Polygamy to be celebrated in new HBO series

Rebecca

I read the whole article. Are we on Mormon watch now?

Personally, I think 1 wife is 1 too many ;->

Why stop with polygamy? Let's have some beheadings, a few stonings, an amputation or two, all done in the most civilised Sharia way.

Then we can have a travelogue on the virtues of Mosques as places for sodomising children, beating nonMuslims to death and hiding arms caches.

Then we could look at Muslim toilets in , say, Istanbul(a la Paris) and at the same time do an architecturtal survey of preislamic christian churches

Then we could have a medical program to demonstrate the virtues of islam for insecure males with inadequate penises, where the woman or girl is so submissive from childhood indoctrination or beaten into submission by any number of relatives that she sees her husband as the living sexual incarnation of the prophet in all his polygamous glory and is thus pleasured by his attention alone. ("sit up and beg dear").

We can follow this up with a series on forensic medicine, where we look at "honour" killings to see what dastardly crimes invoked this honorable way of dealing with female intransigence.

Finally, we could have a "do it yourself" program on how to make the most fashionably acceptable TNT or triacetone peroxide belt, and have a competiton to see whose head flies the furtherest, or who scores the greatest number of hits upon innocent civilians.

So long as it makes a few dollars.

Sorry about the presumed digression above but ANYTHING which gives Islam one iota of credibility is a target in my view. Polygamy is one thing that Islam is famous for and much more so than Mormons.

Trapped by the Mormons," in which a maniacal polygamist lures unsuspecting girls into forced marriages, to the 2000 comedy "My 5 Wives," starring Rodney Dangerfield as a man who inherits multiple wives.

Maniacal polygamist? Is there any other kind? Polygamists have to be maniacal for the same reason that kittens have to be adorable. And were all five wives multiple?

Actually, the only BBC documentary I've ever seen about the Mormons and their wives, some underage, was very critical. I have yet to see one as critical of Islamic polygamy.

I get HBO and the self promotion and advertisements for this "Big Love" show are non stop. I'm no prude but I flip the channel immediately. It's obvious HBO is pandering to the lowest common denominator here. I have zero curiosity about the "struggles" of this polygamous family but I'm positive they will get great ratings and the show will be hailed as a break through in a repressive America

Gays push to have homo-marriage legalized so why not polygamy and bestiality? That's the slippery slope. Polygamy in Muslim nations produces many distortions as alpha males tie up women, thus denying partners to the men on the lower rungs. This assumes a stable population but in fact one incentive for Jihad is to capture the women of the infidels so that there are marriage partners (concubines too) for all even as the top dogs have four wives. This is the tribal breeding machine of the Muslims. This is one of the evolutionary biology strategies of Islam. For expanding Dar al Islam.

The enemy's women have been a prime part of Islamic booty ever since Muhammad's first battles. Ever since feral Mo realized that a prime incentive to become Muslim was to share in the spoils of war

I remember one of the truly funny skits on SNL was a show called "My Wife is a Monkey". In the skit, they had a chimpanzee dressed in a nightgown and the skit actor was trying to find out why his 'wife' was angry and wouldn't come to bed. Pretty funny. Why not make that into a series? I'm sure it would get more laughs.

"Are we on Mormon watch now?" -Infidel Pride

If those Mormons are breaking the law by practising polygamy, yes, I believe they bear watching, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and are relevant to the discussion of Islamic practices which happen to coincide.

On a personal note, my ancestry on both sides of my family is Mormon. They practised polygamy.

NEVER AGAIN!

Zathras

Good one!!

one incentive for Jihad is to capture the women of the infidels

Available now, only £750 a minute (dear at half the price) Prime Ministers wife and jilbab supporter Cherie Blair.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081806,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/ncherie12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/12/ixnewstop.html

Take Mrs Blair......please!!!!!

my ancestry on both sides of my family is Mormon

Are you related to the Osmonds?

Granny W - don't forget the most important link, which is to this wonderful blog here.

Hey! Let's not imitate ignorant Moslems by having an opinion about something we haven't seen. I'll believe that this show is softening us up for Islam after I've watched it.

Until then, Rebecca, I think that you are raisng an alarm just a bit too quickly.

To the larger subject of having more than one spouse, so long as it is truly consensual among competent adults, I don't think it is anyone's business but them. We may think it unwise but it is simply not our concern. The only legitimate interest (and it would indeed be very legitimate) would be the "best interests of the children."

Parp, parp, the sound of someone else blowing my trumpet.

Rebecca
My mother's brother converted to Mormon and took his family into it with him. It caused a lot of anguish to my Mother, grandmother and her sisters. Although his wife was so dozy one aunt joked that he had only done it in the hope of striking lucky second time around.
I can see the good in most denominations but there was something I was never comfortable with around them. But this is not the place to discuss.

Australia's leading Islamic spokesman Keysar Trad openly lives a poly life with 2 wives and 9 kids. he acknowlages that it is illegal and is only legally married to one.

It is still sharia "esque" in manner, I'd expect the argument if it was challenged would be well the West does it in various forms, which we do, variations of legally un-acknowlaged marriages such as "open marriages" "gay marriages" etc. So the precendent of acceptance is already set.

Here we can answer NO... religious law or "styled shariaesque practices" have no place in secular society. open, defacto or gay are not religious.

Morman's have always also been frowned upon in the West for poly marriages.

To the larger subject of having more than one spouse, so long as it is truly consensual among competent adults, I don't think it is anyone's business but them.

There are two reasons why it is the business of society as a whole rather than just the people concerned.

First, allowing polygyny is intrinsically unfair unless you allow polyandry as well. Those religions or cults that allow multiple wives do not allow multiple husbands because women do not have the same rights as men. Both Islam and Mormonism are misogynist religions, the former more than the latter. Given the discrimination intrinsic to these religions, can such an arrangement be "truly consensual"?

Secondly, polygyny encourages high birthrates amongst the least productive (as opposed to reproductive) sections of society, who are therefore a net drain on the resources of the rest of society. In the case of Muslims, unlike Mormons, not only is the ever increasing population a drain, but it is actively hostile and dangerous to the rest of society.

No to polygamy. It belongs in the desert and the jungle, and above all, the past.

From the article 'Polygamy and Terrorism' by William Tucker, why polygamy is not just a personal matter:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18649/article_detail.asp

What differentiates Islam from the world’s other great religions—Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism—is that it sanctions and practices polygamy. How did this happen?

The consensus among anthropologists is that humanity spent the first 4-5 million years of our evolutionary history living monogamously in small hunting-and-gathering tribes. We know this because the few hunter-gatherers that remain—the Kalahari Bushmen, the Pygmies of Africa, the Australian Aborigines—are all monogamous.

What is so important about monogamy? Its principle advantage is that monogamy guarantees every man an equal chance of having a wife. For small, tightly knit bands of humans surviving in perilous environments, this was crucial for maintaining group loyalty. If a dominant male took more than one wife while others were left with none, dissention would arise and the solidarity of the group would be destroyed.

Polygamy eventually did arise in nearly all parts of the world, however, and anthropologists believe it had to do with growing prosperity. When the first farmers and herders began to accumulate fixed wealth, women began to be bought and sold as wives. The “brideprice”—a payment the wife’s family demands of the husband’s family—is universal in polygamous societies. As the accumulation of wealth grew unevenly, wealthier men took more wives while poorer men were left with none.

Polygamy is still practiced widely in West Africa, where leading men sometimes take as many as 30-50 wives. This leaves a huge residue of unattached men. It is probably the principle reason why so many African countries are beset by “revolutionary armies” living in the bush and raiding rural villages to steal women.

(snip)

Islam has a long history of conquest, but it has also been plagued by revolutions from within. Typically a band of unattached men will go into the desert, decide that the faith being practiced by the urban elites is not the “true Islam,” and burst back upon the cities to conquer them—and take their women as well. Jihad has always been the faith of these efforts.

Today polygamy is not practiced widely in Islamic countries, and only accounts for about ten percent of all marriages. The country where the distribution of wives is most unequal—Saudi Arabia—seems to be the best at producing roving jihadists who roam the world in search of conflict.

The absence of a norm of a “man for every woman, a woman for every man” also creates an entirely different male psychology. At one extreme, men consider their own lives to be worthless and expendable because they will not have the chance to reproduce. At the other extreme, they are promised “72 virgins in heaven.” Sometimes the extremes converge.

Polygamy creates dysfunctional societies. Jihad, with its perpetual social unrest, is unlikely to disappear until it is eliminated. I would suggest the United States propose a “right to reproduce” be added to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN would be the perfect place to initiate a global debate.

Just to clarify, the mainstream LDS Church disavowed polygamy and agreed to live under the laws of the United States in the 19th century.

There are still some splinter groups that practice polygamy, but regular Mormons do not.

I don't think I'm jumping the gun here either. The first step to changing law is changing public attitude and what we're seeing is an attempt to pave the way for the dissolution of monogamous marriage as we now it, the foundation of our civilization.

Well of course I would allow polyandry. That's why I spoke explititly in terms of "spouses" rather than "wives."

To the 2nd point about "least productive" people, where do you get such a theory? Is there a factual basis for that? Are you suggesting a "means test" before procreation? Wise or not, in our society, if you are old enough to do it, you are old enough to be parents.

Especially among older people -- >60 -- polyandry mighty be quite beneficial, especially as there are so many more older women than men.

Polyandry is no one's business -- possible issues of child welfare aside -- but the people involved.

I think it's absurd to link it to being "soft on Islam."

Actually I was intrigued by the reference to "the outrageous 1922 British propaganda short "Trapped by the Mormons," in which a maniacal polygamist lures unsuspecting girls into forced marriages," so I went onto Google.

As you would expect it's a silent film, also known as "The Mormon Peril" and still available as a curiosity.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013705/

And has been remade, recently.
http://www.trappedbythemormons.com/

I had never heard of it. Reviewers compared it to Reefer Madness, clips of which I have seen.

As we can see from Raw Data's posts, it's the social libertarians and the left-wing cultural warriors who will push the most for polygamy, ("it's nobody's business what consenting adults do in their own homes.") But it will be of course Islam in the West which will benefit the most from it, eventually producing a sharia-based society that the social libertarians will look upon with abject horror (those that survive in it, that is).

NO to polygamy. We have had gay marriage pushed down our throats, but this is where we draw the line.

Polyandry is no one's business -- possible issues of child welfare aside -- but the people involved.

YES IT IS. It produces an unequal social system in which women and children suffer mightily. It threatens the economic and emotional security of every single married woman in the US. And in the age of the modern welfare state, we all pick up the $$$$ tab for anyone suffering from polygamy's effects.

Is it a coincidence that most polygamous societies, from African tribal nations to Islamia, are so economically, socially and technologically backward?

I think not.

NO to polygamy. I cannot believe the we Western Women are having to fight all over again for something we gained 3,000 years ago.

To the 2nd point about "least productive" people, where do you get such a theory? Is there a factual basis for that? Are you suggesting a "means test" before procreation? Wise or not, in our society, if you are old enough to do it, you are old enough to be parents.

I don't know about the US, but in Britain and France, certainly, Muslims are the least productive members of society. They are far more likely to be unemployed than others within the same ethnic group, for example Hindus. They therefore cost more in benefits and pay less in tax. A net drain.

A means test before reproduction? Well, to be honest, people should think carefully about whether they can afford the children they have and should avoid being a drain on the taxpayer. Why should we encourage a form of marriage like polygamy which will, amongst the section of society that contributes the least, produce the largest number of welfare recipients?

Especially among older people -- >60 -- polyandry mighty be quite beneficial, especially as there are so many more older women than men.

Look up "polyandry".

Polygamy will allow Muslim men in the West to legally import four cousin-brides from the "old country" instead of just one. And the four cousin-brides' family members too, no doubt. So, potentially hundreds of people imported into our countries from the "old country" per single West-residing Muslim male.

Imagine the implications of that.

Why do these left-wing idiots work so hard to destroy our societies? The Muslims won't have to do a thing to get polygamy on the table here. They'll just sit back and let the left-wingers do all their work for them, waiting, waiting. . .

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue of multiple spouses as this morning I am just too busy taking care of Third Wife to answer any further.

Seriously, I think it's really funny that someone would mix-up polygamy with gay marriage. Next I suppose someone is going to get excited about contraception or oral sex as a sign of our weakening moral fiber.

Get real, folks. Islamofascism may be the main enemy but no-nothing Christian fundamentalism is also a danger.

Seriously, I think it's really funny that someone would mix-up polygamy with gay marriage.

I don't. I used to be in favor of gay marriage --until I saw how it could be used -- WILL be used -- as a battering ram to force polygamy and sharia down our throats.

Remember when the Muslims first came to our societies and a few people tried to sound the alarm?

We were told by the left-wingers that there was nothing to worry about. There was no slippery slope. Islam was completely compatible with democracy.

Now after the Cartoon Wars, elected officials and artists living under armed guard in Europe, sharia being pushed in Canada, etc., the left-wingers are starting to admit that maybe, just maybe, Islam will change the way we live our lives. . .but now that they are here, there is nothing we can do about it but adjust to them and their "colorful" ways!

And that's what they will do with polygamy. First, they'll deny, deny, deny that polygamy has anything to do with gay marriage (see Andrew Sullivan and our Data friend here.)

But once the gay marriage "battle" is won, then the polygamy arguments will come out, and the left-wingers will forget all about how they promised us 10 or 20 years ago that legalizing gay marriage wouldn't lead to legalizing polygamy. They'll just "conveniently" forget it like they forgot that they excused the Gulag 75 years ago.

Get real, folks. Islamofascism may be the main enemy but no-nothing Christian fundamentalism is also a danger.

Why do you assume that anybody who rejects the left-wing cultural wars that are taking our societies apart with a jack-hammer is a "no-nothing Christian fundamentalist"? I speak for several thousand years of Western Civilization. I stand for that. Monogamy is part of our culture. It is part of what we are as a civilization. It is one of the main reasons why Western women have more freedom and better living conditions than any other group of women on earth. I won't watch yet another part of our civilization and our culture be degraded and torn down because of your thoughtless and mindless kind.

Enough of the destruction of the West!

The FBI is looking for Warren Jeffs, leader of the polygamy "religious" cult in Colorado City, AZ.

I've read that in Africa, it is quite an honor for these men to have lots of wives and lots of children. But, he can't afford to feed them all and the women and children are starving and living on the street. Or the women turn to prostitution. Then of course, there is the AID's issue.

I would think any man who agrees with polygamy, believes variety is the spice of life, because there is really no other excuse for it.

I hope nobody tries to force oral sex down our throats.

"Remember when the Muslims first came to our societies and a few people tried to sound the alarm?"

"We were told by the left-wingers that there was nothing to worry about. There was no slippery slope. Islam was completely compatible with democracy."

Could you be a bit more specific? It seems to me that you are simply creating a history to suit your own needs.

When did the "Muslims first came to our societies?"

Who are these "...few people tried to sound the alarm?"

And who are " left-wingers that there was nothing to worry about. There was no slippery slope. Islam was completely compatible with democracy."

Accusations are one thing. Facts are another.

"Gays push to have homo-marriage legalized so why not polygamy and bestiality? That's the slippery slope."

-posted above

The same arguments were made in the US for disallowing women the right to vote, or blacks the right to be free from indentured servitude and even abolishing miscegenation laws. My my, those women might ask for too much; those blacks might demand other rights like being able to sleep with your daughter if she wants to too! Oh the humanity of it all.

I am a non-believing gay, but all this talk about religiosity, bestiality and polygamy, makes me want to become "ex-gay", adopt a religion that allows me to be a polygamous, and marry a (same sex) herd of sheep. That way, I can take advantage of the many laws that will come streaming from gay partnerships. I would of course become a proud card-carrying member of the Movement Yearning For The Acceptance of Same-Sex Bestial Polygamy (MYASSBP). It's a Slippery slippery sheep slope indeed.

/sarcasm

Let's attack Islam - the enemy to all of us, not gays. Get real about gay civil partnerships, they aint about sheep or Moslems.

Kafir N, watch your step now - some of those sheep may try to pull the wool over your eyes by dressing as lambs.

/baaacasm

The same arguments were made in the US for disallowing women the right to vote, or blacks the right to be free from indentured servitude and even abolishing miscegenation laws. My my, those women might ask for too much; those blacks might demand other rights like being able to sleep with your daughter if she wants to too! Oh the humanity of it all.

And the same arguments as YOU just made above will be used to legalize polygamy, child marriage, and eventually, sharia. To wit:

"Oh, remember when women didn't have the right to vote? Now people are trying to deny them the right to be in a polygamous marriage!"

"Remember when we had miscegenation laws that kept people in love from marrying the partner of their choice? Now we have laws that keep a woman from marrying the man of her choice because he's already married! It's not fair!"

"Remember when blacks couldn't have the right to vote? Now people are trying to deny another oppressed group to have their own courts of law in accordance with their religious beliefs!"

Let's attack Islam - the enemy to all of us, not gays. Get real about gay civil partnerships, they aint about sheep or Moslems.

You hate Islam, but you can't see how much water the left and their cultural wars are carrying for Islam in the West. You don't see how the simple justice of the civil rights movement is now being twisted to justify anything anybody wants, no matter how much it will hurt our socieity, in the name of "rights."

You are pushing for a society where there won't be any gays at all, because they'll all be dead, let alone be able to contemplate "gay civil partnerships."

Like I said, the Muslims won't have to do a thing to get polygamy legalized in the West. The Raw Datas of this world will do all their work for them.

"Remember when the Muslims first came to our societies and a few people tried to sound the alarm?"

"We were told by the left-wingers that there was nothing to worry about. There was no slippery slope. Islam was completely compatible with democracy."

Could you be a bit more specific? It seems to me that you are simply creating a history to suit your own needs.

When did the "Muslims first came to our societies?"

Who are these "...few people tried to sound the alarm?"

And who are " left-wingers that there was nothing to worry about. There was no slippery slope. Islam was completely compatible with democracy."

Accusations are one thing. Facts are another.

Address the points that both I and Interested made about the social destructiveness of polygamy, then I might feel like answering you.

Are you sure you aren't a Muslim? Because Muslims usually argue by asking their opponent to justify everything they say but the Muslims in turn won't answer any points their opponents make.

Interested

Right on. Under sharia, husbands are supposed to provide for their wives. If an unemployed Muslim man has four wives in a Western country, society provides for the wives with welfare and all kinds of other benefits. If in Muslim societies only the top males can afford multiple wives, in the West you have unproductive males getting 3 or 4 wives who themselves only produce babies.

What society can sustain for long such a cycle of low economic productivity and high demographic one?
Western welfare states should stop paying welfare to these people immediately. This move would benefit Muslim women most; they would be driven to get educated and emancipate themselves.

As to polyandry--I think it's still practiced in parts of the Tibet, for demographic and economic reasons. I remember seeing a documentary about a polyandric family. What struck me was the emotional complexity and the heartbreake it caused when the wife had to choose between her two husbands when she moved away from her community. Those ties were clearly very strong, beyond economics. There was also a sense of dignity on all sides. Probably because women are so valued in that society, unlike in Islam.

Polygamy is a disaster for society. We must never accept it.

Polygamy is a disaster for society. We must never accept it.

Thank you ovidius, I'm glad to see that there are sensible people still out there.

Susan,

I don't believe that polygamy is necessarily socially-destructive if such intimate relationship is a undertaken by competent consenting adults. That's my answer. You don't agree? That's OK, I can't imagine in my worst nightmare seeing you as part of my harem.

Whether polygamy is wise for specific individuals is for them to answer. It is NOT your business who someone sleeps with or how they do it. And I am not coming from an attitude of dhimmitude so don't be presumptious. Can you understand that?

As to the other statements, please don't BS us. You are the one who offered some very broad assertions. Now you come up with some weird pre-condition before you will explain. That's what BS'ers do. It sems obvious that you were just puffing and had nothing in mind; you don't have any facts or you would have offered them. My advice to you is not to offer broad factual assertions unless you can offer back-up.

As to your general holier-than-thou attitude, go to Mecca if you want to be a control-freak.

It is NOT your business who someone sleeps with or how they do it.

The argument is not about who people sleep with, it is about who they marry. A polygamous husband has an obligation to maintain up to four economically inactive "wives" and their numerous offspring. In the West, this will mean that the taxpayer, already heavily burdened, must shoulder this additional burden.

Muslim men in the West pay less tax and receive more benefits than any other group. If all they did was sleep around, provided they used effective contraception I wouldn't personally care. And if all they did was have oral sex, that might shut them up for a bit too.

I heard an NPR interview with the two producers of the show, and I got the impression that they were gay. One made the remark that they just wanted to show families as messy and complex, something like that.

I am gay-friendly, but think there is a tendency among some gays to push polygamy as a way to make gay marriage seem more acceptable. NOT the way to go, obviously. Nothing protects gay rights more than the individual-based system of rights we have in western civilization.

Under Sharia, gay rights consist of beheading with a dull knife.

Sylvester, Thanks for that link.

"The country where the distribution of wives is most unequal—Saudi Arabia—seems to be the best at producing roving jihadists who roam the world in search of conflict." --Willian Tucker

Tucker doesn't seem to see the Islam factor. If polygamy was the key factor, we'd see Mormons doing what Saudi-born jihadists are doing.

I agree with Tucker that polygamy introduces an element of instability, due to the abundance of unattached males. But it is the combination of the Islamic ideology, its teaching (brainwashing, including instilling hate and dehumanization of the "infidels"), and its social, political, and economic support in the Islamic world which causes the problems.

"And the same arguments as YOU just made above will be used to legalize polygamy, child marriage, and eventually, Sharia"

-Above

Ah, I think I see your logic re how gay civil partnerships will lead to Sharia. Let me see if I have this right. Gays are bad and want "rights", just like Moslems wants "rights" (to Sharia). Therefore, gays are Moslems, will become Moslems (since they are PC bastards anyway) or are de facto Moslems since gays love Sharia (death sentence to gays). And since gays are the equivalent of Moslems, they will want Sharia so as to appease the Moslems for reciprocal support so we [gays] get the special "rights". Wow, it's so clear to me now.

After the US allows civil partnerships, Gays like me will soon serve on the local group of the Gay Sharia Vice and Virtue Squad. We can be brutal. Although I am not skilled in such observations, my squad won’t just be checking merely for bad hair or the coordination of your clothes and "incorrect" interior design, it'd be full force gay Sharia. After hearing abut the HBO program, we have already started such a group in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. We go door to suburban door to make sure strict gay Sharia is being followed correctly. We hope, inshallah, to take our squad throughout the US - to an area near you Susan. Woe be upon those that have bad hair or outdated clothes. Our gay Imam will be the guy from Queer Eye for The Straight Guy - the blonde guy. Latino will be our Minister for Vice.

/sarc

"You hate Islam, but you can't see how much water the left and their cultural wars are carrying for Islam in the West."

-Above

You are correct. I detest real Islam. I have repeatedly attacked the Western PCness towards Islam. I believe that the only reason Islam has been handled with kid gloves is because it was previously not perceived as a threat.

...that is, Islam + polygamy = violence and instability.

The gay marriage argument is a red herring. The UK has recently introduced Civil Partnerships for gay couples without any demand for polygamy, or any ill effects. The proportion of gays in a society is static and would not increase even if they were allowed multiple marriages.

The only relevant question is this: do we want more Muslims? Of course we don't. Polygamy will produce more Muslims. So we don't want it. It's a no-brainer.

I think we need to pinpoint Islamic poly as the hostile force it is... From the tax burden to the Islamic colonization of our homelands.

Already in the West many housing/living situations could be termed poly, ranging from open marriages to student share houses where exspenses are shared.

Islam is going to try and use these as precedents, as Rebecca pointed out earlier, the other religious poly practice was that of the Mormans and they abandoned it in the 19th century.

What ever our opinions on gay student defacto or open marriages etc, they are not religious.

The isssue always comes back to our secular security, it has worked well enough for most Modern civilisations. Islam is non-secular

"I agree with Tucker that polygamy introduces an element of instability, due to the abundance of unattached males."

-Archimedes

That's an interesting point Archimedes and Sylvester. I urge you both to read this article I just received in the mail in Foreign Policy magazine. Among other things, it discusses the geopolitics of an abundance of males in Asian countries. Polygamy was not mentioned, but it creates roughly the same effect as far Eastern family planning policies. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3376

There is no question that polygamy must never be allowed.

Raw Data,

Susan,

I don't believe that polygamy is necessarily socially-destructive if such intimate relationship is a undertaken by competent consenting adults. That's my answer. You don't agree? That's OK, I can't imagine in my worst nightmare seeing you as part of my harem.

I couldn't care less about your personal insults.

It is NOT your business who someone sleeps with or how they do it

Interested responded quite well.

As to the other statements, please don't BS us. You are the one who offered some very broad assertions. Now you come up with some weird pre-condition before you will explain. That's what BS'ers do. It sems obvious that you were just puffing and had nothing in mind; you don't have any facts or you would have offered them. My advice to you is not to offer broad factual assertions unless you can offer back-up.

I've been watching the Islam situation for a very long time. Some of us have been doing quite a lot more than posting occasional insults on internet talkboards.

And that is how the ideological argument unfolded in Europe: the Muslim immigrants won't change anything. This was the standard multicultural line in places like Holland up until Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a leftist who sympathized with Islam. In fact that still is the standard multicultural line even though it is being disproved every single day.

Pim Fortuyn was a warner about Muslim immigration, he started to sound the alarm in the mid-90s.

And he was first raked over the coals -- by the "decent" left -- for it. And eventually murdered -- by the indecent left --- for it.

Ah, I think I see your logic re how gay civil partnerships will lead to Sharia. Let me see if I have this right. Gays are bad and want "rights", just like Moslems wants "rights" (to Sharia). Therefore, gays are Moslems, will become Moslems (since they are PC bastards anyway) or are de facto Moslems since gays love Sharia (death sentence to gays). And since gays are the equivalent of Moslems, they will want Sharia so as to appease the Moslems for reciprocal support so we [gays] get the special "rights". Wow, it's so clear to me now.

After the US allows civil partnerships, Gays like me will soon serve on the local group of the Gay Sharia Vice and Virtue Squad. We can be brutal. Although I am not skilled in such observations, my squad won’t just be checking merely for bad hair or the coordination of your clothes and "incorrect" interior design, it'd be full force gay Sharia. After hearing abut the HBO program, we have already started such a group in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. We go door to suburban door to make sure strict gay Sharia is being followed correctly. We hope, inshallah, to take our squad throughout the US - to an area near you Susan. Woe be upon those that have bad hair or outdated clothes. Our gay Imam will be the guy from Queer Eye for The Straight Guy - the blonde guy. Latino will be our Minister for Vice.

Hello kaffir nonbeliever,

I'm sorry, but this is just irrational gibberish. I couldn't care less about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, blah. blah. Take your pre-conceived ideas about what I believe in or how I feel about gay people and shove them, please.

You know full well that under our common law system of precedence, the precedence of legalized gay marriage will be used to argue for the legalization of polygamy -- probably by the ACLU which has gone on record as supporting the legalization of polygamy BTW.

Gay partnerships are fine -- you can have them protected with private contractual agreements drawn up by a lawyer. You've always had that right BTW. But leave the legal definition of "marriage" alone, please.

The only relevant question is this: do we want more Muslims? Of course we don't. Polygamy will produce more Muslims. So we don't want it. It's a no-brainer.

It's not a no-brainer to those obsessed with ideological purity, like Raw Data. This type of pragmatism is beyond them.

Believe me, I have argued with social libertarians for a very long time -- those on both the left and the right (although the leftist stripe tend to be much nastier than the rightist ones, as Raw Data has proved).

They will never allow pragmatism to sully the purity of their ideological passions.

Susan,

I wish you would get more of a sense of humor, as well as a bit less BS.

Your statements suggest that you are expert in the history of European attitudes toward Muslim immigration. The immigration of Muslims goes back to post WW2. If you really knew about the history of Muslim immigration to Europe (or the USA) you would not offer Fortuyn, who only started speaking (and correctly I would agree) in the 90s.

And you would be able to offer more than your pompous "I've been watching the Islam situation for a very long time..."

"Gay partnerships are fine -- you can have them protected with private contractual agreements drawn up by a lawyer. You've always had that right BTW. But leave the legal definition of "marriage" alone, please."

-above

I will keep this short as the topic at hand is, and must be, Islam. It is a myth that gays have the legal ability to enter into agreements to attain such rights as you are suggesting. You are attempting to obfuscate the issue since you are irrationally opposed to gay partnerships. I have repeatedly said, and continue to say, I don't care about gay marriage. I was not joking. You can call whatever you want, and not make it marriage. For example, you could call it "filthy Sodomite unions", the "peoples of Lot/Lut partnerships or "unions of pillars of salt". All I want is full rights of inheritance, protection from the state, the exact same treatment for insurance, tax (state and federal) and retirement accounts as married couples enjoy. If you give me those things, you can call even it f_g unions, howz about that? Susan, I'll even throw in a reprieve when the gay Sharia Vice squad wants to flog you on your bad hair day, ok?

Kafir Nonbeliever - you may be interested to see how the civil partnership rules operate in the UK. This is not gay marriage, but it is something that would probably satisfy you. I think we are in agreement that civil partnerships for gay couples are fine, that gay marriage is not necessary and that polygamy is bad.

Even if you disapprove of homosexuality, the fact is that gay unions will not produce more gays. Polygamy will, however, produce more Muslims. Lots more. Let's be practical about this.

Kafir N - sorry, wrong link. I meant this.

The link I gave by mistake is to a really good blog, by the way:-)

Susan,

I wish you would get more of a sense of humor, as well as a bit less BS.

Your statements suggest that you are expert in the history of European attitudes toward Muslim immigration. The immigration of Muslims goes back to post WW2. If you really knew about the history of Muslim immigration to Europe (or the USA) you would not offer Fortuyn, who only started speaking (and correctly I would agree) in the 90s.

And you would be able to offer more than your pompous "I've been watching the Islam situation for a very long time..."

-------------------------------------------------

My name is Suzan, not "Susan." No, I'm not an "expert." Yes, I know that immigration of Muslims to the west goes back to post-WW2 -- in small lots. In bigger lots, it only goes back to the early 90s -- and that's when some people started to warn. And were ridiculed and persecuted for doing so -- primarily by the left.

Yes, I've been watching the Islam situation for a very long time, and doing more than that. I don't want to get specific because I don't want to end up living in a miltary bunker next to Geert Wilders. Capiche?

I'm against polygamy because it is socially destructive, oppressive to women, and as well, it would be very contributive to the growth of Islam in the West.

I'm against gay marriage because it would set a legal precedence for polygamy.

I'm also against the religious school vouchers and federally financed "faith-based" initiatives pushed by evangelical Christians, because this will also contribute to the growth of Islam in the West in the form of taxpayer-financed madrassahs and Islamic "charities" that are really a cover for financing jihadi activities against us.

Ideological fanatics like yourself will be the death of us, more than Islam. My opinion, take it or leave it.

When the subject is Islam, btw, I'm beyond having a sense of humor. For several personal reasons I don't care to share with the likes of you.

Even if you disapprove of homosexuality, the fact is that gay unions will not produce more gays.

Well, actually, in the case of the UK, gay civil unions HAVE produced more Muslims, Interested -- haven't you heard of the way that some UK Muslims are now using the gay civil union laws to import even more "partners" from the "old country" (most of them who are not even gay, btw -- they get a "divorce" or whatever from their "gay" partner when they get UK residence sorted-out and then import a cousin-bride after they get their "divorce") ? There was an article about it in some UK publication recently, I've forgotten which one. It may even have been featured on Jihadwatch.

Interested,

Indeed, under such a law, there is simply no need for marriage. It remedies the problems under the existing system we have in the US, which as you can see, many are being completely dishonest about. Gays will not cause the US to crumble (or lead to Sharia), as our numbers seem to be static throughout history and in every nation. Moreover, gays faithfully serve our nation serve in the armed forces and in all branches of the US government, and as such, should not be deemd enemies of the United States. Those who continue to say there is no problem; that can enter into full relationships contractually, are misrepresenting the truth.

I should note that there was a previous thread about gay unions and immigration. I think that I would a very good idea to carefully refine the rules there in the UK and make it much harder for those seeking to abuse the unions to stealthfully get additional Moslem "gay" immigrants in the UK or the Western world.

Social engineers always forget about the law of unintended consequences.

There was indeed a thread about gay marriage and immigration. All it amounted to was a couple of solicitors saying they might be prepared to do it. No actual instances of it happening. Even if it did, such "gay partnerships" could easily be detected.

It is a non-issue.

In the UK we have "precedent" too. But Civil Partnerships here have not led to polygamy, or even demands for polygamy.

But Civil Partnerships here have not led to polygamy, or even demands for polygamy.

Well, it's not strictly true that there have been no demands for polygamy in the UK. Some Muslim organizations have said they will sue for the right to have polygamy with the European Court. I haven't been following the case so I'm not sure of the status of that case.

They hardly need to go to the bother, though. At the rate Islam is growing in the UK with birth rate and the unchecked importation of cousin-brides from Pakistan and Bangladesh, they'll soon just be able to get the law changed to allow polygamy through legislation.

We'll all just have to agree to disagree on whether or not gay unions of any kind are softening up the Western world for polygamy.

I might accept "gay civil partnerships" but I'll be goddamned if I'll accept polygamy. That is where I draw the line.

"I'm against gay marriage because it would set a legal precedence for polygamy.

-Above

While I suspect this is not the real reason why you fear gay marriage, I will accept it at face value. Your argument has validity; I too am opposed to polygamy. Therefore, we must place careful safeguards by carefully drafting all laws/precedent to prevent gay unions from ever being used in that way. However, you seem to gloss over the argument of equal protection that gays are using to begin with. How could someone arguing for polygamy make that same argument when it is clearly not a denial of EP? You did not touch of the argument that Moslems would use: free exercise of religion/establishment of religion. It is the Christian Evangelicals that are pushing the Court so far to the right to accommodate their religion, they open to door to the Moslems for the free exercise/establishment argument. Thus the danger is not from gays, but from radical Christians. They have already damaged the constitution.

I'm also against the religious school vouchers and federally financed "faith-based" initiatives pushed by evangelical Christians, because this will also contribute to the growth of Islam in the West in the form of taxpayer-financed madrassahs and Islamic "charities" that are really a cover for financing jihadi activities against us. "

- Above

I agree 100%.

By the way, I don't appreciate being told to "shove it" when you are debating with me. It shows intellectual weakness on your part to attack me, and not my ideas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/791263.stm

Here you go interested, this is an old story but already 6 years ago they were pushing polygamy in the UK.

By the way, I don't appreciate being told to "shove it" when you are debating with me.

And I don't appreciate your irrational gibberish about Gay sharia police and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy etc. If telling you to shove these comments indicate "intellectual weakness" on my part then what does it indicate on your part that you put a huge amount of effort into writing these ludicrous comments in the first place.

It's called Comic relief suzan (intentionally not capitalized as you don't see fit to do so for others). And if it such non-sense, then explain in detail this grand theory re how gay partnerships will lead to Sharia?

Susan,
I will let you have the last word for now as your presumption and ignorance seems to know no bounds.

And if it such non-sense, then explain in detail this grand theory re how gay partnerships will lead to Sharia?

I thought I made that clear Kaffir. If polygamy is legalized because of the precedent of gay marriage or gay unions, the number of Muslims goes up, up up. Large numbers of Muslim voters = legalization of sharia. Muslims only account for 13 percent of the population in India but they've had a form of sharia for years. A sharia that has created all kinds of social problems for India and retarded their industrial development by quite I lot, I should point out.

Really it is so simple, I don't see how you cannot see it. I guess you are ideologically blind as well.

I will let you have the last word for now as your presumption and ignorance seems to know no bounds.

Suit yourself. You have not been able to respond to any of the points presented here about the social destructiveness of polygamy, but content yourself with replying with insults and rudeness. The reader can judge who came off better in the "debate."

Suzan - Muslims may well be demanding polygamy. My point was that this has not arisen because of the Civil Partnership Act. As yet there have been no cases of Muslims arguing for polygamous civil partnerships.

In other words, these are completely separate issues. Gay civil partnerships do not necessarily pave the way for polygamous marriage.

Suzan: "The reader can judge who came off better in the "debate.""

The winner is Suzan, hands down.

"You know full well that under our common law system of precedence, the precedence of legalized gay marriage will be used to argue for the legalization of polygamy"

You can take that to the bank!

As yet there have been no cases of Muslims arguing for polygamous civil partnerships.

In other words, these are completely separate issues. Gay civil partnerships do not necessarily pave the way for polygamous marriage.

Interested, that may well be the case in the UK -- although I don't know if it will last or not. It is not the case in the US. You don't understand the fanatical mindset behind the cultural warriors/human rights absolutists in the US. There is no concept of "this is good enough, we got 75 percent of what we wanted, let's quit."

It's all or nothing -- the ACLU hasn't contented itself with just kicking (Christian) prayer out of public schools -- they want to get rid of Halloween parties and Christimas trees too. All or nothing.

Maybe our friend Kaffir here is willing to settle for "civil partnerships" but many others on the gay marriage front want to redefine the legal definition of marriage -- again, all or nothing.

On the abortion side they are not willing to set a reasonable limit -- say at 12 or 14 weeks. They want all or nothing, unlimited abortion including into the third trimester.

Do you know that the US aka "Jesusland" actually has more liberal abortion laws than porn-loving, socialist Sweden? Sweden does not allow any abortions after 18 weeks in any case, but in the US you can get one without a doctor's okay up to 24 weeks and after that with a doctor's permission.

I support abortion as a necessary evil but I'm squeamish about second and third trimester abortions. Medical science is saving more and more prematurely born infants at earlier and earlier gestation periods. I find this very troubling.

Yet if I voiced opposition to second or third trimester abortions, even though I support first trimester ones, I would instantly be demonized by the "pro-choice" crowd as a fundamentalist right-wing Christian freak.

Again, this is because of the all or nothing mindset. When it comes to the cultural wars in the US, there's no concept of "close enough", let's settle on a reasonable middle ground.

I guess since Caroline has officially decided, there is no use for debates. The Vice and Virtue committee of our local Imams/Clerics/Priests has decided and rendered a verdict.

The ruling: I agree with person X, therefore person X has won the debate. I disagree with person Y, therefore, person Y has made a poor argument. Christian Sharia is the law of the law forth-with. Proceed.

The UN would be the perfect place to initiate a global debate.

Posted by: Silvester at March 12, 2006 10:24 AM

Global debate on relevant issues is not on the UN's agenda.
The UN is not the "perfect place" for anything but the exchange of irrelevant bullshit, procrastination, dithering, pompous grandstanding, diplomatic doubletalk, and denial of the crucial issues it was created to address, like Iran's nuclear program. It is a spawning pool for inept, money -sucking bureacracies, an abyss of corruption, graft, and cronyism that wastes billions of dollars, and a deliberate encumbrance to the world peace and stability it was created to sustain. It is nothing but a hotbed of international politicians aligned against the interests of the United States, its largest financial contributor. Some say we should remain a party to this travesty so we will know what the "international community" is up to. I disagree. Let them finance their "destroy America" campaign elsewhere. I feel absolutely no kinship whatsover with people who hate me, my country, and want to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S.

The UN is a malignancy, a bloated, ugly beast that aims to impose its socialist, globalist agenda on every human being on earth, and rob every sovereign nation of its independence and freedom. It seeks to tax without representation, to arbitrarily impose its will on the world, to redistribute the world's, (especially the United States',) wealth, and to reign supreme as a global dictatorship. The fatuous bureaucrats who make policy at the UN are all cut from the same cloth; they are cloistered elites, pretentious social engineers who plan to use live subjects in their diabolical, untested, utopian experiments. The UN should be dismantled forthwith, before it causes more irreparable damage to the United States and the rest of the free world.

Interested

"The argument is not about who people sleep with, it is about who they marry."

Well said. Some people just can't distinguish between one concept and another. Marriage is not the same as any of the sexual/gender/economic permutations one chooses to engage in private life: hippy communes/households (there was one on the street I lived years ago, and nobody bothered them, and I have a good inkling that they wouldn't have liked to be "coopted" by mainstream culture and have their lifestyle institutionalized)
Sri Rajneesh-style ashrams (with one top male, a guru, having access to multiple females, multiple homosexual roommates/households, with freely chosen division of resources and chores, swinging adults, 2 women and a male combinations, 2 men and a woman partnerships, "open" marriages where both spouses can contractually have affairs outside marriage--and so on and on. The possibilities are, shall we say, infinite. And so are the vagaries and sentiments and whims and needs of loosely-tied groups, especially those constitued mainly on sexual needs, or political needs.

Society has a huge stake in the stability of marriage, not just for the sake of the children--undisputably much better off in solid, stable marriages--but also in the non-reproductive ones, like childless couples. What we call the "nuclear family," with children or childless, is the most important institution of human civilization. Not the tribe, not Hillary Clinton's "village," not even the nation/state, in its most vile incarnation, the communist state.

Marriage has to be rooted in "natural law," that is biology, a male and a female and the result of their copulation, the child, a union meant to protect the hapless, dependent human baby. Marriage is extended to infertile couples because society recognizes the huge value of contractual commitments based on gender complemetarity, even in the absence of a child. Society has no abiding institutional interest in uni-gender unions. They may be tolarated, and even afforded institutional status, but they mean very little to a society's survival, when much of the resources have to go into caring for the products of free, gendered copulations, or the products of disunited couples, such as divorce.

Many unconventinal living arrangements, will be used as social precedents for islamic poly, and some for legal attempts.

Our defence is our secular society, Morman Moonie and Islamic marriage systems have all traditionally gotten the thumbs down from Modernity.

scuse my spelling, very sleepy here in Oz.

Christian Sharia is the law of the law forth-with. Proceed.

"Christian Sharia" is an absurd no go. Being opposed to gay marriage is not introducing something new, it is simply about being for keeping what we already have (and have had for centuries.) There is no "Christian sharia" in play here.

"I guess since Caroline has officially decided, there is no use for debates."

Nonsense. I simply rendered my opinion as to who had won. Of course there is a use for debates.

"The ruling: I agree with person X, therefore person X has won the debate. I disagree with person Y, therefore, person Y has made a poor argument."

Well yes. But then isn't that the purpose of a debate? To sway opinion? So of course the person who sways your opinion in their favor has "won" the debate! Hey, it's just my opinion OK? I'm just one member of the jury.

So my vote is: No to gay-marriage. No to polygamy. (The latter clearly being the slippery slope endpoint of the former). I'll be more than happy to reconsider after the Islam problem is solved. (actually, I always completely supported gay marriage UNTIL I recognized the slippery slope in combination with the Islam problem).

So kick me off the jury. Admittedly I was prejudiced from the outset.

Dana

"Nothing protects gay rights more than the individual-based system of rights we have in western civilization."

Brilliant. I would just add: Nothing protects gay rights more than a stable, secure female-male institutional union at the basis of states such as those in the West.

Its not just gay partners in the end islam will use anything it can, from custody of children, open marriage, sharehousing and bill sharing, defacto or just living together, duel ownership of property etc, anything they can weedle their way with. It may be via islamic poly or via islamic finacial systems or islamic divorces. It may be a social precedent merged to a legal attempt.

We can't drop support of everythign in the West.

We are better off I think to just say NO to any islamic standerd we don't like with the rights given to us all by a secular society

We are better off I think to just say NO to any islamic standerd we don't like with the rights given to us all by a secular society.

That's not the way it works in a common-law-ruled society.

"I'll be more than happy to reconsider after the Islam problem is solved. (actually, I always completely supported gay marriage UNTIL I recognized the slippery slope in combination with the Islam problem)."

Sure you did. Wink wink. After the coming of the King, then we can "deal" with gays. In the meantime, they cannot have any rights. I got it.

Kafir: "Sure you did. Wink wink."

Maybe now would be a good time to consider your own prejudices.

In the meantime, they cannot have any rights. I got it.

Gays do have rights in our society of course. There is no gay apartheid, no gays are being put in jail for being gay, no gays are having stonewalls knocked onto them.

They don't have the right to redefine marriage, that's all. But to Kaffir, that translates into "gays cannot have any rights."

All or nothing, as I said before. The cultural warriors don't care what they are doing to or will be doing to this society. They just want what they want, period.

All or nothing, as I said before

And of course, if you disagree with anything the cultural warriors want, you're a fundamentalist right-wing Jesus freak who worships Jerry Falwell in a secret Satanic ritual of hate.

Both Caroline and I have now had the "Jesus freak" card played on us by obsessive fanatical cultural warriors. I have never seen Caroline express any religious views whatsover here, and neither have I.

But we're both right-wing intolerant Jesus freaks, wink wink.

Methinks that you Kaffir and your friend Raw Data should find some new rhetorical weapons to hurl, as your favorite one seems to be losing its effectiveness.

Kafir can imagine whatever he likes about me. I couldn't care less. My eye is on the ball. And where gays are concerned that means understanding what is best for them in the long run, whether Kafir "gets it" or not. I'm not for one second going to betray the millions of other homosexuals who will follow in Kafir's footsteps just because Kafir himself doesn't get it and is in a pique over the fact that he will not be able to get married in his lifetime.

I've got news for you Kafir. The cultural warriors before you already demolished the sanctity of marriage even for heterosexuals. Were you born recently or something? Did you miss the "swinging 60's"? Didn't you ever read Betty Friedan? Marriage is a trap? Marriage is slavery? Why do you think the west has such an epidemic number of even heterosexuals living outside the bonds of marriage? I should know. I spent some 16 years living with the opposite sex outside of that so-called abominable institution "marriage". Now, those same cultural warriors, want to impress upon us how very important and necessary and sacred it is to be permitted to MARRY! How very important it is for one's "self-esteem" to be permitted to enter into the very sacred bonds of marriage.

Well I call foul on that! I don't buy for one second that now homosexuals are suffering some insult because they cannot get married. It's f**cking laughable frankly coming as it does from the very same folks who previously completely sold the west on the idea that marriage=slavery!

In short - LOL. Calling that bluff. Yes to equitable civil laws regarding gays. NO to gay-marriage. NO to polygamy. And Up-Yours to anyone who assumes that I'm some right-wing Christian bigot for understanding what has happened to our society and how as a result we are ALL in peril now from the encroachment of Islam - gays included big time - whether they choose to recognize it or not.

Raw Data

"someone would mix-up polygamy with gay marriage."

Cool off, buddy, get a grip of your grammar. Prepositional verbs like "mix up" are spelled without a hyphen. They do get a hyphen when they become adjectives describing a noun. That's why I wrote "cool off," and not "cool-off."

Watch this:

1. The evil colonists mixed up with the natives and produced mongrel babies.(verb/predicate)

2. There was such an evil mix-up of race and status in the colonies that the ruling party thought it was time to put a stop to it.(adjective)

Got it? Don't mix me up w

This info is for Raw Data who seems to think polygamy is just dandy within the context of consenting adults...unfortunately, adults are not the only ones involved:

http://www.geocities.com/wsimister/chapman8.htm

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy29.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/08/polygamy/

from David Tuft's voluntaryxchange blog;
"The largest polygamous sect in the U.S. is a criminal racket......
The FLDS sect - which practices polygamy - has a strong presence in 3 states and a Canadian province, and membership running into the mid 5 figures. It has engaged in bank fraud, mortgage fraud, welfare fraud, misallocation of tax dollars, blatant theft, and a host of other activities. It's leader is on the FBI's most wanted list, and has been on the run for over a year. It maintained a police department and local judicial system in which violaters of the law were allowed to keep jobs - just this morning a polygamist judge who had been on the bench for over 20 years was removed from office. Sect members also systematically looted a school district of both physical and more intangible wealth. All of this is summarized in my subject category - and I don't include everything I see or hear about in the local news. Please note that my argument carries considerable weight without the need to be extended to the murkier but widely known mistreatment of women and children within this sect.

N.B. The FLDS sect is an offshoot of the LDS church, but these groups consider each other apostate. It is relatively common for members of the latter to disparage the former. While I live among an LDS majority, I am not LDS, and I hope that my position is not viewed as a knee-jerk response based on faith."

It's pretty clear that if you do a little research, polygamy is as good for women as islam is for muslims. And it's bad for a free, modern western society.

INTERESTED is right on the money pointing out that the tax payer usually foots the bill for polygamist muslims, mormoms, little green men, it DOESN'T MATTER!!! What man can really support multiple wives and all the children produced in society?

OOPS....
that should be "mormons".
But "mormoms" is a pretty funny typo!

Caroline, thank you. Agree with every freakin' word.

What man can really support multiple wives and all the children produced in society

And what man can be a real father to 20 or 30 children produced from multiple wives? He can't, and then we must live with (and pay for) the social problems of misfits(particularly young men) who grow up without adequate fatherly parenting.

I live in Hollywood -- this is simply Hollywood's shallow cartoon take on Christian sensibilities -- and their cynical attempt to "reach out" to the "Passion of the Christ" crowd while retaining their "We Hate the Passion of the Christ Crowd" crowd...

Along with other fiascos like "The Book of Daniel" featuring a drug suffused sex suffused hypocrisy suffused "Christian" family -- it says more about Hollywood's psychology (or psychosis) than any other. But it's psychosis just the same. Billboards are all over the strip advertising this -- At first I wondered what the three rings on the guy's finger were all about... It's beyond absurd, even for someone residing here -- If I could somehow "short" the stock on this show, I'd plow every dollar I own into the investment -- so doomed to fail --

But in a weird way -- this also works to reinforce Hollywood's fantasy version of reality -- if this and other attempts fail -- then the orthodoxy about the unprofitability of "Christian" freindly broadcasting will simply be reinforced -- nevermind they got it all wrong -- nevermind their version of Christian friendly couldn't be more insulting to most true Christians --

I have said here many times before that I'm a dedicated agnostic and a lifelong liberal Democrat -- but the older I get, the more I see how the zealots in the left need to take the most extreme examples of anything they despise, and then attempt to paint them as the norm -- This allows them to wallow in rage, and rail against their false constructs. It is a disease the extreme right also suffers from, but currently in the world today -- and especially among the leaders in the Media -- this is mainly a leftist phenomenon... And their target enemies list -- Christians, Republicans, Conservatives, Capitalists, Americans in general, US Military, CIA, and Corporate America bear the brunt of Hollywood's and Western Media's rabid hatred and smear jobs.

Very true jsla. The extreme cultural warriors have no concept of ever stopping and accepting "good enough". They must forever find new "rights" to fight for and new classes of "victims" to advocate for. Today it's the "victims" of monogamy they "advocate" for -- tomorrow --who knows?

If they took it into their heads to advocate tomorrow to legalize cannibalism between "consenting adults", they would demonize anyone who opposed the idea as a "rightwing fundamentalist Christian bigot."

We have to accept their whole agenda, all the way down the line, or be demonized. That much is clear. I just say "no."

Suzan: "I just say "no.""

Me too. NO. No. No. No. No. No. No!

Oh yeah. And I SPIT on anyone who doesn't "get it".

Seriously. I am that pissed off.

And also, as a side note, - you go Suzan! You are doing one hell of a bang-up job!

I'll admit that I haven't seen the show, and only heard the "buzz"... I therefore may be guilty of a premature eructation in my post above... My assessment of Hollywood's tactics is accurate though, and I also agree that this show is peripherally related to the Jihadists onslaught against Western norms.

In a pre 9/11 world, such a show wouldn't bother me in the least -- in a post 9/11 world, I am deeply concerned when I see efforts made to dismantle or undermine Western norms... I know, I know -- "Western norms" is a very subjective term... But now, more than ever, I believe we must examine what those "norms" are, and hopefully the place to start is agreeing that there are "norms" in the first place, and that they should be examined, and honored if they're worth keeping.

Buying into a pre 9/11 notion that there are no "Western norms", or that every "norm" is relatively just as valuable as every other, or that "norms" aren't importatant in the end -- all of this notions appear potentially poisonous to me -- It's a framework which invites destruction of good along with bad.

"If they took it into their heads to advocate tomorrow to legalize cannibalism between "consenting adults", they would demonize anyone who opposed the idea as a "rightwing fundamentalist Christian bigot." -- Suzan

As absurd as your example may appear -- In Germany there was a trial recently -- One man cannibalized another, but apparently this was an arrangement in which the eatee consented to being eaten by the eator -- Some Germans were having difficulty understanding whether or not anything amiss had happened -- Was this a crime? A civil matter? A transgression at all?

Germany also gave us the first trial of an Al Qaida conspirator -- they indicted Motossadeq for abetting the 9/11 hijackers, and found him "guilty" of assisting in the murder of nearly 3,000 souls. The punishment? The "maximum" German law allowed was, apparently, 15 years. He appealed this "conviction" on the grounds that the USA didn't allow full access to top secret Al Qaida detainees in their custody whom the terrorist said could exonerate him if allowed to testify... Piling absurdity upon absurdity, Germany's Supreme Court overturned his "conviction" because of the US rejection to allow him access... It seems to me like moral relativity run amok -- a system which first views a heinous gargantuan mass murder as simply another legal matter, then affixes a ludicrous "sentence" such as 15 years because that's all the law allows, (1.85 days per murdered soul, by the way) and then overturns the conviction on the basis that a Sovereign State didnt' bow to a German Appeals Court's demands... Sickening and outrageous.

Both stories are symptoms of some serious German cultural perversions...

And if you've ever heard Germans criticizing America... there's no end to the accusations that we're decadent, and rudderless -- devotees to the rule of the jungle -- morally bankrupt -- socially backward -- and a menace to the world! Moral relativism run amok!

As absurd as your example may appear -- In Germany there was a trial recently -- One man cannibalized another, but apparently this was an arrangement in which the eatee consented to being eaten by the eator -- Some Germans were having difficulty understanding whether or not anything amiss had happened -- Was this a crime? A civil matter? A transgression at all?

I know jsla. I read about that case. That's why I picked that particular example. With things like this happening in the West, and the endless demands on us to "tolerate" them in the name of open-mindedness, I can understand why even Islam starts to look appetizing to certain Western people.

I agree with you that "Big Love" will probably not catch on in the US. I think that millions of us are starting to understand the mortal danger that the cultureal wars have put us in and how they have sapped our strength to deal with the gravest threat to our existence we've faced since 1939. Millions of us are just saying "no" and opting out of this destructive ladder game. Hollywood has been slow to catch on.

Lawrence Auster has a post on polygamy and the "liberal" argument for legalizing it. I disagree with Auster on a lot of things, but on this, I think he has written a very perceptive post:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005240.html

I think it is interesting that those of us who are arguing against an age-old, patriarchical and oppressive institution against women, are considered the "conservatives" and those who are arguing for it are considered "liberals."

