Personally I consider Polygamists gluttens for punishment. One spouse is enough to deal with... particularly since women living together tend to have their periods sync with each other eventually... can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every month in unison? That would be magnitudes worse than having three daughters and your wife on the rag.

That alone is enough to keep the average educated male from wanting to have multiple wives. Legal or not.

Polygamy is accepted by those people based on religious grounds - they are using the same arguments as you.

Quote:

---

can you imagine 4 wife's PMS'ing every month

---

Most women do not have PMS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Most women do not have PMS.

---

And thank god for that... but plenty enough do.


Edit... I mean BAD PMS... noit minor irritability.

So it comes down to some people have a right to their religious beliefs and some don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Most women do not have PMS.

---

It's quite common, that's a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

How common is PMS?

There’s a wide range of estimates of how many women suffer from PMS. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that at least 85 percent of menstruating women have at least 1 PMS symptom as part of their monthly cycle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So it comes down to some people have a right to their religious beliefs and some don't.

---

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?

Hello again, smoothy:

Quote:

---

If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.

---

I CAN define marriage. It's a CONTRACT. You can't enter into a contract with a child, your TV, or your horse.

Excon

Hello again, righty's:

Look. I'm not gay. I'm not Mormon. I'm not married. So, I'm not INTO plural marriage. I'd be HAPPY to be against it. Give me a reason why I should be.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:
I CAN define marriage. It's a CONTRACT. You can't enter into a contract with a child, your TV, or your horse.

excon

---

Marriage is not a contract... marriage was invented and defined by the Church thousands of years before contracts existed or most civilizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?

---

No I am making an argument for hollering about your rights while denying others their rights.

You make so much of your religious principles, and being "made" to go against them, yet to anyone else you have no problem squashing theirs. That's my argument, and always has been, and that's forcing yourself into the lives of others to bend them to your religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

marriage was invented and defined by the Church

---

Absolutely false.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Are you making a religious argument for polygamy?

---

I am. Look. I don't know WHY Mormons do that. I don't know WHY they want to do that. But, if their religion calls for it, and it doesn't HURT anybody, then I believe the Constitution allows them to practice their religion as they see fit WITHOUT government interference.

Tal raises a good point.. You are the one who CLAIMS religious liberty on the issues YOU care about.. Does your claim for religious liberty run across the board?

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

No I am making an argument for hollering about your rights while denying others their rights.

You make so much of your religious principles, and being "made" to go against them, yet to anyone else you have no problem squashing theirs. That's my argument, and always has been, and that's forcing yourself into the lives of others to bend them to your religious beliefs.

---

And there you go again with that straw man of us forcing our beliefs on others while denying their rights nonsense. Everything is not a right and marriage as defined by centuries is a standard. Do you have standards or is it anything goes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Absolutely false.

---

Care to prove that then... as its clearly in the Torrah and Bible... not to mention the Koran and many other very old religious texts... and predates ANY existing laws or legal codes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
I am. Look. I dunno WHY Mormons do that. I dunno WHY they wanna do that. But, if their religion calls for it, and it doesn't HURT anybody, then I believe the Constitution allows them to practice their religion as they see fit WITHOUT government interference.

Tal raises a good point.. You are the one who CLAIMS religious liberty on the issues YOU care about.. Does your claim for religious liberty run across the board?

excon

---

That's the same false argument Tal uses all right and you've always had it backwards. The contraception mandate is a government imposed violation of a reasonable religious belief. You guys have this asinine view (which would never stand up to any legal scrutiny) that us not buying birth control for someone else is forcing our beliefs on others. Hogwash, no one is preventing anyone from accessing birth control - which I'll remind you the use of was already virtually universal by the government's own report. I mean really, the idea that free birth control is a right is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, right behind the notion that my not buying it for you is me imposing my beliefs on you.

I've never claimed an absolute right to religious liberty, if that were the standard then there's nothing in the way of Sharia law and you can let the stonings and public beheadings begin.

Hello again, Steve:

So, you're for religious liberty for Christians.. That ain't how the First Amendment reads...

excon

Quote:

---

Care to prove that then.

---

Sure.

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C.

eHistory.com: Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia

Daily Kos: Dear Christians who oppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, you're for religious liberty for Christians.. That ain't how the First Amendment reads...

excon

---

How about addressing my actual argument and not the ones you make up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sure.

The Avalon Project : Laws of the Kings, 753 - 510 B.C.

---

The Old Testiment and the Torrah significantly predate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

eHistory.com: Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia

---

This link is returning an error from their server right now so I can't make any comments on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Daily Kos: Dear Christians who oppose

---

This is a purely and completely biased blog with no credibility