- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,828
- Reaction score
- 30,089
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Incorrectly, and offensive to genuine Mormons.
Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. As are false equivalencies.
Please stop referring to these freaks as “Mormons”. They are not Mormons, and referring to them in that manner is offensive to genuine Mormons who have nothing to do with them.
Polygamist Sects Are Not
I said "extremist" Mormons. Please stop misrepresenting what I stated.
Unlike “gay marriage”, plural marriage meets the definition and the purpose of genuine marriage; as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family, in which to raise any children which may be the product of that union. It is certainly hypocritical of anyone to want to force society to accept the vile mockery of “gay marriage”, while opposing plural marriage.
Plural marriage, though not quite in keeping with modern accepted conventions, is a way to form a genuine family; while “gay marriage” serves no purpose other than to degrade and attack the family as the basis of society, and to undermine society a a whole.
What is an extremist Mormon?
Never heard of Warren Jeffs, leader of a polygamist Mormon church in Utah? Yes, the Latter Day Saints are a branch of the Mormon religion.
Warren Jeffs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Warren Steed Jeffs (born December 3, 1955) is the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church).[a] In 2011, Jeffs was convicted of two felony counts of child sexual assault.[5]
Jeffs gained international notoriety in May 2006 when he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on Utah state charges related to his alleged arrangement of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls. He was arrested in August 2006 in Nevada, and agreed to be taken to Utah for trial. In May and July 2007 the State of Arizona charged him with eight additional counts, including sexual conduct with minors and incest, in two separate cases.[6]
His Utah trial, which began in early September 2007 in St. George, Utah, lasted less than a month, and on September 25 he was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice.[7] On November 20, 2007, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and began serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison. However, the conviction was overturned by the Utah Supreme Court on July 27, 2010, because of incorrect jury instructions.[8]
He was extradited to Texas, where he was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of children in connection with a raid of an FLDS owned and occupied West Texas ranch in 2008.[9] After the jury had deliberated for less than 30 minutes, 55-year-old Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years and a $10,000 fine, to be served consecutively, for sexual assault of both 12 and 15-year-old girls.[10]
What does his actions have to do with the topic which is, why not polygamy among consenting adults?
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.
The thing is, you're assuming those in polygamist marriages are 1. consenting, and 2. adults. They frequently are neither, and before you say "then that's illegal" understand that the Lakota and Suix Nations are actual sovereign nations within the US with their own set of laws, courts and law-enforcement structure. State LEOs can only enter tribal land under very limited conditions and routine enforcement of civil law isn't it. Short of a Federal warrant, a State LEO has to be actively cashing a murderer or similar, and even then still has to stop the pursuit when ordered by the tribal police. Sanctioning polygamy typically results in families selling young daughters in pre-arranged marriages.
Opposition to polygamy has nothing to do with consenting adults.
Because other people were saying that polygamy invites child molestation. I said they are thinking of the cases of extremist Mormons. Got a problem with that?
Polygamy doesn't invite deviant behavior. It stands alone as deviant...
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.
The thing is, you're assuming those in polygamist marriages are 1. consenting, and 2. adults. They frequently are neither, and before you say "then that's illegal" understand that the Lakota and Suix Nations are actual sovereign nations within the US with their own set of laws, courts and law-enforcement structure. State LEOs can only enter tribal land under very limited conditions and routine enforcement of civil law isn't it. Short of a Federal warrant, a State LEO has to be actively cashing a murderer or similar, and even then still has to stop the pursuit when ordered by the tribal police. Sanctioning polygamy typically results in families selling young daughters in pre-arranged marriages.
Opposition to polygamy has nothing to do with consenting adults.
We have parallel problems with traditional marriage and we have courts to sort it out.Look at tax code alone.
If you are married to two women, can you claim them both as a dependent? Can all three of you file "jointly"? If one of those two women is married to a second man, can both husbands claim her as a dependant? Which claims her income, if there is any? If she has a child with the second man, but the child spends significantly more time with the household of the first man, can the first man claim the child as a dependant? What about if the second man is married to a completely seperate woman as well and they have a kid. The wife the two men share is now the "mother" of another woman's child, who and how can that child be claimed for tax purposes?
I have no issue with polygamy on a private level being legal. I don't believe that it's a benefit to society or government to legalize the notion in terms of the LEGAL term and benefits that come with it, nor do I find a compelling Equal Protection Clause argument for it in the same way there is for Same-Sex Marriage.
I'm sure that people who want to marry or love more than one person feel differently than you. :shrug: It's only deviant to you because of your ultra-religious standards.
I am not a religious person. Care to try once more?
No, not really. You can be against it, and that's fine, but you cannot force people to live by what YOU might think is right or wrong, as long as they are not hurting anyone else.
I'm not forcing what I would like on anyone. It is others who are attempting to do so, but if you want to open up marriage for interpretation, then let's do it...
Not open for interpretation, but allowing for it as long as it isn't hurting someone else (such as marrying children or perhaps animals, since neither can consent, maybe some other instances that I can't think of right now). I'm not for "anything goes."
Actually, polygamy has been around forever, and it never caused the collapse of society or anything. Most people would NOT choose this lifestyle anyway. It would probably only be people who are already practicing polygamy in some form, such as living together as a family or whatever.
Then, if one chooses to support SSM, it would only be logical that polygamy would be included in the same discussion...
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
No, for the same reason that if one chooses to support interracial marriage it is not logical to include gay marriage in the same discussion.Then, if one chooses to support SSM, it would only be logical that polygamy would be included in the same discussion...
I agree. I can't understand how someone could support one and not the other, especially when they claim it is discriminatory NOT to support SSM. The same could be said for people who wish to marry more than one person. They might want to the benefits of marriage and tax breaks, etc. Also, they would want the rights to be considered family members to make medical decisions for their SO if something should happen, legitimize their children, etc.
Absolutely not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?