When the divine mandate for marriage is set aside (one man, one woman, one time), then we open up virtually any deviation which our lusts desire. If we deny that "one man, one woman" is the limit, why should we not also deny that "one man, one man" is the limit. Why not "one man, two women," or "one man, two men," for that matter? In other words, once the limit is ignored, why stop there? Why not move on to wanton disregard for an sort of morality surrounding social compacts?
It might be argued that in saying "one man, one man," we are still mandating fidelity to one person, but that argument falls apart in consideration of the lax laws governing divorce and infidelity in this country. We care nothing about the "one" portion of that equation, so why pretend.
The logical end of a setting aside of the divine rule is social chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment