Pastor Says

[thir]

Pastor Says Parents Should Punch ‘Girly’ 4 Year Olds

“Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”

“And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’”

http://www.care2.com/causes/pastor-s...year-olds.html

One thing I have never understood is why you have break and punch people into being what is Godgiven/natural' -? It is on a par with many laws and speeches and arguments..Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?

[sub_sequent]

What terrible things are said and done in the name of religion. And what damage is done.

Not only to poor children being treated like this or to relationships between parents and children that will surely fall apart when those kids realise their sexual orientation.

Since when are kids only acceptable when they fall into our 'pattern' of what is 'normal'. ?

It scares me that there are people that will blindly follow this blind.

Absolute nonsense!!

[Thorne]

Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?

Well, for one thing, too many people just can't view homosexuality as being 'natural'. They have to view it as an abomination, something to be feared and stamped out. Because it's different. Because "those people are not like US!"

In short, it's ignorance and superstition and dogmatism, in varying combinations. And besides, the Bible says it's okay to kill "those people". You know, the same places that say it's not right to eat ham or shellfish, or to wear clothes of blended fabrics, or to get tattoos. Yeah, God doesn't like those things, either.

[Thorne]

Not only to poor children being treated like this or to relationships between parents and children that will surely fall apart when those kids realise their sexual orientation.

Parents have thrown there kids out of their homes over such things, and in some cases have even killed them for it! Religious groups have fought against anti-bullying legislation around the US because their beliefs give them the right to bully kids for such things. It's insane, really.

It scares me that there are people that will blindly follow this blind.

It's the people who are leading those people who scare me.

[denuseri]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

[Thorne]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

Well, it may not require a religion exactly, but it certainly does require some kind of religious-like dogma to generate the kind of hatred being spewed by the right in the US. And let's face it, in the US at least, it is the religious organizations who are fanatically trying to prevent equality for gays, just as it was the religious organizations (primarily in the South) who fanatically maintained that slavery was sanctioned by God!

It may not require a religion for bigotry, but few things other than religion can inspire that kind of fear and hatred of their own children!

[thir]

Well, for one thing, too many people just can't view homosexuality as being 'natural'. They have to view it as an abomination, something to be feared and stamped out. Because it's different. Because "those people are not like US!"

I wasn't just thinking of homosexuality, but about gender roles and other roles that are, in fact, considered natural by various parties. If they are natural, why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?

[Thorne]

I wasn't just thinking of homosexuality, but about gender roles and other roles that are, in fact, considered natural by various parties. If they are natural, why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?

Yes, I know. I said homosexuality, but I should include gay, lesbian, trans-gender, bi-sexual, or any other non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Not sure what you mean by "why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?" I'm going to assume you mean the work done by the LGBT community to gain acceptance. But they are not cramming people into those roles, they are trying to have their rights recognized rather than have them denied for being in those roles. It's not all that different from the battle the African-American community had to (and still must) fight to gain acceptance as equal members of our society. The ONLY rationale for deny rights to LGBT people is a religious one. The BIBLE says it's bad! JESUS hates queers!" Except that Jesus never said a damned thing about homosexuality. He did, however, give tacit approval to slavery. And those parts of the Bible which DO seem to say something about homosexuality almost always speak ONLY of man/man sex, and not woman/woman sex. And they also say an awful lot about other things which are wrong, but which modern Christians don't really hold to.

[denuseri]

Well I am all for every religion dropping the more antiquated parts of its dogma. Might be why I converted to Bahai...shrugs.

In any event...I postulate that its not the fault of any "religion" in and of itself...but the miss use of religion by a few bigots to influence others into being homophobic and ass hatty....which if these people were indeed practicing what the Bible tells them to do...they would instead drop the meanie behavior and go about loving their neighbors and being pacifists.

Lets not forget the Nazi's and KKK and Neo-Naazi's and Communists etc....all had very staunch anti homosexual stands.

So did "pagan" Rome where as the Legions were concerned (pretty much a death sentence in the legions to be found out as a homosexual back then.)

[Thorne]

Well I am all for every religion dropping the more antiquated parts of its dogma. Might be why I converted to Bahai...shrugs.

Of the three Middle Eastern religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, ALL of their dogma is antiquated!

In any event...I postulate that its not the fault of any "religion" in and of itself...but the miss use of religion by a few bigots to influence others into being homophobic and ass hatty....

But that's just it, denuseri! Religions require their followers to believe things on faith, not on reality. This cannot happen unless you convince people that rational thinking is evil. And once you accept the irrational and unreal as true, you are easily misled by the evil bigots. So yes, it IS the fault of religion, or at least of the type of thinking which faith in a religion requires.

which if these people were indeed practicing what the Bible tells them to do...they would instead drop the meanie behavior and go about loving their neighbors and being pacifists.

Which parts of the Bible should they believe? The parts that tell them to love their neighbors? Or the parts that tell them to kill their neighbors and take their women and children as slaves? And aside from a few moral points which are common everywhere, even without religion, why should we rely on the insanity of late bronze age to early iron age shamans to determine what's right in the modern world? Do you really think it's acceptable that a woman should be stoned to death if she's found not to be a virgin on her wedding night?

Lets not forget the Nazi's and KKK and Neo-Naazi's and Communists etc....all had very staunch anti homosexual stands.

And let's not forget that, except for the Communists, they were, and still are, all heavily steeped in the Christian religions. The Communists simply replaced traditional religions with a cult of leader worship, the same kind of thing which is still happening in North Korea and Cuba. At least with the Communists, you knew that your god was real.

When your religion tells you that you have to accept what some person tells you about what your god wants you to do, because you aren't important enough for your god to actually tell you directly, rational thinking would tell you to step back and question his claims. Religious thinking tells you to just silence your doubts and say, "Sounds great, Pat! Where do I send the money?"

[thir]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

I think it all hangs together - it has got to have come from somewhere sometime, and I think that has to be religion. Religious ideas live on after the religion itself may have taken a back seat, people are just not very aware of it.

[thir]

Yes, I know. I said homosexuality, but I should include gay, lesbian, trans-gender, bi-sexual, or any other non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Not sure what you mean by "why is so much work needed to cram people into those roles?"

I mean the roles that are seen as normal/gods will/decent/natural - and if people do not act 'naturally' as per the ideas of such authorities, all kinds of pressure is applied, according to the laws and habits of said society.

If you are gay, and people want to make you straight, if you do not conform to gender roles, if you want to live in another way etc great presssure is brought on to 'cram' you into the (usually) quite small box labelled 'gods will' or 'natural'.

[Thorne]

If you are gay, and people want to make you straight, if you do not conform to gender roles, if you want to live in another way etc great presssure is brought on to 'cram' you into the (usually) quite small box labelled 'gods will' or 'natural'.

That's because such people are "perverts" and "evil" and "Satan's spawn" simply because they are different than "good people."

In other words, if you don't think like they do, talk like they do, love like they do, pray like they do, and basically have the moral sense of ancient goat herders, you're obviously not even human!

[StrictMasterD]

Pastor Says Parents Should Punch ‘Girly’ 4 Year Olds

“Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male.”

“And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.’”

http://www.care2.com/causes/pastor-s...year-olds.html

One thing I have never understood is why you have break and punch people into being what is Godgiven/natural' -? It is on a par with many laws and speeches and arguments..Why do you have to work so hard to make people behave naturally?

Interesting yiou should post this this was on the News Last Night, the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that"
He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did, wonder if he carries an Etch A Scetchwith him as wel, I guess his replies depend on who he is talking to

[Thorne]

the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that" He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did,

A sadly routine experience:
1-Make asinine statement, and have it show up on the news.
2-Deny making any such statement.
3-When evidence shows that you DID make the statement, claim you were taken out of context.
4-Make a not-pology saying you're sorry if anyone's feelings were hurt, but deny having said or done anything wrong.
5-Claim that YOU are the one being persecuted, because the "Liberal Media" is telling everyone what you said.

We see it all too often, especially among the religious and the politicians.

