Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamists Take Their Cases to the Courts
Concerned Women for America ^ | 4/19/2004 | Jeremy Sewall

Posted on 04/23/2004 7:21:16 AM PDT by scripter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping + Rick Santorum was right Alert.

Those who scorned Santorum's words are proven wrong, wrong, wrong. And if anyone thinks that this is the end of sexual weirdness jumping on the Lawrence bandwagon, you are also wrong.

Actually, polygamy has more going for it than homosexual "marriage", at least there's a historical and scriptural precedent. Although still, I think the co-wives weren't too happy about it. Considering today's no-fault divorce, non-marital sex and broken homes, adding legalized polygamy to the mix will only hasten the complete breakdown of society.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

(If polygamists just stayed "in the closet" and quit "marrying" 15 year old cousins who are also their aunts, people would probably leave them alone!)
41 posted on 04/23/2004 9:51:23 AM PDT by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Do try to keep up. The topic is polygamy, not gay marriage. Marriage itself is a RELIGIOUS institution and therefore should remain in the realm of your individual religious beliefs. Secular government should STAY secular. Think of the Taliban coming coming to power in the US and you should be able to see why that is a good idea.

Don't confuse lack of religion in government, for the perverted excising of all religion from public life. That has got to stop as well.

Ms. Grundy was a Robert Heinlein character who thought she was so morally superior to her neighbors that she felt she was perfectly justified peaking in windows to make sure everyone in her neighborhood was living a moral life by her paranoid delusional fanatic standards.

If you have problems with people who engage in certain behaviors that you find distasteful or immoral, but that do not directly infringe on your Right to action, then do not have any dealings with them. Ostracize them. Ignore them. Kick them out of your establishments or fire them if they are in your employ. As a business owner, you should have the Right no matter what the San Francisco crowd have perverted "PRIVATE business" to mean. Voluntary association still has its advocates among the Free Marketeers club.

However, if they aren't hurting you, do not get the government to step in and play Nanny. Do not get the police to go put a gun to their heads because they are doing things you find "icky" or because they have too many spouses. To do so makes you no better than any other socialist dictatorship.

If you stop making stupid assumptions based off of your preconceived self-righteous notions, you will have left the realm of "idiocy". Or are you moral enough to start casting first stones? I know I'm not.

Boring. Year after year. Same old arguments. Same old narrow minded crap. Pretty much why I haven't bothered with too many of these threads lately. Later kids... play nice.

42 posted on 04/23/2004 10:37:13 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Once the door has been opened for one kind of 'other' it cannot legally be closed to any other kind of 'other'. There would be no grounds for it.

Which is why the argument was put forward to not have government sanctioned marriage to begin with. Keep religion and government seperate. Not excised as I noted above, nor incorperated like the Taliban. Marriage is between those involved and their God/s.

Congregations who disapprove of their pastors/peachers violating scripture to allow gay marriage should be taking that up with their churchs. Have them removed, join a different church, or take whatever action your specific religion allows.

Once again, having the government put a gun to someones head, on issues other than genuine crime, is not a really good way to maintain a healthy society. Much worse in fact than any negative impact allowing certain religions to to perform such ceremonies would be. Especially in light of history that proves time and again that once the government gets used to the power of putting guns to peoples heads for issues like this, they eventually start pulling the triggers as well.

Oh well.... back to work. :-)

43 posted on 04/23/2004 10:46:24 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NathanR
The egaliterian idiology is essentially a communism ideology.
44 posted on 04/23/2004 11:26:35 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Moral fabric my a$$! If you don't get a piece because your wife knows that she have you by the balls, and you are going to lose 50% of your wealth if you argued; then what are you going to do. Get a piece on the outside or divorce her a$$! the only fair thing to this spoiled sexless bitch, and your children is to introduce competition. Bring in a new blood.
45 posted on 04/23/2004 11:33:21 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: scripter
If government's purpose is to secure domestic tranquility, how can that possibly be achieved allowing men to have more than one wife at a time? < grin >

OTOH, think of all the "societies" that "allow" polygamy and their status in world affairs. Comparatively speaking, is that what we REALLY want of America?
46 posted on 04/23/2004 12:23:46 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
What does egalitarianism have to do with monogamy. Monogamy is much older. Polygamy has been at least frowned on for centuries. Excepting Mormons and their sub-sects, name one Western polygamist (That is someone who has plural wives and/or concubines.) Just so you don't throw King David back at me either. By Western I mean the western part of the Roman Empire and it's successors, including us. Don't call multiple mistresses 'concubines' either, because they aren't.
47 posted on 04/23/2004 12:46:05 PM PDT by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NathanR
Polygamy is practiced in Moslem nations today, Mormans, and other backward cultures. It used to be practiced by the Hebrews, and most old cultures a few thousand years ago. My point is; the reason monagomy became the trend for change in most cultures is the drive for equality. Do the math, there are 50% men/women ratio on this planet, so if rich guys like King Solomon would have thousand wifes, then 999 guys will go without wives, simply do it with the sheep? heh! Egaliterian, religions, or women rights; whatever was the cause of that change from polygamy to monogomy, may it is time to rethink of changing back.
48 posted on 04/23/2004 1:05:49 PM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
My bad. I forgot that before 1500 there were many Moslem's in Spain, which is in the West.

However, you still haven't made the argument that monogamy and communism are linked. My argument is, that monogamy and Christianity are linked. Christians take mistresses and practice serial monogamy, they don't take concubines and practice polygamy. (except, at one time, Mormons.)
49 posted on 04/23/2004 1:22:22 PM PDT by NathanR (California Si! Aztlan NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Exactly. Why should heterophobes get to have all the fun?
50 posted on 04/23/2004 1:24:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Actually, polygamy has more going for it than homosexual "marriage", at least there's a historical and scriptural precedent.

I've repeatedly tried explaining the historical sophistication of polygamy to my wife, but she just doesn't get it. The last time I tried, she started sharpening a big knife, and told me to drop my drawers. That was when I realized that I could use some fresh air.

51 posted on 04/23/2004 6:47:20 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Barnard acknowledges that legalizing polygamy would "hit the legal system hard," and that his clients would be happy with decriminalization. That way, he said, "spiritual wives" would have full knowledge that they had no rights to benefits and inheritances. As Barnard’s case gains more attention, the practice of polygamy is coming under closer scrutiny. The Christian Science Monitor reports that there are an estimated 100,000 polygamists in America.

See also: unions, civil; horses, Trojan.

52 posted on 04/23/2004 6:57:11 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter; 2banana
This is no surprise. All one need do is examine the history of liberalism and it's attack upon morality to realize the line is moving farther and farther left and won't stop until we effectively halt the inertia.

Your post#3 is exactly correct 2b.

53 posted on 04/24/2004 10:16:42 AM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for president Bush IS a vote for principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Read some history dude. Monogamy has been the rule in Christian nations since late ancient times... (ca. 400 AD), nothing to do with an amorphous "drive for equality" rather mainly due to the influence of the Church. While I am not Catholic, here's an excellent description of polygamy and monogamy from the Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org )--a very scholarly, balanced and well researched source.

"While monogamy was the prevailing form of the family before Christ, it was limited in various degrees among many peoples by the practice of polygamy. This practice was on the whole more common among the Semitic races than among the Aryans. It was more frequent among the Jews, the Egyptians, and the Medes, than among the people of India, the Greeks, or the Romans. It existed to a greater extent among the uncivilized races, although some of these were free from it. Moreover, even those nations which practised polygamy, whether civilized or uncivilized, usually restricted it to a small minority of the population, as the kings, the chiefs, the nobles, and the rich. Polyandry was likewise practised, but with considerably less frequency. According to Westermarck, monogamy was by far the most common form of marriage "among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge" (op. cit., p. 459). On the other hand, divorce was in vogue among practically all peoples, and to a much greater extent than polygamy."
54 posted on 04/24/2004 10:42:28 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
you Ms. Grundy types never friggin' learn.

You know, I thought like you when I was younger, but now I see this plural marriage thing as a political movement by the side that would have socialism and redistribution of wealtn. This cuts right to your pocketbook, so you should be wary. Sometimes what two people alone do in private makes so little difference that it can be ignorred. But when a whole country takes up the same activities, it will have a negative effect on the society, in many ways. The political is what I mentioned to keep the discussion out of the morals area, but a moral ethical society is also part of what holds us together or tears us appart if we don't keep it.

This movement to homosesual marriage, now includes transvestite activities, transgender if you will, and will soon be joined by pedophilia as it has been with polygamy. Anyone who does not see where this is headed is not really for freedom in the sense of nationalism, he is for libertine (anything goes) freedom and the country will not sustanin this kind of freedom.

55 posted on 04/24/2004 10:45:49 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
"Moral fabric my a$$! If you don't get a piece because your wife knows that she have you by the balls, and you are going to lose 50% of your wealth if you argued; then what are you going to do. Get a piece on the outside or divorce her a$$! the only fair thing to this spoiled sexless bitch, and your children is to introduce competition. Bring in a new blood.

You make my point far more brillantly than I could ever have. I leave you to the disgusting spoils your philosophy of life have brought you to.

56 posted on 04/26/2004 7:59:32 AM PDT by Godzilla (Nuke the whales, save the medfly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson