In Defense of America's Undiscussed Minority

[DoctorDoom]

In our enlightened society, where the focus is on freedom and human rights, and people of every belief and way of life want to work together for a more accepting, more tolerant society, there is yet a dark side. Our nation still permits a form of oppression that can no longer be ignored.

Remember Robert Blake? In a mockery of a trial that drove a dagger though the freedom-loving soul of America, this good and gentle man, this loving and compassionate man, this man whose heart was so big that it overflowed with love enough for many, was viciously and callously imprisoned for the "crime" of polygamy. How little our society has grown in its tolerance and respect for every way of life when this travesty of justice can occur without a protest.

In having several wives, Blake was only expressing his sexual orientation. Those self-righteous fanatics who did this evil deed exposed themselves as nothing but bigoted polygamophobes, denying this fine man the right to express the sexuality to which he was genetically predisposed, the way of life for which he was destined from conception.

Studies have shown that polygamy is dictated by biology. It's not a choice. Males display polygamous tendencies even when they're very young. They're attracted to many girls, not just one. They often date dozens of them. This is a genetic orientation manifesting itself even in immature males. How cruel and insensitive it is to require boys to repress their polygamous nature.

It is our intolerant society that forces men into the unnatural monogamist role in order to be deemed acceptable. Some try to compensate for this suppression of their polygamous nature by serial marriage or affairs, but it's a sham, a sad, self-denying attempt to meet society's narrow-minded standards that refuses to grant them the right to live in a way that meets their deepest needs.

It's time for men to assert their sexual identities and demand their right to be polygamous without being harassed and penalized.

All anti-polygamy laws must be repealed. The government must pull its obtrusive nose out of the bedrooms. What a man and his women do in the privacy of their home is no one's business but theirs.

Children must be taught in their formative years that there's nothing evil or unnatural about polygamy. Polygamist philosophy should be a part of the curriculum. Children must learn that it's wrong to be unkind to those who are different. They must learn how much it hurts to be pointed at and mocked for having six spouses. Sensitive, heart-warming books such as "Daddy's Wives" and "Heather Has Eight Mommies" have a place in the classroom.

At the college level, there must be Polygamy Studies departments, instilling an appreciation of all the great contributions to culture, science and the arts that were made by renowned polygamists. And, why should the workplace be sheer hell for those whose desks have more than one photo of the cherished ladies in their lives? It's time for the sensitivity training courses to be expanded to include this much-neglected issue.

How wonderful it would be if the world would just accept polygamists without judging them. After all, they're people with feelings and needs and desires. Imagine a world where they could band together in a joyous Polygamy Pride march down Main Street, celebrating diversity, content in their differences, and showing the world that they're just like the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Disney were to host an annual Polygamy Day? After all, it's a family-friendly enterprise, and polygamists are nothing if not family men. And, they spend money.

It's time for America to rid itself of its archaic monogamania. Our country must embrace all its citizens, not just those who yield to the anachronistic concept of one man and one woman.

Polygamists don't want special rights. They just want the same rights and privileges that monogamists have. They just want to live their lives free of oppression, of hatred, of condemnation. They just want to be happy.

Equality for polygamists — is that too much to ask?

Next month: The Heartbreak of Polyamory.


© 2005 RPR/DoctorDoom

[Tumblehome]

Be careful what you post Doom, there are many who agree that polygamy should not be outlawed. Conservatives are right to expect that this could be the next shot at traditional marriage, after homosexual marriage is finally accepted by society as a whole. First there was inter-racial marriage, now homosexual marriage, polygamy is likely to be next. And for those who care to stop it, I'm not sure there is a whole lot you can do.

[aaron11]

Be careful what you post Doom, there are many who agree that polygamy should not be outlawed. Conservatives are right to expect that this could be the next shot at traditional marriage, after homosexual marriage is finally accepted by society as a whole..

It's pretty obvious that it's never going to be fully accepted...

Theirs a difference between forcing tolerance and acceptance ya know?

Dead on as usual Doc...

[TechnoPrincess]

It's pretty obvious that it's never going to be fully accepted...

Theirs a difference between forcing tolerance and acceptance ya know?

Dead on as usual Doc...

Agreed!

There are many who believe that it should not be against the law, but there are more that believe it should. And if you talk to some who have escaped the communities where it is practiced, they don't shine a beautiful light upon it. And most polygamists only want to legalize the marriage of more than one woman to one man, not the other way around. The practice is a subjugation of women, nothing more.

