... Khola Hasan of Leyton’s sharia council believes that forcing mosques to register all nikahs, and thereby banning polygamy, will only make Muslims feel more persecuted. “The Muslim community in Britain already feels victimised,” she says, and it will inevitably force the practice underground, leaving women more vulnerable. She argues that, rather than banning polygamy, which she views as a “solution to many complex and difficult situations,” the practice should in fact be recognised by British law.(Via Instapundit.)
३ मे, २०१३
"A lot of people think [polygamy is] just about sex but... sex goes out the window after a while."
"If you don’t want your husband marrying someone else, what would happen to these single mums, then, and these divorcees? Is it fair that they just stay on the shelf? We should be looking after our community. Islam is all about community and society and we should look after our brothers and our sisters equally, otherwise it’s every man for themselves."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
Why would the guy need to marry all 5 of his wives, when he could marry and later divorce after 10 years, each one in sequence, merely cohabiting and breeding with the other four? That way, every one of them will tend to his every desire for 50 years and every one will qualify for HALF his social security if he is alive when she reaches 62 and ALL of his social security benefit if he dies.
Levinas makes the case that religion is the poeticization of ethics, and goes through Judiasm and Christianity to show it.
Coleridge, who wrote op-eds for a decade around 1800, observed that Islam is poisonous to morals, encouraging instead the efficiencies of tribalism. Take him as meaning Western morals.
Taking the two observations, I'd suggest a way to think of Islam as a religion is that it's the poeticization of tribalism.
It seems to fit, and maybe makes things more understandable, in light of some of its more infamous teachings which then make sense.
I don't know about sex going out the window, but I do know Groucho Marx said love flies out the door, when money comes innuendo.
Given the recent SCOTUS rulings, I think a "Polygamy is a constitutional right" is just around the corner.
If a man can marry a man, why can't one man marry three or women or vice-versa.
I say lets get the Bigamy law off the books and stop being Bigaphobic
Lets be honest, once you accept Gay marriage, Polygamy must follow.
Islam bashing doesn't change that.
OK, lessee, polygamy, same sex, and incest aren't icky any more and pederasty and bestiality are closing on the outside.
Compared to us, Rome is going to seem absolutely genteel.
The Brits will agree. Hide and watch.
“The Muslim community in Britain already feels victimised.”
Then perhaps the Muslims should get the Hell out of Old Blighty. We all know how accommodating Mohammedan countries like Saudi Arabia are of Christians.
I recommend reading the Samizdata blog. Did you know that there are separate sharia law courts in the UK that you can opt into?
I don't think that would be constitutional in the US--equal protection under the law being an important principle. Separate is not equal, Brown v Board of Ed. This is our Murkan mind.
I don't think that would be constitutional in the US--equal protection under the law being an important principle. Separate is not equal, Brown v Board of Ed. This is our Murkan mind.
Oh, come now. The Supreme Court can always change its mind. Brown vs. Board of Education represents just such a change of mind.
rcocean said...
Given the recent SCOTUS rulings, I think a "Polygamy is a constitutional right" is just around the corner.
Sure enough....and a new cable television series on the merits of polygamy is ready to air as we speak.
Homosexual "Marriage" being a given, then what stops a couple from wanting a child with at least half one "partner’s" DNA? Nothing. A contract is drawn, and the medical procedure performed (or not) and there it is, defacto polygamy. One child and three parents. Certainly sheds new light on "designer babies." Or two babies with four separate parents... Then let the law suits FLY!
"Lets be honest, once you accept Gay marriage, Polygamy must follow."
Please be clear what you mean.
1. Polygamy is no longer a crime.
2. Government must give legal recognition to the additional partners beyond the first married pair.
There are 2 completely different levels. I think #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not.
Althouse is a constitutional lawyer. Which means she knows the case law, which she knows that the SCOTUS can do ANYTHING.
It can say A today, and Not-A tomorrow. It can say A was not a constitutional right for 200 years, then discover it IS a constitutional right.
