Stone holm Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Incest can bring about deformities in children. No logical defense against incest if one or both partners make themselves sterile through surgical means.Actually a few Courts have held people liable for incest where it was a steparent relationship, there is also a type of fiduciary like relationship that is invoked to preclude sex
Bernard Gui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Incest can bring about deformities in children. No logical defense against incest if one or both partners make themselves sterile through surgical means.Or remain celibate. Or use birth control. Or use donors. Or...........
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Incest usually involves some means of duress.
ERayR Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Incest usually involves some means of duress. Not so my friend. It may or it may not. It is incest regardless of duress. incest[in-sest] noun 1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons. 2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Not so my friend. It may or it may not. It is incest regardless of duress. incest[in-sest] noun 1. sexual intercourse between closely related persons. 2. the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden. Didn't say that incest was duress. Just that it usually involves some form of duress. It is power play. Those that have the power get to play.
Bernard Gui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Actually a few Courts have held people liable for incest where it was a steparent relationship, there is also a type of fiduciary like relationship that is invoked to preclude sexPlaying the devil's advocate....... If marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults, why should stepparent relationships be sanctioned?For example, Woody Allen. Edited July 8, 2015 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Didn't say that incest was duress. Just that it usually involves some form of duress. It is power play. Those that have the power get to play.Not if they are both consenting adults.... Let me make it clear than I am firmly planted on the side of natural marriage between a man and a woman. Edited July 8, 2015 by Bernard Gui
Stone holm Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Playing the devil's advocate....... If marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults, why should stepparent relationships be sanctioned?For example, Woody Allen. Guess, I must be a devil...because don't think if it is consenting between adults that it should be sanctioned. Was just stating where the law is trending and its not trending in that direction because of SSM.
Bernard Gui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Guess, I must be a devil...because don't think if it is consenting between adults that it should be sanctioned. Was just stating where the law is trending and its not trending in that direction because of SSM.The problem is that marriage has now been redefined as a union between 2 consenting adults. That opens the door. I think the trend is just the opposite of what propose.
Yirgacheffe Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 This is where raw statistics break down. I'm pretty sure I'd have more than one wife if commanded. My wife has already identified friends who were abandoned by faithless husbands, and she insists on me taking one of them into the family if she dies. Others would choose not to do so because they have their agency. Just as it always was.Why doesn't she insist on taking them in now? And why is she so certain that no man will love them?
Stargazer Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Technically, it's more accurate to say that I do not have a problem with it being legalized. I am personally opposed to polygamy. But, I think citizens of the U.S. should be allowed to participate in polygamy under the 1st Amendment. So my short answer is: religious freedom. So why are you opposed? Why? Well, this scripture: "No man can serve two (or more) masters, er... mistresses." I have a hard enough time keeping ONE wife happy! You know what's going to happen with TWO?? Early death from exhaustion keeping BOTH of them in shoes. Besides, after that shoe drops, you seem to be missing the other shoe, which is "Paint Your Wagon". Remember that old musical? If HE can have TWO wives, why can't SHE have TWO husbands? The third shoe to drop will be this one: what is the point of marriage anyway, if it's no longer an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman, but is a free for all between all comers, then why even bother? Edited July 9, 2015 by Stargazer
Yirgacheffe Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Irrelevant. The LDS do not claim that drinking alcohol is sinful. They do claim that if you make covenants with God not to drink alcohol then it is sinful to do so. . John the Baptist did not drink alcohol, and Bishops are not to be give to drink. Both in the Bible.They seem to have said just that, alcohol though legal is contrary to God's law in the letter recently sent, isn't breaking God's law sin? THE COUNCIL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex MarriageThe Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world
thesometimesaint Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Not if they are both consenting adults.... Let me make it clear than I am firmly planted on the side of natural marriage between a man and a woman. Duress is the opposite of consenting adults.SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress I am too. However what two or more consenting adults do between the bedsheets is none of my business. It's between their God and them.
thesometimesaint Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) They seem to have said just that, alcohol though legal is contrary to God's law in the letter recently sent, isn't breaking God's law sin? Of course it is. Is it sinful for a Catholic to drink alcohol? Was it sinful for Jesus to drink alcohol? I chose to become a LDS 44 years ago, and have not drank any alcohol since. Whether it is legal for me to drink alcohol is another question. Edited July 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint
KevinG Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Why doesn't she insist on taking them in now? And why is she so certain that no man will love them? We share everything we can (yard work, outings, helping with pinewood derby cars, etc.) except the intimacy of marriage. And this isn't about no man loving them... it is about no man having stood up and been honorable to date. She would love nothing more than to see a righteous man provide all things for them. 1
Stargazer Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Both scriptural and secular. Secular? Do the math. Statistics of birth rates show more males than females are born. Even church stats show about equal numbers of males to females. If polygamy returned, who gets to have many wives and who gets no wife at all? This is where raw statistics break down. I'm pretty sure I'd have more than one wife if commanded. My wife has already identified friends who were abandoned by faithless husbands, and she insists on me taking one of them into the family if she dies. Others would choose not to do so because they have their agency. Just as it always was. My wife did something similar. She identified a sister in our ward whom she likes but who has never been married -- she was the initial candidate if we were ever asked to enter plural marriage. She also said that she was acceptable to her as a future sister wife in the unlikely event my wife were to die before me. She hasn't said much about this since she was determined to be terminal. Well, I take that back. She did bring it up, but now thinks that the age difference between me and this other sister might be too large. I don't really want to think about this too much, though. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) A polygamist in Montana is about ready to start the process that may lead to legal polygamy Make Polygamy Legal for religious freedom. Utah has been persecuting the poor polygamists too much. Edited July 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Recommended Posts