127 replies to this topic

[wyly]

I just wish we could get past the post-modernist bullshit that makes everything relative and forbids condemnations and restrictions on private behaviour. If there are clear social harms caused by allowing plural marriage, then personal desires should not be allowed to supersede what's best for well functioning society.

if you haven't noticed all those laws mean bugger all to stop polygamy...it's the push for a more open accepting society that will end polygamy not attempting to restrict it with laws...public secular education breaks down the barriers that means eliminating private religious schools...

[Oleg Bach]

if you haven't noticed all those laws mean bugger all to stop polygamy...it's the push for a more open accepting society that will end polygamy not attempting to restrict it with laws...public secular education breaks down the barriers that means eliminating private religious schools...

When a guy can look at another guy and say - this is my wife..then I* say let men have 50 wives - I mean real ones - like female ones. lol

[betsy]

let me further complicate this, slaves weren't considered people in those days and having sex with your female(or male) slave wasn't considered adultery...yes the jews had slaves...

Again, let me bring this article up.

An interesting read.

Excerpt from The Bible Teaching on Slavery

We need to know what slavery was like in New Testament times so that we can know how to apply the New Testament instructions to situations in our own day. Kent Hughes, in his commentary on Ephesians (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL), page 206, documents much helpful information on Roman slavery. It is estimated that there were 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire, but the average slave was not abused and exploited. Some slaves did suffer at the hands of their owners, but slaves under Roman law could usually count on being set free. While slaves remained their owner’s property, they themselves could own property—including other slaves.

We note too that being a slave did not indicate one’s social class. Slaves were accorded the social status of their owners. And outwardly, one could scarcely ever distinguish a slave from a free person. A slave could be a custodian, a merchant, a salesman, a teacher, or a government official. Slaves were often highly educated. There were a few slaves who were elders in the church, and thus had authority over the masters whom they served all week. Selling oneself as a slave was commonly used as a means of gaining Roman citizenship.

Roman slavery in the first century was far more humane and civilized than the African-American slavery practiced in the he United States during the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. This does not suggest that ancient slavery was not evil. Slaves were still considered property and could be bought and sold and severely punished-but understanding the nature of slavery in New Testament times helps us to understand why the apostolic writers were not as quick to attack slavery.

The Apostle Paul respected the civil law and the social patterns of his day, and did not militate against the law of slavery. William Barclay, in his commentary, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, Westminster, 1960, says:

“In those early days, the Church did not emerge as the opponent and the would-be destroyer of slavery by violent and sudden means. And the Church was wise. There were something like 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire … For the Church to have encouraged slaves to revolt and rebel and rise against their masters would have been fatal. It would simply have caused civil war, mass murder, and the complete discredit of the Church. (Instead), what happened was that as the centuries went on, Christianity so permeated civilization that in the end the slaves were freed voluntarily and not by force. Here is a tremendous lesson. It is the proof that neither men nor the world nor society can be reformed by force and by legislation. The reform must come through the slow penetration of the Spirit of Christ into the human situation. Things have to happen in God’s time, not in ours. In the end, the slow way is the sure way, and the way of violence always defeats itself.”

More....

http://www.brfwitness.org/?p=865

Furthermore, in the OT God had given specific laws to the Jews (aside from the 10 Commandments)how to treat their slaves/servants.

[betsy]

The one thing that really grinds me when this topic is discussed is that liberals usually stick with moral relativist arguments that are afraid of restricting a personal freedom to marry more than one woman...usually out of fear that it might threaten the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

Ahh...I found something that I agree with.

If society accepts same-sex marriage....why not polygamy, if all involved are consenting adults?

Btw, I remember debating eons ago in this forum that legitimizing sodomy and homosexuality based on "sexual orientation" is opening a can of worms. Just recently in the news, someone was interviewed (I don't know who he is) and he's saying that Pedophilia should be accepted as a sexual orientation.

As for social harms, I've also discussed NAMBLA ages ago, and that homosexual activity can include pedophilia since there seems to be the attraction and desire to initiate young lads.
Furthermore, the investigative report on sexual abuse within the Catholic church had unearthed a "cabal" among homosexual pedophiles.

Edited by betsy, 07 August 2011 - 05:11 AM.

[pinko]

if you haven't noticed all those laws mean bugger all to stop polygamy...it's the push for a more open accepting society that will end polygamy not attempting to restrict it with laws...public secular education breaks down the barriers that means eliminating private religious schools...

Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.

Edited by pinko, 07 August 2011 - 05:19 AM.

[Oleg Bach]

Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.

It`s not that they are oppressive - it is in the fact that they are not fully committed relationships. There is no real loyalty..because one can constantly shift affection and attention from one wife to the other then back again - it because a constant and on going state of manipultaion - in other words - a stream of lies. That is no way for anyone to live.

[betsy]

Since I've brought up NAMBLA, the Catholic Church cabal, and homosexual pedophilia....I've brought up the two ancient topics ("Pedophiles line up...." and EGALE)that dealt with the same subject. Unfortunately, they turned up in Federal Politics.

Edited by betsy, 07 August 2011 - 05:28 AM.

[Oleg Bach]

Since I've brought up NAMBLA, the Catholic Church cabal, and homosexual pedophilia....I've brought up the two ancient topics ("Pedophiles line up...." and EGALE)that dealt with the same subject. Unfortunately, they turned up in Federal Politics.

There was no point in you bringing up this garbage - we all know were the evil is - no need to rub shit in the faces of our members...forget about this crap and post something helpful.

[betsy]

Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.

But then again, it's a speculation that these women in polygamous marriages have been coersced....or just simply brainwashed as children.

We say the same thing about women in burquas! That it's oppressive to women....or that they're just being coersced into waering them....not to mention the overall treatment of women as chatels.
YET, Sharia Law is accepted in England, and if I'm not mistaken....I've read somewhere that it's also quietly operating in Toronto.

You need not even have to look far beyond our borders. First Nations women were just recently given some fairness by the Federal Government regarding their divorce laws! After all these years of feminism....those women who really need the feminists' help appear to be invisible!
Or simply ignored!

Why single out polygamy....if your reasons for doing so is about women's right?
It is the least of your worries.

Edited by betsy, 07 August 2011 - 05:39 AM.

[pinko]

But then again, it's a speculation that these women in polygamous marriages have been coersced....or just simply brainwashed as children.

We say the same thing about women in burquas! That it's oppressive to women....or that they're just being coersced into waering them....not to mention the overall treatment of women as chatels.
YET, Sharia Law is accepted in England, and if I'm not mistaken....I've read somewhere that it's also quietly operating in Toronto.

You need not even have to look far beyond our borders. First Nations women were just recently given some fairness by the Federal Government regarding their divorce laws! After all these years of feminism....those women who really need the feminists' help appear to be invisible!
Or simply ignored!

Why single out polygamy....if your reasons for doing so is about women's right?
It is the least of your worries.

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out. To my knowledge the Province of Ontario hasn't endorsed the concept of Sharia law although it may very well be considered within some segments of the Muslim community.

As for aboriginal women on reserves those changes were negotiated against a backdrop of collective as opposed to individual ownership on reserves and as constrained by the Indian Act. The benefit for those first nations signing onto such a scheme isn't limited to women. If you are interested may I suggest your read "Beyond The Indian Act-Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".

Edited by pinko, 07 August 2011 - 05:50 AM.

[Oleg Bach]

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out. To my knowledge the Province of Ontario hasn't endorsed the concept of Sharia law although it may very well be considered within some segments of the Muslim community.

As for aboriginal women on reserves those changes were negotiated against a backdrop of collective as opposed to individual ownership on reserves and as constrained by the Indian Act. The benefit for those first nations signing onto such a scheme isn't limited to women. If you are interested may I suggest your read "Beyond The Indian Act-Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".

Flesh of my flesh bone of my bone - forsaking all others - The union between man and woman is supposed to be a finite and devine arrangment - If you deeply love and have full committment- then ONE person is enough...other than that - Polygamy is akin to animal husbandry - a bull - with a harem of cows..we are better than that.

[betsy]

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out.

No I haven't been following. Do you mean this?

It`s not that they are oppressive - it is in the fact that they are not fully committed relationships. There is no real loyalty..because one can constantly shift affection and attention from one wife to the other then back again - it because a constant and on going state of manipultaion - in other words - a stream of lies. That is no way for anyone to live.