So, using layman logic gay marriage leads to polygamy and all the rights of regular marriage. Using "constitutional law" Who the hell knows? Maybe Grandma Ginsberg will rule that Polygamists can have all the rights and privileges in marriage in 25 years.
Ann Althouse said...
Please be clear what you mean.
1. Polygamy is no longer a crime.
2. Government must give legal recognition to the additional partners beyond the first married pair.
There are 2 completely different levels.
There are two different levels of what?
"I tthink #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not."
Under the old dead Constitution, yes.
Our new one is quite malleable.
If you don't realize that gay marriage and polygamy present two entirely different sets of issues and potential dangers to society, then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion.
“The Muslim community in Britain already feels victimised,”
I'm with Icepick, if you don't the law that existed when you (or your parents) came there and exists there now, please feel free to go to a sharia paradise, Apparently there are some good benefits in the UK that holds you amongst the infidels.
Of ourse we know they don't think like that, Britan, like the rest of the non muslim world, just hasn't been conquered yet
I thought the big argument for same sex marriage was to have the government recognize the partners' mutual rights to benefits, inheritance, etc.?
Why would not the same go for polygamists?
I'll be honest, I'm more comfortable with polygamy, than I am with homosexual marriage.
Even if you wanted to give death benefits to one spouse instead of five (or make them all split them), the problem with polygamy in the welfare state is that there will be A LOT more children that are going to qualify for benefits. Brigham Young had over 50 children. Osama bin Laden had 24.
"...then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion."
Leftists repeatedly enact laws that are dangerous to society.
What difference does it make if one is aware of them when they'll become law regardless?
Icepick said...
The Muslim community in Britain already feels victimised.
Then perhaps the Muslims should get the Hell out of Old Blighty.
The Moslems in Albion pretty much rule the roost and they know it and beat it for all it's worth.
The people in England who feel victimized are the English.
Ann Althouse said...
Lets be honest, once you accept Gay marriage, Polygamy must follow.
Please be clear what you mean.
1. Polygamy is no longer a crime.
It isn't? I thought this was another of those state purviews - even though UT had to renounce polygamy to become a state.
This here is the world wide web tim,thinking is not a requirement. I will continue to provide evidence as long as battery holds a charge.
"Tim maguire said...
If you don't realize that gay marriage and polygamy present two entirely different sets of issues and potential dangers to society, then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion."
One man + four women = lots of kids = lots of welfare and lots of government Benefits.
Low Fed income taxes too.
But lets not let Bigaphobia stand in the way of progress
"Please be clear what you mean.
1. Polygamy is no longer a crime.
2. Government must give legal recognition to the additional partners beyond the first married pair.
There are 2 completely different levels. I think #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not."
How does #1 happen and #2 not happen?
The gay rights movement right now is vocally all about legal recognition and benefits. If that is achieved why not include other legal relationships that resemble marriage.
If 4 women are having children from the same man, or 4 separate men, the welfare benefits are still going to be paid.
@ Allen
The women are very religious, which means they would unlikely be having babies without their one husband.
If you don't realize that gay marriage and polygamy present two entirely different sets of issues and potential dangers to society, then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion.
Not at all. It comes down to the idea that consenting adults should be allowed to do arrange their affairs however they choose so long as no one is "harmed", without any constraint from the culture or legal system.
More broadly, the actual customs and cultures are irrelevant, as is the laws and the Constitution as written. What carries far more weight are the constitutional emanations and penumbras - which is to say whatever the Hell it is that the Leftists in charge of the Academy and the Legal System want, so long as it isn't too far out of bounds of what the Financiers want.
My problem with Ann's point about gay/polygamous marriage is that much of the acceptance of gay marriage has been, so far, through the judiciary. And, ultimately, that will mean providing government benefits based on such marriages.
As long as gay marriage depends on the judiciary for legitimacy (instead of the legislature or ballot box), I think that there is a fairly steep slippery slope favoring polygamy. After all, polygamy has been accepted for millennia by major religions around the world, and is accepted by one if the largest on the planet (Islam) to the present day, while it was explicitly or implicitly mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments. On the other hand, up until very, very, recently, gay marriage was not accepted by any stable societies historically. Furthermore, polygamy involves the fundamental purpose of marriage, which is having children and raising them, while SSM merely makes the partners in such feel better about themselves. (Ok, sorry, a bit extreme). So, how do you judicially justify SSM, but not polygamy? Esp. with the emerging studies showing that children married in SSMs statistically do no better than corresponding single parent families (and significantly worse than traditional marriages with parents of both sexes).
1. Polygamy is no longer a crime.
2. Government must give legal recognition to the additional partners beyond the first married pair.
There are 2 completely different levels. I think #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not.
This will soon be referred to as bigotry. Anti-muslim bigotry for starters.
If they love each other, why should the state deny them recognition?
tim maguire said...
If you don't realize that gay marriage and polygamy present two entirely different sets of issues and potential dangers to society, then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion.
First the douches claim everyone opposing their preference is a bigot and should therefore be excluded from the conversation. Then they whine they have insufficient nuance and therefore should be excluded from the conversation. Talented douches do both at the same time though.
"If you don't realize that gay marriage and polygamy present two entirely different sets of issues and potential dangers to society, then you haven't thought enough about them to participate in the discussion."
Of course they do. But, in fact they will be treated as if they are not different in public discourse just as racial discrimination history has been co-opted by gay marriage advocates in spite of the obvious difference.
It's all about RIGHTS!
RIGHTS are the wedge issue in every agenda.
"If 4 women are having children from the same man, or 4 separate men, the welfare benefits are still going to be paid."
You're obviously not a CPA and no know nothing about welfare.
I envy you.
http://riehlworldview.com/2013/05/oh-geez-wedding-planner-tv-host-david-tutera-accused-of-using-prostitutes-by-estranged-husband.html
Yep, SSM is a great boon to industry- the legal industry anyway. No wonder the hostess here likes it. Married gays, allegations of prostitute use, surrogate twins about to be born. What lawyer wouldn't want a piece of that action? Even if tehy cannot afford the fees, zillions in free adversting for taking the case.
The twins are going to have a great time in school when it comes to the family tree part we've all done at some point.
When Andy Cuomo was buying the votes to pass same sex marriage in NY, it was the shysters that applauded.
With respect to the legal issues involved, I refriain from considering them with respect to how this is being presented in Britan.
Lets talk about Americans dealing with the same issue, polygamy. Sharia and what the mosques have to do takes it out out my concern. These folks don't giove a damn about civil laws, they only want us to accept theirs.
Mo' Muzzies, Mo' Muzzies, Mo' Muzzies...
I actually think this will run the other way: fewer marriages, not more, even if polygamy is legalized.
Yes, I understand polygamy, on the natural, means fewer marriages in toto, but what I really mean is, as people become increasingly self-centered (and they are, and if you don't think so, you aren't paying attention), fewer people will decide the commitment of marriage, (especially men, given the financial cost of marriage failure) simply does not work for them.
One could see a "grand bargain" (pragmatically speaking) of where both polygamy and prostitution are legalized together in a package deal.
Another good entry for illustrating why gay marriage should not be enacted as a right. The whole point of state sanctioned marriage is to discriminate, to encourage some couplings and discourage others. Enact gay marriage on its merits. Then you can still tell the polygamists no. (Way. Ever.)
Ann, is polygamy even now a crime? I don't see how. If several people go through a form of marriage that they regard as binding on themselves, who can stop them?
As you say, the question is rather whether the state recognizes the marriage, and supplies the assorted benefits and privileges. This is a lot more complicated with a plural marriage than it is with a couple (where some would say it's already damn complicated enough, thank you very much), but there are are enough jurisdictions in which plural marriages are legal that I'd think there'd be a fair amount of foreign case law to draw on, should one need to.
When the laws are so complex and so invasive that it is impossible to follow them all what is the result? How much more damage can the government do to the institution of marriage? To the rule of law? This is just one more step down the road to complete farce. Where are the feminists anyway? Oh yeah they are trying to destroy marriage too.
