Nobody else is asserting anything. You don’t have to cite a question.
Telling another poster he or she has a “deluded mind” is an insult that is out of line for this forum. Do not do it again.
Claiming to speak only to a limited audience is the sort of thing that should be engaged in a blog. This site is not for posting blogs.*
Speaking only to “Conservative believers,” (particularly in the limited fashion that you appear to define the term), means that you have a potential audience in this forum that can be numbered on two hands with fingers left over, so you are wasting your time.
[ /Moderating ]
- [
Besides which, while there were one or two facts in the OP, there were an awful lot of factual errors and we are here to fight ignorance, not promote it. 
Even Jesus knew his calling was to the sinners, not the saved. To be fair though, you never claimed to be a Christian.
That is a pretty poor definition of bigotry. A better defintion would be to hold an opinion to the exclusion of any other views or evidence–much like making assertions that can be disproven and then failing to support the reasons why one holds to those errors.
You seem to be married to a lot of vague generalizations.
TEST
What do you mean by broken code?
I test-quoted one of the blue text posts (reply# 87 to this thread)
and I do not see anything broken. I don’t see anything otherwise
annoying about the blue text format either.
TEST
And if you don’t want the quote to be blue it takes about 5 seconds to delete the formatting tags.
As you will not cite, I will simply say that there are not tens of thousands of polygamous families out there in our country. There are not even hundreds. I am, of course, entirely correct.
Therefore, you will agree with me. Right?
I even found a cite for you:
Nobody’s saying you should go away. I, for one, am rather interested in your views, even though I am in total disagreement with them. It doesn’t mean that we can’t have a good spirited debate, so long as we’re abiding by the rules and conventions here of backing up what one claims, not directing insults at each other, and sometimes even agreeing to disagree. But it is bad form to join a board and then basically believe that you are exempt from the rules and customs that we practice. I don’t go into your home and put my feet up on the furniture; it’s rude to join this forum and reject our standards of behavior (such as providing cites when asked for).
I actually hope you stick around. Personally, I’m very curious if you yourself are in a plural marriage.
Lucky guess, or has he been reading my posts?
Au contraire, mon cher frere. The list of negatives with Plural Marriage is huge.
Lemme get my blue on. Ahem:
The list of plural marriage negatives is enormous. For one it will cost the economy at least a few hundred billion dollars a year. That is economic.
And it will help overburden our immigration by allowing men to bring multiple wives in, along with their relatives, so it opens another door to large numbers of immigrants.
**And there is the increase in expensive diseases **that are related to polygamous sex practices.
Don’t get me started on all the negatives involved in plural marriage. It deserves a thread of its own.
Naah, it’s perfectly legal, under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.
Does this in any way restrict plural marriage to “indigenous African peoples of South Africa”?
It also seems that polygeny is allowed but not polyandry, although it’s not fully clear. What is clear, is that there are different provisions for the wife and the husband. Is that because “customary marriages” were never polygenous?
And since SSM is legal in South Africa, it would seem odd if polyandry were not
India, by far the most populous liberal democracy in the world, permits polygamy for Muslims under Sharia law, which is very patriarchal concerning women. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, s.2
Liberal democracies such as Canada, Australia, and England, do not permit polygamy, but they have laws in place to equitably deal with the failure of polygamous relationships, including polygamous marriages of people who find themselves in these jurisdictions.
Australia: Family Law Act, s. 6
Ontario: Family Law Act, s. 1 (2) and Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 1 (2)
Ontario: Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 21 (1)
England: Matrimonial Causes Act, s. 47 (1)
In family law, it all comes down to the court finding a solution that is in the best interest of the child, and provides equitable child support, spousal support and property division. That already happens in very complicated matters that do not involve formal polygamy, but do involve multiple parties in blended relationships that change over time. Adding formal polygamy to the legal mix is no big deal.
What concerns me is promulgation of a religious based set of laws that subjugate women. Shariat and fundamentalist Mormonism force women into subservient roles, and these religions hold to polygamy. I hope that plural marriage is legalized, however, only on the condition that very careful constraints are in put in place to reduce the harm caused to women by religious based laws and religious practices. It’s a pity that polygamy has been tied to these religions, such that to avoid the problems caused by the religions, it may not be possible to legalize polygamy for those who wish to practice it without violation of the basic human right to equality.
No, Muslims can get them too, AFAIK.
I don’t think it’s ever been tested. If it were the Constitutional Court would be forced to allow it ,or else strike down the Act, because gender equality is enshrined in the Bill of Rights
I think so, but like I said, it’s never been challenged.
Where is The Grapist when you need him?