Yet in Muslim countries, those who want to ban polygamy are the "liberals" and those who want to keep it legal are the "conservatives."

It just goes to show you how completely muddled up the cultural wars have made our country and our civilization.

"And where gays are concerned that means understanding what is best for them in the long run, whether Kafir "gets it" or not."

This is the most amusing thread ever on this site.

Hey, I'm sorry your 16 year co-hab relationship did not work. Mine does, is that ok with you dear? It is only cohab since I cannot make it otherwise. You were so "sinful", but thank goodness, those sins were probably "washed away" by the lamb. The perfect alter from which you can now preach to me! Praise the Lord.

As for denying me the tax benefits of marriage and knowing what is best for me, I have to say it was very entertaining. And yes, I am glad you know what is best for me. Thank goodness for people like you. I suppose what is best for me is to cease living in sin! But for your vision, my entire family would have gone astray. I had better destroy my family at once! Now I see the light of my sinful ways! I am bowing my head and am ready to accept my Christian "shahada". /sarc

And now I am spittin' mad! Look at me as I shoot into the sky. *bang* *bang* I'm the gay Yosemite Sam. LOL

JSLA, your Western credentials are highly questionable. You indicate a change of views about life in general post 9/11. 9/11 was about 19 hijackers taking advantage of security loopholes. So 19 men changed your view about all things? 9/11 was very politically significant. I do not dispute that. But you speak as though 19 terrorists can bring you "to god" or "question" your beliefs. That is precisely what they want; the dismantlement of the Western world. Your change of view to all things demonstrates a victory to them. When the next attack comes, will you want to end all divorces too? After all, divorces are bad and we must battle relativism.

9/11 changed geopolitics, security, and illuminated us to Islamic war on us. It did not change our Western traditions. Do you want it to? Why are you quick to give the terrorists what they want?

Your logic: let a f_g have rights today, and who knows, we get more terror attacks? I have news for you. The terrorists will attack us no matter what.

It did not change our Western traditions.

And is gay marriage one of our "Western traditions" Kaffir? If so I seem to have missed it.

We must not forget this thread about this topic before with the topic discussed ad nauseaum.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009788.php

Your logic: let a f_g have rights today, and who knows, we get more terror attacks? I have news for you. The terrorists will attack us no matter what.

The cultural wars are sapping our intellecutal and moral strength and thus, are making it very difficult for us to fight Islam. I believe that is the major point that Caroline, jsla and I are all making.

If you haven't noticed, we're approaching the Fall of France, and panzer divisions are just getting ready to roll down the Champs Elysee.

You want to spend all your energy fanatically pursuing your own agenda, go ahead. Other people have different priorities. Myself among them.

Equal protection under the law is, yes, rooted in Western tradition and is found in the US constitution, albeit belatedly. We got that little baby when we stopped enslaving blacks. We have matured since the 18th century. I know, it's all moral relativism. I mean what, give the slaves some freedom, and look what the ask for next: equal protection! Oh the horror of modernism. It just never ends!

I cannot speak about the constitutions of El Salvador or Spain, only the one I know. And I thought we were talking about gay partnerships. Why are you so scared of those? I have said I don't care about marriage.

By the way, I spell my name with one F.

You're the one using the ugly epithet, Kafir Nonbeliever -- only you... As for questioning my "credentials" -- I could really care less what you think about me.

As for those who would use my arguments to augment their own bigotry -- or use my well reasoned logic to support hatred against gays for example -- that's their affair -- nothing could be further from the truth.

As a matter of fact, civil union among Gays -- FINE by me - you're hallucinating on your own extremism...

I'm always amused at the way a poster will come out and illustrate in situ an obersvation made previously in the thread - Usually such exhibitions are done by Muslim illustrating this or that point -- but here we see a perfect example of a somewhat extremist poster proving my point from above as if on cue:

"I see how the zealots in the left need to take the most extreme examples of anything they despise, and then attempt to paint them as the norm "

Kafir Nonbeliever has done this with my posts above - nowhere do I mention "Gay marriage", or use the ugly epithet "f_g -- Yet he must attempt to make it seem as if I did in order to express his infantile reactionary pabulum...

Go away, kid -- ya bother me...

Equal protection under the law is, yes, rooted in Western tradition and is found in the US constitution, albeit belatedly. We got that little baby when we stopped enslaving blacks. We have matured since the 18th century. I know, it's all moral relativism. I mean what, give the slaves some freedom, and look what the ask for next: equal protection! Oh the horror of modernism. It just never ends!

YEs, you're quick to throw the mantle of the civil rights movement over yourself, that's to be expected, as I said before. NAMBLA would do the same to justify legalization of sex between children and adults, btw. So would the pro-polygamist lobbiers.

But something tells me that Martin Luther King Jr., the devout Christian protestant preacher, would be astonished at the concept of "gay marriage" being all about the Western tradition of "equality under the law."

Like I said before, the civil rights movement is constantly hijacked and used to justify all kinds of broadsides in the culture wars.

All people here are asking about is a time-out in the cultural wars so we can fight Islam properly. But you want what you want, you are a fanatical cultural warrior, and that's that.

Shrug.

Equal protection under the law is, yes, rooted in Western tradition and is found in the US constitution, albeit belatedly.

No, it isn't. The 14th amendment is about equal rights for blacks, nothing else. Try again.

"You were so "sinful", but thank goodness, those sins were probably "washed away" by the lamb. The perfect alter from which you can now preach to me! Praise the Lord."

Kafir - You are so off base it's amazing.

"And yes, I am glad you know what is best for me. Thank goodness for people like you."

Well no - I'm NOT gonna argue with you there. When you're right you're right. What can I say?

"I suppose what is best for me is to cease living in sin! But for your vision, my entire family would have gone astray. I had better destroy my family at once!"

I would definitely recommend a psychiatrist before you act on that impulse!

Look Kafir, in all seriousness you are so far off-base as to where I am coming from that I don't even know where to begin. I have told you that I lived outside of wedlock for 16 years and now you are somehow turning that around on me in order to imply that I am some right wing Christian fundamentalist fanatic who would condemn you for living in sin! I mean seriously. How crazy is that?!

Please Kafir - step back! You are seeing Christian fundamentalist persecuters around every corner where they simply don't exist! Please don't go there because we need you! I mean that! We do!

Folks, I side with those who say that homosexual "rights" are part of the slippery slope to polygamy (a social bad) and all sorts of other nasty things.

And, as a "know-nothing" fundamentalist (Raw Data, I'm always amused at people who call me an ignoramus and can't spell at the same time--thanks), I must point out that we got on the slippery slope the day we ceased tying people to the cart's tail and flogging them out of town. No prophecy is possible now that the New Testament is complete--which means that Joe Smith and Brigham Young were no less liars and cheats than old Moe.

Please don't go there because we need you! I mean that! We do!

No, we don't Caroline, sorry to disagree with you. He puts his own agenda ahead of fighting the jihad. Such behavior is not needed at all.

Re the "Fall of France"

Oh brother, as if you can go fight 9 million Moslems in France. What are you, the female Rambo? If there is danger there, which I agree there is demographically, alert them and make your representative change our immigration rules here. Why not alert Chirac in writing of your fear that France will ceasing being French?

Don't get on a blog and imagine yourself at war in France. This is cyberspace with words and letters being posted on a discussion on polygamy. You people are starting to think your words on here are bullets flying at Magrebins in France. You are dreaming. They are not. Your words on this thread really are othing more that verbal attacks on some of your own allies and countrymen! It's ok, I am used to it. But whatever you do, don't pretend that by arguing to deny me rights you are saving France LOL!

And who said I don't want to stop Moslem immigration too?

Folks, I side with those who say that homosexual "rights" are part of the slippery slope to polygamy (a social bad) and all sorts of other nasty things.

I am not opposed to homosexual rights, I am opposed to the redifination of marriage from its traditional meaning. That is all.

Umm, I didn't mean "literally" the fall of France, Kafir. I meant that events of that significance are approaching the West while you push your cultural war agenda.

words on this thread really are nothing more that verbal attacks on some of your own allies and countrymen!

Right back at ya.

"Kafir Nonbeliever has done this with my posts above - nowhere do I mention "Gay marriage", or use the ugly epithet "f_g -- Yet he must attempt to make it seem as if I did in order to express his infantile reactionary pabulum..."

Jsla, I am sorry to mischaracterize your post by using that word. I was not appropriate for me to use that word while adressing myself to you. Indeed, you never used it. I can assure you that it was posted without malice but with clearly insufficient reflection. I took the time to write a serious reply to you since I respected many of the posts you have written over time. But I did not consider my words carefully enough. Again, please accept my apology for using a word you did not.

Hey, as an electronics engineer, I can fully accommodate an extra 3 husbands. Would this be conducive to the muslim way of life? And if not, why?

And I would add - those who continuously post these OT BS screeds do no service to their cause, and degrade this JW site as well...

It takes a marginal mentality to continue thus, Kafir Nonbeliever -- you're way off base -- and way off topic.

I've coined a phrase which is perhaps apt here: "Some people are too dumb to know how dumb they are..." If the shoe fits, wear it -- although such a person would not understand what I'm talking about, and would be unable to stop illustrating the truth of my adage...

"Equal protection under the law is, yes, rooted in Western tradition and is found in the US constitution, albeit belatedly.

"No, it isn't. The 14th amendment is about equal rights for blacks, nothing else. Try again. "

-above

You are obviously not well versed in the Constitutional case law.

"Umm, I didn't mean "literally" the fall of France, Kafir. I meant that events of that significance are approaching the West while you push your cultural war agenda."

Really? Your words betray you. You believe there is a crusade happening right now. Previously, you wrote: [p]anzer divisions are just getting ready to roll down the Champs Elysee.

Which divisions are those? Terrorist threats indeed, but Panzer divisions of people from what, the likes of Sierra Leone or Mali?

True JSla, but I admit to an entertainment factor. But yes, off topic for sure.

Really? Your words betray you. You believe there is a crusade happening right now. Previously, you wrote: [p]anzer divisions are just getting ready to roll down the Champs Elysee.

Which divisions are those? Terrorist threats indeed, but Panzer divisions of people from what, the likes of Sierra Leone or Mali?

O dear, you are really quite dense, aren't you? As in the case where you could not grasp the connection between gay marriage, polygamy and the eventual implementation of sharia until I spelled it out for you.

I did not mean that there were literally panzer divisions waiting to cruise down the Champs Elysee. It was a WWII metaphor. The Fall of France, the Nazis marching down the Champs Elysee toward the Arc, the fat French guy who was photographed with tears rolling down his eyes while watching it? Ring a bell? How old are you anyways, and have you never studied history?

I meant that we are facing an incident of that magnitude in the war against the Islamic jihad. I don't know what form it will take. But I do believe it is coming, while you sit here and babble about your tax problems and shriek inaccurate insults at anyone you fantasize being a "Christian fundamentalist".

Even as you post more and more, I begin to think that you are simply worthless in the war against the jihad. You understand nothing.

