K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter
shoudl polyandry be banned?
Let's start of with inability to support the extended
family for one.
Why would that be a concern? We don't prevent people from
having lots of kids they cannot afford.
How many families of 20 or more children do you know of in
Pennsylvania, Jim?
Actually, there are a couple who have made the papers - by
adoption and foster care. Of course they have enormous
resources, usually.
Point is, there's no law against having lots of kids, regardless
of whether the family can support them.
Many if not most families-with-children I know have
all the adults
working outside the home. Having more adults available
would make things easier, not harder.
But these guys don't LET the women work...They are expected to
stay at home and multiply...Period.
That's not because of polygamy.
The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities
is abject poverty.
But is that due to the polygamy, or due to other factors
such as rejection by the mainstream culture?
Uhhhhhhhhhh.........How many families with more than
three or four kids do you know of that "lives well", Jim?
Several! Of course the parents have good incomes. But that's
not the point.
Follow that with chronic medical problems associated
with in-breeding.
That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not
polygamy or polyandry.
Most of the polygamy colonies in Utah are fiercely
close and shun outsiders, Jim.
Sure - because what they're doing is illegal.
Where's the fresh DNA come from?
Suppose - just suppose - "multispousing" was legal. Would those
problems continue?
The reason such arrangements are against the law is that our
society has decided to define "marriage" as one woman and one man joined in a legally-sanctioned way, protected by the laws
of the various levels of government.
And part of the reason they have done this is to prevent
intra-family breeding.
I disagree 100%.
There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as
long as those involved don't demand government sanction
and protection.
Common sense and the health and welfare of the children will
prevent it, Jim.
Not really. The big pressures are simple economics and peer
pressure. Plus the fact that there aren't many people who
would put up with the inherent relationship inequality of sharing a
spouse.
I am sure the "evil religious people" he was
refring to were the
Founding Fathers who took it upon themselves
to put ambiguous language
about "seperation of church and state" in
the Constitution, however
liberally sprinkle "relgion" throughout the
political process.
Where?
Start with your folding money.
You mean "in God we trust"? Just a catchphrase, not even
specific to Christianity.
Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished
religious liberty
and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars.
As well they shouldn't.
It was common at the time. In colonial times, the dominant
churches were usually supported by taxes (Pennsylvania was
one exception).
However Christian principles were the
basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early
American law.
"Christian principles"? Which ones?
They allowed slavery. They did not let women vote. They did not
treat the native population as citizens, and in some cases not
even as human beings.
How "Christian" is any of that?
At least they didn't burn witches anymore.
Who among them could have foretold the silliness
that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits?
You mean like the attempts to suppress real science
and support pseudoscience?
73 de Jim, N2EY