Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #412   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 01:51 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #414   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 02:24 AM
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


  #415   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 02:27 AM
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let the day be marked down I Mark Morgan have found a post from N2EY
that agree with every word of
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:


cut



  #416   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 12:57 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #417   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 02:06 PM
K4YZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #418   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 02:15 PM
K4YZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

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...

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.

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.

And yes, laws governing marriage and the structure of the basic
family unit in THIS country were derived from Christian principles.
American History 101 refers.

73

Steve, K4YZ

  #419   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 03:03 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #420   Report Post  
Old September 10th 05, 03:49 PM
an_old_friend
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K8CPA Email newbe_1957 CB 60 November 7th 03 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017