal norms. If you wish to teach your child outside of school a doctrine that contradicts societal norms, or science, or anything else they hear there, you are welcome to, but that’s the cost of public education.
When you say:
“Using a real prejudice of mine, I would not stop or petition a school to prevent them from teaching that heavy people are less valuable or not equal to normal size people.”
you must then see the hypocrisy of stopping or petitioning the school from preventing them from teaching that gay people are less valuable or not equal to straight people. They are both prejudices that you hold and most of the rest of society does not. Why should the rest of us accommodate your personal superstitions?
“Kids are unable to make those value based decisions and it’s simply confusing”
Nonsense. Kids are not completely helpless amoebas until they magically turn into REAL humans at 18. Kids and indeed all people have to decide their values for themselves. You as parents have to do your best to teach them right from wrong but in the end we all decide for ourselves. If that doesn’t sit well with you, I’m sorry but that’s the real world. You need to accept it.
“You infringe on Christian parents when you teach them that what their parents teach is wrong.”
Nope. Again if you taught your kid that fat people or black people or atheists or gay people or the kid with two dads, aren’t people that deserve respect, the school can and should and will tell them you are wrong. Likewise if you tell your kid that we didn’t land on the moon, or that the president is a terrorist, or any one of a thousand other kooky things people believe. Society has rights too, and your parental ones don’t supersede those rights.
“I understand and don’t take issue with separation of state & religion. That was supposed to mean that the state could not teach a particular religion and not intended to mean that we are prevented from reading our bible or praying in a state sponsored entity.”
I disagree with your premise first off. The intent as I understand it was to keep religion out of politics, out of government, and out of schools. Thomas Jefferson (a personal hero of mine, btw) rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and actually edited the bible, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus and leaving only the moral philosophy to create the Jefferson Bible. I could post quotes all day long from him rejecting religion, and from Hamilton, and from Franklin, but you can Google them yourself easily enough. Therefore I believe the founding fathers idea of the separation of church and state went a bit deeper than not having a national religion.
Beyond that I also reject your logic here:
“Our children are prevented from doing something because it offends another to watch someone read their bible or pray.”
I think it’s more because it’s disruptive than anything. Children are not prevented from praying in public schools. They are prevented from making a spectacle of themselves doing it. If you close your eyes and quietly pray to yourself no one can stop you. Much like if I say the word “f*ck” in my head, no one can stop me. But if I wear a t-shirt to school with that word on it, or say it aloud where others can here me I am disciplined. And again, the reason is not really that it’s offensive, more that it’s disruptive. It’s the same thing here. Schools are not allowed to push one religion over another, or indeed any religion over non-belief, so they simply keep religion out of school altogether and be done with it.
As for the bible, if you have read it (as I have, cover to cover) you would know that it does not belong in school. Rape (heterosexual and homosexual), incest, grisly murder, genocide. You could hardly find a book more inappropriate to children as unsupervised reading. If you disagree read Judges 19 or 2 Samuel 13 to your children as a bedtime story, I dare you.
Right at the end of your comment you say that there is some group targeting young children to help them come out. You have no details of the group, so I have no way of knowing if that is even true, nor do you say what ages they are supposedly dealing with. But what you said interested me. You said “really young kids that barely know what sex is.”
Just how old do you think you were when you first knew yourself to be heterosexual? I was probably about 5 years old myself. Straight and Gay people I have spoken to tend to say about the same or a bit older, certainly by about 9 or 10 everyone has a pretty good idea. You don’t need to know all about sex or be ready to have it, in order to have an orientation.
I think we stumbled wildly away from our original topic by the way, but I have been too engrossed in our conversation to really care too much.
I have two best friends, one I have known for 12 years and one I have known for 7. Both are Christians. One is in fact very devout and not only attends church weekly, but is a member of several groups within his church and it is the focus of much of his life. As you can imagine, the ability to enjoy a spirited debate is a big factor in our continuing friendship.
It’s late so I am not going to respond to your whole response tonight. But I did want to say that I understand what you are trying to get across. Correct me if the following is an incorrect understanding.
What you are saying is that Christians are trying to outlaw a behavior that others desire to do. On the other hand, you are not trying to outlaw a behavior but you don’t see offering alternatives to Christian children as intrusive.
Lastly, and to your last two paragraphs, I also noticed that the topic of the conversation has totally veered off the original subject. I guess that’s how conversations evolve and I am enjoying having this discussion. Usually people get so bent out of shape and resort to childish behavior such as name calling that I choose not to continue.
I’m glad to hear that your two Christian friends can have these discussions with you as well as you having the discussions with them.
I’m going to blog another post that may interest you. The subject came up when I had a discussion with an atheist (I’m not saying you’re an atheist, I have no idea what your background is) regarding man (as in human) is inherently evil by nature. He says no, I said yes and we debated this. Was an interesting topic but he resorted to childish behavior by resorting to name calling. I lost interest at that point.
Take care
I think you have the gist of what I was trying to say. I’m for more freedom whenever possible. For example, I disagree strongly with anti-gay marriage legislation because I don’t feel I should restrict others rights when no one is getting hurt and it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. So what business is it of mine to be so arrogant as to tell someone else what they should be allowed to do.
I fully support legalizing marijuana for the same reason and indeed most other drugs, though I do not and have not ever used them. I know full well that doing so might cause harm to people that otherwise would not be harmed. It’s the same logic though to prevent the use of automobiles. Thousands of lives would be saved EVERY DAY, but it would significantly restrict freedom.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
Wow, It’s raining debate here! I wish I had the time to read it.
LOL, yeah, I uses it touched some nerves.
I read this entire debate and I would like to put my two cents about the few big things that I read.
First is my opinion on the open marriage point, what this post was originally about. I think that there is nothing wrong with being in a polyamorous relationship. Whose to say that you can only love one person in your life? Whose to say that monogamy is right for everyone? Yes it is a more sanitary option and personally not for me. But one of my best friends is in a polyamorous relationship with his girlfriend and her fiance. They all get along just fine and are in totally trust with each other. Is that wrong? Its just more love all around I say.
The other thing is that I also believe that religion has no place in public schools. Our country has a separation of church and state and I think that some people have forgotten that. Yes, many of the founding leaders of this country belonged to religion, but they also saw the need to separate church from the law. It gets messy and you start cutting liberties for the public for reasons that make no sense.
Lastly, you can not hide your children from everything. They may be raised in a household where being gay isn’t the “correct” lifestyle and yet they might turn out to be gay themselves. Schools teach tolerance, acceptance and respect. They are not there to overthrow your Christian ideals. Keep religion at home and in the church where it belongs. Religion has no place in schools.
I understand that you think that there’s nothing wrong with a polyamorous relationship. But your view and God’s view don’t meet. While you and many others feel that this is fine and moral, in the end, what I think, what you think or what anyone thinks is rubbish. We all will stand before God and it is His view that counts. We will all give an accounting of our lives. My post was not what I have decided to opine about — I was writing it from a biblical point of view — the Word of God. What I happen to believe or think means nothing unless it lines up with God’s Word.