[thir]

Interesting yiou should post this this was on the News Last Night, the Pastor was on TV last night and disavowed he ever said that, he was told it was video taped his reply was "The TAPE is wrong, I never said any of that"
He then went on to say he was misunderstood, then FINALY said he was wrong in saying what he did, wonder if he carries an Etch A Scetchwith him as wel, I guess his replies depend on who he is talking to

Well, the video shows what he said clearly enough, including giving parents permission from him personally to treat their children this way.

But I find it slightly encouraging that he had to take it back.

[Thorne]

But I find it slightly encouraging that he had to take it back.

Don't be encouraged. Chances are that he's even now trying to find out who posted that video so that he can throw that person out of his congregation, if he doesn't do worse. He will then make certain that no one is admitted to his services with electronic equipment capable of recording what he's saying. After all, how can he lie for Jesus if everyone is going to call him on his lies?

This may not be exactly how he handles it, of course. Each of these creatures (er, preachers, excuse me) is different. But the general idea is likely pretty close to what will happen. And chances are he'll blame gays for all the trouble anyway.

[Punish_her]

You hardely need a religion being manipulated by an asshole or group of assholes to find this kind of bigotry in action amongst any cultural group.

Its my opinion that homophobia completely transcends religious belief as well as politics and philosophies.

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

[Punish_her]

I think it all hangs together - it has got to have come from somewhere sometime, and I think that has to be religion. Religious ideas live on after the religion itself may have taken a back seat, people are just not very aware of it.

not at all, people don't like one another because they're different and that's all there is to it: they're just different. The Japanese committed horrible crimes against the Chinese in WW2 and the Koreans for the better part of the 19th century and Japan was a staunchly anti-Christian place. Homosexuality is a prticularly easy target because it does seem unnatural to many (for example, if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would die out). But the reason does not matter.
Furthermore, historically, places that were highly tolerant of homosexuality were notably mysognynistc as well: ancient greece being an example. They were okay with homosexuality because they viewed women as inferior to men, and for men to be happy with love it would need to be with an intellectual and moral superior (hence, the relationships were older man/young boy, with a teacher/student dynamic). women were essentially used for breeding and domestic duties

[Thorne]

but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath.

You're kidding me, right? RIGHT???

Read some comments whenever a story mentions atheism, especially when they do something worthwhile. Read some of the comments written about, and to, Jessica Ahlquist by supposedly good Christians. There are a shitload of people out there who really do think that atheists are immoral psychopaths who secretly work for Satan.

Yes, people have been killed in the name of Christ. Yes, people have been killed in the name of Muhammad. NO, no people have ever been killed in the name of atheism. Because there is nothing to kill over! Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in gods! No dogma, no supernatural beings, no rules and regulations. JUST NO BELIEF! Which, according to an awful lot of "good" theists, makes me worse than Hitler, or Stalin. In fact, about the only ones who are less accepted than atheists are rapists! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know how tolerant Christians are.

[Thorne]

The Japanese committed horrible crimes against the Chinese in WW2 and the Koreans for the better part of the 19th century and Japan was a staunchly anti-Christian place.

But also a very spiritual (i.e., religious) culture where the Emperor was considered divine!

if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would die out

Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.

Furthermore, historically, places that were highly tolerant of homosexuality were notably mysognynistc as well

Almost EVERY culture, with few exceptions, have been misogynistic! It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with religious based proscriptions on women.

women were essentially used for breeding and domestic duties

Sounds like America before 1970. And it sounds suspiciously like what the Republicans seem to want us to go back to.

[Punish_her]

You're kidding me, right? RIGHT???

Read some comments whenever a story mentions atheism, especially when they do something worthwhile. Read some of the comments written about, and to, Jessica Ahlquist by supposedly good Christians. There are a shitload of people out there who really do think that atheists are immoral psychopaths who secretly work for Satan.

