0 votes

Is Polygamy Harmful To Freedom?

If you think polygamy is just another form of personal liberty and that a male should be allowed to impregnate as many females as he wants, then you should be prepared to live in a society without human rights.

Polygamy is what the animals do - might makes right.

Polygamous societies experience a high degree of male-on-male violence. Just look at America's black (and increasingly white) slums. America is becoming a de facto polygamous country (divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, go-it-alone single mothers, sperm clinics, etc.)

Polygamy is not compatible with freedom!

Monogamy is more fundamental to Western Civilization than Christianity.

Monogamy is an ancient agreement between men to share women equally. It brought peace, population stability and the right conditions for the accumulation of capital. Without monogamy, the generation that wrote the Constitution would not have been so willing to live and let live.

Monogamy isn't about peering into your bedroom - that's how the Catholic Church got it wrong and created a backlash. Yes, you have the right to do what you want in your own bedroom, so don't bring out that red herring.

Monogamy means: "No children with more than one person."

Are you prepared to let clones become citizens? Should scientists be allowed to create human/animal hybrids and ask that they become citizens? Should we give citizenship to anchor babies?

Who is a citizen? This is the first question in a social contract.

Creating children with multiple women is not an acceptable way to make new citizens.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Texas authorities lied to mothers; separated them from children

The Salt Lake Tribune and KSL news are now reporting that Texas authorities have forced the FLDS mothers and children who were together since the raid last week, involuntarily apart. KSL reports that the Texas CPS authorities apparently lied to the mothers and children claiming they would simply be moved to another shelter. Rather, they dropped the mothers back at the FLDS ranch, and they are now separated from their children.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3080462
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/texas-s...

Also, a video from the Deseret News.
http://www.deseretnews.com/video/1,5563,,00.html?linkTrack=r...

As a parent, this situation is heart breaking. As a Mormon, it is infuriating. As an American citizen, it is downright blood-curdling. These mothers and fathers are living out most parent's worst nightmare, the kidnapping of their children, with not a damn thing they can do about it.

If the state can do it to these people, THEY CAN DO IT TO YOU TOO!

RP2012!

MAYBE...

I could already live near one of you kind posters ;) I'm an average looking almost-30 lady with no kids who keeps a neat house and whose husband grills out on the porch. The only suspicious thing about my house is that it has RON PAUL 2008 signs in two windows, and a yard sign in the front and back yards !!! I wonder if, for irony's sake, on the polygamy forum they're saying "If you people think supporting Dr. Paul is freedom, you got another thing coming!" and my doppleganger is defending the rights of sign-wavers like me?

That... makes me creeped out. I'll stop now.

Hmmm

I thought "VirginiaWestMelissa" on the polygamy forum sounded somewhat familiar.

RP2012!

Say On

Melissa,

Please don't stop. Your sensible and gentle voice is a refreshing change from some of the more strident proponents of naked binary bigotry. Your reason provides a sweet counterpoint to the prattling hysterics.

Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Haha...

.. comments on this forum topic are being left faster than I can keep up!

;)

So...

.
What does this have to do with helping Ron Paul, or restoring the Constitution?

Great topic, but it really needs to find another home.

Cheers.

How is..

.. the exercise of analyzing the technical and philosophical aspects of an issue of liberty and freedom not relevant towards honing our skill and tactics used to convert people to Ron Paul's views and therefore directly relevant to supporting Ron Paul?

It has to do with 416 children kidnapped by the state of Texas

under the stated goal of saving them from their polygamous parents. it is the largest child custody case in the history of the country. it is a precedent setting child custody and personal liberty case. this will have big repercussions. it is very important to restoring a correct, Constitutional interpretation of what personal freedoms and liberty actually mean in modern America.

RP2012!

Don't know the answer, but. . .

It's harmful to the pocketbook. From what I understand most of the "wives" are on public aid.

Actually these people are helping their

area. They mostly produce their own needs. They do receive welfare from what I've heard, but they also pay over $400,000 annually in property taxes, which benefit the public school system in that area. But they don't utilize that school system. So the Fed Government taketh from the area, the FLDS giveth back.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

That's good to know, but. . .

How many thousands of dollars per month are they getting in aid from the government? Everyone has to pay property tax.

And everyone who meets the income

qualification is eligible for WIC, too.

RP2012!

You understand incorrectly

However, most low income urban dwellers in America ARE on public aid. A few hundred plural wives (out of tens of thousands) accepting public aid is doing nothing more than getting access to the same benefits others get. If the problem is the benefits, then that is the problem, not polygamy. This is a well worn-out tangential discussion that distracts from the issue.

RP2012!

So you're saying just add to the problem.

The least these men could do is take care of their wives and children, don't you think?

Maybe we should all quit working and go on public aid.

