Blogcritics: Comments on Accelerating The 'Roe Effect'

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:40:40 EST

LOL

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:37:00 EST

Must be a sign of the coming apocalypse. Dave

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:22:01 EST

Nalle and Alienboy agree! Again!!

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:13:26 EST

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass what the bible says about polygamy, I just can't see any legal justification for prohibiting it. What consenting adults choose to do in their relationships is none of the government's business and never should have been - well, except that it's just fun to annoy mormons, of course. Dave

Comment by Pro-Polygamy

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:22:00 EST

It turns out that pro-polygamists are more conserative, more Bible-dedicated, and more pro-women than conservative Christians are supposed to be. www.Pro-Polygamy.com/articles.php www.ChristianPolygamy.INFO www.LoveNotForce.com The Bible clearly proves polygamy is 100% biblical. www.BiblicalPolygamy.com Pro-Polygamy.com has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and that site has been saying that "Polygamy is the next civil rights battle" for some time. www.Pro-Polygamy.com Any author's reference to "civil rights" regarding polygamy has simply seen the media articles presented at that Pro-Polygamy.com site over the years. The problem in general is the irresponsible hysteria by intellectually immature people who are not able to cope with the issue maturely and Christians who are too afraid to stop believing a Catholic-only created doctrine that does not ever exist in the Bible when you read it for yourself. After all, the Adam and Eve story and "one flesh" passages were both written by polygamous Moses! www.BiblicalPolygamy.com/exegesis/remember-moses-wrote-it/ How more obvious could it get? So, while some would like to hide the truth, there are some non-Mormon conservative Christians who do see the truth. This is not a liberal idea at all. There's even an organization for Christian Polygamy: www.TruthBearer.org People should really think before they act hysterical.

Comment by alienboy

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:00:03 EST

I can only assume that David Flanagan is trying to wind up other blogcritics with this outrageously offensive and frankly deranged post. I am happy to take the bait! Can anybody PLEASE explain to me what business it is of the state or ANY of the many busybodies who seem to live only to tell other people how to live their lives to tell other people how to live their lives? I really don't mind if people choose to devote themselves to whatever path of "self-enlightenment" they want, but I have a seriously BIG problem when these people try to bring their "beliefs" into my lifestyle. Why can't these interfering types just focus on their own little corner of the world and leave everybody else to get on with their own thing? Isn't tolerance a part of the dogmas of most of these belief systems anyway? BAH!

Comment by gonzo marx

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:33:29 EST

to DrPat... i fully understand your Point..which is why i clearly stated that whatever works for the individuals in EACH CASE...if some enjoy the amazonian model..thas their bizness...not mine..and i don't feel it takes away from my marriage at all i think some dom/sub types would find it relatively easy to come up with a snigle female and a horde of drooling men in leather as the perfect "family" to David Flanagan... i disagree with your definition of "ideal"..in Asia polygamy has been rampant thru most of their history...chinese culture even has specific words for the number one wife...each of the two others, and specific rank names for various levels of legal concubines...a bit misanthropic, i know..but part of one of the oldest and largest cultures in recorded history... polyamorous marriage has been traditional in many south seas cultures i have no idea what is "ideal"..i refute your Postulate that the "state" or "society" has ANY claim on telling me what is "ideal" in ANY way , shape , or form as long as i do not cause demonstrable harm to my neighbors, or violate the Law... i also reserve my Right to advocate my position, and any attempt i may make to legally challenge and/or change the Law i also Respect and will defend YOUR right to your Position, even when i disagree with you...MOST ESPECIALLY when i disagree this ;ast fact alone seem to seperate me from many on the so-called "Right" who pay lip service to the Principles i have just stated and i am just Jester enough to point it out..and have a perverse sense of glee in shouting out when the Emperor is nekkid Excelsior!