I'm under the impression that in traditional Islam a man can have up to four wives as long as he can provide a separate house for each of them.
Ann, is polygamy even now a crime? I don't see how. If several people go through a form of marriage that they regard as binding on themselves, who can stop them?
I have lived in both states (UT and AZ) in which at least one of the polygamous sects live (right on the border between the two states), and my understanding is that bigamy laws are still on the books in many states, and, in particular, in those states, and are used to prosecute polygamists (including one in 2001 who continued to cohabitate with his divorced wives). Also, a lot of the polygamous marriages in the FLDS church there involve under-aged girls, and child rape has been used to prosecute the older males, while welfare fraud is apparently used on occasion to prosecute the wives.
So let me get this straight....
I'm in the hospital critically ill, and all 4 of my wives won't have the opportunity visit me, and help make decisions concerning my healthcare?
I demand equality now.
deborah,
Don't know about the separate house, but yes 4 is the technical limit under Sharia.
Why is Islam such a pussy religion? All this whining about feeling oppressed. Do they really feel that way? Or is this just using the infidel's weaknesses against him? Either way, it's kind of nauseating.
There are 2 completely different levels. I think #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not.
Ah ha ha ha ha. Let's hear your argument, Professor. I'm sure you can find one that will work among a klatch of JDs and judges thoroughly used to debating the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin. But one that will work on Joe Average, once you've shoved SSM down his throat by telling him the only legitimate basis for deciding what "marriage" means is the tender humanity of the wishes of nice people to call whatever they've got by that term?
Not a chance. Once you have obliterated instinctual reservations, your hairsplitting intellectual replacements will be swept away by the first breeze of changing public opinion. It's kind of the way women 50 years ago decided they were not going to put up with this outrageously unfair and sexist insistence that they be virgins at marriage -- and, willy nilly, now they find themselves without a really reliable argument for not putting out on the first date. And so they must. Oops! Not sure that's where they really wanted to go, but oh well. The revenge of Chesterton's Gate.
There is an obvious and clear reason why two's the magic number if you restrict yourself to "marriage" = "mechanism for the potential rearing of natural children." Because you need two zygotes, one X, one Y, to make a child, no more and no less.
But once you shove that definition aside as unenlightened, you've got nothing left. There is no strong reason readily accessible to the nonintellectual for two and only two once you remove biology and habit from the whole discussion.
What possible reason could the state have that would justify discriminating against three (or four, or 86) people who want to form a loving, stable, yadda yadda [insert standard SSM poster child description here] "marriage" from legal recognition of their status, along with the usual "harmless" rights of survivorship, grave visiting, adoption of Russian orphans, whatever?
I mean, bearing in mind we are (apparently) talking about a constitutional if not natural right here, the kind of thing that even the direct vote of the majority (cf. Prop 8) cannot circumscribe?
It will take a while for it to stop breathing, of course, but marriage in Western culture is dead as any kind of serious institution. It's just an emotional merit badge, like Our Song, or the anniversary dinner you always take at Friday's.
The legal argument for gay marriage is non-discrimination based upon sexual preference, which is not something explicitly stated in the Constitution. The legal argument for polygamist marriage is based on Freedom of Religion.
The emotional argument for gay marriage is you should be allowed to marry the person you love. The emotional argument for polygamist marriage is you should be allowed to marry the people you love.
Historically, there is much more precedence for polygamist marriage than gay marriage. If anything, the legal argument for polygamist marriage is stronger than gay marriage.
Are there more societal costs with polygamist marriage than gay marriage? Maybe. However, if one even suggests there are societal costs related to gay marriage they are branded a bigot and told to shut up. So, if we are going to have a debate about the costs of polygamist marriage, should it become an issue, then we should insist on a discussion of the possible societal costs of gay marriage now.
AllenS said...
If 4 women are having children from the same man, or 4 separate men, the welfare benefits are still going to be paid.
Or you can just skip the man, which pretty much the accepted means now.
Bruce Hayden said...
