Polyamory Approved

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

After moving to Utah, I've meet, made friends, and even worked with several members of churches who were formerly associated with the LDS Faith, view themselves as the 'true' Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and continue to practice plural marriage, and who believe that main existing LDS Church apostatized after wrongly abandoning plural marriage.   They view Wilford Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto ending the practice as a non-divenely-approved capitulation to the secular government and an  abandonment of God's celestial marital law.  

Unlike many stereotypes, these individuals are educated, working, white collar professionals.  Those I have met, worked with, and befriended include both professional male coworkers who have multiple wives at home, and professional female coworkers who share one husband with other wives at home.  Most choose to keep it on the down low, unless or until they feel comfortable opening up about their families at home.  All of them support minimal marital age requirements and the concept of consent as integral to their familial and marital relationships, as well as a requirement to be approved and blessed by the Elders of their congregations.

I had many great conversations with these devoutly religious individuals in the years leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage (some 5-10 years ago, during 'the thick' of the SSM movement and much of it's controversy), and we found ourselves in circumstances where we could empathize with one another.  Ironically, despite my status as the great grandson of an LDS polygamist who had to flee from persecution by the US Government with his three wives to the Mormon Mexican colonies after the 1890 manifesto, the members of these modern LDS 'splinter groups' were more sympathetic to civil marriage equality than devoutly-LDS members of my own family (my brothers, mostly) and modern LDS communities.  Strange times call for strange bedfellows.

Through listening to these individuals, who upheld minimal marital age and legalized consent, supported education and equal working opportunities for both men and women (coordinating family decisions together with their husband, many of the wives would 'divide and conquer' domestic and vocational responsibilities, with some choosing to stay home and raise their collective children while others worked in offices to help provide for their entire family), I was reminded that stereotypes are not universal, and we cannot truly understand those in who's shoes we have not walked.  It is because of them that I support legal recognition of plural marriages, and I learned to share their belief that were the government to stop persecuting and prosecuting such families, and instead bringing plural marriages under the umbrella of government regulation, we would be doing a service to stopping those that 'hide in the shadows,' break the law, and allow abusive, underage marriages to continue.

I think the legalization of plural marriage scare the general LDS population even more than SSM or even polyamory. I think there is an underlying fear that some day the church will return to that and so I feel like many overcompensate in their opposition to "less-traditional" marriage arrangements. The possibility of returning to Polygamy scares the LDS population like nothing else.

[Daniel2]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you know what age was most suggested?  Keeping it as is or some changes?

Since the pedophilic marriage argument seems to be based on trying to lower the minimal age rather than remove it altogether from what little I have seen (more from critics than anyone actually promoting it as well), it seems the slippery slope of it exists would likely focus on that, a slow lowering of minimal age. 

The individuals I know abide by and support the law as written in any given state regarding the legal age of consent and marriage.

And to be clear: the members I know of these 'splinter LDS' (for lack of a better term) groups don't believe in or support pedophilic marriage; they believe in consensual plural marriage only after the legal age of consent is reached.  They have no interest in lowering the legal age of consent or in legalizing pedophilia.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the legalization of plural marriage scare the general LDS population even more than SSM or even polyamory. I think there is an underlying fear that some day the church will return to that and so I feel like many overcompensate in their opposition to "less-traditional" marriage arrangements. The possibility of returning to Polygamy scares the LDS population like nothing else.

I agree with what you wrote here.

Sadly, any of those engaged in these 'overcompensated' efforts to stop others from practicing plural marriage as part of others' religious beliefs are employing tactics that would have likewise prevented our own LDS ancestors from fully practicing their own religious beliefs, as well.

I think that's also where some aspects of Californiaboy's comments about hypocrisy come into play, as well (correct me if I'm wrong or feel free to comment on your own, CB). 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This topic has run its course. Time for the mods to shut it down, please.

I am sure this thread didn't go as planned in your attempt to vilify the LGBT community for only demanding that their civil rights be upheld by the law of the land and had NOTHING to do with multiple spouse marriage.  Those days are past.  You might have gotten away with it during the passage of Prop 8, but people now see the fear campaign against the LGBT community as condemnable.  The high fives Church members gave themselves are not so celebrated as they used to be.  Time has not been kind to the actions of the Mormons. 

