Like anyone who uses the web, I’ve noticed that ads that show up on pages I browse seem to target me based on some personal information, whether demographic or based on the sites I’ve visited. Who hasn’t gone to Amazon to browse or buy a specific product and then see ads for it on completely unrelated pages until you clear your browser cache and/or do a spyware sweep?
I’m used to seeing ads for dating sites, which I’m assuming are just based on age and location (Meet single women in Arlington NOW!). Obviously they don’t take marital status into account, as Sister Babe and I have been married for four years now. And yes, I know that here are dating sites that target married men and women. Thankfully enough of my data hasn’t been mined for them to send me targeted ads for those creepy sites. But that hasn’t kept different creepy ads from popping up.
First off, I understand that part of what drives the ads is based on the sites I visit. That said, my browsing habits are nowhere nearly “interesting” enough to warrant what I’m about to mention. I get the occasional ads offering to “Date Philippine women!” or “Meet Russian women!” No I didn’t click on any of those ads, although I have a feeling if I did I’d see something that looks a lot like a mail order bride service. I figured that was the worst I would see, but of course I was wrong. Here is a screen grab of the ad that caught my eye:
If you want a better look at the image in the middle I’m referencing:
My first thought was, “NO. This can’t be what I think it is. Curiosity got the best of me and I clicked the link – it is.
For those of you who would rather not pollute your browsing history by clicking the link, yes it is a site for helping Muslims who wish to engage in polygamy. Clicking on the site’s information link will inform you that of course they do not encourage breaking any local laws, etc. But if this isn’t, then why is this ad showing anywhere in a nation where polygamy is illegal?!? Sadly, we still have cases of this show up in the US and Canada from time to time, but it’s far more prevalent in nations dominated by The Religion Whose Name No Leftist Dare Speak. It’s also becoming more prevalent in pre-Islamic countries as well, such as Great Britain.
As expected, polygamous relationships are often sources of abuse toward the wives and any children in the relationship, and would naturally be a concern for women’s organizations. NOW has links on its front page regarding contraception, Obamacare, and gay marriage. Polygamy, not so much. How about The Feminist Foundation? To their credit, their home page includes links to support women in Afghanistan and Brunei, but most of their content is along the line of NOW’s.
Maybe it’s just me, but perhaps feminists’ energy would be better directed to preventing the spread of physical abuse toward women in the US, as opposed to just the most popular causes among the radical left today? It’s not like legalizing polygamy wouldn’t be the next battle for the radical left in this country… right?
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
haven’t heard much at all about polygamy being practiced here in the USA by muslims. Of course we HAVE heard a lot about it still being practiced by fundamentalist mormons.
http://www.sisterwives.us/
NOW according to its charter (if you had bothered to read it before being judgmental) advocates for women in the USA
I really don’t see muslim polygamy in the USA being a big problem. Of course it sort of IS a problem when muslim men do get a visa to come and live in the USA and are able to bring only one wife.
Brother Bob what do you think should be done then ? Breakup the family?
Most Muslim men who can afford more than one wife (not because of Western welfare) have a 1st cousin as their 1st wife.
This is their arranged marriage.
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives can be of his personal choosing, not his and her parents.
There’s the pull for polygamy in Islam.
In most Gulf states these 1st marriages are after DNA testing to guard against common birth defects the couple might carry.In at least Bahrain and Saudi Arabia a marriage license is denied if both of the 1st cousins carry expensive birth defecting DNA.
This is not true in UK where it is considered ”racist” to test cousins about to marry.
Thus UK has a sky rocketing birth defect issue.
BTW polygamy is officially illegal in UK yet welfare payments go out to all extra wives and children anyway.
What an incentive!
Polygamy is going to be tested soon at our SCOTUS.
Once it is legal our more socially welfare minded states will see plenty of 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives.
@John: Simple – you deny the visa.
@Nanny: It looks like polygamy is next. I hate to think of what will follow
What will follow is seen by the case filed by the gay activist in Michigan against a Bible publishing company. The activist filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the Bible publisher due to the presence of passages in the Old and New Testaments that negatively comment upon homosexual acts.
@brother bob –
After polygamy, it will be everything else. In NJ and NY, they have issued marriage licenses for “consensual, adult incest” on a “limited basis” for a number of years. The gay marriage ruling simply opens the Pandora’s Box on calling every deviant behavior a “lifestyle choice”.
@Pete –
Do not be surprised when a lawsuit will be filed against a church to marry a gay couple in a religious ceremony. It’s coming very soon, sooner than we think. Many Unitarian and non-denominational churches already do ceremonies for gay couples.
There is a move afoot to limit inside-the-church weddings to active members in good standing only.
This means gays won’t be able to simply wash up on some church’s doorstep and insist on an inside-the-church wedding…..or else.
By the same token adult children of members in good standing might also be turned away (OK, the minister might marry them in a park, backyard or on a beach, etc) because they misbehaved instead of staying in good standing themselves.
Anyway, churches that set standards for all will have no legal problems with turning away gays who are not active, in good standing members (an impossibility anyway.)
@David:
http://nbc.com.co/christian-pastor-in-vermont-sentenced-to-one-year-in-prison-after-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/
@retire05 –
Missed this story, but it certainly gives a new meaning Vermont’s motto of “Freedom and Unity”. I’m not surprised, though, considering it’s produced two hacks like Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders.
@Nanny –
Though your argument is well-reasoned and logical, unfortunately, it may not deter those from trying to sue their way into a religious marriage ceremony. A pair of friends, who are gay, know they can’t have a Catholic marriage ceremony, but settled for a backyard “recommitment ceremony”. They understand church teaching on that, then again, they are more well-reasoned than most (gay or straight).