Sister Wives lawsuit a partial win for polygamists

[ClosedCaption]

I always have a problem when idiots use the government to impose their religious beliefs on others.

And that has nothing to do with liberals schitzo

I didn't use the word liberal, you did. This is a clear case of "If the shoe fits, lace that puppy up and strut your stuff."

Ok Schitzo

I dont see the problem with it or why anyone else would have a problem with it. Now if it involved people against their will or underage then that is a problem but if all parties are adults leave 'em alone

The problem with polygamy is it offends the progressive that think their culture is inherently better than that of the wogs who marry more than one person.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No slippery slope eh libs?

Opinion: It's time to reconsider polygamy - CNN.com

Bible's ok with polygany (note the 'N',) if you're not you must not be ok with G-d. Even Israel recognizes polygnous marriages for immigrants, though they don't allow new ones once a citizen.

"Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods."
"Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence."
"About 25 percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce, and an even higher percentage of couples have experienced extramarital affairs. This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence, and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more pluralistic system of marriage becomes clear." (note, the figure's more like 60% today)
"These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship."

- "Body Pleasure and the Orign of Violence"
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

 

[Amelia]

"Polygyny, the practice of one husband taking multiple wives, has been condemned as a form of human rights abuse. Many international human rights organisations, as well as women's rights groups in many countries, have called for its abolition.[1][2]"

"In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered polygamy (probably limited to polygyny) a violation of the internationally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the grounds that it violates the dignity of women, and recommended it be made illegal in all states.[3][4][5]"

Legal status of polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When did we decide it was appropriate to take the moral lead from the U.N.? I missed that memo! I thought we held the U.N. in disdain.

 

[koshergrl]

Who is "we"?

Anyway. Human rights violations. That's why polygamy is universally abhorred..by people who actually want to prevent human rights offenses.

Which means everybody except muslims and progressives, pretty much.

 

[Amelia]

Who is "we"?

Anyway. Human rights violations. That's why polygamy is universally abhorred..by people who actually want to prevent human rights offenses.

Which means everybody except muslims and progressives, pretty much.

Excuse me if I have mischaracterized your past attitude toward the U.N. Conservatives generally have a low opinion of the U.N. I thought you shared that.

 

[Gracie]

Well gosh. I wouldn't mind having an extra couple of husbands. Hmmmmm.

 

[Amelia]

Polygamy is natural. And it is Biblical.

 

[Gracie]

So polygemy is only for men having multiple wives? Well that does it. I am OFFENDED!! NOT FAIR NOT FAIR. All women should now have a hissy fit.

(Isn't that the new mode of thought nowadays?)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Polygamy is natural. And it is Biblical.

Minor correction: polygany (with an 'n') is Biblical. Not polygamy (with an 'm'.)

Definitions:

Polygamy: husbands AND wives may have additional husbands or wives.

Polygany: only husbands may have additional wives.

 

[koshergrl]

Puking up your food and feeding it to your children is "natural" as well.

We still don't do it.

Polygamy is a breeding ground for terrible human rights violations. It is demeaning and oppressive for women. There is no good reason for it in today's society. In ancient times, it could be justified as a survival method, but no longer.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Puking up your food and feeding it to your children is "natural" as well.

We still don't do it.

Polygamy is a breeding ground for terrible human rights violations. It is demeaning and oppressive for women. There is no good reason for it in today's society. In ancient times, it could be justified as a survival method, but no longer.

I think the abuse comes from when it's part of a religion or cult. In secular instances if it were oppressing women there'd be no system in place protecting that abuse as in a religion. So I'm not sure how accurate it is to blame polygamy/ny itself so much as those religions where it's practiced and abused.

 

[Amelia]

Polygamy is natural. And it is Biblical.

Minor correction: polygany (with an 'n') is Biblical. Not polygamy (with an 'm'.)

Definitions:

Polygamy: husbands AND wives may have additional husbands or wives.

Polygany: only husbands may have additional wives.

