Skip navigation

Category Archives: Religion

I came across this opinion column by R. Albert Mohler, Jr, Guest Columnist for the Christian Post.  Again the “moral” minority gets it wrong, or simply has their head buried deep in the sand they don’t want to get it.  I think Allena Gabosch, Director of the Center for Sex Positive Culture has it right when she says in the recent Newsweek article about polyamory that people are afraid of it because “it shakes up their worldview.”  Which is the reason people are afraid of a lot of things in this world, like the religion of others.

Mohler shows just how far his head is in the sand with this one paragraph:

Perhaps the best way to understand this new movement is to understand it as a natural consequence of subverting marriage. We have largely normalized adultery, serialized marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and childbearing, and accepted divorce as a mechanism for liberation. Once this happens, boundary after boundary falls as sexual regulation virtually disappears among those defined as “consenting adults.”

Normalized adultery?  Albert (may I call you Albert?), adultery has been the norm since the dawn of man (and that was 200,000, not 6,000 years ago, by-the-way).  It simply wasn’t called “adultery” until religion got involved.  Before that it was called “sharing” or “ensuring the survival of the species through multiple sex partners and genetic variety.”  The fact is that an estimated 70% of marriages will experience cheating, whether discovered or not.  It has been this way throughout Christian history where men having a “virgin” wife and an experienced mistress is the norm, not the exception.  Sure it may be written differently in your Bible, however the holiest of the Holy Men in the Bible practiced plural marriage, and God’s reward to men was to give them more wives.  In your Bible God never has an issue with multiple wives, what he has a problem with is stealing that wife from another man.  Adultery in the Biblical-sense has to do with taking another man’s property: his wife.

Serialized marriage?  Marriage has always been serialized.  According to Websters “serial” means: performing a series of similar acts over a period of time. Which isn’t that what marriage has been for years and years and years.  And guess what, “traditional” monogamous marriage still doesn’t work for most people (hence the 70% infidelity rate).

Separate reproduction and childbearing from marriage?  Are you saying that reproduction is THE reason for marriage? Much like a couple of hundred years ago it was about money and power exchange through trading your daughters to dirty old men that had enough money to pay a handsome dowry or could offer daddy a higher position in society?  That is a huge part of Christian history in relation to marriage.  You can ignore it, but it doesn’t make it less true.  Whatever happened to getting married because you love someone?

Accept divorce as a mechanism for liberation? This goes back to serialized marriage, which your accepted way isn’t working for most.  It has been said that 50% of all marriages end in divorce; 40% who stay married do so unhappily; and only 10% of those that stay married report being happy.  And in 7 out of 10 marriages one or both partners are cheating on each other.  So your traditional view of marriage isn’t better, it just buried the issues and has forced people to stay in unhappy and often abusive situations because to divorce was akin to wearing a scarlet letter on your chest and being a social outcast.  I know here in Utah that a divorced Mormon might as well have the plague when it comes to having a social life, and I’m sure it’s the same in other areas where one religion dominates the demographics.

As far as sex, I think your sentence

Bennett quotes Allena Gabosch, director of an organization known as the “Center for Sex Positive Culture,”

as well as your mocking of the Kinsey Institute shows just how repressed you yourself really are.  “Sex positive” is something that really scares the Hell out of you and your kind, doesn’t it?  Especially when it comes from a woman.

It would seem that Mohler, like so many of his mindset, would like to return us to an idealized version of the past.

In my last post I mused aimlessly about the difference between the definitions of “Civil Union” and “Marriage”, and how with the support of Prop 8 certain churches would like to define “marriage” as a strictly religious union. Yet, at the same time they say they support Civil Unions, but Prop 8 (and others like it throughout the U.S.) even ban them.

My point being was that Civil Unions are performed by Civil Servants and have no connection whatsoever to religiously recognized unions.

Case in point.  My first wife and I were married in the Greek Orthodox Church.  However, when we split I did not seek the Church’s recognition of the divorce for the sole purpose of I really had no need to throw my ex-wife under the bus and confess her sins against me for their perverted purposes.  So in the eyes of the State we are divorced and I am now married to Lucretia MacEvil.  If the State did not believe we were really divorced they would not have allowed me to marry Lucretia.  In the eyes of the Greek Orthodox Church however, they do not recognize the State’s divorce and I am still married to my ex-wife, and because of this if I so desired to take communion I could not until I seek their recognition of the dissolution of my first marriage.

My mother did the same with her first marriage and to the day of her death she was refused Holy Communion by the Greek Orthodox Church.

So where is the line drawn?  Is a State recognized marriage simply a Civil Union and to be truly “married” you must be joined by a religious body of some kind?  Clearly, State recognized marriage is completely different than a religious-recognized marriage. Unless of course it is in the religion’s best interest to blur the line.  This “Government stay out of our business, but we’ll mingle in yours when it suits us” attitude is one of the real issues that should be addressed.  The Constitution protects a Church’s right from Government interference, but what protects the Government from Church’s interference?  Nothing.  Nice situation for the Church, eh?

The masses don’t understand the difference.  A church leader can perform marriages because as an ordained minister of any kind he is automatically given (in most states) the authority to also perform a State recognized union which entitles the couple to all the benefits given to a “married” couple.  A couple can get these same benefits being married by a judge, a county clerk, a justice of the peace, etc.  The only difference?  The union is not recognized “in the eyes of the Lord” by the opinion of the Church of Whatever.

Great. They don’t have to recognize it or give the couple who don’t prescribe to that religion any benefits bestowed upon a “married” couple within that particular church.  So why are We The People allowing churches to dictate who of other faiths — or no faith — can be joined in a State and Federally recognized union and who can’t?

Why? Fear. The LDS Church was telling it’s faithful that should Prop 8 pass in California that it could force the LDS Church to perform same-sex marriages.  Now nothing could be further from the truth.  The government doesn’t have that authority or even anything that resembles it.  But, people are lazy. It’s easier to believe what you are told rather than actually research it for yourself and find-out if you’ve been lied to (hence the need for sites like Snopes.com, eh?). But the Mormon faithful, and flurry of fear, donated time and money in a Church organized manner to promote the passing of a law that won’t effect a single member of the LDS Church in a negative manner.  But it was the fear that it could in some undefined way that caused these people to do as they were informed, not as they personally felt.  At the minimum the allowed how they felt to be determined by what they were told without any real introspection into what they really feel about the subject.

Besides, in Utah thinking differently than the “majority” is frowned upon.  Politicians use slogans such as “I stand for Utah values” to get elected.  And those values are what?  Hmmm… Wait, I’m sure someone will tell me what my values should be.  Just give it a minute.

So there we have it.  My rant-and-roll for today.

~ Lucius Q. Scribbens

%d bloggers like this: