LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Polygamy, Too

4

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
By David J. Rusin, NRO
April 19, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former’s facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?

Islam sanctions polygamy — more specifically, polygyny — allowing Muslim men to keep up to four wives at once. Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.

As Muslims have grown more numerous in the West, so too have Muslim polygamists. France, home to the largest Islamic population in Western Europe, was estimated in 2006 to host 16,000 to 20,000 polygamous families — almost all Muslim — containing 180,000 total people, including children. In the United States, such Muslims may have already reached numerical parity with their fundamentalist-Mormon counterparts; as many as 100,000 Muslims reside in multi-wife families, and the phenomenon has gained particular traction among black Muslims.

The increasingly prominent profile of Islamic polygamy in the West has inspired a range of accommodations. Several governments now recognize plural marriages contracted lawfully in immigrants’ countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits — an arrangement that some government ministers hope to kill — and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver’s license because he had to commute between his wives.

The ultimate accommodation would involve placing polygamous and monogamous marriages on the same legal footing, but Islamists have been relatively quiet on this front, a silence that some attribute to satisfaction with the status quo or a desire to avoid drawing negative publicity. There have, of course, been exceptions. The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain made waves in 2000 about challenging the U.K.’s ban on polygamy, but little came of it. In addition, two of Australia’s most influential Islamic figures called for recognition of polygamous unions several years ago.

With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages? Debra Majeed, an academic apologist for Islamic polygamy, has tried to downplay such concerns, claiming that “opponents of same-sex unions, rather than proponents of polygyny as practiced by Muslims, are the usual sources of arguments that a door open to one would encourage a more visible practice of the other.” Yet some American Muslims apparently did not get the memo.

Because off-the-cuff remarks can be the most revealing, consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking: “Easy to support gay marriage today bc it’s mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument.

*crickets*”

...

For starters, one hears a lot about the alleged social necessity of recognizing Islamic polygamy. The hardships encountered by second, third, and fourth wives who lack legal protections are regularly highlighted, while polygamy is promoted as a solution to the loss of marriageable black men in America to drugs, violence, and prison. Because polygamists who are not legally married are known to abuse welfare systems — for instance, Muslim women in polygamous marriages often claim benefits as single mothers — it would not be shocking to see legalization pushed even as a means of curbing fraud.
Click to expand...



Mitt could use him a second lawyer wife like Clinton and Obama instead of some worthless rich babe like Gore and Kerry...
 
A third to leave home with the dog and ensure the Obama's don't have Rover over for dinner...
 
Ann could have used another wife, too...

Tagg Romney: (laughing) I don't remember my mom ever eating a bon bon, or honestly, I don't remember her ever sitting down and watching TV. She was, I mean, I remember changing diapers, cleaning messes, cooking food, shopping for food, trying to get laundry done, make beds, driving kids to soccer practices. But I mean, we never had a nanny. We never had someone that was doing that stuff for us. A big part of her day was getting us to do jobs. And I think a lot of things would have been easier for her to do on her own, but she worked hard to make sure we learned how to work. So a lot of her work was teaching us how to work, whether it was teaching us how to clean bathrooms or mop the kitchen floor, or do the dishes, or set the table and those types of things. But she, her...my dad would always tell her that what he did was important, but what she did was much more important than what he was doing. ...

HH: And you didn't have a nanny?

TR: No, we did not have a nanny.... listen, Hugh, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think my mom was a great mom and a hard-working person, and someone who cares deeply about other people. And in addition to working for our family, she was always busy in her community, whether it was working with United Way, or with at risk youth. She was busy volunteering and helping and doing what she could to give back to the community, and working in the church as well, and giving back to people in the church. Listen, she...I don't understand why they picked this fight. Of all the people, I think, you know, the reaction's been pretty positive from everybody saying leave Ann alone, she's a great person, and don't know why they'd want to pick on her.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/why_do_they_want_to_pick_on_ann_romney.html#ixzz1sUDhkyLC
 
I honestly don't get the monogamy thing either- I don't understand why this is a legal contract that's so limited in it's scope. You want to legally share your shit/responsibilities/custody with more then one person, or someone's who's got the same genitals as you, then do it. It's not like the whole fucking system is going to break down.
 
I do not see polygamy as a problem.

If a dude wants to multiply his misery I feel it is a personal choice.
 
Camels ain't got back seats.


Now a Pierce-Arrow, on the other hand . . . .


Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
;) ;)

Mary kept her blue dress...



Devil with the blue dress, blue dress, devil with the blue dress on!

I don't know how to love him...
Click to expand...

Well... he's a man,
He's just a man,
And I've had so many, men before
In oh so many ways-
He's just one more.
 
Just to point out how useful this thread is to me-

My fucking wrist is killing me. And it's making a loud cracking noise.

I need a girlfriend... or a boyfriend... or... something...

Seems kinda unfair that some folk get 4 mates and some of us get none...

:(
 
There is not now, nor with there ever be such a thing as "same sex "marriage"." Marriage died the day the first time the idea that "same sex" could get "married" was even discussed in public and not laughed out of the public discourse.

There is no marriage anymore. There is a legal contract a lot of governments still call "marriage" but it isn't marriage. There is however, such a thing as a permanent heterosexual union. Such unions might sign the regime's "marriage" contract for various reasons but that doesn't give the regime's contracts validy as marriages.

That stated, there is nothing unbiological about heterosexual polygamy. The only ethnical question, is how this impacts society (ie if one guy is hogging up so many women, what happens to the guys who can't get a wife). Otherwise its not a concern. Its certainly not in the same league of absurdity as "same sex "marriage.""
 
renard_ruse said:
There is not now, nor with there ever be such a thing as "same sex "marriage"." Marriage died the day the first time the idea that "same sex" could get "married" was even discussed in public and not laughed out of the public discourse.

There is no marriage anymore. There is a legal contract a lot of governments still call "marriage" but it isn't marriage. There is however, such a thing as a permanent heterosexual union. Such unions might sign the regime's "marriage" contract for various reasons but that doesn't give the regime's contracts validy as marriages.

That stated, there is nothing unbiological about heterosexual polygamy. The only ethnical question, is how this impacts society (ie if one guy is hogging up so many women, what happens to the guys who can't get a wife). Otherwise its not a concern. Its certainly not in the same league of absurdity as "same sex "marriage.""
Click to expand...

They might need Polyandry in China...

;) ;)
 
renard_ruse said:
There is not now, nor with there ever be such a thing as "same sex "marriage"." Marriage died the day the first time the idea that "same sex" could get "married" was even discussed in public and not laughed out of the public discourse.

There is no marriage anymore. There is a legal contract a lot of governments still call "marriage" but it isn't marriage. There is however, such a thing as a permanent heterosexual union. Such unions might sign the regime's "marriage" contract for various reasons but that doesn't give the regime's contracts validy as marriages.

That stated, there is nothing unbiological about heterosexual polygamy. The only ethnical question, is how this impacts society (ie if one guy is hogging up so many women, what happens to the guys who can't get a wife). Otherwise its not a concern. Its certainly not in the same league of absurdity as "same sex "marriage.""
Click to expand...

Wait- if marriage isn't the legal contract, what is it?
 
renard_ruse said:
...what happens to the guys who can't get a wife....
Click to expand...
Well, he could spend time working on being a better and more appealing man, instead of pissing and moaning about how unfair the world is for changing.

Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.
Click to expand...
The person who wrote this really needs to get out of the house more. Muslims aren't the only ones who circumvent the law to have multiple spouses. In fact, I'm willing to bet that in the US they are in the minority.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
It falls under more and custom more so than law...



We put it under law because the man got to keep all his stuff.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being rhetorical- I know you can have a commitment ceromony without it being legal- hell, my grandparents have been together 45 years and they've never been married, but I think if I really knew what some folk thought marriage was, I could understand why they think they can limit it so much. I've always been genuinely curious about that. I mean, I've never understood how a legal contract can be limited by gender whatwith the "separate but equal" being unconstitutional and whatnot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FiveInch033
Real economics....not the bubble Marxists live in..
2
Replies
30
Views
490
RightField
RightField
F
Birthday presents
Replies
2
Views
246
Gecko1961
Gecko1961
H
Choosing a story to read
Replies
7
Views
158
StillStunned
StillStunned
C
“Mindful masturbation” as an alternative to porn consumption – who has experience with this concept?
Replies
4
Views
279
NightBirdNYC
NightBirdNYC
JenniferSmithJones
Funny facts about humans, mammals, and genetics
Replies
3
Views
176
JenniferSmithJones
JenniferSmithJones
Back
Top