I have lived in both states (UT and AZ) in which at least one of the polygamous sects live (right on the border between the two states), and my understanding is that bigamy laws are still on the books in many states, and, in particular, in those states, and are used to prosecute polygamists (including one in 2001 who continued to cohabitate with his divorced wives). Also, a lot of the polygamous marriages in the FLDS church there involve under-aged girls, and child rape has been used to prosecute the older males, while welfare fraud is apparently used on occasion to prosecute the wives.
As I've said before, the trick will be to legalize it for Muslims and Hippies, while still denying it to Mormons.
In Islam, a man may have up to four wives just as Muhammed did, but the catch is that he must treat each wife equally.
In practice, what this means is that for almost all men this is impossible. You don't have the money for it, nor do you have the ability to divide your affections equally.
Yet it happens.
Typically, in a place like Saudi Arabia (where I've lived), the man's starter wife gets "replaced" when she starts to get long in the tooth. Then when #2 gets older, along comes #3. This effectively leaves wives #1 and #2 at the mercy of the husband (and his mother) because those women have left their families to join his. Plus, they probably have no jobs, other than child rearing.
Oh, and, of course, it is not at all unusual for wives to be very young. Very, very young. And relatives.
We should look out for our sisters... by removing their clitori?
We should look out for our sisters... by removing their clitori?
Ok Marshall, I'll help get you started. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in society. If one man can marry five women, what do the other four men do?
If you can't do anything with that, then you are welcome to keep using insults as a substitute for reasoning, but for consistency, you might want to go ahead and become a lberal. You won't have to change much, you already argue like one.
Apparently, Ann could use a research assistant on this issue.
Professor, did you just suggest that bigamy is not a crime? Since when?
I'll be honest, I'm more comfortable with polygamy, than I am with homosexual marriage.
I'm the polar opposite, except it's more that I'm not yet sure what to make of SSM. I *know* what I think of polygamy, and it's societal poison. Yeah, yeah, striding patriarchal polygamists of yore and all that, and that's how Smith talked his women into reinstating it in Mormonism, but the Mormons agreed to cut the old cult-harem rubbish away and re-joined the Western mainstream.
The Muslims can go hang until they *AGREE TO JOIN WESTERN CIVILIZATION*. There are a certain set of bounds, ne plus ultra, beyond which you have left the culture. This is historic and accumulative, but to drop one will cause us to drop others, and the velocity increases with each more left behind.
We left "belief in God", and I was fine with that, because I'd make a damnably hypocrital faux believer, Thomas that I am. We left behind universal adult (heterosexual) marriage and pre-marriage virginity as a goal, and people like the Professor are fine with that. Fine, glass houses and all that. But each dropped standard makes the remaining that much more precarious, and the pillar flexes more and more wildly with each arrow torn from the bundle. At which point does the fasces break, having been reduced beyond the weight it carries?
Mark my words, let polygamy in, and slavery will follow in her train, as night follows day.
I don't think you can legally restrict marriage to just two people when you dismiss the biological imperative inherent in reproduction as the basis for marriage. When there's nothing special about two, three or more should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract. If there is something special about two, then it must be one man and one woman that make up the two people that can enter into a marriage contract.
Carl said ....
It will take a while for it to stop breathing, of course, but marriage in Western culture is dead as any kind of serious institution. It's just an emotional merit badge,...
That caught my eye....and I'm beginning to agree. A couple I know very well divorced, from his perspective, because he felt she had "changed the rules" ... due to her objecting to increased "social" drinking to incapacity, enough in their life that she quit altogether, which is a changed rule, you see. She also grew weary of subsidizing a gambling habit, to the tune of $100,000 for her husband who earns in the high 6 figures on his own versus her earnings in mid six figures...another rule change, see...no sharing, apparently. Gambling and drinking was claimed to be a stress reliever. For her, it was waste and potential alcoholism. She filed and he acted like a deer in the head lights. He's a very bright guy, likable actually, but seems to think marriage is composed of exchange rules for behavior.
If that is how marriage is defined in the younger set today, it is dead ... awaiting only the dirt nap and wake.
I find satisfaction in many marriages that I see, too...but not as many as I'd would like to believe.
