Actually it’s more like, “what I’m reading instead of going out and buying parts for my computer.” I’m writing this on a backup machine. I work from a home office and consequently keep a spare computer so that if anythin…

SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM

I’ve seen spambots with more charisma and coherence.

You point out that the existence of single parents can be a drain on governmental resources, but then again so are (in the healthcare sector) smoking and fatty foods, and I’m hesitant to let the government be the one to put disincentives on those things.

Tzetzes on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM

So can a lot of other activities to include the wanton sex (STDs, AIDS), high rise endeavors such as riding motorcycles without helmets, rock climbing without proper safety gear, etc.

The libertarian view is that the government doesn’t make these behaviors illegal, but will not allocate its limited resources to take care of those individuals. Why I think National Heath Care is a bad idea. Those of us that exercise and take care of our health are punished by having to pay the health cost of those that eat fatty foods, smoke, engage in risky unsafe behaviors etc. I have no problems with people doing what they want to do, just don’t force (i.e. the state)me to subsidize the consequence of those behaviors!

SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM

SAINT Olaf!!! Why are you still posting?!

You are a crank , not to mention too in love with the

SPACE BAR

and with bold fonts!

Your buck-tooth Bable-thumpin’ is NOT the face of conservatism!

Look at how people here respond to your stupid posts.

Go away, you bigoted fanatic. If you want to preach, go back to your traffic island!

* * *

(And now, as you, our resident authority on Christianity, have refused to condemn King David or the Patriarchs, and thus given your tacit approval of their behavior (qui tacit consentit), I’m off to find myself some concubines…)

PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Thanks once again for a thoughtful post. What you say about social stability is not a negligible matter, but I’m still unsure how far that should be the government’s concern. You point out that the existence of single parents can be a drain on governmental resources, but then again so are (in the healthcare sector) smoking and fatty foods, and I’m hesitant to let the government be the one to put disincentives on those things.

However, as far as women’s losing out on the advantages of marriage because of many men’s unwillingness to commit (to “buy the cow”), the possibility of a polygamous marriage (rare as those would surely be) could only help the matter.

The one concern that could sway me is the welfare of children, and I imagine that (aside from any curious looks they might get at school) the children in such marriage would on average fare at least as well as those in single-parent homes, especially if their parents’ practice were decriminalized.

Why polygamy is wrong?

Because it reduces women to nothing more than pieces of meat, uncovered or otherwise. It treats women as a commodity that can be monopolized by just a few men. In fact, at these FLDS compounds, competition for wives was reduced by kicking boys and young men out of them for some minor infraction or the other.

Child marriage?

Obvious reasons.

mram on April 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM

But it is their choice. it is not the government’s business, period.

Why polygamy is wrong?

Because it reduces women to nothing more than pieces of meat, uncovered or otherwise. It treats women as a commodity that can be monopolized by just a few men.

mram on April 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Take a course in social anthropology. Research both polygamy and polyandry. In the past, both increased the economic strength of that family. I think it is a different case with the FLDS members, but your premise is not a reasoned statement.

Where did the term “Old Maid” arise?

During what decade in the last century did western societies move away from the term Old Maid?

Why do you compare today’s standards to those over 150 years ago?

How old was Joseph Smith when he was murdered?

Prior to 1850, what was the normal age differences between husband and wife?

Prior to 1750, 1650, 1550, on down to 2000 BC same question and why?

Marriages provide stability to the state. Statistically, a family with a married father and mother produces the most stable, nurturing, safe environment for the future citizens of that state. (And for all the naysayers out there, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.) Therefore is behooves the government to give incentives for this arrangement.

However, during the last 50 years or so, what was once a standard for society has slowly degraded to the lowest denominator. Furthermore, the overriding incentive for men to marry, frequent sex, has given away to females being promiscuous and indulging in wanton sex. Since men can go out and get laid almost at will without marriage, society ends up having a lot of single women with children living in poverty. (See my post at 6:30 PM) Now the state has to take care of this woman and her kids. Furthermore the woman goes through a series of boyfriends who use her for sex but does not provide any stability and/or very little or no income in this arrangement. Therefore, these non-productive citizens drain the limited resources of the state.

That is the incentive for the state except socialist states that proclaim, “All your children our ours” as the State of Texas declared to the FLDS members.

Because it reduces women to nothing more than pieces of meat, uncovered or otherwise. It treats women as a commodity that can be monopolized by just a few men. In fact, at these FLDS compounds, competition for wives was reduced by kicking boys and young men out of them for some minor infraction or the other.

Child marriage?

Obvious reasons.

The LDS church doesn’t allow its members to practice it even where it is legal (e.g. Nigeria). We’re not chomping at the bit to reinstate the practice

Do mormons(like muslims)also practice taqiya (or lying strategically)?

JOSEPH SMITH HAD 33 WIVES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH, WERE TEENAGE GIRLS, 14 YEARS OLD TO 18 YEARS OLD!

If Joseph Smith were alive today, this would his compound they were busting and freeing his abused molested young teenage girls.

Now do you understand why all the mormons here are defending this sicko?

Seriously, if any of you mormons believe in Jesus Christ, and not joseph smith’s false prophecies, that contradict the Bible, then get out of that cult while you still can!

During the rein of David and Solomon…

PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM

I’m sure you don’t mean they shared a kidney! ;)

I’m going to bed now and will check tomorrow for answers to the above, which I ask in all sincerity. I’m honestly at a loss towards the whole matter. Again, thanks.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Thanks for your reply and for a reasoned answer. I reckon it’s always been a problem, what to do with people, and I wouldn’t be surprised if supposedly divine sanctions of or against a practice like polygamy came about as ex post facto aetiological myths (though that’s rather speculative, not to mention a terminological redudancy) for what had previously been rather a practical matter. (Certainly second sons, under a primogenital system, are good candidates for colonialists, as far as that goes.)

But in 21st-century America can that sort of social engineering be justified? Why can’t Allahpundit, for example (who I’m sure is in fact as alpha as they get) marry every single girl at Fox News? If they’re keen on the idea, then how could one say no to that? Seriously, what reason would you give? (And remember that with the groom in question, appeals to religion will not carry much water.)

This goes to the question of what a civil marriage is supposed to mean at all. (As it happens, I’m about to be civilly married… and in the Netherlands no less!) I believe that there’s something mystical and transcendent about the union of man and woman and consider the covenant of marriage an important religious thing (even if performed by a justice of the peace, a Hindoo priest or (God forbid) a Protestant minister). But that’s a matter for her and me in the sight of God. What has the state, as the representative of our fellow citizens, got to do with that? Who invited them?

One begins in fact to wonder, why is there such a thing as civil weddings (or the civil recognition of religious weddings) anyway? Any thoughts, anybody?

I understand many of your points. For me the brainwashing, terror of fear, inbreeding, and primitivism is perturbing.

Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM

One might say the same thing about Hippy communes. The difference is they are teaching their kids the correct PC agenda. If it feels good, do it. Sex is great with anybody and everybody, we did it at Woodstock. Tobacco bad, but daughter, this stuff you can smoke. It will make you feel alright. But don’t smoke it all for it is our main cash crop.

Can either or you, or anyone else, explain why in America polygamy is illegal (historical) or why it should be illegal (moral)? I don’t ask this rhetorically.

Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Tzetzes

There are many good arguments for or against polygamy. I’m not sure what the founding argument against polygamy was, but one can argue that statistically the population is about 50/50 with a little variation depending on location and time. That statistical figures allows marriage between one man and one woman. Unattached males have always been rather disruptive to societies. Therefore, the one man, one woman allows everyone in society to be married and have a family.

If society gets in a position that women greatly outnumber men, which happened during the Mormon migration across the West a lot of men died and more women converted to Mormonism, the one to one rule is usually disregarded or suspended so every eligible female has a husband. The reverse has happened in other countries when males have outnumbered females.

A more likely scenario when males outnumbered females, is armies are formed of mainly unattached males and they conquer other countries. An example would be Spain conquering what is now Mexico, California, etc. The Spanish men killed the Native American males and took the women as wives.

