Mark Shurtleff & Utah Supreme Court: Polygamy’s Comedy Central

If polygamy coincides with crimes targeting women & children, then so does monogamy. If the idea is to assist victims of domestic violence & (real) child abuse, then I proffer that the States of Texas, Arizona, & Utah are going about it the wrong way.

Looks to me as though Shurtleff is a tool of the phony anti-hate organizations and that folks aren’t looking deep enough into his own family life and psychology to understand that he’s probably more motivated by racial issues than by a hatred of polygamy.

All those white folks producing more white kids instead of mixed kids might be bugging the guy.

Funny how he really goes out of his way to never appear in public with his wife and how so little is known about her, considering his high profile public position, and how photos of her are almost impossible to find. Might be a clue as to why he persecutes the FLDS.

He also adopted non-white kids. How about all those little white kids in orphanages? Why didn’t he adopt some of them? Hint: They were white.

Connect up the dots and you may have a deeper understanding of his psychology and why he seems to hate the FLDS.

Of course, Shurtleff is just be a product of our times–a sad period in history that we are living in during which many white folks seem to be as full of self-doubt, self-hate and self-abnegation as the American Indians were at the turn of the century.

The reason Shurtleff doesn’t adopt white kids is because they’re too expensive. To get one quickly, as opposed to being put on a 10 year waiting list, he’d have to bribe someone at CPS (kidnapping child/broker organization) or feel around in the black market to find someone to do it for him. Of course, being a politician, he considers that an overly risky proposition. So instead, he tries to change the world to accept him for who he is, turning failure (inability to get white kids) into success. Is that about right? Same reasoning could apply to Bushy. It would explain why Bush is so gung-ho about mexicans, and bringing them in, mixing us all up, because he, having Mexicans in his family, doesn’t want to be an odd ball! If my family’s all Mexicanized, then every one’s should be, damnit!

What religion dosen’t have church weddings. Marriage is religious. It came from GOD. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with it. I suppose that if you are concerned about your money and property then a civil marriage may help you there. But should not be required.

I have heard it said that Polygamy breads abuse. I don’t believe it. Thay say that the FLDS is a closed community. How many times has your communit been raided? Any abuser in any society will try to hide their abuse and even threten their victems. In Polygamy it is actually harder to hide the abuse because there is more people who could find out. You are not dealing with one wife one man and one child. How many celebs have come forth and say that they were abused in that only child situation?

Me, how’s about the government actually obeying the laws itself before pointing the finger at someone else? Yeah, I know, that would make too much sense….

Why is motherhood looked so down upon in America, as if motherhood in itself is abuse? “Oh, that’s terrible to be a mother at such a young age. Much better to spend your life in school to be a doctor or lawyer. Or if you choose to drop out of school be a rock star, or movie star. Motherhood is too much work, how terrible to want to be a mother. How fun it is to fool your life away, then settle down when you are too old to have children.”

Without mothers, there would be no world. We are headed into depopulation with the current trend of gay marriages, and the outlawing of normal marriages, starting with polygamy, which was normal when the world began, and is still normal in 2/3 of the world.

We Americans are so smart to depopulate ourselves. Can you not see at the current trend there will be NO Americans because of our laws? Wake up and be grateful for your mothers. Motherhood is the most glorious and sacred right a woman can have, but it is being trampled upon by this generation of Americans for so called “equal rights”. If God looked upon equal rights as we do, why did he ordain that only women could have children?

The Lord made our bodies precisely as they should be, to create children at a young age while they are healthy and strong. Do we know better than Him?

Is there any question that our government is pushing for depopulation? Why will government pay for abortions, but not for fertility? Why are they pushing for gay marriages, but trying to destroy the traditional family by taking their children away? Why is having many children looked down upon, as though a woman is brainwashed to believe in bearing children?

We are in trouble America. Wake up for your own sakes. You are fighting against your own existence!

To Me: All good comments. If I were to offer any minor correction, I would say that talking about “Americans” depopulating misses the point that an American is a nationality, not a genetic group.

This is important because when we talk about depopulation we have to think in terms of genes. Which genes are being depopulated or may be going extinct?

For example, you may have seen stories about blondes becoming extinct or about blue eyes also going that way. Add up all these genetic traits that are going extinct and you’ll see just who is headed for extinction one genetically determined characteristic at a time.

Despite what the current orthodoxy preaches, people aren’t fungible.

For example, you may have seen stories about blondes becoming extinct or about blue eyes also going that way.

Nope, sorry. No news stories, just the paranoia of white supremacist bloggers.

To R: Apparently, you’d rather call names than use critical thinking skills to try to understand the basics of genetics and survival. That’s flat world thinking.

Perhaps this has blinded you to the reality of genes and an understanding that each of us is a bundle of genes that deliver us to the world with many fixed characteristics that are connected to other more flexible characteristics that determine how we adapt to the world around us and which make us who we are.

