Reuters on "The growing confidence of polygamists and their willingness to go public...." Fundamentalist Mormon multi-wifers are, in fact, using our rhetoric, as they understand it: "As consenting adults, which is the key, we ought to have that choice to live that lifestyle."
Yeah, but don't hold you breath waiting for LGBT+P.
94 Comments for “Big Love”
posted by Lori Heine on
Great topic. The gay-baiting trolls ought to come out of the woodwork for this one.
Bring on the loonies.
posted by Fitz on
Yes this “loone” “gay-baiting troll” knows that their is no principled legal reason to not extend marriage to polymourous couples one you extend it to homosexual couples.
posted by ETJB on
So, what you are saying is that you cannot understand the difference between the number ‘2’ and the number ‘3’ or ‘4’?
posted by Fitz on
“So, what you are saying is that you cannot understand the difference between the number ‘2’ and the number ‘3’ or ‘4’?”
No more so than you cannot understand the difference between a man & a woman, two men, or two women.
If two heads are better then one, then why are not 3 or 4 better then two?
If an apple is different from an orange.
Then two apples are different then two oranges.
And each is distinct from an apple & an orange.
posted by Audrey B on
Attention Independent Gay Forum: Do not feed the troll!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Fitz has got a point here.
After all, if you should not be deprived of the right to marry whomever you want to have sex with, then that would also argue against restrictions on polygamy, incest, or child marriage.
Furthermore, since the other argument is that reproduction should not be a consideration in marriage, there’s no grounds to ban polygamy on the basis of confusing children, incest on the basis of producing genetic defects in children or throwing off inter-family relationships, and child marriage on the basis of intellectual and physical immaturity of the child AND the effect on any potential offspring.
And finally, there is nothing magic about the number 2; if anything, it is a religion-based constraint on marriage, and therefore, according to the gay left, should have no validity in making policy.
Understand the point? In my opinion, Beyond Marriage is just acknowledging the obvious; once you remove the right of the state to regulate marriage, you open the door for all these other possibilities.
That’s why, if gay marriage is to come, it needs to be done in an additive fashion; that is, instead of arguing that the state has no right to regulate marriage, we should be lobbying for same-sex to be added to the list of allowables and coming out against all of the others.
posted by Craig on
Well now there’s a surprise – 30 and Fitz agreeing. Never would have seen that one coming…
posted by Fitz on
NDT is simply making the obvious point.
Leaglly, that their is no principled legal reason to not extend marriage to polymourous couples one you extend it to homosexual couples.
posted by Xeno on
I think NDT is merely stating that Loving is only a part of the arsenal, and could not justify same-sex marriage as part of the social institution alone.
However, in Loving SCOTUS stated that marriage was a right of itself rather than a social institution, so they pretty much opened Pandora’s Box right there. This also means that Loving wasn’t enough to justify interracial marriages as a social institution in states that still had miscegenation laws.
posted by Brian Miller on
Leaglly, that their is no principled legal reason to not extend marriage to polymourous couples one you extend it to homosexual couples.
Absolutely — with the eventual goal of getting bureaucrats and busybodies (like NDT and Fitz) out of the private lives of all individuals. . . asexual, heterosexual, homosexual, polyamorous and polymorphous alike.
The entire “slippery slope towards polygamy” argument is idiotic, because it presumes that the mutual decisions of other people to engage in polygamous relationships are somehow the business of “society” (i.e. government bureaucrats). Those decisions are most certainly NOT.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “there’s no grounds to ban polygamy on the basis of confusing children, incest on the basis of producing genetic defects in children or throwing off inter-family relationships, and child marriage on the basis of intellectual and physical immaturity of the child AND the effect on any potential offspring.”
You’re a loony and it shows. Children cannot give informed consent that’s why they cannot enter into marriage. The same thing for blood relatives, one can never be truly free of a relatives influence such that one can give informed consent. And as to polygamy, that’s the easiest of all – its difficult enough to make a relationship work with only two people in it without trying to do it with three or more. The experience of mormon communities has shown that multiple marriages are fraught with all manner of problems and are best avoided.
Northdallass said “there is nothing magic about the number 2; if anything, it is a religion-based constraint on marriage, and therefore, according to the gay left, should have no validity in making policy.”.
That’s a bald-faced lie and you know it. Your bible justifies polygamy over and over. Many, many biblical figures had multiple wives. The mormon religion also justified multiple marriages, and it is the religious who are almost exclusively the one’s supporting this exploitive institution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory.
It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination.
It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family.
It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions, which you allegedly oppose.
Furthermore, your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional — given that you argue marriage is a matter of “equal protection” and therefore cannot be denied anyone under our Constitution.
Finally, it is the Christian church that has, over centuries, pushed the idea of a two-person, male and female, monogamous, lifetime commitment as being marriage — which means your insistence on any of the above is religious-based discrimination and should not be considered part of public policy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, some discrimination is legal and some is not. Court after court has held that minors cannot legally enter into a contract, that they cannot give informed consent. Common sense (of which you have none) backs this up. A line must be drawn somewhere and typically that’s at age 18. By your logic its age discrimination to deny a 5 yr old the right to drive a car – obvious folly on your part.
When you have the major mental and physical health agencies supporting close relatives’ ability to make uncoerced informed decisions to marry a close relative then I’ll entertain that possibility.
Limiting marriage to two people is a pragmatic matter and if you wish to challenge that as unconstitutional by all means go ahead – you’ll lose.
For thousands of years the bible has supported polygamous marriages and it is virtually exclusively the religious who are promoting this idea. The mormons are a Christian church and it is that sect that is primarily pushing for polygamy in the U.S. Polygamy is justified by religion.
posted by Fitz on
“it is that sect that is primarily pushing for polygamy in the U.S.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, primarily doens’t mean exclusively. Mormons are primarily the people pushing for polygamy
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky
“Fitz, primarily doesn?t mean exclusively. Mormons are primarily the people pushing for polygamy”
1. The “Mormons” are not pushing for polygamy. The CLS has been actively against polygamy for hundreds of years (since statehood). Only a small & un influential sects of Mormons still practice or promote polygamy.
2. Read the Beyond Marriage and its signers. These are very influential people, organizations and academics at some of our most elite universities.
They don?t call it polygamy, they call it pollyamory. The result is the same. They are infinitely more influential and well placed then any offshoot Mormon sects.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bingo, Fitz.
Especially this line right here:
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.
Or especially considering Randi’s statement about “when you have the major mental and physical health agencies supporting close relatives’ ability to make uncoerced informed decisions to marry a close relative then I’ll entertain that possibility”, this line:
Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other?s primary support and caregivers
And how does that document begin?
We, the undersigned ? lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers
And by whom was it signed?
And what does it cite as an inspiration? The Canadian report Beyond Conjugality and the associated writings of Martha Bailey, which flatly demand the legalization of polygamy and polyamory and links it specifically to same-sex marriage.
And, as a nice closing, the leftist and Democrat ACLU’s official position:
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
posted by Fitz on
NDT
Yes, if you find that interesting you should look into the American equivalent of Canada?s ?Beyond Conjugality? commission. That would be the American Law Institute or A.L.I. an extremely influential legal organization. It recent publication of PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
1
1. David Orgon Coolidge, Widening the Lens: Chapter 6 of the ALI?s Principles, Hawaii and Vermont, 4 J.L. &Fam. Stud. 79 (2002) Id. at 79
2
2. Katharine T. Bartlett, – one of the three principal drafters of the ALI Report, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION ?Saving the Family from the Reformers? (Brigitte M. Bodenheimer Memorial Lecture on the Family), University of California, Davis Law Review 31 (1998):
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Hate to disappoint you guys, but if you do a google search for “plural marriage” you’ll find it almost entirely advocated for practiced by and jusfified by religious people.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645194667,00.html
http://modernpolygamy.org/morm_chris.shtml
http://religious-freedoms.org/Polygamy_frame.htm
http://www.truthbearer.org/
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am amused, Randi.
From just your first quote in the Deseret News:
The youths, ages 10-20, belong to various religious sects, including Apostolic United Brethren, the Davis County Cooperative Society and Centennial Park, as well as families that practice polygamy independent of religious affiliation. They spoke voluntarily but gave only their first names, saying later they were protecting the privacy of their parents.
And, as we saw above, clearly the “LGBT community” is agitating for polygamy, as are the experts in the Canadian government AND the ACLU, using same-sex marriage as their foothold to argue that it should be allowed.
But of course, you can’t confront that, can you? Instead you start desperately flinging and spinning, trying to avoid at all costs admitting that other glbts are wrong — or that the leftists you support clearly are trying to remove any and all restrictions on polygamy and polyandry — by trying to blame other people.
