Jump to content

Polyamory Approved


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't know about lying on the stage floor, but there are tons of photos of contestants in sexually provocative poses and I doubt if they weren't popular, they would be displaying them.

Well, I still think it is exploitative, but apparently some disagree. I would rather have less rather than more of this.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't know about lying on the stage floor, but there are tons of photos of contestants in sexually provocative poses and I doubt if they weren't popular, they would be displaying them.

Yes and does anyone remember Jon Benet Ramsey. I think it's disgusting to put children into beauty contests. The parents will pay for those sins.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I still think it is exploitative, but apparently some disagree. I would rather have less rather than more of this.

I think the industry is highly exploitative, both drag and nondrag and wish as I said above that we would do as France and outlaw such.

I don't see "drag" as much of a new dimension...as if somehow adding boys to the mix is so much worse than what they have been doing to girls for eons that it will have pedophilic child molestors (not all those attracted to children nurture that attraction and many actively try to control it, so I am qualifying who I am talking about) paying so much more attention than they have previously?  Given the current extent of the 5$ billion industry, a few drag events will have little impact in comparison to the other nondrag child beauty contest...which imo has been contributing to pedophile issues for decades among other issues.  This stuff was being debated over 20 years ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/opinion/l-child-beauty-pageants-foster-sexual-abuse-310719.html

The only thing I am debating is the addition of drag events to the child beauty contest industry is going to now significantly increase the likelihood that pedophilia behaviour (as opposed to the disorder) will be normalized or ever accepted as mainstream.

It is possible that child beauty events will normalize pedophilic behaviour given the highly sexualized view of young children it presents, but if so I don't see any reason to assume the sexualization of girls has a less effect than the sexualization of boys.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes and does anyone remember Jon Benet Ramsey. I think it's disgusting to put children into beauty contests. The parents will pay for those sins.

Apparently her murder and the subsequent display of her contest pictures brought a boom to the industry:

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2338102

  • Like 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the industry is highly exploitative, both drag and nondrag and wish as I said above that we would do as France and outlaw such.

I don't see "drag" as much of a new dimension...as if somehow adding boys to the mix is so much worse than what they have been doing to girls for eons that it will have pedophilic child molestors (not all those attracted to children nurture that attraction and many actively try to control it, so I am qualifying who I am talking about) paying so much more attention than they have previously?  Given the current extent of the 5$ billion industry, a few drag events will have little impact in comparison to the other nondrag child beauty contest...which imo has been contributing to pedophile issues for decades among other issues.  This stuff was being debated over 20 years ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/24/opinion/l-child-beauty-pageants-foster-sexual-abuse-310719.html

The only thing I am debating is the addition of drag events to the child beauty contest industry is going to now significantly increase the likelihood that pedophilia behaviour (as opposed to the disorder) will be normalized or ever accepted as mainstream.

It is possible that child beauty events will normalize pedophilic behaviour given the highly sexualized view of young children it presents, but if so I don't see any reason to assume the sexualization of girls has a less effect than the sexualization of boys.

Thank you. I was not clear on what you were saying. 
I see this as an escalation of exploitation and sexualization of children. I believe it will have increasingly negative consequences as it becomes more widespread. The positive reactions of the audiences and the Media hosts are revealing. 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s not what you or I expect that counts. It’s what God expects that is important. When the people of the world learn the will of God, they will have a choice to make. Jacob 2 is crystal clear on this. 

Of course ssm was not an issue in those days; however, the Church practiced plural marriage only in compliance with Jacob 2. When its purpose was fulfilled it was stopped, not to be practiced again unless commanded by the Lord. That’s where we stand today.

You believe God commanded it, but regardless of whether God did, the Brighamite practice led to others practicing it as many still do. Furthermore, historically, the Mormon evasion of law in regards to polygamy created a pattern that others follow to this day.

Many if not all of the Mormon splinter groups practicing polygamy claim they do so as a religious practice.

And there have even been some very bad examples of abusers who have used these socially accepted religious reasons to violate innocents under the ostensive framework of plural marriage.

So, the idea that there is spiritual safety in plural marriage as an act of obedience to God does not really pan out. It has actually turned out to be a pretty effective means of spiritual captivity. The model of legal evasion worsens that potential of spiritual captivity.

