'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl
At this point I'd almost rather be barefoot and pregant that folding shirts at the GAP...at least I'd have a lovely child to look forward too, lol. And the tiles in the kitchen are cool on the bare feet in the hot summer.

I think we need to reevaluate the knee-jerk response that "job is always better for a woman than a traditional family role." Because right now I'm not seeing it.


Thank you for being enlightened. The truth is that reality isn't ideal, and human nature is certainly not ideal. It's not up to ME to advocate that women and society should somehow go backwards to 1950, but what I would advocate is that somehow, some way, society could actually act in its own best interests, as opposed to only championing individual wants.

Not all women are the same, not all women want families. For those women, ideally, I would certainly support that they should be able to work wherever they want and that they should have the same opportunities and pay based on accomplishments. However, in allowing that, we have at the same time ushered in a (50%? 60%?) divorce rate, a nation of broken homes and fatherless children, all to allow women to labor along side men. But no critical analysis is done, no weighing of pros and cons, no examining the consequences and asking if we need to adjust our path. It's heresy for anyone to say "maybe we shouldn't have 'liberated' women?" even citing the drawbacks. Any public figure would be crucified for even suggesting it.

It's unfortunate that blacks (and other nationalities, including whites) were ever held as slaves, it's unfortunate that patriarchy may have gone too far and treated women as less than they should have been. But the reality is, in 2011, almost all of us are now slaves. We are now slaves to the corporations, and slaves to government debt. Fathers usually become slaves to child support. We're a nation of ignorant and selfish children, addicted to self and whatever new distraction our dwindling income can buy. And we certainly don't ever want to hear the word "no."

And that is just where TPTB want us to be. Ignorant, broken, powerless and dependent on them, our masters.




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
his begs the question; where will it all end? The fact is, it has opened the door for all manor of non-standard "marriages". Wither one likes it or not no longer applies as the line has been crossed. For all those that want to claim equal rights, just remember, the woman that wants to marry her dog or the man that wants to marry a ewe will claim "equal rights". The polygamist now can claim "equal rights" under discriminatory law.


Animals can not give consent.

Basically we are talking about 2 types of unions. Couples and Groups. That's it. It doesn't go any further - - because there is no further.

Laws/taxes/benefits etc - - are already in place for couples. What gender the couple is changes nothing. There is ZERO reason to deny any and all adult couples to marry. We are a secular government. Religious belief is not a valid reason for argument. (if you don't believe that - check out Prop8).

So that leaves Group unions/marriage. Polygamy was part of a religion. For Utah to become a state - Mormons had to agree to give up Polygamy. Why? Who decided there could be only one man - one woman marriage? Is that the Christian religion? Is it because of Christian belief - Mormon's had to give up Freedom of belief? If Mormon's had to give up their religious practices because it was wrong according to Christians - - - that creates a problem in Freedom of belief.

While couple marriage changes nothing in laws/taxes/benefits etc - - - group marriage is a whole different ballgame - - from that perspective.

And that is why it is really not in anyway - - the same as couple marriage.

Group marriage is going to require some extensive discussion in legalities and benefits. New laws and changes would be required. (which is not the case in couple marriage).



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
But no critical analysis is done, no weighing of pros and cons, no examining the consequences and asking if we need to adjust our path. It's heresy for anyone to say "maybe we shouldn't have 'liberated' women?" even citing the drawbacks. Any public figure would be crucified for even suggesting it.


And maybe it is pro to have group marriage. Maybe some women in the group want to be educated professionals. Maybe some women in the group love to take care of children. Maybe some women in the group love to cook. Maybe some women in the group love to clean or garden.

Maybe some men in the group want to be educated professionals. Maybe some men in the group love to take care of children. Maybe some men in the group love to cook. Maybe some men in the group love to clean or garden.

Maybe in that group we also have an electrician - plumber - mechanic - accountant - decorator - athlete - computer tech - - etc etc etc.