The sense I get from what little I've heard about the show strikes me like less of a celebration of polygamy, but more of a "making a spectacle out of strange people" show, sort of along the lines of Trading Spouses or The Simple Life.

Premium cable has been getting out into left field (no pun intended) anyway, brought to you by the same people who packed the Oscars with agenda-driven films this year-- Danny Glover's pro-Castro documentary comes to mind as another example on those channels, and there was the Reagan bio that got picked up by Showtime when CBS declined to run it.

This particular series may mark premium cable's "jumping the shark" as far as seeking out the bizarre is concerned.

May it be a flop of epic proportions.

Have any of you open-minded people ever thought that

1. it might make sense to watch the show before offering an opinion of it?

2. it might end up showing the down-side of polygamy?

Honestly, I haven't run across such a bunch of premature opinionators in a while.

I guess you didn't read the rest of the article, Raw Data -- strange, given your handle... From one of the horse's mouths...

"...Tripplehorn), the matriarch of the family of sister-wives.
"When I first heard what it was about, I thought, 'What could this possibly be?' And then I read it, and it was so human," said Paxton, who also starred in "Aliens" and "Weird Science." "I believe in tolerance, and that is what I saw in this. I suppose it's like a weird persecution that these people are kind of facing, and they are just living their choice."

It goes on from there. Perhaps you should read what other people are responding to before you respond to them and, in essence, accuse them of not knowing what they're commenting about? Just an idea -- one which you seem to embrace, but not practice...

(or would that be like a weird persecution?)

"I believe in tolerance, and that is what I saw in this. I suppose it's like a weird persecution that these people are kind of facing, and they are just living their choice."

Yup, it's about "tolerance" -- for anything and everything the cultural warriors care to shove down our throats. No, they won't stop at polygamy -- they need their perpetual cultural war to justify their existence. NAMBLA here we come. Forced marriages, here we come. No limits in the pursuit of "equal rights" will be accepted or respected.

A union of bodies,
a union of hearts,
a union of minds,
results in a union of spirit
where the parts become a whole
greater than its sum,
the merging of two
to become one
everyone longs for
and few know how to find.

I have read all the responses here on polygamy. And have confirmed the ignorance and lack of education and personal and organizational opinions of different world religions! Ok world time to do some research before being ignorant about the history of Polygamy. Christians and Catholics practiced Polygamy openly in all of Europe until towards the end of the roman empire. Polygamy was practiced in Europe until medieval times. Polygamy was practiced by nearly all religions: Hinduism Hinduism does not prohibit polygamy, nor encourage it..
Judaism, Although classical Jewish literature indicates that polygamy was permitted, the various segments of Judaism have now outlawed polygamy. The first was Ashkenazi Jewry, which followed Rabbenu Gershom's ban since the 11th century. However, there are some who claim the ban was a temporary measure that no longer applies according to the Jewish law and want to restore polygamy. See Jewish Doctrines Pertaining To Polygamy. Some Sephardi and Mizrahi groups only discontinued polygamy much more recently, to the point that the State of Israel had to make provisions for polygamic families immigrating after its 1948 creation. Many Jewish families from countries such as Iran and Yemen were assimilated to the general common culture of a family made up of a man, two or more wives, and their children.
Christianity Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy, and wrote about it in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15, paragraph 17), where he stated that though it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." He declined to judge the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. In another place, he wrote, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living [emphasis added]." Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in his "Beichtrat," [2] i.e., "confessional advice", written to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse (December 10, 1539), Martin Luther advised the Landgrave to keep his second marriage a secret to avoid public scandal (De Wette-Seidemann, vol.6, pp.238-244. letter # MMDVI - 2506. German Text) [3]. Fifteen years prior to this, on January 13, 1524, Luther had written to Chancellor Gregor Brück (1483-1557) [4], saying that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." "Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis." (De Wette, vol. 2, p.459. # DLXXII - 572. Latin text). The radical Anabaptists of Münster also practiced polygamy, but they had little influence after the defeat of the Münster Rebellion in 1535. Other Protestant leaders including John Calvin condemned polygamy, and sanctioned polygamy did not survive long within Protestantism.
"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them." Larry O. Jensen, A Genealogical Handbook of German Research (Rev. Ed., 1980) p. 59 [5].
The modern trend towards frequent divorce and remarriage is sometimes referred to by conservative Christians as 'serial polygamy'
And the last to religions that everone knows of are, Mormonism and Islam. I will allow anyone who wishes to actually learn the facts to do the leg work and research the last two for them selves.
My point is that if you teach 3 generations that something is not correct than from that point they will believe that is the way it has always been. People by nature do not like change! If change is forced upon them they will either fight or runaway. The mormans ran away and were with in 100yrs drove underground.
Only a few countries openly allow polygamy. The US is over 100 yrs behind Europe in accepting morality. World TV, shows how much we as a nation restirct information from our population. In most of Europe, alcohal is available to young teens, there alochal abuse rate is lower than the US. Sex in Europe is openly discused and sexual images are on the nightly news. And again there teen pregancy rates are lower than the US. Majuana is allowed in several Europen countries, but other drugs are strongly controled! The use of Majuana is low compaired to Teens in the US. But they have a problem with the tighly controled drugs. ( If you take anything and make it Illegal, tighly control access and make it Taboo. Then it has a stronger alure to the young.) If you control it, regulate it and make it legal, you have control over its use. But if you look at Polygyny in the US. It is a TAX law in many states. The 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, allowed individual states to outlaw polygamy.

TC:
"The US is over a hundred years behind Europe in accepting (im)morality."

What i can see happen with poligamy is that the poor traditional monagamous couple will pay taxws and the poligimous ones will get the benifits of almost unlimited ways of hiding income with lots of income deductions as you just keep on adding members so taxes paid becomes nill. So you poor old monagomous people or single end up paying all the income taxes. HA HA,When the level of income gets too high the poligimous will get another spouce and another and family so that income is spread like a corporation and wealth is kept at home so the rest pay.

I give up. You folks are so imaginative. You want to read into others' statements your own fantasies rather than what was actually said. I have run across many people on the web with whom I disagree. But this group takes the cake for poor reading comprehension.

Per the article which TC (?) suggested. Thanks. Very interesting but irrelevant to MY statement. I didn't say that polygamy was advisable for everyone or without potential abuse. Is monogamy perfect? Obviously not.

All I said is that is that polygamy -- and of course that includes common law relationships -- is the business of the parties. Don't like it? Don't do it.

Furthermore it's not really something you can stop. Suppose two women and a man decide to get together in some sort of committed relationship. They form an LLC and buy a house. They agree amongst themselves how to pay the mortage and who inherits etc etc & etc Is it any of your concern in which beds they sleep? If you say "yes" then you are kinkier than I woould have expected.

•••

Anyway, as side-note, please do learn how to read.

This thread is a good example of how the cultural wars have weakened our society. Lord help us, we are going down if they are not stopped.

Furthermore it's not really something you can stop. Suppose two women and a man decide to get together in some sort of committed relationship. They form an LLC and buy a house. They agree amongst themselves how to pay the mortage and who inherits etc etc & etc Is it any of your concern in which beds they sleep? If you say "yes" then you are kinkier than I woould have expected.

Yup, they can do that, and nobody can stop them. But it's not "marriage."

Once this show's poly-gamey sparkle dulls, they can pull out more of the cultural stops for their next offering:

"Lonely Buck and his Ewes a touching t.v. tale of a shepherd and the fleecy little flock that made a remote hut a happy home. Episode One-"Interspecies Means Never Having To Say You're Human".

Guest star- a Muslim halal butcher suggests a funny way to celebrate Eid, although the sheep object.

Since there is a desire to use biblical text as a source of laws, it is high time we familiarized ourselves with it. For your convenience, I have provided some easy-to-read visual aids to do just that.

Bestiality prohibitions?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/beastiality/lv18_23a.html

Homosexuality?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/homosexuality/lv18_22.html

Requiring "proof of virginity" from one's new bride-to-be
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_13.html

When is it ok to marry your sister in law?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_marry_your_sister-in-law/dt25_05a.html

Biblical rules on sexual cleanliness:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_19a.html

Biblical rules on Transvestism:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/transvestism/dt22_05a.html

What about polygamy, is it ok in the source of law many here suggest we ought to use in the “Western world” ? Let us examine that question:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html

Perhaps since we are all so adamant about not having Sharia as the source of our law, perhaps we ought not look to biblical law as the source of our laws either. I'm sure some of will all agree.

Since there is a desire to use biblical text as a source of laws, it is high time we familiarized ourselves with it.

No one talked about basing opposition to polygamy on "Biblical laws." Who has talked bout using "Biblical laws" to legislate anything here? Again, you are twisting and distorting what people here have said to push your own selfish agenda. You want what you want, and that's it; you won't accept any other viewpoints and you keep pushing the false "Christian sharia" idea over and over again because you have run out of arguments.

Classical tradition is one important aspect of Western Civilization; Judeo-Christianity is another.

Both are important; both are essential to who we are. We spent many long years to achieve a synthesis of our various cultural influences and arrive at who we are today -- the most advanced civilization the world has ever known, the one and only civilization where such age-old evils as slavery, child labor, and polygamy have been eliminated, and where the vast masses of ordinary people have a standard of living and amount of freedom surpassing that which kings had only a couple of centuries ago.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep what we have. Nothing wrong with it at all.

Raw Data

You seem to be approaching this issue from a Libertarian standpoint i.e. it's nobody's business if, say, men M1, M2, M3 want to marry women W1, W2 & W3 (each man being married to each woman, knocking off the polygyny vs. polyandry dispute). As was pointed out, this would be a vehicle for Muslims to overrun the world in demographics over 2-3 generations.

Since the main argument against it has been that it would put a humongous welfare burden on the rest of taxpayers, I am curious as to whether you are Libertarian from a fiscal standpoint as well? I think polygamy can be prevented from being a burden on the rest of society if we implement just a few things:

- Eliminate all social programs for welfare recipients across the board
- Have a flat tax that eliminates all exemptions and deductions for marriage, kids, homes, charity, et al. (Other than Steve Forbes, Pootie Poot implemented a flat tax of 13% in Russia, and made all the past economic woes go away.)
- Abolish government recognition of marriage, period. If religious people want to get married, they can go to their church/synagogue/whatever, and include certification. If athiests want to marry, they can have a notary attestation in the presense of, say, 10 witnesses and move on. Only reason for this evidence gathering is so that for children later on, the status of both parents are known.
- Allow Gay, and any other civil unions. If Mr X & Miss Y want to cohabit instead of marrying, let them. In other words, things like hospital visitation rights, rights of succession, etc can be recognized if 2 people are living in such an union.

Once all this is implemented, let's say that Imam Imran Hamza Fuckeruddin bin Obeidullah wants to bring in his 4 wives from Doha. He can, but when he files his taxes, no spousal exemptions, none of the 'Single filing, Married filing jointly, Married filing separately' issues. Every one would be taxed the flat amount, and has to file their own taxes, or face deportation or jail. If Begum Obeidullah 1, 2, 3, 4 are earning squat, and are just walking around all day barefoot and pregnent, guess what! Imam is on his own. Once he has to be the one to pay for not only his 4 wives but his 30 children, he'll get the message. If the kids are neglected, social services move in and confiscate them, and send them into foster homes. If he goes on to create another 13 kids, he loses them as well to infidels.

