57 replies to this topic

[pyke]

Everybody grow the fuck up. I am sick and tired of people turning every debate into a personal grudge fest. All I see is people calling eachother immature and mindless arguments.

It isn't the biggest deal in the world to be wrong about something. If you can't recognize that your opinons may be contradicted and put into a not so pleasant light, stay out of the debates. You just ruin it for everyone else.

[Tetiel]

if you have HBO.. you should watch a series called "Big Love" it's about a polygamous family.. and the women really aren't jealous.. they understand it all.. and they are good friends..

it's really an interesting concept isn't it?

But the problem is.. that's HBO and while that may be nice... often times it just doesn't happen like that

[redlion]

Sorry if I'm ignoring the rest of this topic, but as it seems to just be a rag on Alias topic, I'm quite done arguing about polygamy.

Well, Alias, you should actually read what you're posting. =P

And let us not forget, that the Bible, even the New Testament, isn't exactly always correct when it comes to marital affairs. For example...
If my husband ever told me to submit to his will, oh boy, he'd be retching on the ground after I put my foot between his legs.

Let us also not forget that the bible, especially the new testament was written by men, and those letters were written by apostles and disciples, not christ himself. These are the guys who questioned and betrayed the Son of God himself; how the hell does anyone figure that their words are worth considering?

I can understand the gospels... they're mostly just relating a series of events, but most everything after the gospels is just the disciples trying to strike fear into the hearts of people in far off places.

And I'll be damned if my country goes to shit because most of the nation believes that the end of the world is coming because of the opium dream of John (commonly known as the Revelation).

[pyke]

I'm sorry...?

I can easily recognize that my opinions may be contradicted.. and that in all probablity not everyone if anyone will agree with the way I see things.. however I feel that I never attacked alias personally (with the exception of him falsifying holy documents) and simply stated my opinion.. disproving his main points.. the point of the debate originally..

I can honestly say I never intended for this to turn into"a "someone-telling-someone-he's-pissing-him-off-and-is-now-refusing-to-acknowledge-his-existance-because-I-don't-like-him"-fest

anyways.. I suggest we move this back to polygamy.. rather than mindless arguing..

my apologies.

Bleh, it came out a lot harsher then I intended . No need to apologize.

Sometimes you gotta see the complaints of a raving person and not someone rational

Thanks for reading it at any rate.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

You two need to kiss and make up.

[Tetiel]

Off-topic. We are not here to argue about if the Bible is correct or not, we are here to argue whether it states polygamy as being wrong. I know you really hate me, and my religion, but please try and not ruin this one okay?

Why do you assume he hates you or your religion? He even ignored a lot of posts because they were "ragging" on him. And actually the validity of your (our, actually) religion and the bible is very on topic because simply a lot of arguments you are making are from the bible.

[Tetiel]

I concluded that from the all the other pissy fights he started with me back in alot of previous debates. Everytime he comes into a debate, it seems the first thing he wants to do is prove my religion wrong. I am probably wrong, but I'm just telling what I see. I believe this is the first post he has made in this topic, and what was it? Off topic, and directed at proving my religion wrong.

But at the same time it is for the reasons I stated on topic and needs some consideration. And if I am not correct he has already posted before so it is obvious he is not merely here to prove you wrong specifically and I am sure he does not do it because he is out to get you. You must understand that you cannot use the bible as proof against those who do not believe in it... it will do no damage. To make them understand your point first you must prove that the bible is indeed valid

[redlion]

I concluded that from the all the other pissy fights he started with me back in alot of previous debates. Everytime he comes into a debate, it seems the first thing he wants to do is prove my religion wrong. I am probably wrong, but I'm just telling what I see. I believe this is the first post he has made in this topic, and what was it? Off topic, and directed at proving my religion wrong.

And why is the Bible in this topic? The only reason it was mentioned in here was me saying that the Bible does condemn polygomy. That's the ONLY reason I brought it in here. I never said that polygomy was wrong and you guys must follow what the Bible says. The first post I made was stating that my beliefs were personal and I don't believe people have to follow them.

Second actually. And the bible is here because you used it as proof of your position in your first post. Your additional comments are what sparked the debate (the whole killing morality hypothetical issue). Somehow you stated out of context Bible verses after we had already passed the issue, and it turned into a quasi-religious debate.

The only reason I've ever fought with you is the fact that you think/thought that either everyone else, or the nation should have to conform to your belief system. I've never had a problem with you personally, only the fact that your semi-fanatical religion tends to blind you sometimes. No offense meant.

