Utah Senate Votes Unanimously to Decriminalize Polygamy

[Calm]

I don't see it discussed on the board (used the board's search function since in the past year unless it was in .January 2019), so that probably explains why I didn't notice.  Not been paying much attention to the news since I stopped helping with the FairMormon news service.

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I honestly think if polygamy is ever legalized again on top of SSM the Church will stop performing weddings and make it sealings only.

I just can't see them picking and choosing which perfectly legal member marriages they perform and which they don't.  But I can see them continuing to limit sealings to monogamous heterosexual relationships.

Or maybe McConkie was right in his prophecy.  He was sustained as a prophet after all.  It may not be Church position but that doesn't preclude it being right.

 "The holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium."

Millennium has to start sometime.  

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Where is the outrage from the Church?  Where are the protesters carrying signs saying "Marriage is between only one man and one woman".  Where are the millions of dollars going to fight this   Where are all the slippery slope arguments claiming that now a man will marry multiple farm animals?  

I am sure it is coming any day now.  Certainly this is the second step to the entire fall of mankind and will be the beginning of the end of the world.  

Well we do have two members of the first presidency currently sealed to multiple women.  God, I mean The Church, changed it’s mind again apparently.  

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see it discussed on the board (used the board's search function since in the past year unless it was in .January 2019), so that probably explains why I didn't notice.  Not been paying much attention to the news since I stopped helping with the FairMormon news service.

Adultery and sodomy among consenting adults were also decriminalized in 2019.  See here.  And here:

Quote

Repealed 5/14/2019
76-7-103.  Adultery.

(1)	A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.

(2)	Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.

"Sodomy" was decriminalized by revising applicable statutes so that only "forcible sodomy" remains criminal (such as of a child).

Per the above news article, "{c}ourts have long held the laws are unenforceable."

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

[1]The Church couldn't do anything about a Supreme Court ruling.  To do so would require a U.S. Constitutional Amendment.  But the Church could do something about a California Supreme Court ruling by passing an proposition  that amended the State Constitution, taking away that civil right.  

[2]It is really hard to not just take what the Church did as prejudice against gay families, especially after all the other things they have instituted against gay families.  The only thing the Church could do is not allow gay children to be baptized and excommunicate any gay who is married and call them apostates.  Which is exactly what they did.   So why not just own up to it.  

1.  The Church made a conscious decision not to oppose sodomy decriminalization even before Lawrence.  There was an internal memo about the situation that was authored by Elder Oaks and circulated amongst the 12, which is available out in the anti-Mormon dark web.

2.  Interesting that you use the word “families”, rather than “couples”.

Prior to Obergefell, gay couples couldn’t adopt.  So nearly every “gay family” actually constituted of children born to a heterosexual relationship which had thereafter been blown up by a parent who unilaterally decided (s)he was no longer attracted to their spouse.

The Church wasn’t attacking “families”; it was pushing back against adulterous parents who had already wrecked their families and were trying to gaslight their wounded children into accepting their own selfish carnal-mindedness as normal.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well we do have two members of the first presidency currently sealed to multiple women.  God, I mean The Church, changed it’s mind again apparently.  

This is a substantial mischaracterization.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is a substantial mischaracterization.

Oaks and Nelson aren’t sealed to multiple women?  

[Tacenda]

I'll bet this ticks off the Kody Brown of Sisters' Wives, family. They went to the Utah State Capital awhile back and tried to get the law then changed. And they have always wanted to move back to their home state, but were afraid. Now their stuck in Arizona, and all are in different rentals until they decide what to build on land there, they left Vegas because it was getting scary to raise a family there they thought, that's where they moved to get away from feeling like they'd get hauled in to jail if they stayed in Utah.

I hope this is a good move, I hope it does what the senator thinks it will do, get them out of shadows!

Edited February 16, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Oaks and Nelson aren’t sealed to multiple women?  

Honestly, this has never bothered me. Because think of the millions of widowers who remarry, can't they be with both of their loved ones in the hereafter, that's why I think marriage will be a totally different thing. How difficult would it be to not be with someone you love?

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Honestly, this has never bothered me. Because think of the millions of widowers who remarry, can't they be with both of their loved ones in the hereafter, that's why I think marriage will be a totally different thing. How difficult would it be to not be with someone you love?

Yes, but what about widows, shouldn’t they have the same ability to be with their multiple spouses for eternity?  

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Oaks and Nelson aren’t sealed to multiple women?  

Yes, but that doesn't mean you should worry about whether in heaven they will share the same house or live in different houses.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Oaks and Nelson aren’t sealed to multiple women?  

"God, I mean The Church, changed it’s mind again apparently."

That is the substantial mischaracterization.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, but what about widows, shouldn’t they have the same ability to be with their multiple spouses for eternity?  

I would want the same for both sexes.

[smac97]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:31 PM, katherine the great said:

How does gay marriage damage heterosexual marriage?

"Gay marriage" is damaging to marriage as an institution because it radically re-defines the institution. 

Because that re-definition de-couples marriage from procreation/children.  See also here.

