Posted on 05/18/2008 12:35:02 AM PDT by ansel12
Then again, little is built on offering snarky zero-content replies. See this post for an excellent example.
One -- that's a formula for a terrible marriage, that a woman caters to a man's every whim. Two -- do you know of any marriages where a woman caters to a man's every whim? Three -- the recipe for a healthy marriage is not quite that a husband gives in to his wife's every whim, but it is close.
And that applies to mono, serial, or poly.
Thou art still a debtor, content-wise, imo.
And she's not actually very interesting either.
Her starting point is usually to attack some idea of patriarchy or the autonomous individual or ethnocentrism and draw conclusions from that.
But she doesn't do much to support her premises and if you aren't convinced by them, you won't find her conclusions very compelling either.
I still see nothing substantive here...
King David’s polygamy was for the most part, happy. He avoided taking on too many wives, and as King, he certainly could afford them all.
I am opposed to polygamy as well, but it just seems everything that made America great in the 1940s and 50s is looked down upon as being a great evil. The idea of living like the Cleavers is foriegn to modern America.
A woman should do things to make her husband happy. When she’s doing them to curry favor and one-up another wife, that’s sick.
You obviously think women are chattel and valueless. Any man who would marry a woman and think she would be thrilled to have him bring home another one is delusional.
Any man that could do that to a woman is cruel and sadistic.
Let’s just forget that he felt he had the right to have another man killed to add onto his harem.
He wasn’t satisfied with what he had, he had to steal from someone else.
Selfishness, jealousy, spite, favoritism, abuse, all products of polygamy.
I did say that monogamy is the ideal! I've been at some points to stick to the theme that polygamy is a lesser condition, but that it can be preferred in some cases. In the case of kings, marriages are also joins of state to state -- so many wives was the norm, and a happy thing.
You are so very right. I didn't take it as advocation of polygamy. I took it as relativism. In the sense that we're being assaulted by so many evils at once, pick one...It's hard to believe it's not coordinated.
How in our own day does the media and the sheeple they lead distort the honest records and words of President Bush! So it was then too.
Happy for whom? Have you ever met women who were part of a bonding of property and estates? Happy for one, but not the rest......
Fairy tales are made of such.
That is very true. The other thing is that in Marxism, relationships between people are depersonalized and made utilitarian. Individual love is frowned on, and certainly committment is anathema(because it means there just might be something greater than the all-powerful State). The Marxist goal is barracks of men and women who come together occasionally and randomly for sex, and then go back to the main project in life, which is making life nice for the Party leaders.
But come to think of it, that's true of any cult...
LOL! Too true. Just because something appeared in the Bible does not mean that it was recommended. In fact, it usually appeared because it was being held up as a bad example and God was going to do something about it...
Bookmark, great post!
It’s rather typical of Martha Nussbaum to just blather on about things, oblivious to her own errors. For example, isn’t it rich how she brings up the polygyny aspect cited in the Torah in support of Joseph Smith...despite the fact that Joseph Smith’s version of polygamy had him involved with the wives of other men.
Great post. That’s a keeper.
Very good point.
Also most folks don't know that divorce in 19th century Utah was quite high for that century. One historian took a look at a case study of hundreds of polygamous men and found that almost 1 in 5 were divorced. Brigham Young himself of 56 wives were divorced by 9 of them. (That's a 9-time divorcee!)
Sure. One of David’s sons raped his half-sister, then another one went on a murderous rampage, and then he raped David’s concubines on the palace roof.
The women were constantly trying to increase their own prestige, and that of their own children. Sounds really “happy”.
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.