And the Slippery Slope Continues - multiple partner relationships

[delayjf]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/19/portland-polyamorous-relationships-consensual-non-monogamy

This guys smiling now, we'll see how long that lasts. I have serious doubts that the pleasure will be worth the pain. :bang:

[boxcar]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/19/portland-polyamorous-relationships-consensual-non-monogamy

This guys smiling now, we'll see how long that lasts. I have serious doubts that the pleasure will be worth the pain. :bang:

It's only a matter of time when the SC will rule that polygamy is a constitutional right.

[barahona44]

It's only a matter of time when the SC will rule that polygamy is a constitutional right.
The pursuit of happiness? :)

[tucker6]

To be honest, I never understood the ban on polygamy. It seemed to be religious based law, which is unconstitutional. Personally I think the practice does more harm than good, but to each their own. No one under 18 though. That predation.

[zico20]

Now that gay marriage is legal, polygamy should be also. But the SC rules way to many times on social acceptance instead of the law. When polygamy gets over 50% support, it will become a constitutional right.

[RunForTheRoses]

Interesting article about feminism, alpha males, etc:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/416267

[boxcar]

Now that gay marriage is legal, polygamy should be also. But the SC rules way to many times on social acceptance instead of the law. When polygamy gets over 50% support, it will become a constitutional right.

Then the country will sink even deeper into the muck and mire of its moral decay. What's next: the right to incest? How 'bout throwing in a little pedophilia just to keep things from getting sexually boring?

[tucker6]

Then the country will sink even deeper into the muck and mire of its moral decay. What's next: the right to incest? How 'bout throwing in a little pedophilia just to keep things from getting sexually boring?
Why is it important to you what others do in their bedrooms? As long as they aren't children under 18, it's their business, and not yours or mine. You seem to think you own what is right and wrong. The world is a wee bit more chaotic than that.

[Clocker]

To be honest, I never understood the ban on polygamy. It seemed to be religious based law, which is unconstitutional. Personally I think the practice does more harm than good, but to each their own.

It is a religious question, and there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any authority over marriage. The government has no business trying to legislate morality as long as it is between consenting adults.

[Clocker]

The world is a wee bit more chaotic than that.

And fun if you are lucky. :cool:

[Inner Dirt]

I never understood polygamy, one woman is enough trouble.

[delayjf]

As long as they aren't children under 18, it's their business, and not yours or mine.

Curious as to why you make the above distinction?

[boxcar]

Why is it important to you what others do in their bedrooms? As long as they aren't children under 18, it's their business, and not yours or mine. You seem to think you own what is right and wrong. The world is a wee bit more chaotic than that.

I'm glad you asked. Because the family unit is the bedrock foundation to all societies. As the family unit goes, so do entire civilizations.

You should brush up on Natural Law and you'll discover why God, in his infinite wisdom, ordained marriage between one biological male and one biological female. (Hint: It has to do with procreation and the fact that the human offspring require far more time to mature (and all the implications to this) than do the young in the animal kingdom.

And then, you might want to get acquainted with ancient world history. One thing all the fallen ancient civilizations had in common was sexual depravity. As pointed out previously elsewhere on this forum, nothing in this world debases humankind more than perverse sexual practices -- where men and women perform sexual acts that even wild beasts don't engage in.

Also, what is now the age limit of 18 is a man-made limit, which can be changed at any time. Whose to say that one day a group of "enlightened" psychiatrists or psychologists won't publish some "peer-reviewed" psycho babble saying that we're depriving our kids the pleasure and excitement of sexual explorations and that we're arbitrarily and artificially suppressing their normal urges to their own hurt, etc., etc.? You should not think this is very far fetched speculation, given what is going on in the public school system with sex education of kids at very tender ages. Also, the government believes deep down that it knows what is best for our kids -- not the kids' parents.

And finally, Mr. Tucker, I didn't invent morality. I don't "own" morality. But God by his grace has shown me what is right and what is wrong; for his Law is both revealed in divine revelation and within my own heart. And I certainly believe that there are things absolutely right or absolutely wrong. I don't allow myself to be tossed to and fro in the violent storms of moral relativism wherein good and evil are simply a matter of individual taste determined by each of us. And besides, Moral Relativism, Mr. Tucker is a thoroughly self-defeating philosophy, as I have demonstrated in the Religious thread. And, logically speaking, something that is self-defeating (i.e. self-contradictory) cannot possibly be the Truth.

