Fundie Mormons going the way of the Branch Dravidians.

[TCO]

Originally posted by 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,

Or men kill other men and take their women. Or they drive away the other men and take their women.

[TCO]

Works for the animals...

[Elok]

Originally posted by TCO
Works for the animals...

Yep. And a bonus tip: If you marry a divorcee with kids, kill 'em quick. That will bring her into heat quickly, and stop the waste of your resources on another male's seed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

Then there's no way we're going to resolve this, because IMO that's insane.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Then there's no way we're going to resolve this, because IMO that's insane.

See, if the smack were legal, you could just shoot up and calm down enough to discuss this sensibly. QED.

[Kuciwalker]

[TCO]

Originally posted by Elok


Yep. And a bonus tip: If you marry a divorcee with kids, kill 'em quick. That will bring her into heat quickly, and stop the waste of your resources on another male's seed.

Nothing as hot to trot as a childless older gal.

[MrFun]

I'm surprised that Imran cannot acknowledge that there are real, qualitative differences between monogamy and polygamy.

[TCO]

You are a moron, Fun.

[Berzerker]

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.

The SCOTUS didn't uphold a ban on slaughtering lambs or marrying 10 year olds, it upheld a ban on polygamy by changing a key word in the 1st Amendment. You support this because you don't like some of the people involved with polygamy. We could do away with all our freedoms based on that "logic".

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?

The majority supports these freedoms, so why would the majority let Congress dispose of them? But the majority does not support religious liberty so those in a religious minority need permission from the majority - polygamists were denied permission. RIP Bill of Rights

[Ted Striker]

.

[Japher]

Super Citizen's Rage Of The Uber Madchen

[Elok]

There's only one solution, Berz. Gather a group of loyalists and stockpile ammunition and gold bars in a compound in New Hampshire. Protect your freedoms!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The SCOTUS didn't uphold a ban on slaughtering lambs or marrying 10 year olds, it upheld a ban on polygamy by changing a key word in the 1st Amendment.

In 1870. I agree the reasoning was flawed, but there are perfectly good arguments that polygamy can and shold be banned.

[Dis]

I was just going to make a thread on this, but seeing as there already is a thread. I'll post this here.

Warren Jeffs, the 50-year-old leader of a polygamous sect, last week landed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list alongside such figures as Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/16/fugitive.polygamist.ap/index.html