Australian Humour re Legalising Polygamy

[ylop]

Hi.

Thought you might like to see this youtube video where Australian comedians make fun of the ridiculous possibility of legalising polygamy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCyodB46QHQ&feature=fvhl

Even if you dont think it is funny, it will give you an insight into public opinion on the matter.

Seems we are still at the ridicule stage - perhaps a good thing?

Ridicule comes after Apathy but before Hostility in the acceptance cycle?

Something like:
Apathy
Ridicule
Hostility
Clash Event
Reluctant Acceptance
Acceptance
Commonplace
Can't understand why there was fuss
Apology for past hostility

Regards,

ylop

 

[Scarecrow]

It is blocked here in the US for copyright reasons...: (

 

[steve]

the law of unintended consequences;
you protect your copyright and lose out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising

ylop;
i doubt that we will get past hostility before Yeshua's return
only the enemy's agenda goes that smoothly

 

[Scarecrow]

I don't know about that...

We have already had a number of "Clash Events" happen recently, and are about to have a major showdown in Texas with the challenge to the Constitutionality of the bigamy laws. I honestly think that there is a good chance for this to be successful, if not, an appeal will surely be filed and it will move up as far as it can, even to the SCOTUS if need be. Any ruling in our favor will quickly lead to "Reluctant Acceptance".

I have a vested interest in the bigamy trial and have offered to participate by giving my testimony if the lead attorney decides he wants it. As soon as there is a ruling anywhere in our favor I will challenge the State Laws here in Colorado.

 

[ylop]

For those blocked by copyright, the video in summary:

. Popular Australian TV comedy show for a more educated audience
. Regular segment where two real-life advertising agencies are invited onto the show and given the challenge of creating an advertisement to promote a difficult topic.
. Last week's topic was polygamy.
. Agency A created an ad where a think tank brainstormed the idea and came up with a large list of positives for polygamy appealing to various political constituencies, eg reducing the housing shortage for labour party, less people living in sin for the catholics, only lose 14.2% of your wealth instead of 50% in a divorce for the business people (7 wives).
. Agency B created an ad where they posted a problem - the man drought for women past late twenties, and the solution being polygamy.
. Panel of 4 judges compared the two pitches.
. Interestingly the focussed and human approach of Agency B and fixing the man drought won all 4 judges.

ylop

 

[ylop]

Steve while I can be negative at times, I am actually cautiously optimistic about where we are in this cycle. I can see legalisation of polygamy in our lifetimes, probably as an unintended consequence of the homosexual rights lobby. However I fear it will be in the old part of my lifetime, whereas I would like it to be NOW! ylop

 

[Scarecrow]

Our courts here in the U.S. are now much less bigoted then they were in the mid 1800s. There have been numerous rulings by Federal Judges on issues that directly relate to our freedom to practice Biblical Marriage. While there remains "religious" opposition and social stigma to polygamy, that in itself is insufficient grounds for the courts to ignore the 1st, 10th, and 14th amendments of the US Constitution and allow the government to continue to use unconstitutional laws to oppress a minority.

Consider what Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School, had to say:

October 3, 2004

“While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.”

“The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.”

His statement “Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists.” Is in error, that day is right around the corner. Once decriminalized, it may take a generation to pass, but polygamy will become socially acceptable, as it once was before the Roman culture forced monogamy on the known world. It also seems that Mr. Turley’s crystal ball was not focused well when he looked to the future of television programming that would include the polygamous lifestyle.

The bigamy trial in Texas is a huge opportunity for our cause. I hope everyone reading this will at least send an email to:

kentschaffer@gmail.com

showing their support and including any ideas or information they may feel would be helpful to him in his case to have the bigamy laws struck down as unconstitutional.

The courts will be shown that:

From a legal perspective these laws were enacted with considerable religious prejudice and the intent to force individuals, territories, and states to conform to the "religious" practice of monogamy present in the majority Christian population at the time.

The Federal Government interfered with state sovereignty by forcing a religious definition of monogamy upon the states with these laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the authority to do this, in fact the 1st amendment prohibits this very thing.

The social impact of polygamy is that it creates strong well nurtured individuals that will eventually enter society and choose for themselves if they wish to participate in this type of marriage.

If one adult chooses to leave a polygamous household there is still considerable security since the family has not been split in two. It is likely that only those leaving the family will face the feelings of insecurity and seclusion brought on by separation and divorce that the monogamous community faces. This becomes evident when examining the testimony of women that have left a polygamous household (those in an actual Biblical Marriage, not those who were “held captive” in cult situations).

The household bond between the adult individuals involved gives the children a sense of micro-community and security within their home and family.

Shared duties in supporting and maintaining the household and family build strong bonds of mutual need and cooperation while simultaneously reducing the demands placed on any one individual.

From a "religious" perspective (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) polygyny is a common thread between these major religions. Polygamy is not commanded in these religions, but neither is it sinful in any way.

The doctrine of monogamy established by men does not constitute reality any more than it did when individuals were persecuted for claiming that the Earth was round and rotated around the Sun.

In areas where gay marriage has been legal for some time now there have been no adverse effects on the communities or societies. The same results will be obvious once the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws are repealed and polygamous families are allowed to freely interact with society without the fear of legal persecution.

The decriminalization of bigamy and polygamy will allow for the gathering of statistics about these types of households and accurate assessments made from this information.

A number of abuses now practiced by some polygamists, including "Milking the beast" by "single mothers" to obtain government assistance and benefits while considering themselves a man's wife, will be considerably reduced since most of these women will want to become legally married to their husband.

While the stereotypical polygamous household wears prairie dresses and live in compounds, the majority of these families actually live fairly normal lives in communities across the country.

The decriminalization of polygamy will allow for even more secure relationships within this type of household. Husbands will not feel that they have to hide their wives, and wives will feel more secure in that the government will not interfere with the custody of their children.

When these things and much more are brought to light in the courts it will be all but impossible for a fair and honest judge to uphold the bigamy laws.