Mormon church voices support for same-sex marriage law | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Tuesday it would back proposed federal legislation to safeguard same-sex marriages, marking the latest show of support for the measure from conservative-leaning groups.
The nearly 17-million member, Utah-based faith said in a statement that church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God's commandments. Yet it said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn't infringe upon religious groups' right to believe as they choose.
"We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding," the church said in a statement posted on its website.
Support for the Respect for Marriage Act under consideration in Congress is the church's latest step to stake out a more welcoming stance toward the LGBTQ community while holding firm to its belief that same-sex relationships are sinful. Still, its stance toward LGBTQ people — including those who grow up in the church — remains painful for many.
Patrick Mason, a professor of religious studies at Utah State University, said the church's position was both a departure from and continuation of its past stances — respecting laws yet working to safeguard religious liberty and ensuring they won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages or grant them official church sanction.
"This is part of the church's overall theology essentially sustaining the law of the land, recognizing that what they dictate and enforce for their members in terms of their behavior is different than what it means to be part of a pluralistic society," he said.
The faith opposes same-sex marriage and sexual intimacy, but it has taken a more welcoming stance to LGBTQ people in recent years. In 2016, it declared that same-sex attraction is not a sin, while maintaining that acting on it was.
The bill, which has won support from Democrats and Republicans, is set for a test vote in the Senate Wednesday, with a final vote as soon as this week or later this month. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, with Justice Clarence Thomas issuing a concurring opinion indicating that an earlier high court decision protecting same-sex marriage could come under threat.
The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. It would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of "sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin." It makes clear that the rights of private individuals and businesses wouldn't be affected.
Utah's four congressmen — who are all members of the church — each voiced support for the legislation earlier this year.
The church's public stance is a stark contrast from 14 years ago, when its members were among the largest campaign contributors in support of California's Prop. 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in response to cities such as San Francisco granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Troy Williams, the executive director of Equality Utah, said it was "thrilling" to see the church part of the coalition in support of the legislation.
"Despite differences we may have, we can always discover common ground on laws that support the strengthening of all families," Williams, who grew up a church member, said.
The faith opposes laws that would make it illegal for churches to not allow to same-sex couples to marry on their property. But it has supported state-based efforts to pass laws that prohibit employment and housing discrimination as long as they clarify respect for religious freedom.
The Respect for Marriage Act neither fully codifies the U.S. Supreme Court decision that enshrined a federal right to same-sex marriage nor details all religious liberty concerns of those who object to it.
Faith groups see it as vehicle for passing religious liberty protections they haven't been able to in the past, said Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership.
Schultz's organization is advocating for religious liberty on behalf of a coalition concerned with that subject — a coalition that includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Same-sex marriage has achieved broad appeal in our culture in significant part because it hasn't trampled on people who believe in traditional marriage," he said.
___
Associated Press News Editor Brady McCombs contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Now this is not something I would have expected.
The Mormons are having the same issues all the other Christian sects are in modern day America. They can't embrace it, but outright militant opposition eats into the numbers attending and donating to the church. So they try a middle line of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner."
= we have a male surplus because of... uh, er... but we still need the cash flow from their tithes...
Don't Mormons and Gays have something in common on the Marriage issue?
Not that I can see. What do you have in mind?
When some think of an illegal Mormon marriage, what are they thinking of?
They both like wearing magic underwear?
What makes you think so, up close and personal?
Why not just make a statement rather than invite us to read your mind?
I like that magic underwear
Mormons = polygamy
No.
Mainstream Mormons do not engage in polygamy.
I'm just saying maybe they have more in common than they thought...
On a serious note, I think we all have more in common than we realize and perhaps the religious conservative crusade against the lgtbq community should focus on the similarities rather than the immaterial differences. Don't we all want safe cities, towns, streets and schools, whether a religious conservative, atheist or lgtbq? Don't we all want to be treated fairly and with respect? Don't we all want decent paying jobs, access to healthcare, personal freedoms to make decisions for ourselves, freedom to worship the way we want and the freedom to love who we want? Wouldn't America be a much better place if everyone stopped worrying about the speck in their brother's eye and spent their time working on the timber in their own? In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"...
We wear short shorts....
I need a musical note emoji.
“Mormons = polygamy”
Welcome to Colorado City. If not outright polygamy… a cult is a cult is a cult.
No.
Mainstream Mormons do not engage in polygamy.
That would be great..can we start with public schools?
“We wear short shorts....”
The only thing between us and them is a “thin layer of gabardine”.
That's where those fundamentalist Mormons live isn't it?
A fan of Seinfeld?
Exactly, magic underwear.
If they were only more like you.
Not since 1890 (disregarding outliers).
Thus I think it unfair to say that the Church of LDS supports polygamy.
Unfair?
Is that what you call an outright lie now?
it is, but their fringe element, the FLDS, is a problem, and it enjoys tacit approval among a significant part of the mormon community. the FLDS's abuse of religious freedom oversteps the 1A boundaries of the constitution and that needs to be adjudicated.
Is this like some other cultural wars, with such low numbers that really aren't worth mentioning?
Oh, I know it doesn't but I think that's what another poster was getting at
It is not an outright lie. I explained that in my comment.
The "outliers" I referred to.
the civil war saved them from federal eradication out west 160+ years ago. there's so many issues left over from that era...
Ah the old Nair commercial....................
ok saying something proven false isn't lying.
Reality is more nuanced than the binary views typified by children.
Let's look at 1.2.18 since it is complete and brief:
You are all bent out of shape because I used the word 'unfair'.
Breaking it down:
In net:
Given the LDS Church is famous for its polygamy and polygamy is still practiced by Mormon outliers, polygamy lingers in the LDS Church domain; but this unofficial practice goes against current, official LDS Church policy so it would be unfair to categorically deem the LDS Church as supporting polygamy. They did. It is still done unofficially. But it is not current policy.
'Unfair' allows for the noted nuance, ergo its use.
Your condescension is duly noted and discarded for the trash it is.
Look at it all you need to. I already read it.
That is a moronic comment.
The statement was made: Mormons = polygamy.
You aptly proved that to be false.
Now, you can twist and spin all you want, but when something is stated and proven false, then it is a lie.
Please don't bother replying.
Understanding reality means understanding nuance. Viewing reality in simplistic binary terms produces a distorted, overly-simplified understanding.
[deleted]
Mormons = polygamy.
I am dying to hear THIS spin!
I know you know that Mormons do not = polygamy.
Fair or unfair a right to a same sex marriage is a right that must also extend to polygamy.
Why? That makes no sense.
That's true Tex.
It was only brought up to question what the change in marriage law enables.
