The Bible and Polyamorous Relationships
It was suggested by opponents that legalising same-sex marriage would lead to demands for polygamy, polyandry and polyamorous relationships also being legalised and recognised. We were told that two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry because they “loved each other”, and that overrode any biblical prohibition or social taboo.
In an interesting article in the Guardian, which frequently carries articles on this issue as part of the liberal elite’s “softening up opinion agenda”, one male homosexual writer tells as what a wonderful three way relationship he has and why he is proud of it.
He argues that “relationships are infinitely diverse”, therefore his relationship with two male partners should be recognised and celebrated.
He wants not only recognition, he wants legal rights and perhaps some legal means of registering his relationship:
“I write this explanation as a call to embrace poly people and our relationships. That doesn’t mean I think everyone should become polyamorous, although I believe everyone should think about whether it would work for them.
Even if you decide against it, it’s time to embrace those who are. That should mean fighting for more legal rights for those of us who choose to live this way. It is much more difficult for heterosexual people in polyamorous relationships to gain legal rights than it is for a gay monogamous couple.”
Of course the question should be asked, if three, why not four or five? Could a rich individual have a mixed polyamorous harem of say 3 females and 3 males? If the only criteria for judging such relationships is mutual consent, how dare we limit the boundaries of love.
How long before the pseudo-christian liberal church climbs aboard this bandwagon? If, after all, the male and female (singular) of the biblical text can be broken and now include male-male and female-female relationships why not the singular aspect limiting the partnership to two persons. If the church feels free to redefine marriage as the union of two persons, as the PCUSA has done, there is no logical reason not to extend this definition to “the union of two or more persons”.
Oh - perhaps I should have mentioned that some professed Christian liberal groups are already campaigning on this matter:
Indeed, even such a definition is unnecessarily species biased. Apes are persons too, as some liberal campaigners maintain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood#Advocacy )
So, there is no logical reason, apart from a prejudice against zoophilia, to restrict such marriages to humans. This reductio ad absurdum shows that once you move away from biblical law, logically anything goes. Once the church no longer feels bound by Scripture, there are unforeseen consequences and eventually what can happen, will happen. Those who are campaigning in the Church of Scotland for the acceptance of homosexual marriage will eventually campaign for a redefinition of marriage itself. This is not prophecy, it is just looking at the trajectory that the PCUSA has followed and seeing that the liberals will not be satisfied until the Kirk, like the PCUSA, redefines marriage.