“My commission from God is to deliver the good news of salvation to you, not to cram it down your throat. What you do with that news, how you address your salvation, is between you and your creator. By comparison, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. If you try, all you’ll succeed in doing is drowning the horse.”
…I’ve always tried to live by this. I mean, who am I to say what’s right or good for someone not in my shoes? Who am I to try and force my beliefs on others, either at the ballot box or otherwise? Who am I to try putting limits on love, or who can and can’t be in love?
Right now, I’m attempting to marry (okay, pun half-intended!) this stance to the wider debate regarding marriage equality. Personally, I believe in biblical teachings on the matter; that marriage is a solemn union between a man and a woman. That’s the way we got here, isn’t it, through a relationship between members of the opposite gender? I won’t however, seek to infringe upon someone else’s right to their own belief on the matter, or limit or deny their equal protections under the laws of the land because of it.
My contemplations of the question have brought up an interesting theory! I have heard, among the many arguments against marriage equality, one referred to as the “slippery slope” argument. It posits that, if we allow same-sex marriage, that it would lead to people wanting to legally marry their siblings, their beloved pets, etceteras. Now, we could go down several roads of applicability on this one, including the degradation of traditional family values, the evolving definition of relationships, and on and on, ad nauseum. Well, I won’t. (You can breathe out now…)
Instead, I’m going to posit a similar, yet entirely more likely series of “connect the dots” questions and thoughts:
- Firstly, what main justification do we use to legalize same-sex marriage? Which freedom do we apply?
- Then, assuming that we DO declare it fully-recognized by law, might another interest seek to have THEIR marriage(s) deemed legal, such as oh, say…Muslims? In the Muslim faith, it is permissible for a man to have more than one wife, as long as the man is able to support her. How can we deny Muslims, under Freedom of Religion protections in the U.S. Constitution, the right to marry more than one wife, when we have legalized same-gender marriage?
- If Muslims are successful in this, then we see the legalization of polygamy. Not only would this work for Muslims, but then LDS adherents would be able to resume polygamist practices with the full protections of the law. (Makes one wonder just WHY the Mormons are so against this, as it would be a means to an end…)
- This would then allow the reverse to also be legal: a woman would be able to marry multiple husbands. She MUST be able to by this point, otherwise it would constitute gender discrimination!
See where I’m going with this? Keep in mind folks, that there are several different flavors of polyamory, and the idea that there are financial implications to this question, both positive and negative, to such institutions as Social Security, healthcare, education…the list is ginormous! These are just some of the questions I find myself mulling over in my quest to better understand both sides of this hot-potato issue…