In short, you are trying to argue that the LDS church — which has formally rejected polygamy and excommunicates polygamists — is to be held accountable, but that gay leftists like yourself, who endorse and support Beyond Marriage and who endorse and support the ACLU, both of whom argue for polygamy, do not in any way support polygamy.
posted by ETJB on
Their is a difference between how many people are a part of a marriage contract, then wheather or not the people’s involved race, color, creed, class, sexuality, etc. matters.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, can you stop lying for even one thread? I never endorsed or supported Beyond marriage or the ACLU’s alleged support of polygamy.
The point I made still stands, it is primarily the religious who promote and support polygamy as is shown by the first link I provided – and you ignored the other three which were exclusively religious polygamists. When people hear about polygamy on TV or the news it is almost invariably some Mormon sect that is involved in it. You aren’t going to convince anyone that polygamy isn’t primarily about religion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You aren’t going to convince anyone that polygamy isn’t primarily about religion.
Correction, Randi; I’m not going to convince YOU that polygamy isn’t primarily about religion.
However, believe it or not, there are those out there who are reading the long list of “LGBT community” organizations and leaders signed on to Beyond Marriage, as well as the clear reference to the ACLU’s official position and to the Canadian government’s Beyond Conjugality report — and, as logic would dictate, putting more weight on the statements made by these national and governmental organizations and recognized individuals endorsing and supporting polygamy and polyamory than on those made by obscure religious sites.
In short, you’re trying to spin attentiont away from the manure pile on your front lawn by pointing out other people’s dandelions.
Mainly because you don’t want to admit that you support the manure pile being there in the first place — and in fact, have facilitated its presence.
posted by Fitz on
NDT
For a good critique of the multiple & powerfull forces that are seeking to radically change marriage law…
I found this report to be indespensible.
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/future_of_family_law.pdf
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, cut the bullshit, you’re the one that was justifying polygamy, claiming it was discrimination to prevent groups of people from marrying, not me – I oppose it.
These are isolated groups you mentioned, if the Human Rights Campaign or National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had come out in support of polygamy it would have been one thing, but some obscure small group of LGBTs doesn’t speak for all LGBTS (not that HRC or NGLTF does either).
The fact is and everyone knows it when you hear about polygamy you hear about Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which is the largest group of practitioners of plural marriage in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
When you hear of polygamy you hear of polygamist communities like Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado, all Mormon based polygamist communities, there simply aren’t any comparable communities of gay or secular polygamists.
Before you worry about the secular speck of polygamy in other people’s eyes remove the religious polygamy log in your own. Typical of you, wail about virtually non-existant gay/secular polygamists while ignoring the majority of religious polygamists, justify it when its religious people and then claim you’re against it when a handful of gays or seculars support it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, cut the bullshit, you’re the one that was justifying polygamy, claiming it was discrimination to prevent groups of people from marrying, not me – I oppose it.
Nonsense, Randi.
After all, you claim it’s discriminatory for the state to in any way block, restrict, or limit marriage, since marriage is a “constitutional right” guaranteed to EVERYONE. Furthermore, you also claim that the state should not in any way be allowed to limit or regulate private sexual conduct.
What I am pointing out, as I did above, is that the arguments you use for same-sex marriage legitimize polygamy. What I am also pointing out is that legitimization and legalization of polygamy is an avowed goal of the ACLU, the Canadian government, and umbrella glbt organizations like Beyond Marriage, which include leaders of groups like NGLTF and HRC.
And your only response is to cite a church group that has been hunted by the law since day one, that has been excommunicated from the religion to which it claims adherence, and that is in a state of disarray now because so many of its members and leaders have been arrested.
Let’s see you and your fellow gay leftists go after Beyond Marriage, the ACLU, and the Canadian government in the same way that the FLDS church has been gone after by other Mormons, other religious groups, and the law — and THEN you might have a point.
But until then, it’s pretty obvious that you’re just trying to deflect attention away from what you and your fellow gay leftists really believe and support.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Again you lie, I never claimed its discriminatory for the state to block, restrict, or limit marriage in any way – YOU DID, right here:
June 19, 2007, 4:02pm
When I said children couldn’t give informed consent to marry and that people shouldn’t be allowed to have incestuous marriages and that more than two people in a marriage was a bad idea YOU said “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory” and then went on to try and justify those forms of marriage.
The fact is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the largest group involved in polygamy and instead of recognizing the dominant role of religion in polygamy you try to excuse it and blame what religious people are doing on LGBTs and secularists.
And for your information the opinions of the people who wrote “Beyond Conjugality” doesn’t represent the opinions of the Canadian government. The “Bush lite” Conservative government of Stephen Harper is strongly opposed to any definition of marriage that is not “one man, one woman” – they’ve made that abundantly clear. The only people in Canada involved in polygamy are the mormons in Bountiful, B.C. – there aren’t any other communities of polygamists in the country, particularly not gay or secularist ones.
