posted on June 19, 2007 10:25:32 AM new
Since 'updating' my info....means nothing more than agreeing with YOUR opinion....I'll keep my own.
===========================
And here is what ld was upset about....that those of us who argue that IF gay marriages are acceptable/okay...then so should all other 'forms' of marriage. After all, I'm SURE the liberals would want the 'rights' of ALL citizens to be 'equal'. lol lol lol
edited to add: in part:
David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, wrote in The Michigan Law Review that those who support plural marriage ought to also support gay marriage. He argued that rather than reinforcing a two-person definition of marriage, gay marriage would make society more accepting of further legal changes: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more." Similarly, Alternatives to Marriage Project activist and University of Utah law professor Martha Ertman noted in The Harvard Law Review that legal and social opposition to polygamy is decreasing and that increasing acceptance of homosexual partnerships is slowly (and, to her mind, rightly) resulting in the final destruction of the traditional marriage ideal.
The primary tactical difference between polygamist communities and gay-marriage activists is that the former have traditionally neither sought nor desired government recognition or even government involvement (with, of course, the exception of public assistance). But as the ideology of those on the frontlines of the gay-marriage debate trickles down to cloistered FLDS communities, they too are beginning to push for unqualified endorsement in the eyes of the law. And why shouldn't they, now that gay couples are starting to make great strides in the same direction?
posted on June 19, 2007 10:32:02 AM new
My questions are honest and direct ones, Linda_K. I've always been in an equal relationship with a man so I'm just curious about the extent some women who are controlled by their men will go to or are expected to.
Bottom line, if molestation of children is involved as well as inbreeding I find the thought kind of icky. Since you haven't objected to it on any topics but object to so many other little things discussed here, I assume you excuse it and believe it to be acceptable and normal behavior that I honestly cringe at?
posted on June 19, 2007 10:33:35 AM new
LOL...an equal relationship....NOT a marriage. NO committment. See the BIG difference? No, you probably NEVER would.
===========================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 19, 2007 10:36:38 AM new
"""an equal relationship....NOT a marriage. NO committment. See the BIG difference? No, you probably NEVER would."""
Poor linduh...just can't understand what commitment is WITHOUT a piece of paper forcing you to be....
That's because she never experienced it....so sad...but does explain a lot about her hate and anger
posted on June 19, 2007 10:42:38 AM new
Wrong again, sybil.
But since we're talking about OTHERS, besides GAYS who would ALSO like to commit to one another....why is THAT topic being avoided so well by you liberals?
IF gays can marry...then why shouldn't all who love one another, want to commit to one another, want to marry one another be allowed to ALSO?
LOL LOL LOL
No, the liberals reject ALL they don't want to be allowed to marry and then post this garbage towards those who feel the SAME way towards gay marriage.
Could it be that OLD double standard the liberals SO LOVE to hold on to? I sure believe it is.
Like there are NO gays that do horrible things to children. Think focusing on the actions of a FEW Mormons represent ALL Mormons anymore than it does with gays?
posted on June 19, 2007 10:59:52 AM new
Want things REALLY equal? Then argue against what the Mormons claim, just as gays do, are THEIR 'right's.
Then tell me just how YOU all see Mormons being ANY different in wanting to be allowed to MARRY. I won't hold my breath waiting.
===============
But they ARE speaking out. And they WILL be following gays in their quest to be 'given their rights' to the traditionally one man, one woman inst. of marriage.
They're NO different....and no LESS equal than gays.
======================================
It's become another political DIVISION that the liberals have chosen to bring into election '08...because of Romney being a Mormon. But can they prove HE supports any of this garbage they're TRYING to smear ALL Mormons with? lol nope....just another area of their intolerance of others, while they DEMAND all accept the gay lifestyle or else we're xxxxx..xxx..
============================
Polygamy 2007
June 14th, 2007 under Uncategorized, Politics, Law, Media. [ Comments: none ]
Reuters says that fundamentalist Mormons are pushing for legalization of their polygamous ways:
Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.
The growing confidence of polygamists and their willingness to go public come at an awkward moment for mainstream Mormons, who are now in the spotlight as Republican Mitt Romney, a prominent Mormon, seeks the U.S. presidency.