Because it materially diminishes the importance of fidelity within marriage.  Sexual infidelity is the norm in same-sex relationships (see here, fn. 179).  And here:

Quote

From the linked article...
...
To sum up even a bit further:

• "Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage."
• "Around half of gay relationships are open.  This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples."
• "Up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people."
• "That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret."
• "I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way ... Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous ... The pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships ..."
• “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'”
• "The burdens of the marriage equality movement ... made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique."
• “'Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity..."

Now take a look at this article from today's Salt Lake Tribune:

Quote

Gay couple on Bravo’s new season of ‘Newlyweds’ includes ex-Utahn, ex-Mormon
By SCOTT D | Pierce The Salt Lake Tribune

Television » Couple say Bravo reality series will show that their marriage is no different from others.

So gay "marriages" (male ones, anyway) are, according to the Trib article, "no different from others" and yet, according to the article in the OP, have "considerably higher" rates of infidelity/promiscuity (being "open") than heterosexual marriages ("up to 82% of them"!)?

I'm having a hard time buying what the Trib is trying to sell (that same-sex marriages are "no different" from heterosexual ones).  The astonishing rates of infidelity/promiscuity referenced in the OP's linked article shows that.

I have a friend who supports same-sex marriage because this friend believes the institution will "tame" (my friend's word) homosexuals, that is, reduce or eliminate the normative high levels of promiscuity that are - by even the reckoning of the radical gay rights folks - characteristic of the vast majority of same-sex relationships.  

I think the problem is that, as the OP article put it, if there is "a charge of sexual promiscuity" to be asserted against people in same-sex relationships, that charge is systemically valid.  

Not only that, the notion that same-sex marriage might have an ameliorating effect on this rampant promiscuity appears to be mostly wishful thinking.  

What's worse, it's not merely wishful thinking, it's a line of reasoning that is being openly rejected by the article's author.  As he put it, "what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships" is flagrant, systemic, widespread infidelity/promiscuity, but this is "not dirty" nor "hardly a secret" because "there's just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you're gay."  Words fail me.  What are we to make of a re-definition of marriage that is characterized this way?

Because it has become a brickbat with which to punish religious people who disagree with it.

Because it necessarily and by design deprives a child in a same-sex marriage household of growing up with a mother or a father.  

Because it may increase the gender and sexual disorders amongst children growing up in that environment.

Because "{a} large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family {with a mother and father} is best for children."

Because we created or incentivized or increased "same-sex parenting" without having much data on the impact it will have on children in the long term.

Because heterosexual marriage has a "stabilizing" effect on men.  I don't think the same can be said for same-sex marriage.  (See here.)

Because it, like no-fault divorce, has weakened expectations and requirements of paternal commitment.

Because it is a genuine threat to religious liberty.

Because it was intended to damage marriage.  See, e.g., here (a compilation of quotes from advocates of same-sex marriage):

Quote

CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy.  So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows:

•  "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
• "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. {Legalizing "same-sex marriage"} is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
• "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
• "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
• "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?"
• "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
• "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
• "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

So please explain.  We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts."

We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack."  We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much.  So what gives?

A few more:

• Andrew Sullivan, a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."  (Link)
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ - Michelangelo Signorile (Link)
• "In our (gay) culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute …in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing." - Gareth Kirby (Link)
• In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: "Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.) (Link)
• The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.  (Link)
• In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."  (Link)
• A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.  (Link)
• In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."  (Link)
• A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.  (Link)
• In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.  (Link)
• A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."  (Link)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll bet this ticks off the Kody Brown of Sisters' Wives, family. They went to the Utah State Capital awhile back and tried to get the law then changed. And they have always wanted to move back to their home state, but were afraid.

I think they were fabricated that "fear" to garner publicity for themselves.  Law enforcement has long turned a blind eye to "benign" polygamy in Utah.  Only polygamy that had an aggravating factor (nonconsensual, child brides, welfare fraud, etc.) garnered attention from law enforcement.

Quote

Now their stuck in Arizona, and all are in different rentals until they decide what to build on land there, they left Vegas because it was getting scary to raise a family there they thought, that's where they moved to get away from feeling like they'd get hauled in to jail if they stayed in Utah.

Again, I'm not buying this.  Polygamists have not been so imperiled for quite a while.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 16, 2020 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean you should worry about whether in heaven they will share the same house or live in different houses.  

I didn't say anything about houses.  Kind of seems funny to me to even picture physical houses in Heaven.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I would want the same for both sexes.

Makes sense on some level if you're thinking about it from the perspective of the second spouse wanting to be with their companion.  But what about the perspective of the first spouse?  What if you died and your husband married someone after your death, would you want to share your spouse with another wife?  

Personally I don't think there are any answers to these complications, but I do agree with you that we shouldn't discriminate based on sex.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"God, I mean The Church, changed it’s mind again apparently."

That is the substantial mischaracterization.

Please feel free to put forward your interpretation, which I may or may not feel differently about.  I guess its your prerogative to call my perspective a mischaracterization.  From my vantage point, its clearly a change of tactics.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/15/2020 at 7:58 AM, california boy said:

Where is the outrage from the Church?  Where are the protesters carrying signs saying "Marriage is between only one man and one woman".  Where are the millions of dollars going to fight this   Where are all the slippery slope arguments claiming that now a man will marry multiple farm animals?  

I am sure it is coming any day now.  Certainly this is the second step to the entire fall of mankind and will be the beginning of the end of the world.  

What would be the point? That fight ended with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Redefining marriage as a relationship between consenting adults made these kinds of distinctions irrelevant. We are now sliding down the slopes.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[provoman]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think they were fabricated that "fear" to garner publicity for themselves.  Law enforcement has long turned a blind eye to "benign" polygamy in Utah.  Only polygamy that had an aggravating factor (nonconsensual, child brides, welfare fraud, etc.) garnered attention from law enforcement.

Again, I'm not buying this.  Polygamists have not been so imperiled for quite a while.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is A law on the books is a law on the books, regardless of what an elected official says.   And is a law on the books is a law that can be used. 

While I understand the court ruling against the Browns, I think the Court was looking for a way to avoid having to rule in favor of the Browns relationship. Opinions can differ.

Is law enforcement prohibited from "enforcing" a law on the books. Is a Prosecutor prohibited from prosecuting a law on the books - unless there is a Nolo Recipere Doctrine?

Because the law is on the books the Browns had legitimate concerns in my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would be the point? That fight ended with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Redefining marriage as a relationship between consenting adults made these kinds of distinctions irrelevant. We are now sliding down the slopes.

I think including polygamy in the "sliding down the slope" metaphor is insulting to those who lived it at God's direction.

Either polygamy is inherently immoral in its nature or it's not.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/14/2020 at 8:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/02/14/utah-senate-votes/

They literally voted to increase the penalties and felony level just two or three years ago.  I  am curious what would cause a unanimous vote to undo that and go further.

If this passes the House and the Governor signs it Utah could be very different.

Again, unanimously!  Wow.

The Utah Constitution still bans polygamy, and that can only be changed by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature and then a vote by the people.  The penalties could easily be added back as it stands now.

[SeekerB]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:23 PM, california boy said:

Oh yeah, the "gays" ruined the institution of marriage, not the 50% divorce rate.  

I've heard that the number of marriages that succeed and only end with the death of one of the spouses is more like 65%.  There are people who marry and divorce multiple times. This group skews the numbers. I tried to find current numbers on successful marriages but can only find the much  bantered about 50% rate.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think including polygamy in the "sliding down the slope" metaphor is insulting to those who lived it at God's direction.

Either polygamy is inherently immoral in its nature or it's not.

I don't think we can say that.  Polygamy is moral when God says it is, and immoral when God says it is.  I don't think there is an inherent moral quality to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Gay marriage" was damaging to marriage as an institution because it radically re-defined it. 

Because that re-definition de-couples marriage from procreation/children.  See also here.

Because it materially diminishes the importance of fidelity within marriage.  Sexual infidelity is the norm in same-sex relationships (see here, fn. 179).  And here:

Because it has become a brickbat with which to punish religious people who disagree with it.

Because it necessarily and by design deprives a child in a same-sex marriage household of growing up with a mother or a father.  

Because it may increase the gender and sexual disorders amongst children growing up in that environment.

Because "{a} large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family {with a mother and father} is best for children."

Because we created or incentivized or increased "same-sex parenting" without having much data on the impact it will have on children in the long term.

Because heterosexual marriage has a "stabilizing" effect on men.  I don't think the same can be said for same-sex marriage.  (See here.)

Because it, like no-fault divorce, has weakened expectations and requirements of paternal commitment.

Because it is a genuine threat to religious liberty.

Because it was intended to damage marriage.  See, e.g., here (a compilation of quotes from advocates of same-sex marriage):

A few more:

• Andrew Sullivan, a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."  (Link)
• "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ - Michelangelo Signorile (Link)
• "In our (gay) culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute …in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing." - Gareth Kirby (Link)
• In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: "Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.) (Link)
• The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.  (Link)
• In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."  (Link)
• A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.  (Link)
• In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."  (Link)
• A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.  (Link)
• In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.  (Link)
• A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."  (Link)

Thanks,

-Smac

Given your history of attacking gay couples, certainly not a surprise to me.  Completely ignoring the infidelity of straight couples both in and outside of marriage.  

Quote

An issue of Marriage and Divorce journal also stated that 70% of all Americans engage in some kind of affair sometime during their marital life.

Completely ignoring that a lot of straight marriages do not include procreation.  

Completely ignoring that gay marriage can also have a stabilizing effect on gay families.  Showing no proof that gay marriage has had even the slightest effect on straight marriage.  

So sick of members of the Church and their hypocrisy attacking gay couples and their children, justifying their attacks in the name of God.  Your attack on gay marriage does nothing but reinforces the belief in the public's mind  that the Mormon Church is homophobic.  

Edited February 17, 2020 by california boy