Posted on 01/16/2011 5:41:20 AM PST by Daisyjane69
Which is what polygamy invariably results in. You cannot have a society that claims to offer equal rights to all people while condoning polygamy. Societally, polygamy is far more destructive than gay marriage.
The Muslims have polygyny to get a leg up on attrition due to the explosive post natal abortion rate...
What you fail to understand is that these are closed societies. There is no charge of rape. Because there are no police, no authorities....they are part of the club! Moreover, these young gals have no idea that rape is wrong. Their education is controlled by the people who are looking to abuse them. There is not only not one to report to, but even if they do, the law enforcers will say “So? What’s the problem?” Can you even imagine taking your raped daughter to the authorities and have them reply “So what? I see no crime here. What’s the problem?” Swell, ain’t it?
Parents are expected to be responible for their kids until age 18. Polygs routinely dump off their boys, in their junior high years in the middle of the desert. Didn’t turn them into CFS or the rest. Just next to the joshua tree and the agave.
With all due respect, you are rather naive and not at all understanding of what is going on in the polygamist community.
This is why Libertarians are now and will continue to be, for all time, not just a third party. But a fourth, fifth, tenth, and twenty-fifth party, I’m sad to say.
Bullshiite...
—
Or to dolphins in the case of one British woman... who didn't survive the post-wedding nuptials...
Uganda wants the death penalty for faggots. Russians rioted in Moscow over a faggot parade. Serbians did the same thing in October...
If cramming foreign objects or other people's bodily appendages into body cavities inconsistent with their anatomical function is considered civilized behavior, I'll remain a savage, thank-you.
Homosexuality is not anything equal to the law of nature, it is an idolatry of perversion, a phantasmagorical fetish that has no equal standing in nature.
You've packed a tremendous number of errors into a very compact sentence.
You're implying that monogamy in the West as the legal standard of marriage began with specific religious teachings. This is manifestly not the case. Monogamy was Roman law before Romans had ever heard of Jews or of Christians.
It was also the law of Germanic pagans outside of the Roman world before they had ever heard of the Bible either.
Your post also implies that there was some kind of historical period in the West where monogamy was not the standard and that only an imposition by "the state" of new laws made monogamy the law of the land.
This also is manifestly not the case. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the nation state in the 1600s monogamy was the basis of all family and inheritance law in the West - be it the common law of England, the Salic laws of France, the Werethings of Germanic jurisprudence or the revival of Roman codes in Italy and Spain. In most European jurisdictions there were legal systems in place before there were such things as "states" as we know them today. And all those legal systems rested on monogamy.
You also imply that monogamy was somehow introduced into the West at a late date in order to counteract royal inheritance schemes. Not only is this completely without foundation in reality, but is illogical as well. In your fantasy world in which kings were free to contract as many marriages as they wanted, the result would inevitably have been multiple warring claimants to the throne as each line claimed the inheritance. History shows that plenty of methods were used to disinherit royal claimants - usually by one rival killing another.
The Ottomans had polygamy and each time a Sultan died, his numerous sons would either kill or exile one another until a single heir was left standing. No Sultan could really predict who would succeed him, all he could was hope that his favorite would prevail after his death.
In historical reality, monogamy was an essential element of Western culture long before that culture became a Christian culture and monogamy is not a late, statist innovation any more than private property is.
Elizabeth II never married because she enjoyed power and did not want to allow a husband to seize power from her or even share power with her. The "Presbyters" had nothing to do with Elizabeth since they only had authority in Scotland and Elizabeth was not the Queen of Scotland - she was the Queen of England and the Head of the Church of England.
And the Romans really gave a damn about the rights of women?
Do you mean to tell me that no polygamist Mormonshave ever been prosecuted for statutory rape? Do you mean to tell me that every policeman,judge, and prosecutor is involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover these crimes up?
As a point of reference, then why did Christ call Mary “the first among Apostles”? Just asking your opinion, not arguing.
Don’t attribute things to me I didn’t say...
Henry VIII deposed the Papists because of the usurpation by clergy to determine hereditary kingdoms.
Elizabeth I never married for the same reason, it was just the Presbyters she was at odds with.
Could you provide a chapter and verse citation? You may be using a translation I'm unfamiliar with.
I’ll be happy to check in the next day or so. But I am here to tell you that if you are a policeman, judge, or prosecutor in Colorado City/Hildale (or a school official, for that matter) you would have a better chance of getting hit by 10,000 bolts of lightning at once, than you would getting a “stern talk” from an authority. Not grabbed, mind you. Just a stern talk.
That’s just how they roll down here.....
King Solomon had how many wives?
Moses is the first philosopher who said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.
Moses was the foundation of Western Civilization.
Everything is in Genesis, it encompasses all things...
Sorry, is too long since I re-read the Bible but is something which I remember from days of yore ... maybe in the Catholic Bible or in one of the non-cannonized tracts. Can’t remember. Hoped you did.
Elizabeth did not marry because she did not want to share power. If she really didn't marry because she thought that was somehow a blow against the Scottish church elders, she failed magnificently - because she was succeeded by the Scottish Presbyters' number one choice: their student James VI.
I know that some advocates of women's ordination like to call Mary Magdalen an Apostle or "Apostle to the Apostles" - but this is based on their tendentious interpretation of the resurrection accounts from the Gospels.
Similarly, the State should not subsidize (through welfare) persistent bad choices in living arrangements. It's welfare that makes this lifestyle viable.
Like I said, you are making the wrong arguments...
The Israelites deposed God and God acquiesced to them having an earthly monarch - - to their own dissolution.
The churches merely compounded the heresy further in taking for themselves what God has given to man.
It is all in Genesis... and the law of nature which no man (clergy or not) can control...
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.