Multiple incomes

Most plural families have multiple incomes, as many wives work to add to the household income. When you have built-in childcare from sisterwives, each wife can have it all: a family, a career, an education. Don't believe everything you hear on the news. If they're wrong about Ron Paul, they're wrong about other stuff too.

Many plural families, especially those with four or five incomes, are quite wealthy, and they all drive new cars, have the latest fashions, and live in very (EXTREMELY) nice homes.

RP2012!

99.999% of them do.

A few men get fired from their jobs from time to time, and the safety net of public aid catches them, just like it catches monogamists. If public aid is available to crack whores with six children from six different daddies for eighteen years per each children, then surely you agree it should also help out the mom whose husband lost his job (sometimes people get fired when they are "outed" as polygamists) until they get back on their feet, usually in a few months?

RP2012!

I see no difference in lifestyle here.

The women you refer to as the "crack whores" just decided to have several "husbands". I find it interesting that if a man does it, it's okay. If a women does it, she's a whore. Why wouldn't you fight for her rights too?

Clarification

I do not believe it is "ok" for a man to impregnate dozens of random females and take no responsibility for his offspring. And I do believe that a man who chooses to accept responsibility for multiple women and children is behaving much more honorably. The issue, as with all freedom and liberty related matters, is one of personal responsibility.

RP2012!

I do defend her rights to do so.

I don't think the government should regulate anyone's personal relationships or copulatory habits.

RP2012!

Please stick to the point

If your beef with polygamy is welfare fraud, then address welfare fraud. If your beef with polygamy is child abuse, then address child abuse. The fact that some polygamists (and many monogamists) commit welfare fraud and child abuse is no indictment of either polygamy or monogamy.

Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

I said I don't know.

Just making the point you and I are paying for their lifestyle, that's all.

Not true

A handful of plural wives are accepting public aid. Hundreds of Thousands times that number of monogamists are accepting public aid. This is a distraction from the issue, as the Prof points out. We are paying for far more insidious things than WIC vouchers for a few hundred children of polygamists.

Most polygamist families are rather well off. I've been in their communities and inside some of the veritable mansions. They are hardly a poverty-stricken people.

RP2012!

Whatever Happened to True Love?

The problem is that most people marry out of lust, infatuation or comfort. It is said that women spend more time selecting the right clothes to purchase than time choosing a husband. I have always enjoyed asking women what attracted them to a particular man and the answers are usually almost laughable. One that I have probably heard most often is that, “he is a really good dancer”. The response to that reminds me of the words to a song, “married for all of the wrong reasons”. Whatever happened to true love? Not lust, like or comfort but that invisible and indescribable something that we all chose to call “love”. It doesn’t have any weight connected to it, it lacks physical form, wind blows it not away, fire burns it not, and water wets it not. This magical something, when felt, causes every cell of your being to vibrate at a higher level and you know it is real when you can’t even eat. So choosing one mate becomes very simple when you know in your heart of heart that this is the only person that you wish to spend your life with and no one else will do, no matter their physical appearance or the wealth they may have accrued.

Courtship

The FLDS are unique, even among other Mormon polygamists. (First off, short lesson: the FLDS are a group of about 10,000, and represent maybe 15% of all Mormon Fundamentalists, of which there are several major churches and numerous smaller ones as well as independent families belonging to no church but still following the Mormon religion)

Anyway, in their arranged marriages, they believe that courtship comes after the couple has chosen to marry. They choose to marry based on the advice of their religious leader. Then, having decided to marry, they set about learning about one another, and becoming friends, growing into love. Most couples do not consummate their marriage until such time as they believe they are ready for that step. Plural wives report that they tend to be very happy in their relationships and they feel very secure, because they know they were not just some piece of meat that their husband lusted after in a bar. They know that they are loved for who they are, not their appearance, not their dance moves, and not their fleeting youth.

I am not sure I would want an arranged marriage, but for those who consent to the system by their own admission it works remarkably well if the goal is building lifelong love and lasting marriages. And that is something I can admire.

RP2012!

Your description of love explains it's scarcity

It's much easier to see good dance moves than feel something invisible and indescribable.

"It doesn’t have any weight connected to it, it lacks physical form, wind blows it not away, fire burns it not, and water wets it not. This magical something, when felt, causes every cell of your being to vibrate at a higher level and you know it is real when you can’t even eat."

It just as easily describes obsession and indigestion as it does love.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but if love is so vague than no wonder people have a tough time finding it.

Even You Must Have Truly Loved Something

I'm sure if you stop and think back hard enough, even you must have truly loved something at one time. It doesn't have to have been a man or a woman but the same feeling can be felt when you look at your own baby for the first time, or look into your puppy's eye's and sense unconditional love, or virtuallyanything else. You control the rate of flow and direction of this invisible force. True love is beyond emotion and flows from you and never fails to return in kind. This of course is why all of the Bibles of the World (which today there are more than 67) share the same basic principle in which you must give first and it will be returned to you in like kind. The key is that you must give first, not second or thid in order to receive in like kind. Many people are too selfish to give first and want to receive first, not trusting this natural law or principle and only then will they give forth their version of love. It doesn't work like that and thats why they miss out on knowing what true love is really like. This is a natural law or principle that works for everyone 24/7 and never fails to produce the same result in kind. Emotion on the other hand, is but an aspect of true love. Because true love is indescribable it is by diffinition impossible to describe, so we each in our own way make an attempt to come as close as possible to describing it in hopes that it may help guide others to feel this very same vibratory sensation that we have each felt and enjoyed throughout our lives.

Indigestion and obsession on the other hand are very describable and the dictionary can assist you if necessary. The same dictionary does not and could not describe true love, though.

How to debunk this mess, if it hasn't been done already...

Let's try line-by-line.

"If you think polygamy is just another form of personal liberty and that a male should be allowed to impregnate as many females as he wants, then you should be prepared to live in a society without human rights."

First of all, polygamy equating to mass pregnancies does not necessarily follow. It can, but not always.

"Polygamy is what the animals do - might makes right."

Last time I checked, humans are animals, too. Not all animals are polygamous--check the red-tailed hawk for starters--completely monogamous--and BTW, homosexuality and bisexuality is common in the animal world. As part of Nature as much as other animals are, our sexual behaviors are just as in line with theirs. It is only when Christian "morals" are applied does monogamy come into play as the "accepted" norm. See also http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349789,00.html?sPage=fnc....

"Polygamous societies experience a high degree of male-on-male violence. Just look at America's black (and increasingly white) slums. America is becoming a de facto polygamous country (divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, go-it-alone single mothers, sperm clinics, etc.) "

Huh? That's apples and oranges. You compare multiple-marriage situations with no-marriage situations and expect them to be the same? Not even close! You also seem to equate urban blacks with polygamy (which is mostly rural) and increased instances of single motherhood, etc. Bigoted racial stereotypes aside, these demographics not only do not compare but are not even in the same ballpark!

"Polygamy is not compatible with freedom!"

No, polygamy is not compatible with freedom without responsibility. Big difference there.

"Monogamy is more fundamental to Western Civilization than Christianity."

Not really. Check out the link above. Neither are fundamental to Western Civilization, especially in this modern information age.

"Monogamy is an ancient agreement between men to share women equally. It brought peace, population stability and the right conditions for the accumulation of capital. Without monogamy, the generation that wrote the Constitution would not have been so willing to live and let live."

Sharing women equally? That's a woman-as-chattel argument if I ever heard one. Passing a woman around like she's the Book-of-the-Month? I would expect a better understanding of people than that! Besides, that's at best polyamorous relationships, and at worst, rape.

And no, it did not bring about the conditions for the accumulation of capital. Labor and education does that, and the chattelizing of women was grossly based in a lack of education. As for the Constitution, need I remind you of how many of the landowner elites of that time had slave mistresses on the side?

"Monogamy isn't about peering into your bedroom - that's how the Catholic Church got it wrong and created a backlash. Yes, you have the right to do what you want in your own bedroom, so don't bring out that red herring."

You use a red herring in your bedroom? Isn't that bestality?

"Monogamy means: "No children with more than one person." "

Nope. That's just monoparenting. Otherwise you might be trying to become the Father of Our Country. Or just Bill Clinton...

"Are you prepared to let clones become citizens?"

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

"Should scientists be allowed to create human/animal hybrids and ask that they become citizens?"

Huh again? Outside of the Bush Jr. quote reference to himself, what does that have to do with anything, either?

"Should we give citizenship to anchor babies?"

Duh, no, but again, nothing to do with anything here.

"Who is a citizen? This is the first question in a social contract."

No, it's, "Who is a PERSON?"

"Creating children with multiple women is not an acceptable way to make new citizens."

Well, I suppose we could assemble them at the old US Steel facilities in Pennsylvania. That would create jobs there and relieve the bitterness that Obama was talking about.

The fact is, humans are unique in monogamy not in that we generally practice it, but *why* we practice it. That *why* has nothing to do with biology. In fact, it is the opposite. It is because of an imposed constraint of contrived morality. You don't see that in other monogamous animals. I have yet to see a red-tailed hawk seeking out morality to justify its lifebond to its mate. Seeking out lunch, yes, but not morality. So if the morality so contrived is questioned, changed, or even discarded, then the rest who ascribe to it find that difference to be unusual, repugnant, or offensive. That is simply a matter of opinion.

This is clearly an area where biology, morality, philospohy, and nature part ways.

