Should Sharia Law & Polygamy be Considered 'CIVIL RIGHTS'?

Proponents of queer marriages got a big boost yesterday as the state of Kallyfornicator gave rights to queers to marry their partner. The giddy sap attorney Boise stated that the prospects of making queer marriage legal in all of Obama's 57 states becomes ever so real now. You know, these alternative lifestyle people are finally getting their civil rights upheld. Who are we to stop them from claiming their rights?

What would prevent the queer marriage predicate from opening the doors to other groups of people who believe they're not getting their 'civil rights' upheld? Wouldn't those people who believe in and or follow the dictates of Sharia Law and polygamous lifestyles feel that they can now take their cases to court by claiming their civil rights have been violated? Is there no end in sight to watching America sink into oblivion by granting these whack jobs their civil rights? How about the guy that wants to marry his prized pink-eyed sheep; will he be able to get in line behind the other losers to state his case?

 

Have a beer and calm down.

 

Here's a better question: why should polygamy be illegal?

As for Sharia, it depends on what part of it. The parts of Sharia that are identical to Jewish Beth Din courts (IE non-judicial voluntary arbitration in matters of marriage, divorce, and personal finances) should most definitely be civil rights. To restrict those would violate the free exercise clause.

As for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) slippery slope beastiality argument, in exactly how many states can animals legally consent or sign legally binding contracts?

 

Can't ya just feel the Love coming from the OP. My my, such a display.

 

Excellent question.

True.

Makes ya wonder if they have a personal agenda there, one never knows what goes on in the minds of some here, ewwwwww.

 

This is actually a conservative issue. It stands with State's rights because it gives the states the right to choose. It is also a limit on big government control.

 

I view polygamy as a civil right. The majority doesn't... yet.

 

Excuse me can you turn down the bigotry I can't hear you very well.

Don't you love when idiots bring up a 6 year old misspoken phrase. As if that makes their argument more valid.

Right you aren't allowed to do that by the Constitution.

One thing is that while I think you are confused by how the law works and what happened yesterday. State law will guide some of that. DOMA just said that the Federal government has to recognize the legal marriages of Americans for Federal purposes. The Prop 8 decision was that the people who brought the case didn't have standing to appeal the California court's decision to vacate Prop 8 on Constitutional grounds, so in effect in California the decision was to allow California sort it out.

People have a civil right to practice as much of Sharia law that doesn't violate the law of the land now. So for example, circumcision, Halal food, praying 5 times a day, giving Zakat, are all examples of Sharia law. Islamic divorce is part of Sharia law and if a Muslim married couple do that they are divorced by Islamic law but not by the law of the state until that was determined by a court. People use Shaira and Halacha every day in their lives and until it violates the rights of others or is determined to be a problem for the state then it is protected. Just like churches and temples of other faiths.

Polygamy is a different issue and I don't know all the legal arguments against since I can't see why it is a problem.

Yes those whack job American citizens who want the country to uphold the Constitution. Bastards.

I see you just turned up the bigotry again. What is your obsession with marrying animals. Now I bet you can tell me why a sheep can't enter into marriage legally. No...well then maybe you shouldn't be able to either.

 

Another predictably failed thread from the OP. It's becoming quite a habit...

 

The fact the door was already open? There is nothing stopping the proponent of pretty much anything making an argument that it should be a civil right and that would be assessed on it's legal and social (and sadly, political) merits. The status of gay marriage really doesn't change that in any way.

Polygamy is a valid question but Sharia Law isn't a single thing, encompassing a wide range of legal and social concepts so you can't really approach it in the same manner. Most aspects of Sharia probably don't even require government recognition to be practiced, just like most aspects of other religious laws.

 

There's no reason why polygamy and incestual marriage should be illegal now that the historical meaning and purpose of marriage has been changed. I would rather we stay consistent and honest while we are on this progressive slope of societal destabilization, which is the goal of progressivism according to a PF progressive, yesterday. A rare admission.

- - - Updated - - -

I would argue that polygamy is closer to the accepted historical definition of marriage than homosexual marriage is. Procreation is possible in the former, not the latter.

 

What the hell does procreation have to do with marriage? You can quite easily procreate in the complete absence of marriage. Our ancestors managed just fine, after all. And you can also quite easily be married and not procreate. Like me, for example. There is literally no connection at all between the two.

 

Only one question comes to mind:

Does the above offer a better indicator of fascistic or homophobic thinking; or is it BOTH?

 

Excellent points for sure. When I called those favoring giving civil rights to such entities as Sharia Law and Polygamy as being 'WHACK JOBS', I never in my wildest conservative imagination thought that those WHACK JOBS would show up here enmasse to give their undivided consent to such societal degradation. But when one deals with leftism--one has to be able to take all the nonsense in stride. I must have missed that particular response from a PF member who indeed stated that the destabilization of our society is the goal of the progressive movement. We certainly have known this to be the case ever since they (the progressives) got their initial marching orders from the likes of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin.

 

Sharia is a completely different law system. Just because it has religious connotations doesn't give it any force in our civil law. If fanatic Christians tried to use the laws in Leviticus (stoning adulterers to death, for instance) we rightly wouldn't accept the religious belief argument as a valid exemption from the law.

Polygamy is a bit more of a slippery slope, but there has never been a time when multiple wives (or husbands, for that matter) has been legal in anything approaching modern Western law. Much like the incest laws, you can point out good genetic and societal reasons why polygamy is a bad idea quite irrespective of any religious arguments.

 

The institution of marriage was a way of socializing people into creating families and raising children. That's been the historical function it has served in society. I know history begins the moment a progressive is born, but try and think a little outside your own personal perspective.

 

You might want to google the history of marriage. Perspective indeed. You also seem to be suggesting that once something is whatever way it is it should never be subject to change. So apparently we should all be living in 10,000 BC.

 

It was said yesterday. A destabilized society allows them to enact change. They are xenophiles. Stable societies that function well cannot allow them to continually change society, so they agitate and do what they can to disrupt society.

I'm all for polygamy and incestual marriages becoming legal, though. Like I said, if we want to change the meaning of marriage and destabilize society, we need to at least stay consistent and not discriminate.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I need to do that?

 

your confusing a religious marriage with a legal marriage, religious marriages are not legal marriages

you can have as many religious marriages as you want, but only one legal one at a time

.

 

Some people just are still bitter than queers can't be beaten up without fear of being arrested anymore.

 

To the OP- if you want to advocate for your right to polygamy- go for it. Under the Constitution you have the right to free speech for your position. You can even go to court and claim injury because your are not allowed to legally marry your second wife- if that is the case.

However of course, striking down DOMA, and allowing two people of the same gender to be married in California, as they can in 12 other states has nothing to do with that.

Regarding Sharia law- I have no idea what you think you are speaking of. The Constitution both allows for freedom of religion- and freedom from religion. Sharia law can never be imposed upon me by the state here in the U.S- or imposed upon you.

Great thing the Constitution- it protects all of us.

 

If gay people want to get married, then all the more ladies available for the straight guys I guess!
Honestly, if they want a tax break, then I have issue with that. If they were not straight, and married the opposite sex, they would get the same benefits; I don't have an issue with it.

As for other aspects; well EVERYTHING needs to be examined. If enough people want to bring a case, then by all means let them. There is a difference between stating that some law is not legal (as in the gay marriage case), and making something a new law. Sharia, as with other religious laws, can be legal but cannot trump the law of the land. There are other religious courts that do not trump the law of the land.

I can see no benefit of someone wanting to marry a sheep, but I see no particular reason to prevent it. If he wants that, why not? I suppose there are not enough people who want to do that to challenge it though. If enough people want something, then things can usually happen. What number defines "enough" may need to be more than 51% of the population in some circumstances ; ultimately, if 51% of people wanted Sharia to become the law of the land, it would just take one man to start a "Sharia Party" and run for president. If he is voted in by the people then the people have spoken...

Of course, there would be constitutional challenges in such circumstances, so it's a silly thought, but not completely impossible.

 

Why should polygamy be illegal? Only for the same reasons that gay marriage was - state interest in procreation, and 'ew.'

Why should we not have Sharia law? really, you would compare this to gay marriage? I'm not a real gay marriage proponent, but come on dude.

 

I love people who are facetious. You're my kind of people.

 

Bad analogy. Sharia law has no force in our civil law and is not seeking that in the US in any way that matters. Just like crazy right wing preachers say that we should put gay people in concentration camps there are Muslims who want to ban alcohol, force modesty on women etc. But none of that has any real power unless the politicians buy into it. But what Sharia does is tell a Muslim how they should eat, when to pray, etc. etc. It is followed voluntarily by adherence to the faith. There are some who get into the tiniest details of life. (Height of wife and husband) and some much broader (giving Zakat) There are also many interpretation of Sharia not just Shia and Sunni Google Ahmadi Muslims for quite a surprise.

It depends on how you define modern and western law. Why are there genetic reasons not to have polygamy? I can't think of one.