[Tumblehome]

What is the term for it where both spouses also have additional spouses?

[DoctorDoom]

The new word is polyamory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory).

Polyamory is the practice of having more than one loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. The relationships are long-term, intimate, and usually (but not necessarily) sexual. Persons who consider themselves emotionally suited to such relationships may define themselves as polyamorous, often abbreviated to poly.

Polygamy also covers it. Same page:

Polygamy (polygyny and polyandry), in which one person marries several spouses (who may or may not be married to or have a romantic relationship with one another).

A much better term is insanity.

[nene]

Love, with no honor and commitment is completely useless.

[SunnyBrook]

Love the article DD, but it strikes painfully close to the truth that our society is traveling a dark and twisted path.

[DoctorDoom]

I wrote it a few years ago for another board that was awash in queers and their boosters. It used arguments that they had been offering in defense of homosexuality and applied them to another deviant "lifestyle", intending to demonstrate the idiocy of attempting to legitimize and normalize sexual perversion.

The "gays" were not amused.

[Wolfcounsel]

"What is the term for it where both spouses also have additional spouses?" --Tumblehome

Brain damage.

[aaron11]

"What is the term for it where both spouses also have additional spouses?" --Tumblehome

Illegal...

[DoctorDoom]

"What is the term for it where both spouses also have additional spouses?" --Tumblehome

Masochism.

[aaron11]

LoL I had to look it up...:crazy:



Main Entry: mas·och·ism http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?masoch02.wav=masochism')) http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?masoch01.wav=masochism'))
Pronunciation: <TT>'ma-s&-"ki-z&m, 'ma-z&- also 'mA-</TT>
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch died 1895 German novelist
1 : a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object -- compare SADISM (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sadism)
2 : pleasure in being abused or dominated : a taste for suffering

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: First of all, I can only hope that this article is satire, because it's too inane to be taken seriously.

DoctorDoom:
Studies have shown that polygamy is dictated by biology.

:unsmile: This is the worst horse$#î+ the polygamists use to justify their practice, & I've actually heard them say it. BIOLOGY should show them that the ratio of boys to girls is almost exactly ONE to ONE, therefore, if a man has twenty wives, then nineteen men will be very unhappy.

:unsmile: I posted an article in the Culture forum, called "The Lost Boys", in which it has been revealed that the polygamist community of Colorado City, AZ/Hilldale, UT has been expelling boys as young as 12, so the old lechers won't have competition for more wives. Throwing people away, so a few can have more sex, is just unhuman.

What a man and his women do in the privacy of their home is no one's business but theirs.

:unsmile: It becomes sociëty's business, when teenage boys are turned loose in the streets, so that man can indulge in his totally selfish behavior.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

:unsmile: First of all, I can only hope that this article is satire, because it's too inane to be taken seriously.



:unsmile: This is the worst horse$#î+ the polygamists use to justify their practice, & I've actually heard them say it. BIOLOGY should show them that the ratio of boys to girls is almost exactly ONE to ONE, therefore, if a man has twenty wives, then nineteen men will be very unhappy.

:unsmile: I posted an article in the Culture forum, called "The Lost Boys", in which it has been revealed that the polygamist community of Colorado City, AZ/Hilldale, UT has been expelling boys as young as 12, so the old lechers won't have competition for more wives. Throwing people away, so a few can have more sex, is just unhuman.



:unsmile: It becomes sociëty's business, when teenage boys are turned loose in the streets, so that man can indulge in his totally selfish behavior.


LP,
I think I tell you that you're safe to assume it is satirical.


I wrote it a few years ago for another board that was awash in queers and their boosters. It used arguments that they had been offering in defense of homosexuality and applied them to another deviant "lifestyle", intending to demonstrate the idiocy of attempting to legitimize and normalize sexual perversion.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

LP,
I think I tell you that you're safe to assume it is satirical.

:unsmile: Nevertheless, I have heard polygamists use biology as their lame rationale, & I've always wanted to respond to that. This is as good a place as any to vent.

[DesertFox]

LT NS, LP.







Long Time No See

[Lazarus]

It IS biological... In as much as all sexual deviancies are biological... Pederasty is biological... Necrophilia is biological... Bestiality is biological...

For that matter, drunkenness id biological... Drug Abuse is biological... The sin nature itself is biological...