The word ' must ' is wrong. The correct word is ' could '.
In the future, if our society changes in a way in which polygamy (and other variations of legal marriage) becomes something that society desires then that society could change its laws to reflect its mores, values and customs.
Today, in our society, same-sex marriage is generally accepted whereas polygamy is generally not accepted.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70% -- a new high in Gallup's trend since 1996.
Therefore the legitimate question to those who oppose same-sex marriage is: on what legal grounds do you disallow two people from being legally married simply because they are of the same sex?
That's not how the law works. Society once only accepted Marriage as involving a man and a woman. Under the same reasoning that the right was extended to Gays, it was extented to a Polygamist and many other interesting relationships.
Just saying "that's not how the law works" is meaningless. All you did is repeat your view that same-sex marriage means polygamy must be legal.
That is wrong and I explained why in my post.
The law is an emergent property of an evolving society. The society changes and laws change (belatedly) in accordance with the mores, values and customs of said society. The most striking, obvious historical examples of this are slavery and women's suffrage. Same-sex marriage is a recent addition to the list.
Society also only accepted marriage between people of the same race. So what's your point? There is no valid legal argument to deny same sex couples the right to marry just as there was no valid legal reason to deny interracial couples the right to marry. I have yet to see such an argument made.
Then so be it. Let 'consenting adults' marry as they see fit. Some will rebuke or consider this comment absurd, but that is what you are going after is it not? Reasoning to the absurd?
An 'opposite' marriage is a standalone relationship and compares to a 'same-sex' marriage which is standalone relationship[. Neither lends itself to polygamy which is a standalone relationship.
Your argument seems to be with Vic, not Trout or TiG. They're just saying what he'll only hint at. Seems a bit odd that you take offense to what they say, but not to what Vic means but refuses to say.
On second thought, it's entirely predictable.
What reasoning?
Then you vastly misunderstand the entire argument.
I didn't realize you were clairvoyant, I can only go by what I can actually see posted here.
What I took offense to (your words, not mine) is this:
"Mormons = polygamy."
I said that was false, and TiG also said it wasn't correct.
Of course, he had to add in a bunch of bullshit about "nuance"--as if that statement contains any nuances.
If nothing else it is a sweeping generalization, which is suddenly, mysteriously not against the C of C.
Is that you, Nostradamus?
Because, as I noted, reality is not typically binary and simplistic. Nuance is everywhere and if one considers nuance to be 'a bunch of bullshit' then one forces a very simplistic (childlike) view of reality.
Trout was offering what she believed Vic was hinting at with his vague comment: the idea that Vic with this ...
... was implying that Mormon's with their historic and outlier practice of polygamy (an illegal marriage) have something in common with "gays" since same-sex marriage is only recently federally legal. Implying, no doubt, that legalizing same-sex marriage is a slippery slope to legalizing polygamy.
But this of course requires considering nuance and complexity inherent in reality.
Look, if you want to pretend that "Mormons = polygamy" contains some nuance only you can fathom, be my guest.
I won't be a party to such dumbfuckery..
I do not have to pretend. I (and I am sure most every reader here) easily understood that Trout Giggles was not stating an absolute equivalence ... that 'Mormans' is a synonym for 'polygamy' but rather was stating that Vic's reference to Mormon's and Mormon marriage was a reference to polygamy.
Buy a vowel.
You have more spin than a dreidel.
Why, are you in need of one? or just hawking them?
Nobody's buying that bullshit, Texan. We all know what Vic was getting at, but you didn't want to argue with him, so you decided to go barking up the wrong tree, deliberately.
Good, I am not selling any.
Her comment was to TiG, not Vic. Now, you all can twist it to say whatever you want it to say, but she wrote THIS:
Mormons = polygamy.
I dare you to find any nuance in THAT.
And if you all have a problem with what Vic says, take it up with him, ffs.
Like I stated earlier, I won't be a party to such dumbfuckery.
Are you just making things up now?
Every one here can read and knows what was being talked about.
You on the other hand are the only one that sees something different.
Get a clue.
Nope, and if you think I am, prove it.
Quote what I "made up".
Yes, the quote "Mormons = polygamy". Glad to see you are keeping abreast of things.
Whether you choose to 'see' it or not is immaterial to me and this conversation.
Get a life.
So you just cannot understand general flow of conversation...
I understand you accused me of making something up and somehow managed to avoid proving it.
Nope, I see you making unfounded accusations and when called on it attacking everyone else.
You have one hell of an imagination.
I would ask you to prove that blather also, but I already know how that turns out.
You can't even articulate what it is you are accusing me of with a valid example.
I told others I won't be a party to dumbfuckery, so I see we are done here.
What ever you have to tell yourself.
Beats the hell out of imagining entire conversations which never happened.
Uh, it is all here in black and white.
Whatever, you can now have the last word...
Yes, it sure is, surely you can imagine my surprise when you baselessly accused me of things which never happened.
Thanks.
Not for lack of trying.
So you say, so you say.
Funny, not one person here can tell me the 'nuance' in "Mormons = polygamy" despite my myriad attempts to elicit a comprehendible response, I see you are no different in that regard.
WTF do you think I am selling, and WHY?
name the other religions associated with polygamy originating in the western hemisphere...
Does your Google no longer work?
Do you believe the Mormon church supports polygamy?
I think that the religion of the Yamassee, the Kachin or Katsina religion of the Pueblo people and other Native American societies permitted polygamy.
Here, I realize how hard internet searches taking seconds can be for some:
The Mormon Church officially renounces polygamy - HISTORY
Okay, now make a REAL case how Mormons support polygamy. Go!
So say we all. Your argument is with Vic, not those honest enough to plainly say what Vic wouldn't.
Oh, shit, you are really going to get some folks riled up now!
[deleted]
Why would I have a beef with Vic? Did HE write "Mormons = polygamy"??????
We all know what he was dancing around saying.
If you have an issue with what Vic said, take it up with HIM.
I had an issue with the false statement from another member and directed my reply to HER.
Isn't that how this is supposed to work--hold people accountable for what THEY say, not what we imagined they meant or what others say?
If you choose to believe the lie that Mormons = polygamy, I can't help but think you don't have a freaking clue about Mormons, much like the person who wrote it and all the folsk jumping in to her defense.
Your pathetic attempts to save face will fool only fools. Your insistence that ‘Mormons = polygamy’ literally means that those two words are synonyms suggests an inability to comprehend anything but literal; most people grow beyond that as children.
This has been explained multiple times to you in this seed by myself and others yet you repeatedly lie and claim otherwise.
In short, your continued pretense is ridiculous and you should be embarrassed.
Those aren't my words, they are someone else's false words.
If you think the Mormon Church supports polygamy, then it shows you to be woefully misinformed, at this point deliberately so.
You either quote me "LYING" as you claim or stop with the shit.
We both know you can't or one of you would have by now.
Should being the operative word...
I really don't feel like you need to man-splain what a woman wrote.
You should work at trying to document what you called my lies.
This just shows you are trolling. I have explained this to you in detail. For you to even suggest that I think that the Church of LDS CURRENTLY officially supports polygamy shows that you have no understanding of what I wrote or are simply lying to continue your trolling.
Regardless, keep embarrassing yourself.
I bet that work commute to/from eldorado and waco is boring. how do you stay awake?
Fuck off.
That comment is a lie.
Don't need any 'explanations' from you.
I took offense with the statement "Mormons = polygamy", and you have been spinning like a whirling dervish since then.
Give it a fucking break already.
Says the guy who keeps egging this on. As if anyone is buying your bullshit.
Are ya'll in the market or something?
I am sincerely sorry you don't get that "Mormons= polygamy" is just flat out wrong and a lie no matter how many ways you attempt to spin it. I am not buying any of your spin.
As noted, you keep going with this ridiculous attempt to save face. People are not that stupid. Give it up. Move on.
Pretty humorous there.
Why would I need to "save face"?
Because I dared question another poster and refuse to buy your spin?
Maybe it is you who should stop spinning, or is that too nuanced for you?
Some are.
Why? Because I won't buy your spin?
When I choose to.
No. Because you went after the wrong poster. All this goes back to Vic refusing to clarify his obvious position, which is one with which you disagree, and you jumping Trout's case when she was honest enough to actually type out the words Vic wouldn't.
Vic brought up the whole "Mormons practice polygamy" thing, and anybody with a lick of sense knows it. But you attacked Trout for it, repeatedly, and expect us to buy your bullshit reasons about why you repeatedly and dishonestly went after the wrong person.
it's a cowardly end run, since TG restricted him 4 days ago from having the last word.
No, I replied to what was written by one poster.
YOU want me to go after Vic--do it yourself if you have a problem with what he stated.
I am sorry I am not clairvoyant or intellectually dishonest enough to put words in other people's mouths--but there damn sure is enough people doing so already.
Sorry, Sandy, but that is nothing more than a fucking lie, and you damn well should know it.
I don't give a fuck if you think I am selling something, all I did was say her claim was false. Are you now claiming what she wrote is true? Am I wrong about what she wrote? ALl I can do is go by what is written. If you all choose to assign words she didn't write to her, or to Vic, then that is YOUR problem, not mine.
You may can that dishonest shit until YOU get honest about what I write.
Fuck off. It's Sunday, don;t you have some thumpers to make fun of?
having a difficult time recognizing the obvious, again?
[deleted]
I'm saying she merely clarified what Vic was dancing around saying. And you attacked her and TiG for it, while ignoring all of Vic's hints. And everyone here can see what you've done, and how dishonest it is.
Why lie about me 'attacking' her?
ALL I said was her statement is false.
I do find it very, very interesting that you think "Mormons = polygamy" is true.
Stuff that dishonest crap until you can tell the truth yourself about what I wrote or did.
Quote me saying as much.
I haven't, so you've made yet another dishonest claim.
Man, for someone who doesn't believe it is true, you sure are defending the statement a whole hell of a lot,.....but why?
You have made false claims, too, so please get down off your high horse.
The succinct comment ' Mormons = polygamy ' was NOT intended to be read by an elementary school child who would naively take that to mean that 'Mormons' is a synonym for 'polygamy' .
It was meant for reading by an adult who can easily process context and nuance.
Given the context of Vic's comment, it means: "Vic's mention of Mormons is an implicit reference to polygamy" .
It is foolish to keep insisting on a naïve school child's reading of Trout's comment. Especially since this has been well explained to you by several people.
[deleted]
How did you discern that? She didn't reply to Vic but wrote that to TiG. As this back and forth has played on, she never clarified her intent or purpose.
[deleted]
Deliver the quote, Tex. If you're so sure that's what I think, which is quite ironic from someone who's been questioning my "clairvoyance", then deliver the quote.
“interesting that you think "Mormons = polygamy" is true.”
Oh, tex…the entire diatribe is not about Mormonism, for if it was, you’d have stated your opinion and let it stand.
As usual, it is making it all about you and thus the incessant thin-skinned reactions in feeling you have somehow (regardless of topic) been misinterpreted. Tell us what you think, let it be enough, and have the courtesy to desist in the continual derailing and self-serving need to have the last word.
That being said, the floor is yours…as you simply cannot let it stand, let it be enough, or let anyone contest a comment without making it personal.
Peace.
Simple conversational skills.
And I addressed Texan's actions, not himself. If he has a problem with his actions being characterized as dishonest, he should avoid engaging in dishonest actions and making dishonest comments.
EXACTLY.
All I did was say the statement was false--and that was ALL until everyone else had to jump in to "explain" what she really, really meant and then berate me for not going after Vic. If they have a problem with Vic, the sensible, adult thing to do would be to address their concerns TO VIC, but I suppose that makes too much fucking sense for some folks.
I am merely following your lead, Sandy.
I don't defend statements I know to be false.
Maybe you should read my original post then. I stated simply that the claim was false. That was ALL I said.
You can spin with the rest of them.
Like hell you did.
Your concerns were with Vic. Vic is the one saying that Mormons support same-sex marriage because they see it as legally similar to polygamy. Oh, of course he didn't come right out and say it explicitly, but anyone with common sense knows that's what he was getting at. Trout merely filled in the blanks he purposely left. But Vic isn't the person you've gone after, is he?
Of course you do.
And yet you've failed to deliver a quote. Why is that?
Summarizing @1.2.96
In context of Vic's comment, TG's "Mormans = polygamy" means "Vic's mention of Mormons is an implicit reference to polygamy" .
If you do not believe it to be true, then it is completely ad utterly senseless to defend the claim.
More useless spin.
Thanks.
Quote me then.
[removed]
For the umpteenth time, if YOU have a problem with Vic, address your concerns to HIM.
Why do you ASSUME I have a problem with him?
If he didn't say it, why assign it to him?
Why try to continually spin what she wrote to someone who isn't Vic?
[deleted]
Rather than anyone confront him (about his trolling) in public you guys make a 100 comment thread that is little except bickering with him.
[deleted This thread is pathetic.]
[deleted]
[What happened?]
I have not defended the claim. I have defended the people you have attacked for falsely stating that they've made the claim. Moreover, you have attacked them while ignoring the person who actually made the claim.
You see, there are two reasons I have not defended the claim:
1. I know that the LDS does not support polygamy.
2. I know that Trout was not saying that they do. I recognize that Vic was saying that they do.
Vic was asked repeatedly to clarify his purposely incomplete statements, and declined to do so. Trout provided her interpretation of Vic's reasoning. Vic has been free at any point to clear up any misunderstanding, if he thinks there was one. He has not. He has not needed to do so. Others have been attacked by you for Vic's claims.
So you admit he never said that, but are going to claim he really meant that? Ah, clairvoyance must be such a joy to have!
What the hell do you think we're doing, John? We're confronting him about his trolling in public. For fuck's sake, you complain that trolling isn't confronted, then complain when it is confronted. Is there any pleasing you?
Says the guy who says I believe that Mormonism=polygamy on the basis of absolutely no evidence.
I already did.
Starting off with a lie is a bad look. I attacked no one. Get it straight for once.
Thus admitting, (even begrudgingly so) that my comment was 100% true sans all of the spinning her 'defenders' did.
I see her comment stating that "Mormons = polygamy". I don't see her saying otherwise, perhaps you can point out her post? Or maybe Vic' post saying they do?
If what I posted was an attack, good God you people need a thicker skin.
Much of this would have been avoided if she had followed your advice to Vic.
Based on your defense of the statement that was actually made, not imagined.
She did.
Those were Trout's words, @1.2.22
Did you miss this statement by TG?
Wrong again.
I am not interested in what spin he has fooled you with.
I'm sure you think that, the same way I'm sure you think your argument was with Trout and TiG.
Did you find those quotes yet?
He, who? Trout is a woman.
[deleted]
So she, too, is imagining what he really meant.
I made ONE fucking comment, saying her statement was false. The rest of it is just you all defending her statement or imagining what Vic meant and telling me I should have a problem with Vic and me responding..
I see the tickets are coming, so I will give all of you the last word, have fun!
From the CoC:
[removed]
Where did I say that?
What I was pointing out was that Mormons could be sympathetic to same-sex marriage because such a right MUST extend to multiple partner marriage and I'll go further, it MUST extend to someone wishing to marry a sign post.
Mmmhmmmm. Let Texan know you think Mormons support polygamy, will ya? He seems to take great offense to the idea.
deleted
He didn’t say that FFS,
Don't have to what with the vivid imaginations running amok here.
Mmmmhmmm...
Let Texan know you think Mormons support polygamy, will ya?
No Sandy..They once did and many were killed for it.
Progressives like to create rights but hate to accept responsibility.
BTW, why is my name being bandied about?
Doesn't matter if you did or not, they imagined what you really, really, REALLY meant.
And that is all that matters.
Hell, we may not even have to post anything anymore, we can just let them imagine what we said and watch them argue it!
Yes, they once did.
But is that the time period you had in mind when you asked
I kinda doubt it.
Are you in favor of Polygamy?
Mainly because they assume I have a problem with you and decided to address other posters?
LMMFAO!
Because a bullshit claim was made, and now they can’t defend it so they blamed you for it.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Here is what they are avoiding:
Traditional Marriage meant the union of two people of the opposite gender. Gay rights advocates insisted that the gender requirement was simply prejudice. So if the gender requirement was prejudice, it is only logical that someone may attack the number requirement as being prejudice.
The same reason Trout's name is.
And age requirements? How can a minor make major decisions about Gender, and not marriage?
What about the rules?
[deleted]
Legally only two consenting adults can get married.
Do you want to pay social security to 30 wives. Should 30 wives all have the same power of attorney.
No matter how you frame it, two consenting adults getting married is not the same as having more than one legal spouse.
If you knock down one, you can knock them all dowm.
Imagine them saying that the public is against Polygamy? As if they suddenly cared about public opinion.
What rules?
Knock down what? Marriage has not changed.
Legally it was only a man and a woman.
Do you want to pay social security to 30 wives. Should 30 wives all have the same power of attorney.
They have the sames "rights" as gays via the same argument. The number requirement is simply discrimination.
No matter how you frame it, two consenting adults getting married is not the same as having more than one legal spouse.
No matter how you frame it, you can't have it both ways.
What you are attempting is nothing more than trying to change something that has not changed.
Marriage laws are rules are exactly the same as they always have been.
If you cannot see the consequences of someone having 30 legal spouses, there is nothing I can say.
You are making up false equivalencies just to justify being against gay people having a legal relationship.
It has nothing at all to do with polygamy.
Of course everyone knows that is not true. DOMA was federal law and it got changed.
I'm sure that gay activists don't want to be in the same space as polygamists, but that is exactly where they put themselves.
Have a good one.
Nope. You are making up scenarios where one thing that is not even remotely the same as another are put into the same category.
I think there would have to be a modification of current laws if we were to allow legal marriages between multiple partners. I don't have an ideological problem with it, although it's certainly not something I'd choose for myself. But in the current legal framework, inheritance would be a mess, as would legal authority in cases of medical emergencies resulting in incapacitation.
Which wife (if we assume polygyny) inherits what, on the death of the husband? Which children have inheritance rights? If the husband has a heart attack and is unconscious in the hospital, who makes medical decisions for him? What happens if there is disagreement among his wives?
I also think the issue of financial support for children would need to be addressed. I have read that it's fairly common for children of plural marriages to be supported by taxpayers, because their parents, not being held back by biological limitations on how many children they can have, often have more than they can support, and all wives other than the legal wife are considered to be legally single parents and are eligible for more state assistance. I think laws that recognize plural marriage would have to address this issue so as not to increase financial burden on the taxpayers for the care of children produced by those marriages. These women should not be treated as single mothers, because they're not. They have a husband, and he needs to step up and help support his kids, or take care not to create any. Health insurance offered by employers would have to cover all spouses and children, not just the first spouse.
And I think the potential for abuse must be mitigated. Absolutely no marriages of those under 18 in any state. Anyone who wants out should have full legal support to leave, up to and including assistance from the state, without fear of losing custody of their children. No allowing a "circling of wagons" to keep those in, in and those who might help them out, out, as has occurred in the past. No arranged marriages in which one or both partners are denied the right to refuse to marry. Subsequent wives need to have the protection of laws that guarantee them property rights within the marriage, and the right to marital assets if they leave the marriage. Currently, only the legal, usually first, wife has such protection.
Note that none of these issues are present with same-sex marriage between two individuals. They each would have the same property and inheritance rights as any other monogamous marriage. They each would have the same rights to make medical decisions for the other, if needed. They each are responsible for the financial support of any children brought into their marriage, either by adoption or surrogacy.
One requires a reworking of many of our laws concerning marital rights and marital and parental responsibilities. And it's not same-sex marriage.
Except that Trout clarified her comments early on. Vic was asked to do so several days ago.
Vic,
When you wrote:
Were you —with the use of the word 'Mormons' in context of 'Marriage'— referring to polygamy?
If not, what, specifically, were you referring to?
And I explained this to Texan way back @1.2.45 but he could not deal with it:
Now that you have stated it, maybe he will finally accept the reality of this thread. ( likely not )
without injecting false equivalencies, he wouldn't have an argument...
Please keep my name out of your posts if you are going to lie about me.
This is the energizer thread, it just keeps on going and going and going.
[deleted]
what an ironic comment.
[removed]
Another ironic comment.
No it mustn't. This is not complicated. Homosexuals are already existing in legally approved marriages and no multiple partner marriages or signposts have been cleared in this country to do so. I repeat, marriage rights are standalone law. This is not a slippery slope area of concern!
[removed]
Your reasoning is repugnant. It must not be allowed to stand without pushback! This is the kind of 'hit that ruins people's lives and yes it gets homosexuals and friends of homosexuals killed over 'nothing'! What the "h" is traditional marriage anyway but a social construct designed (when it operates at it best) to keep two people of the opposite sex together for life! Granted, that in and of itself is a noble cause for those who often strive to keep their families and relationships intact. But, trying to ban and damn same sex marriages, simply because "traditional marriages" are dominating the history of this country is demeaning, arrogant, and shows a depraved mind in those who hold firm to it alone.
What is so disturbing is at any given moment of the day on Christian/Patriot radio brands I can here ads or station 'calls' for listeners to "support traditional marriage" and stop the liberals from passing laws in support of anything other than "traditional marriage" - a damn call to action! It is a case of conservatives waging political warfare against people who otherwise don't even know conservatives exist or care what people do in their marriages.
This shit is dangerous, deadly, and the practice needs to be stopped everywhere.
That is why I am glad the Mormon Church is pulling out of it!
[remoed]
Well George, when you write a question like that about minors and gender selection I could point out that a child is not alone in gender selection but do participate with a parent or parents, doctors, certified mental health practitioners, and governmental agencies to get authorization and clearance for their actions.
On the other hand, and yet this will widen the 'aperture' of this discussion at least temporarily: What do people in your political sphere have to say about mass murdered youths being slaughtered on an annual basis? Who do the kids turn to get help when conservatives won't listen to their pleads to simply live without a or multiple bullet wounds while on campus?
Conservatives are highly selected about what they gripe about: A little of this; all of that; Oh no! None of the other—please!
It's a narrow-minded group of people in plain sight of everybody.
Since evidently you understand my point: I think I will indulge you. Bye for now!
Now it’s the LDSGBTQ.
I'd like to buy a vowel, please...
Someone here pushes them frequently.
keep on...
Just trying to be helpful--one pushes and you want to buy, thought I'd hook you up!
An uniformed request. If you buy a vowel, that you can't afford, you increase the chances that the next spin results in a loss.
You will never get to Playa del Carmen that way.
I tend to view their position as being more politically motivated for their own benefit.
It is such. And do note for the record that Vic is undoubtedly sharing in part the rlghtwing opposing argument for why same-sex marriage should not be legislated into law. Why the rightwing will persist in its abuse and 'wedge-issuing' of homosexuals and the like.
Why not? Religious folk really can't be predicted.
A firm belief in mythology and superstition makes one insane.
Is President Biden affirming that for you?
The Mormons are typically very conservative. It is unlike them to support such a liberal position.
No shit Sherlock...
Everyone with half a brain knew that was a bogus claim.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
This is what I have been 'working' towards seeing happen all these years of sharing discussions here on the topic of homosexuality and trans-persons. You don't have to be a homosexual or transperson to be open and honest and 'welcoming' to people different from yourselves!
It is so bizarre that secularists and humanists got this 'message' clear in their consciousnesses before the churches—which are supposed to operate on openness, honesty, and welcoming 'others.'
But, it is what it is.
Finally, movement.
Special note: I love the use of the phrase, "pluralistic society" coming off the 'lips' of the Church. It is the church using the language of the world, in acceptance and admission of the world having its own place in this nation apart from the Church.
Some will call this a concession or 'appeasement' —they would be viewing this from the wrong angle. This is respect for a nation that desires to put some of its past anguish and irreconcilable positions and public policy stances down. Hopefully, once and for all.
This is a big deal. It really is. It likely will generate a backlash (split-off of 'elders) but it cannot be helped. Only God can fix this resoundingly. And so far God is not speaking.
People, church leaders, have decided to do the next best thing.
[Deleted]
It's too bad we couldn't go any further with our conversation, just at the point that Sandy and I could have had an amicable discussion. She made some good points in Post 1.2.158.
So let me just end it this way: I think the law the democrats are trying to enact is the right way to handle this. I'm a big believer in rules and the Constitution. Our elected officials get to enact laws governing such things as Marriage. Judges should not be creating new rights. Whatever law is enacted should be transparent and easy to understand. Religious marriages should not be forced to conform to it.
the US Constitution gives religions the right to be practiced in america, within the confines of our laws, and they are subordinate to the laws of the US. the unwanted imposition of any religious dogma upon the citizens of the US is unlawful and contrary to the US Constitution.
Gay couples are entitled to a marriage, but not to a religious marriage ceremony.
Separation of Church and state. That's what it means.
Correct, religious organizations are free to (and do) impose bigotry of their choosing.
I'm glad that you are among the enlightened. So you are in favor of a polygamist having the right to marriage?
no religious beliefs is as constitutionally legitimate as any religious beliefs. in a nation where all are considered equal, any act of religious discrimination by religious organizations makes them less than american, and they should be recognized as such by law. using separation of church and state to legitimize illegal discriminatory activities by religious organizations opens the door to anyone that could claim their illegal activities violate their rights to religious freedom.
as an extreme example, I could claim that my none of the above religious beliefs give me the right to harm catholics and evangelicals for their discriminatory activities whenever I see fit to do so, under the full protection of religious freedom. separation of church and state does not make any religious beliefs or religious organization equal to or above the US Constitution and the laws of the US.
Yeah, I bet that crap would really fly in a court.
LMAO!
Vic, why do you engage in such dishonesty? To what end? It just hurts your credibility.
Where do I suggest that I personally am in favor of legal (or even religious) polygamy?
I stated, properly, that religious organizations impose their own bigotry and that they are free to do so. So, for example, they are free to deny same-sex marriages in a religious sense even though these are legal in all 50 states.
You haven't, nor did I say you did, nor is any group in the country pushing for polygamist marriage.
The point I've been trying to make is that there is a reason the democrats are finally doing this right by trying to codify the gay right to marriage. Part of that case was being made in Post 1.2.158. The other part is the fact that by the reasoning that activists fought for and judges used to create that right could easily be cited by Polygamists or others.
I stated, properly, that religious organizations impose their own bigotry and that they are free to do so. So, for example, they are free to deny same-sex marriages in a religious sense even though these are legal in all 50 states.
Your statement wasn't proper. Many religions don't provide religious marriage ceremonies to homosexuals because it goes against their teachings. The American people have been magnanimous is supporting gays right to what had not long ago been the sacred union of a man and a woman (known as Marriage). Be gracious and don't smear religion as bigoted.
That's like saying that allowing women to vote and hold jobs is being magnanimous.
Religions often (not always) hold one class of people as being more valuable or more empowered than another, even if it's only to proclaim that those who follow that religion are superior to those who don't, or to proclaim those who follow another denomination of the same religion to be "sinners". That's bigotry. Religiously-motivated bigotry is still bigotry.
As long as all parties are of legal consenting age and do so of their own free will, why should I care what other do? In recent history polygamisty has been full of coercion to control young women at the same time freezing out and driving away young men.
I'm more supportive of polyamorous lifestyles. The term itself is simply too general to discuss within the confines of this seeded article. It would need a whole article in itself to discuss the various nuances of what polyamorous means and how it already functions in the real world as more and more young people are gravitating to these sorts of lifestyles.
Well, you see Sandy, it went like this: First people lived in caves and men were no different than male Lions. Then we had primitive societies and later we evolved into civilizations. The most important rights were the ones that were attached to the all important idea of citizenship, which is now being threatened. Women eventually got all of their rights, as well as the rights of the unborn. Freed slaves were given citizen rights under the 23th, 14th & 15 Amendments, including birth right citizenship that was written in such a vague way that everyone got birthright citizenship. It's called evolution and it took time.
Religions often (not always) hold one class of people as being more valuable or more empowered than another, even if it's only to proclaim that those who follow that religion are superior to those who don't, or to proclaim those who follow another denomination of the same religion to be "sinners".
Many religions regard homosexuality as a perversion.
That's bigotry. Religiously-motivated bigotry is still bigotry.
You are calling it out? You have that right!
Thus you must agree that once the requirements of Marriage were eliminated, anything goes?
Ok, and? "Well, we aren't dragging women to our caves by their hair" isn't nearly as "magnanimous" as you seem to think it is.
Religion has played a role in perpetuating those inequities.
You're the one objecting to that being called out.
I won't speak for Lou Ford, but when the American public allowed gays to have Marriage for their union it was without a doubt a magnanimous act. Gays already had a Civil Union. Even Obama stood for DOMA in the beginning. It was only when America said ok that they got Marriage.
Religion has played a role in perpetuating those inequities.
If that's the case, you have a lot to worry about with all the people entering the country. They are far more religious than we are.
You're the one objecting to that being called out.
Would I ever deny you that right?
Read what you wrote:
You did not ask "are you", you asked "you are" which states that my words mean I am in favor of legal polygamy.
As I wrote @1.2.45 ☞
Yes, religious bigotry — as I stated.
Note what bigotry is:
bigotry ≡ obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I see. So polygamy is an outlier practice and a gay marriage is normal.
I'm glad that you straightened that out for us.
Wokeism:
Being woke means:
And the latest claims of wokesim:
I also have the right to do some calling out!
Vic, why do you do this? Why not just go with what I write rather than try to put words in my mouth.
I have in this seed stated (by way of an explanation) that same-sex marriage (and homosexuality itself) is uncommon. Just like red-hair is uncommon. Thus homosexuality (and even moreso same-sex marriage) is not the statistical norm. You can thus call gay marriage a statistical outlier. However, I suspect homosexuality is much more common than polygamy so polygamy is more of an outlier.
Does this help you understand things better?
WTF? Get a grip.
Okay, do so. But do so honestly.
Also, I suggest you re-read @1.2.37
Oh, Yes.
Okay, do so. But do so honestly.
I'm getting a little tired of you calling me dishonest. Wait right here.
Also, I suggest you re-read @1.2.37
I am more than tired of you engaging me dishonestly by putting words in my mouth. Maybe you do not even realize what you do.
Yeah, I know you are talking about a slippery slope. And homosexuality remains statistically uncommon. You are hung up on what is statistically common (normal as in the normal curve) as if that is the reason why same-sex marriage is legal. The reason it is legal is because our society has evolved to the point where we, as a society, accept same-sex marriage as a legitimate, legal marriage. Get it?
As I wrote @1.2.45 ☞
Is it evolving?
There will always be "requirements". In my post they were - of legal consenting age and of their own free will, so anything doesn't go. The Duck Dynasty Dimwit's idea to marry them young enough to "train them in right" isn't an option I would support.
There is a impetus for government to have a stable society. Being LGBTQ has NOT been shown to be detrimental society under the scrutiny of law. It in fact creates an strengthens communities for the same reason it does with straight marriage.
Another example of a construct: what exactly is "sacred" about heterosexual marriage above and beyond any other marriage? Granted, and I want to be clear, we all appreciate the means and manner of (marital relationships) lasting relationships, but to be clear, that word -sacred- is not what is happening in marriage!
It is a cheap attempt by churches to hold people in relationship through the art of words and social manipulation. I am not against this, either. Just don't try to use mere words to empower religious organizations with a 'statement' to deny other out of favor groups their right to the same!
Biblical marriage is between one man and one woman and another woman and another woman and another woman and another woman and another woman...
But, woman are only allowed one man!
And, the gays must be stoned to death.
Are from the biblical perspective, such treatment of people can be labeled: self-righteousness. The tendency of some religious people to 'beat their chests' and thank God that the are not like this one or that one. Jesus condemned self-righteous people. On the strength of Jesus' condemnation you would think Christians would run and hide themselves from the tendency to do the aforementioned.
Even so, at the least, when existing in their religious freedom to live, teach, and "be" (set their own course/s through the nation) as these people would keep their tribal sentiments 'in-house' of the organization and not wander out into the public trying to impact society with discriminating ideas they lock themselves in religiously.
Would I ever deny you that right?
You couldn't. But you objected when TiG exercised it.
What exactly are you sharing with this synopsis? And why go to 'bandwagon' fallacy? Why should homosexuals not have marriages because some churches codify them out of existence within their organization? The homosexuals in question are outside those religious spheres of influence and yet those institutions persist to interfere in public debate and public policy.
Many conservatives can't answer such questions because it would require something more than an abstract 'front' they hide behin—okay shield themselves behind.
it is if we're leaving the influence of religious bullshit behind us ...
He does. It's intentional. He does it to just about everyone.
No. You're wrong. What 'requirements" are you referring to as missing?
Yes, Vic, societies are always changing. Probably the most visible signs of this is the so-called generation gap.
You wrote an article, I think, about how life in the 1950s was so different from modern life. Surely you can see that our society is evolving. If not, refresh your memory on what the word 'evolve' means.
You have shit to blame but your 'own.' Your list of white grievances lends itself to no responsibility or context on why life is as messed up-where it is in fact messed up in this country. Some of your conservatives, sit on self-righteous butts pointing fingers outside and around at others while claiming the best things in the land belong to you!
That's full of shit. ALL OF US inclusive make this country work!
Get use the notion and fact that conservatives do have a role to play in this nation's successes, wealth, and spheres of influence-but, you can not and will not be able to EVER claim the successes are only because of conservatives.
What an arrogant cockamamie think to 'imply' whille 'carting out' a list of WHITE GRIEVANCES that complains about what is without mentioning how we've come to be in the unenviable position we are!
I am going to print this so-called list of white grievances out, because it will serve one good purpose. That is, I can know what the "H" some Whites on the Right are 'selling' themselves on as to why they feel justified (wrongly of course) in being America's worst citizens!
You're damn right. Homosexuals don't have to weight their right to marriage, even in a church, by whatever the "h" it is conservatives 'wish' for them. And so, I say, 'today's homosexuals should tell conservative to take their damn "outlier" bull patty and stuff it up and down their. . . "Church"!
Homosexuals ought to start churches, plural and multiple, of their own and claim some religious freedoms of their own.
Done begging and pleading for reasonableness from reactionaries who are profoundly self-interested and deeply invested in not being fair or equitable to those they otherize, while giving all deference to their own appetites and whims!
Are there groups that exist today that you don't feel are victims of conservatives?
Asked like a true reactionary lover of 'self-interests.'
sunday school students? oh wait, never mind...
Changing is a better choice of word than evolving. The good changes are called progress. Most change, especially today is of the negative kind.
You wrote an article, I think, about how life in the 1950s was so different from modern life.
A long time ago. It was the high point of our civilization. We have been in decline ever since.
Surely you can see that our society is evolving.
I'd say it is devolving.
If not, refresh your memory on what the word 'evolve' means.
You best refresh your memory on treating others with a bit of decency. You should have been taught that as a child.
You appear to treat progress as negative - the progressive/Democratic/Liberal type - that is.
You think we are in decline due to the 'radical left'.
You are wrong.
TiG always treats others with decency. You should have been taught that as a child.
Were women, racial minorities and gay people treated with decency in the 50s?
But, thanks for treating me with respect.
/S...
You're out of your mind if you think the 50's were the highlight our so-called civilization. But I can see why you would think so
women wearing skirts and high heels
women getting an expensive college education then getting married and having children
women getting low paying jobs just to be sexually harassed by their employers
blacks being lynched for wanting the right to vote
gays having to hide in the closet just to keep a job and their home
No, and that's why a certain group of people feel it was the high point of American society.
I don't think equal rights and respect for women (or gays) factors in very highly for some folks' assessment of what makes for a good society.
Wasn't that also a time when upper class daughters going to stay with their aunt up north for a few months was euphemism for getting an out of state abortion?
That, or they'd give birth far away from home, where they wouldn't be recognized, give the baby up for adoption, and come home heartbroken but not "spoiled goods".
Yes, some right here on NT. I'd like to drag their stupid asses back to the 50s and spend time with a minority and see if they could handle the racism directed at them.
I remember my mom and dad not talking about the 50's with nostalgia. It was hard times for them growing up in the 50's. Of course, they grew up poor not privileged like some
They are as good at cherry picking their history as they are at their religion.
Those folks feel racism is over and bigotry against LBGTQ folks too. Why, I don't know.
Another Bingo and I think they see that as a detriment and that they already have all the 'rights' they should have and that equality is 'extra rights'.
Yup. It was ok when women were only allowed to be secretaries, teachers, and nurses, and had to give up their jobs as soon as they were married, or God forbid, pregnant. Once they started getting more educated and had higher-paying jobs that they kept after they were married, well, they were just uppity professional divas.
And those gays! Everyone was happier with they were in the closet for life. They hardly ever got killed unless they came out of the closet, so why didn't they just stay there? The world would be a better place if they had.
I'm going to go ahead and just announce that this is sarcasm, in case anybody who doesn't know me is reading.
As citizens of the United States, we all have the same rights. What you are describing isn't rights. It's discrimination. And there are laws that address that.
I don't know why you felt the need to address that comment to me. See 5.1.48
about the only thing i dont mind revisiting from the 50s (before my time actually ) is the music , and even then i can still visit that when the mood hits me , it still beats the hell out of what passes for music nowdays . The rest of it is basically same shit different day as it is today .
I did and that is why I addressed it to you. We all, as US citizens, are afforded the same rights under the Constitution. Unfortunately, there are those who think of different classes of citizens as not equal and are discriminated against. And, as said, there are laws that address those people.
I don't understand why you felt the need to address both of those comments to me.
You must feel that they are asking for extra rights then and they have all the rights they need
We do have all the same rights but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who still discriminate. Even if they are breaking the law because they just don't care
Not at all. I am saying they have all the rights we all share.
I soooooooo agree with you and that is what I am saying.
No, you're saying they're asking for extra rights, is exactly what you're saying.
Evolution is a progressive change where the entity grows more complex. Our society is evolving.
In some ways things are worse (e.g. partisan politics) and in other ways we are better (e.g. human rights, quality of life).
You think I treated you badly by suggesting you refresh your memory on what 'evolution' means?
NOPE. And please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
YUP.
Now thats a pretty big can of worms there , everyone discriminates in some form or fashion, its just a matter of degrees , and most people just dont see that they do it .
myself included .
You're absolutely right. I discriminate against businesses that display the Jesus fish. If a business feels they have to advertise that they are Christian and therefore "trust us, we're honest" then they aren't really following Jesus' teachings. That one I do readily admit to.
i have found , and in my opinion it is , that people discriminate based on both their own self interests and their own beliefs .
so should there be a law that people cant make choices of who they will or will not associate with?
because by being able to make that choice , one will be discriminating .
Private individuals must be allowed to think and associate with whom they want. I was talking about businesses that discriminate in hiring practices or serving people. And landlords who refuse to rent to some people
Bingo TG!
That's what I was essentially saying above about people thinking that LGBTQ folks have all the same rights as us but they really don't according to those who would discriminate against them.
That's ridiculous IMHO and TG explains it very well.
I should add a caveat. Private individuals who discriminate to the point where they cause harm to their intended victim must be prosecuted. Think what you want and yell your hate speech wherever you want, but if your speech causes harm or if you yourself cause harm, you are breaking the law
The "you" here means everyone
I don't think he's read my comment yet
Just my humble opinion.
Ok, so can you think of any exceptions to what you said ?
I can think of a couple exceptions where discriminating on hiring or renting would be justified and legal, at least here. and i do see it happen here.
I wouldn't hire a registered sex offender to work in my daycare. I suppose somebody may discriminate against a gay couple and not bake them a cake. I probably wouldn't rent a house or an apartment to a registered sex offender if it's within close proximity to a school.
I don't think these are the examples you're looking for but I'm open to suggestions
i was making some breakfast with freshly made venison breakfast sausage and th last of my chickens eggs , lost the chickens to a predator .
ok so you have exceptions which was the real point , its perfectly legal to refuse employment by a company to someone that fails a UA. thats one i was thinking of . happens in the trucking industry a lot , even IF its legal to partake , but thats more an insurance issue .
another for rentals is a history of non payment , i have seen that a lot , i am a landlord and have a couple rentals still though im doing away with them slowly . i have seen both not hire or rent based on drug convictions be it use or dealing , again all legal .
I should add , the thing i see on refusal to rent because of dealing convictions , usually also include the making of said product on the property , thats a toxic waste nightmare for any landlord .
i understand the childcare one you posited , one of my daughters was a certified child care and development specialist , she became an addict , got hooked on meth , she has been clean now for a few years , but she will never work in that industry again , no one will hire her because of what happened to her , and she accepts that .
Fox in the hen house! Fox in the hen house!
Sorry about your chickens.
wasnt a fox , judging from the tracks left , it was a feral reservation dog, bout german shepard sized , i went with the flow though , chickens usually only produce eggs consistantly for about 3 years at the longest , mine were close to that already, after they quit laying they become meat for the pot and chicken noodle soup.
If i have to feed them they will be feeding me one way or another .
Sounds good! I'm sorry about your chickens but I see in your comment above that they were heading to the pot anyway. Still hope you catch that mangy dog.
My little dog was a rescue from some kind of puppy mill that was inside a meth house.
I swear that dog still ain't right.
All of your exceptions are sound. I would do the same. My parents had a farm house that they renovated (that I grew up in) and they bought another house and rented the farm house out. They always got shitty renters and decided to sell to Amish horse farmers.
Poor thing. His little brain was addled from the poison in that house
Sad thing was they pulled about 40 or 50 little dogs and pups from the place. When they showed it on the news they showed this one little pups sad face. Ended up being the one I got.
UMMMMM.... no comment .....
but i HAVE concocted an interesting way of making people stop asking for wild game meat ....
i started a rumor about myself .
that i have been seen picking up fresh road kill and that the issue of feral dogs and cats are not aproblem around my place ......anymore.
Clever!
son in law said he would have to go a long ways to get more redneck than that ... so far... its working .
I might want some eggs but not a fan of venison. I would leave you alone with that. Haha
I like venison burger and summer sausage but that's about it
One thing I have never had was buffalo.
I had a buffalo burger once. It was very good
I find its usually a case of one liking it or not , like liver and onions , some like it some dont .
the biggest factor i have found is that with wild game , its up to the individuals habits of what they do immediately after the kill also how that meat is going to taste .
My example is that cow elk i just got , i like shooting the cows because they are better eating , they dont get stressed near as much as the bulls , the bulls are fighting other bulls for cows so they get a high testosterone level and adreneline , guy i know shot a good sized bull a couple weeks ago , had it processed and complained it tasted rank. I shot a dry cow ( that means she didnt have a calf and wasnt lactating ) I also did a few things to get the core body temp down and the weather helped some , shot her when it was in the 30s and it dropped to the 20s and teens . made sure it was cleaned and rinsed , those initial steps after gutting matter , i also didnt let it hang too long a day or 2 before i started cutting it up to break the whole thing down to managable pieces , after deboning it went on ice ( not soaked in water ) to further the cool down process , and ultimately frozen for the trip home which the outside temps did for me overnight . i didnt give the meat a chance to spoil or become contaminated . that one cow elk i figure at guestimation i got about 250 pounds of meat off if not more .
One of the social media sites i follow a guy asked where he could buy some venison , told him to look online , but it wouldnt be wild venison , its farm raised and bred specifically for slaughter and sale , thats what you get when you see venison on fancy menus farm raised , be it venison , elk , or buffalo , those are all farm raised just like cattle . and it also affects the taste .
They need reality to suit their delusion about racism and LGBTQ folks.. That is, they want/intend to control the narrative. And that narrative is they are not wrong for mistreating LGBTQ citizens as 'Other.'
Case in point: One of the reasons why conservatives are banning books is so that a new generation will not be able to understand or easily access a narrative which does not convey the worldview conservatives disapprove. It is insidiously easy to hide truth in plain sight from a generation or more and dumb-down a select populace.
Conservatives maintain that a girl or woman needs 'covering' by some male figure, morally and spiritually. That is, conservatives, male and female, believes a girl or woman is a 'help' and is at her best when beside a male. Sounds very "Saudi Arabian" does it?
Buffalo burgers are great.
look on line for specialty meats , they usually carry such things , a place i know carries it is a place in jackson hole wyo, called jackson meat company . but as i said , anything like that is ranch/farm raised specifically for sale , what you would actually be paying for is it being called what you want , it is by no means wild game .
and being "raised " its a might spendy , just a pound of ground venison was $14 a pound .
Buffalo? i let YOU see the sticker price and enjoy the shock of price per pound .
Mainstream LDS has banned the practice of polygamy.
Those who still practice it are FLDS and are considered a hate group.
Perhaps we should go back to the days where upper crust people intermarried cousins and the lower class married for business contracts? Should we codify into law doweries? Can a man of means in his 40s still wed a bride of 13 or 15 to give him sons to pass down his legacy? Can parents offer up there child bride for the highest bidder?
Arranged marriages worked well for quite a long time....
what makes you think that doesnt still happen ?
It hasn't been considered a "traditional marriage" since the end of the Industrial Age.
Well, not in more advanced societies. In third world countries where human rights abuses abound, perhaps.
meh, let's go back a little further when all the thumper fucks were too busy to worry about us godless heathens by increasing their flocks through religious based incest and pedophilia...
You mean as far back as Tuesday?
Maybe we should talk about the coke whores in Larryville back in the day on Mass. St.
Did we know each other back in the day?