Do you hear yourself? You only prove my point. Where do you get that polygamy is wrong? Where do you get that homosexual relationships are wrong? You all but admit that it's not from the Bible!

"I won’t even address your insistence that God is for polygamy. The fact that the practice was 'allowed' doesn’t give license to it as you seemingly believe."

Fine, but then, where do you get that polygamy is wrong? If the Bible doesn't say so, then where is this coming from. You know where: Not the Bible. Plain and simple.

"The fact that the practice was “allowed” doesn’t give license to it as you seemingly believe. If so, Jesus not addressing homosexuality explicitly would be the gravest of omissions."

Again, do you hear yourself? You are saying: "Homosexuality must be wrong, because I, Nicholas, and some other people think so. Jesus didn't say anything about it, but we still think he'd be against it. If not, Jesus -- not Nicholas -- is in error." I mean, that's exactly the point:

Jesus's "not addressing homosexuality," as you admit, is quite frankly, the point. The more time and energy you spend on things that Jesus omitted to even care about, the more you distance yourself from God's Word and from a truly Christian life.

How about this? How about we focus for just one minute on what Jesus cared about -- not what Maggie or Nicholas or Brian Brown care about -- but what JESUS cared about. It's all there, in his sermon on the mound. Where is your website and fundraising and grassroots movements directed at promoting THOSE values?

From your post, it sounds as if you expect "Christians" to be perfect. We are not, just forgiven. And you can be too if you are not already. Also, surely you know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Ever heard of the wheat amongst the tares? If not, then reference Matthew 13:25 and following.

Secondly, so my use of Scripture is specious? How so? Do they not address what we have been sparring about? If not, then explain to me how I can be clearer on what we are discussing because far be it for me to stand in the way of God having His way.

Lastly, I won't even address your insistence that God is for polygamy. The fact that the practice was "allowed" doesn't give license to it as you seemingly believe. If so, Jesus not addressing homosexuality explicitly would be the gravest of omissions.

You can only keep the image up so long before you trip up eh Kevin? My question is, why pretend?

Kevin, what did your wife die of again? Was it leukemia, or pancreatic cancer?

No apology needed. I just appreciate your candor and conviction.

I meant no slight to you having been previously married. My point was, having been married before, how do you not know what marriage is?

As to the comment about believing something to be true just by repeating it ad nauseum; actually, that is what you are doing. I am not distorting what marriage is-the union of male and female, husband and wife. Always has been and always will be. The fact that you can't accept this as foundational to society is where I am at a loss.

Lastly, so are you saying that SSM will cure adultery and divorce? Have you not seen the report of the SSM couple wanting to get a divorce in Texas, but can't due to the "gay marriage ban" in place in the state? Also, if "opposite 'genderness' does not a marriage make," then why did you get married under this notion?

If you understand polygamy to be "Christian," then you do not understand Christian/Christianity. If polygamy is Christian, then why don't all Christians practice it? Wouldn't we be hypocritical to not engage in it? Also, unless I missed something, the Bible is a written historical record of God and His redemptive purpose for His creation. No where can you read into it that God is for sin. Your specious use of selected Scriptures only shows your lack of knowledge of the Truth. Additionally, if you had read any of my previous posts, you would see that I had answered your points regarding polygamous relationships. How did you miss this?

Lastly, I find it rather amusing that you "know" me as you do in just the few blogposts I have submitted. The fact that you claim that I don't ground my definition of marriage in the Bible and that it is merely based upon biases and ideas that I have gleaned along the way is a slap in the face. That'sokay, I'll turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Also, your are right on one point, though. I do use the Bible as a weapon (Ephesians 6:11-18); however, I also use it as a guide (2 Timothy 3:16)hence where I get my direction for life and my supposed errant view marriage.

The core of marriage is commitment and sexual fidelity, not “one man and own woman.” One man and one woman merely reflects who was permitted to marry, and interested in getting married. It’s not like men sit around wondering if they should hook up with a man or a woman, and opt for a woman so they can eventually marry if they hit it off. One man/one woman reflects biology, and needs no coaxing through the institution of marriage. Commitment and sexual fidelity DO require coaxing, since they are not particularly natural for the human species. Obviously, since even married people can’t adhere to them.

The core of marriage involved a lifetime commitment, the whole “till death do us part” thing. That is no longer true. Any married couple can divorce at any time for any reason. The core of marriage also meant sexual fidelity. Would you like to know some statistics about adultery? No, me either. Biblical marriage also required a virgin bride. Let’s not go there, shall we?

You and chairm can say that the core meaning of marriage (if that concept itself has any meaning) is one man and one woman, until you are blue in your respective faces. But it’s not. Yes, I know, repeat something often enough and it becomes true. But not really.

