The Forum > Article Comments > Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy > Comments
Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy : Comments
By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 25/2/2011If marriage means whatever you want, then whatever you want is what you can have.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:03:08 AM
| |
We are safe from this perversion. Ms Gillard would not go back on her word. Surely!
Posted by runner, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:55:12 AM
| |
Polygamy is in motion now, A female had 4 kids from 4 fathers, hows that.
Posted by 579, Friday, 25 February 2011 11:27:54 AM
| |
For those who can be bothered here is more about Bountiful BC:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110221/bc_polygamists_110221/20110221?hub=BritishColumbiaHome Some quotes: >>But members of ... the Mormon church aren't the only ones watching for the outcome of the landmark court case challenging Canada's polygamy law. Leaders in the country's Muslim community say the decision will have wide implications.>> >>Aly Hindi, an outspoken imam at Salaheddin Islamic Centre in Scarborough, Ont., said there are more than 200 polygamous Muslim marriages in the Greater Toronto Area alone...>> >>Advocates say polygamy is justified in the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad himself is often cited as an example of being able to marry more than one woman....>> >>But Muslims are divided on the interpretation of that passage....>> Oh what fun. A confession: In a deep and fundamental way I really don't give a ... what living arrangements consenting adults make. I am, however, disturbed at how very young the women in Bountiful were when they entered into polygamous relationships Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 25 February 2011 11:34:27 AM
| |
Pericles: There’s a difference between fringe cults and mainstream religions, as the post makes clear.
What’s more I think if you researched a little more, you’d find that some prominent atheist lawyers and thinkers have supported polygamy (so don’t praise them just yet). Of course, lumping all religions together allows people to ignore the differences between, say, Saudi Arabia and the United States. We all know that’s a stretch. The fact is mainstream churches have led the way in trying to protect women from polygamy and we need to give them credit where credit is due Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 12:25:14 PM
| |
The usual Western Christian puritanical double-minded sexual script is full of essentially sex and body negative presumptions, and essentially contains NO Wisdom at all re sexuality.
Sex or even bodily pleasure equals SIN. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with polygamy, it all depends on the cultural and historical context in which it has appeared. Perhaps in times past it arose as a necessary means for the survival of whatever group it was practiced. It was very much an integral part of certain epochs of both ancient Jewish and Islamic cultures (the book of Psalms is testimony to this in the case of Judaism). Cultures which were associated with a sex-positive disposition in which sexual pleasure was properly glorified and sexual control was rationally understood. Such societies made no taboos against Wisdom, Happiness, sex, childbirth, and those "laws" that pertained to sex were designed to create reasonably predictable social structures, rather than prevent truly human sexual expansiveness. Evidence of this is that polygamy, as well as sex-positive monogamy, was commonly accepted as a positive social possibility by both Jews and Moslems, whereas as Christians in their confused double-mindedness have always tended to prefer either sex-suppressive celibacy or a kind of compulsory monogamy that is ultimately a form of anti-sexual and anti-happiness austerity. Forced un-happiness was and is the cultural norm. It takes a very mature and sensitive man, with lots of balls to be able to "manage" and serve in a fully human sense more than one woman. Indeed very men are capable of loving and serving the fully human aspects of even one woman, and even 2-3 children. Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:07:31 PM
|
So jaylex “sex” between a father and child should be debated? What’s there to debate?
“Leave it to the citizens to enter into any relationship they desire , so long as it is betweeen consenting adults .”
That’s the adults-only and male-first position on relationships. But the fact is we’re already dealing with the mess created by so-called progressives.
Next I’ll be told that two men can produce breast milk for baby. Please. Denying children rights to biological needs is Orwellian (and costly in the medical sense).
The fact is that the polygamy trap has endangered countless children and women, and is often an instrument of extreme male religious power against wives. Show me a polygamous nation and I’ll show you extreme sexism.