Why shouldn’t a man have two wives?

Marriage Day (Photo credit: Fikra)

A couple of months ago I posted about how redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships was a bad idea – gay couples wouldn’t be subject to the same restrictions as straight couples (i.e. you couldn’t divorce over adultery – bad idea), straight couples still wouldn’t be allowed to have civil partnerships, and it would start a slippery slope towards polygamy and incest.

Most people agreed with me on the first two points (this is a question of equal rights, after all), but most also disagreed on the third.

As a little example of someone who would have disagreed with me, check out the Washington Post’s Slate.com’s opinion, published way back in 2004 (please read it). Because they believed so strongly, they published a second article to underline their opinion in 2012 (this one isn’t as good, but help yourself).

Only one year later, they’ve completely turned around; now gay marriage is legal, why isn’t polygamy legal?

A brief quote from the first article:

Bracket all the hysterical and irrelevant stops along the slippery slope…and we are left to try to draw principled lines between gay marriage, in which no one is harmed, and adult incest, adultery, bigamy, or polyamory.

In other words, gay marriage is fine, polygamy isn’t. And a quote from the third article:

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

I’m sorry: I told you so.

Related articles

• And now on to polygamy (economist.com)
• Slate: ‘Marriage Equality’ Includes Polygamy (joemiller.us)
• Some traditions aren’t worth preserving (newsherald.com)
• “[P]rohibiting polygamy on ‘feminist’ grounds – that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved – is misguided.” (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Progressive Salon.com advocates polygamy as next step in marriage equality (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury ‘supports civil partnerships for heterosexuals’ (guardian.co.uk)

Redefining marriage

English: Hindu marriage ceremony from a Rajput wedding. ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬: Rajput-par i ein hinduistisk vigsel. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, I’m writing this first thing this morning so I don’t know what the news will look like by the time this publishes, but judging by the media we may as well assume that same-sex marriage is going to be made legal, whether now or in a couple of years’ time when the subject is brought up again. Just a couple of thoughts, more a braindump than anything else.

To say that only about 1% of the population is gay, as a general rule talk about homosexuality seems to make far more headlines than, say, abortion, which is experienced first-hand by one in three women. Maybe the media’s priorities need looking at.

Just because the loudest voices say that ‘everyone supports gay marriage’ (to the point that it’s being worded as ‘opposing plans’ rather than ‘supporting current legislation’), it’s not the case that everyone does. A lot of people are in favour of it, a lot are against it, and a lot of people simply haven’t thought it through…but would say they’re for it because ‘everyone else is’. Maybe the media should be fairer and more objective.

A Christian’s view of marriage is not affected by the state’s view of marriage; Christian marriage is between one man and one woman as a reflection of Christ’s relationship with the church (e.g. see Ephesians 5). That’s clearly not the state’s view of marriage currently, and I don’t think the church really wants to force people to obey Christian law in the same way that Muslims might want Sharia law imposed. At the end of the day a gay couple wanting a piece of paper saying ‘married’ on it doesn’t have any impact on God’s view of that relationship.

Crying for equal rights is nonsensical as part of this debate; everyone currently has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and ultimately it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.

And, while we’re on the point of equal rights, how about those people who would like to marry a family member, or an animal, or have several husbands/wives? How dare we restrict their ‘right to marry’? Perhaps you look at that sentence and think, ‘but that’s sick.’ Doesn’t that sound like society’s view of gay couples only a few decades ago?

Ultimately, and this is surely the most important point, what is marriage if not a reflection of Christ and the church? Two people promising their lives to one another? The divorce rate wouldn’t agree with that, civil partnership provides an alternative, many couples promise their lives to each other without ever marrying, and what actually changes at marriage for most couples nowadays? Remaining a virgin until your wedding day is the subject of jokes more than anything else now.

Oh, and by the way, saying ‘people objected to multiracial marriage before’ isn’t an argument for same-sex marriage any more than it’s an argument for bestiality.