(But speaking as a happily married man with tongue completely in cheek, why would you *want* more than one wife to nag you, have double PMS, and so on? :) )

Shameless bump-post of a reply to MelissaWV...

It's been my experience that to be in an open or polygamous relationship that works., you've got to have a pretty good sense of self-esteem. You also have to have a good set of communications skills as well as being able to realistically compromise. You have to be able to live your life the way that you want to, not the way that society says you have to.

Jealousy has no room in such a relationship, so you have to trust another human being (or more) a LOT more than you do in a ~conventional~ mariage. Trusting another in a good relationship promotes personal growth.

Yep, sounds like a good resume for being a decent parent.

All you have to really work on is ignoring the short-sightedness and bias of some in our society. I've found them to be people that I wouldn't associate with anyways... so it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

An ~alternative~ lifestyle isn't good for freedom? To some of us it defines freedom... the freedom to live our lives the way that we want to.

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

Certainly not.

The Original Poster used the example of the black slums (?!) and animals to condemn polygamy.

As a black man, allow me to set you straight, Mr. Cedarmill.

1) The Constitution (and most state constitutions) protect the free expression of religion.

Diverse religions, including:

Judaism

http://pilegesh.blogspot.com/index.html

Christianity

http://www.righteouswarriors.com/controversial/article4.html

http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/if.html

Islam, and other religions DO allow Polygny (the union of one man and multiple women).

Contractual marriages, not entered into under duress, and where all parties are aware, in agreement, and of legal age, should be protected under our Supreme law, the Constitution. There is NO amendment or any other verbiage against it, and there is much constitutional language supporting freedom of religion.

2) The comment about Black Inner city ghettos is quite ignorant. You sir are obviously NOT a member of the African American community, or you would know that the LACK OF MARRIAGE, Monogamous or Polygamous, is the cause of inner city poverty, not the existence of so called "polygamy."

Please note:

From the Indianapolis Star:

Indiana Black Expo report

About 80% of black babies are born to unwed moms

Report: These children face life with greater disadvantages.

About eight in 10 black children in Indiana are born to unwed parents -- a start to life that sets them up for problems during adolescence and beyond, according to an Indiana Black Expo report.

Local radio show host and strategic researcher Amos Brown will detail the key findings of the report.

Indiana's black youths fare significantly worse than Hoosier youths in general across 18 indicators of well-being, such as graduation rates and poverty levels, and do worse than black youths in the U.S, according to the report being released Friday.

Tanasha Anders, acting president and chief executive of Indiana Black Expo, said the problem comes down to education -- making sure young people finish school and understand the consequences of having a baby.

"Everything else is a domino effect," she said.

The explosion of births to unwed parents is driving many of the state's social problems , such as increases in poverty and child abuse and the growing cost of public aid, said Bill Stanczykiewicz, president and CEO of the Indiana Youth Institute. He added that the problem is not exclusive to any one race...

UNWED PARENTS. Not polygamous parents.

Also see:

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/as_goes_...

3) Polygamy is the TRADITIONAL family arrangement of African people.

Monogamy is a recent and foreign marriage culture.

Please see:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/dbn/dbn10.htm

http://www.theperspective.org/polygyny.html

4)

The State has no business involving itself in marriage. The only reason why government intruded into the Marriage game in the first place was RACISM: In other words, to prevent Blacks and Whites from marrying.

And ever since government hijacked the institution of marriage, it has all but destroyed it. Please see:

http://antimarriagelicense.thoughtfactory.biz/

So, in conclusion:

The problem with the "black inner city," as you put it, is a function of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. From Welfare and Child Support programs, to Federal funds designed to promote family breakdown, to the prohibition of alternative marriage structures such as polygamy, the Government is the main cause of the suffering of Black people, as well as Americans in general.

Can anyone say Federal Reserve?

Find out how the government promotes family destruction in more detail here:

http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

And the next time you take it upon yourself to condemn an institution that has been sanctioned for thousands of years by God and man, and to slander an entire ethnic and racial group... please get your facts straight!

Liberty is the message. Polygamous marriage should be an option for consenting adults, and the government, with a few common sense exceptions, should stay out of marriage entirely.

Thanks.

Starkey's Law

Kumo,

Thank you for your response to CedarMill, moonslippers, et al. While those of the thoughtful persuasion may be moved by your reason and evidence, I've got a feeling that your detractors simply will not hear.

Government's War-on-Every-Kind-of-Relationship-but-Heterosexual-Monogamy has worked about as well as its Wars on Poverty and (some unpopular) Drugs. It has aggravated the situations, it has sucked up enormous gobs of cash, it has destroyed innumerable lives, and it has pitted people against each other who never had cause to disagree until the Professional Alienators got into the act.

Ringo was right! "Everything the government touches turns to crap."

Viva Agora!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
www.citizenduquesne.org

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr