How about the Government telling you what you can't teach your children?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/polygamy.appeal.ap/index.html

I wish the government would tell me what I can and can't teach my (future) children!

 

Our rights are crumbling more and more rapidly. It freaks me out to think of what's in store.

 

So this guy shouldn't be stopped from teaching his daughter that different forms of marriage are ok?

 

I'm still dumbfounded by this..... A parent should be able to TEACH a child anything, and this is even something that she is going to learn about in school anyway....... This just goes along with the "Crumbling" of america..... I hope maybe my generation can change some of this back, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

If the Massachusetts Supreme Court and others are going to tell her that different forms of marriage such as men marrying men and women marrying women are not only legal and moral but Constitutionally protected, why should she not be taught that marriage between a man and women is likewise moral and valid?
Remember, we are getting the government out of peoples' sex lives and recognising that different lifestyle choices are none of the public's business. The public has no business imposing it's morality on people who aren't hurting anyone.

Who are we to judge, right?

I thought you Canadians were already ahead of the curve on this issue.

 

I didn't state an opinion, I just asked a question.

Doesn't your opinion about polygamy decide whether you think the government intervening is good or bad?

 

That's ridiculous. There are lots of 'things' that a parent should NOT be allowed to teach to a child. Call up your local child services agency, they'll give you a big long list.

When people refer to the 'crumbling of America,' don't they usually mention crime and people not following laws.

 

I got to go with the canook on this one. At some point the gov does have to step in and this guy is close to that line.

I do not like the amount of laws for victim less crimes but most of them end up with victims sooner or later.

ei.. drugs = increase in theft type crimes
gambling = same
on and on

 

I would opine that your phrasing of the question delineated an opinion. Be that as it may..

Your second question about my opinion about polygamy being relevant goes right to the heart of the matter. The same system (judicial) which is saying that the public has no say in the matter of same sex marriages from a moral standpoint is now claiming the moral imperative when it comes to, not participating in, but teaching about polygamy.
This is an accepted practice in parts of the world. You might argue that the US is not one of those parts of the world, but same sex marriages are not accepted practice here either, and the judicial system has no trouble with shoving that down the public's throat.
How can the same people who claim public morals have no place intruding on the rights of a law abiding citizen's actions concerning marriage now say that public morals demand that a law abiding citizen's actions which concern only the beliefs of that citizen concerning marriage are unlawful? Keep in mind, this man is breaking no laws.

Your opinion of his beliefs concerning what constitutes a legitimate marriage are irrelevant here. He has the right to his beliefs and the right to tell his children about them. His wife is also free to pass on her beliefs to the child.
Nothing he is espousing is violent or hurtful to others, it is just not commonly accepted in our society.

 

WRONG... what's in this "list"??? Murder? Rape? Theft?...... If I want to teach my child about all the bad people out there that muder, rape, pillage, and thieve, then I will, and if some government tries to tell me what I can and can't teach my child, I'll tell them to kiss my ass..... what's next, telling certain people that they can't have children?? ...... I think you guys are misinterpreting the article here, the guy isn't forcing his daughter to practice polygamy, he is merely teaching her about it, that's something they do in school, and they also teach in school how people murder, and how people rape, and how people thieve.....

 

Teaching your child how to toss a salad should be on the list.

 

He shouldn't teach his kid that doing something illegal is ok, imo.
Regardless of your beliefs on the matter, it is currently illegal. Yes, the kiddo should be taught about it, but encouraged to do it? (which is probably really what has mom's panties in a bunch) Nah... It is a very grey line since it is based on religious beliefs...
But I really wish the goverment would spend their time (MONEY) and something more useful...

 

I didn't get the impression that the guy was going to teach TO DO, just WHAT it's about...

 

One of the responsibilities of being a parent is to instill your values and beliefs in your children. Most of the time (which I believe will apply in this instance) it's impossible not to. That was my original objection.

 

The point is that the government has no place in determining whether or not he may teach his child about polygamy. The fact that it may not be a desirable action does not enter into it.