But at the same time it is for the reasons I stated on topic and needs some consideration. And if I am not correct he has already posted before so it is obvious he is not merely here to prove you wrong specifically and I am sure he does not do it because he is out to get you. You must understand that you cannot use the bible as proof against those who do not believe in it... it will do no damage. To make them understand your point first you must prove that the bible is indeed valid

QFE

Edited by redlion, 15 May 2006 - 06:17 PM.

[redlion]

Lol, you don't have to have a marriage liscense to live together and have lots of kids. I'm sure its perfectly legal to live with 50 women, sleep with each of them every night, and have more than 200 kids by them collectively. You could call that a family. However, its not legal to be married to them all and call them your wives.

What we're arguing about in this thread is what defines the institution of marriage. According to the government, marriage is a union between two people that unifies them under the law. Hence married couples taxes can be combined (or filed separately if you're smart, as its usually cheaper). Thats about the only benefit to being married. Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to be married when you can do everything with your partner that you can while you're married. Hell, the above example (about the 50 wives) isn't possible for a married man, but it is for a group of 'single' people.

[redlion]

I read your post, but I refrained from replying so that we might have peace.

But the thing is alot of polygomy families ARE big. And we would have no control over their decision to have lots of children or not. Say the man has 3 wives, and each has 3 kids. That's 9 kids. And since it's legal, there would be no worry and alot more people would start to practice it. Just like if crossing the border were to be legal, if it became legal we would have twice the number of immigrants coming over then we do now.

My mother had nine children all by herself. How is it different?

[Stryyp]

Not all polygamists are backwoods pedophiles. That is a false stereotype. There were a couple back in the 70's and 80's, but they were taken care of, and urban legend and centuries of Judeo-Christian organization has done the dirty work, anyway. A negative stereotype, completely unfounded, like most are. =P

There's actually quite a few polygamists in America - while, not legally married to more than one spouse, are spiritually married. And they aren't all Mormons. =P There really aren't that many Mormons in America who really practice polygamy, although some still do support it (in theory).

Sorry to only touch on part of your well thought-out post, but I just wanted to clear something up about the Mormon polygamyst thing. A long time ago (over 150 years) many of the men died out on the trails, so there was only a handful of men left and an abundance of women. Polygamy was instituted to prevent the dying out of our church, and when it wasn't a neccesity for survival, it was once again outlawed, so to speak. The story goes something like that, I forget So yeah, Mormon polygamy stopped over 150 years ago. HOWEVER, after Joseph Smith was killed many Saints broke away from the main LDS church and made splinter groups, many not having more than a handful of people. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (That Joseph Smith began) has over 11 million members, then the next largest group is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which Joseph's wife began after his death, has a little over 200,000 members I believe. My point being, the only actual Mormons are LDS Mormons, because all the other splinter groups have changed the church principals to something other than Joseph Smith instituted. Yes, there are other so called "Mormons" that do practice polygamy, but they have molded the LDS faith into something else that it is not really proper to call them Mormons.

I hope I explained that right

As for polygamy in general, yes, I think it is wrong and against the Bible, but I also believe everyone has free agency and should not be discriminated against for their choices.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Lol, you don't have to have a marriage liscense to live together and have lots of kids. I'm sure its perfectly legal to live with 50 women, sleep with each of them every night, and have more than 200 kids by them collectively. You could call that a family. However, its not legal to be married to them all and call them your wives.

What we're arguing about in this thread is what defines the institution of marriage. According to the government, marriage is a union between two people that unifies them under the law. Hence married couples taxes can be combined (or filed separately if you're smart, as its usually cheaper). Thats about the only benefit to being married. Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to be married when you can do everything with your partner that you can while you're married. Hell, the above example (about the 50 wives) isn't possible for a married man, but it is for a group of 'single' people.

Because you can do it, that hardly makes it right. It is the same as polygamy, as you say, and is just as wrong, if not moreso because of the even higher lack of committment.

[Grizzly]

Lol, you don't have to have a marriage liscense to live together and have lots of kids. I'm sure its perfectly legal to live with 50 women, sleep with each of them every night, and have more than 200 kids by them collectively. You could call that a family. However, its not legal to be married to them all and call them your wives.

What we're arguing about in this thread is what defines the institution of marriage. According to the government, marriage is a union between two people that unifies them under the law. Hence married couples taxes can be combined (or filed separately if you're smart, as its usually cheaper). Thats about the only benefit to being married.

The point of getting married isn't to leech out as many benefits as you can. It's to devote your love to one another and make voys and ish.. no?

[Grizzly]

And what better can we do then allow polygomy and increase are population even more. That's wonderful that people can go out and have 50 children like that. I don't see how it makes it right for us to legalize something that has the potential to further increase our population.

That's really is not the main issue though. They're not going to not legalize polygamy simply as a population control. The main issue is whether if it's constitutional or not. And plus.. even with the legalization.. how many polygamies you think would be out there? It would still be considered immoral and just wrong to many people imo and wouldn't be dont by many so I don't think our population would have a signficant change.

[redlion]

The point of getting married isn't to leech out as many benefits as you can. It's to devote your love to one another and make voys and ish.. no?

And you have to have someone say you're devoted for it to be true? Hell, I was devoted to my last girlfriend, but we weren't married. I'm devoted to my friends, but we're not married. I love all of those people, but I don't need a man in a black robe to say its true for it to be so.

[Stryyp]

And what better can we do then allow polygomy and increase are population even more. That's wonderful that people can go out and have 50 children like that. I don't see how it makes it right for us to legalize something that has the potential to further increase our population.
Really? I thought that having alot of kids also had to do something with it. The more kids the better, and polygomy was an easy way to promote this. Alot of my mormon friends live in large family's. One of my best mormon friends has 5 sisters

Yes, I am quite sure. And I am not denying that Mormons do generally have more kids than the average family, but what does that have to do with polygamy?

[redlion]

And what better can we do then allow polygomy and increase are population even more. That's wonderful that people can go out and have 50 children like that. I don't see how it makes it right for us to legalize something that has the potential to further increase our population.
Really? I thought that having alot of kids also had to do something with it. The more kids the better, and polygomy was an easy way to promote this. Alot of my mormon friends live in large family's. One of my best mormon friends has 5 sisters

Why is increasing the population such a bad thing? Hell, if we're not careful, half the population is going to die from the avian flu. Plenty of room for new kiddies after that, isn't there?

[redlion]

Oh that is just silly, Patrick. While we're due for an epidemic, it's not going to radically change the population in the United States. In some third world countries, maybe, but not here. The conditions don't exist.
Josh, I generally get the impression that you hear things wrong. Stryyp IS a Mormon...I think he'd know what they believe. =P

I know, I was just fucking with him I think he's blocked all of my posts now though, because he hasn't responded to anything I've said in a page and a half.

Here you go:

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/essay.htm

Oh my god, did you even read that essay? Its just a mormon hating rant, not a factual document.

[Grizzly]

@ alias. Ofcourse we can never make accurate statistics of something like that, but can't we just assume such a thing using logic? I mean how many people do you know that believe in polygamy or know that would even get involved in such a thing? And we can't really assume that all polygamist families would want to have 30 children.. most people couldn't afford that many anyways.

[Stryyp]

Here you go:

http://www.polygamyinfo.com/essay.htm

I was not aware Joseph married more than one woman, but apparently it could very well be true. In the case that it is, is there proof he ever forced them to do anything, coerced them or even had sex with them?

I found a transcript from a interview of Larry King with Gordon B. Hinkley, the current leader of our church.

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

As for the current Mormon polygamysts, I feel confident they are the "Mormons" I was talking about earlier, seeing as polygamy is found nowhere in our doctrine.

And I apologize about saying we stopped polygamy over 150 years ago, I was wrong Still a long time, though.

Also, are there any factual documents (Journals and the such) written by reputable sources mentioning Josephs alleged wives? Governer Boggs was very anti-Mormon and even issued an extermination order for the Mormons. It could be possible that he arranged for the marriages to be "legal" without Joseph's consent, in order to try and make people lose faith in him. Not by any means saying that is true or a likely answer, but still possible nontheless.

Edited by Stryyp, 15 May 2006 - 07:23 PM.

[redlion]

Did you even bother to check the facts?

Helen Mar Kimball was born in 1828 and was married to Joseph Smith in 1843. So they lied. It was fifteen. Besides that point, it was common for aranged marriages to happen at young ages in the 1800s.

In addition, I have reason to doubt the validity of this website. If you follow the directions in that essay, you'll come to a page about Joseph smith that includes his birth and death dates, as well as the dates of all of his marriages. Apparently, he married four people after he had already died. It says it right there on the page, he died in 1844, but married Amanda Melissa Barnes in 1852. How can this be considered acurate?

Edited by redlion, 15 May 2006 - 07:26 PM.