Mormans Throwing in with LBGTQIA?

Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 weeks, 1 day ago to Humor
22 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Now that we have overwhelming support for sexual freedom, it is time the much-oppressed Mormans (and others) add their letter to the ever-growing acronym of irrelevant sexual preferences?

Why not "LBGTQIA + P"? Then it can be like my 9mm self defense ammo!

This is intended to be sarcasm of course; however, there is an element of truth. Why not, if all adults consent?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    It is one thing to leave people alone to do what they want in their own homes. It is another for the state to give its official recognition to what they do, and to issue its imprimatur on it in the form of an official document.I do not think that the state government should recognize just any and all contracts, regardless of how irrational or unnatural.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 1 day ago
      Perhaps all contracts should be accepted by the government, slavery in exchange for compensation is an example.

      Not sure polygamy should be accepted carte blanche either. It might simply turn in to a massive insurance fraud.

      However, do you not agree that introducing polygamy into the discussion forces objectivity among people with massive cognitive dissonance? It will force the media-lemmings to consider, and decide, "No that is different and unacceptable, but all the others are ok". That is a MASSIVE endorsement of negativity and exclusion, by a the land of "inclusion", and exposes a huge vulnerability.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        There is certainly a huge degree of hypocrisy involved. No question. But let's remember that - originally - government didn't get involved in the marital contract at all. Marriage records were exclusively maintained by religious organizations. The imposition of government oversight only started happening once governments - especially local county governments - sought to exclude interracial marriages in the deep South following the Civil War. So they started forcing anyone who wanted to get married to obtain sanction. It was a usurpation of authority right there and it hasn't gotten better with time.

        I think that society should be able to place restrictions on what they are willing to recognize regarding the marital covenant. But I believe those restrictions are LEAST effectively governed by civil authority. I believe that the civil authorities should have the least state of recognition - not the most. Marriage was originally a religious ordinance and should remain that way. If you change over to this way of thinking, it pretty much resolves everything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    I believe that there actually is a pending case attempting to overthrow federal law declaring polygamist or polyamorous marrage illegal, primarily based on the ruling which legitimized homosexual unions. The federal law in question was most famous as being targeted at the early followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons) and to my knowledge has not been repealed even though its enforcement has been almost non-existent except in the case of early adherents to that sect. The lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal law was brought by one of the polygamist sects not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

    "Why not, if all adults consent?"

    The first major question which must be raised concerns the two implied conditions - "adult" and "consent" - each of which should be recognized and independently tested. Consent as an inherent condition for such activity is founded upon the idea that individuals "own" themselves and their bodies and have priority use and determination in what . This is decidedly a Western notion to which the United States is the primary and original signatory with the Declaration of Independence. Such a theory stipulates that individuals hold the ultimate say over the use of their bodies and that any use contrary to that which is expressly consented constitutes a harm and a moral wrong. This theory also states that this legal authority may not be superceded by government officials.

    Traditional theories - especially those in antiquity, however - held that the ruling sovereign in many cases held ultimate authority. Chinese Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Babylonian kings, and many other monarchs were acknowledged as having power over life and liberty - including sexual autonomy - on a whim. Many sovereigns even had the ability to take a woman despite existing marital arrangements, such as the story of Abraham going to Egypt in the Old Testament. Traditional warfaring rules also gave as "spoils" women and children to the males in the conquering armies. These practices were used in antiquity and are only more recently being called into question due to the international influence of western traditions and moral codes.

    The term "adult" is particularly problematic, as it may refer to the maturity of an individual in either biological or age-based criteria. Both are critically flawed in independent application. The current notion that reaching 18 years of age denotes a certain level of personal responsibility is an arbitrary legal notion as we see ample evidence of immature behavior by those even much older and "mature" behavior in a minority of those even younger. Physical/biological maturity is a more obvious indicator of readiness for physical intimacy, but is also extremely problematic - especially for females - as there are records of girls as young as ten years of age giving birth.

    There is the further issue involving guardianship: at what point do adolescents/young adults adopt complete responsibility for their actions? The notion is definitionally the epitome of the slippery slope argument further compounded by the individuality of the individual!

    Last of all come the moral arguments weighing the potential outcomes of the act itself against the rest of society, and it is here that I believe can be found the strongest arguments for societal limits. One of the hidden implications in the posed question is that these outcomes are trivial in nature while nothing could be further from the truth. Human intimacy ultimately involves the very relationships that form society itself, as well as the potential for the introduction into society of new members. Many seek to trivialize or discount the emotional bonds which form with intimacy but which are nonetheless very real. We also have some arguing in the court system that such trivialized relationships can retroactively be declared a violation of consent - even months later.

    Regardless whether you want to bring into the matter a Judeo-Christian viewpoint which declares that God set forth the rules for marriage, one can not argue with the reality that a formal marriage between a man and a woman is inarguably the best arrangement not only for the two participants but for any progeny as well. The question is whether or not one is going to found a society based on a long-term approach with solid, unchanging moral laws or found a society based on the whims of personal pleasure.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 weeks, 1 day ago
    Laughing...Romneyians they are...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks, 1 day ago
      Romney moved to Utah from Taxachusetts for political power.
      (GOP needed a replacement for Orrin Hatch, and they chose a statist CINO they could easily control, not a conservative .)
      Mitt the $#it comes by his looting mantra naturally.
      Romney's father was the CINO governor of Michigan who greatly expanded the state government and imposed state income tax on the people of MI.
      The people of Utah, like all states, are stuck with the corrupt, controlled scumbags that the GOP presents to them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 weeks, 1 day ago
        I think you're going to find out that Romney is a one-termer. There are a lot of people in Utah (I have a lot of family down there) who thought Mitt was as conservative as the other Utah Senator, Mike Lee, only to find out that Romney is much more akin to John McCain. Romney also was a well-known name because he saved the Olympics in Salt Lake City from being a complete disaster.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 1 day ago
        Not unlike their church.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 3 weeks, 1 day ago
          The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints takes a neutral stance on politics despite its primarily conservative views. Former Senator (hated by many including members) Harry Reid claimed to be a member while on the other side you have (current) Senator Mike Lee. It's not uncommon for family members - all members - to have widely differing political views. I know several. Sometimes it can be difficult to separate official doctrine from the members' actions, just as Joe Biden claims to be a Catholic.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 3 weeks ago
    I think if the Dems want to throw money around they not give it to illegal immigrants but rather they should reward young mothers for having babies! I'd surely would have given it a 2nd thought when I was doing it and I wasn't facing what we are now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo