Romney and Gingritch

[_honorentheos]

Two predictions:

Before super Tuesday we will be talking about Romney vs Santorum rather than Newt.

Second, Romney will announce Tim Pawlenty as his running mate and shore up against the potential Santorum voters. Pawlenty has to wish he hadn't dropped out of the race before it really began. I think he'd have had a real shot at the nomination had he hung on to jump in after Cain fell out. The fact Newt even had his day at all is why I have a hard time feeling like Romney's most difficult times are behind him in this race. Santorum seems more and more like the person Romney will have to really beat before March 6th. by the way - I think Rick Santorum is the true crazy still left in the race. Part of what makes him a threat.

[_marg]

Keith,

In your response to me you have not addressed or acknowledged the influence religion can have on individuals, or the role that that can play in all this.

Religious individuals whether you wish to acknowledge this or not can believe very irrational ideas and act on them, which they would never believe or act on otherwise were it not for religious authority exerting its influence often from cradle up.

That's the argument I'm making, that young girls brought up to accept polygamy because of undue influence from religious authority..are not truly rationally choosing polygamy. Polygamy is not an equitable relationship and women are generally the ones disadvantaged with the men in the power position. The fact that there are some women and/or children abused in monogamous marriages is irrelevant to that argument, because it is not the monogamy that is the cause of the abuse. Whereas there is a noted recognized cause and effect of abuse to women and children as a result of polygamy.

[_keithb]

Keith,

In your response to me you have not addressed or acknowledged the influence religion can have on individuals, or the role that that can play in all this.

I did address this though. I said that even though religion almost certainly does have an influence on their decisions ... it's their life. If they're adults, in this society we allow people to make decisions, even if the decisions are irrational or sometimes harmful to the person. I see no reason to make an exception with young girls entering polygamy.

Religious individuals whether you wish to acknowledge this or not can believe very irrational ideas and act on them, which they would never believe or act on otherwise were it not for religious authority exerting its influence often from cradle up.

Would a rational person go on a two year Mormon mission? Or believe in a planet named Kolob? Or go off to a Scientologist work farm? Or a million other things people could name?

However, this is the right of people -- to be irrational. People have the right to be stupid and do stupid things.

That's the argument I'm making, that young girls brought up to accept polygamy because of undue influence from religious authority..are not truly rationally choosing polygamy. Polygamy is not an equitable relationship and women are generally the ones disadvantaged with the men in the power position. The fact that there are some women and/or children abused in monogamous marriages is irrelevant to that argument, because it is not the monogamy that is the cause of the abuse. Whereas there is a noted recognized cause and effect of abuse to women and children as a result of polygamy.

To me, again, none of this is a persuasive argument against practicing polygamy. People are irrational all of the time. Many relationship are not equitable, and women are often used and abused in monogamous relationships. I disagree with you that it is "irrelevant" to the argument that women are also being abused in a monogamous relationship. It is very relevant to the argument, because it basically undermines your central argument -- that polygamy sets up a "special case" where women are abused that can't happen in a monogamous relationship.

If the issue is women being abused in a polygamous relationship, then I say that the law should address the abuse, not the right of people to get married to whomever they please (as long as all parties are able to consent).

But, I can see that we are going to disagree on this point.

[_marg]

Keith,

In your response to me you have not addressed or acknowledged the influence religion can have on individuals, or the role that that can play in all this.

I did address this though. I said that even though religion almost certainly does have an influence on their decisions ... it's their life. If they're adults, in this society we allow people to make decisions, even if the decisions are irrational or sometimes harmful to the person. I see no reason to make an exception with young girls entering polygamy.

But the young girls often aren't given the education or skills necessary to not only leave but live independently. They often know of no other alternative. Being pregnant at a young age also adds to difficulties in leaving. Generally although people may make irrational decisions which may be harmful they typically do have opportunities to make better decisions.

Religious individuals whether you wish to acknowledge this or not can believe very irrational ideas and act on them, which they would never believe or act on otherwise were it not for religious authority exerting its influence often from cradle up.

Would a rational person go on a two year Mormon mission?

Yes, it's not a life long experience and it does offer a positive experiences.

Or believe in a planet named Kolob?

Well to believe in a planet Kolob is not abusive to the individual. (as long as they only talk about it with other Mormons :) )

Or go off to a Scientologist work farm? Or a million other things people could name?

Don't know much about that, but it may be a good experience, not a life long sort of experience of polygamy which is extremely difficult for any woman to leave.

However, this is the right of people -- to be irrational. People have the right to be stupid and do stupid things.

If I had my way, I'd not allow any religious indoctrination until individuals are 18..I think all religious indoctrination is abusive to children. However most religious indoctrination in democratic countries does not result in egregious abuse to the individual to the extent that polygamy does.

That's the argument I'm making, that young girls brought up to accept polygamy because of undue influence from religious authority..are not truly rationally choosing polygamy. Polygamy is not an equitable relationship and women are generally the ones disadvantaged with the men in the power position. The fact that there are some women and/or children abused in monogamous marriages is irrelevant to that argument, because it is not the monogamy that is the cause of the abuse. Whereas there is a noted recognized cause and effect of abuse to women and children as a result of polygamy.

To me, again, none of this is a persuasive argument against practicing polygamy. People are irrational all of the time. Many relationship are not equitable, and women are often used and abused in monogamous relationships.

Again monogamy in and of itself doesn't lead to abuse of women or children, whereas with polygamy there is a cause and effect directly tied to polygamy for abuse.

I disagree with you that it is "irrelevant" to the argument that women are also being abused in a monogamous relationship. It is very relevant to the argument, because it basically undermines your central argument -- that polygamy sets up a "special case" where women are abused that can't happen in a monogamous relationship.

I didn't say there aren't abusive relationships in monogamy but I did say there is no cause and effect that monogamy is a key factor in the cause of abuse in those cases. Whereas evidence indicates there is a cause and effect when polygamy is involved.

If the issue is women being abused in a polygamous relationship, then I say that the law should address the abuse, not the right of people to get married to whomever they please (as long as all parties are able to consent).

The laws have been unsuccessful in that regard often because women and children are afraid to come forward...I think within the FLDS to some extent the psychological factors involved in Stockholm syndrome may similarly be involved. If the right of religious organizations to promote polygamy is legally stopped, that will be the best preventative means to protect children from the potential abuse.

But, I can see that we are going to disagree on this point.

right

[_bcspace]

the LDS Church never removed polygamy from its scriptures

Neither have all other Christians.

[_Yoda]

Keith,

In your response to me you have not addressed or acknowledged the influence religion can have on individuals, or the role that that can play in all this.

Religious individuals whether you wish to acknowledge this or not can believe very irrational ideas and act on them, which they would never believe or act on otherwise were it not for religious authority exerting its influence often from cradle up.

That's the argument I'm making, that young girls brought up to accept polygamy because of undue influence from religious authority..are not truly rationally choosing polygamy. Polygamy is not an equitable relationship and women are generally the ones disadvantaged with the men in the power position. The fact that there are some women and/or children abused in monogamous marriages is irrelevant to that argument, because it is not the monogamy that is the cause of the abuse. Whereas there is a noted recognized cause and effect of abuse to women and children as a result of polygamy.

I think lightning just struck. Marg and I are in complete agreement on this one. LOL

[_moksha]

Heck, if Newt is persists in taking Mitt's rightful spot, we Mormons might even consider letting our daughters marry a Democrat!

Ha! Looks like Utah's fair daughters might have a reprieve with Santorum, as the Newt is now but a white salamander.

[_Chap]

the LDS Church never removed polygamy from its scriptures

Neither have all other Christians.

I wonder what it means to have polygamy in your scriptures?

The Old Testament - correct me if I am wrong, by citing the text - seems to assume that men will have wives, but does not show any signs that the deity it describes is concerned to urge that men should in general have a lot of wives, or just one. I leave aside instances where language is used that seems to talk about a couple consisting of one man and one woman, since we are looking for positive injunctions rather than assumptions as to what is likely to be the case.

In the New Testament, Jesus says nothing one way or another by way of prescription. In two Pauline epistles (I Timothy 3, 1-2 and Titus 1, 5-6) there are however references to an 'overseer' (the term often translated as 'bishop') needing to be a 'one-woman man'.

I carry no torch for divine prescription of anything, but are there any signs in the Bible of an injunction that any class of men should, in general, be polygamous, to balance those two small instances of an injunction that an important class of men should, apparently, be monogamous?

[_Yoda]

The thing I don't understand is, why is polygamy wrong but open marriage not wrong?

.

This is exactly what I asked my wife the other day.

My black eye is almost healed.


Oh and I am with you on Gringich vs Obama.

LOL!

[_bcspace]

Neither have all other Christians.

I wonder what it means to have polygamy in your scriptures?

The Old Testament - correct me if I am wrong, by citing the text - seems to assume that men will have wives, but does not show any signs that the deity it describes is concerned to urge that men should in general have a lot of wives, or just one.

Take 2 Samuel 12:7-11 for example. This is where the prophet Nathan, in chastising David for his sin with Bath-Sheeba and the subsequent murder of her husband (by David's command), delivers a message from the Lord stating that the Lord, who had given David his current set wives, would have given David more wives he he had but asked instead of just taking whom he pleased and without authorization.