Maybe in that group we have a gay man in love with a man that is bi.

It sure seems like a far more nurturing environment for raising children - - - then two parents working and dropping kid off at daycare.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
IMO - - the single family unit of mom - dad - kids - - - is one of the most damaging - unhealthy - dangerous - - - institutions ever devised.

There was a time when families consisted of mom - dad - grandparents - maybe even an aunt and uncle. Or families lived on the same block buying homes next to each other.

Kids grew up with a whole "village" of people that not only watched over them - - but they also had to adjust to different personalities - wants - needs - etc.

There was a time when kids had to learn to respect the elderly - - the nutty aunt - - the bossy grandma - - the wise grandpa - - etc.

Personally - - I see group marriage as far more beneficial - - - then living within the Christian restraints of one man one woman.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I think marriage should be outlawed...and therefore we could put to rest this stupidity that seems to fester around the whole marriage topic. Really...the government has no place in marriage. There is the law..and that is all there needs to be.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


How would Utah feel about same-sex polygamy?



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Most people in Utah are against polygamy. Only the hardcore FLDS and some Independent LDS groups advocate it. Most of these are eccentric individuals with small followings, but there are some large groups like Warren Jeff's people.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
if they arrange it so that a man can legally have more than one wife, then well in all fairness in equality, they should make having more than one husband also legal...
so, we now have men having three wives, and each of those wives having three husbands??? we don't have a family anymore!! we have a clan!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


The only thing that same-sex marriage has ever done was to open the door to equality in relationships when it comes to consenting adults.

It'd be like having one big family, except more than one of the adults in the family are married to each other... and they might be related as well.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


I'm mostly curious to know if the people and groups in Utah who support polygamy, would also be accepting of same-sex polygamy. Because when I read the OP, it looked like the particular group that was advocating the legalization of polygamy was using the idea of equality to help lift the cause off the ground. But it makes me wonder if these people would extend that advocacy to same-sex polygamy. If not, then their notion of equality is misplaced.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I've haven't necessarily viewed polygamy as solely being a man having all the wives he wants. I've viewed polygamy as being a mostly undefined multi-partnered marriage between consenting adults. So there could be two men and three women married all in the same family structure.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


To be absolutely honest, I think not. The only people left who support polygamy are FLDS ("Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints" or "Mormon Fundamentalists") and they live an extremely old-fashioned life in more ways than just polygamy. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are like the Amish, because they have cars and modern houses and such, but the women often dress in old-style Gingham dresses that haven't been widely worn in the US since the 1930s. It is a very interesting if often repressive and tragic culture. Anyway, since homosexuality is a deadly sin in Mormonism I am guessing that anyone in one of those communities advocating anything like gay marriage would be shunned and expelled from the community. I mean that literally, that is their ultimate punishment especially for males. After all, these people split from the mainline church when the mainline Mormons formally refuted polygamy. They aren't exactly flexible when it comes to the concept of marriage or much else lol



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


I figured as much. Which means that they'd have to find a better argument to make in support of polygamy, because they couldn't logically use the concept of equality with those types of stringent regulations and religious beliefs imposed upon the concept.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by Partygirl
 


I figured as much. Which means that they'd have to find a better argument to make in support of polygamy, because they couldn't logically use the concept of equality with those types of stringent regulations and religious beliefs imposed upon the concept.


Well..I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but if they are going for some kind of equality under the law, it doesn't necessarily mean they have to support any other group that also makes use of the law in this way. For example, both far-right and far-left extremists have the right to march and print their propaganda and advocate their beliefs under the first ammendment, and people from both such groups routinely invoke this right to protect their interests...even if the far-left and far-right advocates can't stand each other and disagree on everything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, they say.
edit on 13-7-2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I'm moving to Utah !!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


If someone were to use the logic that marriage is about equality in order to argue that polygamy should be legalized, then I can't really wrap my mind around the hypocrisy in that logic if the same person isn't supportive of extending that equality to same-sex couples.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I just wanted to add that Vox Day has been arguing that polygamy was the next logical step due to societal pressure since late 2010. I think the article is worth reading here.

EDIT: I was incorrect. It seems that Vox has been saying that the next step would be polygamy as far back as 2005. Link

I didn't read the whole thread yet, but I will. I am sure that many historical myths have been repeated over and over, and I will enjoy myself addressing them one by one. Meanwhile, kudos for PartyGirl for saying the obvious, but inconvenient truth.
edit on 13/7/2011 by Leahn because: More links.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I don't see how the law can interfere in two people living together without going into their bedroom to see what kind of relationship they have.

The law can dictate that "legal marriage" is between 2 people. That's fine. As long as they don't discriminate as far as who they offer this union to. But if the adults in the legal marriage want to take on 'sister wives' or 'brother husbands', that's their business and not the state's.

The state should be REMOVED from personal relationships. People don't have to have permission from the state to live together in whatever capacity they see fit. If polygamists want to have more than one woman (and call her a "wife") that's their business, not the state's.


Originally posted by Partygirl
The only people left who support polygamy are FLDS


I disagree. I support it. Always have. It's freedom of choice.
edit on 7/13/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The question of bigamy or polygamy is coming up again, the statement to show a parallel between this issue and gay marriage, has been brought up. And each needs to be discussed one at a time.
To understand the issue at the heart of the matter, the question of gay marriage, at the heart of the issue is the question of the legality of 2 people, who are of the same sex, being allowed to marry, and thus gain the benefits, rights and protections under the laws of the country, recognized and ultimately ensuring equality, for those 2 people to have the same right as everyone else in the country, it is a question of equality under the eyes of the law. At this present time, 2 people who are of the same sex, who love each other, can not get married, and thus are not entitled to the same protection under the law. All legal cases that are raising the question of the legality of Gay marriage is forging new legal precedent in the courts.
Polygamy is something totally different, as that ground and question has been asked before, and been through the court and legal system. The relevant cases are: Reynolds V. USA, 1878. The first argument that was used, is that it was the religious duty of Reynolds, in this case failed due to the separation of church and state. The other aspect, is that there was no difference between polygamy and bigamy, Reynolds could not show a difference between the 2 of such.
The other court case is The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints V USA, 1890, where this question was brought up about the constitutionality of polygamy and if congress has the power to criminalize polygamy in all of the USA. It was decided at that time that said church would no longer act as a business and act more like a church.
But there are further implications to this issue, that are not brought up, or mentioned by the op, or in the articles, or even discussed, and the first is that is the difference between polygamy and bigamy? After all in both, one male marries multiple women, and often have large families. At what point should a person say enough is enough, how many spouses does one person really need? 2, 5, 8, 20? And the matter of support for those who choose to divorce, and what of the children? Then there is one side aspect that has never been brought up, what about those who are Muslim and follow the Islamic faith. They too could demand the right to have multiple wives, and would use such as an argument to be given the rights, and that would open the door to the very idea of Sharia being used as part of the law of the land.
So there you go, the main difference is that the issue of Gay marriage has never been brought through the court cases, and 2 people of the same sex are set upon with a denial of the freedom to marry who they choose, while those who want polygamy already have that right and have already been through the courts on legal grounds.
And the moment that polygamy becomes law, that is where Islamic Sharia will come into play in the USA, as those who are of the Muslim faith will want the ability to divorce in accordance to their beliefs. Open that door and it may come back to hit every one in a way we do not want or desire.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


polygamy seems to always produce a lot of kids, which can be irresponsible most of the time.
everybody has seen these kids on tv that escape the polygamy zoo with no education or knowledge of how to survive in the real world.

how do they scam the health care system?
somebody gets a job and puts the whole tribe on his health care plan or do they scam the government welfare?

how do they feed all these kids, food stamps?

if someone knows how the financials of communal living works in America, please enlighten.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join