ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage

Agape Press ^ | 6/24/05 | James L. Lambert

[Age of Reason]

There would be no amount of "benefit" that could account for the pain the first wife would feel when hubby brings wife #2 home.

So don't marry a polygamist. Have a prenup that says if you're the guy's only wife and he later wants another, he can't without buying you out.

Just because you want to be someone's only wife, don't decide for other women.

[Age of Reason]

I DESPISE anyone who believes in this. Simply despise. The heartache these women endure is incalculable.

Not all women are so possessive.

In fact, some women would probably find it comforting that there are other women in the household to chat with.

Done right, I am sure they would come to love each other as sisters.

And a husband taking an additional wife is less threatening to an existing wife than a husband being forced to chose between marrying his new girlfriend and divorcing his wife, or keeping his wife and losing his girlfriend.

All because he cannot marry both.

[Age of Reason]

All the societies which are polygamous are also retrograde and virulently patriarchal.

But I do believe the birthrate is much higher in so-called retrograde societies than in our "advanced" society, which has a birthrate below replacement level.

And so the "retrograde" society seems more vital.

And as for a patriarchal society--being a man, I like the idea of men being the leaders, as was the case earlier in America.

If a society led by men seems odd, that is only because modern men have not been brought up to lead, but have instead been brainwashed to share leadership with women.

[Age of Reason]

Well, just about the only good thing about flooding the country with immigrants is that we will one day legalize polygamy, because that's what many of those immigrants are used to.

Still, I'd prefer much less immigration and crowding, even if it means monotonous monogamy.

[Age of Reason]

This has a predictable, disastrous effect on . . . the equality of the sexes

Good.

[darkangel82]

The ACLU should've been RICOd a long time ago, but now is as good a time as any.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If a society led by men seems odd, that is only because modern men have not been brought up to lead, but have instead been brainwashed to share leadership with women."

Or maybe we are not all misogynist jerks. And Rousseau was an idiot.

[Conservatrix]

I guess we need to come up with some new terms.

[dsc]

"But I wouldn't call standards like blood alcohol or consent arbitrary; they are the result of accumulated experience (history) as well as scientific study."

Well, there's as much bad science there as there is in the global warming hysteria.

I participated in an early study back in the 70s, and the dirty little secret is that most healthy people actually drive *better* at a blood alcohol level of 1.0. When you get very much over that, performance drops off sharply, but 1.0 was actually below the level at which good sense and science would have put the level.

And now every state has lowered the level to .08. Where's the science behind that?

One problem is that every accident in which there is any excuse at all is classified as "alcohol related," whether alcohol played any role in the accident or not.

Guy has a beer in a bar, gets in his car to go home, is stopped at a stoplight, and some stone-sober citizen slams into him from behind. Bam. Another "alcohol-related accident" for the hysterics to use as an excuse to further restrict our freedoms.

High-school kids get a case of beer and start driving around recklessly at high speed. The driver has half a beer in him and half a beer on him when he fails to negotiate a curve. Another "alcohol-related accident."

Subtact out accidents like that and the number of "alcohol-related" accidents would plunge sharply.

The laws we have no are arbitrary, because they're just a way station on the march to the ultimate goal -- no drinking at all, in any amount, before driving.

The old limit of 1.0 was low. 0.8 is ridiculous. 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.0 are coming.

[dsc]

"Not all women are so possessive."

That's not the only issue.

Admittedly I am judging by the only standard I have, which is my own experience.

My wife and I, over almost 19 years of marriage, have developed a level of emotional intimacy that I will arbitrarily designate as "maximal" for us.

I think it would be impossible for me to develop and maintain that same level of intimacy with two or more women at the same time. Since I think I am fairly ordinary, that leads me to doubt that any man could develop and maintain his personal level of maximum intimacy with two or more women.

That would mean that a man with more than one wife would be shortchanging all but one of them. In that situation, he might be unable to develop maximum intimacy with any of them, and so would be shortchanging all of them *and* himself.

In a monogamous society, a married couple reach a point at which they say, "Okay, we're middle-aged, we're not 'hot' any more, but we have this relationship of love and trust, shared adversities and joys, and that is a much deeper and more mature kind of happiness than sexual adventurism." In a polygamous society, maybe instead the man goes out and gets himself a new eighteen-year-old wife.

It's "one flesh," not "two fleshes" or "six fleshes."

Sure, we all know what kind of urges men have. As Jeff Foxworthy says, you see an old guy going down the hall at the old-folks home with a walker, and what he's thinking is, "I'd like a beer, and I'd like to see something naked."

But the greater happiness, and the greater good for society, is to be found in putting that aside and cleaving to your wife. Singular.

Motherbear despises people who believe in polygamy.

I personally think that, even in our monogamous society, guys who chuck their wife and kids for a younger woman are even worse.

[LibertarianInExile]

Just out of curiosity--would you marry a man who had any intention of marrying other women, too? Or is that qualified by how rich he is? If Bill Gates said you'd be wife number two, would you happily divorce Mr. Don-o and scurry to his side?

I love how so many people here wetting their shorts over polygamy are suddenly assuming ALL women would change their minds and marry rich guys. Are y'all saying women are ALL really just whores, then?

Now, some are. But Hugh can take his ho's and do whatever he wants. Who cares what rich males and prostitutes, or rich women and their studs do?!?!? Nobody seems inclined to ban James Bond's screwing around--it's just illegal AFTER he's married. I prefer just one woman who loves me, thanks. I have enough problems keeping one woman happy. But if some guy or gal wants multiple bedbunnies, and they can please 'em, what do I care?

[LibertarianInExile]

"I am raising my daughters to have more respect for themselves than to join a legalized harem!"

If so, what are you worried about? They wouldn't have to be married to such people, and I'm sure they wouldn't be. Or is it that you assume your daughters are that naive and stupid enough to be fooled?

[mysto]

The subsequent marriages are a legal nullity, but not a crime.
Wrong... they are both a legal nullity AND a crime in all 50 states.

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm stunned to discover they were both psychiatrists. A degree in psychology or practice in psychiatry ought to constitute prima facie evidence of mental illness.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Nah - cat's tongues are too rough!"

ROFLMAO. You sick, perverted...funny...bastard, ya. 8^)

[LibertarianInExile]

"I personally think that, even in our monogamous society, guys who chuck their wife and kids for a younger woman are even worse."

I personally think the same. Shouldn't we make that illegal? And how would polygamy make that MORE likely? I would think it'd be LESS likely.

If the problem is not polygamy but screwing around and dumping your kids in the divorce, then ban divorce and immoral screwing around. Enforce the fornication laws on the books.

[dsc]

"Shouldn't we make that illegal?"

Well, until very recently, it was...in that neither spouse was able to obtain divorce on demand, without grounds. No-fault divorce paved the way.

"And how would polygamy make that MORE likely? I would think it'd be LESS likely."

With polygamy, the man would still be married to the earlier wife, but he would put her away emotionally. Today, he can divorce his wife, but has to endure the financial devastation that entails.

A polygamous society allows him to get (probably buy) a new wife freely. In a healthy monogamous society, he is told to suck it up and stop acting like a jerk.

[calenel]

The accumulated data on blood-alcohol content not withstanding, is a 5% likelihood of a serious accident an appropriate threshold? 1%? 10%? And how serious should serious be? How many fatalities are acceptable? Why not have zero tolerance?

How young is too young? Why is 18 accepted as adult for most concerns instead of 15 or 20 or 25? Why do you have to be 35 to be President? How come you can use tobacco at 18 but not alcohol? My 17 year old is brighter and more responsible than many 20 somethings I knew in college. Hell, my 7 year old is. Should they get the vote? Why do we say 18 to vote instead of administering an adulthood test to gain the privilege of voting, driving, drinking, joining the military, procreating, expressing political opinions and so on? Well, because somebody would have to establish standards for the test - arbitrary standards - and that would be unacceptable.

So, we have the arbitrary standards we have. They may be based on accumulated statistics and majority acceptance of assessed or perceived risk, but they are still arbitrary.

Oh, you might have misunderstood my position on polygamy. I wasn't supporting it, merely rejecting your argument against it.

The example of ages of consent merely illustrates that even something as important as marriage/sexuality/procreation is subject to arbitrary standards. Why not simply say you can't have sex until you are married and you can't get married until you are 18(or 20, or 15 or passed the adulthood test?) Why even have an age of consent? Why is (was?) the age of consent in WV 12? Probably so some influential legislator or governor could legally get his side nookie - but, gee, isn't adultery still illegal? And isn't adultery defined by many (arbitrarily?) as any sexual act outside of marriage? So why have rules for the conduct of something that is against the rules in the first place? Oh, please define marriage while you are at it. One-man-one-woman-one-time? One-man-at-a-time-to-one-woman-at-a-time? Can clergy marry? Not even all Christians can agree there.

Also, 'We' have not allowed gay 'marriage'. A few have abused their positions and arbitrarily declared it to be a right. Others have rejected it. That boat has not yet docked.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Well, until very recently, it was...in that neither spouse was able to obtain divorce on demand, without grounds. No-fault divorce paved the way."

---So end no-fault divorce. None of this stupid covenant marriage crap--end no-fault divorce if it's so awful. That has nothing to do with polygamy.

"With polygamy, the man would still be married to the earlier wife, but he would put her away emotionally. Today, he can divorce his wife, but has to endure the financial devastation that entails. A polygamous society allows him to get (probably buy) a new wife freely. In a healthy monogamous society, he is told to suck it up and stop acting like a jerk."

---In both cases, the extent of the penalty to the male is a fine. In the case of a legal no-fault divorce, the kids are put aside as well as the wife. That's just more of a fine to the dad, and no real penalty to him if he's willing to dump the kids anyway. But in a polygamous society, that would seem not to be the case, dad would still be living with the kids and subject to their daily demands.

I don't know whether a 'healthy monogamous society' is worth defending, if what we live in is one of those. I can't imagine how much worse a polygamous one could be when a single Jerry Springer episode provides firm evidence of how healthy our monogamous society is.

And what is this 'buy-a-wife' crap? When did society start selling its women again? And what are Maureen O'Hara lookalikes going for?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Just out of curiosity--would you marry a man who had any intention of marrying other women, too? Or is that qualified by how rich he is? If Bill Gates said you'd be wife number two, would you happily divorce Mr. Don-o and scurry to his side?

Oh, now you're just being provocative. Of course I'm not saying that I --- or that all women ---would participate in legalized polygamy, any more than legalized prostitution would cause me --- or most women --- to become prostitutes.

Legalizing behavior doesn't compel it; but it unquestionably legitimizes it, encourages it, causes it to be treated as normal via the indoctrination our children receive in the schools, and opens the door for special accommodations and incentives (why not affirmative action?!)

I don't like the kind of social change which goes along with polygamy (Southern Utah, say) or prostitution (Netherlands, say) and I and I would guess a couple hundred million fellow citizens would like to prevent that kind of social change occurring where we live.

Remember "State governments: the laboratories of democracy"?

If and when we Americans want to try sweeping social experiments, such experiments ought to be authorized by our representatives in our 50 state legislatures, and not by the ACLU-managed courts who have taken away our self-government "for our own good."