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

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:
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

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