| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 10th 05, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| K8CPA Email | CB | |||
Threaded Mode