Related articles

• The Government has no mandate to redefine the meaning of marriage (telegraph.co.uk)
• Equal Marriage: An Open Letter to MPs (iaindale.com)
• 10 Reasons Why The Government is Wrong To Redefine Marriage (godlypolitics.wordpress.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby opposes Cameron over gay marriage (thetimes.co.uk)

Book review: The 5 Money Personalities by Scott and Bethany Palmer

This is a book for married couples who encounter conflict around money (i.e. every married couple). It suggests that there are 5 Money Personalities (Saver, Spender, Risk Taker, Security Seeker and Flyer), that we all relate to two of them, and that it’s our differences in Money Personality that cause conflict in marriage. It’s not a how-to guide on budgeting or getting out of debt, but it’s not intended to be.

It’s healthy for every married couple to honestly discuss money, and this book gives one good structure for this, with lots of capitalised activities (you have a Money Personality, a Money Relationship, you have Money Huddles…). By working through it as a couple it will unlock doors to understand where conflict is coming from, and to improve the quality of a marriage. Good news.

The book is definitely quick and easy to read and the chapters are short, so it’s reasonable to expect even a book hater to be able to read a chapter and discuss it. There’s a website connected to the book, themoneycouple.com, which has a bunch of extra resources on it, but I couldn’t get that to work.

The style is straightforward, related to real life, and funny, but at times got repetitive; why use ten words when a hundred will do? There’s also a really good appendix (which I think would have fitted perfectly well within the book) giving practical advice on how to cope with your spouse’s Money Personality, although the conclusion seemed to be ‘agree on a budget’ (key word being ‘agree’), which does seem to be the only answer.

Overall I did find the book interesting and it sparked thoughts and conversations in my marriage, but I’m not sure how strongly I’d recommend it if I’m honest. If you’re experiencing conflict in your marriage, definitely buy this book. If you’re not, I think you’ll find the majority of it a bit irrelevant.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com in exchange for an honest review.

Related articles

• Book Review: The 5 Money Personalities by Scott & Bethany Palmer (richardburkey.wordpress.com)
• Book Giveaway! The 5 Money Personalities (ruthiedean.com)
• The Money Couple: Don’t Let Financial Conflict Ruin Your Relationship (newyork.cbslocal.com)

Waiting for Miss Right

There are basically two entirely opposite views that Christians take towards dating and marriage. Allow me to grossly over-simplify and caricature them.

Some Christians believe that because God’s in control, there’s a Mr/Miss Right out there somewhere, and all I have to do is wait until he/she turns up, then you’ll live happily ever after with your perfect match.

Others believe that you pretty much have half the world’s single human population to pick from, and that all of them will be ok in some regards, and bad in others. You’d better just accept that marriage is tough, and put lots of effort into it.

Here’s what I think, as a married man: Anna (my wife) was my Miss Right. I know this as an absolute fact, because I married her. God’s in control, so the one he preordained to be my wife is my Miss Right (that’s Mrs Right to you). And I was her Mr Right.

But here’s where it gets complicated. Right up to the point that Anna became my wife, I had no way of knowing whether she was my Miss Right or not. So imagine with me that instead of meeting Anna I’d met someone else and married them…would I have missed out on my Miss Right? Simple answer: no, because she wouldn’t be my wife.

Conclusion for single people who want to get married but haven’t met Mr/Miss Right yet: Stop waiting around! You’ll end up being disillusioned if you think God will simply drop a happily-ever-after marriage into your lap.

Conclusion for married people: Your spouse is the one God preordained for you, so we should acknowledge that happily ever after isn’t a fairy tale, we’re already there…but that needs effort from both husband and wife.

The Fantasy Fallacy (a 50 Shades of Grey response) by Shannon Ethridge

This is a pretty unique book. Based partly on the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon but mostly on a prophetic picture Shannon Ethridge received, it’s a review of what sexual fantasy is, what it does, and whether it is (or can be) good or bad.

First things first. Although the front cover of this book claims it to be ‘A response to the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon’, it definitely isn’t. If you’re looking for something that takes the series and essentially concludes on whether to read it or not, you won’t find that here; Ethridge clearly dislikes it but doesn’t go so far as to say ‘don’t read it’, and barely talks about it (there’s probably no more than a couple of pages on it in the entire book).

So that’s misleading, but the book isn’t really about that. It’s about the fact that almost everyone has sexual fantasies, and what we should do with them. She’s careful not to be judgmental yet at the same time not to ‘allow’ it, and I think does a reasonably good job of talking about something that the Church simply doesn’t talk about. She’s particularly strong on understanding why we have particular fantasies, how we ought to respond to them, and how they can be redeemed for the good of our marriages and for the glory of God. I thought the chapter on pornography was one of the strongest I’ve read.

That said, I didn’t love this book. In her desire to not be too left-wing or right-wing I found her at times to sit on the fence and simply not communicate; at one point she seems to suggest that someone who fantasizes about violently raping a child should tone down the fantasy by increasing the age of the child and by imagining that the child enjoys it rather than getting pleasure from another’s pain. To a certain extent I can see where she’s going (one step at a time seeing our fantasies becoming those of us loving our spouse better) but I felt that she stopped short of saying that clearly enough, which left me thinking a reader could justify their fantasies. I also felt that she wasn’t as strong as I’d hoped when talking about fantasies regarding incest or homosexuality.

If you’re really squeamish or are feeling offended by some of the content of this review, this book probably isn’t for you. At points the book goes into perhaps a touch too much detail which is appropriate within the context but to my mind would restrict this book to married couples.

Overall, if you want a good, honest, biblical look at sexual fantasy you can’t really go wrong with this one. It wasn’t outstanding so I’d normally go for four stars but the fact that the Shades books were barely mentioned and the minor frustrations I had with it I’m having to go three stars this time.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.

The Blessing by John Trent and Gary Smalley

The subtitle for this book is ‘Giving the gift of unconditional love and acceptance’, and it basically outlines a strategy for improving family relationships, quality and length of life through doing just that, enacting ‘The Blessing’. The book contains four parts, answering (1) why the blessing is important, (2) the steps the blessing is made up of, (3) what happens if you don’t get the blessing, and (4) practical guidance for putting it into practice.

It’s pretty convincing. Looking at people’s lives where they haven’t received the blessing consistently leads to broken marriages, ill health and unhappy people, whereas the benefits are innumerable. The blessing is a simultaneous, ongoing five-step process made up of meaningful, appropriate touch, words of affirmation, attaching high value to people, picturing a special future, and making an active and practical commitment. So nice and simple, and relatively easy to memorise and put into practice.

It’s easy to read. The stories come across as genuine, both those from the authors’ own lives and those where they talk about others, and the book as a whole is laid out in a logical way. It’s also clearly influenced by the Bible and refers to specific passages with good effect.

But I have to say I’m not sold out on it. The concept is fine, but this book probably isn’t going to land on my ‘read it again’ pile. For a start, the real content is really in those five steps I outlined above, so to be honest there’s not much more real ‘stuff’ in the book than there is in this blog post. Secondly, I felt the book leaned a little too heavily on people’s stories rather than on practical examples of how the reader can put it into practice. Finally, in this revised and updated version there are multiple links to the blessing website and pauses for thought, which are fine in themselves but felt a bit wedged in at times – I’m not convinced they add that much.

That all said, I’d be very happy to recommend this book to anyone who wanted to improve a relationship (whether good or bad), or who had suffered through not having received the blessing themselves. On a personal level I didn’t find it as useful as others perhaps could have, but I definitely wouldn’t use that as an excuse to tell others not to benefit from it.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.

I judge myself

English: A homeless man in Paris Français : Un sans domicile fixe à Paris. Tiếng Việt: Một người đàn ông vô gia cư ở Paris Polski: Bezdomny mężczyzna w Paryżu See below for more translations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve recently started a new job, which has led to me thinking back over the past jobs I’ve started. In comparison this new job is one which I would historically have looked at as one which I’d have liked to have, but which is generally worked by people I dislike…what I mean is that people in my job dress in suits, act busy, travel around the world as if they’re popping to the shop, have lots of meetings in tall buildings, and generally just act as if they’re more important than everyone else.

What I’ve realised is that my pre-judging of people in this job hasn’t changed despite the fact I work with them every day, and they’re all perfectly normal! I find myself disliking the concept of them (us?), which is weird, and completely nonsensical.

What it’s highlighted to me is that I find it very easy to put people into boxes:

• high earners = arrogant
• students = lazy
• shop workers = no ambition
• estate agents = incompetent

Just to clarify, these are examples of what I could think, not necessarily what I do think. But the point still stands; I put a stay-at-home mum in a different box to a homeless person despite the fact that their different circumstances may have no bearing whatsoever on who they are. Am I making sense? I’m very tired.

