Jump to content

Polyamory Approved


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Drag children. Like the “trailblazer” in the news feature I provided. 

Which is clearly intended to get free advertising just by being shocking because it will be picked up by all kinds of news outlets. It worked.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 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?  

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.  

I've known people who have fallen into polyamorous relationship under the guise of polygamy. Obviously, neither are supported by the church now, BUT these people used existing scripture to justify their "plural marriages" (even the temporary ones) which wasn't really a marriage at all. Their non-legal, non-binding marriage was consummated even though there was only a "spiritual marriage" which amounted to little more than a statement of spiritual unity and commitment to each other. So while polyamory doesn't always have the same level of commitment as these spiritual polygamous relationships, they are largely the same. Think about how this worked in Nauvoo. Men sleeping with other men's wives and vice versa all under the guise of polygamy. Some of the people of Nauvoo were swinging but justified it because of the higher law of polygamy. Both systems are fraught with dishonesty and infidelity but IMO it is worse when people use religious justifications for their bad behavior.

Personally, I think it is silly when members whine and complain about the destruction of marriage, whether it's SSM, or the rise of polyamory, or whatever. As long as the individuals involved are of age and capable of making their own decisions, they can do what they want. BUT I will fight back when religion is used as the justification. Of someone wants to be a philanderer, they should just own it and stop blaming God or a church for giving him the cover for being the scoundrel that he is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 7/2/2020 at 4:08 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Of course Mormons have always claimed persecution when outsiders challenged their beliefs and "marriage" practices. Yet Mormons are now the persecutors when it comes to other types of marriage and relationship, all under the guise of Religious Freedom. The irony is thick enough to choke on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I am deleting an inappropriate post because of the rules.

However, too many of us do like imposing our beliefs on others.

Edited by JamesBYoung
Link to post
On 7/2/2020 at 3:08 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Honestly, none of this impacts or affects any of us.  Who care who sleeps with whom.  I want them out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of theirs.  I honestly don't understand the need for the church to tell other people, who have no desire to listen to the missionaries, how they should live their lives.  I expect the same respect in reverse.  I don't want anyone to tell me or my family how to live my life either.  If America had practiced this same philosophy in the 19th century I guess many here, including me, would have multiple wives.  I say to each their own.  Just don't tell me how to live my life and I extend the same respect to you.

  • Like 2
Link to post

If we discriminate against or tell others AKA Non-members how to live their lives we call it Religious Freedom.  If "others" criticize us, we call it Persecution.  We need to just focus on ourselves and leave everyone else alone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
25 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

That is why the voting process in the public square must be respected.

If Biden or Trump is elected, so be it.

Huh....? Politics has nothing to do with this discussion. Please don’t bring that up, as it’s against board policy. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Not my thing either.  But I also wouldn't be making it out to be some destroyer of marriage if I was a member of the Church who has the history that it does with multiple spouse marriages.  It is hard to condemn those marriages but embrace the early Church practice as coming from God and righteous marriages.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Huh....? Politics has nothing to do with this discussion. Please don’t bring that up, as it’s against board policy. 

Actually you are right, and I apologize.  Do notice we have a lot of people here loving to tell other people what to do.

Link to post
37 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Actually you are right, and I apologize.  Do notice we have a lot of people here loving to tell other people what to do.

You included. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course Mormons have always claimed persecution when outsiders challenged their beliefs and "marriage" practices. Yet Mormons are now the persecutors when it comes to other types of marriage and relationship, all under the guise of Religious Freedom. The irony is thick enough to choke on.

Persecutors is just a tad of an overstatement. Maybe more than a tad. I don’t know of any Mormon who advocates prosecuting, incarcerating, confiscating assets, spying on, disenfranchising, separating families, forcing participants into hiding.....all to destroy aberrant types of marriage. Sounding a warning voice is a very very long way from what happened to the Saints. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Which is clearly intended to get free advertising just by being shocking because it will be picked up by all kinds of news outlets. It worked.

So......that makes it ok. Got it

Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

 

In Spanish, un hombre y una mujer  can mean either a man and a woman or one man and one woman. For what it’s worth .

 

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've known people who have fallen into polyamorous relationship under the guise of polygamy. Obviously, neither are supported by the church now, BUT these people used existing scripture to justify their "plural marriages" (even the temporary ones) which wasn't really a marriage at all. Their non-legal, non-binding marriage was consummated even though there was only a "spiritual marriage" which amounted to little more than a statement of spiritual unity and commitment to each other. So while polyamory doesn't always have the same level of commitment as these spiritual polygamous relationships, they are largely the same. Think about how this worked in Nauvoo. Men sleeping with other men's wives and vice versa all under the guise of polygamy. Some of the people of Nauvoo were swinging but justified it because of the higher law of polygamy. Both systems are fraught with dishonesty and infidelity but IMO it is worse when people use religious justifications for their bad behavior.

Personally, I think it is silly when members whine and complain about the destruction of marriage, whether it's SSM, or the rise of polyamory, or whatever. As long as the individuals involved are of age and capable of making their own decisions, they can do what they want. BUT I will fight back when religion is used as the justification. Of someone wants to be a philanderer, they should just own it and stop blaming God or a church for giving him the cover for being the scoundrel that he is.

I totally agree.  It seems like as soon as one of these cults starts up, all the sudden the leader is recruiting multiple wives, the younger the better all in the name of religion.  They use their power over people, promising salvation and proclaiming God's will.

  • Like 1
Link to post

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

Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So......that makes it ok. Got it

No, it means acting indignant about it and broadcasting that indignation as the end of the world or the end of all decency or whatever is exactly what they want.

Got it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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”?

In the 70s and 80s the LGBT agenda sought to free itself from sodomy laws and the like. The narrative was about freedom to express and be left alone. Nobody advocated for SSM. But here we are. What I tried to say is that it is a progression and the goal post moves ever so slowly. 

Link to post
18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

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

Again, that is what most people thought about SSM 30 years ago. But here it is. 

Link to post
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Persecutors is just a tad of an overstatement. Maybe more than a tad. I don’t know of any Mormon who advocates prosecuting, incarcerating, confiscating assets, spying on, disenfranchising, separating families, forcing participants into hiding.....all to destroy aberrant types of marriage. Sounding a warning voice is a very very long way from what happened to the Saints. 

I don't know that it's an overreach. When leaders speak to the church masses about "counterfeit families" and such, and when the church is actively engaged in fighting against SSM via Prop 8 and numerous other legal efforts, I think those facing the church's attacks on their right to marry would probably view it as a persecution. But whether they do or not, I do. And  I find it ironic. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, Islander said:

Again, that is what most people thought about SSM 30 years ago. But here it is. 

It doesn't make them equally inevitable, however. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Islander said:

In the 70s and 80s the LGBT agenda sought to free itself from sodomy laws and the like. The narrative was about freedom to express and be left alone. Nobody advocated for SSM. But here we are. What I tried to say is that it is a progression and the goal post moves ever so slowly. 

Your characterization ("the narrative was about freedom to express and be left alone") is so vague and unsubstantiated that it's difficult to pin down exactly what you're actual point is.  If you mean that when it comes to civil marriage recognition, you’re suggesting that members of the LGBT movement in the 1970's and 80's were only "asking to be left alone" and thereby asking for something different than full marriage recognition, then you're simply mistaken. 

While it may not have been on your radar back in the 1970;s and 80’s, the first case involving a same-sex couple appealing to the government for equal civil marriage rights was Baker vs. Nelson, and was initially filed in 1971 and they alleged their First, Eighth, Nineth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated..

Quote

Baker v. Nelson was a very early same-sex marriage case pitting two gay student activists from the University of Minnesota against the clerk of the county court in Minneapolis. The activists wanted to get married and applied for a license. The clerk said no, on the grounds that they were two men, not a man and a woman. The case went to court, and the activists lost at every stage, all the way up to the Minnesota supreme court and beyond. The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, refused to hear the case, citing a lack of a "substantial federal question."

18 May 1970: Activists James Michael McConnell, librarian,[6] and Richard John Baker, law student on the Minneapolis campus[7] of the University of Minnesota,[8] applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. Gerald Nelson, Clerk of District Court in Hennepin County, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.[9]

The couple first contended that their request for a marriage license was not forbidden.[10] If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:[11]

The trial court dismissed the couple's claims and ordered the clerk not to issue the license.[12]

As you can see, civil marriage recognition via the granting of a civil marriage license, with all it's associated legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities, has been a clear goal for almost 50 years. 

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Again, that is what most people thought about SSM 30 years ago. But here it is. 

Once again, your vague wording is puzzling.  When you say, "that is what most people thought about SSM 30 years ago," what do you mean by "that's what most people thought"?  That it's "disgusting"? 

If that's what you mean, a key point is worth emphasizing: SSM wasn't illegal because people "found it disgusting."  Nor was legal marital recognition granted to same-sex couples because people "no longer found it disgusting."  Rather, the court ruled it's illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them equal civil marriage rights.

A key aspect of marriage rights for any couple choosing to marry is legal consent; it applies equally to any parties seeking a civil marriage right.  Pedophilia isn't criminalized because "it's disgusting."  Pedophilia is criminalized because children are incapable of legalized consent, harmed by adult-child relationships, and subject to predatory behaviors by influential adult perpetrators.  "Disgust" isn't the deciding factor for legalization of any given behavior.  

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 3
Link to post
1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Your characterization ("the narrative was about freedom to express and be left alone") is so vague and unsubstantiated that it's difficult to pin down exactly what you're actual point is.  If you seem to be saying that when it comes to civil marriage recognition, that members of the LGBT movement in the 1970's and 80's were only "asking to be left alone" and thereby asking for something different than full marriage recognition, then you're simply mistaken. 

While it may not have been on your radar back in the 1970;s and 80;s, the first case involving a same-sex couple appealing to the government for equal civil marriage rights was Baker vs. Nelson, and was initially filed in 1971:

As you can see, civil marriage recognition via the granting of a civil marriage license, with all it's associated legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities, has been a clear goal for almost 50 years. 

Once again, your vague wording is puzzling.  When you say, "that is what most people thought about SSM 30 years ago," what do you mean by "that's what most people thought"?  That it's "disgusting"? 

If that's what you mean, a key point is worth emphasizing: SSM wasn't illegal because people "found it disgusting."  Nor was legal marital recognition granted to same-sex couples because people "no longer found it disgusting."  Rather, the court ruled it's illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them equal civil marriage rights.

A key aspect of marriage rights for any couple choosing to marry is legal consent; it applies equally to any parties seeking a civil marriage right.  Pedophilia isn't criminalized because "it's disgusting."  Pedophilia is criminalized because children are incapable of legalized consent, harmed by adult-child relationships, and subject to predatory behaviors by influential adult perpetrators.  "Disgust" isn't the deciding factor for legalization of any given behavior.  

Or alternatively one can say that disgust at pedophilia can be grounded in sound and objective moral principles. Those moral principles of consent, however, are not violated by marriage between adults.

  • Like 4
Link to post
32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know that it's an overreach. When leaders speak to the church masses about "counterfeit families" and such, and when the church is actively engaged in fighting against SSM via Prop 8 and numerous other legal efforts, I think those facing the church's attacks on their right to marry would probably view it as a persecution. But whether they do or not, I do. And  I find it ironic. 

Mostly I am tired of members of the Church constantly blaming the LGBT community for daring to demand to be treated the same as every other citizen in this country.  Yes, we are attracted to the same sex.  GET OVER IT. We are also Americans that have the same constitutional rights as members of the Church.  In the early days of the Church there were many that believed Mormons didn't deserve the same rights as they did.  They felt free to persecute them and to deny them basic rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.  Now it is the Mormons time to deny others their basic rights.  They might not be coming at the LGBT community with torches and pitch forks, but every chance they get some members want to smear the LGBT community for any fault they see in society including multiple spouse marriage which THEY THEMSELVES used to practice.  The persecuted indeed have become the persecutors.

Now we have members like @Islander trying to blame pedophiles on the LGBT community and think the LGBT community should have been satisfied with just not going to prison for who they loved.  Of course the goal post moves.  And it will continue to move until being attracted to the same sex does not mean we are second class citizens.  

Run gay couples out of your churches.  Call us abominations.  Label us as apostates.  Refuse to baptize our children.  You can do whatever you want in your churches.  BUT we are American citizens and we deserve and demand to be treated equally under the law.  Fortunately we have laws and a Constitution to be upheld by the federal courts.  Our rights are not determined by religion.  The majority of the American people get it.  More and more members of the Church get it.  But there are still members like @Bernard and @Islander who want to keep vilifying the LGBT community. While some want to continue this vilification, we also see  members on this thread that are willing to stand up against this kind of bigotry.  We need more members like that, many of which are found in the next generation.  For some reason, they seem to understand that treating others, even when they are different than you, with love and respect is more important than vilifying them.  For them, it is also a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ that they are bound by God to follow.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally agree.  It seems like as soon as one of these cults starts up, all the sudden the leader is recruiting multiple wives, the younger the better all in the name of religion.  They use their power over people, promising salvation and proclaiming God's will.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

who upheld minimal marital age

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. 

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...