Huckabee on HIV in 1992: "We need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Then blame polygamy on religion also since the ancient Hebrews were polygamists as an example. I think there are more factors that came into play as to why monogamy became the standard in Western Civilization than just because the Pope said so.

Perhaps, but do you know what those factors were?

I would guess that it had more to do with common law and property, since during that time, women and children were considered property.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[mawilson 2,133]

Monogamy isn't new. The pre-christians Romans were at it as well and they were polytheists.

Was it about property rights?

[LaL 418]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

[mawilson 2,133]

Then blame polygamy on religion also since the ancient Hebrews were polygamists as an example. I think there are more factors that came into play as to why monogamy became the standard in Western Civilization than just because the Pope said so.

Perhaps, but do you know what those factors were?

I would guess that it had more to do with common law and property, since during that time, women and children were considered property.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

[no name 1]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

That still doesn't make any sense. It can't withdraw previous deposits.

[mawilson 2,133]

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

How does a person with foreskin "withdraw previous deposits"?

(Also, why are you using spoiler tags for this?)

Edited December 10, 2007 by mawilson

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

How does a person with foreskin "withdraw previous deposits"?

(Also, why are you using spoiler tags for this?)

Maybe it is against TOS to withdraw previous deposits.

[no name 1]

Why are we even discussing foreskin in a thread about Huckabee???

[LaL 418]

Sheesh - it was just a simple study that I wish I now had the link for. I am not talking about HUMANs necessarily - I am talking about species in the animal kingdom with this feature were stated as being overwhelmingly nonmonogamous. Nothing more. I used spoiler tags cuz I felt like it

[mawilson 2,133]

Why are we even discussing foreskin in a thread about Huckabee???

Nooo!!!!

Who cares about Huckabee?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sheesh - it was just a simple study that I wish I now had the link for. I am not talking about HUMANs necessarily - I am talking about species in the animal kingdom with this feature were stated as being overwhelmingly nonmonogamous. Nothing more. I used spoiler tags cuz I felt like it

But how does foreskin allow for withdrawal of ones deposit

Why are we even discussing foreskin in a thread about Huckabee???

Nooo!!!!

Who cares about Huckabee?

Does Huckabee withdraw his deposit?

[no name 1]

Why are we even discussing foreskin in a thread about Huckabee???

Nooo!!!!

Who cares about Huckabee?

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Then blame polygamy on religion also since the ancient Hebrews were polygamists as an example. I think there are more factors that came into play as to why monogamy became the standard in Western Civilization than just because the Pope said so.

Perhaps, but do you know what those factors were?

I would guess that it had more to do with common law and property, since during that time, women and children were considered property.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Here's something I found...

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

...without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN...in_western.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, I only care about beating him & his ilk down.

C'mon, you don't seriously believe he can win the nomination?