|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Brian, don't expect a "rational discussion" with Jimmie. Repeated asking will get you PROFILED! :-) I don't think your advice is very accurate, Leonard. Repeated behavior of the type you've demonstrated here could result in your having a profile written. Dave K8MN Indeed. Your repeated behavio[u]r can be profiled in one word: Smug. You're fairly one dimensional. |
|
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I ridicule many things. Bravo! You do too! I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Are religious radicals sacred? Okay, let me make fun of atheists..... Q. What is the worst part about being an atheist? A. No one to talk to during Orgasm..... So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Clinton sent a couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't just go around threatening the President. Is it when they call for holy war? Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad. There ya go! Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it cut |
nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. 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. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... 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. Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it "Christian" "than" There's not a one of the major religions that does not preach "love, tolerance and understading" that does not subsequently turn around and use overt and covert violence in order to perpetuate its doctrine or control at some point. Steve, K4YZ |
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. 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. 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? Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in- breeding. That's a problem caused by marrying too-close relatives, not polygamy or polyandry. 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. There's nothing to prevent a multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. 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? Most of the Founders were Deists. They also cherished religious liberty and did not want churches to be supported by tax dollars. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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? 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. 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? 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. Where's the fresh DNA come from? 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. 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. 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. 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. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. so what? that law is wrong indeed I think the morman could get it struck down as unconstitutional using much the same approuch as the gay right folks in striking at Amendment 2 in CO an the anti sodomy law of TX We see here your weakness shows up in the Code issue but dominates your life Nothing may ever be allowed to change 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. if that is the issue you add an ecomonic test to the maaraige system, The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. no one said anything about striking down other laws about cousins and stuff like that more of Stevie as a religous bigot further by what right do you dictate the level of economics in a counouity Utah before the banning of Polygamy was a stable reasonably properous splace, the towns where they practive it now out of sight lack the resources to support themselve wether mongamy or polygamy is rule cut Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... not at all cut Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it "Christian" "than" cut speeling cop Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You should also bear in mind that nothing in the regulations under which you operate, mandates that you do so. Many things are not in the regulations. None-the-less, you should abide by "Good Amateur Practice." Riley says it's enforceable, and you're back in America now. You are responsible for making sure that your own signal is where it is supposed to be. Indeed I am. But that completely misses the case in point, your case. Dave is good at evading the point and talking about everything in sight and beyond but the point at hand At least he's good at something. |
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: 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. Where's the fresh DNA come from? Kidnapping? 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. Most societies (cultures) define "marriage" that way. How would Jim have it defined? 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. Multi"-spouse" arrangements are widespread in the welfare communities, without the benefit of official government sanction, but ultimitely with government (tax-payer) support. |
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 |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut You are responsible for making sure that your own signal is where it is supposed to be. Indeed I am. But that completely misses the case in point, your case. Dave is good at evading the point and talking about everything in sight and beyond but the point at hand At least he's good at something. he is also good at being a bad example |
K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: cut 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. Where's the fresh DNA come from? then the problem is clearly self limiting 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. and most of it is the imposition of Christain morality on those that they could not convince of it 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. gee Polygamous societis exists for centuries Japan for example had an esscaily polygamous system for about 1000 years till the Mengi restorain The Japanesse did ok rising a couple of generation to Challenge the Mightof theUSA itself 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. 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. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? ah yes the voice of tolerance speaks, beliefs other than his own are silly 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
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? There are some points I forgot to include in my previous response. 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. There's nothing to prevent a *simultaneous* multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists. Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve? -- The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a - Peer/societal pressure - Personal preference of most people regardless of religion - It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more supposed to make it work? I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from "Christian" principles as they are derived from society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. so what? That's exactly what I expect from the Pivot Man of the Feeble Five. that law is wrong No, it's not. indeed I think the morman could get it struck down as unconstitutional using much the same approuch as the gay right folks in striking at Amendment 2 in CO an the anti sodomy law of TX "Morman" "approach" No, they won't, and for the very reasons I stated. We see here your weakness shows up in the Code issue but dominates your life My only "weakness" is my intolerance for liars and deceivers such as yourself. However we see YOUR weakness, which is to simply "allow" anything that allows YOU to just do as you darn well please, and to Hell with the consequences. Nothing may ever be allowed to change Sure it can. You're trying to perpetuate a LennieLie that has itself been proven wrong over and over and over. 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. if that is the issue you add an ecomonic test to the maaraige system, "economic" "marriage" Indeed there should be. I also believe there should be a license to breed. However it's statistically proven fact that the more mouths you have to feed the less likely you are to be able to adequately provide for ALL the needs of ALL the members of the family. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. no one said anything about striking down other laws about cousins and stuff like that I wish I knew what you were trying to say. more of Stevie as a religous bigot It's got nothing to do with "religion", Markie. "Polygamy" is NOT a religion. It IS a "practice" that some religions encourage. More evidence of Markie running his mouth off. further by what right do you dictate the level of economics in a counouity WTF is a "counouity"...?!?! And as for "dictating the level of economics", I didn't. However the various state children's protective agencies draw the poverty line based upon gross income and the number of souls in the family. No mention of religion... Utah before the banning of Polygamy was a stable reasonably properous splace, the towns where they practive it now out of sight lack the resources to support themselve wether mongamy or polygamy is rule "prosperous" "place" "practice" "themselves" "monogamy" They used to be "prosperous" when the economy was almost 90% aggrarian. Not so today. Most of those multi-spousal "families" are nothing more than multiple-dwelling groups where "dad" can stay tonight and procreate yet another mouth to feed. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... not at all Absolutely at all. Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it "Christian" "than" cut speeling cop "SPELLING", you nitwit! Sheesh! What an I D I O T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
|
K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's. Please explain "tradeoff to civility"? As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing expectations. And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be *highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Those particular ones are...Well..let me ammend that to say they CLAIM they are... What are the criteria for the CLAIM to be valid? I don't recall any prohibition against multiple spouses in the "New" Testament. Do you know of any? The "Old" Testament is full of polygamous families. The "New" Testament does include a clear prohibition against divorce, however. Yet all of the "mainstream Christian religions" have found a way around it. Most simply recognize civil divorces as the end of a marriage. Roman Catholicism plays a semantic game (called "annulment") where they declare that a valid marriage never existed. Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists. Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve? Not off the top of my head, Jim, but then even if there were, my response would be the same. My point is that monogamy isn't necessarily part of Christianity. The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a - Peer/societal pressure - Personal preference of most people regardless of religion - It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more supposed to make it work? I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from "Christian" principles as they are derived from society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion. You still side-stepped the poverty issue, Jim. Then I'll have another go at it. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean poverty. When I was a kid, I knew plenty of families with 8, 10, 12 kids, and only the father worked outside the home. Those families were not well-to-do but they weren't in poverty either. Today such families are rare, for a whole bunch of reasons, none of them have to do with legal restrictions on family size. Divorce is often financially devastating to those involved because the same earning power goes to support two households. Yet divorces remain easy to get. How many families exist in the USA where one spouse is paying child support and/or alimony to a former spouse, plus supporting a current spouse and kids? Yet there's no law against it. There have been a few documented cases of hidden polygamy, where a man had multiple wives in different locations who did not know about each other. Poverty was not the rule in those cases. You've pointed out those isolated polygamous communities as proof of the poverty=polygamy connection, as if that's the only way polygamy could exist. But that's not the case - one can imagine a polygamous family where all the adults have jobs outside the home and a reasonable number of kids. Of course most people I know would never choose to be part of such a relationship! And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian principles. Which "Christian principles"? See above about NT rules about marriage. American History 101 refers. Most of the Founders were nominally Christians, but that doesn't mean everything they did came from Christianity. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: cut Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. so what? That's exactly what I expect from the Pivot Man of the Feeble Five. the truth glad not to disapoint you that law is wrong No, it's not. sure is as is any law based solely on the medevil concepts evolved by the church indeed I think the morman could get it struck down as unconstitutional using much the same approuch as the gay right folks in striking at Amendment 2 in CO an the anti sodomy law of TX "Morman" "approach" No, they won't, and for the very reasons I stated. that is you opinion, and not likely worth very much We see here your weakness shows up in the Code issue but dominates your life My only "weakness" is my intolerance for liars and deceivers such as yourself. your weakness is your bigotry, but you can't se it of course. A post with nothing that can be called a lie and still you flame and flame However we see YOUR weakness, which is to simply "allow" anything that allows YOU to just do as you darn well please, and to Hell with the consequences. and this a about me NOW? when did that happen I missed it as I have said I don't esp support marraiage at all Nothing may ever be allowed to change Sure it can. not according to you, once set set in law it must stay forever. Jim Crow was once Law too You're trying to perpetuate a LennieLie that has itself been proven wrong over and over and over. 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. if that is the issue you add an ecomonic test to the maaraige system, "economic" "marriage" Indeed there should be. I also believe there should be a license to breed. as yes the Facist shows his head However it's statistically proven fact that the more mouths you have to feed the less likely you are to be able to adequately provide for ALL the needs of ALL the members of the family. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. no one said anything about striking down other laws about cousins and stuff like that I wish I knew what you were trying to say. no you don't more of Stevie as a religous bigot It's got nothing to do with "religion", Markie. yes it does "Polygamy" is NOT a religion. It IS a "practice" that some religions encourage. never said it was a religion but it is a practice you disapove of for religious reasons and that you seek to maintaina ban becuase it suits your religous bigotry More evidence of Markie running his mouth off. cut Utah before the banning of Polygamy was a stable reasonably properous splace, the towns where they practive it now out of sight lack the resources to support themselve wether mongamy or polygamy is rule "prosperous" "place" "practice" "themselves" "monogamy" They used to be "prosperous" when the economy was almost 90% aggrarian. Not so today. Most of those multi-spousal "families" are nothing more than multiple-dwelling groups where "dad" can stay tonight and procreate yet another mouth to feed. becuase they are forced into marginal land and into hiding to practice what they se as a tenant of their faith Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... not at all Absolutely at all. I sure do Chav has recourse to the courts if he wishs cut |
wrote: 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? There are some points I forgot to include in my previous response. 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. There's nothing to prevent a *simultaneous* multi-spouse arrangement, as long as those involved don't demand government sanction and protection. In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists. Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve? I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts -- The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a - Peer/societal pressure not as much as you might think (or perhaps not as much as may have been) I know plenty of gruops that are in most terms in multi spouse arrangements, mostly chrisatian though - Personal preference of most people regardless of religion - It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more supposed to make it work? but they are general good point I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from "Christian" principles as they are derived from society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion. which was set down and enforced by the Church in the Middle ages 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's. Please explain "tradeoff to civility"? As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing expectations. both are the same thing And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be *highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states. which says interesting thing about the people there in both places, the bible belter are less likely to maintain here vows made before god than liberals, interesting However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. The polygamist folks you mention are all Christians. Those particular ones are...Well..let me ammend that to say they CLAIM they are... What are the criteria for the CLAIM to be valid? I don't recall any prohibition against multiple spouses in the "New" Testament. Do you know of any? The "Old" Testament is full of polygamous families. The "New" Testament does include a clear prohibition against divorce, however. Yet all of the "mainstream Christian religions" have found a way around it. Most simply recognize civil divorces as the end of a marriage. Roman Catholicism plays a semantic game (called "annulment") where they declare that a valid marriage never existed. Not Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics, Wiccans or atheists. Do you know of any nonChristian groups in the USA advocating polygamy, Steve? Not off the top of my head, Jim, but then even if there were, my response would be the same. My point is that monogamy isn't necessarily part of Christianity. The main obstacles to simultaneous-multi-spouse arrangements that I can see a - Peer/societal pressure - Personal preference of most people regardless of religion - It's tough enough for two people to get along in a marriage (how many US marriages end in divorce?). How are three or more supposed to make it work? I'm not saying that polygamy or polyandry or any other multi-simultaneous-spouse situation should be legal or illegal. All I'm saying is that the laws governing marriage are not so much derived from "Christian" principles as they are derived from society's overall concept of family structure, regardless of religion. You still side-stepped the poverty issue, Jim. Then I'll have another go at it. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean poverty. When I was a kid, I knew plenty of families with 8, 10, 12 kids, and only the father worked outside the home. Those families were not well-to-do but they weren't in poverty either. Today such families are rare, for a whole bunch of reasons, none of them have to do with legal restrictions on family size. Divorce is often financially devastating to those involved because the same earning power goes to support two households. Yet divorces remain easy to get. How many families exist in the USA where one spouse is paying child support and/or alimony to a former spouse, plus supporting a current spouse and kids? Yet there's no law against it. There have been a few documented cases of hidden polygamy, where a man had multiple wives in different locations who did not know about each other. Poverty was not the rule in those cases. You've pointed out those isolated polygamous communities as proof of the poverty=polygamy connection, as if that's the only way polygamy could exist. But that's not the case - one can imagine a polygamous family where all the adults have jobs outside the home and a reasonable number of kids. Of course most people I know would never choose to be part of such a relationship! And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian principles. Which "Christian principles"? See above about NT rules about marriage. American History 101 refers. Most of the Founders were nominally Christians, but that doesn't mean everything they did came from Christianity. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's. Please explain "tradeoff to civility"? As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing expectations. And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be *highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states. Perhaps that is because some of the conservatives push too hard on their children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into marriage without knowing their partner well enough? Of course this is just speculation, but an idea to consider. Another possibility is that in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" groups, it is OK simply to live together and when they break up, there is no need for divorce since they were never married in the first place. I think I remember reading that Margaret Meade had proposed a system where there would be a "trial marriage" for a period of time before having a regular marriage. If I remember correctly, the trial marriage would have an automatic expiration and one would have to go through the marriage ceremony or whatever to continue the marriage. The idea being that one could better determine if this was the person with whom they really wanted to spend the rest of their life. I've always thought the idea had some merit. One way or another, marriage customs grow out the needs of the particular society. In times and places where the number of men and women is approximately equal and there is not a great discrepancy in the wealth of men in the society, monogamy tends to be the norm. Where there are significantly more women than men, polygamy becomes quite common. Or if there are a few very wealthy men, polygamy may develop as part of showing off their wealth or power. In some American Indian tribes, monogamy was the norm yet a man was required, if his brother died, to take his brother's wife as his own even if he had a wife already. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
nobodys_old_friend wrote: I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts "believe" "Christian" "Christian [a different abuse of] "Catholic" "Protestant" "different" "different [again]" Markie..... H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: I beleive Steve would claim that the Mormans are not christain, and he would have a point based on the academic view in saying that Chtrians of the Ctahloic Orthodox and prodestant strips are a dirrent religion than the mormon based on having very defferent diety concepts cuting your spelling cop again H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S better to need than Hooked on being a control freak You need to control the way everyone in the nation is allowed to live their lives Steve, K4YZ |
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's. Please explain "tradeoff to civility"? As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing expectations. And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be *highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states. Perhaps that is because some of the conservatives push too hard on their children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into marriage without knowing their partner well enough? Of course this is just speculation, but an idea to consider. I'd say that's one factor. Expressed perfectly in the classic Meat Loaf hit, "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" Would you buy a car that you'd never driven, or a pair of shoes you'd never tried on? Particularly if they were supposed to last you for the rest of your life? Another possibility is that in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" groups, it is OK simply to live together and when they break up, there is no need for divorce since they were never married in the first place. Sure. I think I remember reading that Margaret Meade had proposed a system where there would be a "trial marriage" for a period of time before having a regular marriage. If I remember correctly, the trial marriage would have an automatic expiration and one would have to go through the marriage ceremony or whatever to continue the marriage. The idea being that one could better determine if this was the person with whom they really wanted to spend the rest of their life. I've always thought the idea had some merit. Heck, go the whole route: Allow marriage licenses to expire every so many years, and both parties would have to agree to renew them. One way or another, marriage customs grow out the needs of the particular society. In times and places where the number of men and women is approximately equal and there is not a great discrepancy in the wealth of men in the society, monogamy tends to be the norm. Where there are significantly more women than men, polygamy becomes quite common. Or if there are a few very wealthy men, polygamy may develop as part of showing off their wealth or power. In some American Indian tribes, monogamy was the norm yet a man was required, if his brother died, to take his brother's wife as his own even if he had a wife already. I did not know that! IIRC there was a similar requirement in the Bible - if a man with a brother died with no male heir and left a wife of childbearing age, the brother was required to...ummm.... step in for his dead brother until a male heir was produced, so the dead brother's line would not be wiped out. After that the widow could marry again if desired. That practice was abandoned long ago. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: cut Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. so what? That's exactly what I expect from the Pivot Man of the Feeble Five. the truth glad not to disapoint you "disappoint" Always proving your disdain for our laws. that law is wrong No, it's not. sure is as is any law based solely on the medevil concepts evolved by the church It's not based "solely" on concepts of any era of the Church, Markie. It has everything to do with economics and indeed I think the morman could get it struck down as unconstitutional using much the same approuch as the gay right folks in striking at Amendment 2 in CO an the anti sodomy law of TX "Mormon" "approach" No, they won't, and for the very reasons I stated. that is you opinion, and not likely worth very much "your" At least it's legible. We see here your weakness shows up in the Code issue but dominates your life My only "weakness" is my intolerance for liars and deceivers such as yourself. your weakness is your bigotry, but you can't se it of course. There's no bigotry here, Markie. A post with nothing that can be called a lie and still you flame and flame No flames, Markie. Polygamy is wrong. I shown two very valid reasons for the outlawing of polygamy, none of which has ANYthing to do with a Bible verse. However we see YOUR weakness, which is to simply "allow" anything that allows YOU to just do as you darn well please, and to Hell with the consequences. and this a about me NOW? when did that happen I missed it It's about YOU the same way YOU tried to make it about ME, rather than the facts relative to the concept of polygamy. as I have said I don't esp support marraiage at all No doubt. I bet Mrs Markie might not care to share her bed with YOUR boyfriend. Nothing may ever be allowed to change Sure it can. not according to you, once set set in law it must stay forever. You and Lennie the Liar keep repeating that, and I keep asking you to validate it... Jim Crow was once Law too Jim Crow was wrong on so many levels. So is polygamy. You're trying to perpetuate a LennieLie that has itself been proven wrong over and over and over. 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. if that is the issue you add an ecomonic test to the maaraige system, "economic" "marriage" Indeed there should be. I also believe there should be a license to breed. as yes the Facist shows his head Nope. Just tired of seeing defenseless, unwanted children starving and wasting away due to poverty and illness. It's far more prevelent than you imagine, even in the most "modern" of cities. However it's statistically proven fact that the more mouths you have to feed the less likely you are to be able to adequately provide for ALL the needs of ALL the members of the family. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. no one said anything about striking down other laws about cousins and stuff like that I wish I knew what you were trying to say. no you don't Sure I do. I'm just tired of trying to "make sense" of all-too-many of your "sentences" that are nothing more than you trying to impress us with the number of words you can string together. more of Stevie as a religous bigot It's got nothing to do with "religion", Markie. yes it does No, it does not. I've not cited one line of religious doctrine here. "Polygamy" is NOT a religion. It IS a "practice" that some religions encourage. never said it was a religion Sure you have. For the last two days you've tried to keep calling me a "religious bigot" because of my opinion on polygamy. but it is a practice you disapove of for religious reasons and that you seek to maintaina ban becuase it suits your religous bigotry Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Again...I've not cited a single line of religious dogma or doctrine, Markie. I HAVE very clearly stated my objections to polygamy based upon economic and medical reasons. I'd be glad to have you quote where I have said otherwise. (This is where Markie will "cut" in his reply...) More evidence of Markie running his mouth off. cut Utah before the banning of Polygamy was a stable reasonably properous splace, the towns where they practive it now out of sight lack the resources to support themselve wether mongamy or polygamy is rule "prosperous" "place" "practice" "themselves" "monogamy" They used to be "prosperous" when the economy was almost 90% aggrarian. Not so today. Most of those multi-spousal "families" are nothing more than multiple-dwelling groups where "dad" can stay tonight and procreate yet another mouth to feed. becuase they are forced into marginal land and into hiding to practice what they se as a tenant of their faith Hardly. A "large family" on a wide-ranging farm is the IDEAL place to "hide". Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... not at all Absolutely at all. I sure do Chav has recourse to the courts if he wishs "wishes" That will be intresting to see. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: cut Uhhhhhhhhhhh...it's against the law. so what? That's exactly what I expect from the Pivot Man of the Feeble Five. the truth glad not to disapoint you "disappoint" Always proving your disdain for our laws. Of coursewe now see the fear threat reaction any opposition to given laws is seen as distain for all laws Stevie you are getting realy boring I have a great of respect for the law, more than you show BTW But the issue is socail contrl thought the legal system that law is wrong No, it's not. sure is as is any law based solely on the medevil concepts evolved by the church It's not based "solely" on concepts of any era of the Church, Markie. yes it is Mandated mongamy is a medievil concept, emplaced by the church to combat the pagan remants of the days, it hangs aroound to this day, dispite being obviously unnatural It has everything to do with economics and nothing to do economics indeed I think the morman could get it struck down as unconstitutional using much the same approuch as the gay right folks in striking at Amendment 2 in CO an the anti sodomy law of TX "Mormon" "approach" No, they won't, and for the very reasons I stated. that is you opinion, and not likely worth very much cuting you speling cop **** We see here your weakness shows up in the Code issue but dominates your life My only "weakness" is my intolerance for liars and deceivers such as yourself. your weakness is your bigotry, but you can't se it of course. There's no bigotry here, Markie. sure is You call any religous beliefe than your own silly you mock the beliefs of others You are an intolerant bigot, simple as that A post with nothing that can be called a lie and still you flame and flame No flames, Markie. sure are and still flaming away, and without a lie in sight on my part Polygamy is wrong. I shown two very valid reasons for the outlawing of polygamy, none of which has ANYthing to do with a Bible verse. you have shown no such thing You noticed that a group when marginalized has problems and then you assume the problems are the fault of the practice rather thanthe result of being marginalized Bad logic as is normal from you However we see YOUR weakness, which is to simply "allow" anything that allows YOU to just do as you darn well please, and to Hell with the consequences. and this a about me NOW? when did that happen I missed it It's about YOU the same way YOU tried to make it about ME, rather than the facts relative to the concept of polygamy. you have not dealt with the facts about polygamy in fact polygamy exists today, in creasingly accross the nation, it existed as a comom state of afair in Japn for centuries as I have said I don't esp support marraiage at all cuting your sexual comented Nothing may ever be allowed to change Sure it can. not according to you, once set set in law it must stay forever. You and Lennie the Liar keep repeating that, and I keep asking you to validate it... you do that for us Jim Crow was once Law too Jim Crow was wrong on so many levels. So is polygamy. according to your bigoted opinion You're trying to perpetuate a LennieLie that has itself been proven wrong over and over and over. 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. if that is the issue you add an ecomonic test to the maaraige system, "economic" "marriage" Indeed there should be. I also believe there should be a license to breed. as yes the Facist shows his head Nope. yep you demend that everything be controled and regimented Just tired of seeing defenseless, unwanted children starving and wasting away due to poverty and illness. It's far more prevelent than you imagine, even in the most "modern" of cities. and this has nothing to do with polygamy However it's statistically proven fact that the more mouths you have to feed the less likely you are to be able to adequately provide for ALL the needs of ALL the members of the family. The number one problem in polygamy-prone communities is abject poverty. Follow that with chronic medical problems associated with in-breeding. no one said anything about striking down other laws about cousins and stuff like that I wish I knew what you were trying to say. no you don't Sure I do. I'm just tired of trying to "make sense" of all-too-many of your "sentences" that are nothing more than you trying to impress us with the number of words you can string together. One then stop trying but you were the one pushing the concept that you don't apprecate what you don't work for and then you whine when asked to work for something more of Stevie as a religous bigot It's got nothing to do with "religion", Markie. yes it does No, it does not. I've not cited one line of religious doctrine here. which is another evasion on your part "Polygamy" is NOT a religion. It IS a "practice" that some religions encourage. never said it was a religion Sure you have. never have For the last two days you've tried to keep calling me a "religious bigot" because of my opinion on polygamy. becuase it is true but it is that your opinion on polygamy is based on your religous biases not a claim the polygamy is a religion but it is a practice you disapove of for religious reasons and that you seek to maintaina ban becuase it suits your religous bigotry Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Ture true true Again...I've not cited a single line of religious dogma or doctrine, Markie. I HAVE very clearly stated my objections to polygamy based upon economic and medical reasons. no you have repeated false claptrap put out by folks with religous reasons to ban te practice I'd be glad to have you quote where I have said otherwise. (This is where Markie will "cut" in his reply...) More evidence of Markie running his mouth off. cut Utah before the banning of Polygamy was a stable reasonably properous splace, the towns where they practive it now out of sight lack the resources to support themselve wether mongamy or polygamy is rule "prosperous" "place" "practice" "themselves" "monogamy" They used to be "prosperous" when the economy was almost 90% aggrarian. Not so today. Most of those multi-spousal "families" are nothing more than multiple-dwelling groups where "dad" can stay tonight and procreate yet another mouth to feed. becuase they are forced into marginal land and into hiding to practice what they se as a tenant of their faith Hardly. A "large family" on a wide-ranging farm is the IDEAL place to "hide". but only a productive lifstyle if the land is not marginal Margin land is the main issue in the fringe moroms practice of polygamy and there economic trouble rotten land will not support many people wether Mono or ploy simple fact You ignore Japan 1000 years history of essetncail polygamous life Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Guess you missed the point, Markie... not at all Absolutely at all. I sure do Chav has recourse to the courts if he wishs "wishes" That will be intresting to see. not likely will see it as i doubt chav realy feels threatened enough to bother Steve, K4YZ |
|
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut You are responsible for making sure that your own signal is where it is supposed to be. Indeed I am. But that completely misses the case in point, your case. Dave is good at evading the point and talking about everything in sight and beyond but the point at hand At least he's good at something. he is also good at being a bad example A poor example at the very least. |
an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I ridicule many things. Bravo! You do too! I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Not the point. why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A number of people do. But turning it into a religious matter, ala some religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion. Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1 wife...... Are religious radicals sacred? Okay, let me make fun of atheists..... Q. What is the worst part about being an atheist? A. No one to talk to during Orgasm..... So where do we stop, Brian? Has it started? Oh absolutely. Is it when they call for the government to assassinate the leader of a country that they don't like? Is that when they called to assassinate Bush Sr's life? No it wasn't. It was when Pat Robertson called for the US to assassinate Chavez. I'm not talking about politicos, I'm talking about religious leaders. Chavez should file charges. Let due process work. BTW, that due process was set up by evil religious people. Ummm, where? Not sure wher Pat is a resident, but in the state where Pat lives is a good place to start Clinton sent a couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't just go around threatening the President. Is it when they call for holy war? Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad. There ya go! Bravo! I was wondering if you were racist and only hated WASP's that call for Jihad. Where do you get this stuff Brian? I don't like any religion that tries to impress it's beliefs on others, that engages in killing in the name of God, and in general allows people of "faith" to use that faith to cause harm. indeed then you are much a fan of Cristain beliefs then I take it cut Huh? I don't quite get that, Mark. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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? 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. 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? 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. Where's the fresh DNA come from? 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. 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. 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. 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. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the biggest atheists here in the US are almost all filled to the gills with "Christian Values". We all have to have some sort of values, save for the rare and sick few. And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten commandments? A lot of that is good stuff. We better not stand too hard on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'. And "not having any other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in the courthouse. We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from. I suppose that it is a great comfort to many people to "know" just how things are supposed to be, and to have great faith in that "knowing". But the faithful have had a long and storied history of depriving others of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