Ann Althouse said...
There are 2 completely different levels. I think #1 is obviously something that ought to happen, but #2 is not.
That's because you're an indecent bigot.
Betwixt a couple of these threads where "gay marriage" was topical, I asked a gay friend, over dinner with his partner, and my daughter, a question: What is his personal attitude about gay marriage? His answer was two-fold:
1.) He'd support SSM just because he doesn't like being told what he cannot do. We both laughed because we both know how we both resist *authoritah!* whenever reasonable. He flat out said it was immaterial to him personally, because...
2.) No one defines *love* for him but him, and ...He's already covered all the fiscal benefits of marriage by other means (joint ownership of everything) and a living will....so it is not about money.
It is noteworthy that he did not disagree with my opinion that the end result of the dilution of marriage definition would result in elimination of what fiscal benefits there are and essentially raise taxes on everyone...why discriminate anymore with benefits for single folks, so cut their AGI thresholds in half just like married folks of any ilk. We'd started to talk about why that will occur when it was time to leave (it was late, restaurant was dimming their lights, etc.).
Mitch H: The Muslims can go hang until they *AGREE TO JOIN WESTERN CIVILIZATION*. There are a certain set of bounds, ne plus ultra, beyond which you have left the culture. This is historic and accumulative, but to drop one will cause us to drop others, and the velocity increases with each more left behind.
Yeah, but somebody decided about 50 years ago that transmitting our civilization to the next generation was RACIST! or something, so we have a bunch of "educated" people running around, insisting that the essence of the West is that it is a malleable abstraction, a Civilization About Nothing, a procedural borg to which anything can be adapted in the name of "freedom of choice", or "non-discrimination", without changing anything, really, because how can you change a void? All the while hoovering up the seed corn.
[...]
Mark my words, let polygamy in, and slavery will follow in her train, as night follows day.
Eh, it'll be like everything else. They'll just call you a crazy paranoid bigot until it starts to happen, and then when it becomes too obvious to ignore, they'll do the same thing, only they'll get much louder and shriller. Then when it starts to impinge upon their be-bubbled serenity, they may own that there's a problem, but that you caused it by pointing it out in the first place, driving the practitioners to it with your marginalizing bigotry and lack of funding for community outreach. (If you'd just celebrated diversity, they wouldn't keep being so damned diverse.) Then when things really go to hell, they'll reach new heights of scholarly erudtion and nuance to demonstrate that the shit they pulled was...hold on...let me think about this...it's complex...get out of your black and white thinking...it's really...correlation does not equal causation, bigot!
“The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chess-board.”
George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
Are there more societal costs with polygamist marriage than gay marriage? Maybe. However, if one even suggests there are societal costs related to gay marriage they are branded a bigot and told to shut up. So, if we are going to have a debate about the costs of polygamist marriage, should it become an issue, then we should insist on a discussion of the possible societal costs of gay marriage now.
Yes, there are social costs with polygamy, BUT what is studiously ignored with SSM are the social costs there. One appears to be that outcomes of children raised by same sex partners are apparently as bad, if not worse, than with single parents, and, yes this applies esp. To families without male parents or father figures in the household, meaning that Lesbians apparently do maybe even worse than single mothers raising kids. Why worse maybe? Because some single mothers probably do have the fathers still around a bit. When my kid was a senior in HS, the had kindergarten buddies. One girl, with two mommies, had apparently never spent any time with adult ( or near adult) males up until that point, and was petrified of most of the guys. Which gets to sexual orientation - recent twin study showed a much stronger genetic link for male homosexuality than for female. Which seems to indicate that some female homosexuality is more nurture than nature. So, with lesbian parenting, we seemingly could be raising the next generation of lesbian parents in the girls, and violent criminals with the boys (through not being raised by a father figure, esp. In the household).
Sure, I am talking SS parenting, but since the basic purpose of marriage is childrearing, it is hard to ignore the effects of SSM on the closely related area of child rearing.
