What about King Solomon?
Posted on 04/16/2013 5:18:01 PM PDT by markomalley
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
We can only hope.
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Well said!
2028? Not even close, it will be before 2020 easy.
Add to that that the LDS church will have a ‘revelation’ allowing polygamy again as soon as it is legal.
The American left doesn’t want to legalize polygamy. They oppose it because it’s a bastion of all of the things they don’t like.
Aside from the pagan polygamists, most polygamists adhere to religious faith, they tend to be homeschoolers, they tend to be politically conservative (and Republican!), they tend to avoid the use of credit, they don’t use welfare in order to avoid attention from child protection activists, they tend to be patriarchal and not at all feminist, and they also tend to be self-sufficent along the lines of preppers.
Really, aside from the multiple wives, polygamists are among the most traditional Americans left in this country and they are hated and loathed by the left.
I’d rather see a man be able to have multiple wives that he SUPPORTS than divorce, abandon remarry and then repeat but that is just me
- - - - - - -
As polygamy currently stands, it is a lie that the men support their wives. The amount of welfare abuse is highest in the polygamist communities and they are proud of it.
And, I am guessing you have never actually KNOWN an IRL polygmaist. I have as well as many who have escaped it (and not all were ‘child brides’ another myth). In short you are a ignorant pig.
most polygamists adhere to religious faith, they tend to be homeschoolers, they tend to be politically conservative (and Republican!), they tend to avoid the use of credit, they don’t use welfare in order to avoid attention from child protection activists,
- - - - - -
How mamny polygamists do you know IRL???
You are quite wrong. Many don’t homeshchool. They tend to be anarchists and dems not pubs if they vote at all (because the GOP was founded to abolish polygamy), they proudly abuse the welfare system and credit cards, high rate of bankruptcy. There are other ways to avoid CPS.
BTW, I work in ministry to rescue people from polygamy and my husband does probono work for women who want to leave so I know what I am talking about.
Ya missed the first line: America: 2028
Therefore; ELSIE is a girl cow.
I don't really care TOO much what other men do; as long as I don't have to support 'em!
Practicing your Kanji?
What about King Solomon?
The author concludes her article with "The definition of marriage is plastic."
The Left's goal is the Smash the Patriarchy and Smash Monogamy. Ending the institution of marriage is the name of the game. Make it meaningless.
They don't take issue with the end game. They take issue with the result being considered somehow "wrong" or "immoral". The sex positive agenda's stated goal is to end all moral judgments against sexual pairings of any kind regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s). If it feels good, do "him".
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
That's where the phrase " I tore dat bitch up" comes from. Shooting in the ghetto don't just happen to gang bangers. It also happens when two baby mamas cross paths.
I also think it's worth noting that until recently there was a clear and recognized difference between separation and divorce. Marriage didn't imply cohabitation or shared life--it meant that a woman would have no other sexual partner other than her husband (and in many cases, the husband none other than the wife). Separation would not in and of itself violate that.
I would posit that fundamentally, females in the vast majority of societies could be divided into four groups:
The partitioning of females into the aforementioned categories almost certainly occurred long before the advent of government or religion. Prior to the invention of the railroad, it wouldn't have been in many cases necessary for governments to involve themselves with recording every marriage, since people in a community would know who was married to whom. If a man died and a woman claimed to be his heir, others in the community would generally have little doubt as to whether or not her claim was true. As people became more mobile, however, the extent to which marriages were simply "common knowledge" diminished. Consequently, it became necessary to have governments record marriages for the purpose of resolving things like inheritance claims. Note that the government could serve such a purpose without having to "define" marriage; it would be sufficient merely for it to note that two individuals have claimed themselves to be married and have not since claimed otherwise. If it took such a loose definition of "marriage", though, it would then have to define under what conditions a marriage was sufficient to imply automatic inheritance.
I find it odd that the author mentions Sister Wives. I watched a few episodes some time ago, and the pain of the first wife when talking about the subsequent marriages was quite apparent. She was his first love, and although she knew she would eventually share, the pain on her face was so evident that my heart ached for her. And to make it worse, she’s childless. (Ok, haven’t watched it in quite a while, so don’t know if this has changed.) I don’t think that sharing in the childrearing of her sisters’ kids can overcome the fact that her husband shares children with these women and she doesn’t.
These women are brainwashed into believing this lifestyle is good for them,and as for as non-religious polygamous arrangements, they don’t tend to last very long. Quite frankly, I wonder about these arrangements - if a woman doesn’t have much sexual desire, maybe she doesn’t mind sharing? (Just speculation.)
I think most Christians and many feminists will agree on this. We have more to lose than gain from legalizing these arrangements.
And the legal ramifications?
FACE PALM!
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.