If homosexuality is accepted by our society as as a normal "option" we can expect to ultimately see all of the above-mentioned deviencies eventually accepted... Of course by them I expect this society to have degenerated into warring tribes...

[DoctorDoom]

First of all, I can only hope that this article is satire, because it's too inane to be taken seriously.If you really have to ask, it's time for a refresher course in sarcasm. Oy! :rolleyes:

[DoctorDoom]

Oh, human, are YOU back??? DAMN!

Did I say anything about morality? I said wanting more than one spouse is insane. Obviously you've never been married, kid.

[Proud American]

My knowledge of the bible is limited but wasn't King David a polygamist?

[DoctorDoom]

I do hope you actually have a clue this time around, child.

So women are so bad that wanting to be with more than one is insanity?You'll find out.

Oh, by the way, as usual you avoided the real question. When did polygamy became a perversion, that is immoral?I neither know nor care, troll. Take it up with the responsible parties.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

May I ask why this bothers everyone?

It's not your marriage so chill the **** out. Why go to great lengths to affect someone else's choices, unless it somehow costs you money?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: You're the one who needs to "chill the **** out". Read what I already posted, then get back to us.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

Sorry for my first response. It was vague and rude. I was in a shitty mood. I will clarify.

Whether or not polygamy is natural, biological or anything else, it's consentual. If all parties involved agree to it, then I see no problem with it. Marriage is another issue, but wanting more than one partner is not inconcievable. Many people thrive on groups, cliques and even orgies.

Saying it's a form of "masochism" and "brain damage" makes you sound hateful. I think that most of you just don't like it because it seems odd and if you can't accept it then it shouldn't be allowed by anyone. Wow, talk about egotistical.

Edit: for clarification, I should state what I mean by polygamy. When I say polygamy, I mean the mindset that triggers it. That mindset, I believe, is not insane. As for the issue of allowing polygamy (as it truly means with marriage), is not worth discussing.

[DoctorDoom]

Meme complexes? Do you also worship Gaia and cast spells? You've changed, certainly. You've become more clue-challenged.

[DesertFox]

Meme complexes?

MEME COMPLEXES?

DOC DOOM IS MEME COMPLEXED!!!

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/joker.gif





Pardon me. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

[TempestTossed]

The battle for the right to polygamy has existed longer than the battle over gay marriage. If the battle over rights to polygamy starts rearing its ugly head, that shouldn't be seen as the beginning of the slippery slope that gay marriage started. Polygamy could very well be the most traditional form of marriage. And, unlike gay marriage, polygamy has precedent in the Bible and support from God. Conservatives seem to have some wierd fear that other people's marriages may affect their own. Get over that irrational fear and then we can all be more free.

I don't think the government should support gay marriage. I don't think the government should support polygamous marriage. I don't think the government should support any kind of marriage. I think we should get the government out of marriage. Stop marriage regulations, stop marriage tax breaks, stop marriage licenses, and separate marriage from the government. I am a small-government kinda guy.

[Wyatt_Junker]

You can bet your head at it.


Fellation poker???


I now have a clue on how to deal with meme complexes full of virtoil and hate such as yourself.


High viscous Virtoil WD-30.

That same grade A shat.

[DesertFox]

Kids. Property. Inheritances.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Conservatives seem to have some wierd fear that other people's marriages may affect their own.

:unsmile: If you were a 13-year-old boy searching for a shelter to spend the night, after being permanently expelled from your home by your lecherous polygamous uncle, you might see things a little differently.

[DoctorDoom]

The battle for the right to polygamy has existed longer than the battle over gay marriage.First, child, the term "gay" is not respected here, since it is only used by queers and their ass-kissing cheerleaders. If you want to be taken seriously, dump it.

Secondly, the bigotry of the queers and homophiles against other "orientations" is shamelessly hypocritical.

IAC, if this country ever caves in to the demands of the queers and legitimizes homo "marriage", then there is absolutely no argument against legitimizing and normalizing any other sexual "orientation". Polygamy WILL ride in on the wake of fag "marriage", and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to prevent it.

You, kid, are in the minority with your "F**k morality! If it feels good, do it!" indifference. Don't expect us to be swayed by your liberal piffle.

[TempestTossed]

:unsmile: If you were a 13-year-old boy searching for a shelter to spend the night, after being permanently expelled from your home by your lecherous polygamous uncle, you might see things a little differently.Polygamy has existed for thousands of years across many different cultures and continents. It is not wise to judge polygamy based on one religious cult.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Polygamy has existed for thousands of years across many different cultures and continents. It is not wise to judge polygamy based on one religious cult.

Murder has too, and it all comes back to the first when Cain slew his brother Abel -- just because something is around for a long time, its done by many, doesn't make it right. There is but one "right" way and it is that which was ordained by the Creator. Anything else is just man trying to justify his own lusts, desires, and wants. Right and wrong are not subjective, I don't care how many try to say otherwise.

[Nutrider99]

The Bible commands against Bigamy.

"Man can not serve two masters."

[Calliope]

On the topic of polygamy, isn't it only natural to want to be with more than one person? It's instinct in some people to want to reproduce. I do not believe in cheating on a spouse, but wanting something is very different than going after something. You condone homosexuality saying it's not what our bodies were "meant" for, yet technically, our bodies are meant for reproduction- us heterosexuals should be populating the earth, but in order for there to be diversity, it might as well not be with the same person.

[TempestTossed]

Murder has too, and it all comes back to the first when Cain slew his brother Abel -- just because something is around for a long time, its done by many, doesn't make it right.No doubt about it. The point I was making was that you shouldn't judge a way of marriage based on one religious cult. Longhorn_Platinum seemed to be referencing the Fundy LDS church and their infamous "lost boys," and I said that polygamy is really much bigger than that. Do you agree with me on that? There is but one "right" way and it is that which was ordained by the Creator. Anything else is just man trying to justify his own lusts, desires, and wants. Right and wrong are not subjective, I don't care how many try to say otherwise. If something is immoral, it does not follow that it should be illegal. Instead of polygamy, we have in this society a behavior of marriage that is equally immoral at least, and I would say more so. It is serial monogamy. That is where we marry, divore, and repeat as many times as we please, giving men many wives and women many husbands within their lifetimes. I'd say it hurts kids more than lawful polygamy would. Should that be illegal?

[okkervil]

...First there was inter-racial marriage, now homosexual marriage, polygamy is likely to be next. And for those who care to stop it, I'm not sure there is a whole lot you can do.

What is wrong with inter-racial marriage?

[TempestTossed]

What is wrong with inter-racial marriage?I figure that was merely sarcasm. Tumblehome seems to be a liberal.

[Lestat]

you shouldn't judge a way of marriage based on one religious cult.

Why not?

It is serial monogamy. That is where we marry, divore, and repeat as many times as we please, giving men many wives and women many husbands within their lifetimes. I'd say it hurts kids more than lawful polygamy would. Should that be illegal?

Ah good point, more reason why divorce should be ilegal.

[Calliope]

I figure that was merely sarcasm. Tumblehome seems to be a liberal.
Seriously though, what is wrong with inter-racial marriage? What's wrong with wanting to be with someone you love? Just because they look different, you shouldn't be with them?

That's bullshit in my opinion. People should be able to be free to love.

edit: Ah, nevermind. This wasn't directed at TempestTossed. I apologize.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Polygamy WILL ride in on the wake of fag "marriage", and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to prevent it.

:smirky: Of course. One man has twenty-one wives, thereby creäting the need for ten homosexual marriages.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No, you are right -- instead, marriage should be judged by the criteria of the One who created and ordained it. Polygamy is bigger than the LDS church, true, however, its wrong no matter who engages in it. Anything immoral that infringes upon the rights of another should be made illegal, in my opinion, but to your point, I'll grant you that not all things immoral should be made illegal -- you cannot completely regulate morality. I totally agree that there is an epidemic of marriage/divorce/remarriage (serial monogamy, if you prefer). And it is a very good question, should it be illegal, hmmm. Perhaps we should make it HARDER to get married, harder to get divorced, and find a way to put obstacles before those that try to live together without being married (although I would have to think more about what kind of obstacles could be devised.)

I don't know, you bring up a very valid and interesting point.

[DoctorDoom]

See? I can post random crap too!You already did.
I now have a clue on how to deal with meme complexes full of virtoil and hate such as yourself.

[Apollo5600]

Concerning Polygamy in the Bible, from the NT:

Matt 19:<SUP id=en-KJV-23767>4</SUP>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, <SUP id=en-KJV-23768>5</SUP>And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? <SUP id=en-KJV-23769>6</SUP>Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. <SUP id=en-KJV-23770>7</SUP>They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? <SUP id=en-KJV-23771>8</SUP>He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If Jesus considered polygamy good, how then does polygamy survive these words here? If you can have many wives, what is the problem with marrying another woman, whether you divorce the first wife or not?

Titus 1
<SUP id=en-KJV-29898>5</SUP>For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: <SUP id=en-KJV-29899>6</SUP>If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. <SUP id=en-KJV-29900>7</SUP>For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; <SUP id=en-KJV-29901>8</SUP>But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; <SUP id=en-KJV-29902>9</SUP>Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers

You can find more such scripture in the NT that condemn polygamy, so understand that though it was practiced and allowed in the past, from the beginning it was not so. God made one man, and one woman, so that the two shall be made one flesh.

[Apollo5600]

And since when is your morality any different?

Since for a long time, his morality is God's morality, yours is soulless and vile, allowing you to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it, while still making it possible for you to claim you are holy holy holy which was, which is, and which is to come, almighty.

[DoctorDoom]

Brer Apollo, the pissant is a pseudo-Christian cultist. I haven't identified what cult, but based on his numerous asinine ramblings in his last spasm here, it's as far removed from Christianity and the Bible as one can get without being an atheist.

[TempestTossed]

Why not?The reason why you should not judge a broadly practiced behavior of marriage by one religious cult (FLDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints) on the Utah Arizona border) is because it is a logical fallacy. One segment that is out of the ordinary does not represent the whole. It is called unrepresentative sample (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/unrep.htm) according to some. Ah good point, more reason why divorce should be ilegal.I have your agreement, at least, though I was hoping that the advocacy of laws against serial monogamy would be too much of a deficit to freedom than would be palatable.

[TempestTossed]

Matt 19:<sup id="en-KJV-23767">4</sup>And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, <sup id="en-KJV-23768">5</sup>And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? <sup id="en-KJV-23769">6</sup>Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. <sup id="en-KJV-23770">7</sup>They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? <sup id="en-KJV-23771">8</sup>He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If Jesus considered polygamy good, how then does polygamy survive these words here? If you can have many wives, what is the problem with marrying another woman, whether you divorce the first wife or not? This passage relates to divorce, but it doesn't seem to relate to polygamy or prohibit it. Maybe I missed it.

Titus 1
<sup id="en-KJV-29898">5</sup>For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: <sup id="en-KJV-29899">6</sup>If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. <sup id="en-KJV-29900">7</sup>For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; <sup id="en-KJV-29901">8</sup>But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; <sup id="en-KJV-29902">9</sup>Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers

You can find more such scripture in the NT that condemn polygamy, so understand that though it was practiced and allowed in the past, from the beginning it was not so. God made one man, and one woman, so that the two shall be made one flesh.Like many doctrines, the Bible is contradictory. That passage from Titus 1 made the rules for bishops. What about everyone else? Here is a verse that seems to permit polygamy:Deuteronomy 21:15-16

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
You would figure that both the man and his second wife would be stoned to death if polygamy were adultery, huh? Here is a verse that shows what the greatest king of Israel thought of "one man and one woman":2 Samuel 5:13

After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.
This was in the time of David's great heroism. He was punished later by God after he finally committed adultery with Bathsheba.

[Lestat]

The reason why you should not judge a broadly practiced behavior of marriage by one religious cult (FLDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints) on the Utah Arizona border) is because it is a logical fallacy.

But isn't the claim that one should not judge morality basing oneself in one religious cult a claim made by another secular/religious cult? It is the same logical fallacy you are condeming. What exonerates you or them from it?

[Apollo5600]

This passage relates to divorce, but it doesn't seem to relate to polygamy or prohibit it. Maybe I missed it.

You ignored it, and what I wrote, if you do that again I will ignore you.. You can't be this dense, but I'll repeat it anyway. If you can have many wives then it doesn't matter if you divorce one and marry another one. But it is a problem if you can have only one wife, and are still technically married to the first.

As for the alleged contradiction, first of all we are no longer under the old covenant, I imagine that before Moses came with the Law, the Jews probably already practiced polygamy, so God in His infinite knowledge already knowing the hardness of their hearts allowed somethings, but from the beginning it was not so. So Christ not only came to save sinners, but to make all things anew.

