“If you undo the institution of marriage by redefining it for the latest movement or the latest fad, you will open the Pandora’s box,” he (Eric Abetz) said.
“Like what?” host Kieran Gilbert asked.
“Well polyamory clearly, polamory (sic) is one of those….let’s not be under any illusion that once you start unpicking the definition of marriage, there will other consequences.”
Channel 9 News.
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you but someone should let Senator Abetz know that polyamory has been with us for some years now. I just checked the meaning on Wikipedia and it tells me:
Polyamory (from Greekπολύpoly, “many, several”, and Latinamor, “love“) is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.
Personally, after a bit of reading, I’m more worried that if the Christian Lobby get their way, they’ll attempt to impose polygamy on us all. After all, the Bible has been quoted a number of times when they’ve attempted to argue that men aren’t men to marry men, and women aren’t meant to marry women.
To give you the context of this, it was suggested yesterday that US Constitution had nothing to say about gay marriage, and therefore the judges were exceeding their authority by their decision. (Actually, apparently the judges shouldn’t be making any decision because they’re unelected according to some people!) It was also suggested that the Bible expressly forbade gay marriage because nowhere in the Bible does it use the words “gay” and “marriage” in the same verse, even if one reads it in Hebrew. Especially if one reads it Hebrew.
But that got me thinking. I’ve never actually read the US constitution, and it’s been years since I read the Bible. Or rather, had the selected highlights read out to me in Church and Sunday School. So because I didn’t have a copy of the US constitution lying around but I still had my Bible, I decided to check out what it actually had to say about marriage.
Now, unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t come with an index so I had to skim read in the hope of finding the bit where it expressly lays out that marriage is between a man and woman.
To my horror, I happened to chance upon Onan spilling his seed on the ground, in spite of the fact that father Judah told him to impregnate his brother’s widow. Why this has never been used by the Church as a reason for not using “coitus interuptus” as a birth control method, God only knows.
In Deuteronomy I discovered that it’s quite ok, to have two wives, even if the second is your favourite:
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
Deuteronomy also informed me that a king should not have too many wives, but it was a bit unspecific about how many was too many. It went on to say that he should not accumulate large amounts of gold and silver, but again wasn’t clear on the number and was completely silent on the amount of coal one could own, which explains Abbott’s desire to accumulate coal while sending Australia broke.
So once we go down the path of letting the Bible dictate our laws, then polygamy’ll be in for sure. I tried to read on. However, I had to stop reading when I discovered the verses about Jonathan and David:
2 Samuel 1:26 – I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
1 Samuel 18:3 – Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1 – And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
So I guess that’s where the prohibition against gay marriage is inferred. If it was good enough for those two to simply have a covenant, then why should people in the 21st Century need any more?
P.S. I know that it’s “Judeo-Christian”, but I while I did proof read the text, I pressed publish before I noticed the typo in the title. I’ve left it for two reasons. First, the title still shows up as the original in posts on Facebook and in the web address, so correcting it won’t help there, and, second, I suspect that, when it comes to the way Abbott, Abetz and company are attempting to prevent the Bill on gay marriage being debated, the concept of Judo-Christians, seems appropriate.
Judo philosophy:
“In short, resisting a more powerful opponent will result in your defeat, whilst adjusting to and evading your opponent’s attack will cause him to lose his balance, his power will be reduced, and you will defeat him. This can apply whatever the relative values of power, thus making it possible for weaker opponents to beat significantly stronger ones.”