We are our genes and our genes are us. Replace those genes and we are no longer us.

It has nothing to do with white supremacists or paranoia. It has everything to do with a basic understanding of nature and the rise and fall of distinct types of living things.

Race is to humans what breed is to dogs and variety is to plants.

I repeat, in slightly different terms: Living things are not fungible.

Let me try it this way. Say there’s a cornfield and there’s a sign calling it THE CORNFIELD. Further say the corn is being replaced by lettuce. Would it not be perverse for the corn that is being replaced to say “Thanks to the lettuce, THE CORNFIELD has reversed its depopulation and WE will have a great future”?

And, if out in that cornfield there are a few stalks of corn who are saying: “Wait a minute. If there is no more corn, how does that help us? Are we so blind as to think that this artificial construct that we call THE CORNFIELD, is us, and that we will survive and not become extinct so long as some plant that does not have our genes is on this piece of ground called THE CORNFIELD?

Me: I did talk about America.

Bob: Yes, it’s paranoia.

Which gene or gene, in particular, do you think constitutes “us”?

And I noticed that in all this, you’ve provided no proof of blue eyed blond(e)s going extinct.

Wrong. Recessive genes can be passed on. (This is an extreme example, but it happens on other occasions.)

Furthermore, the article does not name their sources, other than “experts in Germany”. I tried to find the study referred to via Google, but all I got was secondhand sources. The only individual actually named in the article states that it is unlikely that this will happen.

Yes, recessive genes are passed on. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the phenotype will die out, due to reproduction and migration trends. Europeans, the historic storage place of the genes that code for blondeness, are not reproducing at replacement rates. The third world is, and the third world peoples, who don’t have the recessive trait of blondeness, are migrating to Europe (and North American and Australia) at growing rates. By definition, recessive traits are only manifest when two are paired. And I don’t have to go into all the Mendelian science, I’ll leave that to you as an exercise. Suffice it to say, that if the current demographic trends continue, there will be no blondes in the world in the future. There might be a blonde or blue-eyed person here or there as a throw-back, just as you will occasionally find a green-eyed person in Afghanistan. But that is due to chance alone. The chances of it happening are reduced in each passing generation.

By definition, recessive traits are only manifest when two are paired.

Again, that’s not true. Dominant traits are more likely to manifest. But recessive traits can and do manifest.

The third world is, and the third world peoples, who don’t have the recessive trait of blondeness

Which countries do you refer to as “the third world”? Because plenty of them have been seeing their birth rates declining, though not as dramatically as some areas such as Italy or Singapore.

Czech birth rates growing:
http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/421/czech_national_news/27950/

Norway birth rates growing (as of 2006):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4786160.stm

http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=26468

And here’s a picture of two little blonde girls with their brunette grandmother. Just the sort of thing Joey seems to think is impossible.

You say:

“However, the rise is mainly due to foreign immigrants whose number increased by 37,000 this year.”

The article says: The highest number of foreign immigrants came to the Czech Republic from Ukraine (9700), followed by the Vietnamese (8200) and Slovaks (3700).

Two out of the three largest groups of immigrants are from other Slavic nations. How is that supposed to support your notions?

Well, I’d be speaking of the Vietnamese then

As for your cousins, you have not described their father. If their father is blonde and the mother is dark-haired, but holds a blonde haired gene, then there is a 50% chance the kids will have blonde hair. If both parents have dark hair, but hold the recessive gene, then there is a 25% chance of having a child with blond hair.

Does that make sense?

To R: You, like Shurtleff (remember him?), seem to be a true product of our flat world times.

It seems that you’e trying to prove that genes don’t matter. That’s absurd. In fact, with each passing day there are more discoveries showing that genes are even more important in who we are than was previously thought.

I have neither the space here nor the inclination to give you a full primer on genes, but maybe you should read a little more on the subject before continuing with all the flat world stuff.

I will say this, however, that during mating, a male human and a female human each contribute 23 chromosomes and that the result is a new human with the full complement of 46 chromosomes.

Those chromosomes carry the approximately 30,000 genes that humans possess. They are the code for each human. If the parents have the same genotype and phenotype, the child will look much like them and be much like them.

If the parents do not have the same genotype and phenotype, the child will look like, er, Obama.

Now, Obama is not half white and half black, as some say. He is black (meaning, here, Negro or African descended).

This is so because black genes are dominant–this means it only takes one set of them to be expressed, while white genes are recessive–which means it takes two sets to be expressed. Thus, Obama is black.

Now, as far as skin color goes, Obama is midway in color between his mother and father. This is because genes for skin color are the few genes that actually allow a blend.

This could go on for pages, but a question that some might ask concerns why black genes are dominant and white genes are recessive.

I can only speculate. It may be that because whites are a fairly recent departure from the masses of humanity, that their genes are not the norm for humanity and are less fixed and that the laws of entropy work in genetics somewhat as they do in physics, i.e. the new, the different, are pulled back into the norm.

Note to nitpickers: The above is a very simplified and popularized version of the subject, so don’t waste your time nitpicking, or by saying ignorant things about how you have two dark haired relatives who have a blond child as proof that genes don’t matter. Geez! That’s a grade school level comment and has to do with dominant and recessive genes and the commonly known darkening effect of blond hair. I have dark hair, but I was a toe head when I was a kid.

By the way, calling me a flat earther really doesn’t make you right.

To R: You ask: “Which gene or gene, in particular, do you think constitutes “us”?
……………..
All living things are the product of many genes and many gene variations and mutations and gene interactions. It is the cumulative effect of many genes with many small changes that makes us, us, whoever you wish to consider as us.

Consider white skin for example. It now seems likely that a very small mutation to gene slc24a5 located on chromosome 15 may account for a large part of white skin.

So, why do people in Europe have white skin–why did that mutation stick–you may ask?

Well, as people moved north out of Africa (Which most scientists think is the case), the sun was less bright, and lighter skin let in more light to produce Vitamin D.

Vitamin D prevents rickets. People without rickets lived longer and presumably produced more children with their gene mutation for white skin.

People with lighter skin thus had a survival advantage over people with darker skin in that climate. People with darker skin died off in Europe. Simple survival of the fittest.

And, you will note that survival of the fittest is defined backwards, i.e. those who survive are, as the last ones standing, defined as the fittest even if to our eyes they may not look to be what we would consider to be the fittest.

It’s women like you who insist on idling their time away in an office

Haven’t worked in an office for a couple years now. My ideal workplace is in an orchestra pit.

Thank you, R, for proving my point. Next!

I didn’t prove any of your argument, any more than you or Bob did.

LOL… I haven’t really red this thread, but I have to tell you…I understand why you call it a comedy.

“The practice of polygamy in particular often coincides with crimes targeting women and children.” I’d change one word… change “polygamy” to ‘marriage’ - and Shurtleff would probably have it more correct….

Remember that saying that was around in the late 60’s, early 70’s?

“Be sure brain is engaged before opening mouth?”

lol

Letters sent to Merrianne Jessop are a humantarian gesture to aid a child in distress. CPS has a problem with humanitarian gestures.

(And criticizing me for race-baiting? That’s a laugh. Look at your own and Thomas Forguson’s posts.)

R wrote: “Also - did you even read the article you linked to? Because it refers you to Snopes’s debunking of this nonsense: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp”

I really don’t get why people cite Snopes to prove their arguments. I can’t count how many times I’ve researched the claims of Snopes only to find that they are wrong. Often times when people have provided me with links to Snopes to prove their arguments, in areas such as medicine, I’ve discovered that Snopes hasn’t bothered to update their statements in five years or more, and in the meantime new research has proved them wrong. Snopes has been wrong often enough that I no longer using them as a resource or even check the links when someone sends me one. It’s more reliable to do your own research!

Joey wrote: “To get one quickly, as opposed to being put on a 10 year waiting list, he’d have to bribe someone at CPS (kidnapping child/broker organization) or feel around in the black market to find someone to do it for him.”

I know a number of people who have adopted Caucasian children, and none of them have had to wait ten years. The longest wait was three years, finally adopting a darling newborn boy about a month ago. Her first baby was placed with her within less than a month—through the same agency as her new baby, about five years ago. Those who are willing to adopt toddlers have much shorter waits. When pursuing adoption from orphanages in blonde hair/blue eyed countries, it takes only about a year…just three months longer than human gestation. When you consider that it takes time to conceive in the first place, that may be even quicker than having biological children. So, what’s the hurry?

Me wrote: “Why is motherhood looked so down upon in America, as if motherhood in itself is abuse?”

I don’t believe it is. There may be a vocal minority with media support that promotes that idea, but that’s not what I get in my encounters in life. Almost everywhere I go, as a mother, I receive praise and/or expressions of envy because of my ability to be a full time mother. It is a great blessing that many mothers, due mostly to single parenthood, don’t get to experience. I don’t live in Utah, so being a “mom” is not a cultural thing, yet nearly everywhere I go I get a positive reaction to my children in tow and my role as a full time mother. (By the way, there is no such thing as a “stay-at-home mom”…Life pulls us in many directions.)

Joey wrote: “Like Bob says, your comments are childish. Are you a woman? You should be raising your children or grandchildren, doing the things only women can do. It’s women like you who insist on idling their time away in an office pretending to work, who are the cause of the depopulation of civilized peoples.”

What the heck do her childish comments have to do with being a woman? As for your comments about raising children and idling time away, I’m going to hope that you meant to be humorous. (I can hear at least one of my brothers saying something like that just to bait me.) There is no reason women can’t think and debate with men while still filling their roles as mothers.

So, what was this post about? Is it just me, or did this train derail?