Homework promoting polygamy & Islam garb sent home with students

reply to post by RedGod

are you just confused or what?
mormonism has been around longer than the Constitution.
no administration has ever attempted to outlaw the mormon religion.

the practice of polygamy has never been "legal" in the US, it is just punished differently depending on location.
actually, there is no law against polygamy either ... the law being breached is that of "bigamy".

And quite frankly, that's exactly how the polygamists are able to continue on in their lifestyle, today.
Generally, there is only one legal marriage ... that makes the 'premise' of the arrangement legal.
however, it is still subverting the law as stated.
and this is my point about all of it ... you want it changed, change the law ... quit sneaking through the side and back doors. and by all points of reason, Quit teaching the children that breaking the law is a good thing.

reply to post by Honor93


So, if I see a good looking girl, sixteen or seventeen years old maybe, dressed to show a lot of skin and easily mistaken for 18 or 19, maybe even 20 (and yes, this is based on people I've seen), you're telling me I don't want to have sex with her for sex, but rather because I desire power and control? Guess that's what you see all sex as then. Which is sad.

Yes, there are lots of ways to mitigate the risk of rape, one of them is not dressing like a target. I don't understand the immediate jump to "You're blaming the victim!" When I say "If you dress in a way that highlights or enhances your sexual appeal, you will attract sexual attention. Some men will not want to take no for an answer. You can reduce that risk by being only a touch more conservative. But if you don't, and something happens, it's still the attacker's fault."

That "power and control" nonsense that's been fed to you as being 100% of the time is probably closer to 50%. Sometimes, it's just about the sex. That doesn't make it any better or worse.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by RedGod

 

are you just confused or what?
mormonism has been around longer than the Constitution.
no administration has ever attempted to outlaw the mormon religion.

The Latter Day Saint movement, including Mormonism, originated in the 1820s in western New York. Restored by Joseph Smith, Jr., the faith drew its first converts while Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. This book described itself as a chronicle of early indigenous peoples of the Americas, portraying them as believing Israelites, who had a belief in Christ many hundred years before his birth. Smith claimed he translated over 500 pages in about 60 days,[2] and that it was an ancient record translated "by the gift and power of God".[3] During production of this work in mid-1829, Smith, his close associate Oliver Cowdery, and other early followers began baptizing new converts into a Christian primitivist church, formally organized in 1830 as the Church of Christ. Smith was seen by his followers as a modern-day prophet.

Mormonism

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". It has been amended twenty-seven times; the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2]

Constitution

At this time, the male leadership of the LDS Church supported and widely practiced polygamy or "plural marriage." It is estimated that 20% to 25% of Latter-day Saints were members of polygamous households with the practice involving approximately one third of Mormon women who reached marriageable age.[15] The LDS leadership viewed plural marriage as a religious sacrament.[16]

However, the rest of American society rejected polygamy with some even accusing the Mormons of gross immorality. During the Presidential Election of 1856 a key plank of the newly formed Republican Party's platform was a pledge "to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery."[17] The Republicans linked the Democratic principle of popular sovereignty to the acceptance of polygamy in Utah, and turned this accusation into a formidable political weapon.

Are you confused or what?

the practice of polygamy has never been "legal" in the US, it is just punished differently depending on location.

History of polygamy

Polygamy in the United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy (generally polygyny)[7] and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice.[8] Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.[8]

Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.[8] Utopian and communal groups established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny. (Loue, pp. 27–30) There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.[8]

Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-19th century, and in many individual states before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited. Consequently, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of the practice in the past and at the present time.

(Emphasis mine)

actually, there is no law against polygamy either ... the law being breached is that of "bigamy".

And quite frankly, that's exactly how the polygamists are able to continue on in their lifestyle, today.
Generally, there is only one legal marriage ... that makes the 'premise' of the arrangement legal.
however, it is still subverting the law as stated.
and this is my point about all of it ... you want it changed, change the law ... quit sneaking through the side and back doors.

Very good, there is a law against Bigamy. And since the laws against bigamy prevent polygamy, it is therefore a law against polygamy.

and by all points of reason, Quit teaching the children that breaking the law is a good thing.

Someone should have told that to the Founding Fathers of the U.S. They (and in my case folks like Osceola and Geronimo) taught us to rebel after all. Just because it's the law, doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by RedGod
reply to post by Honor93

 

So, if I see a good looking girl, sixteen or seventeen years old maybe, dressed to show a lot of skin and easily mistaken for 18 or 19, maybe even 20 (and yes, this is based on people I've seen), you're telling me I don't want to have sex with her for sex, but rather because I desire power and control? Guess that's what you see all sex as then. Which is sad.

