[ WAY OT ] - Another Waco waiting to happen?

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:04 am

Moron? Freudian slip or intentional?

MrYellow · Post by **MrYellow** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:13 am

lol slip!

Tho.... I think that's intentional.....

Think he named it that having a joke at his followers.....

The guy obviously designed the whole thing to give himself god status......
While laughing at the morons who followed him.

-Ben

montrealbreaks · Post by **montrealbreaks** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:07 pm

I won't discuss religion here - but I do support polygamy when it's consentual with all parties. If three or more people are in love with each other, why not? I've seen it work in successful swinger groups.

I mean, if I live with a woman whom I have sex with, then I'm considered legally married to her - common law. Even if I don't want to be common-law, we are automatically considered married. What would the government do if if I lived with two women with whom I regularly copulated? Since Canada allows same-sex civil union (marriage is just around the corner) If we had a successful menage-a-trois, would the two ladies be "married"? what about me then? If I were the husband, then which woman would be given precedent for being my wife? Would it be based on who I lived with first? What if all three of us occupied an apartment together at the same time? What if I had children with both of them?

Simply, disallowing Polygamy and Polyandry is stupid and unworkable. If they never banned it, then so many Polygamous societies (ranging in size from subcultures like this sect of mormons to entire civilizations - Islam for instance) wouldn't be embracing radicalism and fundamentalism... The threat of disallowing polygamy is one of the principal motives to resistance against assimilation by many groups both religious and cultural.

Harris.Andrew · Post by **Harris.Andrew** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:10 pm

There's a very interesting (but really dark) book by John Krakauer called Under The Banner Of Heavan, where he argues that the problem with Utah polygamists isn't exactly that they're polygamists, it's that they're assholes. And that they're totally, clinically, have-their-own-DSM-IV-entry, nuts. Fascinating read.

It does tend to coclude that polygamist relationships are a byproduct of narcissism, egomania, god complexes, and the like. Not that this has to be the case; but that this is how it unfailingly plays out in the real world. And that it's really, _really_ bad for the gene pool - these studs will marry anything that moves, sister, daughter, aunt, cousin, mother.

Krakauer also wrote Into Thin Air, about a tragic storm on Mt. Everest, another absolutely amazing bit of journalistic story-telling.

debu_ · Post by **debu_** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:56 pm

"really, _really_ bad for the gene pool"

no doubt there... when I made the comment about them being hot I meant some mormon girls

the polygamous tend to look like the british royal family x10

montrealbreaks · Post by **montrealbreaks** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:12 pm

Harris.Andrew wrote:...It does tend to coclude that polygamist relationships are a byproduct of narcissism, egomania, god complexes, and the like. Not that this has to be the case; but that this is how it unfailingly plays out in the real world. And that it's really, _really_ bad for the gene pool - these studs will marry anything that moves, sister, daughter, aunt, cousin, mother...

Well, Polygamy without its counterpart (Polyandry) could breed this. As well as homophobia. I know two different trios who have existed in a menage-a-trois for years, content and happy - but if ever a legal matter comes up regarding posession of the condo or anything like that, they're in shit. One is a group of three women, the other two dudes and a chick.

Personally, I aspire to multiple live in sex partners (Bi females). It's one of my personal life goals, though I don't have a god complex, so I guess I'm out of luck...

andiff · Post by **andiff** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:08 am

So you're going to nuke the whole state because of a small minority of lawbreakers? That's like nuking Texas instead of just burning down the Branch Davidian compound.

Seriously, though. I'm LDS. Most of the comments in this thread regarding the LDS church are pretty far from the truth. Polygamy was abandoned around 1870 or so. Anyone who tries it now is excommunicated. So if you hear about polygamists, they aren't LDS.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:52 am

andiff wrote:So you're going to nuke the whole state because of a small minority of lawbreakers? That's like nuking Texas instead of just burning down the Branch Davidian compound.

Seriously, though. I'm LDS. Most of the comments in this thread regarding the LDS church are pretty far from the truth. Polygamy was abandoned around 1870 or so. Anyone who tries it now is excommunicated. So if you hear about polygamists, they aren't LDS.

If you had read the actual texts I linked to you would not feel the need to defend your belief.

The group has broken off from LDS and is called The Fundamentalist Group of Latter Day Saints

forge · Post by **forge** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:16 am

I'm sure it's the ultimate fantasy of most males of most species to have a harem of females one can shag at will, if you can pull it off, good luck to you, whatever your religion.

anonymouse · Post by **anonymouse** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:25 am

forge wrote:I'm sure it's the ultimate fantasy of most males of most species to have a harem of females one can shag at will, if you can pull it off, good luck to you, whatever your religion.

Isn't that the main reason we try to make music, differentiate ourselves from the besuited salarymen and appear as deeply artistic eclectic souls?

... so as to gather our harem.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:27 am

anonymouse wrote:
forge wrote:I'm sure it's the ultimate fantasy of most males of most species to have a harem of females one can shag at will, if you can pull it off, good luck to you, whatever your religion.

Isn't that the main reason we try to make music, differentiate ourselves from the besuited salarymen and appear as deeply artistic eclectic souls?

... so as to gather our harem.

harem = groupies?

Martyn · Post by **Martyn** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:29 am

forge wrote:I'm sure it's the ultimate fantasy of most males of most species to have a harem of females one can shag at will, if you can pull it off, good luck to you, whatever your religion.

Women are great! I think every man should be allowed to own at least three

I said that to a friend of mine's Irish Catholic barrister wife once

A feminist too, she proceeded to skin me alive verbally for nearly 30 minutes and all I could squeeze into the barrage of rapid fire Irish was......'joking'..........'joking'... 'please stop'

Twas a bad thing to have said.

Why don't they understand that the reason we want lots of them is just cos we like them so much?

forge · Post by **forge** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:57 pm

Martyn wrote:
forge wrote:I'm sure it's the ultimate fantasy of most males of most species to have a harem of females one can shag at will, if you can pull it off, good luck to you, whatever your religion.

Women are great! I think every man should be allowed to own at least three

I said that to a friend of mine's Irish Catholic barrister wife once A feminist too, she proceeded to skin me alive verbally for nearly 30 minutes and all I could squeeze into the barrage of rapid fire Irish was......'joking'..........'joking'... 'please stop'

Twas a bad thing to have said.

Why don't they understand that the reason we want lots of them is just cos we like them so much?

conny · Post by **conny** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:38 pm

montrealbreaks wrote:I won't discuss religion here - but I do support polygamy when it's consentual with all parties. If three or more people are in love with each other, why not? I've seen it work in successful swinger groups

Two things are confused here:
* (Legal) marriage
* Number of partners

In Sweden there is numorous relations where people are not married.
Marriage has been occupied by the church and the state as a form of economic and legal formality.
I would gladly encourage people to freely (includes all partners) to find there own form of living together, outside every official doctrine of "marriage".
Powerful men wanting to have plenty of sex partners is in my mind just an other form of abuse and surpression and egoism and conservatism.

// C

nuperspective · Post by **nuperspective** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:02 pm

why the hell would you want to marry 3 women??? my wife does my head in without any help from 2 others. is it heaven they're talking about or hell. those yanks - fuckin crazy bastards.

and thats not counting when the periods in town. just imagine if they came one week after another. that would mean one week of the month of relative sanity. the other three being scared to talk. if someone asked me to join that id have them sectioned.