Did you really think it would be ok for a Church that once practiced multiple spouse marriage and was persecuted for it would now be in a good position to  once again blame the LGBT community and throw rocks at another group who is demanding the exact same treatment?  Could you not see the hypocrisy in that BEFORE you started this thread?

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you know what age was most suggested?  Keeping it as is or some changes?

Since the pedophilic marriage argument seems to be based on trying to lower the minimal age rather than remove it altogether from what little I have seen (more from critics than anyone actually promoting it as well), it seems the slippery slope of it exists would likely focus on that, a slow lowering of minimal age. 

There are some proactive steps we can take the other way. One step would be to raise the minimum marriage age if you are in a state that has a low one or perhaps a federal law that ties federal funding to certain marriage age minimums. Thankfully in recent years most of the worst marriage age minimums have been pushed upwards. North Carolina and Alaska need to get with the program.

[The Unclean Deacon]

When we let go of our small religious system lens, and go with the data we find several interesting things.

1.) Monogamy is believed by many anthropologists and sociologists to be fairly new within human history.
2.) many places in the world older than our western thought and eastern monotheistic religions have been practicing something other than monogamy for long before recorded history
3.) Monogamy isn't working that well
4.) While societies have created expected arbitrary constructs on what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and not, humans vary greatly and constructs built on "consent" and void of manipulation and coercion and harm are better principles upon which to build and encourage people to grow and lean into healthy and responsible.

I would suggest a few books
Sapiens : by Yuval Hariri
Sex at Dawn: by Christopher Ryan
Mating in Captivity" by Esther Peril

 

[The Nehor]

On 7/8/2020 at 12:19 PM, The Unclean Deacon said:

When we let go of our small religious system lens, and go with the data we find several interesting things.

1.) Monogamy is believed by many anthropologists and sociologists to be fairly new within human history.
2.) many places in the world older than our western thought and eastern monotheistic religions have been practicing something other than monogamy for long before recorded history
3.) Monogamy isn't working that well
4.) While societies have created expected arbitrary constructs on what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and not, humans vary greatly and constructs built on "consent" and void of manipulation and coercion and harm are better principles upon which to build and encourage people to grow and lean into healthy and responsible.

I would suggest a few books
Sapiens : by Yuval Hariri
Sex at Dawn: by Christopher Ryan
Mating in Captivity" by Esther Peril

 

"Small religious system lens"? What does your religion's membership have to be to escape that trap?

1. Not really. There are generally exceptions to monogamy but virtually every culture in history has had rules on who can have sex with whom. Monogamy was the norm though in some cultures the elite could have something else. So could cheaters of course.

2. Eastern monotheistic religions? Most eastern religion are polytheistic. Zoroastrianism is sort of an exception if you qualify it as eastern. Islam is a western religion, it is a Christian splinter group.

3. The idea that group marriages work better than monogamy is held only by those who desperately want such an arrangement or have never seen such an arrangement. They are almost uniformly screwed up.

4. First you appeal to history having different forms of marriage and then you want relationships void of coercion? Historically outside of smaller tribal societies (and sometimes not even then) people did not choose their spouse. Women especially did not and many times men did not either. The Western European system of mutually selecting your own spouse at a relatively mature age (18+ generally) is a pretty recent phenomenon. Appealing to the past means appealing to arranged marriages and young marriages.

[Kenngo1969]

Some of us would like to practice mono-amory, let alone poly-amory!!!

[Islander]

On 7/3/2020 at 3:35 PM, USU78 said:

😥😥😥

Here is the start. It's a hail Mary around the sex offense registry for those found guilty of having sex with minors. The proverbial slippery slope.

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/ca-democrats-author-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/

[Tacenda]

On 7/8/2020 at 11:19 AM, The Unclean Deacon said:

When we let go of our small religious system lens, and go with the data we find several interesting things.

1.) Monogamy is believed by many anthropologists and sociologists to be fairly new within human history.
2.) many places in the world older than our western thought and eastern monotheistic religions have been practicing something other than monogamy for long before recorded history
3.) Monogamy isn't working that well
4.) While societies have created expected arbitrary constructs on what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and not, humans vary greatly and constructs built on "consent" and void of manipulation and coercion and harm are better principles upon which to build and encourage people to grow and lean into healthy and responsible.

I would suggest a few books
Sapiens : by Yuval Hariri
Sex at Dawn: by Christopher Ryan
Mating in Captivity" by Esther Peril

 

Why number 3? Probably putting words in your mouth, but do you think men can't keep with one partner? Because I don't believe that at all. There was a statement by one of the early leaders, can't recall which one or how true, that said men are better living polygamy so that they won't go to prostitutes or something. I think that was the lamest thing ever because it's just an excuse to say men can't stick with one woman. Maybe immoral men can't keep to one partner though.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Tacenda

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Here is the start. It's a hail Mary around the sex offense registry for those found guilty of having sex with minors. The proverbial slippery slope.

https://californiaglobe.com/legislature/ca-democrats-author-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/

The slippery slope if you are defining it as staying off the sex offender registry is already there for opposite sex sexual behaviour. I agree it discriminates, but it should be made stricter not loosen up imo...at least not ten years. 5 maybe. 10 years means it could be a 15 year old and a 25 year old. No form of sexual activity between those two ages in our culture where 15 years olds are mostly dependents should be legal imo. 
 

One site had stats at 95% female victims for statutory rape, possibly not all male-female, but the vast majority would be (over 99%).***  So acting as if adding sex acts that are the only option for male-male is suddenly opening up the slippery slope is ignoring the current law unless you believe predators shouldn’t be held as accountable for choosing girls as victims.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf

***there may be less reporting percentage wise of male-male statutory rape

Edited August 18, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The slippery slope is already there for opposite sex sexual behaviour. I agree it discriminates, but it should be made stricter not loosen up imo...at least not ten years. 5 maybe. 10 years means it could be a 15 year old and a 25 year old. No form of sexual activity between those two ages in our culture where 15 years olds are mostly dependents should be legal imo. 

Wiener is a wiener!!!!!

[Ramus Stein]

On 7/2/2020 at 8:23 PM, bluebell said:

To me, that quote sounds good in theory, but falls apart when you consider that the government is routinely asked to get involved in the business of the dissolution of a family. 

If we don't want the government being involved in the creation of families, or the legitimizing of families, then we need to keep them out of families period.  I disagree with the "I don't want the government to have a say in my family, until I'm trying to get divorced and I need the government to keep my ex-spouse from taking all of my money and to decide who my kids get to live with" stuff.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.  If you want a government free relationship then that should apply to every aspect of that relationship, including the ending of it.

Yes, the government is involved in legal contracts and settling property disputes. 

[sheilauk]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Here is the start. It's a hail Mary around the sex offense registry for those found guilty of having sex with minors. The proverbial slippery slope.

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

The slippery slope is already there for opposite sex sexual behaviour. I agree it discriminates, but it should be made stricter not loosen up imo...at least not ten years. 5 maybe. 10 years means it could be a 15 year old and a 25 year old. No form of sexual activity between those two ages in our culture where 15 years olds are mostly dependents should be legal imo. 

 

I don't see it as a hail Mary.   It's an attempt to equalise the legal response to certain acts.   In the brief details given, it appears to me that the proposal could be better worded,  but the intent is sound enough.  The sexual activity outlined remains illegal,  namely any form of sexual activity with a minor.  The issue is sex offender registration and whether it should be mandatory.  At present,  one form of sexual activity means registration isn't mandatory, with all other forms it is.   That to me is inconsistent and should be amended. The law should be consistent. Being on the sex offender register is extremely onerous and often has severe consequences.  But a young adult who has consensual sex with someone just a year younger can end up being on it.  So, I do agree that there are circumstances where it should not be mandatory to go on the sex register.  It must be truly consensual,  without grooming or coercion  (and it is possible to discern this) and the age differences shouldn't be too wide (in part,  the wider the age difference the more likely there is grooming and the greater the responsibility on the adult to not break the law).  I agree with Calm that 10 years is too wide a gap and 5 would be more realistic and also where the perpetrator is also a minor. But, whatever the specifics of the circumstances which allow a judge to have discretion rather than have to place someone on the register, it should be the same for all forms of sexual activity.  In the UK we've had similar legislation for some years, and it applies to all sexual activity,  without us going down a slippery slope. If anything,  attitudes towards sexual activity with minors have hardened.

[Calm]

It is bizarre that somehow it is more acceptable for adult men to have sex with minor girls than minor boys as long as that sex is ‘normal’.  Rape is rape. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Calm

[sheilauk]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is bizarre that somehow it is more acceptable for adult men to have sex with minor girls than minor boys as long as that sex is ‘normal’.  Rape is rape. 

Indeed. The method / type / form of sexual activity, or the gender of the perpetrator, should make no difference to the consequences. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by sheilauk

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The slippery slope if you are defining it as staying off the sex offender registry is already there for opposite sex sexual behaviour. I agree it discriminates, but it should be made stricter not loosen up imo...at least not ten years. 5 maybe. 10 years means it could be a 15 year old and a 25 year old. No form of sexual activity between those two ages in our culture where 15 years olds are mostly dependents should be legal imo. 
 

One site had stats at 95% female victims for statutory rape, possibly not all male-female, but the vast majority would be (over 99%).***  So acting as if adding sex acts that are the only option for male-male is suddenly opening up the slippery slope is ignoring the current law unless you believe predators shouldn’t be held as accountable for choosing girls as victims.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf

***there may be less reporting percentage wise of male-male statutory rape

Pedophilia need not be gender specific. The issue here is that once the legal standard is abandoned and a "loophole" created, many will there be that find it and, soon enough, it will be "normalized" and the legal standard abandoned in favor of more "progressive" measures. Look at the proponents, what worldview they herald and they propose that consensual sex, even with minors, should be looked at differently. That is just an end run around existing laws that eventually, in CA, will culminate with the prosecutorial discretion (at first) and (later) decriminalization of pedophilia. We'll be around to see it. Bet on it. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Islander

[sheilauk]

9 minutes ago, Islander said:

Pedophilia need not be gender specific. The issue here is that once the legal standard is abandoned and a "loophole" created, many will there be that find it and, soon enough, it will be "normalized" and the legal standard abandoned in favor of more "progressive" measures. Look at the proponents, what worldview they herald and they propose that consensual sex, even with minors, should be looked at differently. That is just an end run around existing laws that eventually, in CA, will culminate with the prosecutorial discretion (at first) and (later) decriminalization of pedophilia. We'll be around to see it. Bet on it. 

The "loophole" already exists for one type of act.  Are you in favour of getting rid of any form of discretion regarding registration?   Remember, this isn't about whether or not the act is illegal but about the consequences /punishment for that act.  Should an 18 year old young adult be subject to the stigma of registration for having consensual sex with a 17 year old who may be in their school class? Punishment of crimes is often not a matter of absolutes and doesn't result in the country heading down slippery slopes.  Every case is different and calls for judicial discretion in sentencing. But the application of such discretions should be consistent and not disciminatory.   At present,  in california, this discretion is inconsistent and discriminatory.  It needs changing, (to either all or nothing).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

The issue here is that once the legal standard is abandoned and a "loophole" created,

Read the article. The loophole is already there for sexual intercourse.  

Edited August 18, 2020 by Calm

[Islander]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Read the article. The loophole is already there for sexual intercourse.  

I am referring to the "discretion" of the court. In my opinion, it is the beginning of a path to total prosecutorial discretion on sex with minors.  If it passes, pretty soon the DA will make a determination on whether to prosecute a case.  Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random. When it comes to legislating about sexual behavior, the ultimate goal is always legalization of __________ (you fill in the blank). 

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am referring to the "discretion" of the court. In my opinion, it is the beginning of a path to total prosecutorial discretion on sex with minors.  If it passes, pretty soon the DA will make a determination on whether to prosecute a case.  Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random. When it comes to legislating about sexual behavior, the ultimate goal is always legalization of __________ (you fill in the blank). 

Their determination will be focused on at what age a person is legally considered to be old enough to choose whether or not to have sexual relations.  The current legal standard is age 18, so it would be illegal if anyone was younger than that unless there was some other law that allowed for an exception.

[provoman]

22 hours ago, sheilauk said:

 

In the US minors are  not legally capable of consent.

Otherwise, it does not make sense that specific acts are mandated for registry but others are not. I agree with you and Calm

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by provoman

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

I am referring to the "discretion" of the court. In my opinion, it is the beginning of a path to total prosecutorial discretion on sex with minors.  If it passes, pretty soon the DA will make a determination on whether to prosecute a case.  Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random. When it comes to legislating about sexual behavior, the ultimate goal is always legalization of __________ (you fill in the blank). 

What do you mean by " Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random."  What is the agenda and why can you assume such an agenda based on who is advocating this bill?

[Islander]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

What do you mean by " Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random."  What is the agenda and why can you assume such an agenda based on who is advocating this bill?

If you can not discern who the sponsors are and what could be their agenda, I can't help you.

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Islander

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

I am referring to the "discretion" of the court. In my opinion, it is the beginning of a path to total prosecutorial discretion on sex with minors.  If it passes, pretty soon the DA will make a determination on whether to prosecute a case.  Look at who is advocating this bill and tell me there is no agenda behind it? This is not random. When it comes to legislating about sexual behavior, the ultimate goal is always legalization of __________ (you fill in the blank). 

I was referring to discretion as well. Discretion is currently allowed for one form of statutory rape already. The change of law is only extending what is already in place to the less common (at least in reporting) forms as well. 
 

And by the way, it was conservative judges who allowed that loophole to stay open with Johnson vs the Department of Justice.
 

WARNING:  EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

 

 

From the article you linked to, the current law allows for the discretion of the court for sexual intercourse, meaning male female.  The path was already there unless you think 15 year old girls are adults and somehow your slippery slope argument doesn't apply to them.

Quote

Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and **** intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20190122-senator-wiener-introduces-legislation-end-discrimination-against-lgbt-people-regarding

Quote

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender. To be clear, this judicial discretion for sex offender registration is *already* the law for vaginal intercourse between a 15-17 year old and someone up to 10 years older. SB 145 simply extends that discretion to other forms of intercourse. A judge will still be able to place someone on the registry if the behavior at issue was predatory or otherwise egregious. This change will treat straight and LGBT young people equally, end the discrimination against LGBT people, and ensure that California stops stigmatizing LGBT sexual relationships.

The reasoning for the current difference is bizarre if this is accurate.

Quote

Until recently, the California Supreme Court (People v. Hofsheier) and the Appellate Courts had held that requiring mandatory lifetime registration for sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration, but not vaginal sexual intercourse, violated the equal protection clause, and was unconstitutional. However, in a more recent case, Johnson v. Department of Justice, the California Supreme Court overturned the Hofsheier case, reasoning that since sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy and other sex acts cannot, it is not discriminatory to treat the offenses differently and for harsher penalties to be in place for non-vaginal intercourse.

http://scocablog.com/johnson-v-department-of-justice-an-equal-protection-analysis/

Quote

Similarly, Johnson also involved a statute enacted to facilitate discrimination against a suspect class – homosexuals.  It still has this effect.  Moreover, at the time it was enacted, and for many years thereafter, the legislature could rely on and would expect discriminatory enforcement.  Hofsheier called for a “serious and genuine” inquiry into the asserted relationship between the classification and legislative goals.  Let’s see where a “serious and genuine” inquiry will take us.  The question to be addressed is whether the challenged statutory classification bears a rational relationship to the asserted goal of protecting a pregnant woman’s interest in having the defendant pay child support, as the Johnson majority claimed.

The Johnson majority argued that one reason the Assembly in 1977 did not amend the law to provide for mandatory registration of persons convicted under section 261.5 (consensual intercourse) may have been concern for the teen mothers who would not want the fathers subject to a lifetime registration requirement.   But one would think little weight would be given to evidence of legislative intent that does not pertain to a measure enacted by the legislature and approved by the governor, but merely to one of several possible reasons one house of the legislature did not pass a bill.

When we look to the specific language of the statutes that were actually enacted, the first thing to strike the eye is that the legislature did not seem to care whether the woman was or could be pregnant.  For example, a man who has intercourse with a woman who was already pregnant receives the benefit of judicial discretion, as does a man who has had a vasectomy.  The next striking feature is that the legislature did not seem concerned with support for children not conceived by specific illegal act at issue.  Registration is mandatory for consensual oral copulation or sodomy even if the woman already has a child, and mandatory registration will imperil the man’s ability to support the child.  Finally, the legislature seemed equally unconcerned whether the defendant has any duty to support children by other women.  In 1947, the legislature probably assumed that that consensual oral copulation and sodomy were acts committed only by homosexuals, so the defendant would not have fathered any children.

In short, of all the consensual sexual offenses, the legislature has given trial judges discretion to reject sex offender registration in only one circumstance:  where the act committed – sexual intercourse – is uniquely the one sexual act homosexuals are unlikely to commit.  This makes it clear that the legislature that enacted the registration requirements was concerned with the nature of the sexual act – whether it was deemed a natural or unnatural act –and not at all interested in problems of child support.

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Calm