During the rein of David and Solomon, Israel was at war with many different countries. The Bible doesn’t specifically state the number of casualties that was occurring during this time frame, but one might assume that there were more women than men due to battle field deaths. Based upon David’s action and sin, I would assume the usual marriage was one man, one woman and David sinned greatly by taking Bathsheba, another man’s wife when he already had many.

SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM

The LDS church doesn’t allow its members to practice it even where it is legal (e.g. Nigeria). We’re not chomping at the bit to reinstate the practice…least of all my wife.

Olaf, your shrieking ignorance of the LDS Church would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. You’re the Oliver Willis of religious discussion. You know religion like Margaret Cho knows funny. You are to religion what GWAR is to barbershop quartet. You are to religion what Randi Rhodes is to coquettery.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Yes and I bet children engaging in underage drinking in many churches every Sunday. Send in the Feds. Test it and see if that wine is blood or not.

LevStrauss on April 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM

You strengthened my point about the multiple thoughts. I never claimed what you did. You own that one.

Thanks, but no thanks, my husband says one is all he can handle.

Bambi on April 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Hahahahaha – brilliant!!

SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM

I did make a stupid mistake: Hagar was indeed not a wife of Abraham’s, the same as Sarah. But you never answered: will you condemn Abraham for having her (or Keturah) as concubines? Will you condemn Jacob for having both Rachel & Leah as wives (plus two concubines)?

We also have laws against poligamy and child abuse. Is it ok with you to have sex with animals, or the dead, or whatever, in the name of religion? Please don’t even bother to start a conversation. It’s really disturbing to conclude more often, lately, that people can’t hold more than one thought in one head, concurrently. It’s really perturbing and sad.

Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Yes and I bet children engaging in underage drinking in many churches every Sunday. Send in the Feds. Test it and see if that wine is blood or not.

On marriage Jesus taught (in principle) one man – one woman in his teachings on divorce. Paul taught more specifically one man/one woman. Including the qualifications of deacons and elders of the church. Just because it doesn’t say “Thou shalt not” doesn’t mean it wasn’t taught against.
I will continue later if you want more information, but I have to go to bible class right now for more indoctrination.
Later

Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Paul speaks of celibate or monogamous clergy, but I don’t know of any mention of a restriction against polygamy, by him or by Jesus (and Augustine couldn’t find any either). It’s easy to assume, reading Jesus talk about marriage, that he meant our kind of marriage, but that is an assumption. Luther couldn’t find any compelling reason why Philip of Hesse shouldn’t take a second wife, while even the great Melanchthon said that Henry VIII could have avoided the nasty issue of divorcing Katherine of Aragon (forbidden except for adultry) by simply taking Anne Boleyn as simultaneous number two (allowed the patriarchs and nowhere forbidden).

(As for homosexuality, I think it’s forbidden of the Lord. But Caesar is not the Lord and should keep out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.)

* * *

But my question is this: even if one does think that polygamy is forbidden a Christian, what case against it can one make to a secular citizenry, to one’s fellow Americans at large?

2). From courttv.com from Sept 1, 2006 (relating to the Arizona/Utah compound): “Anyone who talked to a “Gentile” — the FLDS term for anyone outside the church — risked eternal damnation and through the wrath of Warren Jeffs, the loss of his house and family.

Shortly after he arrived, Engels received a tip that a 16-year-old had been married to Warren Jeffs. He found her visiting her parents and asked her about the allegation.

I prefer not to answer, she replied to every question he asked. Her parents stood by, staring at him with a hatred that still burns a year later.

“I was the devil to them. To all of them,” he said. In the end, all he could do was tell them he would stop back periodically to check on her. “She better still be living here,” he told them.

His reception did not improve. Engels has the ramrod posture and authoritative air of one who has spent his career in law enforcement, but he has a gentle thoughtfulness that in the past had earned the respect of even those he had arrested. But in Short Creek, people acknowledged him only with dirty looks and comparisons to Satan.

Thanks, but no thanks, my husband says one is all he can handle.