Fine. Polygyny is Biblical. However, if polygyny were made legal, then polyandry and most other combinations involving consenting adults should also be made legal because we wouldn't discriminate by gender in marital contracts.

And I am squarely in favor of that.

 

[Plasmaball]

It wouldnt bother me, then again its not my business..

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Probably true. Although, what's sensible isn't always what becomes law.

For the record, I'm for polygamy/ny being legal. We'll see how long it lasts, and how well it works once people can actually do it. But if that polygamy show on think Showtime is anything to by, not very well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No slippery slope eh libs?

Opinion: It's time to reconsider polygamy - CNN.com

No, the slippery slope remains a fallacy.

'Slippery Slope is not a fallacy, idiot.' It is only a fallacy if there is no demonstrated mechanism/engine that drives the slide. Typically it is used to represent situations when the driving force is simply nature, as in gravity and slippery ice on a slope.

Dear Lord, you are a fucking moron.

 

[koshergrl]

Puking up your food and feeding it to your children is "natural" as well.

We still don't do it.

Polygamy is a breeding ground for terrible human rights violations. It is demeaning and oppressive for women. There is no good reason for it in today's society. In ancient times, it could be justified as a survival method, but no longer.

I think the abuse comes from when it's part of a religion or cult. In secular instances if it were oppressing women there'd be no system in place protecting that abuse as in a religion. So I'm not sure how accurate it is to blame polygamy/ny itself so much as those religions where it's practiced and abused.

Yeah, cuz there are so many polygamists who are atheists.

Oh, wait, THOSE are called bigamists...they're the ones that marry different women and empty out their bank accounts, rape their kids, and/or commit murder.

Nope, don't see a problem with that! Obviously, it's just a religious thing!

 

[koshergrl]

This is where you post a Czech study that shows that in countries where polygamy is legal, there's hardly any criminal abuse of females.

That's right! Because they DON'T RECOGNIZE IT AS ABUSE.

Dumb fuck.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Polygamy is natural. And it is Biblical.

Minor correction: polygany (with an 'n') is Biblical. Not polygamy (with an 'm'.)

Definitions:

Polygamy: husbands AND wives may have additional husbands or wives.

Polygany: only husbands may have additional wives.

Fine. Polygyny is Biblical. However, if polygyny were made legal, then polyandry and most other combinations involving consenting adults should also be made legal because we wouldn't discriminate by gender in marital contracts.

And I am squarely in favor of that.

And I am in favor of the government butting out and leaving what marriage is up to the churches and communities that marry the couples together.

Why does the government have a say in who can marry anyway?

 

[Amelia]

Minor correction: polygany (with an 'n') is Biblical. Not polygamy (with an 'm'.)

Definitions:

Polygamy: husbands AND wives may have additional husbands or wives.

Polygany: only husbands may have additional wives.

Fine. Polygyny is Biblical. However, if polygyny were made legal, then polyandry and most other combinations involving consenting adults should also be made legal because we wouldn't discriminate by gender in marital contracts.

And I am squarely in favor of that.

And I am in favor of the government butting out and leaving what marriage is up to the churches and communities that marry the couples together.

Why does the government have a say in who can marry anyway?

Immigration law and Social Security benefits are two reasons.

Legally recognized spouses of citizens or green card holders get special consideration when applying for green cards.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that has nothing to do with liberals schitzo

I didn't use the word liberal, you did. This is a clear case of "If the shoe fits, lace that puppy up and strut your stuff."

Ok Schitzo

I dont see the problem with it or why anyone else would have a problem with it. Now if it involved people against their will or underage then that is a problem but if all parties are adults leave 'em alone

The problem with polygamy is it offends the progressive that think their culture is inherently better than that of the wogs who marry more than one person.

Look at that, I said progressive, not liberal. Progressives believe that civil society is a natural product of evolution, and that western culture is inherently superior to that of other cultures because it is the one that best promotes science and general knowledge. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in liberty and equality for everyone. One is about arrogance and bigotry, the other is about freedom.

I guess that makes me right. Only question now is, does the shoe fit?