Comment by David Flanagan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:24:01 EST

I should also say what I have not said before, I do believe that it's not the government's job to police our bedrooms. People are free and should remain free to make choices, but expecting that the government has to give an official blessing to each and every form or relationship is going a bit far. Thanks, David

Comment by David Flanagan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:20:36 EST

Three quick comments: 1) I'm a big scifi fan and, of course, Heinlein is one of the best. Starship Troopers is one of my fav of his books. 2) The line marriage concept is scifi. You could try it here, if the laws allowed, but, even in the book, it worked because of certain extraneous factors which forced it on the colonists. 3) Monogamous marriage is by far both historically and culturally the dominant form of marriage. People come to live in the US and Canada all the time and what do they tend to bring with them? Their extended families of course. They support each other, share the burdens of parenting, cooking, cleaning, working, etc., and they bring their excellent work ethic with them. But look at Asia and what do you see? Monogamous marriage. How about Europe? The same. South American, North America, everywhere you go, the most dominant form of "coupling" is monogamous marriage. Whether you believe in Darwinian Evolution or a Christian God, it still makes sense to have an ideal form of bonding. That ideal form is monogamous heterosexual marriage, and the citizens of this country, as well as the government, has every right to define marriage in a way that insures the healthiest possible society. Thanks, David

Comment by DrPat

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:17:02 EST

Significantly left out of every such discussion is polyandry, under which one woman is allowed multiple husbands. Perhaps this is because our current system of divorce and remarriage (with community property) gives us serial polyandry and polygamy instead. How much better for the children if all their daddies remain at home!?! [cricket sounds] What man here cannot honestly admit that when he hears "polyamory," he envisions his own wife still there to provide comfort and home-cookin' while a lush young nubile wench (or three) tend to his other needs?

Comment by gonzo marx

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:13:41 EST

excellent swingingpuss...it IS one of my fav's...and ya will learn a lot about the principles of american democracy...at least how it was viewed by the Founders.. Professor Bernardo de la Paz fer President!! Excelsior!

Comment by swingingpuss

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:58:10 EST

Gonzo, thanks for recommending the book. I have just yanked it from my significant other's bookshelf and I'm about to sink my teeth into it.

Comment by Bennett Dawson

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:32:18 EST

Great job Gonzo!!! And I should have mentioned in my last post that a "harem of wives" is polygamy, a line marriage would be polyamory. Also what I set out was a gender ballanced situation, equal numers of husbands and wives.

Comment by gonzo marx

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:08:40 EST

heh..swingingpuss..i woud really like you to go and read "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress" the Line marriages mentioned are RUN by the women..the society of the story is based on the Moon being a penal colony, a harsh scarcity of women in the colony forced thier society to examine and adapt..this lead to customes where ANY harm done to any woman had the very real peril of a bunch of strangers shoving the Offender out of the closest airlock personally..i enjoy that Thought as for the shape and Form of any "marriage"..i would put to you that it is ONLY the business of those involved..so the aforementioned "relationship contracts" are EXACTLY what is required based on the Principles put forward in the Constitution of the United States those people of "Faith" are more than welcome to form their "marriages" how they see fit, but EVERY citzen of this country is covered by the "equal protection" principle of the U.S. Laws..thier form of "marriage" is just as legal when placed under that Context not all forms work for all folks...but the baseline Postulate for ANY marriage...as far as i can determine..is care for those involved and any children produced by said union all else is window dressing and cultural Tradition over the course of human History just about EVERY form of "marriage" has been practiced successfully and has been accepted as "normal" and "traditional" i put it to you, that since one of the founding principles of our Nation was that there should be no Tyranny of the Majority, and that pursuit of religious and cultural freedom was paramount, that it flies in the face of our stated goals as a Nation to deny ANYONE their right to "the pursuit of happiness" as they see fit as long as it does no demonstable harm to anyone else.. now if someone could show me how it harms me to have Jack and Bob, or Jane and Jill to enjoy the fruits of "marriage" (or even all four if they so choose)..then maybe i can take this argument a bit more seriously... think about it...put aside any knee jerk response...this IS a subject we, as a society, should be talking about.. Excelsior!

Comment by swingingpuss

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:37:41 EST

All the more reason why polygamy wont work. We women dont like to share our husbands. You'd have a house full of catty women and nagging mother in laws. Think about peace of mind instead of the libido or the pocket :-)

Comment by Bennett Dawson

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:28:16 EST

as a woman I'd prefer to share my husband and his income with his mother and siblings rather than him having a harem full of 'wives'. Yeah, that's what my lovely wife says. But again, she's pretty insecure, despite my strict and undying fidelity.

Comment by swingingpuss

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:04:05 EST

Bennet, a joint family system also takes care of the old, the young and the unemployed members of the family. And as a woman I'd prefer to share my husband and his income with his mother and siblings rather than him having a harem full of 'wives'.