The real point is this: surely we are all bearers of the image of God, and that should be the ‘box’ into which I put people?

It is not good for a man to be alone

 

Husbands and Wives (song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On behalf of all men everywhere can I admit: men need help.

Now I’ve cleared the air, Rick Thomas, a trained counsellor, has written a great article basically assessing the fact that men act like they can do fine on their own (because they’re men) but they really need help from their wives.

What do you think?

Finishing well

A cross close to the church in Grense Jakobselv, Norway. Suomi: Risti kirkon lähellä Vuoremijoella, Norjassa. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We’re heading into the summer (…apparently…) and that means wedding season! Now I love weddings, but having watched Don’t Tell The Bride probably once or twice (or forty times) more often than I should have has underlined what I think we already know: there’s a touch too much emphasis on the wedding, and not enough on the marriage.

Allow me to be a touch controversial and suggest that the last day of a person’s marriage is infinitely more important than the first. Just think about that for a moment.

Charles & Diana had the fairytale wedding but I expect both of them would have swapped the perfect day for a dream marriage. And compare that with a couple who suffered a cheap, rainy wedding day on which that uncle fell out with that cousin, but can laugh about it together 60 years later. Who doesn’t love seeing an elderly couple holding hands?!

The same’s true of Christianity. Who would you rather be: the pastor’s son who lived a good childhood and starting leading a church, but ended up losing his faith, cheating on his wife and dying bitter and alone, or the chief of sinners who repented and was congratulated on his last day for having kept the faith and fought the good fight?

Whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever you’ve done, you can always look ahead to your last day. The time to start preparing is now.

Why logic is important

Image via Wikipedia

So two stories came out over the last few weeks which for me highlighted the importance of what I’ll call ‘logical trajectory’. The first is around the legalisation of gay marriage (i.e. not civil partnership but actual marriage), and the second is around ‘after-birth abortions’.

Gay marriage

So the standard definition of marriage is something along the lines of ‘a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman’, but some in power would like this to be updated because of ‘equality’. It all sounds absolutely lovely, caring and tolerant until you apply a logical trajectory to this. If two men or two women can marry each other then the line has been moved, but what should therefore stop the line being moved to allow a man to marry two women and call that ‘marriage’? How about if a guy wanted to marry his dog? Or his television? Or his sister? Or his Dad?

Logically speaking, if the definition of marriage can be changed for the sake of equality to allow same-sex marriage then it should easily allow polygamy, and most likely incest and bestiality among other things.

After-birth abortions

Now this is so ridiculous it would be laughable if it wasn’t actually true. A bunch of so-called ‘experts’ have concluded that parents should be allowed to abort newborn babies because ultimately there’s no difference between a baby and a foetus. Funnily enough, I agree with their logic – here’s how it works:

Pro-life groups have always said that abortion’s wrong because it’s ending a human life, therefore is murder. Pro-abortion groups said no, foetuses aren’t actually human…but then changed their mind and said well ok, they’re human, but they’re not people. A person is self-aware whereas a foetus isn’t, so doesn’t have human rights. Sounds a bit like Nazi Germany but apparently we have to stick with it.

But newborn babies apparently aren’t self-aware either, so logically speaking these experts are now recommending we abort newborn babies too. Let’s just call that infanticide, ok?

Again, logically speaking, if newborn babies are officially recognised as not being people then the end result could end up with a baby trapped in a burning building and the fire service being told not to rescue them because ‘there are no people in there’. Or someone could kill a child because they considered the situation dangerous but that wouldn’t be murder because no person was killed. Or a baby could become sick so the parents could take him to the hospital to be put down.

For both of these situations I think I’m just going to stick with the Bible. When murder becomes morally acceptable (and, let’s face it, it already has) we need to question where we’re laying our society’s foundations.

Related articles

• Anti-abortion fanatics are threatening free speech, warns academic (guardian.co.uk)
• Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn’t make you Glenn Beck | Andrew Brown (guardian.co.uk)
• Slaughter newborn kids, say academics (thesun.co.uk)
• ‘After-birth abortion’ is logically sound: that’s why it will boost the pro-life movement (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)