[tucker6]

Curious as to why you make the above distinction?
Curious as to why that statement isn't obvious to you.

[Clocker]

I'm glad you asked. Because the family unit is the bedrock foundation to all societies. As the family unit goes, so do entire civilizations.



And finally, Mr. Tucker, I didn't invent morality. I don't "own" morality.

You can't legislate functional family units or morality.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, if people don't want to come out to the ball park, you can't stop them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It is a religious question, and there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any authority over marriage. The government has no business trying to legislate morality as long as it is between consenting adults.
There is also a civil element that is not related to morality. If a man with two wives dies intestate, it becomes the responsibility of the court to sort out who gets what. If a man without a living will is on life support, which of the two (or more) wives gets to make the decision about pulling the plug? Would it automatically be the first wife, who is probably the legal wife? I'm sure the second wife could file suit if she wasn't in agreement, whether or not she has a way to win. Even though the government has no business legislating morality, I wouldn't underestimate the government being pulled into the issue because of civil issues having nothing to do with morality.

[boxcar]

You can't legislate functional family units or morality.

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, if people don't want to come out to the ball park, you can't stop them.

That still doesn't mean that there aren't moral absolutes. The fact that most men don't subscribe to this truth speaks to the great divide -- the great disconnect between the Creator and man. But this is why Christ came -- to stand in the gap between man and his Creator.

[Clocker]

There is also a civil element that is not related to morality.

No different than if a man with with a significant other or a common law wife dies intestate. All of which can be handled through civil contracts. Also, the state could recognize any marriage performed by an established church as a civil contract.

[Clocker]

That still doesn't mean that there aren't moral absolutes. The fact that most men don't subscribe to this truth speaks to the great divide -- the great disconnect between the Creator and man. But this is why Christ came -- to stand in the gap between man and his Creator.

Call it what you will, you still can't legislate compliance. Attempts have failed, period.

[classhandicapper]

The government should not be in the marriage or morality business at all. I think consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else and no one else has to pay for it. But some choices produce superior results to others. I see nothing wrong with encouraging superior choices. I'm going to guess that this particular arrangement leads to more problems for the individuals involved and perhaps society.

I become more convinced by the day that modern man is DEVOLVING in some ways and will have to relearn lessons that were learned by primitive men many thousands of years ago.

[delayjf]

Curious as to why that statement isn't obvious to you.

It is obvious, I should have just made my point without trying to be cute.

Anyway, I point was going to make is that you have drawn a moral line in the sand, based on your moral beliefs. Don't you agree that if society as a whole agrees with that judgement, then that judgement should prevail in society?

We are moving in a moral direction that is void of any societal restraint. On a personal level, like you, I don't care, nor do I want to interfere with what anyone does in their bedroom - but I think there's a bigger picture here. I think Boxcars response above hit the nail on the head. But my willingness to not interfere with "what people do in their bedroom" does not preclude me or society from judging one by ones behavior. A man may cheat on his wife, an act I find immoral. Should I or society simple brush off the deed as "what happens in the bed room stays in the bedroom"? I would argue no, society based on its collective moral code has every right to judge behavior that is in opposition from that code. That's not to say that they should be taken out and hanged, but society should shame them for their acts.

To give you an example of where we are headed or at least being pushed. The LGBT movement has all but taken over the American Psychiatric Association. In their quest to normalize the LGBT life style, they have pressured the APA to modify its definitions of the LGBT lifestyle from a mental disorder to just another one of life's choices. In fact, in 2014, the APA attempted to reclassify pedophilia from a mental disorder to a sexual orientation. Only after vehement objection did they retract their reclassification and claim it was a mistake. It was no mistake.

I am sickened by the thought that Organization like the North American Love Boys Association exist. I see them as a treat to our society.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I see them as a treat to our society.

He meant THREAT people. THREAT.

:D

[delayjf]

He meant THREAT people. THREAT.

Thanks - I suck at proof reading my own stuff. :lol:

[Fager Fan]

That still doesn't mean that there aren't moral absolutes. The fact that most men don't subscribe to this truth speaks to the great divide -- the great disconnect between the Creator and man. But this is why Christ came -- to stand in the gap between man and his Creator.

Im Christian but you bother me with your preaching. I agree that there are some absolutes but you need to be more careful about what they are. Just look at Abraham for one.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

No different than if a man with with a significant other or a common law wife dies intestate. All of which can be handled through civil contracts. Also, the state could recognize any marriage performed by an established church as a civil contract.
Of course. But the point was it is not simply a religious issue and the moral issue and the civil issue are separate. And the civil issue can be dealt with in the absence of a moral argument. Whether government has a place in issues of morality or marriage, they can be dragged into a civil issue related to plural marriage whether they like it or not.

[boxcar]

Call it what you will, you still can't legislate compliance. Attempts have failed, period.

You're quite wrong, sir. Virtually, all the laws of men are grounded in moral principles! :bang: :bang: Is murder good or evil? Is thievery good or evil? Is lying good or evil? Is fraud good or evil? Is rape good or evil? However, just as the holy Law of God given to Moses was weak through our flesh (sinful human nature), so too man's laws are weak through that same nature. But nonetheless, the laws of men do most certainly help to restrain evil in this world. Imagine a world with no laws!. Do you think such a world would be better than this one?

[boxcar]

Im Christian but you bother me with your preaching. I agree that there are some absolutes but you need to be more careful about what they are. Just look at Abraham for one.

What about Abraham? What point are you trying to make with him?

Do you believe all divine revelation is God's absolute truth?

[mostpost]

In general my philosophy is that what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of my business. There are exceptions, obviously. It CAN"T involve children. It can't involve coercion.

I'm not certain who successful a multiple partner relationship can be long term. There are enough problems with a traditional marriage. Every additional partner increases the difficulty exponentially. But, if they wanna do it..........

[tucker6]

It is obvious, I should have just made my point without trying to be cute.

Anyway, I point was going to make is that you have drawn a moral line in the sand, based on your moral beliefs. Don't you agree that if society as a whole agrees with that judgement, then that judgement should prevail in society?

We are moving in a moral direction that is void of any societal restraint. On a personal level, like you, I don't care, nor do I want to interfere with what anyone does in their bedroom - but I think there's a bigger picture here. I think Boxcars response above hit the nail on the head. But my willingness to not interfere with "what people do in their bedroom" does not preclude me or society from judging one by ones behavior. A man may cheat on his wife, an act I find immoral. Should I or society simple brush off the deed as "what happens in the bed room stays in the bedroom"? I would argue no, society based on its collective moral code has every right to judge behavior that is in opposition from that code. That's not to say that they should be taken out and hanged, but society should shame them for their acts.

To give you an example of where we are headed or at least being pushed. The LGBT movement has all but taken over the American Psychiatric Association. In their quest to normalize the LGBT life style, they have pressured the APA to modify its definitions of the LGBT lifestyle from a mental disorder to just another one of life's choices. In fact, in 2014, the APA attempted to reclassify pedophilia from a mental disorder to a sexual orientation. Only after vehement objection did they retract their reclassification and claim it was a mistake. It was no mistake.

I am sickened by the thought that Organization like the North American Love Boys Association exist. I see them as a treat to our society.
We think alike. I also think you're putting several things together in your post that are better left separated. IMO, my morality and my judgement are two separate things. My morality believes that Bill Clinton is a morally bankrupt person, but my judgement is that Bill Clinton is Hillary's problem. His philandering is really not society's concern when you get down to it. Certainly we would all like our president to live to a high moral standard, but again, I don't live his life and don't know any details of it.

I am for the least amount of govt necessary to defend its citizens in those areas we need defending, such as security, health, some aspects of the environment, commerce, etc. So to me, the govt should stay out of our lives insofar as adults are concerned. When it comes to the health and well being of our youth, my belief is that the govt has a vested interest in ensuring that children are not mentally and physically harmed prior to adulthood. So polygamy to me is a right of free expression. No more or less. Some people find horseplaying to be a morally reprehensible activity. Do we want the govt to shut it down?

Boxcar called polygamy a slippery slope. It is, but for the opposite reasons he gives. It is not morality under attack, but our rights and freedoms to conduct ourselves in all ways which do no harm to others. I see no harm being done to others when polygamy is mentioned. It may not be something I believe in, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell someone who to sleep with lest next year someone tells me who I can sleep with. That's the slippery slope.

[Clocker]

I'm not certain who successful a multiple partner relationship can be long term. There are enough problems with a traditional marriage.

From all I have seen, it requires a specific mindset, particularly on the part of the women, that does not exist outside of certain cultures and religions.

It also requires hubby to bring home a lot of bread to feed a house full of mouths. This is where a limited social concern comes into the picture to insure that the children of such a marriage are property cared for.

[thaskalos]

What about Abraham? What point are you trying to make with him?

Do you believe all divine revelation is God's absolute truth?
Should Boxcar be allowed to turn this into another religious thread?

[tucker6]

From all I have seen, it requires a specific mindset, particularly on the part of the women, that does not exist outside of certain cultures and religions.

It also requires hubby to bring home a lot of bread to feed a house full of mouths. This is where a limited social concern comes into the picture to insure that the children of such a marriage are property cared for.
where is such govt concern when a woman on welfare continues to have unwed children year after year. That is of more pressing need to solve than 500 polygamist marriages throughout the country.

[tucker6]

Should Boxcar be allowed to turn this into another religious thread?
Of course not. His morality is misplaced in this thread. Polygamy is only evil in that it goes against his religion, but who makes his religion above all other beliefs? Nothing does. Boxcar has every right to believe in what he wants. He doesn't have the right to tell someone else what to believe in.

[barahona44]

where is such govt concern when a woman on welfare continues to have unwed children year after year. That is of more pressing need to solve than 500 polygamist marriages throughout the country.
Many people in the polygamous communities of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City , Arizona are getting significant amounts of government assistance due to family size

http://fox13now.com/2016/05/04/flds-towns-dont-use-the-most-food-stamps-but-they-get-a-lot-of-money/

[tucker6]

Many people in the polygamous communities of Hildale, Utah and Colorado City , Arizona are getting significant amounts of government assistance due to family size
My belief is that govt assistance should be capped. Unlimited assistance is rewarding a problem.

[Fager Fan]

What about Abraham? What point are you trying to make with him?

Do you believe all divine revelation is God's absolute truth?

How about the children he had out of wedlock (with a mistress) and his multiple wives?

[Clocker]

Should Boxcar be allowed to turn this into another religious thread?

Did the other one overflow? :eek:

[boxcar]

Of course not. His morality is misplaced in this thread. Polygamy is only evil in that it goes against his religion, but who makes his religion above all other beliefs? Nothing does. Boxcar has every right to believe in what he wants. He doesn't have the right to tell someone else what to believe in.

Polygamy is also against Natural Law, which is just as universal as Divine Law. You really should consider studying Natural Law.

[boxcar]

Of course not. His morality is misplaced in this thread. Polygamy is only evil in that it goes against his religion, but who makes his religion above all other beliefs? Nothing does. Boxcar has every right to believe in what he wants. He doesn't have the right to tell someone else what to believe in.

But your brand of morality isn't misplaced? Really? Why not?

[boxcar]

From all I have seen, it requires a specific mindset, particularly on the part of the women, that does not exist outside of certain cultures and religions.

It also requires hubby to bring home a lot of bread to feed a house full of mouths. This is where a limited social concern comes into the picture to insure that the children of such a marriage are property cared for. (emphasis mine)

BINGO! This is certainly one of the major implications to Natural Law. As I mentioned earlier, human offspring require a long maturation period. This further implies that momma stay home to care for her child[ren] while daddy goes off to support mommy and the kids. And this further implies that there be a high level of commitment on the part of the daddy to look after the welfare of the woman and kids. All this breaks down badly in polygamous relationships. How do 3 or even more become "one flesh"? This is precisely why God in his infinite wisdom sanctioned only monogamous relationships. Nothing less than the family structure is at stake here. Destroy this God-ordained structure, and society will go with it.

[tucker6]

Polygamy is also against Natural Law, which is just as universal as Divine Law. You really should consider studying Natural Law.
I really don't care what 'law' you claim it is against. It's none of your damned business what other people do in their private lives. None.

[tucker6]

But your brand of morality isn't misplaced? Really? Why not?
Deflecting the question back I see. How original.

[classhandicapper]

You're quite wrong, sir. Virtually, all the laws of men are grounded in moral principles! :bang: :bang: Is murder good or evil? Is thievery good or evil? Is lying good or evil? Is fraud good or evil? Is rape good or evil?

The line that often determines legality is whether anyone else is harmed.

So for example, you may think this kind of thing is immoral, but if they are all consenting adults and no one outside of that relationship is getting hurt, you can argue it should be legal even if many people frown upon it.

That would not be true of many of the things on your list, sex with minors, and other behaviors.

[boxcar]

How about the children he had out of wedlock (with a mistress) and his multiple wives?

That's what made Abraham a sinner! And when you look at the polygamous relationships of even the OT saints in scripture, you will find that those relationships brought nothing but trouble! Do you recall the bitterness Sarah felt toward Hagar after Sarah insisted that Abraham have intercourse with her handmaiden so they would have a child? And then study the life of king David! David's sexual life exemplified everything a father should not be. David has to be the worst father on record in scripture. And if these two aren't enough, study the life of Solomon! Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubine, yet these did NOT bring him happiness or fulfillment. Read the link below.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Solomon-wives-concubines.html

[boxcar]

The line that often determines legality is whether anyone else is harmed.

So for example, you may think this kind of thing is immoral, but if they are all consenting adults and no one outside of that relationship is getting hurt, you can argue it should be legal even if many people frown upon it.

That would not be true of many of the things on your list, sex with minors, and other behaviors.

You haven't been following along very carefully. Society is harmed by polygamous relationships. It poses a very real threat to the family structure. And as stated previously, once that structure is destroyed, society will go with it since the family unit is the foundation to all societies.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You haven't been following along very carefully. Society is harmed by polygamous relationships. It poses a very real threat to the family structure. And as stated previously, once that structure is destroyed, society will go with it since the family unit is the foundation to all societies.

I think you've made some interesting points. Do you think society is more harmed by the rare polygamist or the 50% divorce rate?

[delayjf]

IMO, Probably with the 50% divorce rate, especially when Kids are involved.

[tucker6]

You haven't been following along very carefully. Society is harmed by polygamous relationships. It poses a very real threat to the family structure. And as stated previously, once that structure is destroyed, society will go with it since the family unit is the foundation to all societies.
A threat to the family structure? :lol:

The family structure has been decimated for decades, but polygamy will be it's death blow? Good God man. Get a grip.

[boxcar]

I think you've made some interesting points. Do you think society is more harmed by the rare polygamist or the 50% divorce rate?

Obviously the divorce rate is far more harmful because polygamy is so rare. But the two together would be devastating to society. At least with divorces, when a divorcee remarries it's still to one person. But of course what we see in such a high rate is a total lack of commitment, which is crucially important for the marriage to work.

[boxcar]

A threat to the family structure? :lol:

The family structure has been decimated for decades, but polygamy will be it's death blow? Good God man. Get a grip.

We're not there yet. There hasn't been a total breakdown of the family structure.

Just remember: When polygamy becomes the law of the land because it's everyone right to fornicate with whomever he or she wants, then tell me how good polygamy is when the the government taxes you for child support payments!

[tucker6]

We're not there yet. There hasn't been a total breakdown of the family structure.

Just remember: When polygamy becomes the law of the land because it's everyone right to fornicate with whomever he or she wants, then tell me how good polygamy is when the the government taxes you for child support payments!
How is polygamy going to increase fornication? At least with polygamy, someone other than the taxpayer has some financial responsibility. So on that score, polygamy is better than out of wedlock sex.

[boxcar]

How is polygamy going to increase fornication? At least with polygamy, someone other than the taxpayer has some financial responsibility. So on that score, polygamy is better than out of wedlock sex.

Is it? Who says the polygamist is going to take moral responsibility for his brood of kiddies? What happens when he finds he can't support his child-bearing habit. Who do you think he's going to look to for financial assistance?

And do you know what fornication is? A practicing mogogamist of 50 years never commits fornication. But a practicing polygamist fornicates numerous times during his relationship.s

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Polygamy is also against Natural Law, which is just as universal as Divine Law. You really should consider studying Natural Law.
Natural Law must not apply to thoroughbreds otherwise Giant's Causeway is on the express train to horse hell. 200 out of wedlock babies a year, absentee fatherhood - a complete breakdown of the equine family structure. Of course, in the wild he'd just be leading an entire brood of fillies and mares, a true natural polygamist if I ever saw one.

[boxcar]

Natural Law must not apply to thoroughbreds...

Now, you're catching on. :ThmbUp:

[barahona44]

Is it? Who says the polygamist is going to take moral responsibility for his brood of kiddies? What happens when he finds he can't support his child-bearing habit. Who do you think he's going to look to for financial assistance?

And do you know what fornication is? A practicing mogogamist of 50 years never commits fornication. But a practicing polygamist fornicates numerous times during his relationship.s
I was planning on replying in this thread but my wife keeps demanding I fornicate. :)

[MutuelClerk]

I'm not that religious but I'm deeply devoted to friends with benefits.

[Clocker]

I was planning on replying in this thread but my wife keeps demanding I fornicate. :)

What a very understanding wife. Does she care who you fornicate with?

[barahona44]

What a very understanding wife. Does she care who you fornicate with?
Learn something new every day, I always thought fornication was just another word for sexual intercourse.
Nothing wrong with increasing one's word power.

[boxcar]

I was planning on replying in this thread but my wife keeps demanding I fornicate. :)

You should tell your wife that she should demand that you have intercourse with her. :rolleyes:

Are you guys this illiterate? (Serious question.) The definition of "fornication" is consensual sexual intercourse between two persons NOT married to each other. Look it up in your Funk 'n' Wagnals.

[barahona44]

You should tell your wife that she should demand that you have intercourse with her. :rolleyes:

Are you guys this illiterate? (Serious question.) The definition of "fornication" is consensual sexual intercourse between two persons NOT married to each other. Look it up in your Funk 'n' Wagnals.
A serious question demands a serious answer.I am not illiterate.When I first saw what Clocker wrote in responding to my post, I was a little confused so I looked up fornication and found out it referred to sexual congress (told you I wasn't iliterate)between unmarried people and not just a general term for intercourse .In my reply to Clocker I ACKNOWLEDGED that mistake.You didn't need to repeat the definition since my post implied I now knew it..

But I would never call you illiterate for not catching that implication.

[classhandicapper]

You haven't been following along very carefully. Society is harmed by polygamous relationships. It poses a very real threat to the family structure. And as stated previously, once that structure is destroyed, society will go with it since the family unit is the foundation to all societies.

I haven't seen any data that suggests polygamous relationships are a problem to anyone outside the relationship. If there are children involved, that might be a problem, but I haven't seen any data on it.

[boxcar]

I haven't seen any data that suggests polygamous relationships are a problem to anyone outside the relationship. If there are children involved, that might be a problem, but I haven't seen any data on it.

Maybe you haven't seen any data because they all practice safe sex. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

A serious question demands a serious answer.I am not illiterate.When I first saw what Clocker wrote in responding to my post, I was a little confused so I looked up fornication and found out it referred to sexual congress (told you I wasn't iliterate)between unmarried people and not just a general term for intercourse .In my reply to Clocker I ACKNOWLEDGED that mistake.You didn't need to repeat the definition since my post implied I now knew it..

But I would never call you illiterate for not catching that implication.

I posted my reply before I saw Tick Tock's. My comments stand because you were initially puzzled over how there possibly could be an increase in fornication in polygamous relationships. Now you know.

[Clocker]

A serious question demands a serious answer.I am not illiterate.When I first saw what Clocker wrote in responding to my post, I was a little confused so I looked up fornication and found out it referred to sexual congress (told you I wasn't iliterate)between unmarried people and not just a general term for intercourse .In my reply to Clocker I ACKNOWLEDGED that mistake.You didn't need to repeat the definition since my post implied I now knew it..

I was just kidding around. But you have to remember that there are some people who take everything seriously and literally.

Frig 'em if they can't take a joke. :p