Comments on: Monogamizer James Cameron: Why not criminalize serialygamy?

By: Jeny

Jeny — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:45:44 +0000

9 Disciple { 09.08.08 at 12:05 pm } Excellent post, Kurt.

Point well taken.

Hope society is listening.
=================

Society isn’t listening….

Sometimes I get the feeling the only people in “society” listening are the handful of bloggers who have consistently stood up for the FLDS and their rights as Americans.

Everyone’s so busy sucking up the lies of the State and the lies from the media, without bothering to research and read and learn the truth themselves, that there’s no “listening” to be done.

Jeny

By: Disciple

Disciple — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:05:47 +0000

Excellent post, Kurt.

Point well taken.

Hope society is listening.

By: old young one

old young one — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:24:14 +0000

Jeny: Because those without sin couldn’t begin the stoning?

someone just might ups and tell on someone else and it’d be game over?

By: Jeny

Jeny — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:45:53 +0000

Question: Why isn’t polyamory amongst married coiuples prosecuted?

Just curious. Thoughts anyone?

By: Jeny

Jeny — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:44:02 +0000

Hugh McBryde { 09.06.08 at 12:50 pm } It’s all about equality. I have come late in life to the realization that God’s world does not include that concept. The afterlife? Yes. Here and now? No, we are told there are different roles. We are reminded that the first in this life may be last in the next, and vice versa, which should give us long pause on how we treat women. We may very well be electing our rulers in the next life by abusing them in this.
==================

As my very wise Mama has always says–”Careful of the toes you step on today, they may belong to the [bleep] you have to kiss tomorrow.

This saying of hers is very true, as I have found at work, church and just making friends and acquaintances in life. I try to keep this in mind as I go through my days–but I don’t always make the mark. I have had the occasion where it came back to bite me when I didn’t it the mark.

Jeny

By: Joey

Joey — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:31:35 +0000

Don’t mormons marry for time and all eternity? In that case mormons would consider them all polygamists? Point being: marriage means different things to different people.

By: Crusty

Crusty — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:54:40 +0000

Oh, but there are so many more. Just among Hollywood there’s Artie Shaw with 8 and David Carradine with 6. The list of those with 5 is long including Dennis Hopper and Kenny Rogers. And these are just the men, who are, btw, outdone by the women.

Oh wait, these are marriages. Try adding in all of the Hollywood relationships that have produced kids without marriage. But wait, there’s more. just look around your own neighborhood and city.

Excellent Post Kurt.

By: Gravitas

Gravitas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:09:06 +0000

Well taken, Hugh.
As we eliminate barriers, however, the next wave is homosexual marriage, already underway in Mass. and CA. According to statistics, gay marriage is virtually always “open” marriage; few gay relationships are ever exclusive. It is all about personal gratification, not trust. Fidelity is considered oppressive, even in allegedly committed relationships — and the majority of gays over a lifetime have upwards of 500 sex partners. Even if one can justify homosexual relations between two people — how does anyone justify 500 and more? (a high percentage have upwards of 1,000 partners over a lifetime.)
It is not a private matter as some will argue; the health issues, at a minimum, are a legitimate community concern. There is much more to consider than AIDS. And just as children of serial marriage between opposite sexes are negatively impacted, so are the children of gays — with the added problem of having gender confusion to deal with.
Defending gay rights, especially where children become involved, is a two-edged sword.

By: Hugh McBryde

Hugh McBryde — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:50:46 +0000

It’s all about equality. I have come late in life to the realization that God’s world does not include that concept. The afterlife? Yes. Here and now? No, we are told there are different roles. We are reminded that the first in this life may be last in the next, and vice versa, which should give us long pause on how we treat women. We may very well be electing our rulers in the next life by abusing them in this.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:36:32 +0000

Well said. Bigamy laws are out of date and overbroad. One can live with 100 women in sexual relationships and all of them can bear your children, but if you don’t call it marriage it’s okay. There’s something wrong here–and the something wrong is–I intentionally repeat myself–bigamy laws are out of date.

We need well crafted bigamy laws that will prevent fraud on those who contract for marriage thinking that they are entering a one on one relationship, but we do not need bigamy laws that can be used to attack people such as the FLDS or Muslims.