By: Raelea C. Phillips
Many liberals are pro gay marriage and believe a woman should have the right to choose; but they are against legalizing polygamy and prostitution. At least most conservatives are consistently against the freedom of choice in all four realms. Has either side thought about a woman having more than one husband? Why can’t every adult be left alone to marry who and as many as they wish; and if they want to get paid for giving blow jobs, then who are we to say otherwise?
If people put as much energy into changing themselves as they put into trying to change everyone else, can you imagine what that would do for social reform? Why can’t I have three husbands and five wives? If you want to marry just one of the same or opposite sex, then that should be your right as well. But first, before implementing those rights, we’d have to remove the biblical constraints from our constitution- for example the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance which wasn’t added until the 1950’s. Our country is supposed to be for all ethnic groups and open to all religions or lack thereof. So why do we have all these restrictions?
I grow weary of conservatives poking their noses into individual private matters protesting things that don’t even have an effect on their personal lives. They bark about ‘protecting our freedom’ by means of a useless political war or insist on ‘the spreading of freedom through the word of Jesus’ by means of missionaries invading other countries and destroying ancient cultures and customs. What freedom? Where is that freedom when someone is forcing their commandments down my throat? Where is that freedom when we’re told who we can and can’t have intercourse with, who we can and can’t marry, and especially why one CAN’T get paid for services rendered? And why do they care about my salvation anyway? However, I do recognize the altruism of missionary work; but that’s for a later discussion.
Oh I get it. The other side of the coin which doesn’t have anything to do with morality, so this must be the liberals’ protest (wink wink). One argument is if prostitution were legalized, then sexually transmitted diseases would become more widespread. Another entails the feminist notion of degradation to all women when prostitutes allow men to objectify and use women as a tool for physical pleasure. Feminists use this same argument regarding pornography and strip clubs. Conservatives have their paradox of conception between freedom and the imposition of religion into government. But liberal feminists aren’t any different when they insist on enforcing First Amendment rights and equality across the board, but still want to censor a person’s right to dance naked or have sex. It is degrading to all women when one abandons her intellect to give into a man’s objectification for either becoming a hooker or the weak wife of a male polygamist, but it should be changed through education not through government control.
Boohoo! Actually, it is just more whining from both sides. When abortion became legal, fewer women were butchered and killed. And women that want abortions will find a way whether it is legal or not. Just like men and women who want to sell themselves will get paid despite the law and with or without a condom. If it is legal then the government can collect more useless taxes and have more money for wasteful spending, which brings me to the polygamy issue. You may be asking, “So how do the tax benefits work out for someone married to more than one person?” Simple question equals simple answer in theory of course: a person can only receive the tax and insurance benefits through the first marriage. For every marriage after only the NEWLY, newly-wed receives the benefits.
So let’s go back to the morality issue concerning the divorce rate. The divorce rate of the everyday, common, opposite-sex marriage is up to 50%, that is for the first marriage. The second marriage divorce rate is around 65% and the third is around 70%. And people are worried about the divorce rate among same-sex marriages and polygamists? These right-winged, control freaks spew out their concerns like sour milk regarding healthy child-rearing and stability in the home. I didn’t realize opposite-sex marriages that ended in divorce provided so much security for children.
The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter who marries who and how many. If there is a mutual respect and love for one another with open lines of honest communication and setting the example of how to work hard; then what difference does it make? It seems to me that too many people are meddling into too many private lives. As for prostitution, legalize it and tax it. While we are are on that note, why hasn’t marijuana been legalized yet? Oh wait, I think I’m beginning to understand. Politicians are protecting the local and state governments from losing all that revenue they get from issuing speeding tickets!
Let’s live in a country without social restraints! If you don’t want to see it, then look away. If you don’t want to hear it, then put on your headphones and listen to some Ani DiFranco. You might learn something. And if you don’t want your children to be a part of it, then spend some time with them instead of using video games and television as a babysitter! Okay, I admit I am an idealist; but this is where your social freedoms begin to take shape through discussion.
“What is marriage but prostitution to one man instead of many?”
–ANGELA CARTER, Nights at the Circus
tsudo pop
15 Mar 2011first, polygamy is when a man marries multiple women. while polyandry is when a woman marries multiple men. that’s just a technical detail that i had.
secondly, the reason why i don’t believe polygamy isn’t legal is–other than the obvious–because of overpopulation. simply put, as you seem to have wanted simple answers, we don’t need people screwing as many people since that will invariably lead to more kids. it really doesn’t have much to do with freedom, which is an abstract theory, but is rather grounded in concrete terms. and while marriage might be drafted by religious and governmental institutions, the exclusivity of monogamy is mostly biological and based on the needs of the population, not the individual.
thirdly, if anything, it’s democrats more so than republicans that implement governmental control over the whole marriage thing–though i doubt they really care that much. libertarians, i believe, are completely on board with it, and they have absolutely no logic at all. conservatism isn’t necessarily a political ideology that practices social conservatism, but rather political conservatism that desires less government. as you’ll recall from history class, the government didn’t really get that involved with regulating the population’s life until the depression with fdr, and that was an emergency. it just happened that after the emergency was over, politics didn’t really want to go back.
i can see that you’re trying to make a lockean claim that freedom is inherent, and that therefore no one can take it away. but history seems to prove that entirely wrong. slavery, holocaust, gulag, etc. etc. freedom has been proven to be something that is fostered within government. while it’s a nice ideal to believe we can do whatever we want, that’s just not the case. it wouldn’t make any sense, create anarchistic absurdity, and plunge the country into chaos. freedom is built on the foundations of order (of some semblance).
in terms of tax benefits that you bring up, there seems to be a hole in your logic. you say that only the first marriage would receive the benefits. but what first marriage? the first marriage for the guy? or the girl? and then which girl, if it’s polygamous? and which guy, if it’s polyandrous? the structure of your argument in regards to taxes sounds like a regular marriage, but with multiple lovers that everyone is okay with.
if you’re going to take the true step in radicalization, then you’re going to have to get rid of marriage as an institution completely. it’s based on principles of dominance no matter how many therapists say a healthy marriage is based on equality. somone is dominant. everyone would then be allowed to sleep with whom ever they wanted without any consequences. if you’re going to question any institution, then it’s just best to go all the way with it.
Raelea C. Phillips
21 Mar 2011“we don’t need people screwing as many people since that will invariably lead to more kids”
-What does marraige have to do with sex or having children? As if you need one to have the other? Not these days and again that is pushing religion into individual decision.
“the exclusivity of monogamy is mostly biological and based on the needs of the population, not the individual.”
-There is no proof either way for this statement. Every study one way is contradicted by the next.
“it’s democrats more so than republicans that implement governmental control over the whole marriage thing”
-this is another statement of opinion which i can respect and we can agree to disagree
“conservatism isn’t necessarily a political ideology that practices social conservatism, but rather political conservatism that desires less government. as you’ll recall from history class,… didn’t really want to go back.”
-I had many history classes in both high school and college and your statement regarding less govt is inaccuarate. Libertarians are about less government NOT conservatives political OR social. And governemnts have ALWAYS put there noses in people’s business LONG before FDR.
You are clouding the issue regarding freedom. Obviously there are lines to be drawn BUT when it comes to individuals making decisions about their home and lifestyle then the government should NOT have a say.
I agree with getting rid of marraige as an institution but that is for another article. The government should recognize civil unions not marriage. Marriage is a ‘religious’ sacrement; therefore it should NOT be state sponsored.
Rick
21 Mar 2011Governments tend to be busy-bodies. It’s what they do. And yes – we should follow this to the logical conclusion and remove marriage from the law books. How is this a “government” concern ? Simplest solution.
tsudo pop
22 Mar 2011you seem to be contradicting yourself. if marriage, or social unions, or the bonding of two or more people (whatever you want to call it), is a matter of freedom, or choice, then why shouldn’t people get married? you can’t get rid of it just because you have some bias against the church. marriage isn’t inherently religious, not at all. it is mainly biological, just like having a mistress is a biological urge. while studies may contradict one another, it’s logically applicable that we assume these domestic roles for the purpose of perpetuating the survival of our sedentary society established by the Neolithic people.
secondly, freedom, i shall contend, is not inherent within an individual as locke and voltaire proposed. i contend that freedom is something developed through social institutions, like the government, and can be stripped at any time by said institutions if those institutions have become corrupt. take the holocaust, or the gulags of soviet russia–freedom was not a god-given entity for these people. and while you may take these two moments within history as extreme situations, i’ll disagree that many instances within history have sufficiently proven that the individual is not capable of sustaining their own freedom without the dependence of some sort of social construction.
lastly, your ideas about civil unions just sound like a replacement for marriage. hell, i really don’t see any difference other than the whole religion thing. but the great thing about living in this country is that you don’t have to recognize a religion. you can even deny its claims, or ignore it. i don’t particularly care. to assume that marriage is purely religious is you bringing in your own biases from the get-go.
Bocephus Jenkns
15 Mar 2011I love a good soundbite! “Why can’t every adult be left alone to marry who and as many as they wish; and if they want to get paid for giving blow jobs, then who are we to say otherwise?” Hilarious.
Good starting point for an conversation.
chrissy1
21 Mar 2011we should all be able to marry who and how many we want and whats the difference to the law makers???? They dont have to participate who cares how many kids they have as long as they are taken care of and clean and not beat to death by a parent or any other adult. Who says you cant marry more than one person THE BIBLE??????? who wrote that?????? As far as prostitution there has to be a need for someone to fill if no one was out there driving up and down the roads looking for “Love” aka a blowjob then there would be no one to give them one. Oldest profession around!!!!! As far as diseases lol they are everywhere not just in prostitutes I am sure ALOT of people who live (and died) with sexually transmitted diseases were not prostitutes
Well great article keep up the good stuff