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? 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. 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? 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. Where's the fresh DNA come from? 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. 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. 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. 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. However Christian principles were the basis for most of thier beliefs and were codified into early American law. Who among them could have foretold the silliness that prevails in today's "religious" pursuits? Bingo! It is no exaggeration to note that the biggest atheists here in the US are almost all filled to the gills with "Christian Values". ?? I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. We all have to have some sort of values, save for the rare and sick few. But all value systems are not created equal. And there is nothing wrong with most of those values. The ten commandments? A lot of that is good stuff. Sure - but a lot of that is also not necessarily only derived from religion. Most of what is in the Ten Commandments can be easily derived from a pair of questions: "What would a society be like if everyone obeyed that rule?" "What would a society be like if everyone disobeyed that rule?" For example, take stealing. A society composed solely of thieves (people who live by theft rather than production) cannot exist, because pretty soon there will be nothing left to steal. But a society composed of people who don't steal can prosper, because production is the basis of wealth. Therefore stealing is intrinsically "wrong" because it's not productive. We better not stand too hard on that "covet thy neighbors goods stuff, tho'. Depends how you define "covet". If my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I work hard and save up to buy one, that's a good thing! But if my neighbor has a new car, and I want one too, and I hate him for it, try to steal or damage it, that's a bad thing! And "not having any other God before me" kind of makes it a problem to post it in the courthouse. Why should a courthouse, which is paid for by taxes, be a place where the specific words of one religion are publicized to the exclusion of others? I see no problem with private citizens posting their Commandments on public property *if* other private citizens have the same right. We are what we are, and our heritage is where it comes from. But not just our heritage. We've gotten beyond a heritage of some people owning other people as property. We've gotten beyond a heritage where people of one gender can vote and people of the other gender cannot. Etc. I suppose that it is a great comfort to many people to "know" just how things are supposed to be, and to have great faith in that "knowing". Of course. But the faithful have had a long and storied history of depriving others of what they believe is their own faith's fundamental rights. Every freedom carries with it at least one responsibility. Freedom of religion can only extend to those religions that can tolerate each other. (For example, a religion that taught that unbelievers must be murdered cannot claim that such behavior is protected by religious freedom. That case is obvious but many similar cases aren't.) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
Mike Coslo wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't make fun of other people's religious faith. So what? Is a persons faith a sacred cow? Should Mormons (the men of course) be allowed to marry as many women as they want? As many as they want? maybe not, as many as they can convince to marry sure, why not? Not the point. why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be banned? Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A number of people do. Gay marriage? But turning it into a religious matter, ala some religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion. Would you require people that have had a religious marriage ceremony to then have a civil ceremony to make it all legal? Remember seperation of Church/State. Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1 wife...... More than a few men have trouble keeping even one happy. |
|
"Michael Coslo" wrote Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. "Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature (some might even say of animal nature). But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children. Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just fine without it. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. "Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human na= ture (some might even say of animal nature). But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children. Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious inventio= n, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along= just fine without it. as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get married (and not always by the fellow they marry either) =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. "Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature (some might even say of animal nature). The social contract of the couple bonding is. And without the social contract nature, is the species going to settle with one mate? I am firmly convinced that it wouldn't. Porno is pretty good evidence it isn't human nature. Porno is simply the outlet from suppression of the instinct to "get some strange". But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children. Why? The couple should have that social commitment before having children. Children should be raised by two parents - a father and a mother. The parents should be pretty certain that they are going to stay together if they plan on raising kids. The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention, perhaps less than 5,000 years old. It is one of the good ideas in religion. We are no longer in a struggle to survive, in which humans need to boink as often as possible with as many partners as possible in order to ensure the survival of the species. We live a lot longer. So we can (attempt to) do better, to raise the kids in a good two parent household. It tends to make for better adjusted adults, not simply creatures who simply survive to 14 or 15 years, then make new critters, and die of old age at 35..... Many historic civilizations got along just fine without it. Which ones? - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com