Yes, there are lots of ways to mitigate the risk of rape, one of them is not dressing like a target. I don't understand the immediate jump to "You're blaming the victim!" When I say "If you dress in a way that highlights or enhances your sexual appeal, you will attract sexual attention. Some men will not want to take no for an answer. You can reduce that risk by being only a touch more conservative. But if you don't, and something happens, it's still the attacker's fault."

That "power and control" nonsense that's been fed to you as being 100% of the time is probably closer to 50%. Sometimes, it's just about the sex. That doesn't make it any better or worse.

1st question - are you male or female, naturally? (not your online persona)
2nd question - have you ever been raped?
3rd question - if you have no experience, why present yourself like you do?

sensuality does not equal sexuality
sex is a decision - as you clearly indicate above
your desire is yours and you are responsible for acts emanating from it
no one is suggesting that you don't "want" to have sex ... but are you forcibly taking it?

actually, my sex life is quite healthy, vibrant, exploratory, playful and satisfying
(not that it matters)
as an adult who was raped (more than once in my life), i no longer dress conservatively for just that reason ... i dress most sensually, as often as possible ... matter of fact, spend the most time naked (by choice)

what you are missing or ignoring is the fact that Most rapes are not of provocatively dressed women unless you are watching too much tv.

But if you don't, and something happens, it's still the attacker's fault.

well of course it is ... each is responsible for their own actions
the attacker could choose to remove himself/herself from the temptation
the attacker should be held accountable, he/she is the aggressor.
temptation is yours to manage as is my own.

sometimes ??? only between consenting adults, there is no other time forced sex is acceptable at any age.
btw, if any person "wants/needs" sex that badly, there is a professional on most corners, no need to rape anyone.

reply to post by RedGod

good for you, you caught a dyslexic error
yes, the mormons re-constituted in the 1800s (i thought it was the 1600s)

however, bigamy has been outlawed since the inception of the US via the common law, established in parliament 1603, i think and adopted by the lands prior to the inception of the Constitution.
your wiki shows 19th century because Utah was required to ban the practice prior to being allowed to join the union (hence it was already prohibited in all the other states)

i said before that i am not for or against polygamy.
i am against children being taught illegal activities on MY DIME.
you want to teach such nonsense, you pay for it, all of it.

as for your assertion that

And since the laws against bigamy prevent polygamy

i call BS ... it is an active practice in nearly every state in the union. Illegally practiced, deceivers leading the way and then there is the total withdraw and evasiveness when questioned about said practice. (Warren Jeffs anyone?)
if it is such a good thing, why hide?
if it is such a good thing, why not fight to change the law?
if it is such an accepted thing, why is he in jail?
if it is even tolerated, why then are soooooo many breaking away?

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


Read the post I was responding to guy was off his rocker. I was being sarcastic because he said something outrageous, kind of hard to convey via computer I guess.

Originally posted by Honor93
my example was to "Sample" the shine which isn't to drink it or perhaps you're too young to know that.
a sample is nothing more than wetting the lips (literally), not a shot, not a drink but a sample
me thinks your imagination runs wild.

I forgot all about this. Used to do wine tastings.

Originally posted by Honor93
this will probably get deleted but to those of you using attire as a rape cop-out ... you are wrong.
many women in less than appealing attire are raped, daily.
rape is about power and control, not sex.
sex is merely the tool.
shame on you posters who think women should be responsible for a mans' inability to control himself.
psssst, not all rapists are men.

1. Never used it as a cop out. But then, I've not seen anyone in here use it this way. Telling someone that they are asking for something is not the same as deserving that action.
2. Rape is often enough about power and control, but that does not remove it from being a sex act. But even when it is about being in power, that does not mean that sexual desire has flown out the window, and there is no sex drive involved. What we lose when we call it an act of power.
3. Shame back on you for thinking that the first thought that pops into the mind is controllable.
4. Not all of them are women either. Nor children. Nor animals. But it is rare for any other than a male-instigated rape to have any sight-driven component.

reply to post by RedGod


I can't understand why anyone would be so naive about age if they are planning to get into sexual relations with a stranger who looks young. There are 13-year-olds that look 18 and 16-year-olds who could pass for 30....and it's not because of the way they dress. You should take some responsibility for your sexual behavior and not be so reckless as to end up sleeping with someone you know nothing about who ends up being 15. Underage girls don't even have to be dressed provocatively to get hit on by older men. True, dressing that way does increase her chances of receiving sexual attention, but all she has to be is attractive to get hit on at all. Not being so careless would decrease the chances of you unknowingly breaking the law.