Are there more societal costs with polygamist marriage than gay marriage? Maybe. However, if one even suggests there are societal costs related to gay marriage they are branded a bigot and told to shut up. So, if we are going to have a debate about the costs of polygamist marriage, should it become an issue, then we should insist on a discussion of the possible societal costs of gay marriage now.
Yes, there are social costs with polygamy, BUT what is studiously ignored with SSM are the social costs there. One appears to be that outcomes of children raised by same sex partners are apparently as bad, if not worse, than with single parents, and, yes this applies esp. To families without male parents or father figures in the household, meaning that Lesbians apparently do maybe even worse than single mothers raising kids. Why worse maybe? Because some single mothers probably do have the fathers still around a bit. When my kid was a senior in HS, the had kindergarten buddies. One girl, with two mommies, had apparently never spent any time with adult ( or near adult) males up until that point, and was petrified of most of the guys. Which gets to sexual orientation - recent twin study showed a much stronger genetic link for male homosexuality than for female. Which seems to indicate that some female homosexuality is more nurture than nature. So, with lesbian parenting, we seemingly could be raising the next generation of lesbian parents in the girls, and violent criminals with the boys (through not being raised by a father figure, esp. In the household).
Sure, I am talking SS parenting, but since the basic purpose of marriage is childrearing, it is hard to ignore the effects of SSM on the closely related area of child rearing.
What problem is plural marriage supposed to resolve? This nonsence on stilts is just another relief act for lawyers and accountants. If marriage is supposedly based on equality under the law what if wife number one objects to the dissipation of marital assets? Or is there supposed to be a seniority system in place for for inheritance of assets? Or allocating debt aquired in tho course of the marriage? And child support, does old wife have to contribute to the support of the youngest wife's kids? While love is obviously the core driver in Western marriages its still a contract and as in any contract all parties have to be in agreement with the terms. I'm amazed that the UK the birth place of the common law allows this craziness.
Historically, polygamy and slavery are linked. In Sub-Saharan Africa, The village elders, who had all the wives, would round up all the young men who had no woman to civilize them and sell them down the river. Sometimes a king would demand a quota from each village. Sometimes they had wars to get rid of the extra men. European slavers just took advantage of something that was already going on.
ken in sc said...
Historically, polygamy and slavery are linked.
Yep. Actually as we continue to destroy facets of western civilization piece by piece, for no tangible gain or real benefit, we risk descent in to barbarism in the process....e.g., we may end up where we began, naked on some savanna some where.
@ Althouse
"2. Government must give legal recognition to the additional partners beyond the first married pair. "
You're a bit behind the times. State government has already gone that route.
ABA Journal: 3-parent birth certificate is OK’d by judge
As a resident of So. UT for almost 20 years it was very obvious to me that the law turned a blind eye to the FLDS where girls (some as young as 12) were being married off to older men. It was always sad to me to see a young FLDS girl with a baby in her arms and wonder if it was her sibling or her child.
My husband worked at the local paper for 16 years as the local news editor (including the years of the Jeffs trials). With all the research he did during that time he found many instances of the "lack of law" in this area and the corruption going on. He wrote 'plygs' a fact-based journalistic novel of the FLDS.
You speak of the “slippery slope” … there should be none. What the people of the FLDS and the UAB practice as their “lifestyle” is SO far from it. People want to look at polygamy along with the LGBT and it is a totally different world. The LGBT just want to marry ONE person and have a life the way other monogamous couples live. The Polygamous world is based on religion. They hide behind it, they survive on the words of a prophet that has ended himself and several others in jail. What good can come of a “religion” that 12, 13, 14 yr old girls are “married” to the “highest bidder” (tithing and favors) within a “church”?
Polygamy that is taught through religion is NOT a choice. They live it or they are forever damned. They live it or they will not see their children in the afterlife. They live it or they will be cast out with nothing… no home, no food, no family, no children, no friends… NOTHING…
Tell me where this is a choice! Tell me how this should be legal! Explain how this is so slippery… those that speak of this slope have NO idea what true polygamy practiced by the FLDS and the AUB and other groups are doing to these women and children… there is no slope… there is a mountain and our politicians are terrified to climb it!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा