Utah Senate Votes Unanimously to Decriminalize Polygamy

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

We're not afraid of it.  We just hate it. We want it gone and would prefer that it never existed except as a fleeting thought that nobody should ever pay any attention to other than to think that yes we should love everybody and okay we can consider people of our same sex to be sexually attractive but no we should never want to actually have sexual relations with someone of the same sex and the thought of actually doing that should simply be dismissed without dwelling upon it.

No one is getting your message that members of the church love those that are gay.  Posts like what SMAC posted where he has scoured the internet to find everything he can that is negative about gays that are married whether true or not, just reinforce a complete lack of love and understanding towards the LGBT community from Church members.  Here is a link to a PEW survey that found 83% of those in the LGBT community think the Church is unfriendly towards them.  This is the highest number of all religions in the world except Muslins.  And the Mormon church is just one percentage below them.   Not feeling a lot of love there.

 

Quote

 

Among the public[edit]

The controversial policies for LGBT persons has made an impression on the general public. A 2003 nationwide Pew Research Center survey of over 1,000 LGBT Americans found that 83% of them said the LDS church was "generally unfriendly towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people" surpassed only by "the Muslim religion" at 84%.^[160] 

 

 

If you want to chastise someone for a post, why the heck are you not chastising SMAC for his homophobic post.  And yes, when you scour the internet to find every bit of dirt you can on gay marriage including personal opinions with no basis of facts and then repeatedly post that dirt, then that is the definition of anti-gay homophobia.

To put this in perspective that you might understand, what if someone scoured the internet to find the most negative comments about the Mormon Church.  Would you call that anti-Mormon and an unfair portrayal of Mormonism?  Of course you would.  

 

Quote

You guys really need to stop the fear talk.  It is not a fear.  Just admit that most other people don't like it, even though you do.

This isn't about not liking or not liking gay marriage.  I couldn't care less how people feel or how the Church feels about gay marriage.  What I am sick and tired of is the cut and past anti gay homophobic posts SMAC seems to need to post, even when the question asked of him has nothing to do with what he posts.  He looks for opportunities to post this crap.  It is not productive and certainly does not accomplish your goal of showing more love to the LGBT community.

I find it absolutely ironic that you address a post to ME about stopping the fear. but are deafeningly silent to the person who's post started this whole discussion and whose post is designed to stir up fear and prejudice against the LGBT community.  So far, everyone, including you have given him a free pass to post his anti-gay crap.  Kind of reinforces what the PEW study found doesn't it.  Mormons preach this "we love and respect everyone including gays".  But most still feel the LGBT community is fair game for smears and disparaging remarks.

Inflammatory comments: Poster removed

 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you call that anti-Mormon and an unfair portrayal of Mormonism?

I sure wouldn't call it mormonphobic

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/14/2020 at 10:52 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.

My guess is they did so because Church HQ suggested they do so.

Other reasons might be demographics - UT fell below replacement level and people migrating from other areas who already have existing plural families; should they be denied the continuation of thier family despite the fact that they will simply continue living the way they were before they moved here?

My last guess - laughable, I know - is that the Senate actually read the freedom of religion part of the Constitution.

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/15/2020 at 10:58 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.  

 

On 2/15/2020 at 3:18 PM, katherine the great said:

Or maybe there was a take home lesson from the California debacle. 🤷‍♀️

Or perhaps the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the re-institution of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

I'd actually consider moving back to UT if that was the case, and that's really saying something.

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/15/2020 at 8:57 PM, JLHPROF said:

But I can see them continuing to limit sealings to monogamous heterosexual relationships.

Doubt it. 

Hetero-limited, yes. Monogamous-limited, nope.

Jubilee Year -  Hinge Point - etc.

At the end of the day, there's really only a certain amount of time before the Savior returns.

And a certain amount of spirit children who need to obtain physical bodies.

And, other than cloning, not too many ways to procreate - to reach that amount - via that now-decriminalized, formerly practiced marriage style.

[provoman]

43 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

 

Or perhaps the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the re-institution of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

I'd actually consider moving back to UT if that was the case, and that's really saying something.

Dont start packing yet, there is that pesky Utah Constitution Art 3

[Calm]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I'd actually consider moving back to UT if that was the case,

Why?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Doubt it. 

Hetero-limited, yes. Monogamous-limited, nope.

Jubilee Year -  Hinge Point - etc.

At the end of the day, there's really only a certain amount of time before the Savior returns.

And a certain amount of spirit children who need to obtain physical bodies.

And, other than cloning, not too many ways to procreate - to reach that amount - via that now-decriminalized, formerly practiced marriage style.

Children will be born during the Millenium and if the only purpose is making bodies, monogamy is the way to go as polygamy results in less children per mother.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Or perhaps the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the re-institution of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

The legislature also decriminalized adultery and fornication in 2019.  Are you suggesting that the "the Senate vote is being made in preparation for the {legitimizing of adultery and fornication} within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints"?

Pretty absurd, right?

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

On a marginally related note:

Quote

UK Court: Sharia Marriages Not Valid Under English Law
by Soeren Kern
February 19, 2020 at 5:00 am

• "We sought to inform the Court of Appeal that many minority women, especially Muslim women, are deceived or coerced by abusive husbands into only having a religious marriage, which deprives them of their financial rights when the marriage breaks down...." — Southall Black Sisters, an advocacy group for South Asian women, February 14, 2020.

• In February 2018, an independent review of the application of Sharia law in England and Wales...recommended changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that would require Muslims to conduct civil marriages before or at the same time as the nikah ceremony. This would bring Islamic marriage in line with Christian and Jewish marriage in the eyes of British law.

• "The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases." — Council of Europe (COE), January 2019.

• As of now, neither the British government nor the British Parliament has introduced legislation that would require Muslims to conduct civil marriages before or at the same time as the nikah ceremony...[but] The court's decision effectively reaffirms the principle that immigrants who settle in Britain must conform to British law, rather than the other way around.

The Court of Appeal, the second-highest court in England and Wales after the Supreme Court, has ruled that the Islamic marriage contract, known as nikah in Arabic, is not valid under English law.

The landmark ruling has far-reaching implications. On the one hand, the decision strikes a blow against efforts to enshrine this aspect of Sharia law into the British legal system. On the other hand, it leaves potentially thousands of Muslim women in Britain without legal recourse in the case of divorce.

The case involves an estranged couple, Nasreen Akhter and Mohammed Shabaz Khan, both of Pakistani heritage, who took part in a nikah ceremony officiated by an imam in front of 150 guests at a restaurant in London in December 1998.

In November 2016, Akhter, a 48-year-old attorney, filed for a divorce, allegedly because Khan wanted to take a second wife. Khan, a 48-year-old property developer, tried to block Akhter's divorce application on the basis that they were not legally married under English law. Khan said that they were married "under Sharia law only" and sued to prevent Akhtar from claiming money or property from him in the same way a legally married spouse could.

Akhter said that the couple, who have four children, intended to follow the nikah with a civil marriage ceremony that would be compliant with English law. No civil ceremony ever took place, however, because, according to Akhter, Khan refused.

On July 31, 2018, the London-based Family Division of the High Court ruled that the nikah fell within the scope of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which establishes three categories of marriage: valid, void and non-marriage. Valid marriages may be ended by a decree of divorce; void marriages may be ended by a decree of nullity; non-marriages cannot be legally ended because legally the marriage never existed.

The high court determined that the Akhter-Khan marriage was a "void marriage" because it had been "entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage." It ruled that Akhtar was therefore entitled to a "decree of nullity of marriage."

The Attorney General, on behalf of the British government, filed an appeal on the basis that it was wrong to recognize the marriage as being "void" rather than a "non-marriage."

On February 14, 2020, the London-based Court of Appeals overturned the High Court's decision and ruled that nikah marriages are "non-marriages" within the scope of English law.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Children will be born during the Millenium and if the only purpose is making bodies, monogamy is the way to go as polygamy results in less children per mother.

Why would polygamy result in less child per mother?  If I want 30 kids, the best way to get that is having multiple wives.  One wife making 30 kids is kind of hard.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would polygamy result in less child per mother?  If I want 30 kids, the best way to get that is having multiple wives.  One wife making 30 kids is kind of hard.

I think you just answered your own question.  If you wanted 30 kids and had only one wife to reproduce yourself with, that would mean that one wife would be reproducing those 30 kids with you.  If you had 3 wives, however, that would be less kids from each of your 3 wives.

What I want is to reproduce myself with my wife as many times as we can do it, in the next life, while being in no hurry about it.  I want limitless reproductions of her with me and me with her, boys and girls, as many as we can possibly have throughout all of eternity.

We're kinda done, for now.  We're both kinda old and we've decided to just take a break until we are resurrected.   And then no big hurry from that point on. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would polygamy result in less child per mother?  If I want 30 kids, the best way to get that is having multiple wives.  One wife making 30 kids is kind of hard.

Because each wife has less time with the husband and therefore isn't as likely to get pregnant.  There is a limited amount of time during a woman's cycle where she can get pregnant.  Having fewer sexual opportunities means lowering the probability of pregnancies.

This has been demonstrated through research.

You are thinking from the man's POV.

[Damien the Leper]

I, for one, am good with polygamy, polygny, polyandry and polyamory. 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Because each wife has less time with the husband and therefore isn't as likely to get pregnant.  There is a limited amount of time during a woman's cycle where she can get pregnant.  Having fewer sexual opportunities means lowering the probability of pregnancies.

This has been demonstrated through research.

You are thinking from the man's POV.

That's what schedules are for.  It would be a good idea for a man to keep track of time, though, perhaps with a calendar and reminders from Alexa.

Wife #3 not ready yet?

How about wife #1 ?

Wife # 2 ?

Hmm, maybe I would just need more wives.

As long as God was okay with that, of course.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Ahab

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Because each wife has less time with the husband and therefore isn't as likely to get pregnant.  There is a limited amount of time during a woman's cycle where she can get pregnant.  Having fewer sexual opportunities means lowering the probability of pregnancies.

This has been demonstrated through research.

You are thinking from the man's POV.

I am familiar with the research.  But I think that research is probably dated, looking at a time period when husbands and plural wives often lived far apart or in hiding.

Based on the polygamous families of my acquaintance these days, their wives have far more children per woman than monogamous relationships.

I personally know several plural wives with 8 kids plus.  I even know a few in the double digits.  I'm not sure that research reflects reality today. 

Look at Kody Brown's wives, or any of the public tv polygamists.  Or that daughter of the Utah Senator who just left her plural marriage - 13 children.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

think that research is probably dated, looking at a time period when husbands and plural wives often lived far apart or in hiding.

It includes other cultures' polygamy where they are all living together, not just the American version.

Modern day families that use birth control will throw off stats.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

That's what schedules are for.  It would be a good idea for a man to keep track of time, though, perhaps with a calendar and reminders from Alexa.

Better yet, just freeze his sperm and then a wife has it available anytime she feels like getting pregnant.

Let's roll those kids out like mass production!  Got to get those bodies up and running.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

That's what schedules are for.  It would be a good idea for a man to keep track of time, though, perhaps with a calendar and reminders from Alexa.

Wife #3 not ready yet?

How about wife #1 ?

Wife # 2 ?

Hmm, maybe I would just need more wives.

As long as God was okay with that, of course.

Are you saying that God would be ok with treating women like breeding stock with no need to spend time with their husbands other than to have get pregnant?

 

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that God would be ok with treating women like breeding stock with no need to spend time with their husbands other than to have get pregnant?

 

No, i wasn't saying that.  Any other follow up questions?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, i wasn't saying that.  Any other follow up questions?

If you weren't saying that polygamous husbands should schedule things so that he's only sleeping with a wife when she is fertile, what were you saying?  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you weren't saying that polygamous husbands should schedule things so that he's only sleeping with a wife when she is fertile, what were you saying?  

That if women are fertile only sometimes then it would help a man to know when his wives are fertile and the fact that one woman/wife isn't fertile at a particular time wouldn't necessarily mean that another of his wives wasn't fertile at that time.

So for a man with multiple wives, it would just be a matter of scheduling when and which of his wives to have sex with.  And no I am not saying that no romance should be involved.  I think they should spend some quality time together, maybe even several days at a time with none of his other wives around.  It's not like they would have to go everywhere together or do everything together.

Any other questions?  Do you not see how there would be at least one good way to work everything out so that everyone is happy and every one of a man's wives is able to reproduce children with her husband when they both decide they want to do that?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That if women are fertile only sometimes then it would help a man to know when his wives are fertile and the fact that one woman/wife isn't fertile at a particular time wouldn't necessarily mean that another of his wives wasn't fertile at that time.

So for a man with multiple wives, it would just be a matter of scheduling when and which of his wives to have sex with.  And no I am not saying that no romance should be involved.  I think they should spend some quality time together, maybe even several days at a time with none of his other wives around.  It's not like they would have to go everywhere together or do everything together.

Any other questions?  Do you not see how there would be at least one good way to work everything out so that everyone is happy and every one of a man's wives is able to reproduce children with her husband when they both decide they want to do that?

So scheduling with fertility as the primary determinant....but one can include romance if one wants to.  That's not going to lead women to feel like breeding stock.  

And if they are all fertile at the same time?  Women living together often have their cycles synch up.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

So scheduling with fertility as the primary determinant....but one can include romance if one wants to.  That's not going to lead women to feel like breeding stock.  

Not necessarily.  No more than a man would feel like a stud.  These are people who supposedly love each other and want to be together, at least sometimes.  And when people of celestial glory are involved that means the women supposedly love each other, too.

We're all brothers and sisters and if Tom wants to play with Jane but not Cindy or Amber right now Cindy and Amber can play together doing whatever good women do when they are together and that would leave Tom and Jane to do something together, just the two of them.

Did you grow up on a farm or ranch or something?  Can you think in no other terms than to think of a stud bull around breeding stock?  We are people and animals are different than us.  Maybe you just won't be able to understand unless you experience it, if  you ever do.

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if they are all fertile at the same time?  Women living together often have their cycles synch up.

Then again, it's just a matter of scheduling.  And sometimes I'm sure none of the women will be "in the mood".  So then the man will need to find something else to do.

[blueglass]

On 2/16/2020 at 4:47 PM, hope_for_things said:

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

A little context on what I was referencing.  Oaks got in a little trouble last conference when he took a hypothetical, actually no a real question asked by a sincere lady about the afterlife and polygamy. 

Quote:  "She asked this question: would she be able to have her own house in the next life, or would she have to live with her husband and his first wife? I just told her to trust the Lord."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/17oaks?lang=eng

Oaks could have responded, "I just told her to trust in her Heavenly Mothers".  For some reason he didn't. 

Lesson learned: Watch out - your letter to an apostle could become a joke in general conference. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by blueglass