This is undoubtedly mortifying to Romney because he needs to broaden his appeal to mainstream conservatives and Christians alike. Neither group is likely to accept the lifestyle choices of the 40,000 Mormons who practice multiple marriages and Romney will have to distance himself from the fringes of his religion to be a viable candidate.
But does the right’s disapproval mean that polygamy is wrong?
Certainly polygamy was an accepted practice in historical times and is featured prominently in the Bible. These references are primarily in the Old Testament. In fact polygamy had nearly died out in Jewish society by this time and was not practiced by Greeks or Romans. From a Christian perspective it is generally accepted that Jesus taught that polygamy is unacceptable, as in Matthew 19.8-9:
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
While this is not an absolutely definitive statement, it’s pretty clear that monogamy was seen by Jesus as the correct way for men and women to live together.
While I accept that judgment for myself and my own family, does it follow that those who believe otherwise deserve to spend time in jail because of their decision?
Marci Hamilton’s 2004 article on the subject makes some interesting points about the legal standards that block the legalization of polygamous relationships:
The basis of this argument is a historical fact: When Congress outlawed polygamy in the Territories in the Nineteenth Century, its motive in part was to suppress the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — which at that time believed in the sanctity of polygamous marriages. Modern anti-polygamy statutes…continue to bear this taint.
The problem, though, is that motive is not generally relevant to the interpretation of a statute. The anti-polygamy laws were - and are — facially neutral: They apply equally to secular and religious polygamists. That facial neutrality makes it clear that Congress was not focused solely on eradicating religious polygamists in the West, but also intent on preserving the long tradition of marriage between one man and one woman.
Hamilton goes on to explain that one powerful rationale for banning polygamy in fact was (and is) the tendency for such men to marry underage girls and/or close relatives, including their own daughers.
As disgusting as this behavior is, existing statuatory rape and incest laws already cover this territory in a more rational fashion. As such, the basis for banning polygamy is diminished to the extent that it is intended to cure these evils.
Instead the focus should be on the civil definition of marriage rather than on the possible use or misuse of the institution by a few deviants. Historically America has supported the one man-one woman standard of marriage. This should continue to be so.
It makes sense to treat polygamous relationships as we do homosexual relationships: they are tolerated from a civil perspective but not legally acknowledged as meeting the standard of accepted social practice.
Hamilton says that states have the right to define their own individual standards for marriage.As we’ve seen in recent years some have elected to allow homosexual unions. Polygamy may not be that far behind. Indeed, the slope is rather slippery in a country that is unable to define and enforce a difference between what is legal and what is right.
It’s exactly that elusive difference that matters most in these sorts of questions. For many people, myself included, there is nothing particularly offensive about polygamy. It doesn’t carry the same disgust factor as male homosexuality, for instance. But it simply isn’t the way that Americans live. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it’s not how we do things here.
Because it is so fundamental to the American way of life,the definition of traditional marriage should be held to a higher standard that what is merely legal.
What this means to Mitt Romney remains to be seen. I doubt that it means anything. It is, after all, a fringe issue and I think most voters understand that.
But if Romney wins the Republican nomination the question will keep popping up. The media will make sure of that, whether for the titillation effect on ratings and profits or for the sake of their ideology.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:09:17 AM new
Poor Linda_K, she is more outraged that I refuse to post a marriage certificate here or discuss my personal relationship or family than she is about family incest, child molestation and inbreeding. That says volumes about her beliefs and concerns.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:10:28 AM new
Lots of things are "icky" but some people have a mad rush to fix things that are 1/1000 of the degree of other icky things.
PS:
Here's another clue: the phrase: "gay pedophile" does not mean ALL gays are pedophiles.
similar analogies: red cars, blue bonnets, etc, etc.
I have to go deal with the hordes of inbred, mutant Mormon pedophiles at the door now.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:14:03 AM new
"Since 'updating' my info....means nothing more than agreeing with YOUR opinion.."
Not my opinion, but the opinion of the scientific community.
From UC Davis Psychology Dept. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)
"Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Other
Approaches Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathan
These opinions are based on scientific studies, expertise and education. What do you base your opinion on?
posted on June 19, 2007 11:23:36 AM new
why all the info on polygamy?
The outrage is about inbreeding, incest, pedophiles, and rape more than about monogamous relationships.
The polygamy alone isn't hurting ~ it is the age and familial ties that are of concern to me!
What consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business (other than the fact that is against the law, maybe it shouldnt be. who knows?)
posted on June 19, 2007 11:25:18 AM new
"that those of us who argue that IF gay marriages are acceptable/okay...then so should all other 'forms' of marriage. After all, I'm SURE the liberals would want the 'rights' of ALL citizens to be 'equal'. lol lol lol"
The right to equality and religious freedom does not supercede the rights of victims of illegal religious practices. If one's religion calls for stoning an adulterous woman or human sacrifice, which are, of course, illegal, those religious members would be prevented from doing so or would be prosecuted for committing those crimes.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:32:56 AM new
CC...that is NO different than the scientists that are in GREAT disagreement about 'global warming'. That's why these issues have always been and remain hot topic issues. There will NEVER be agreement on them.
------------------
zoomin - because that is the REAL issue of why ld brought this up to begin with. Did you not notice how he accuses, falsely, ONLY Christians? lol lol lol
Boy. it appears we have a LOT of 'Christians' here.
=======================
kiara, go back to being mingo's wanna be false, lying poster that you've become.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on June 19, 2007 11:37:25 AM new
Better yet.....maybe any of you who are bashing THIS religion, THIS time, can show me where YOU SEE or have read ANY support for the illegal activities that some claim have/are happening?
logansdad
posted on June 15, 2007 08:22:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't see the religious conservatives up in arms over this issue where it is actually shown to be harming the children.
===
Maybe HE or YOU can show us where any are "Chrisitans" SUPPORTING these illegal behaviors.
posted on June 19, 2007 11:50:06 AM newkiara, go back to being mingo's wanna be false, lying poster that you've become.
Linda_K, I'm not lying about anything. Every time you are unable to be honest with an answer you always call the other person a liar but can never state what the supposed lie actually is.
posted on June 19, 2007 12:02:02 PM new
No, kiara....you've become just as much a liar, smearing me with your repeated insinuations.....copying your hero, mingo.
Lost is the kiara can just discuss the topic....without all the personal LIES you continue spewing.
You should review your own posts...there you will see a kiara that should sicken you.
you won't....you can't see how you've changed. But you sure have.
LIES, LIES and more LIES.....just like sybil. Just as SICK
posted on June 19, 2007 12:07:18 PM new
"CC...that is NO different than the scientists that are in GREAT disagreement about 'global warming'. That's why these issues have always been and remain hot topic issues. There will NEVER be agreement on them."
Linda, it is different. There is a little more room for argument regarding global warming. The opinion about pedophiles is a consensus based upon many years of study. Can you cite any reputable study which demonstrates that homosexuals are responsible for most pedophilic activity? I am unaware of any. Look at it this way: There's heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and pedophilia. Pedophilia is a category unto itself. The young age of the partner/victim is the turn on, not the gender.
posted on June 19, 2007 12:14:16 PM new
As I've TRIED to say to you, CC. NOT TO ME.
I don't care what the latest PC reasoning is. They changed the gay groups from being mentally ill too. Doesn't change MY position on their actions nor their lifestyle.
I do not believe a man who wants to have sex with a female child is GAY - but rather a pedophile. But those males who do ARE, IMO, both gay and pedophiles. As opposed to adult males wanting other adult males...JUST gay.
IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO
lol
Funny how you continue to take another topic off topic and onto something else entirely. You do it all the time. You get sidetracked...can't help yourself I guess....but why NOT try to address my last question on the RIGHTS of gays AND Mormons who wish to marry MORE than one person.
Would be wonderful to see YOU actually ANSWER a question for a change. You're GREAT at asking them.
posted on June 19, 2007 12:16:20 PM new
Better yet.....maybe any of you who are bashing THIS religion, THIS time, can show me where YOU SEE or have read ANY support for the illegal activities that some claim have/are happening?
logansdad
posted on June 15, 2007 08:22:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't see the religious conservatives up in arms over this issue where it is actually shown to be harming the children.
===
Maybe HE or YOU can show us where any are "Chrisitans" SUPPORTING these illegal behaviors.
[b]But since we're talking about OTHERS, besides GAYS who would ALSO like to commit to one another....why is THAT topic being avoided so well by you liberals[b]?
IF gays can marry...then why shouldn't all who love one another, want to commit to one another, want to marry one another be allowed to ALSO?
CC????????
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 12:17 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2007 12:32:57 PM new
And since that's against the law...that issue is already dealt with.
Do Mormons have less 'rights' in your opinion, zoomin. Can they not live in multiple marriages just as gays live in 'civil' relationships/as straights and gays live with 'rights' in domestic partnerships?
Are they to be banned from their RIGHTS...but gays deserve them? According to your ethics?
posted on June 19, 2007 12:43:18 PM new
Speaking of being off-topic--why did you bring up gays in this thread, Linda? Oh--that's ok because YOU did it. Your opinion about the gay-pedophile issue is your own warped opinion and is not based on any intelligent, scientific proof---just your own bias. You want it to be true, so it is in your mind.
I don't know why I am bothering to answer the questions of such a snotty, arrogant, rude person, but here it is: I have no problem with polygamous marriages if they are not any danger to children, such as has been described here. My problem is not with polygamy or Mormons, it is with child molesters. Get it?
posted on June 19, 2007 12:43:52 PM new
see above post.
copy:
why all the info on polygamy?
The outrage is about inbreeding, incest, pedophiles, and rape more than about monogamous relationships.
The polygamy alone isn't hurting ~ it is the age and familial ties that are of concern to me!
What consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business (other than the fact that is against the law, maybe it shouldnt be. who knows?)
I try to be brief and to the point to remain on topic.
Who am I to judge multiple spouses?
Consenting adults, it is a way of life for them.
*** My issue is when it puts innocent others (in bred offspring) and minors (child molestation, rape, incest) at risk.
posted on June 19, 2007 12:46:42 PM new
"I do not believe a man who wants to have sex with a female child is GAY - but rather a pedophile. But those males who do ARE, IMO, both gay and pedophiles. As opposed to adult males wanting other adult males...JUST gay."
Tsk, Tsk! You just don't have the mental capacity to process scientific data. LOL LOL
posted on June 19, 2007 12:51:01 PM new
I too have NO problem with multiple spouses if:
1. they are all consenting adults
2. the spouses aren't producing litters from the male's extended family, and
2. they do NOT receive aid to dependent children, food stamps, or other taxpayer money. Why should we pay for the man's personal choices?
There's a polygamist (may be dead now) named Alex Joseph in Southern Utah. He lived in a compound, not associated with a religious cult, and was married to 3 or 4 women, all of whom were working outside the home. I think he was supported by them, a cozy deal for him! I never saw any children involved in all those relationships. One of the wives was an attorney. To my knowledge they received no government aid, and I had no problem with it.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on June 19, 2007 01:01:27 PM new
Linda, I wasn't lying when I gave my views on incest or inbreeding and said I think it's criminal and icky. I asked you questions and just because you choose to avoid them it doesn't make me a liar.
posted on June 19, 2007 01:03:40 PM new
I guess I need to post things twice, Linda.
I cannot believe linda would find this bedroom behavior acceptable.
I would LOVE to hear a response!
Please explain why THIS is a bedroom you stay out of, Linda!
I am trying hard to understand your point of view.
I know how you feel about gays and feminists and your views on marriage.
Please tell me that you find this rape and incest unacceptable.
These are innocent children being inbred into abusive situations.
LD has long been upset when arguing for the 'rights' of gays to marry....and anyone, myself included, then asks why all OTHERS wouldn't have the same RIGHTS.
There is never an answer. But the issue is the same.
How can America give gays the rights to marry and not others? They use the same reasons they wish to marry as the gays do....but somehow ld has always found THAT so different. LOL
First off, I personally do NOT support multiple marriages. I do not support gay marriage. I'd like marriage to be left alone and be as it always has been - one man one women.
But when gays continue pressing for their 'constitutional rights' lol lol...the so CAN all the other groups. AS has been pointed out time and time again to the supporters of gay marriage.
What's okay for one group should be okay for another.
This is also the subject that was being discussed when kiara started with her vulgar insinuation about me having sex with my cousin. And she hasn't been able to leave her twisted mind think out of it....she brings it up as often as she can.
sick, imo, but kiara none-the-less.
Gays were mentioned CC just for the reasons I've stated above. THIS is where ld always takes the subject when he doesn't like anyone who opposes gay marriages. Then he too, just like kiara, starts bringing up my have sex with my son....etc.
Some sickies just can't stay away from the personal garbage. They THRIVE on it.
This thread IS in retaliation for the support I and others have not given to the Mormons....but rather pointing out all the others who would then ALSO want these same rights. Maybe also in regards to the thread on NAMBLA that ld supports.
But his motives ARE always focused on pointing out all those 'others' who he want to use to take the issues OFF gay marriage....off gay behaviors...etc.
This time...it was slamming Mormons. When I think MOST honest people realize they aren't all supportive of this small 'off shoot' of radical that are found IN ALL GROUPS. lol
posted on June 19, 2007 01:24:17 PM new
The article posted is not about the mormons or their right to marry, it is about inbreeding when a group of people see nothing wrong with marrying their cousin and reproducing.
I missed the thread that has been twisted enough that you are having sex with your cousin, Linda, so I can't really respond to that other than to say, again, consenting adults?? fine with me! Marry a cousin? That's okay too. Who we love is private and personal. I don't find it sick or vulgar, as you say you do.
I'm sure many people have fallen in love without even knowing that they're related to each other.
It would NOT be fine with me if they chose to reproduce.
(edit: morons to morMons ~ totally innocent typo!!!!)
posted on June 19, 2007 01:25:19 PM new
roadsmith says:
posted on June 19, 2007 12:51:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too have NO problem with multiple spouses if:
1. they are all consenting adults
2. the spouses aren't producing litters from the male's extended family, and
2. they do NOT receive aid to dependent children, food stamps, or other taxpayer money. Why should we pay for the man's personal choices?
There's a polygamist (may be dead now) named Alex Joseph in Southern Utah. He lived in a compound, not associated with a religious cult, and was married to 3 or 4 women, all of whom were working outside the home. I think he was supported by them, a cozy deal for him! I never saw any children involved in all those relationships. One of the wives was an attorney. To my knowledge they received no government aid, and I had no problem with it.
================
but you ARE a liberal who wants to do JUST that for all others YOU deem 'poor' 'needy'. Right? I do believe that IS your position. I'm sure you'll tell me you're not just discriminating between the 'poor' and the 'religious poor'.
I see that as just ANOTHER of the liberal double standards. And you can't DENY benefits to anyone BECAUSE of their faiths, roadsmith. There is NO question on the 'hand out' form as to religion so they can be denied the same EQUAL benefits.
posted on June 19, 2007 01:38:42 PM new
zoomin says:
"The article posted is not about the mormons or their right to marry, it is about inbreeding when a group of people see nothing wrong with marrying their cousin and reproducing."
OH...but there's always HISTORY behind the posts of ld. He was asking for the same bashing that he feels some do towards his agenda/his lifestyle. He was placing the focus on a tiny group of Mormons....whose behaviors in some areas are illegal.
"I missed the thread that has been twisted enough that you are having sex with your cousin, Linda, so I can't really respond to that other than to say, again, consenting adults?? fine with me! Marry a cousin? That's okay too. Who we love is private and personal. I don't find it sick or vulgar, as you say you do."
You missed a thread, also on the subject of gay marriage.....on why others aren't/shouldn't be allowed to marry also. They AREN'T....whether you think they should be or not. lol First cousins cannot legally marry, for the same reason that's being argued here.
Then kiara had to turn what I said - that I couldn't legally marry my cousin, friend, brother, etc.... who I also loved into something vulgar. You're mistaken....it wasn't the issue of cousins marrying that kiara took to new LOWS...but rather her continuing mention of an argument I used to answer the question of why I don't believe ALL who 'love one another' should also allowed to marry. Why bother if that were the accepted case? No need for marriage at all then.
Since then, kiara continues to mention me 'boinking' my cousin....or wanting to....when nothing of the sort was EVER posted. She has the ability to take anything to new slandering lows. It's SO her.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 19, 2007 01:42 PM ]
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