Are you not a parent? I think your view of parenting is far too simplistic. So many underage girls dress the way they do because society sends the message that the only path to womanhood is to be overtly sexual. Their parents are to blame first and foremost but you can't disregard the influence of society.

reply to post by sixswornsermon


Give me your poor huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

Except if you're other than white and Christian, clearly.

I'd also note my amazement at just how many closet 'feminists' come out of the woodwork when discussing traditional Islamic dress for women. Solidarity, sisters!

Originally posted by Honor93
1st question - are you male or female, naturally? (not your online persona)
2nd question - have you ever been raped?
3rd question - if you have no experience, why present yourself like you do?

1. Male
2. No
3. Technically I was a statutory rapist once, though that is because I was deceived. However, one of my wives was raped. Our discussion of it was extensive, once she was ready to talk about it.

no one is suggesting that you don't "want" to have sex ... but are you forcibly taking it?

No. That's the entire point I was making here. It's not forced sex I'm talking about. Forced sex never had anything to do with what I was saying, people just instantly assumed that is what I was talking about. Namaste.

Originally posted by Honor93

i said before that i am not for or against polygamy.
i am against children being taught illegal activities on MY DIME.
you want to teach such nonsense, you pay for it, all of it.

Better stop teaching them about the birth of your nation then. And don't teach them about the westward expansion (because of all that illegal treaty-breaking), Oh, and the civil rights movement? A lot of that was illegal at the time too.

as for your assertion that

And since the laws against bigamy prevent polygamy

i call BS ... it is an active practice in nearly every state in the union. Illegally practiced, deceivers leading the way and then there is the total withdraw and evasiveness when questioned about said practice. (Warren Jeffs anyone?)

Well, you kind of called BS on your own calling of BS there, didn't you? It's illegally practiced. although if you want to really get technical about it, it's not actually illegally practiced by most, as most only have one legal marriage. My wives and I have only ceremonial marriages, not legally recognized ones. If the law didn't block us from legal marriage then we would go that route, but it does.

if it is such a good thing, why hide?

Because prison sucks. Also, many hide their lifestyle because people tend to attach negative connotations to it. The word "polygamist" has been in the media in a negative light quite a bit. additionally, since people have often never been exposed to it outside of talking about Mormons and Muslims, they tend to ostracize and vilify you.

if it is such a good thing, why not fight to change the law?

We have been trying. We still are.

if it is such an accepted thing, why is he in jail?

Warren Jeffs? Because what he was doing didn't always involve consenting adults. He was never charged with Bigamy, FYI. And his little group is as representative of polygamy as a whole as Hitler is representative of white people as a whole.

if it is even tolerated, why then are soooooo many breaking away?

Sooooo many? Breaking away from what exactly? If you're talking about those leaving Traditional (non-LDS) Mormonism, they are leaving a religion (or sometimes cult) that attempts to force them into polygamy. If you're referring to group marriages ending, and splitting up...something like 50% of marriages in America end in divorce, do I need to go through all the reasons that happens?

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by RedGod

 

I can't understand why anyone would be so naive about age if they are planning to get into sexual relations with a stranger who looks young. There are 13-year-olds that look 18 and 16-year-olds who could pass for 30....and it's not because of the way they dress. You should take some responsibility for your sexual behavior and not be so reckless as to end up sleeping with someone you know nothing about who ends up being 15. Underage girls don't even have to be dressed provocatively to get hit on by older men. True, dressing that way does increase her chances of receiving sexual attention, but all she has to be is attractive to get hit on at all. Not being so careless would decrease the chances of you unknowingly breaking the law.

I once met a girl at an eighteen and up club who got in because she knew the bouncer. She was fifteen by a day, and looked at least eighteen. I almost went to jail over that, because I didn't have reason to believe she wasn't eighteen. My point is, sometimes you find your self in situations where you don't see a need to question the age you assume. Yes, being good looking really is all it takes to get guys to hit on them, but as you said, dressing less provocatively would decrease the chances, which is what I was going for as well. Yes, men shouldn't be so careless, but we are also kind of dumb when faced with a good looking lady. Everybody can do something to help everybody. After all, isn't that society?

Are you not a parent? I think your view of parenting is far too simplistic. So many underage girls dress the way they do because society sends the message that the only path to womanhood is to be overtly sexual. Their parents are to blame first and foremost but you can't disregard the influence of society.

I am a parent. A fairly new parent at that, my son is only eight weeks old. You're right though, I can't disregard the influence of society. But, if the mother was a strong enough role model, it wouldn't be an issue in the end.

Also, I feel like we are hijacking this thread a little bit, and for that I apologize to the posters.

If anyone would like to discuss this further, feel free to U2U me.