Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
K8CPA Email | CB |