That way, the harem master can breed all he wants, but the West won't end up with a Mohammedan majority. Kids that are born won't be paid for until they are in the hands of responsible parents that can care for them. In the process, the infidel population grows, courtesy the Mohammedans, while in the meantime, unable to support themselves, Imam Obeidullah and wives return to Doha.

Fait accompli. Do I support polygamy? No. But only for the reason you stated - the well being of the kids. Only one thing - if 2 people are in a monogamous marriage, I'd make it incumbent on both spouses to agree before a 3rd spouse can be admitted. That way, the wife cannot be forced into a situation where she is subject to manipulation by co-wives. If she is stupid enough to agree to this, she is on her own.

On the topic of Islam, Muslim immigrants have shown themselves to be a threat to the countries they have occupied, regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous. By bringing this topic up, the message being suggested here is that it's okay for monogamous Muslims to settle in the West, but not polygamous Muslims. This is sounding like the moderate Muslims discussions we have so often on J/W and D/W. Fact is given that Muslim immigration is a Trojan horse that's entering the West, we should not allow any Muslims - monogamous or polygamous - into the lands of dar-ul-Harb.

Christians and Catholics practiced Polygamy openly in all of Europe until towards the end of the roman empire. Polygamy was practiced in Europe until medieval times.

Well that's a contradiction in two sentences. In the first sentence "polygamy" for Christians ended at the end of the Roman empire in Euope. Next sentence, "polygamy" in Eupore continued into the medieaval period.

Examples please TC, names, towns, dates, and source. Because in 45 years of enthusiasim for European history, I have only come across one instance of a man having 2 women at the same time both described as wives. That was King Canute who fathered sons, who both went on to become Kings of England, by Emma of Normandy, who was his official wife in England, and Aelgifu in Denmark. In Denmark Aelgifu had the status of wife, but in England was regarded as his "bit on the side" for when he travelled abroad. I believe the Danes felt the same about Emma. So not formal polygamy as we discuss it here.
The Vikings (pillage aside)and Anglo Saxons gave women a higher status and more rights within marriage than the Norman French Salic law that came later.
I appreciate that this is OT, and on a thread already OT, but I disagree that polygamy is a European institution within recorded history.

Granny

How about Henry VIII?

Henry VIII was a serial monogamist, not a polygamist, albeit rather free with his chopper.

Exactly.
Henry VIII did not marry Anne Boleyn until after his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The divorce was not recognised by many people, including Catherine herself, which to them made Anne Boleyn a whore, not a legal co-wife.

Roman law upheld strict monogamy. Greek law favoured monogamy for Greeks in mainland Greece. Alexander the Great got away with it because he was,
a, really Macedonian,
b only married foreign wives for political reasons in countries like Sogdiana and Persia where polygamy was more the custom
c Prefered men anyway. And most important,
d he was in charge and had a loyal army to back him up.

Of course Henry VIII had VIII wives - Catherine the Arrogant, Anne of Cloves, Lady Jane Austen etc.

None of whom were the Princess of Wails the Austin Princess.

Polygamy's 'Lost Boys' expelled from only life they knew
Sect's outcasts are casualties of marriage practice

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/19/polygamys_lost_boys_expelled_from_only_life_they_knew/

A lot of welfare fraud in the areas where this os practiced too (us working joes pay for it).

-another brand of lawlessness
-another brand of slavery
-another brand of evil

also google "babyland" .

1. It's not logical to think that polygamy would produce more children. It would only produce fewer fathers (assuming a rough balance of men and women.)

2. Anyone who actually watched the show and still thinks it's pro-polygamy watched a different show than I did.

3. I am out of here.

Infidelpride----------------cynical bugger

Wow. 130+ comments. I read them all, repetitive ’though the argument oft did turn; and I have the following observations, starting on the thread’s topic and moving toward the more site-relevant issue of Islam:

1. Regarding the off-topic debate of polygamy, gay marriage, etc., I have argued that Mormons who fail to support gay marriage either are possessed of short memories or are hypocrites:

http://www.sopef.org/Log/2005/03/Connubial.Irony

Of course, I am against the extant institution of marriage, period. I say that not to start a flamewar, but to make it clear forthrightly from where I am coming.

2. Out of nearly sevenscore comments, only one (by Infidel Pride) proposed a sane and principled approach to the polygamy issue. Make of that what you will.

3. Marriage is not the fundament of civilization, nor is it the basic social unit. The social unit of civilized society is the individual; and societies tend toward civilization inversely proportional to their recognition of this. Without the individual, there are no rights or responsibilities. Such a basic principle is crucial to any principled stand against barbarian cultures, including Islam.

4. Some of the “culture warriors” on the thread have criticized the Left for failing to be pragmatic and reach a 70% compromise. From this, I infer that these same people also see pragmatic compromise as an acceptable result for their own ends.

I warn you: You shall not win any wars, cultural or otherwise, through pragmatic compromise. Principle is the only bastion for truth, whether the fight is against Islam or any other evil force. Far from rejecting compromise, the Left uses it incessantly—not to give, but to get. Marxism has infiltrated American society through an endless series of small compromises, none of which the “culture warriors” had the certitude (or frankly the spine) to stamp out. Near-death by a thousand cuts it has been, with an Islamic sword poised to strike the final blow.

5. The most important take-home point I have for this thread:

Suzan stated several times that Islam could leverage different marriage arrangements as precedential in our common-law system. This is a good point; however, she concludes therefrom that we must avoid the precedent, and in this she is mistaken.

The presence of Islam has already forced us to change the way Western societies function. We have been forced to expend absurd resources on tightened security measures within the very hearts of our communities; cartoonists (and writers!) now must carefully consider their work and take precautionary measures prior to publication; and all the while, Islam continues to encroach bit by bit. Far from buying us the security we need, our attempts to compensate for the presence of Islam are only weakening us over the long run. And now, we are supposed to consider Islam-related ramifications when we decide what court precedents we wish to set?

No, I say! Never, a thousand times! Let not the governance of civilized people be changed by the presence of Muslims in their midst; such fate is the sickly mirror-image of a dhimmi’s lot, and ironically so. Take the war unto the enemy, fight it upon his head, and win. If Muslims are already within our common-law system, then steps must be taken to remove them from its protection: Cults of death and rape should not of right hold normal standing in the courts or the eyes of the law.

Islamic activism is an “edge case” for which our legal and judicial systems are ill-equipped. Perhaps a radically different system could take it all in stride; but in this context, we are working with what we have. Under that qualification, the solution is not to blindly change how those systems relate to everybody else, but to change how they relate specifically to an enemy with whom we are at war. Nobody tried to sue Adolf Hitler, as far as I can recall; and even if the Hitlers of our contemporary crisis live in the hearts of our own cities, why should that cause us to treat them differently?

The legal mechanisms requisite for barring Islam (and other aberrant groups such as Scientology) from abusing the system are a complicated matter, one suitable for in-depth scholarship and debate. The solution is quite far outside the scope of a mere blog comment.

However, I must repeat again the imperative: Do not allow consideration of Islamic threats to affect legislation or adjudication over any other matter! For if we allow the enemy to live amongst us, any (futile) attempt at survival must involve a locked-down fortress society, a police state where every aspect of life is determined defensively. A society steeped in suspicion, fear, and uncertainty has already lost its civilizing heart. If the Muslims do not first destroy civilization by imposing shari’a outright, we will surely weaken ourselves before their onslaught by allowing the wound to fester, rather than cauterizing it.

Just in case you are still reading this

Of course Henry VIII had VIII wives - Catherine the Arrogant, Anne of Cloves, Lady Jane Austen etc. Posted by: Interested

I seem to count XIX - see below

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII

Of particular interest (in a manner of speaking) is the portrait of Anne Boleyn shortly before and after her death.

On a more serious note, if he hadn't been that headstrong about divorcing Catherine of Aragon, he and the Pope wouldn't have parted ways, England would have been Catholic, and Holland, Prussia, Sweden would have probably gone down. May not have had the Spanish inquisition, but instead, would have been like the Habsburgs or the Bourbons.

Thanks to him, England was on the same side as Holland, Prussia, Sweden and other Protestant states fighting Catholic supremacy in various wars in Europe. So be thankful to him for being so whimsical about women - particularly the ones he married.

I watched the pilot program of HBO's "Big Love" yesterday. I'm happy to report that at least in my mind, it fails on all counts.

1) It purports to show a polygamy in an understanding light while completely failing to grasp the religious motivation behind such aberrant behavior. In fact it attempts to ridicule religiosity in general. The thick hick accents were saved for the "real polygamists" Paxton was supposed to have broken away from.

3) It seems to be a blatant pitch by homosexual men to the adolescent fantasies of heterosexual men, but it misses the mark, because there is no hint of romance, nothing of the imagination. They don't seem to understand what romantic love is between men and women. Polygamous marriage just ain't marriage.

2) Every woman watching couldn't help thinking "What if he didn't have to divorce her before he married me?" or "What if he didn't have to divorce me before he married her?" Show killing thoughts right there.

Prediction: Big Love will be canceled due to poor ratings even though it follows HBOs most successful offering, "The Sopranos" and will end the careers of Paxton and Tripplehorn. (My husband wanted to see Tripplehorn naked, but what we saw was Paxton. Another priority problem: you don't pander to hetero-male sexual fantasy by showing naked males.)

I really wonder about the minds of men who want to see women degraded in such a manner. However they try to spin it, polygamy is disgusting business. Who could help thinking, what if that was my sister? What if that was my mother? Beware false prophets - and profits too.

Keep your eyes on the object here, folks.

Certainly, polygynous marriage as practiced by Muslims is degrading. Monogynous marriage as practiced by Muslims is no less degrading. The entire sexual spectrum, from sexual attraction to childbearing, is degraded by Islam—a religion of degradation, of wife- and child-beatings, of violence, of mutilating children, of death-worship, of rape.

To say, “Islam is disgusting because Muslims practice polygyny” misses the point entirely. Relationships of all different sorts may or may not be good in some contexts; but all contexts other than Islam are irrelevant here. Islam corrupts everything that it touches, monogyny no less than polygyny. Realize the principle behind the evil, and fight that principle.

Think of it this way: If all Muslims suddenly agreed to take only one wife per man, but kept the rest of their decrepit cult, would that be any more acceptable to you than the current state of affairs? Focus on Muslims with many wives obscures the fact that monogynous Muslim marriage is not materially different in any important way for the women and children involved. Fighting evils such as rape, mutilation, and slavery will yield material gains for the victims involved; trading the evil of polygynous Muslim marriage for the equal evil of monogynous Muslim marriage brings no benefit at all, but obscures the principles involved by giving the latter some measure of tacit acceptance.

Target: Islam. All of Islam—the entire forest, not merely one tree no different from its neighbor. Keep that in mind; and between those united in this fight, we can settle our differences elsewhere.