On another level, it is also fact that it is currently socially acceptable to teach children that marriage between same sex partners is okay, a practice which is also illegal and opposed by a large segment of society and which is really no different than polygamy.
Certainly if two people of any sex can pledge their love and devotion to each other in a marriage ceremony to form a family unit, then so can 3 or 4 or more people do so.

Remember that in today's society, public mores are not considered legitimate determinating factors in these decisions.
Polygamy is not hurtful to anyone involved, doesn't involve violence or theft, etc. You may not agree with it, but others do.

Just because something is made illegal, does not mean a parent must teach a child that that law is right or just.
Slavery was legal in this country at one time. Would a parent of that era have been immoral to teach his child that slavery is wrong? You probably laugh at such an idea, but many during that era would probably have held just such an opinion.

 

From the article:

Read into that what you will, but it seems that he might be planning on exposing her to more than just WHAT it's about. Of course, the article isn't long enough to be certain one way or another.... But I have seen folks hung here for a lot less...

 

Why not? It's illegal. He's not planning on telling her just what it is. I'm sure he's going to try to convince her that that's what SHE SHOULD do. Funny thing about religious beliefs: They aren't teaching you about them just to teach you, they are teaching you WHY you should believe/do them.

I'm not an expert on polygimist (sp?) but the article referenced it and I've seen it/heard it in other reports that polygimists have a higher incident of child abuse (sexual). And in many cases many of the wives are under the state age limit to have sex with an adult, let alone be married. Your (their) religious beliefs allow (encourage, in fact) to break that law, what other laws would/could/do they encourage you to ignore/break? Having said that, I have no idea what the percentage is that break other laws in the process... I have no real problem with it per say, but I think it's nuts to have more than one wife! But whatever... If you have a problem with a law, that doesn't entitle you to break it.

Not a good comparision, in my mind. It was never against the law to NOT have slaves and many, many parents taught their kids it was wrong to have slaves even then. However, it you were teaching your kids today that it was ok to have slaves, that would be a better comparision. And yes, I would have a problem with that.

 

I have no particular opinion on the courts decision, but I should point out that a court is not "the government". "The government" did not bring this case before a court, nor has it expressed an opinion on the issue as far is I know.

 

I beg to differ. Our government is comprised of three branches

1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial

If you don't believe that the courts represent the government, then from whence do you believe they derive their power?

The decision of the judge in this case is very much an expression and opinion of the government (state government in this case).

 

In both these cases you are pre-supposing a crime which has not been committed. If the government were allowed to profile everyone and use those profiles to predetermine who MIGHT commit a crime and then take pre-emptive steps to prevent such a possible crime by controlling the free actions of these people it would be an Orwellian nightmare. Nothing in his actions connects this particular man to the illegal actions of others with similar beliefs. Imagine having the state revoke your drivers license because a high percentage of people your age in your profession drive drunk and have accidents and they have decided to reduce the number of drunk drivers by denying those who fit the profile the right to drive. Perhaps Mr Doyle could speak to the legal issue involved here.
And my opinion has nothing to do with any religious beliefs as I follow no religion. I am not speaking in defense of his ideas. I am speaking in defense of his rights as a parent. The fact remains that he is breaking no law and there is no legal basis or right to predict he will and sanction him accordingly.
If he wanted to teach his child to hate black people, that would be his right also. It may be reprehensable, but it is not illegal. It is also not the state's prerogative to be the parent or have rights that supercede the parents.

My example may have been the reverse of the current situation, but the principle is the same. Let me make it more salient if that makes it easier. When slavery was still legal, there was an organised effort known as the Underground Railway which functioned to smuggle escaped slaves to the north. Those involved in the effort were breaking the law, as these slaves were the legal property of the slave owner. Being caught with an escaped slave(s) in your company meant you were charged with posession of another man's property. In plain English, you would be a criminal as you would be breaking the law (regardless of your feelings concerning the validity of the law). I would say that any parent involved in the UR would be remiss if they did not pass along their beliefs concerning this issue to their child. Would you say that it was wrong to advocate to your child breaking this law? While you may object that this law was wrong, many people during that time would have strongly disagreed, especially the slave owners.