why me Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/ I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby. I think that polygamy will soon be legal. Edited April 23, 2014 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.I think that polygamy will soon be legal.Or communal marriage, open to all comers regardless of sexual orientation. It would seem the easiest way to destroy the concept of the family is to blur its defintion. 2
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.I think that polygamy will soon be legal. Biologically it is impossible for three women to have a baby together. Though I personally disapprove I can think of no legally consistent argument to outlaw polygamy between consenting adults.
why me Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Or communal marriage, open to all comers regardless of sexual orientation. It would seem the easiest way to destroy the concept of the family is to blur its defintion. And this is what happens when we take marriage outside the traditional definition. Those who support same sex marriage will also need to support throuples too. Such is freedom and all rights need to be respected. One cannot discriminate against throuples marrying and having children. Anarchy is not that far away when it comes to defending each groups rights to do what they want to do, as long as no one is getting hurt. 1
why me Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Biologically it is impossible for three women to have a baby together. Though I personally disapprove I can think of no legally consistent argument to outlaw polygamy between consenting adults. Sperm bank. Polygamy will eventually be legalized because of its existence in Islam and also among the independent polygamous Mormons. Rights will need to be extended all groups who wish to marry. Three men marrying...three women marrying...Four women getting married together...the sky's the limit.
why me Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 Those who support same sex marriage will also need to support same sex throuples marrying. There can be no discrimination between marrying adults. But it is still the logical direction when same sex marriage was allowed.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Anarchy is not that far away when it comes to defending each groups rights to do what they want to do, as long as no one is getting hurt. How does "defending each groups rights to do what they want to do, as long as no one is getting hurt" logically lead to "anarchy"? Government has many valid responsibilities beyond infringing on "groups rights to do what they want to do", and even if the Federal, State and Local governments were to stop doing this, they would still be needed for all the other stuff they do that doesn't involve infringing on rights. an·ar·chy: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy 2
Popular Post Buckeye Posted April 23, 2014 Popular Post Posted April 23, 2014 http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.I think that polygamy will soon be legal. Well, we can't say we weren't warned .... 5
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Sperm bank. Polygamy will eventually be legalized because of its existence in Islam and also among the independent polygamous Mormons. Rights will need to be extended all groups who wish to marry. Three men marrying...three women marrying...Four women getting married together...the sky's the limit. A sperm bank is more than just women. Polygamy exists in Christianity too, not just in polygamous Mormons. If "X" number of consenting adults want to marry each other what would be the legal justification for outlawing it?
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I think that polygamy will soon be legal. ...And then cometh the revelation to restore the practice that was once considered required for exaltation... Maybe not.
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 ...And then cometh the revelation to restore the practice that was once considered required for exaltation... Maybe not. It has never been a requirement for exaltation. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 It has never been a requirement for exaltation. But it WAS taught as such, whether true or not. 1
Calm Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Well, we can't say we weren't warned .... As if you read my mind....
Buckeye Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 ...And then cometh the revelation to restore the practice that was once considered required for exaltation... Maybe not. I'll go with "not." If 90% of LDS women are opposed to ordination, 99% are opposed to polygamy. I found it interesting that a year ago the church edited the introduction to OD-1 to state that "monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise."
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 But it WAS taught as such, whether true or not. Nope. It has only ever applied to those that were asked.
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Nope. It has only ever applied to those that were asked. Oh, come on. Are you really going to make me provide the quotes?You know as well as I do that Brigham Young said the only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who live polygamy. And this was echoed by many other GA's of the time.
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I'll go with "not." If 90% of LDS women are opposed to ordination, 99% are opposed to polygamy. I found it interesting that a year ago the church edited the introduction to OD-1 to state that "monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise." That is in the Book of Mormon. It predates OD1 by a few years. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I'll go with "not." If 90% of LDS women are opposed to ordination, 99% are opposed to polygamy. I found it interesting that a year ago the church edited the introduction to OD-1 to state that "monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise." I don't know any faithful male Church member who wants it either. 2
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Oh, come on. Are you really going to make me provide the quotes?You know as well as I do that Brigham Young said the only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God are those who live polygamy. And this was echoed by many other GA's of the time. Again at its height only a small percentage of LDS were ever asked. Those not asked were just as eligible for exaltation. Also consider that those that die before marriage were/are just as eligible for exaltation. Children whom die before 8 years old automatically got/get exaltation. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Again at its height only a small percentage of LDS were ever asked. Those not asked were just as eligible for exaltation. Also consider that those that die before marriage were/are just as eligible for exaltation. Children whom die before 8 years old automatically got/get exaltation. Now, that is just not what was taught and you know it. CFR to your claims (from the era I'm referring to.)These claims sound like the best of Glen Beck.
Madmardigan Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 If polygamy ever came back, all I know is that my wife will require that she gets to choose my other wives. So I will stick with one regardless! 1
Buckeye Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 I don't know any faithful male Church member who wants it either. True, though I find that many non-members, and even some LDS women, assume we do.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Now, that is just not what was taught and you know it. CFR to your claims (from the era I'm referring to.)These claims sound like the best of Glen Beck.From the new "Gospel Topics" essay on lds.org: During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage. Here's the treatment on the topic from FairMormon Answers. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 True, though I find that many non-members ... assume we do.To the extent that's true, it may be due in part to the casual use of the term "fundamentalist Mormon" in the mass media without any clarifying or explanatory content.
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 From the new "Gospel Topics" essay on lds.org: Here's the treatment on the topic from FairMormon Answers. Nope, sorry.I asked for contemporary references from GA's DURING the height of polygamy. Not what we say today.My original post (being silly) was that it was once taught that polygamy was required for exaltation. Sometimesaint claimed that was never required for exaltation except of those called to live polygamy.That is not true in the teachings of the GA's of that time. So, once again, CFR that polygamy was never taught as required for exaltation. Because it absolutely was taught at that time. 1
Recommended Posts