an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:


wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:

I ridicule many things.

Bravo!

You do too!


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?

Not the point.

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do. But turning it into a religious matter, ala some
religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.

Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......


Are religious radicals sacred?

Okay, let me make fun of atheists.....

Q. What is the worst part about being an atheist?

A. No one to talk to during Orgasm.....




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


Clinton sent a
couple of missiles into an emply office building to show that you can't
just go around threatening the President.

Is it when



they call for holy war?

Yeh, I think we should draw the line at Jihad.

There ya go!


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
cut

Huh? I don't quite get that, Mark.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_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?

Not the point.

why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do.

Gay marriage?

But turning it into a religious matter, ala some
religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.

Would you require people that have had a religious marriage ceremony to
then have a civil ceremony to make it all legal?

Remember seperation of Church/State.

Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......

More than a few men have trouble keeping even one happy.

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

an_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?

Not the point.


why should polygamy be banned? why for that matter shoudl polyandry be
banned?

Not the point. The point is a lot of people *don't* like either. A
number of people do.


Gay marriage?

Pretty much the same thing.

But turning it into a religious matter, ala some

religions, and then expecting all others to accept that, with no comment
is simply incorrect. Brian has a big problem with my making fun of what
I consider some of the more silly aspects of religion.


Would you require people that have had a religious marriage ceremony to
then have a civil ceremony to make it all legal?

I wouldn't. But it could be an interesting discussion.

Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion. No silliness
there. It doesn't bother me that people cohabitate all the time. But I
have big problems with unmarried couples having children.

Remember seperation of Church/State.


Some people find that 2 wives is one too many. Some say the same of 1
wife......


More than a few men have trouble keeping even one happy.

And how!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human na=
ture
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious inventio=
n,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along=
just
fine without it.

as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries
nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get
married (and not always by the fellow they marry either)
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

an_old_friend wrote:


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries
nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get
married (and not always by the fellow they marry either)

If they marry at all, 60% of children in Iceland are born outside of
marriage.
That does not mean that they are the products of broken homes or broken
families (or teenage mothers), what it means is that Icelandic couples
tend to do things in the order: meet and then have kids while at the
same time finishing their education, buying their first home (and a
couple of cars) and then later they probably marry. If they get around
to it, I know a few couples that have been together for years (more
than 20 in a couple of cases), had a bunch of kids and generally lived
their life, without ever marrying.

wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:



Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

as do some modern ones like in Iceland, and other Nordic countries
nobody thinks much about young girls having babies before they get
married (and not always by the fellow they marry either)


If they marry at all, 60% of children in Iceland are born outside of
marriage.
That does not mean that they are the products of broken homes or broken
families (or teenage mothers), what it means is that Icelandic couples
tend to do things in the order: meet and then have kids while at the
same time finishing their education, buying their first home (and a
couple of cars) and then later they probably marry. If they get around
to it, I know a few couples that have been together for years (more
than 20 in a couple of cases), had a bunch of kids and generally lived
their life, without ever marrying.


Then there is something else in the culture keeping them together. Do
the ladies raise their children without the benefit of a male?

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.


"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human nature
(some might even say of animal nature).

The social contract of the couple bonding is.

And without the social contract nature, is the species going to settle
with one mate? I am firmly convinced that it wouldn't. Porno is pretty
good evidence it isn't human nature. Porno is simply the outlet from
suppression of the instinct to "get some strange".



But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.



Why?

The couple should have that social commitment before having children.

Children should be raised by two parents - a father and a mother. The
parents should be pretty certain that they are going to stay together if
they plan on raising kids.


The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invention,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old.

It is one of the good ideas in religion. We are no longer in a struggle
to survive, in which humans need to boink as often as possible with as
many partners as possible in order to ensure the survival of the
species. We live a lot longer. So we can (attempt to) do better, to
raise the kids in a good two parent household. It tends to make for
better adjusted adults, not simply creatures who simply survive to 14 or
15 years, then make new critters, and die of old age at 35.....


Many historic civilizations got along just
fine without it.

Which ones?

- Mike KB3EIA -

K=D8HB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human na=
ture
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious inventio=
n,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got along=
just
fine without it.

If so successful, where are those civilations today?

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote


Couple bonding is one of the best aspects of religion.

"Couple bonding" isn't an aspect of religion. It's an aspect of human =
nature
(some might even say of animal nature).


But I have big problems with unmarried couples having children.


Why? The notion of formal marriage is a fairly recent religious invent=
ion,
perhaps less than 5,000 years old. Many historic civilizations got alo=
ng just
fine without it.

If so successful, where are those civilations today?

most civilations have a life span, likely to include even our own in
that statement