But again, it's a question of what exactly do we mean by "committed relationship"?

Some of our average wives cheat on their spouses and yet claim to be in a "committed relationship"...vice versa.


So there's really no difference....just being there accepting and participating all these years to that kind of marriage/relationship is a proof of....commitment. What more when you give birth as a result of such relationship.

Do you know exactly the code of ethics being followed by members of this sect? What may be a definition of "commitment" to us....may not exactly be theirs.

Does "committed relationship" in their definition means just providing roof and basic needs under one roof? Equal time? Sex time? Equal labor contribution?
What does the matrimonial looks like? Who gets to sleep in the bed. By rotation?
Can a wife decline to have sex if she has a headache?

Is there an heirarchy among the wives? Is wife #1 considered to have more status than the other wives?
If all wives know their codes and are agreeable to it....how can we say it's a "constant state of manipulation?" Doesn't any average relationship involve a certain amount of - positive/negative or constructive/destructive - manipulation?

What do we know for us to be able to say, "oh, they're not fully committed!"

To say that - based on our own societal code or religious belief - polygamy is wrong, is one thing.
But to authoritatively say that those who practice in polygamy are not fully committed, is another.

Edited by betsy, 07 August 2011 - 07:54 AM.

[pinko]

No I haven't been following. Do you mean this?



But again, it's a question of what exactly do we mean by "committed relationship"?

Some of our average wives cheat on their spouses and yet claim to be in a "committed relationship"...vice versa.


So there's really no difference....just being there accepting and participating all these years to that kind of marriage/relationship is a proof of....commitment. What more when you give birth as a result of such relationship.

Do you know exactly the code of ethics being followed by members of this sect? What may be a definition of "commitment" to us....may not exactly be theirs.

Does "committed relationship" in their definition means just providing roof and basic needs under one roof? Equal time? Sex time? Equal labor contribution?
What does the matrimonial looks like? Who gets to sleep in the bed. By rotation?
Can a wife decline to have sex if she has a headache?

Is there an heirarchy among the wives? Is wife #1 considered to have more status than the other wives?
If all wives know their codes and are agreeable to it....how can we say it's a "constant state of manipulation?" Doesn't any average relationship involve a certain amount of - positive/negative or constructive/destructive - manipulation?

What do we know for us to be able to say, "oh, they're not fully committed!"

To say that - based on our own societal code or religious belief - polygamy is wrong, is one thing.
But to authoritatively say that those who practice in polygamy are not fully committed, is another.

In my view a committed relationship is one in a marriage which is exclusive to two partners to the exclusion of all others. Under my definition that would exclude more than one marital partner. In the province we live in the family residence is jointly owned. There is an expectation that there be an equitable division of labour within the family home and as well, subject to means, a proportionate contribution in financial terms. Certainly a wife (or husband) may decline or accept sex with a marriage partner.

The whole idea of polygamy is counterintuitive to the exclusivity I have described above. What you appear to miss from these polygamous collectives is that women and children are treated as chattels and may be disposed of by the leadership within the cult. Many of the women who have escaped these oppressive conditions described the systemic abuse suffered at the hands of the likes of Jeffs and others.

[Oleg Bach]

A committed relationship is when you are deeply in love and are willing to go the full distance till death do you part - polygamy does not have this - It is assembly line breeding and marriage - when one unit fails - you just replace it with the next the same day...After all my years of experience and having more than a few mates and understand what a long term marriage is - but never formally getting married - I would do it right - but maybe I did - once there is a child - you are committed..whether your mate is "ms. or mister right or not.

[pinko]

A committed relationship is when you are deeply in love and are willing to go the full distance till death do you part - polygamy does not have this - It is assembly line breeding and marriage - when one unit fails - you just replace it with the next the same day...After all my years of experience and having more than a few mates and understand what a long term marriage is - but never formally getting married - I would do it right - but maybe I did - once there is a child - you are committed..whether your mate is "ms. or mister right or not.

Agreed although divorce may also do you part. Once children are in the mix that definitely makes the relationships more complex.

Edited by pinko, 07 August 2011 - 02:40 PM.