Posted on 06/24/2005 8:00:10 PM PDT by wagglebee
Whydja bring Barney Frank into this?.....LOL....
Regards,
It may not please many people but one can do what one wants to a very large degree if one is simply quiet about it.
I'm not quite sure I get your point (or you get mine.) This was supposed to be a "thought experiment." Pickup trucks and other vehicles can be manufactured in greater quantities to meet demand. Other vehicles can be chosen: vans, cars, panel trucks.
On the other hand, women cannot be manufactured in greater numbers; nor are there any other available marriage partners for men. That leaves huge numbers of men permanently unmarriageable. This has consequences beyond the individual.
I suspect that's why polygamy is such a social-ecology throwback. It's hard for societies to assimilate the energies of large numbers of mateless men constructively. In our own society, men who never marry are vastly overrepresented in prison; in Islamic societies they make up the bulk of the criminals, crazies, cannon-fodder.
Can we talk about this?
All the societies which are polygamous are also retrograde and virulently patriarchal. Under polygamy, the market--- to which you refer so confidently ---- is indeed a market that renders women semi-chattel if not outright slaves. Market forces distribute young women---like property--- to the older men that have the most money. This is not satisfactory to women, but in polygamous societies women have negligible social power.
This has a predictable, disastrous effect on both the equality of the sexes and the intimacy of the sexes. One-to-one correspondence works for both equality and intimacy. One-to-three-or-four doesn't.
I know that there are some people to whom everything (marriage, sex, childbearing, whatever) comes down to a question of market, property, ownership. This is a serious error. It brings us back to a mindset on human dignity typical of the Bronze Age; typical also of Shari'a law.
The American people must have the power, and the opportunity, to say No to polygamy. We want our ethic of human dignity, not market forces; we want such social changes as we choose to come by legislatures, not by judges; we want Western Civilization and Constitution, not some retrograde Mormon-Muslim model and Shari'a.
"You're either heartless or a polygamous jerk yourself if you can't see that."
From a guy's POV, too, how could you possibly have the same sort of intimacy that you have with one wife and six kids if you have six wives and 36 kids?
Somebody has to be getting the short stick in that arrangement.
And six mothers in law?
Polygamy can be a practical necessity if war or disease has left a society with a large surplus of women, particularly if it's a primitive society and the surplus women need someone to protect and feed them.
But that's a case of half a loaf being better than none, not an optimal situation.
It's really about men wanting to do that, then to legitimize those relationships through marriage in order that everyone can collect a welfare check and no one has to work. No man in his right mind wants to support more than one woman plus her children. It's lunacy.
Polygamy only made real sense in an underpopulated agricultural society, where children were an economic asset. Today it's financial suicide.
"Polygamy makes a lot of sense."
It sure does. Think of all the government workers, teachers, etc, who can enroll dozens of spouses in their benefits package.
There will be a lot fewer people without insurance.
Yeppers, and then human/animal marriages.
Nah - cat's tongus are too rough!
"You know, I seem to recall making an ad hominem attack on a previous polygamy thread."
Not directed at me.
"I DESPISE anyone who believes in this."
Was there something in my note that gave you the impression that I was supporting polygamy?
Oh what a shocking development. /sarcasm
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005
Information here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413875/posts
There you will find information about the bill, links to contact your congressmen and state representatives, and links to Stop the ACLU, among others.
Dogs don't sweat, that's why you see them running around with their tongues hanging out, drooling to cool off.
You're not implying that the Senate has any type of constitutional duty to confirm whatever judge the President nominates to the supreme court, are you?
They already have voting rights as registered Democrats.. why not marriage rights too?
Sex is something that two consenting adults have with each other. Let's call it what it is, pedophilia.
Are you defending child molesters?
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.