Marriage is a creation of God

Even non-religious secularists are beginning to understand that if we redefine marriage, it can mean anything, and will erode society. This, in fact, seems to be the goal of the extreme Left.

Many around the world cannot grasp (or don't want to) the concept of marriage as Father talks of. If you don't want to believe in God, or believe his Word, then it' still obvious that physically one man and one woman are designed to be together for love and for creating more people. The giving of self that Father talks of is key. Anything else makes us just "things", like possessions to have for convenience, that we can just toss away later if we want. The God that created all, gave you the gift of freedom to choose. He loves you so much he gave you the freedom to act and believe as you wish, even if it is not in sync with God's Truth. People choose not to believe in God because His Way is too difficult. It's much easier not to commit, to take the easy road. I believe that inside each one of us is the Truth. We seek it or ignore it. Someday you'll see. We are all in for a HUGE surprise after this life.

Fr. Frank,
Thank you for speaking the truth. It is so obvious to me how Satan has really blinded so many people. God existed before the world and humans. He will continue to exist after. Marriage, as given to us by God, has existed since the beginning of humans and before governments were dreamt of.

Haveaheart:
“You have an impossibly naive view of how cult communities indoctrinate and maintain the participation of their members.”
Not at all. Cults are cults, whether they be polygamist or otherwise. There will likely always be people of both sexes drawn to them for any of a number of reasons. Cults however represent a very small fraction of the overall populace.
Cults are one issue, polygamy is quite another.
We also have ruthless, brutal biker gangs. It’s not the motorcycles that are the problem though, it’s the criminal behavior of those individuals in those gangs. We call polygamist cults that only because that is their most apparent (prurient?) aspect. However you and I both know what’s really going on. The evil within those cults is not so much who’s married to whom, but how the brutal theocratic leadership abuses its absolute power over women and young girls. Making polygamy legal for the otherwise law abiding citizens in the country would not excuse, at all, the brutal, abusive behavior of the cult leaders. Like I said, cults are cults, gangs are gangs, thugs are thugs. That’s another issue entirely. Making polygamy legal would take a little of those cults’ power away though. Civil laws would recognize and be better able to protect the rights to property and parenthood of the women. As it is, if they escape the cult they have very little legal recourse to go after the ‘father’ or his assets since they are not legally married in the first place according to the law.

“If polygamy were decriminalized, then it could in theory be subsumed under freedom of religion protections, which would then grant tax-exempt status to the communities that practice it.”
If polygamy were decriminalized then there would be no longer a religious connotation to that marriage in the eyes of the law. Everyone in every marriage would enjoy the same marital legal rights and responsibilities, regardless of religious affiliation. There would be no tax-exemption based on religion, as polygamy would no longer be considered a religious issue. Whatever rites, rituals and traditions go on in closed cult-like communities would be no more or less tax-funded than they are now. If they are currently set up as tax–exempt they would continue to be, and if they are not they still would not be. Polygamy is a ritual/tradition in some religions, but not a religion unto itself. Just because I wear a funny hat and chant in Latin does not make me a tax-exempt pope.

“I think you've hitched onto an idea you're so enamored of that you just can't bear to let it go.”
No, I’ve got no dog in this hunt. I’m not at all interested in plural marriage for myself, I have no fantasies or romantic notions about it at all. I just see it as an academic debate, a look into the current context of defining ‘marriage’. It is pretty apparent that those opposed to gay marriage eventually get around to a religious reasoning, the same with plural marriage. That's all.

A polygamous community is always going to be androcentric because the males of the species (pretty much any mammallian species) would not tolerate the possibility that "their" wives could be impregnated by anyone but themselves.
**************************************************************************************
Nonsense. Step-parents deal with raising other people's children all the time.

As to your friends, what they have is a commune with extra privileges. Really not the same thing.
Posted by: haveaheart
**************************************************************************************
Legally, they're roommates. Spiritually, emotionally, they're spouses.

Gladerunner,

You have an impossibly naive view of how cult communities indoctrinate and maintain the participation of their members.

When you say that "no one need be forced into this any more than anyone can be forced into a same-sex marriage, or even into a heterosexual one," you discount the fact that most women entering these "marriages" have descended from and been raised by generations of women who lived their lives as plural wives. They've been raised to anticipate and accept the adult role assigned to them, and they have little education and no work experience, and hence they can't defend against such coercion. Consequently, they can, indeed, be forced into these "marriages," because THEY DON'T KNOW that there is another way to live and THEY DON'T HAVE any job skills or basic education with which to earn a living.

Here are a couple of other points you've made in error:

"Your argument falls flat unless all, or even a vast majority of men marry multiple wives. I don’t see that happening. I make a pretty good living and I can barely afford the family I have. Another wife? I don’t even want the added expense/responsibility of another dog."

And here is where, once again, the government comes in. If polygamy were decriminalized, then it could in theory be subsumed under freedom of religion protections, which would then grant tax-exempt status to the communities that practice it. And we're back to the federal government supporting these "families" with tax dollars.