If you’ve never been married, maybe it’s a good idea to keep your opinions to yourself. For those of us who are, or were, married, I can assure you that opposite “genderness” does not a marriage make. If it did, there would be no adultery and no divorce.

Issuing political statements like that has zilch to do with professional credentials. It is politics and nothing more.

My apologies Michael. My apologies Nicholas.

Most practictioners of plural marriage and/or polyamory would not describe themselves as you did, Nicholas. What do you have against anthiestic practioneers such that you would ignore their liberty to form unions of loving consenting adults?

There can be NO sexual basis for the polygam ban, right? You wouldn't want to step on their sexual liberties.

There can be NO procreative basis either, since you think the license to SSM is not about procreation anyway.

Just consent and a license demanded.

Besides, what possible reason would you have for discriminating against an all-male threesome or moresome? Or an all-female arrangement that combined several unions of two?

Tradition? Public morality? Something else?

If the plural marriage scenario was gay, would it be anti-gay to deny them "marriage equality"? Howcome?

At its core, marriage unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation; it does this as a coherent whole not as a bunch of bits and pieces all made optional by lack of coherency.

The man-woman criterion of marriage law is not a sexual orientation criterion.

The challenge to the SSMers is to explain how the man-woman basis of marriage is suddenly transformed into a supposed sexual orientation basis for a civil contract.

Sexual orientation is not in the marriage law; SSM supporters read that into the law and demand that their fiction be treated as more substantive than the core meaning of marriage.

That core is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement -- regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

If there is an SSMer here who says that procreation is not a legal requirement and thus marriage is not about responsible procreation, then, that SSMer can step up to the plate and plainly state if gayness will or will not be a legal requirement for so-called "gay marriage".

If the answer is, yes, please cite an example from some jurisdiction where there is a gayness requirement for those who show-up for a license for a "gay marriage".

There is none that I know of, but maybe you can find one. And no proposed requirement from the SSM campaign's activists.

If there is no such legal requirement, neither enacted nor proposed, then, explain why not.

If you depend on the two people being gay to justify your complaint and your proposed remedy, then, why no gayness criterion for two persons of the same sex?

There is no same-sex sexual behavior requirement. And none for same-sex sexual romance. Certainly not for same-sex sexual attraction.

No such requirement for eligibility to SSM? How come?

No legal requirement, as per your own argumentation, means that gayness is NOT the central feature of so-called "gay marriage".

The man-woman basis of marriage is bigger than the pro-SSM view of sex and society. Bigger than the pro-SSM view of contract law. And bigger than the supposed gay-straight dichotomy, which in terms of marriage is a false dichotomy.

The man-woman basis is a sexual basis as per the various provisions in the law: the man-woman criterion of course; cosummation; grounds for annulment (including potency); grounds for divorce (including adultery); and the marital presumption of paternity.

None of these provisions are same-sexed. Indeed, for SSM there is no sexual basis in the law. All that the SSM supporters might claim as a sexual basis is their stereotyping. They think that only gay people would show-up for a license to SSM. But there is no legal requriement for gayness so they are mistaken, according to their own rules or argumentation.

Under SSM, according to the SSMer's own thought process, there is NO sexual basis to draw lines regarding consanguinity, age of consent for sexual relations, limitation of two, multiple concurrent unions, and so forth. Gayness is not a factor.

But if the lines are to be undermined by merging SSM with marriage, then, those lines cannot be sustained just because they apply only to the sexual basis of the union of husband and wife. That would be discriminating on the basis of heterosexuality, afterall. Indeed, most nonmarriage arrangements are NOT sexualized so the lines would be discrimination without justification anyway.

But when marriage is recognizes as marriage, rather than as some merged SSM-offshoot, the lines are sustainable and justifiable.

Upthread one SSMer, who said that procreation was not legally required, circled back to say that people closely related are barred from marriage because of ... wait for it ... concerns about procreation.

SSMers need to get their heads in the open air and think in an oxygen-rich environment.

Did adultery and divorce come before marriage? Also, how have they changed the core of marriage? It is not still the union of male and female, husband and wife. And not suprisingly, you misunderstood what I meant by "gutting" marriage. It is not so much that SSM prohibits men and women from marrying each other as it sticks its collective tongue out at the notion that marriage was meant just for the union of male and female, husband and wife. You, having been previously married, how do you not know this?

As is your wont, you suggest that me or anyone else of faith speaking against homosexuality/SSM, is filled with hate and vengeance. Does being against a particular behavior now guarantee being labeled a hater or bigot? Could the converse not be true then too?