Posted on 07/12/2011 8:17:26 PM PDT by EmpireStateConservative
bingo
Well, maybe by "social imbalance" you meant all those single guys who would have to go without a wife -- and children -- while the others hoarded women. So that is "normal?" -- even if you qualified that with a "distorted" normal resulting in such a social imbalance?
(Some of us can asking multi-task...God forbid if we ever have to fight another WWII...Too many would throw up their hands & exclaim, "No. We can't take on another foe or another frontline or another trench. I've got one. And I get ADD if I take on another.")
(Some of us can multi-task...God forbid if we ever have to fight another WWII...Too many would throw up their hands & exclaim, "No. We can't take on another foe or another frontline or another trench. I've got one. And I get ADD if I take on another.")
There is a lot more historical, and even Biblical, precedent for multiple wives than for same sex marriage.
With multiple wives, there are still children produced and raised.
That is almost the case out in the Mormon boonies where older men marry young girls and their sisters. If anyone thinks it doesn’t matter, these enclaves have become a geneticist’s dream, because of all the genetic defects and disorders arising from people marrying clost relatives within these clans. Defying God has consequences.
No one saw this coming or they would have told us. </sarcasm>
Actually I don't care if some church wants to "marry" them. What I don't want is for them to tie into the support structure that was set up to benefit children. Sure it helps childless couples, to a limited extent, but it was set up to protect the interests of children. Mainly to see that if the father died, or left, the mother would have the means, if much reduced, to raise the kids. Plus it gives a bit of tax relief to families, which have child rearing expenses. Somewhat analogous to everyone paying school taxes, whether they have kids or kids in school or not.
‘Well, maybe by “social imbalance” you meant all those single guys who would have to go without a wife — and children — while the others hoarded women.’
Precisely. It results in a lot of angry, discontented and disaffected young men with a much lower incentive or interest in long term productive work or self improvement or social involvement. Historically they have usually drifted off into brigandage or dissolution in a passive culture, or are gathered in and redirected as cannon fodder in a more aggressive culture. (The latter is something to watch for in China, where the imbalance is not due to hoarding but to the abortion created shortage of women.)
‘So that is “normal?” — even if you qualified that with a “distorted” normal resulting in such a social imbalance?’
First, do not misstate my point and then attempt to compel me to defend your misquote; I do not play that game and I recognize it right away. “Closer to normal” is not the same as “is normal”, and I do stand by the original point. Polygamy -is- MORE normal than the novel absurdity of homosexual “marriage”, both historically and logically. Polygamy is typically detrimental to a society, but broadly practiced homosexuality is suicidal for cultures and species. Rampant homosexuality may be more a symptom of a failed system than a principal cause of the failure, however. Certainly it adds to the problems.
“There is a lot more historical, and even Biblical, precedent for multiple wives than for same sex marriage.
With multiple wives, there are still children produced and raised.”
Precisely. There is still a future, and the preparation for that future.
Polygamy is found in the Bible—that same book that called Homosexual acts an abomination.
That didn’t take long. The Libtards strategy is moving like clock-work. Ruin the institution of marriage as an onslaught to christianity with secular atheism.
I really think that this was one of the reasons why this program was made. To challenge polygamy laws why putting a “happy” face on it. The husband and his “wives” come across more like a hippy commune than anything else.
Lastly, I wound not be surprized if the producers of “Sisterwives” are very supportive of Gay/Lesbian causes including marriage.
That’s because those past cultures knew that homosexual practice is a deathstyle not a lifestyle to promote life.
But what can you expect from insane people in positions of leadership who are running the show?
As long as there is no fraud or force used, I don't care.
What I have seen so far is that some of these Sects use their religions polygamy for a de facto slavery and for defrauding welfare. Not all, but they are the ones that continue to crop up to muddy the waters while trying to have an adult discussion on this topic.
Have as many wives as you can afford and can keep happy. Just do it ethically...
Answer: It wouldn't.
My marriage is with my Wife. My faith is between me and my God.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
I understand how I sounded, but winning a war is not about multi-tasking, it is about Focus. The Electorate is enduring the cuts of a thousand tiny knives, all the while ignoring the guillotine our heads are stuck in. If my comment brings out a bit of sarcasm from you - so be it.
Well, we agree; and yet we don't. Yes, winning a war is about focus...but being able to comprehensively focus on a million details -- all while strategically spearheading advancement on multiple fronts.
Otherwise, if we took your statement at its bare nakedness, somebody might conclude that the U.S. needed to focus ONLY on Japan (& not Germany/Europe).
Well, as far as I can tell, the gay rights lobby would support polygamy if they knew that it would win them support and a loss of Mormonism as an enemy, but then again, that’s a gamble.
Yes it can. Polygamy is practiced in quite a few corners of the world today. I can never support queers getting married.
The big issue has never been about getting married. The issue has been about the incessant desire of a group to find approval with everyone for what they do. Even more rediculous than marriage. But it’s about time the group got involved, and hopefully gets turned down for now. There are numerous things that go wrong in society, but I hoenstly could care less so long as it is kept out of my face.
Ideally not, but wouldn’t you at least want those who practice polygamy to have to support their relationships out of their own pocketbook, and the women not claiming to be single mothers, as some Muslim women fraudulently do in the U.S. and Europe?
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.