Fundie Mormons going the way of the Branch Dravidians.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun



Well, if you really want to know about my private sex life, I am a top.

We should outlaw you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Monogamy is not immune from such things.

Monogamy in our time has a far better track record wrt sex equality.

[Berzerker]

TCO

My religion requires me to kill all dope-smoking, word-parsing Libertarians!

Freedom is the absence of restraints
murder is a restraint
therefore murder is not freedom
and a law banning murder violates no one's religious freedom

[Berzerker]

Imran

[Elok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course not saying it is easy, but is that a reason to ban something? I mean marriage is NOT easy. But people work through it... and it does, of course have a very high divorce rate.

Yes, but plural marriage or whatever you call it is by definition much less stable than monogamy. No matter how many of them there are, people still relate to each other in pairs, me and you, you and me. Your problems with Wife A can only be exacerbated by the involvement of Wife B--it's between the two of you. I realize that the same holds true of all relationships, sexual or not, but marriage is a bond of supposedly special intimacy, not just a group of friends that happen to be boning each other. There's no "them" and "us" in a functioning marriage, just an "us." The presence of added partners is just an artificial source of strain on the multiple paired relationships these things are composed of.

Mind you, if people want to do polygamy with mutual consent (a suspiciously rare occurence), I suppose it might as well be legal, provided it causes no special burden on others when it falls apart ("serial monogamy" is enough of a strain on society). I just think such people would be asking for trouble.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
TCO

Freedom is the absence of restraints
murder is a restraint
therefore murder is not freedom
and a law banning murder violates no one's religious freedom

your freedom and my freedom are two different things...

[SlowwHand]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Monogamy in our time has a far better track record wrt sex equality.

Well monogamy does happen to be the legal one in our time. If you make something illegal unsavory types will be the ones that deal in it. Greater sample size allows you to sweep the unsavory types under the rug. A great example is drugs. Professionals are not going to do drugs as much when they are illegal because if it is found out they could lose jobs, freedom, etc. If it was legal, I'm sure you'd find many more people experimenting in pot, etc. And you'll find a great sample size, thus harder to concentrate on the crackheads and say "this is what happens when you do drugs".

[q=Elok]
Mind you, if people want to do polygamy with mutual consent (a suspiciously rare occurence), I suppose it might as well be legal, provided it causes no special burden on others when it falls apart ("serial monogamy" is enough of a strain on society). I just think such people would be asking for trouble.[/q]

That's all I'm really saying. It'd be very hard, but if they want to find out the hard way, let 'em.

[Berzerker]

your freedom and my freedom are two different things...

And your "freedom" doesn't even come close to the actual definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well monogamy does happen to be the legal one in our time. If you make something illegal unsavory types will be the ones that deal in it. Greater sample size allows you to sweep the unsavory types under the rug. A great example is drugs. Professionals are not going to do drugs as much when they are illegal because if it is found out they could lose jobs, freedom, etc. If it was legal, I'm sure you'd find many more people experimenting in pot, etc. And you'll find a great sample size, thus harder to concentrate on the crackheads and say "this is what happens when you do drugs".

I think the drugs analogy doesn't apply, because it seems to me that most of those interested in polygamy are still those who would abuse it.

And you know, it's good that some drugs (e.g. heroin) are illegal. Ignoring Berz-style liberarianism, of course.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, the SCOTUS said back in the 1870s that polygamy was not protected under the religious liberty clause of the 1st Amendment because our religious liberty is limited to thought or conscience. Thats what the court did to uphold a ban on polygamy, they turned the 1st Amendment on its head and gave us a law that atheistic communists could embrace - you can think what you like about God, you just can't do anything else like read a book, go to church, sing a hymn, or be baptised... without permission from Congress.

Damned liberals - saying that they have the right to regulate slaughtering lambs in the public square, or marrying off ten year olds to dirty old men.

Funny, I'm not aware of any part of the United States Code or the CFR which regulates reading books, going to church, singing hymns or being baptized. Perhaps you could provide citations?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think the drugs analogy doesn't apply, because it seems to me that most of those interested in polygamy are still those who would abuse it.

And you know, it's good that some drugs (e.g. heroin) are illegal. Ignoring Berz-style liberarianism, of course.

It's because you are so biased against it, you only see abuse from allowing the practice to the population at large.

And no, I don't thnk it is good that a drug like heroin is illegal.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah, legalise them all. That way you can educate and regulate towards a safer environment for all

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker


And your "freedom" doesn't even come close to the actual definition.

Do you see why my prophets urge the jihad against parsers?

[fed1943]

The reason I was told to polygamy: men dye at war,so there will always be more women than men, so polygamy is the only solution.
Clear,isn't it?
Best regards,