"If most people actually wanted to have plural marriages it probably wouldn’t be illegal in the first place."

Do you really believe this? There are many things that "most people" -- at least in the U.S. -- would agree are desireable to legalize. Marijuana. Euthanasia. Equal rights for women. Etc. But you don't see those being legalized for the common good simply because Americans say they want them.

I think you've hitched onto an idea you're so enamored of that you just can't bear to let it go.

"I would imagine that the number of women who would like to take multiple husbands would balance out the number of men who would like to take multiple wives."

Lepidopteryx,

Wouldn't happen. A polygamous community is always going to be androcentric because the males of the species (pretty much any mammallian species) would not tolerate the possibility that "their" wives could be impregnated by anyone but themselves.

As to your friends, what they have is a commune with extra privileges. Really not the same thing.

Mr. Pavone makes the common error of confusing love with marriage. Love is the emotional and physical drive, largely hormonal, that motivates reproduction. Marriage has many purposes. It helps children survive, especially in poor circumstances. It also is useful for bonding clans, improving status, enhancing finances, stabilizing societies, etc.
We inventive humans use marriage for many purposes. When marriage is no longer useful, we abandon it.

Marriage is not the creation of an imaginary god. Man created thousands of culturally different forms relationships meant to foster reproduction, the transfer of wealth and protection of the society. The institution of marriage will continue to evolve in this society and in every other society as generations come and go. Marriage in some form will be around long after the Catholic church collapses due to irrelevance, arrogance and immorality of thousands of priests.

"The Catholic Church teaches that marriage, like human life itself, is a creation of God."

No, Father, marriage is a legal contract created by the state.

"Ultimately, marriage represents something that is central to the calling of all of us, including those who do not marry. It is the call to give ourselves away, and to realize that such self-giving is the only road to fulfillment."

No, no I don't think so.

Mr. Pavone, Marriage like every other social institution is creation of man and not your sky-daddy. In fact your sky-daddy is itself a creation of man.

Haveaheart:
“First, if polygamy were legalized and "regulated" in the way you describe, women would not participate.”
That’s irrelevant to its legality. If women do not choose to live in a poly-marriage, then there’s nothing forcing them to. I sincerely doubt you know the hearts and minds of all women though.
“Even under the best of circumstances, a woman does not want to share her husband with another woman -- much less 3 or 4, or 9 or 10, of them”
Many, if not most, I would agree. Decriminalization would have no bearing on that though, since marriageis voluntary.
“The emotional vacuum in which plural wives live is soul-destroying, no matter how well-off they might be.”
You don’t know that. All we have to go by is the ILLEGAL activity of plural marriage. Once again, no one need be forced into this any more than anyone can be forced into a same-sex marriage, or even into a heterosexual one.
“In any polygamous community, the ratio of men to women must be kept extremely low”
Only if a vast majority of people engage in plural marriage and in a relatively closed community.
“If all the men of the community are to have several wives, then there need to be far fewer males than females.”
As I already said, do you really think there’s an ‘all’ to this? I’d certainly never want to sign up for it, so your ‘all’ is already busted.
“Even in a "legalized" environment, how can a society thrive when only some of its males are permitted to marry?”
Your argument falls flat unless all, or even a vast majority of men marry multiple wives. I don’t see that happening. I make a pretty good living and I can barely afford the family I have. Another wife? I don’t even want the added expense/responsibility of another dog.

“No, your arguments for decriminalizing polygamy simply don't hold up”
Your arguments for keeping it illegal don’t even exist unless you assume that a majority of people, men AND women engage in it full throttle. If most people actually wanted to have plural marriages it probably wouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

HaveAHeart, if polygamy were to be made legal, then polyandry would also have to be legal. I would imagine that the number of women who would like to take multiple husbands would balance out the number of men who would like to take multiple wives.
The desire for plural marriage isn't limited to fundamentalist LDS.
I have friends who are in a plural marriage, even though the law doesn't recognize it as a marriage. There are several men as well as several women, no one brings anyone else into the relationship without a unanimous agreement from the others, and anyone is free to leave any time they wish.
It's not a situation that I would be able to live with (I'm bad enough with names as it is), but it works for them.

Gladerunner,

A couple of observations.

First, if polygamy were legalized and "regulated" in the way you describe, women would not participate. It has always been a lifestyle of coercion -- all the way back to Joseph and Emma Smith. Even under the best of circumstances, a woman does not want to share her husband with another woman -- much less 3 or 4, or 9 or 10, of them. The emotional vacuum in which plural wives live is soul-destroying, no matter how well-off they might be.

Second, you ignore another significant problem created by plural marriage. In any polygamous community, the ratio of men to women must be kept extremely low. If all the men of the community are to have several wives, then there need to be far fewer males than females. Typically, the solution to this problem is to ship the young men off to work in faraway places so that they can't compete with the older men in the wife-acquiring sweepstakes. Even in a "legalized" environment, how can a society thrive when only some of its males are permitted to marry?

No, your arguments for decriminalizing polygamy simply don't hold up.

Frank,

"Marriage is a creation of God"

Wrong; marriage was created by human beings, just as all of mankind's gods and religions were created by human beings.

Haveaheart:

Your portrayal of polygamous marriages overlooks a glaring detail. As polygamy is illegal, people in those relationships are forced into a life of hiding and are thus not protected by civil laws that are enjoyed by those in legal marriages.
Polygamy as you describe it is mostly practiced now by remotely located, ultra-religious, male dominated and by necessity, closed societies. In other words you need to ask whether polygamy itself is the reason for the horrendous conditions, or like drug trafficking and prostitution, is it the fact that these things are illegal and require living beyond the reach of basic legal recourse that encourages thugs and tyrants to set up frontier justice?
What the FLDS, et al does is horrendous exactly because absent democratically selected governance they have established their own justice system based on brute force theocratic tyranny.
If decriminalized the IRS would not be out any of its hard-earned money, civil laws would prevail, and children and wives would enjoy the same protections as other marriages/partnerships.

"As for polygamy and same-sex marriage I have no problem with either."

Gladerunner,

I, too, am in full support of same-sex marriage. However, polygamy perpetrates oppression and victimhood on women and subsidizes itself with government funds.

Unlike in the idealized marriage represented in television's "Big Love," in practice, women in polygamous communities typically live in grinding poverty. Their resources are nil while their mission is to produce as many children as possible while submitting to their husbands' every demand. Many live without indoor plumbing or even antiquated modern conveniences. Their diets (and those of their children) are meagre and lacking in essential nutrients. The women are denied education to guarantee that they won't stray from the community. In short, their lives are hell. And for those (probably most) who become plural wives because that's what their mothers and grandmothers did, they can't flee from their circumstances because they don't even know that there are options (much less how to find them).

Polygamy also defrauds the federal government of millions of dollars annually. Because a plural marriage has only one legal wife (the first one), all subsequent wives a man "takes" remain legally single. As both wives and children multiply, the non-legal wives apply for government benefits for single mothers. Consequently, a man may have 7 wives and 50 kids, but he's only supporting his "official" family; the federal government is subsidizing the rest.

So, as you can see, polygamy is anything but a victimless crime. It's not a religious tenet to be respected by the outside world; it's a coercive master-slave relationship and a drain on the federal government.

marriage is the creation of women because men are not monogamous...

The title "Marriage is a Creation of God" is a little silly.

Haveaheart:
“Maybe not, but the state can say, "Your rituals are unacceptable and illegal; don't practice them here."
The clearest case in point: Mormon polygamy”

I don’t disagree. The various states’ laws do indeed reflect religious doctrine that has prevailed for much of our history. Laws, though often based on or similar to religious edicts are also separate from them. If the Pope suddenly, infallibly and immutably claimed that gay marriage was now ‘okay’, that would have no automatic impact on existing state laws. They would still have to be changed independently.
As for polygamy and same-sex marriage I have no problem with either.
I am all for completely severing the two aspects of marriage, the legal/civil from the religious the same way that we have always, and without much righteous indignation from the zealots, separated christenings from birth certificates and funerals from death certificates.

"The state cannot force the church to alter its laws and rituals..."

It's pretty obvious this is true in the case of pedophile priests.

"It is absurd for an organization that discriminates against married men and all women to presume to tell the world about how couples should relate to each other."

David6,

Spot on. Why should anyone listen to a guy who hasn't experienced the very relationship he's advising about?

Seems so obvious.

"The state cannot force the church to alter its laws and rituals..."

Gladerunner,

Maybe not, but the state can say, "Your rituals are unacceptable and illegal; don't practice them here."

The clearest case in point: Mormon polygamy.

Meanwhile a top Catholic educator covers up more abuse:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120702806.html?hpid=sec-religion

It is absurd for an organization that discriminates against married men and all women to presume to tell the world about how couples should relate to each other. When your organization learns how to treat people, then it might be in the position to lecture others.

“The Church also points out that the state has a key role in preserving and regulating marriage, but not in redefining it.”
Fortunately the ‘state’ is not subservient to ‘The Church’.
The state cannot force the church to alter its laws and rituals, and the converse is also true.
If you wish to subject your members to your archaic laws, then by all means go right ahead. But keep your hands of the laws of ‘the state’, they are not yours to corrupt.

"It is the call to give ourselves away, and to realize that such self-giving is the only road to fulfillment. And that is a truth that is no mere human invention, nor something that will ever become obsolete."

This is a beautiful view of marriage, Father, and it's one that I think a lot of couples can forget in the relentless every day rat race. Thank you for a timely reminder.

My husband and I have not given ourselves to each other. We share ourselves with each other, while remaining separate people. It works for us.