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

wrote:

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.

Why is that "fun?"

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.