Yes, people have been killed in the name of Christ. Yes, people have been killed in the name of Muhammad. NO, no people have ever been killed in the name of atheism. Because there is nothing to kill over! Atheism is, simply, a lack of belief in gods! No dogma, no supernatural beings, no rules and regulations. JUST NO BELIEF! Which, according to an awful lot of "good" theists, makes me worse than Hitler, or Stalin. In fact, about the only ones who are less accepted than atheists are rapists! Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know how tolerant Christians are.

oh please, he's been quoted as saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
hitler saw religion as a propaganda tool due to the First Reich's mutually-beneifical relationship with the Catholic Church in the MediEval time. Hitler was sooooo pro-religion, he systematically went about reducing or removing christian influence in nazi germany, such as replacing christian references in christmas carols with pagan references.
and you're argument is inherently flawed. you state that religion is a cause for misery and pain and suffering because people have been killed in the name of god(s) and that nobody has been killed by aetheists, but that is mere equivocation. the real point you would need to prove is that ATHEISM WORKS AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENCE. you can't say that 2+2=5 by proving that 2+2 does not equal 3

[Punish_her]

But also a very spiritual (i.e., religious) culture where the Emperor was considered divine!

Spiritual in the sense that it was completely fascist (ie personal well-being subservant to a monarch), which shows that secular extremism not only exists, but can cause as much damage as religious extremism.

Did it ever occur to you that homosexuality may be nature's way of telling us that there are too many people on the planet already? If we don't stop breeding like rabbits we're going to die out anyway, from lack of resources.

Not in the slightest. if it's genetic, then it existed in our gene pool long before we became 6 billion strong, and back when we were a mere 5,000 bipedals we needed all the numbers we could muster considering how poorly equipped we are to survive in the wild.

Almost EVERY culture, with few exceptions, have been misogynistic! It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with religious based proscriptions on women.

What's the evidence for that? Maybe societies are historically patriarchal because everytime they encountered a matriarchal one, it was destroyed through conflict. The Celts were historically matriarchal and they were conquered and absorbed by the romans then the saxons then the angols. the south american indigenous tribes were matriarchal and they were nearly exterminated by the spanish and portoguese. the africans tribes are thought to have been matriarchal and they were enslaved and colonized if patriarchal societies tend to be more aggressive and technologically advanced (which would have been enormously beneficial from the beginning of time to 150 years ago), then of course there will be more of them.

Sounds like America before 1970. And it sounds suspiciously like what the Republicans seem to want us to go back to.

you mean that time when women were statistically happier and more satisfied with life before the sexual revolution?
here's an interesting question if religion is so damaging to women? Why is ther enormous evidence that a polygymous society is beneficial to women?

[thir]

Thank you for bringing this up. This is one of the most infuriating things I've found about anti-religious people.
I'm not religious, but it is completely unfair to take one example and say "see how bad religion is!!??"
saying this reflects the average christian's mentaility is a crock of shit. has violence been done in the name of God? yes, in the name of Allah? yes, in the name of Yahweh? yes. Has it been done by staunchly anti-religious people? of course, but nobody says that because Mao, Stalin, and Hitler didn'tgo to church every nonbeliever is a psychopath. Even emongst animal rights groups you'll find violent, intolerant extremists

You certainly have a point in that, to the best of my knowledge, homosexuals are persecuted in Cuba.

But on the other hand, right now the pope is going great guns with tageting gay people, even to blaming nuns for taking care of the need and poor, instead of blaming gays for being gays.

"Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us...roup.html?_r=2


Pope: Same-Sex Marriage Threatens “Humanity Itself”
http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-sam...ty-itself.html

Pope: Gay Marriage is ‘Insidious and Dangerous’
http://www.care2.com/causes/the-pope...dangerous.html

Hurricane Katrina: Divine Retribution Against Gays? Pope Doesn’t Object.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/hurrican...#ixzz1uDyr1iKV

Pope Tells US Bishops to Fight Gay Marriage, Cohabitation

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/pope-tel...#ixzz1uDzVKdku


It is clearly the fundamentalist religious making all the trouble - but they do make themselves heard, not least now.

David Trosch : "Sodomy is a graver sin than murder.

Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church)

"If you got to castrate your miserable self with a piece of rusty barb wire, do it."

"Hear the word of the LORD, America, fag-enablers are worse than the fags themselves, and will be punished in the everlasting lake of fire!"

"You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!"

"American Veterans are to blame for the fag takeover of this nation. They have the power in their political lobby to influence the zeitgeist, get the fags out of the military, and back in the closet where they belong!"

"Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death."


Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."


Jerry Falwell (1933 - 2007)

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

And so on and so forth.

[thir]

Spiritual in the sense that it was completely fascist (ie personal well-being subservant to a monarch), which shows that secular extremism not only exists, but can cause as much damage as religious extremism.

I would guess that we can all agree that facist societies are not exactly fun either.

Maybe societies are historically patriarchal because everytime they encountered a matriarchal one, it was destroyed through conflict. The Celts were historically matriarchal and they were conquered and absorbed by the romans then the saxons then the angols. the south american indigenous tribes were matriarchal and they were nearly exterminated by the spanish and portoguese. the africans tribes are thought to have been matriarchal and they were enslaved and colonized if patriarchal societies tend to be more aggressive and technologically advanced (which would have been enormously beneficial from the beginning of time to 150 years ago), then of course there will be more of them.

You seem to me to label any society that isn't dominated by men as a matriarchy, but I think that is an over simplification. I also read you as seeing every conquest of a country (of which there have been countless during history) as owing to being lead by a matriachy.

you mean that time when women were statistically happier and more satisfied with life before the sexual revolution?

Interesting. What statistics are those?

here's an interesting question if religion is so damaging to women? Why is ther enormous evidence that a polygymous society is beneficial to women?

What evidence? This is the first I have heard of this, especially since polygamy is often not even voluntary for women.
That, to the best of knowledge, also goes for the mormons, where men marry several much younger women, often under 15. There was a program with Dr Phil I saw one boring day in which he complained bitterly that nobody interveded, though a significant number of brides were under age.

[Thorne]

oh please, he's been quoted as saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."

And how is that different from religion? Like Stalin and Mao, that's simply replacing worship of a god with worship of the state, or the leaders. It's still religion, just repackaged.

hitler saw religion as a propaganda tool

As do almost all leaders, even now. It's a built in mind-control mechanism, inflicted upon children by their own parents from birth. Just tweak it a little, make sure that your god sees your country as the promised land, your people as His chosen people, and you have an easy way to control your population. Virtually every religion teaches that it is necessary to be submissive to your god, to your leaders, to your "betters". Blend the religion with patriotism and you can keep vast numbers of people subservient to your will. Even when you are demonstrably insane!

due to the First Reich's mutually-beneifical relationship with the Catholic Church in the MediEval time. Hitler was sooooo pro-religion, he systematically went about reducing or removing christian influence in nazi germany, such as replacing christian references in christmas carols with pagan references.

Yes, the Nazis created the Reich Church, using it to supplant the Christian churches, both Catholic and Protestant. Doesn't matter, though. It was still a religious organization, and used the trappings of religion to influence the people of Germany. As I stated above, several times, when you can convince people that thinking for themselves is a bad thing, you don't have to worry about them rebelling against you. Virtually every religion I'm familiar with preaches that irrational belief is far superior to rational thinking.

and you're argument is inherently flawed. you state that religion is a cause for misery and pain and suffering because people have been killed in the name of god(s)

Not exactly. People are killed for many reasons, mostly for greed. Religion makes it easier for leaders to justify those killings. If you're killing your neighbor so that the local Baron can confiscate his land, it's easier to justify it by claiming it's God's will.

and that nobody has been killed by aetheists,

No, again. Atheists are just as capable of killing as anyone else. I said that no one has ever been killed in the NAME of atheism. You don't have huge armies marching across the land killing for no gods.

the real point you would need to prove is that ATHEISM WORKS AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENCE.

