Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
K8CPA Email | CB |