Would you rent to a Polygamist?

[natmarie73]

Its not just about covering the face. You are right in that many women prefer to cover their face and hair for modesty and religious reasons.

However, it is not their choice to not be allowed out of the house without a male relative, to not have any say in who they marry, to not have any say if the husband wants to divorce them, to not have any rights to their own children if the husband does divorce them, to not be allowed to work, drive a car or do anything else that men are allowed to do.

I would like to know where you got your information about human rights from. When a person tries to say there are no such things as human rights and there is absolutely no reason why it should apply everywhere it is immediately obvious that that person enjoys a life free of slavery, discrimination and persecution. You would not hear such rubbish from anyone who lives in a country where there are no basic rights. I used to work in a leagues club in Sydney where a lot of the kitchen staff were political and religious refugees from Tibet and non-Han Chinese from mainland China - believe me they were not laughing in anyone's face about human rights at all. The very fact that there are so many refugees from all cultures and societies is proof that people everywhere do want basic rights and will go to extremes to get them.

By your logic it is perfectly OK for anyone to do anything to anyone else as long as they don't kill them. I'm sure you would have a totally different view if someone were to go to your house, rape your wife and daughters, steal everything you owned and torture you and your family for as long as they wanted just because they could and the police and government just said "but hey, you are all alive aren't you so what else do you want? You don't have any other rights so quit complaining" and then threw you in prison to rot.

 

[crazylikeafox]

Only if the woman had more than one husband too.

 

[Strannik]

By your logic it is perfectly OK for anyone to do anything to anyone else as long as they don't kill them. I'm sure you would have a totally different view if someone were to go to your house, rape your wife and daughters, steal everything you owned and torture you and your family for as long as they wanted just because they could and the police and government just said "but hey, you are all alive aren't you so what else do you want?

And what exactly does this have to do with human rights?

 

[Strannik]

However, it is not their choice to not be allowed out of the house without a male relative, to not have any say in who they marry, to not have any say if the husband wants to divorce them, to not have any rights to their own children if the husband does divorce them, to not be allowed to work, drive a car or do anything else that men are allowed to do.

Oh i'm pretty sure that a system over here when it's quite common that a wife divorces husband and denies him any access to the kids, while still demanding financial support from him is much better

 

[redwing]

Just saw Big Love on SBS tonight and thought of this thread

Big Love on SBS
Author: SBS | Mar 2, 2007, 09:30

Fans of The Sopranos and Six Feet Under rest easy. SBS has guaranteed an 8.30 timeslot for the HBO hit drama, Big Love.

Big Love provides an intriguing insight into the long outlawed practice and hidden world of polygamy. Featuring a stellar movie star cast including Bill Paxton, Chloe Sevigny and Jeanne Tripplehorn, the 12 part series centres on Mormon patriarch Bill Henrickson (played by Paxton) with his three wives and their seven children. Bill struggles to balance the financial and emotional needs of Barb, Nicki and Margene, who live in separate, adjacent houses and take turns sharing their husband each night. While managing the household finances together and routinely sharing "family home nights," they try to keep simmering jealousies in check and their arrangement a secret — polygamy is illegal in Utah and banned by the mainstream Mormon Church.

Produced by Warner Bros, Big Love made up part of Nine’s output deal but they decided to on sell when approached by SBS late last year.

Director of Television and Online Content Matt Campbell said "Frankly were delighted but also a bit surprised Nine passed on this little gem. I think they deemed it too edgy for their audience but when it comes to drama edge is what people have come to expect from SBS."

The success in the US and UK has seen Big Love renewed for a second series.


Big Love will begin on SBS mid 2007.

 

[natmarie73]

And what exactly does this have to do with human rights?

It has everything to do with human rights. This sort of thing happens all the time in many countries and is perpetuated by governments, police and the military. I was making the point that if that scenario had actually happened to you, you would not be saying that nobody deserved any rights, which is what it sounds as though you are saying.

This sort of treatment is exactly why human rights has become a major movement across the world. Human rights are about basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled, not just rich westerners. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

Human rights is all about ensuring that everyone has the chance to live their lives without persecution, oppression, torture, cruelty, discrimination and enslavement, not whether they wear a veil or not. Clearly, women in the middle east do not have the same rights as men and while some may live quite happily in that environment, many would not.

 

[wylie]

Oh i'm pretty sure that a system over here when it's quite common that a wife divorces husband and denies him any access to the kids, while still demanding financial support from him is much better

Not to mention the men who do see their kids, but don't ever pay a red cent to their struggling wives, working their butts off feeding and clothing those kids. C'mon....... I know many more instances of this situation than men who are not allowed to see their kids (and my brother is one of those, so not being totally blinkered here).

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Strannik, I think you and I disgree on most stuff, but I agree with you that human rights are a feel good creation of developed nations.....and in fact, there's no such thing as a natural right to shelter, equal rights, food, water, resources etc. History shows it has always been a matter of survival of the fittest.

Nevertheless, I believe Christianity gave western nations a competitive advantage over other systems because it fostered caring for the weak.... and those who are physically weaker, often include those who are smarter. And many inventions and breakthroughs of the industrial and post industrial age might not have eventuated without these smarter less physically strong types.

I am not a rampant Christian either. I reject the interpretation of Christianity most churches have. I see good in Buddhism and Hinduism and Confucianism....

What does bug me though is that people want to come to Australia and live a life totally at odds with the entrenched values Australia is based on. Why not migrate to Pakistan or Saudi instead?

I think Australian progressives have sent the world the wrong message in saying we are multicultural. Because we aren't. We are one dominant culture migrants are expected to assimilate into within 2-3 generations. Multiculturalism is just another feelgood progressive thing dreamed up by atheist Utopian socialist progressive ideologues who wish to erode the Christian based morality and ethics Australia was founded on. And to my view, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Strannik]

Human rights are about basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled, not just rich westerners. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

Human rights is all about ensuring that everyone has the chance to live their lives without persecution, oppression, torture, cruelty, discrimination and enslavement, not whether they wear a veil or not. Clearly, women in the middle east do not have the same rights as men and while some may live quite happily in that environment, many would not.

I doubt that there is even a handful of countries on earth, which fit this description (that is if any at all). And Australia is certainly not one of them

So Australians (including myself) have no moral right to speak about human rights.

 

[Strannik]

Not to mention the men who do see their kids, but don't ever pay a red cent to their struggling wives, working their butts off feeding and clothing those kids. C'mon....... I know many more instances of this situation than men who are not allowed to see their kids (and my brother is one of those, so not being totally blinkered here).

All i mean is that it's hypocritical to talk about 'human rights' of poor women being broken in Saudi Arabia, while exactly same happens in Australia.

Or it only becomes a 'human right' in a countries whose cultures we don't accept, but in our culture court rulings override 'human rights'?

 

[Strannik]

Strannik, I think you and I disgree on most stuff, but I agree with you that human rights are a feel good creation of developed nations.....

I totally agree with your whole post.

However with regards to original topic i think that if you accept adultery, homosexuals, swingers (and all the other perks of sexual revolution) you should accept polygamy as well. I don't see why it's not ok to have multiple wives if you can afford it, but ok to have multiple partners or lovers, or a partner of the same sex for that matter.

You should either accept all, or reject all, but not pick the ones that you like and reject the rest.

 

[Francesco]

I totally agree with your whole post.

However with regards to original topic i think that if you accept adultery, homosexuals, swingers (and all the other perks of sexual revolution) you should accept polygamy as well. I don't see why it's not ok to have multiple wives if you can afford it, but ok to have multiple partners or lovers, or a partner of the same sex for that matter.

You should either accept all, or reject all, but not pick the ones that you like and reject the rest.

I think there are societal issues when there is difference in property and legal rights from the relationships, ie there should be no issues if you make current poly-sexual relationship property and legal rights = proposed polygamy property and legal rights. But, how do you do it without disadvantaging some in the polygamy relationships and without creating complex bureaucratic processes to manage these issues?

F

 

[Strannik]

"People who want to do something look for solutions, people who don't want to do anything look for excuses."

 

[crazylikeafox]

Strannik, just because you can't see any difference between polygamy and homosexuality, for example, doesn't mean that there is no difference. Illegality of the former but not the latter aside, homosexuality does not support gender inequality. And you can say 'but the women choose it', but if you're born to believe that something is good (like covering your face), odds are you are going to believe the same thing as an adult and it would be difficult in more than one way to go against that. There's little room for disagreement. And since when do most Australians support having multiple partners?

 

[Strannik]

And you can say 'but the women choose it', but if you're born to believe that something is good (like covering your face), odds are you are going to believe the same thing as an adult and it would be difficult in more than one way to go against that.

... but if you're born to believe that something is bad (like covering your face), odds are you are going to believe the same thing as an adult and it would be difficult in more than one way to go against that.

 

[gooram]

Well said strannik... I think one of the worlds biggest problems is exactly this... people are 'born to believe' in some way, and stay that way, and no-one is thinking for themselves.

 

[josko]

Strannik, just because you can't see any difference between polygamy and homosexuality, for example, doesn't mean that there is no difference. Illegality of the former but not the latter aside, homosexuality does not support gender inequality. And you can say 'but the women choose it', but if you're born to believe that something is good (like covering your face), odds are you are going to believe the same thing as an adult and it would be difficult in more than one way to go against that. There's little room for disagreement. And since when do most Australians support having multiple partners?

This is true to some degree. This is where I bring in the God Arguement. When people tell their children there is a God, like Santa they believe it. Polygamy is the same, as is ceremony ie Marriage.

However I do believe that we are born with an innate ability to determine right from wrong. Suppression, oppression in any form can only be 'felt'as wrong to the suppressed/oppressed and cannot be taught, tolerated or accepted.

To get to the root of the problem of Polygamy, we really have to ask how the individual feels about it and whether or not they feel they must do it because of their religion or culture. It's not Polygamy that is wrong.

Regards Jo