Who's Afraid of Polygamy?

NY Times ^ | March 11, 2006 | John Tierney

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

If gay marriage becomes legal, its opponents have been warning, the next step in America's moral deterioration will be legalized polygamy. These conservatives won't be happy with "Big Love," the HBO series starting tomorrow night.

[colorcountry]

I have never brought my religious opinion into any discussion we've had. Other than my tagline, you wouldn't know one way or the other how I feel about God.

God be with you. :-)

[MineralMan]

Here's the URL to that "fumarole deficiency" thread:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4591

[CollegeRepublican]

Was that you who posted it?

Nope, I just read about the deficiency when researching polygamy following reading Under the Banner of Heaven.

[CollegeRepublican]

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2005-12-29/news/feature_full.html

That is what I read a couple of months ago.

[MineralMan]

OK. It's interesting that both you and the poster on that blog both converted "fumerase" to "fumerole." Musta been a spell-checker deficiency. Or maybe a "spoil-shekel" deficiency. [groan]

[Dead Corpse]

The laws regarding marriage in the US were originally codified from British law which in turn has its roots in Church dogma.

Which God? In the Norse pantheon, there are several to choose from. Considering the topic, may I suggest Freya (Goddess of Love and Fertility) or Frigga(Goddess of Marriage)? Although, not sure I'd want Thor as a "father in law" so let's leave Thrud out of it.

[gogeo]

There is no place in history that says marriage is between people other than men and women so that is not the question. The question is: When did marriage between a man and one woman become law? Or I guess the question should be: What country or empire stated a two person (man woman) household was legal and a household with more that one woman was not legal? But in todays environment marriage is not something that is required for living together so more that one woman in the household should not be a problem unless the legal question comes up.

It's not about whether two person/man/woman/horse households are legal. Just about any household is legal. However, it may not be marriage.

[Dead Corpse]

For the Record: My stance on those idiot LDS off-brnaches in Utah is that this is not true polygamy, but religiously induced sexual slavery. In many cases, there is absolutly NOTHING voluntary in the marriages some of those people are forced into. Very much against the whole "free will"/"non-initiaion of force,fraud, theft" doctrines.

Just felt a need to get that out there so no one thinks that is what I am defending here.

[gogeo]

The only point I disagree with is #1. Traditionally the first wife has the highest status.

[Eagle Eye]

Yeah, whatever.

Yes, you're strong and capable...we know you are...and don't let me or anyone else tell you otherwise...you ARE woman you are strong and I hear you roar in numbers too big to ignore.

Face it, you're a crusading vicitm. You're against this because of what you think it did to you personally. And maybe it did do something to you and that accounts for your, uh, strength and capabilities. And seeming hostility towards men who don't agree with you.

If I were to take on more than one wife, it would have to be a unanimous decision, not just a passive consent from some or all. And as I said before, it wouldn't be about me and my needs as much as taking care and responsibility of others. I have no need to lord position over anyone.

But in your case I could. And when you address me, I prefer that you call me "Dread Lord".

OK?

[attiladhun2]

We are not animals and we do not establish the social contract based on animal society. Otherwise, we would steal from the weak, because it takes less energy to steal than it does to work for it. Nature dictates that the physically weak and mentally handicapped be eliminated. What you seem to advocate sounds very much like an ideology that flourished in the 1930s and was roundly rejected by right-thinking individuals.

[Eagle Eye]

AN UNKNOWN DISEASE Fumarase Deficiency is a rare disorder of the Krebs Cycle (Citric Acid Cycle), which is a metabolic pathway that forms part of the breakdown of carbohydrates, fats and proteins into carbon dioxide and water in order to generate energy. Persons with Fumarase Deficiency, depending on the severity of the disorder, may not be able to convert Fumaric Acid into Malic Acid, thereby producing a substandard amount of energy. This substandard amount of energy being produced can result in severe physical and mental disabilities

It seems that this is what they were calling fumarole deficiency. First it isn't fumarole it is fumarese and the MD on the provided link interestingly attributed it to inbreeding which may not even be be a contributing factor to this condition.

[attiladhun2]

Is polygamy the blame for that, too?
According to the world health org. polygamy is partially responsible for the spread of HIV on that continent. It is only logical that it would be so. If a man infected with the AIDS virus has multiple wives, he will likely infect all of them and a great many of the offspring.

[Eagle Eye]

LOL...per Godwin's Rule...YOU LOSE!!!

[colorcountry]

In your opinion, should cannibalism be against the law?

[Eagle Eye]

It isn't polygamy it is promiscuity that spreads the disease.

The number of wives a man has has no bearing if all are clean at the beginning and don't screw around with others.

You already lost any right to continue this by invoking Hitler and nazism.

Goodbye.

[Centurion2000]

Actually there are biblical quotes from Paul quoted directly that monogamy is the way to go in the New Testament. They are eslewhere in this thread, so I wont repeat the quote.

[Eagle Eye]

You gotta love her! LOL

[colorcountry]

Yes, my lord...I mean Dread Lord. ;-)

[napscoordinator]

OK. Thank you for the posting.