Like many doctrines, the Bible is contradictory. That passage from Titus 1 made the rules for bishops. What about everyone else? Here is a verse that seems to permit polygamy:

Your ignorance is breathtaking. As a Bishop, they are meant to be examples for the entire Church, "Blameless", as we are all commanded to be lest we drive others off by our wickedness and therefore bring a bad reputation upon the entire Body of Christ.

Try reading the Bible first before you annoy me.

[TempestTossed]

But isn't the claim that one should not judge morality basing oneself in one religious cult a claim made by another secular/religious cult? It is the same logical fallacy you are condeming. What exonerates you or them from it?I'm sincerely sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying. Let me clarify what I am saying in case you misunderstood.

Longhorn_Platinum implied that polygamy is wrong because it would result in boys being estranged from their families.

I said that is merely the behavior of the FLDS, and it does not represent the whole. It is the fallacy of the unrepresentative sample (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/unrep.htm). The letter Q does not represent the whole alphabet.

Logical fallacies do not depend on what system of morality I use. They are universal.

[TempestTossed]

You ignored it, and what I wrote, if you do that again I will ignore you.. You can't be this dense, but I'll repeat it anyway. If you can have many wives then it doesn't matter if you divorce one and marry another one. But it is a problem if you can have only one wife, and are still technically married to the first.

As for the alleged contradiction, first of all we are no longer under the old covenant, I imagine that before Moses came with the Law, the Jews probably already practiced polygamy, so God in His infinite knowledge already knowing the hardness of their hearts allowed somethings, but from the beginning it was not so. So Christ not only came to save sinners, but to make all things anew.



Your ignorance is breathtaking. As a Bishop, they are meant to be examples for the entire Church, "Blameless", as we are all commanded to be lest we drive others off by our wickedness and therefore bring a bad reputation upon the entire Body of Christ.

Try reading the Bible first before you annoy me.OK, bro. I'll stop annoying you from now on. Just go to your control panel and put me on ignore.

[Apollo5600]

OK, bro. I'll stop annoying you from now on. Just go to your control panel and put me on ignore.

You stuck your head back up your ass, I said: Try reading the Bible first............. before you annoy me. I didn't say "stop annoying me", because that isn't possible for you to do, it's like your job to be obnoxious. I said "try reading the bible first", and then, after knowing WTF you're talking about, you can come back and do your job.

Big difference.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

The bible should have no precedence in this matter since it's a matter of state/government law. Only if church-backed polygamy was considered would the bible have any say.

By the way, can anyone tell me how polygamy is any worse (in terms of sanctity of marriage) than church given annulments?

[Tumblehome]

Seriously though, what is wrong with inter-racial marriage? What's wrong with wanting to be with someone you love? Just because they look different, you shouldn't be with them?

That's bullshit in my opinion. People should be able to be free to love.

Be they inter-racial, homosexual, or poligamist relationships?

I cited these three because they are the order in which the taboo is likely to become the accepted. Go back a few years and look at writings and you will see that inter-racial marriage was a hot topic. Now it is accepted by most. Your argument above works equally well for homosexual mariage and poligmy.

And for the record, I'm not a card carryig liberal. I'm "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others. Over here I'm pegged as a liberal. Over on liberal boards I'm pegged as a conservative.

[Tumblehome]

Polygamy WILL ride in on the wake of fag "marriage", and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to prevent it.

Just as "fag" marriage rode in on the wake of inter-racial marriage. Society is becoming more liberal and more egalitarian. I think this was inevitable from the moment the constitution was put into play and the words "all men created equal" was uttered. At the time that meant white land owning males. It has been expanding ever since.

[TempestTossed]

You stuck your head back up your ass, I said: Try reading the Bible first............. before you annoy me. I didn't say "stop annoying me", because that isn't possible for you to do, it's like your job to be obnoxious. I said "try reading the bible first", and then, after knowing WTF you're talking about, you can come back and do your job.

Big difference.I am not going to read the Bible cover to cover. I have already spent my life learning about it in church and studying isolated passages in private. Too many people I know have read the whole Bible, yet their knowledge is hardly worth bragging about, perhaps because the Bible is such a boring read or they had little background knowledge on what they read. Their opinions on matters of the Bible always come out the same as before they read it. I still think you should just put me on ignore. I don't seriously mean to annoy you. It just seems that I will be annoying you regardless of what I say, unless I state my full agreement with you, which I will not.

[Apollo5600]

I am not going to read the Bible cover to cover. I have already spent my life learning about it in church and studying isolated passages in private. Too many people I know have read the whole Bible, yet their knowledge is hardly worth bragging about, perhaps because the Bible is such a boring read or they had little background knowledge on what they read. Their opinions on matters of the Bible always come out the same as before they read it.

I never went to a church to learn the Bible, I read the Bible and learned it on my own, (not the entire Bible cover to cover, but I have read the NT many times) and still have never been to church for several years. Ofcourse, that Catholic baptism I went to doesn't count, since I'm not catholic. (I need to go to Church, but simply have not had the opportunity yet)

Where you supposedly have spent your life studying the Bible, I have only been learning for a short time, perhaps a year, two years, about as long as I've been saved, and I've been learning very slowly. (As a result of Christianity, I went Conservative aswell). So, if you're so smart, you shouldn't be here crying about annoying me, and instead be answering my points. Which you can't, want to know why? Because I'm right, and you are just pretending to know what you are talking about so you can disagree with me and bash Christianity.

The only reason I keep responding to you here is because I like to point these sorts of things out to the liberals trying to BS us.

[TempestTossed]

I never went to a church to learn the Bible, I read the Bible and learned it on my own, (not the entire Bible cover to cover, but I have read the NT many times) and still have never been to church for several years. Ofcourse, that Catholic baptism I went to doesn't count, since I'm not catholic. (I need to go to Church, but simply have not had the opportunity yet)

Where you supposedly have spent your life studying the Bible, I have only been learning for a short time, perhaps a year, two years, about as long as I've been saved, and I've been learning very slowly. (As a result of Christianity, I went Conservative aswell). So, if you're so smart, you shouldn't be here crying about annoying me, and instead be answering my points. Which you can't, want to know why? Because I'm right, and you are just pretending to know what you are talking about so you can disagree with me and bash Christianity.

The only reason I keep responding to you here is because I like to point these sorts of things out to the liberals trying to BS us.OK, go ahead and go on doing that, but I am not willing to play along. I normally have discussions with people who are willing to do it at least somewhat reasonably.

[Apollo5600]

OK, go ahead and go on doing that, but I am not willing to play along. I normally have discussions with people who are willing to do it at least somewhat reasonably.

:whatever:What a troll you are, but don't worry, if not me, someone else will get you the next time you lay a troll turd. It'll be fun, atleast for me. <!-- / message -->

[DoctorDoom]

Be they inter-racial, homosexual, or poligamist relationships?Typical deceitful lib rationalization. Inter-racial marriages were and are heterosexual. A black man marrying a white woman did/does not require redefining marriage.

Polygamy (with a 'y') is also heterosexual. I for one couldn't care less if any person (man or woman) who is stupid (or crazy) enough to want multiple spouses engages in that sort of idiocy. It's a fact that when women live together, their cycles tend to synchronize. The man who wants to live with multiple wives with PMS is truly out of his mind.

Fag "marriage" is an entirely different issue, since it is contrary not only to cultural standards thousands of years old, but legitimizes a sexual abnormality. Society has no mandate to cater to perverts, period.

I cited these three because they are the order in which the taboo is likely to become the accepted.The society that accepts perversion dies.

Go back a few years and look at writings and you will see that inter-racial marriage was a hot topic. Now it is accepted by most.And that proves what? Racism is unacceptable, no matter who the racists are.

Your argument above works equally well for homosexual mariage and poligmy.Only in the bizarre, undisciplined, thought-free "minds" of liberals.

And for the record, I'm not a card carryig liberal.You could have fooled us. You're a clone of hundreds of libs that have come and gone. And when you leave, there'll be another one to replace you, unfortunately.

<hr>
Just as "fag" marriage rode in on the wake of inter-racial marriage.Bullshit repeated one quintillion times is still bullshit.

Society is becoming more liberal and more egalitarian.Read: more amoral, irresponsible, self-centered, hedonistic, etcetera. Only a liberaloony can call moral degeneration "progress".

I think this was inevitable from the moment the constitution was put into play and the words "all men created equal" was uttered.Why would you care about the US Constitution? It doesn't apply to you. IAC, we can look across our northern border, see what an utter, irreparable shithole your country has become since you liberals took it over, and decide that we don't want the USofA to sink into that same reeking social sewer.

BTW, hoser, all men ARE Created equal, but the equality does not extend to what they do with their sex organs.

[okkervil]

all men ARE Created equal, but the equality does not extend to what they do with their sex organs.

Why not?