Comment by Bennett Dawson

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:49:34 EST

Ahhh, as I was saying (taxes and accountant inturupted) A line marriage is one where new (younger)members are brought into the marriage every ten years or so in a gender ballanced ratio. None of the family's assets are ever liquidated due to the death of the senior husband or wife. The older members have built-in old age and hospice care, and the children never suffer the devastaing consequences of losing all when one of the birth parents die. Equity is reinforced by the greater earning power of multiple working parents, and grows more able to withstand any number of situations that would cripple a two parent family. There are always adults around to provide for the education and disipline of children. My wife says that it would never work, but she is an insecure person, and jealosy springs from insecurity. We as a society may not be ready for this type of marriage, but one cannot deny that there are benefits to a strength in numbers approach to living in a family group. Comments?

Comment by Bennett Dawson

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:30:00 EST

Grow up you three. There is value in this topic, it was well presented, and the author doesn't deserve the disrespect of you three having a brawl in the middle of this blog. Regarding the concept of "breeding for control of society", it could be a valid one. However, I have to point out that there ore many types of group marriages, several of them are outlined in Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. These long term "Line Marriages" offer greater stability for the raising of children, and for the accumulation of a family's financial equity. All that needs to be overcome, or to avoid I should say, is our jealous nature.

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:41:58 EST

Nalle is the one to PREACH, eh? and I see he responds constantly to the topic and never has personal vendettas... as evidenced by that comment! How funny! Hmmmmmm....

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:38:10 EST

We mostly just enjoy bashing you, Tristan. Maybe if you responded to the topic instead of only responding to comments and how they relate to you personally you'd draw less fire. Dave

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:36:31 EST

Nalle's VENDETTA~! Oh puleeaaasssseeeeeeeeeeee Nalle is one to talk about "personal vendettas"! HA! as he proceeds in the very next sentence to start ANOTHER one with that poster! Amazing anybody stays here and posts ANYTHING when there seem to be a small group of malcontents (nalle-dawn-"dr" pat---)---who seem to derive unusually intense pleasure from bashing any other posters in here? Seems to be a mechanism in place here that is very inhibiting to letting new people in here get acclimated and adjust--to the point where they get to know the blog anf get a feel for the dynamics.... kind of the same mechanism as when a father beats his child physically over and over thus stunting the child's emotional growth resulting in the child being almost vegetative and catatonic emotionally as they grow up.......

Comment by swingingpuss

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:33:00 EST

Tristan, history is peppered with religious clashes that took place before Christianity came into being .For example there had been intense enmity between Vaishnavites and the Shavites in India during the ancient period. Buddha had been persecuted by the brahmins and buddhist monks had to voluntarily jump into fire when they lost religious debates to the brahmins by the end of the ancient period. In Japan those who did not accept Amida buddha and followed the lotus sutra were persecuted during the mediaeval period and even during the First world war those who did not accept the sun goddess talisam were put into jail. And show me one other religion that does not say that it is the 'only' true path towards salvation?

Comment by David Flanagan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:29:53 EST

JR & Lisa, Good comments and questions. First of all, studies do show that, for the most part, children grow up to refelct their parent's values. It is not true in every case, however, it is generally the case. Secondly, liberals were the majority for a very long time because they were strong on traditional family, strong on national defense, strong on a lot of things that they just don't seem to be strong on any more. President Clinton was a moderate to left President, while he consistently supported the pro-choice position, he also consistently supported pro-family positions. He supported and signed the Protection of Marriage Act and urged Senator Kerry to back those states which were attempting to amend their constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman. He understood, at the very least, what most Americans wanted. Since Clinton left office, I see very little moderation from Democrats. Just the party of NO, though, I don't want to label all Democratic leaders that way, just the ones who seem to make all the decisions for their party. And that is why mainstream Democrats out there in middle America have been voting Republican, because Republicans have taken on the values that Democratic leaders once defended. Thanks, David

Comment by Tristan

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:55:48 EST

Christians aren't Judgemental ...... Nooooooooo not in the LEAST! funny how most of the world's various religions seemingly got along pretty well with each other for thousands and thousands of years until about 2,000 years ago when this upstart new "religion" (actually: a cult of the DEAD!) sprung up worshipping this dead man on a cross~~~and suddenly the earth had all these men in long black robes travellin to all the various corners of the globe telling people that they had to believe in this "religion" or they were "WRONG" and "going to hell" (and in many cases---if they wouldn't convert--put to DEATH! now THAT's a good way to win your argument, eh!)