[quote]A Scottish judge recently bent the law to benefit a polygamous household.
The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone - usually grounds for an automatic loss of one’s driving license. The defendant’s lawyer explained his client’s need to speed: “He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis.” Sympathetic to the polygamist’s plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license.
Monogamy, this ruling suggests, long a foundation of Western civilization, is silently eroding under the challenge of Islamic law. Should current trends continue, polygamy could soon be commonplace. [/quote]
Read it all:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
[quote]jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.[/quote]
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it. Not to say that bias is O.K. just sayin thats how id imagine people justify it.
but ive also never heard of people being accepting of Muslim polygamists either.
This post really should have read " A Westerner" not “Westerners”
The world will continue to yield to those of the Islamic persuasion until they are capable of supplanting the establishment and exercising Islamic law.
[quote]jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.[/quote]
The reason why it is allowed is because the British Labour, conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have a hard on for Islam.
This story shows just how far the Liberals are willing to go to curry favour with the muslims because Polygamy is against the law in Britain. But because the man is a Muslim he is able to use his law breaking as an excuse to commit more crime.
[quote]jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.[/quote]
The case occured in Scotland. They don’t have too much morman trouble.
People think Mitt Romney was a polygamist because people are stupid. The same people probably thought Obama was a Muslim.
I think what you mean to imply is ‘why are the rules bent for Muslims and not Mormons’, and not [quote]why… would the neighbors let [a muslim] slide [and not a polygamist][/quote]. I don’t think you’re arguing about what individual people think, so much as the difference in the application of law. And to that, I can only point to my first answer. Europe as a whole often doesn’t make sense.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it. Not to say that bias is O.K. just sayin thats how id imagine people justify it.
but ive also never heard of people being accepting of Muslim polygamists either.
This post really should have read " A Westerner" not “Westerners”[/quote]
The abuse is there,we just dont hear about much here in America and they don’t get arrested for it that much. I’ll provide you the info if you want.
[quote]Otep wrote:
jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
The case occured in Scotland. They don’t have too much morman trouble.
People think Mitt Romney was a polygamist because people are stupid. The same people probably thought Obama was a Muslim.
I think what you mean to imply is ‘why are the rules bent for Muslims and not Mormons’, and not why… would the neighbors let [a muslim] slide [and not a polygamist]. I don’t think you’re arguing about what individual people think, so much as the difference in the application of law. And to that, I can only point to my first answer. Europe as a whole often doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
We arent to far behind Europe as it is. Just a thought and it’s kinda ilrelevant, if Europe is so unracist and America is so racist how come we have a black president and none of them do?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it. Not to say that bias is O.K. just sayin thats how id imagine people justify it.
but ive also never heard of people being accepting of Muslim polygamists either.
This post really should have read " A Westerner" not “Westerners”[/quote]
You seriously haven’t heard of muslim men abusing women?..LOL!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
A Scottish judge recently bent the law to benefit a polygamous household.
The case involved a Muslim male who drove 64 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone - usually grounds for an automatic loss of one’s driving license.
The defendant’s lawyer explained his client’s need to speed: “He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis. Without his driving license he would be unable to do this on a regular basis.”
Sympathetic to the polygamist’s plight, the judge permitted him to retain his license.
That’s because any action a muslim does not like is offensive to them and we can’t offend muslims! That’s like a very mean thing to do. We must appease them in everyway. Hell, we should all just become servants of muslims, God forbid we say anything about the evil the perpetuate around the world.
[quote]jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.[/quote]
PC gone mad. If you’re giving one group special rights over antoher, it’s called discrimination. And the word you’re looking for is “polygamist”.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it.[/quote]
[quote]jawara wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Man is not meant to have only one mate.
It is a sad fact of Western Society that polygamy is not the norm.
Though, I believe a man should only have as many women as he can provide for.
I disagree, one wife is enough for me thank you. Is it natural for women to have as many men as they can provide for too?[/quote]
And me too for that matter…I can handle only one at the moment.
But I am speaking purely from a biological stand point. A man can theoretically impregnate as many women as he can have sex with. It then becomes an economical matter of being able to support them thru their pregnancy and child rearing and an issue of his temperment whether he can deal with them mentally. Part of me thinks it would be easier for him if polygamy were an accepted practice.
We already see examples of this happening whether a man “legally” marries his mate or not. The fact that men willingly “cheat” on their spouse and have children with other partners is proof that it is possible. It also brings home the point about the other two factors mentioned – economics and attitude.
Women can not have more than two mates at a time – though she can certainly have multiple sexual partners. If she were to become pregnant she then has to make a choice about what is best for her baby.
My attitude toward this is neither cultural nor moral but rather biological. Sometimes I wonder whether polygamist societies are better off in the sense that there is a wider support network for raising multiple children.