Why would I have to do that? Atheism is NOT a belief system! It's not something that can be used to justify any other position. It's simply, and solely, a lack of belief in gods! ANY gods! Those who want to commit violence, whether theist or atheist, will find a reason to do it. The difference is that the theist will claim he's doing his god's will. And too many other theists will agree with him!

you can't say that 2+2=5 by proving that 2+2 does not equal 3

It is the theist who is claiming that 2+2=5, not the atheist. We don't always have to add +1 for our invisible friend in the sky, after all!

Ultimately, it is people who commit violent, criminal acts, regardless of faith. As an atheist, I cannot justify such acts as being God's will. I cannot claim that mumbling about my 'sins' in a darkened booth and saying a few prayers will absolve me of the guilt of committing those acts. I cannot say that my god wants me to shoot everyone with a crooked nose. I have to have clear, rational reasons for committing any violence. But when you denigrate clear, rational thinking; when you praise those who put aside rational thinking for a belief in an imaginary being; when you instill in children an abject fear of disobedience to this invisible being; you are creating the conditions for irrational, sectarian violence. If GOD tells you to kill everyone with a crooked nose, it would be a sin NOT to do it! If GOD tells you to make slaves of your enemy's women and children, who are you to deny Him? And, most insidiously, if GOD didn't make you rich and powerful, you MUST accept your fate, be subservient to your Masters, live in poverty and pain, so you can go to heaven someday. A heaven that no one has ever seen.

And oh, yes! God needs your money, children! Ten percent. Every week. BEFORE taxes!

[Punish_her]

You seem to me to label any society that isn't dominated by men as a matriarchy, but I think that is an over simplification. I also read you as seeing every conquest of a country (of which there have been countless during history) as owing to being lead by a matriachy.

incorrect reverse logic, not every conquered nation was a matriarchy, but every matriarchy was conquered. not the same

Interesting. What statistics are those?

from upenn: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys..._Happiness.pdf
freakonomics: http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/...en-so-unhappy/
huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus..._b_289511.html

What evidence? This is the first I have heard of this, especially since polygamy is often not even voluntary for women.
That, to the best of knowledge, also goes for the mormons, where men marry several much younger women, often under 15. There was a program with Dr Phil I saw one boring day in which he complained bitterly that nobody interveded, though a significant number of brides were under age.

well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time (furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself). John Stossel had a feature about polygamy and sister wives, and they seemed happy and even advocating it. but here's some evo psych for you:
we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:
would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife? i rest my case
and before you say "that'sdumb, nuh-uh!" http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...it-polygamy-an it's completely true
furthermore, dr phil is not there to actually confront any real issues, he's there to entertain and get ratings, most of which are from women

[Thorne]

well that's just a crock of shit. contrary to what some people think, women cannot be forced into marriage. not even the mormons do that, as they give the girl the chance to leave the religion at any time

Which generally means leaving her family, too. ANY sanctions constitute coercion, you know. Telling a young girl that she's free to go out on her own if she doesn't want to do as she's told is no different than threatening her with stoning. It's one of the 'features' of religious training.

(furthermore, they often force to leave for a period of time around 16 so she can decide what she truly wants for herself)

I know the Amish do something like this, but I wasn't aware that the Mormons also did it. But again, having to give up everything you've ever known, your church, your family, your friends, in order to have some freedom of choice in who you marry is still coercion.

we are a historically polygamous psecies, geneticists have shown we are decided from 2 to three times as many women as men. think about it in these terms:

Well, considering that many cultures practiced polygamy, and even those who didn't sometimes allowed rulers the right to bed women on their wedding nights, it's not a surprising finding. You also have to take into account the idea that even in supposedly monogamous societies, men tended to 'spread the wealth'. An ancient Roman man would only have one wife, who would bear his heirs and keep his house, but he would generally have at least one mistress, more if he could afford it, to see to his sexual needs. And even when it is not culturally acceptable, men tend to make use of mistresses and prostitutes. Not too surprising that there would be more female lines of descent than male, then.

would the average woman want to be ryan reynald's third wife? or john smiths first and only wife?

A bigger question might be whether someone like Ryan Reynolds would accept an 'average' woman as ANY wife? Having fame (though I admit, I had to look him up, and I still don't recognize him) and wealth, he is able to get almost any women he wants. Why would he settle for less than perfection? But there are plenty of women who would rather have the stability of a John Smith than have to play second or third fiddle.

Yes, there is an obvious genetic benefit to having more than one wife, providing you can care for all of them, and all of the children. The benefits of having more than one husband can be great as well, though not as genetically beneficial. In a culture where the men are considered providers, having more than one such provider would be of immense benefit to wife and children. Why don't we see more people pushing for wives with multiple husbands, then? Or households with multiple wives AND husbands?

Primarily because we men don't like to share our property. And, historically, women have always been considered property. In many parts of the world, they still are. And denying them the right to choose their own health care, to choose whether or not to have children, is little more than telling them that they are still property, even in an 'enlightened' society like ours.

[Punish_her]

it's coercion no matter how you look at it. if my friend wants to get married to a girl i hate and i tell him "if you marry her, im not gonna see you again" that is coercion in your book. but saying "you can't say you won't see him again, because that is coercion"is still coercion. you can't force someone to accept someone else unconditionally. the amish and mormons have every right to turn their back on someone who leaves them.

women would much rather share men than men share women because of the evopsych behind each of the sexes. If 10 women share one wealthy man, they can each father his child and he can (resources willing) provide for them. 10 men sharing one woman is the opposite. she will only father a child with one of them, then nine men are supporting another man's genetic legacy without having one of their own.
women who are more tolerant of the idea of sharing men will not be weeded out of the genetic battleground to the same extent a man who shares his women will be.
Monogamy is more benficial to men because 9 of wives the one wealthy man could have had are being displaced to 9 other men who were before without a mate.Every man down the ladder gets something he wouldn't before, while every woman must trade down after the small pool of dersirebale men are taken.

[Thorne]

it's coercion no matter how you look at it. if my friend wants to get married to a girl i hate and i tell him "if you marry her, im not gonna see you again" that is coercion in your book.

It is attempted coercion on your part, certainly. If I were your friend, though, I'd be more than happy to tell you to kiss off!

the amish and mormons have every right to turn their back on someone who leaves them.

But the women don't necessarily WANT to leave them! They simply want the right to choose for themselves! The fact that the religion REQUIRES them to submit to their fathers, or brothers, or husbands, is where the problem lies. And remember, they wouldn't just be leaving their church. In many, if not most, cases, they would be exiled from their own families as well.

women would much rather share men than men share women because of the evopsych behind each of the sexes. If 10 women share one wealthy man, they can each father his child and he can (resources willing) provide for them. 10 men sharing one woman is the opposite. she will only father a child with one of them, then nine men are supporting another man's genetic legacy without having one of their own.

Unless she has one child for each husband. With so many providers, she certainly wouldn't need to work outside the home. She could be a veritable baby factory if she wished. Or perhaps she just wants to be able to fuck all night without worrying about having a limp dick interfere with her fun. The point is, SHE gets to decide. And men, generally, don't like that.

women who are more tolerant of the idea of sharing men will not be weeded out of the genetic battleground to the same extent a man who shares his women will be.

If humans ONLY mated for procreation that might be true. But with modern medicine, a man could insure that any children would be his, but still share her if he wished.

Monogamy is more benficial to men because 9 of wives the one wealthy man could have had are being displaced to 9 other men who were before without a mate.Every man down the ladder gets something he wouldn't before, while every woman must trade down after the small pool of dersirebale men are taken.

The only benefit of monogamy for men is the lower cost of maintaining a household. If he can afford it, polygamy would be more beneficial for any individual male. And in the genetics game, it is the Alpha male who's seed tends to dominate. He doesn't want the others to propagate at all, so it's in his interest to deprive them of wives. And, to a certain extent, women tend to be attracted to Alpha males, as they would be considered genetically superior, whose children would be likely to survive into adulthood, in order to continue the genetic line. Of course, modern morality, not to mention modern psychology, has changed us all. For the better, I should hope. After all, we aren't strictly animals anymore.