Yet legalisation provides an above-board model for all types of multiple spouse marriage of consenting adults. It has the potential to make plural marriage relatively safe when religion has not done that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You believe God commanded it, but regardless of whether God did, the Brighamite practice led to others practicing it as many still do. Furthermore, historically, the Mormon evasion of law in regards to polygamy created a pattern that others follow to this day.

Many if not all of the Mormon splinter groups practicing polygamy claim they do so as a religious practice.

And there have even been some very bad examples of abusers who have used these socially accepted religious reasons to violate innocents under the ostensive framework of plural marriage.

So, the idea that there is spiritual safety in plural marriage as an act of obedience to God does not really pan out. It has actually turned out to be a pretty effective means of spiritual captivity. The model of legal evasion worsens that potential of spiritual captivity.

Yet legalisation provides an above-board model for all types of multiple spouse marriage of consenting adults. It has the potential to make plural marriage relatively safe when religion has not done that.

Whether God commanded it as described in Jacob 2 makes all the difference. The Lord’s words there are crystal clear. It can only be one or the other and still be His will. All of the aberrant examples you give are in violation of Jacob 2. Using Brigham as an excuse does not exempt anyone. Brigham’s successors reinstated the restrictions Jacob 2. Legalizing “all types” of multiple spouse marriages will bring calamity as warned by his current successors. There is no potential for good here. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whether God commanded it as described in Jacob 2 makes all the difference. The Lord’s words there are crystal clear. It can only be one or the other and still be His will. All of the aberrant examples you give are in violation of Jacob 2. Using Brigham as an excuse does not exempt anyone. Brigham’s successors reinstated the restrictions Jacob 2. Legalizing “all types” of multiple spouse marriages will bring calamity as warned by his current successors. There is no potential for good here. 

In my opinion, calamity already happened in the supposedly "obedient" form. For all you know, polyamorous marriages could be obedient to God. Those participating have just as much public right to say so as our forebears did of plural marriage. 

I don't think you're being very considerate of other people's spiritual lives and relationships with God.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sounds like you think LDS plural marriage was just a walk in the park. Is that correct?

 

Do you think the Book of Mormon is fiction?

I don't really care that the LDS church practiced plural marriage even if it was illegal at the time.  I have been clearly pointing out the hypocrisy between the support for the Church practicing multiple spouse marriage, but the condemnation of others when they practice it.  At the same time those in the Church are claiming the right to practice their beliefs the way they seem fit.  But when others practice their beliefs the way they see fit, somehow you feel that should be condemned.  What do you call that if it isn't hypocrisy?

What I think of the BoM is irrelevant to your hypocrisy. Hiding behind your belief in the BoM doesn't change that.  The Church still practiced multiple spouse marriages.  You want me to accept your belief of the BoM, but you will not accept others beliefs in what they think is ok to do.  What do you call that if it isn't hypocrisy?  

And trying to blame it on the same civil rights for gays to marry. offered to you to marry is the wrong place to put any blame.  Gay marriages are not any more multiple spouse marriage than yours.  Again, it is you saying that it is ok for you to practice your marriage the way you see fit, but not for others.  

You are entitled to your beliefs.  How do you justify not allowing others to follow their beliefs.  Honestly I don't see how you resolve these obvious contridictions in your mind without considering that you are hypocritical.  

The persecuted become the persecutors.  

Edited by california boy
  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/4/2020 at 8:47 AM, Daniel2 said:

Consent is the HUGE difference between a) pedophilia and b) all other forms of legal marriage (whether between plural, opposite-sex, or same-sex spouses).

I don’t believe pedophilia will ever be legalized. 

That's what they said about SSM twenty years ago. The first thing they will do is lower the age of consent. Follow that with any/all possible political maneuvering to expand "sexual rights" of minors and then, finally, the push to legislate that sexual orientation (the drive to have sex with a much younger person in this case) is a "biologically ingrained trait" although there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it has not stopped the activists before. 

History has proven that man can legislate anything to accomodate their sexual desires, even though it flies on the face of biology, science and centuries of human experience and wisdom. They'll never stop. NAMBLA et. al are hard at work in that regard: 

“The Society advocates the abolition of statutory rape and child pornography laws, and encourages what it claims to be its 5,000 members to give their own children, and others, early sexual experiences with loving adults.” (O'Hara, 1981)

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Islander said:

That's what they said about SSM twenty years ago. The first thing they will do is lower the age of consent. Follow that with any/all possible political maneuvering to expand "sexual rights" of minors and then, finally, the push to legislate that sexual orientation (the drive to have sex with a much younger person in this case) is a "biologically ingrained trait" although there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it has not stopped the activists before. 

History has proven that man can legislate anything to accomodate their sexual desires, even though it flies on the face of biology, science and centuries of human experience and wisdom. They'll never stop. NAMBLA et. al are hard at work in that regard: 

“The Society advocates the abolition of statutory rape and child pornography laws, and encourages what it claims to be its 5,000 members to give their own children, and others, early sexual experiences with loving adults.” (O'Hara, 1981)

Can you please clarify:

When you say, “That's what they said about SSM twenty years ago,” what do you mean by “that’s what they said”? 

And who is “they” that were doing the “saying”?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Islander said:

That's what they said about SSM twenty years ago. The first thing they will do is lower the age of consent. Follow that with any/all possible political maneuvering to expand "sexual rights" of minors and then, finally, the push to legislate that sexual orientation (the drive to have sex with a much younger person in this case) is a "biologically ingrained trait" although there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it has not stopped the activists before. 

History has proven that man can legislate anything to accomodate their sexual desires, even though it flies on the face of biology, science and centuries of human experience and wisdom. They'll never stop. NAMBLA et. al are hard at work in that regard: 

“The Society advocates the abolition of statutory rape and child pornography laws, and encourages what it claims to be its 5,000 members to give their own children, and others, early sexual experiences with loving adults.” (O'Hara, 1981)

Historically, there have been several societies which have encouraged and even celebrated sexual activities with minor children, yet none of those behaviors have led to the legalization of pedophilia in modern day, nor the decriminalization of statutory or child rape. From a legal perspective, modern society has aggressively moved in the direction of protecting the rights of minor children and strengthening laws against sexual abuse and statutory rape, both nationwide and by international, not loosening them, despite the voices of a pro-pedophilia minority may be trying to push for.  

Whether or not anyone is predisposed to any type of innate attraction towards underage minors, the distinguishing issue between it and other orientations isn’t any innateness; the difference between any pedophilic behaviors vs. legalized sexual behaviors between adults, regardless of age, gender, or marital status is that pedophilic behaviors are inherently non-consensual, predatory, and abusive by all legal standards, both domestically and increasingly globally. 

I add my voice to those so engaged in strong opposition to all efforts to sexualize children, and especially to normalize child-adult sexual activity of any kind. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In my opinion, calamity already happened in the supposedly "obedient" form. For all you know, polyamorous marriages could be obedient to God. Those participating have just as much public right to say so as our forebears did of plural marriage. 

I don't think you're being very considerate of other people's spiritual lives and relationships with God.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. People have the right to say whatever they want. I have not power to prevent that, nor would I want it. Opposing immorality reasonably and without anger is not being inconsiderate.

I know that the only marriage God approves is between one man and one woman and that he only  approves plural marriage on one condition.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I add my voice to those so engaged in strong opposition to all efforts to sexualize children, and especially to normalize child-adult sexual activity of any kind. 

The attack is coming from many fronts. I join you in opposition. I hope any and all attempts fail.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are certainly entitled to your opinions. People have the right to say whatever they want. I have not power to prevent that, nor would I want it. Opposing immorality reasonably and without anger is not being inconsiderate.

I know that the only marriage God approves is between one man and one woman and that he only  approves plural marriage on one condition.

Well of course I am :)Just as you believe you know what God wants, others believe they know what God wants. 

So when we're talking about the public square and not just the LDS church, we cannot respect others and impose our beliefs onto everyone else at the same time. That's not respect.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the selections. Nice stuff.
 

BTW, you’re talking with a professional orchestra violinist and conductor with an advanced degree in music history. I have lots of examples on hand. 

You have very Patrician tastes, figured there had to be some professional musician in there someplace.  Lots of people I think never go beyond the biggies like Bach, Beethoven etc.  I'm slowly getting into the more complicated stuff, besides folkish and EDM I'm a big fan of medieval choral works.  Here's a few you might like. 

 

 

Link to post
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the selections. Nice stuff.
 

BTW, you’re talking with a professional orchestra violinist and conductor with an advanced degree in music history. I have lots of examples on hand. 

You have very Patrician tastes, figured there had to be some professional musician in there someplace.  Lots of people I think never go beyond the biggies like Bach, Beethoven etc.  I'm slowly getting into the more complicated stuff, besides folkish and EDM I'm a big fan of medieval choral works.  Here's a few you might like. 

 

 

Link to post
12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yes and does anyone remember Jon Benet Ramsey. I think it's disgusting to put children into beauty contests. The parents will pay for those sins.

I know a now retired cop who was on that case, he told me that if it wasn't for the money they had they'd have had a slam dunk win, what happened to that girl was horrible.  That's one thing I'll absolutely draw the line on, harming children.  That and elder abuse.  I've turned in people who abused children to the police before and I'll never stop doing it. 

 

BTW, mods?  How do you delete double posts?  I replied twice by accident. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)

Not a mod, unless you report something they don’t usually respond. 
 

You can’t delete your posts, you can only go in and delete the content. I don’t remember mods ever deleting stuff when asked, but that isn’t something I would notice.  Still I wouldn’t bother them unless like 4 or more duplicates in a row. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
25 minutes ago, poptart said:

You have very Patrician tastes, figured there had to be some professional musician in there someplace.  Lots of people I think never go beyond the biggies like Bach, Beethoven etc.  I'm slowly getting into the more complicated stuff, besides folkish and EDM I'm a big fan of medieval choral works.  Here's a few you might like. 

Thanks for the examples. I always appreciate new stuff.

I am as eclectic as they come. I simply seek excellence in music wherever I can find it. I played professional bluegrass fiddle at Utah's Snobird resort. Ever hear of Huun Huur Tu, Dave Van Ronk, Dave Grisman, Alberto Vazquez, Robi Lakatos? I draw the line at all current pop music. Nothing to see there.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Islander said:

That's what they said about SSM twenty years ago. The first thing they will do is lower the age of consent. Follow that with any/all possible political maneuvering to expand "sexual rights" of minors and then, finally, the push to legislate that sexual orientation (the drive to have sex with a much younger person in this case) is a "biologically ingrained trait" although there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it has not stopped the activists before. 

History has proven that man can legislate anything to accomodate their sexual desires, even though it flies on the face of biology, science and centuries of human experience and wisdom. They'll never stop. NAMBLA et. al are hard at work in that regard: 

“The Society advocates the abolition of statutory rape and child pornography laws, and encourages what it claims to be its 5,000 members to give their own children, and others, early sexual experiences with loving adults.” (O'Hara, 1981)

While I find the practice abhorrent acting like marrying post-pubescent teenagers is something that has historically been condemned is silly.

The current practice of marriage as two 20-something year olds choosing each other is the historical exception and not the rule. In the past 14 year olds were adults. Crazy hormone raddled adults but still adults. I am not suggesting we go back to that by the way.

That being said NAMBLA is a disgusting organization. Suggesting it is mainstream though and anywhere close to achieving its goals is madness.

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't really care that the LDS church practiced plural marriage even if it was illegal at the time.  I have been clearly pointing out the hypocrisy between the support for the Church practicing multiple spouse marriage, but the condemnation of others when they practice it.  At the same time those in the Church are claiming the right to practice their beliefs the way they seem fit.  But when others practice their beliefs the way they see fit, somehow you feel that should be condemned.  What do you call that if it isn't hypocrisy?

What I think of the BoM is irrelevant to your hypocrisy. Hiding behind your belief in the BoM doesn't change that.  The Church still practiced multiple spouse marriages.  You want me to accept your belief of the BoM, but you will not accept others beliefs in what they think is ok to do.  What do you call that if it isn't hypocrisy?  

I don't necessarily want to legally forbid it but I would advise people to avoid it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the examples. I always appreciate new stuff.

I am as eclectic as they come. I simply seek excellence in music wherever I can find it. I played professional bluegrass fiddle at Utah's Snobird resort. Ever hear of Huun Huur Tu, Dave Van Ronk, Dave Grisman, Alberto Vazquez, Robi Lakatos? I draw the line at all current pop music. Nothing to see there.

Heard of Alberto Vasquez, the rest?  Going to youtube when I get back, about to leave on a 3 day backpacking trip.  (will post pics when I get back)  With you on pop music, for the most part what they make now makes me vomit.  I get it, past high school most of us lose interest in contemporary music but geez, what they put out there is just awful.  What blows my mind is people let their kids watch it.  Funny how that works here stateside, they expect society to do their job parenting wise yet so many won't raise a finger.  Someone says anything? Don't judge me!  REEE!!!!! This is one of the main reasons why I have no social media and I just keep to myself. 

I'll toss this out there, with you on some of the pageants out there, those need to go.  My childhood was bad, knew a few guys who were raped, pretty sure one of em isn't alive anymore.  People have no idea the harm that does, nor do most care.  Something I learned early on as my father was as violent as he was, if you don't come from money the system for the most part does little.  I know a Jesuit who had an interesting point on pedophilia on the Church, it's a combination of the church and US culture that allows it.  They just dump kids off on institutions and expect them to do everything.  When someone elses child is harmed, so long as it's not theirs they really don't care.  Here we are.  I would not want to raise a child in this country as it is, I have friends who plan on having them.  They're far, far more sheltered than I ever was and naively assume society will be there to rescue them if things go bad, they're going to be in for a bitter reality check I think.  Far as i'm concerned, US society passed the point of no return years ago with things like the Caylee Anthony murder in FL.  I had friends who's ex's had abortions just to spite them.  If US society really valued children like they claim they do, they wouldn't be going after gun rights and making law abiding citizens angry to the point that they do nothing if some thug breaks into their neighbors house out of fear that someone might find out they're armed, they'd focus on actual child welfare.  That starts at the family court and social services level, I think.  

I know I started threads on Buddhism, I wonder how many people read the part in there on how conservative most Buddhist temples are.  The average American who maybe goes to an anglo heavy Zen-ish place or an Asian temple on festivals has no idea.  In Japan, if you chose to have HRT they will sterilize you.  They do view people like that as mentally defective and don't want whatever genes they have spreading to the populace.  I have trans friends and while I have nothing at all against them, do have to say the rate of mental illness that community has is disturbing.  I'm thrilled the supreme court gave LGBT people civil rights protections but the direction we're going as far as everything else is terrifying, I think.  Wish the adults in the room would get together and have a civil discussion, if they don't, well, like I said I'm glad I just lay low and keep to myself....

Have some of the more contemporary stuff I like.

 

Link to post
On 7/5/2020 at 6:57 PM, Bernard Gui said:
On 7/5/2020 at 2:27 PM, Daniel2 said:

Bernard, this answer by Stargazer illustrates exactly what I meant when I said the Church wouldn’t have to change a thing from the Proclamation. In all it’s commentaries, legal briefs, and other rhetoric related to “defending [so-called] traditional marriage,” the Church has been VERY careful to always state it supports marriage between “a man and a woman,” and, unlike other conservative Christian Faiths, has universally avoided the phrase  “one man and one woman.” (I’d love to hear if anyone knows of any examples of the Church using the latter verbiage...).

I understand the distinction and the careful wording, but in light of Jacob 2 any deviation from “one” or “an” must meet a strict condition. I suppose we could be keeping our options open for that possibility, but I think reinstate is remote. Do you think that the chosen wording (as you interpret it) can only be applied to one man marrying several women one at a time, or could the reverse also be possible...one woman marrying several men? Seems to me that argument could be made.

I think it might be useful to point out to everyone that when we are dealing with various human languages, not all languages have things like definite and indefinite articles.  No "a[n]" or "the".  For example, astronaut Neil Armstrong's quotation when first standing on the moon was "One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind". He misspoke in his excitement, because he was supposed to say "One small step for a man...", meaning one man, himself. Since in English, the word "man" used without an article refers to the human species in general, the omission of "a" meant that he was repeating himself.  But NOT in a language that didn't have the indefinite article, which is the vast majority of them!  So the minor furor raised in the English-speaking world over the faux pas was totally missed in much of the rest of the world, because the way Armstrong meant it, was, in direct translation, exactly how they understood it.

So, when I say "marriage is between a man and a woman", the same thing can occur.  In most languages, it would be "marriage is between man and woman."  Which does not necessarily address plurality.

I assume, though, that the English version of the Book of Mormon contains the sense that God wanted it to have, and so should be understood that way, and translated accordingly.

For language nerds, here's an interesting video about "Standard Average European", and how various European languages share similar features that are not shared by many other world languages. The guy narrating the video, Paul, is a Canadian living in Japan who speaks several languages. In the video he addresses the question of articles.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...