In a recent flurry of propolygamy anti Texas fervor, morbots have taken their cries of "freedom from oppressive intrusive government" to the boards. In one recent kick butt slam dunk, I silenced quite a few with one response to a fruitcake calling itself Citrus. Here's the summary:
Citrus: I am for freedom from oppression.
Me: WHAT A JOKE.
okay okay there was a lot more to it, here you go -
Me:
Did you know there are different kinds of polygamy?
Citrus:
Yes. They occur in the natural world all of the time. Polandry and Polygyny are the two main categories of polygamy. Many bird species are polyandrus while most, but not all, of the mammal species that practice polygamy tend to be polygynous. Naked mole rats are one exception to this general rule.
Me:
The polygamous practices of early mormonism were endogenous, marrying within families, on purpose, including incestuous marriages between first cousins, half siblings, fathers and daughters.
Citrus:
I never suggested these types of relationships were a good idea. It is interesting that you have a problem with people intentionally avoiding answering direct questions, but you have no problem suggesting that I support things I've never mentioned. Both strike me as dishonest.
Me:
Exogenous polygamy vs endogenous polygamy is what I was referring to. Endogenous polygamy as practiced by most cults in the U.S. is particularly damaging to the gene pool. Of course it would do well to limit the conversation to humans.
In either type the practice within cults is most often incorporated as a handy means to enhance leadership power, and as such lends itself naturally to abuse of women and children. There is nothing new under the sun. Those who instituted polygamy laws in this country had good reason for doing so, and I for one thank God they did. Thus my previous comments.
note: it is possible to be so open minded as to allow one's brains to fall out.
Citrus:
but again you have no problem suggesting that I support things I've never mentioned, and that strikes me as dishonest.
Me:
Here's what strikes me as dishonest.
Any ********* who allows their brain to be washed to such an extent that they can foist off an imaginary woman out there yearning for her husband to marry and have sex with other women, as their ideological support for legalization of polygamy. When in the real world such a creature would be, appropriately, adjudged by normal women as clinically insane or at the very least having major dependency / inferiority issues and in urgent need of consciousness-raising, counseling, or medical help.
So you can drop the stupid fake hypothetical, we aint' buyin the premise. Neither did our lawmakers, thank God in Heaven.
Polygamy has proven itself throughout history to be an immoral practice, impractical, genetically dangerous, a vehicle for gross corruption and disempowerment of the weak and dependent particularly women and children.
Cult leaders TYPICALLY (including Strong City's messiah Michael Travesser, Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, the list goes on and on) institute polygamy specifically to intimidate men and control women.
So when you get on your soapbox of political correctness and demand legalization of polygamy, proclaiming "I am for freedom from oppression" and I say WHAT A JOKE it is precisely because
POLYGAMY = OPPRESSION. GET IT?
~finis~
ah my dear friends, the ensuing silence was sweet, very sweet.
1 comment:
The polygamy thing never bothered me back in Sunday school days when we were learning about the patriarchs with this “by the way” attitude “these fellows had several to many wives.” I never raised my hand to ask why. Fast forward past the Maccabees and suddenly everybody has downsized to just one wife. Paul even takes the time in 1st Timothy and Titus to state that workers in the church have but one wife, as if this needed to be said. Why did it need to be said, because polygamy was still a social alternative? I believe Christianity was beginning to reform marriage at the time and monogamy was in favor.
I didn’t question the practice of polygamy (or dual-gamy?) among the monotheistic Pawnee Indians, it seemed quite a good solution to their tribal life style. A young Pawnee (male or female) would take an older and already married one for their first spouse. (You never married your childhood sweetheart.) You would be spouse #2 in that first marriage. Later, after acquiring property and family skills, you would take a younger second spouse. Every child had two sets of parents with whom they interacted differently according to that parents rank or status in the family. Every child had four grandparents who had the responsibility of raising them while the parents devoted their time to providing. Childrearing was up to grandmas and grandpas.
I wouldn’t fall on my sword defending my thoughts about marriage and polygamy, BUT, IMHO, I see it not as an issue to be dealt with under the Sixth Commandment’s ban on adultery (Seventh Commandment for our Catholic friends) but rather under the Fourth which deals with the authorities over us (parents, teachers, and ultimately government and society). Actually, since the Commandments are given in a hierarchy of importance, this would lend more weight to your argument for monogamy. God says it is extremely important to your society that your marriage should conform to what is acceptable in your society. It is not a matter of an individuals choice how many spouses they have but it is extremely important for the welfare of all that you follow the norm of your society.
The moral issues in ANY marriage, monogamous or otherwise, are how you behave. You are required to place the wellbeing of others before your own. Abuse of a child or a spouse is wrong in any form of relationship. Loving sacrifice is the order of the day in any marriage.
bob
Post a Comment