Wail, twist, spin all you like the fact is the largest, if not only communities practicing polygamy in North America are Christian groups.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now, emphasis mine:
I never claimed its discriminatory for the state to block, restrict, or limit marriage in any way
Then you admit that it is not discriminatory for the state to block, restrict, or limit marriage to a man and a woman.
Endgame.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And relative to this:
Wail, twist, spin all you like the fact is the largest, if not only communities practicing polygamy in North America are Christian groups.
Does that count LGBTs with multiple sexual partners — which, given that polygamy is illegal in the United States, means exactly the same thing as what Warren Jeffs is doing?
Furthermore, given the ACLU’s endorsement of polygamy, I think their 500,000 members more than outnumber the FLDS.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Then you admit that it is not discriminatory for the state to block, restrict, or limit marriage to a man and a woman.”.
I “admit” no such thing. Just because its appropriate to discriminate on the basis of age doesn’t mean its appropriate to discriminate on the basis of sex when two consencting adults are concerned. How childish of you. Are you really so pathetic you think you’re going to score any points with such a nonsensical assertion? You’re not sincere in the slightest, you’re just here to play games.
Northdallass said “Does that count LGBTs with multiple sexual partners — which, given that polygamy is illegal in the United States, means exactly the same thing as what Warren Jeffs is doing?”
Not the same thing at all, show me those LGBTS all living in the same household with a committemnt to each other as husbands and wives for all time and then it’ll be the same thing – there simply aren’t groups of LGBTs like that on the scale of the largest religious polygamous communities in North America at Bountiful, Colorado City, Hildale, and Eldorado. Polygamists are almost exclusively religious.
Furthermore, given the ACLU’s endorsement of polygamy, I think their 500,000 members more than outnumber the FLDS.
The idea that all ACLU members are polygamists or that they support polygamy is insane. There are no polygamist communities of ACLU members, and in fact they support polygamy on the basis of religious freedom, once again, its religion that justifies polygamy and you’re too small a person to condemn that, you weasel and wiggle, spin and weave to avoid acknowledging what everyone knows, its religionists who are primarily promoting and involved in polygamy
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I “admit” no such thing. Just because its appropriate to discriminate on the basis of age doesn’t mean its appropriate to discriminate on the basis of sex when two consencting adults are concerned.
Sorry, Randi, but that is unconstitutional. “Equal protection” means to all citizens; you claim that marriage is a constitutionally-protected right that must be available to everyone, and our Constitution does not limit anything but your voting rights based on age.
The idea that all ACLU members are polygamists or that they support polygamy is insane.
But the idea that all religions do, as you claim, is not. Got it.
Not the same thing at all, show me those LGBTS all living in the same household with a committemnt to each other as husbands and wives for all time and then it’ll be the same thing
Check out BeyondMarriage.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Sorry, Randi, but that is unconstitutional. “Equal protection” means to all citizens; you claim that marriage is a constitutionally-protected right that must be available to everyone, and our Constitution does not limit anything but your voting rights based on age.”
I never said any such thing, you lie. Anytime there’s going to be discrimination there has to be good reason and the gender of marriage partners is not good reason. The governement has no business dictating the gender of anyone’s marriage partner while dictating the age of an entrant to marriage is a reasonable discrimination which given your support of child molestation you disagree with.
Northdallass said “But the idea that all religions do, as you claim, is not. Got it.”.
I never said that, you lie again. What I said is that religion is primarily the justification for polygamy and polygamy is sanctified in the bible. Note the link to the ACLU policy which you provided:
“Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978:
Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states…
The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.
Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”.
Once again the situation is the exact opposite of what you claimed it to be. Far from using same sex marriage to justify polygamy the ACLU justfies it on the basis of freedom of religion
Northdallass said “Check out BeyondMarriage.”.
I have read it and nowhere in it does it identify any polygamous secular or LGBT communities, let alone any on the scale of the largest groups involved in and promoting polygamy, the religious group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The governement has no business dictating the gender of anyone’s marriage partner while dictating the age of an entrant to marriage is a reasonable discrimination which given your support of child molestation you disagree with.
LOL…..again, you contradict yourself.
You claim that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be denied to anyone under “equal protection”.
The Constitution says only that one right may be denied citizens on the basis of age — the right to vote.
Therefore, you must allow marriage regardless of age — or admit that marriage is not a Constitutional right and that the government may regulate it as it sees fit.
Which is it, Randi?
Far from using same sex marriage to justify polygamy the ACLU justfies it on the basis of freedom of religion
OR, as you conveniently left out, the “LGBT community” excuse that the government should never under any circumstances interfere in one’s “private life” or “expression”.
Furthermore, since the ACLU opposes religious belief being used as a basis for anything, it is contradicting itself.
And as for Beyond Marriage, I quote (again):
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.
Plus little things like this……
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You claim that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be denied to anyone under “equal protection”.”.
Once again, you lie, I never said that. What I said is that if there is going to be discrimination there has to be good reason for it and the gender of one’s marriage partner is not a good reason. The government has no business dictating the gender of anyone’s marriage partner.
All the restrictions and rights are not enumerated in the constitution and many flow from generalized statements in the document. The “marriage” you advocate for underage children is child molestation and that most definitely is unconstitutional based on the right to equal protection.
Northdallass said “OR, as you conveniently left out, the “LGBT community” excuse that the government should never under any circumstances interfere in one’s “private life” or “expression”.”
I don’t agree with that statement and the “LGBT community” didn’t make it. All LGBTs are not responsible for what one or a few might or might not have said. Once again you lie.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, since the ACLU opposes religious belief being used as a basis for anything, it is contradicting itself”.
Obviously they do not, obviously they support polygamy on the basis of freedom of religion and you’re too immoral to condemn that justification.
Once again “Beyond marriage” does not identify any polygamous secular or LGBT communities, let alone any on the scale of the largest groups involved in and promoting polygamy, the religious group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado.
If you do a google search for “plural marriage” you’ll find it almost entirely advocated for practiced by and jusfified by religious people.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645194667,00.html
http://modernpolygamy.org/morm_chris.shtml
http://religious-freedoms.org/Polygamy_frame.htm
http://www.truthbearer.org/
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All the restrictions and rights are not enumerated in the constitution and many flow from generalized statements in the document.
No, no, Randi; you said SPECIFICALLY that the right to marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution. Produce the specific lines, as well as the Constitutional law that allows you to arbitrarily discriminate, as you are doing.
Or you could simply admit that the government has and will always have the right to regulate marriage. You simply don’t want to do that because you know full well that doing so would put it squarely in the hands of voters to determine what they will and won’t.
What you keep doing is trying to insist that my pointing out the obvious flaws in your “equal protection” argument by demonstrating that your opposition to all of the things you mention is made hypocritical by it means that I am endorsing said things. As always, I fully support the right of the government to regulate marriage; it is you and only you who insist that “equal protection” deprives them of said right.
And I noticed you avoided completely the link to the Advocate I provided showing that, besides the arguments for it by the “LGBT community” as laid out in the Beyond Marriage manifesto, there are numerous and very active polyamorous communities within the “LGBT community”.
of course, the reason why is simple; you’ve already insisted that polygamy is evil and immoral, and to acknowledge gays practicing it would require you to actually criticize gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “No, no, Randi; you said SPECIFICALLY that the right to marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution. Produce the specific lines, as well as the Constitutional law that allows you to arbitrarily discriminate, as you are doing.”.
Do you ever stop lying? I never said that, I said the constititutions equal protection clause meant the government couldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex. The constitution doesn’t specifically say either that the governement can restrict drivers licenses to 16 year olds, that doesn’t make doing so unconstitutional and the same is true with restricting marriage based on age, number of partners, or close blood relationships.
Your link to the advocate article is irrelevant, thats why I ignored it. That a handful of LGBTs are involved in polygamy does nothing to overturn the fact that the largest group involved in it is religious, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their perverted communities in Colorado City, Hilldale, Bountiful, and Eldorado. There simply is nothing in the LGBT community that’s even remotely comparable, this is primarily a religious issue as I said at the beggining and the ACLU agrees according to the link you provided:
Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978:
Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states…
The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.
Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”.
Once again the situation is the exact opposite of what you claimed it to be. Far from using same sex marriage to justify polygamy the ACLU justfies it on the basis of freedom of religion. No matter how you twist, spin, and deceive you can’t avoid the fact that polygamy is primarily justfied by religion and practiced by the religious. Stop complaining about the LGBT speck in polygamy and remove the religious log in polygamy that sits in your own eye.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said that, I said the constititutions equal protection clause meant the government couldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex.
Read the Fourteenth Amendment lately, Randi?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See that, Randi? “ANY person”. No qualifiers whatsoever about age, blood relationship, number of partners, or anything of the sort.
In short, if you’re going to argue marriage on the basis of “equal protection”, it has to be equal for ANY person — not just who you pick and choose.
Your link to the advocate article is irrelevant, thats why I ignored it.
Mhm…..because you are hypocritical enough to demand that the religious “do something” about polyamory in a sect that already has been a) excommunicated from its main church body and b) fully punished and prosecuted by the law with the full blessing and encouragement of the religious…..while completely refusing to condemn as exploitative, evil, and wrong polyamory as practiced by LGBTs, even though you insist that polyamory is ALWAYS exploitative, evil, and wrong.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In short, if you’re going to argue marriage on the basis of “equal protection”, it has to be equal for ANY person — not just who you pick and choose.”.
Do you see anything in the 14th amendment that says the governement can prevent people under the age of 16 from driving cars? I’m not stupid Northdallass, just because everything isn’t spelled out in there doesn’t mean the governement can’t legally and constitutionally regulate it and its the same with age restrictions on marriage.
I oppose polygamy, underage and incestuous marriages regardless of who’s doing it, religious, LGBT or otherwise. Its you who jumped all over me for doing that, its you who defended child molestation, polygamy and incestuous marriages, its you who constantly tries to deflect attention from the fact that it is primarily the religious who are involved in and promoting polygamy, its you who won’t acknowledge the largest part of the problem, you who tries to blame LGBTS exclusively for something we have relatively little to do with. You’re one sick puppy Northdallass, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not stupid Northdallass, just because everything isn’t spelled out in there doesn’t mean the governement can’t legally and constitutionally regulate it and its the same with age restrictions on marriage.
Yup.
But unfortunately, Randi, you have claimed that it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict marriage based on gender, and you cite the Fourteenth Amendment and “equal protection”.
In short, if “equal protection” does not preclude the government from regulating based on age, it doesn’t on gender, either.
I oppose polygamy, underage and incestuous marriages regardless of who’s doing it, religious, LGBT or otherwise.
There. See how hard that was?
You’re one sick puppy Northdallass, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.
(laughs) Amateurish, dear. I’ve been called far worse by far better and found out a simple truth; those who want to believe the worst about you will regardless of the facts, and those who know the facts rarely think the worst of you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In short, if “equal protection” does not preclude the government from regulating based on age, it doesn’t on gender, either.”.
It doesn’t preclude the government from regulating marriage based on other criteria, but the government must have sound reason for doing so such as a child’s inability to give informed consent. The government not liking the gender of a person’s spouse is not a good reason and therefore its wrong for the government to regulate marriage based on that. This isn’t that hard Northdallass, but of course you don’t care about what’s rational and a good reason, all you care about is bashing gays and depriving them of equal rights.
Northdallass said “I’ve been called far worse by far better and found out a simple truth; those who want to believe the worst about you will regardless of the facts, and those who know the facts rarely think the worst of you.”.
By your logic those who know the facts about Ted Bundy wouldn’t think the worst of him either. We know the facts about you Northdallass, you’re a chronic liar out to demonize and hurt the gay community any way you can, that’s why most people on IGF think the worst about you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This isn’t that hard Northdallass, but of course you don’t care about what’s rational and a good reason, all you care about is bashing gays and depriving them of equal rights.
Silly hypocrite; you claim that it is depriving someone of equal rights to prevent them from marrying whatever they wish to have sex with, but then blatantly support government making judgment calls on what kinds of sex and with whom are acceptable for OTHER things.
Be consistent. State clearly that it is NOT depriving someone of “equal rights’ for the government to make a value determination on whether or not it will sanction them marrying that which they love and with which they want to have sex.
By your logic those who know the facts about Ted Bundy wouldn’t think the worst of him either.
Oddly enough, sometimes that is the case.
We know the facts about you Northdallass, you’re a chronic liar out to demonize and hurt the gay community any way you can, that’s why most people on IGF think the worst about you.
That is because many of the commentors on IGF are, like you, helplessly brainwashed and conditioned to defend your leftist and antisocial beliefs against any criticism by holding up your sexual orientation.
The ones who know me know much better — and frankly they and I derive much pleasure from watching your unhinged rants and willingness to say such things without even knowing me.
Yes, we are laughing at your expense. But it’s also a natural side effect of your inability to control your tongue and to think outside your rigid prejudices and stereotypes of what homosexuality is all about and what gay people should think/believe/do — created so that you can rationalize your problems as being everyone else’s fault.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Silly hypocrite; you claim that it is depriving someone of equal rights to prevent them from marrying whatever they wish to have sex with, but then blatantly support government making judgment calls on what kinds of sex and with whom are acceptable for OTHER things.”.
Once again, you can’t compete in an argument on a rational realistic basis so you resort to lying. I never said “it is depriving someone of equal rights to prevent them from marrying whatever they wish to have sex with”.
I know you well enough to see that lies like this are typical of you because you have no morality or integrity and based on that it wouldn’t be surprising in the slightest if you were molesting children. Its clear you only care about yourself and love to lie about and hurt others whenever you can. There’s no one on your side Northdallass, your laughter is the laughter of the insane, you laugh by yourself hoping to cover up your loneliness and the pain of being rejected by all reasonable and rational people. I have the most wonderful, loving, nurturing, and caring boyfriend, I don’t laugh at you, I feel sorry for the empty shell of hate you’ve become
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said “it is depriving someone of equal rights to prevent them from marrying whatever they wish to have sex with”.
Mhm.
Its not enough to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, gays deserve the same right to marry the one person they love most just as heterosexuals can.
And then:
I know you well enough to see that lies like this are typical of you because you have no morality or integrity and based on that it wouldn’t be surprising in the slightest if you were molesting children. Its clear you only care about yourself and love to lie about and hurt others whenever you can.
And again, Randi, the ones who know me know much better — and frankly they and I derive much pleasure from watching your unhinged rants and willingness to say such things without even knowing me.
Such as your claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Mhm.”. As is shown by that link nowhere in there did I say “it is depriving someone of equal rights to prevent them from marrying whatever they wish to have sex with” – you lied as you frequently do. I stand against underage marriage, polygamy, incestuous marriages and YOU condemned me for that stand saying “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”
Northdallass said “Such as your claim that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.”.
I never made any such claim, I said it wouldn’t surprise me if you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I stand against underage marriage, polygamy, incestuous marriages and YOU condemned me for that stand
Yup.
Because, as I pointed out, your words are hypocritical; your demand that marriage rights be automatically granted to whomever or whatever one wishes to have sex with is incompatible with bans on all of the mentioned.
Given that I have never impugned the right of the government to decide who should and shouldn’t be married, and in fact support it doing so, it would be a highly fallacious argument on your part to state that I support any of the mentioned. If I did, I would be doing as you are and demanding that the government eliminate any distinctions whatsoever and grant marriage rights to all sexual partners.
Just as the Beyond Conjugality report demanded and the Beyond Marriage report demands.
I never made any such claim, I said it wouldn’t surprise me if you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.
Honest enough, or desperate enough?
What you’re doing, Randi, is simple; you’re making personal attacks, but you don’t have the guts to stand up for them — so you try twisting semantics to avoid consequences.
Like I said, go ahead and claim that I have an eight-year-old in my basement chained up to molest. Say what you believe. State what you insinuate. A big “proud” LGBT like yourself should have no trouble doing that; she shouldn’t need to pussyfoot around and hide behind “it’s only a question” or “I didn’t really say”.
What’s the matter? Don’t you have the guts to say that to my face? Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “your words are hypocritical; your demand that marriage rights be automatically granted to whomever or whatever one wishes to have sex with is incompatible with bans on all of the mentioned.”.
For the umpteenth time, that’s a lie I never “demanded” that marriage rights automatically be granted to “whomever or whatever one wishes to have sex with”. I stated repeatedly and emphatically that children shouldn’t be allowed to marry, that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be disallowed and YOU defended those perversions, screaming “That’s discrimination!”.
Northdallass said “”I never made any such claim, I said it wouldn’t surprise me if you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.”
Honest enough, or desperate enough?”
You hypocrite, you said “you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible”. You weren’t honest enough not to make a statement about something you couldn’t possibly know and you were desperate enough to lie as you so frequently do. I didn’t make a statement about that which I couldn’t know, I didn’t lie and you can’t take a tiny fraction of the shit you dish out you whiney hypocritical child.
If you weren’t so immoral, hateful, and defending child molestation people wouldn’t wonder if you’ve got an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest. You made your despicable reputation, now live with it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And its absolutely hilarious that a coward who hides behind the anonymity of a pseudonym says I “don’t have the guts”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
For the umpteenth time, that’s a lie I never “demanded” that marriage rights automatically be granted to “whomever or whatever one wishes to have sex with”.
Mhm (emphasis mine).
Once again, its all well and good to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but everyone does not have the same equal rights until men, women, and gays have the same right to marry the one person they love most.
Again, love and sexual attraction is the absolute requirement, and denying anyone the right to marry that which they love and to which they are sexually attracted is a violation of “equal rights” in your opinion — and you confirmed that by your insistence that marriage without sex was legally invalid.
If you weren’t so immoral, hateful, and defending child molestation people wouldn’t wonder if you’ve got an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest.
I laugh; now the big, “proud LGBT” is backpedaling even more from her accusation that I have an eight-year-old chained up in the basement to molest, trying to claim that I made her say it and do it, rather than taking responsibility for her own words and statements.
Again, what’s the matter? Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?
And its absolutely hilarious that a coward who hides behind the anonymity of a pseudonym says I “don’t have the guts”.
That is because, Randi, as one familiar with the history of gay leftists, I am very well aware of the fact that the restraint that I show them in terms of not publishing their addresses and phone numbers, as well as the addresses and phone numbers of their parents and other family members, and encouraging them to call, harass, and attack them, is not reciprocated.
You have the luxury of knowing I’m not going to call, harass, or attack you and your family, as well as try to harass your employer into getting you fired. I don’t have that luxury, and don’t feel that any of those people, all of whom are well aware that I’m gay, should have to put up with someone like yourself calling them up and accusing them of being child molestors with eight-year-olds chained up in their basement.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Again, love and sexual attraction is the absolute requirement, and denying anyone the right to marry that which they love and to which they are sexually attracted is a violation of “equal rights” in your opinion”.
Once again, you lie, I never said that love and sexual attraction were the absolute requirement, what I said is that the government can’t deny anyone the right to marry without good reason and not liking the gender of someone’s marriage partner is not good reason while polygamy, incest, and underage marriage is. The absolute requirement is not to harm others and a loving committed same sex marriage (between non-related adults)harms no one and can’t be prevented under any reasonable legal system.
Northdallass said “now the big, “proud LGBT” is backpedaling even more from her accusation that I have an eight-year-old chained up in the basement to molest, trying to claim that I made her say it and do it, rather than taking responsibility for her own words and statements.”.
You lie as per usual, I never said you did have an eight year old chained up in the basement, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you did and I stand by my statements by attaching my name to them unlike your cowardly self.
Northdallass said “Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?”.
Whether I think people would believe that or not is irrelevant, unlike yourself I have the integrity not to make a statement I can’t know to be true. What I do know to be true is that molesting children would be perfectly in keeping with the immorality you’ve displayed and positions you’ve taken here. I have no idea whether or not you are molesting children, but I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if you are.
Northdallass said “You have the luxury of knowing I’m not going to call, harass, or attack you and your family, as well as try to harass your employer into getting you fired. I don’t have that luxury, and don’t feel that any of those people, all of whom are well aware that I’m gay, should have to put up with someone like yourself calling them up and accusing them of being child molestors with eight-year-olds chained up in their basement.”
Bullshit, you’ve attacked me in every manner possible to this point. The only security I have is the thousands of miles between us. I have no certainty that you won’t harrass or attack me or my family, in fact you just made a veiled threat by saying I “wouldn’t have the guts to say that to your face” – the only reason you’d think that is if you were planning on attacking me if you did see me face to face. You’ve lied about and slandered me left and right and there’s no reason to believe wouldn’t try to get me fired. I’m not concerned because people know me and my integrity and they’re not going to believe your wild-eyed lies over the person they’ve come to know and trust for decades.
The reason why you’re such a coward is that you know if your employer and family saw what you do here they’d see what a scumbag you are and probably would fire you and disown you. You’re not afraid of what others might do to you, you’re afraid of taking ownership and responsibility for your insane diatribes and hateful actions. If you had any confidence in your own integrity you wouldn’t be worried about what other people might say about you, your integrity would speak for itself – but you don’t have any integrity and your afraid to let those who know you see what a low-life you truly are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again, you lie, I never said that love and sexual attraction were the absolute requirement
And I repeat your quote:
Once again, its all well and good to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but everyone does not have the same equal rights until men, women, and gays have the same right to marry the one person they love most.
You made it clear that love and sexual attraction are first and foremost, and without the right to marry whomever they “love most”, “everyone does not have the same equal rights”.
Say clearly, Randi, that the government is well within its rights to prevent people from marrying and having sex with whomever they “love most” without it affecting “equal rights”.
You’ve lied about and slandered me left and right and there’s no reason to believe wouldn’t try to get me fired.
Except the fact that I haven’t done it. 🙂
Ask yourself that simple question, Randi; why, in all the time we’ve been arguing, despite my knowing your name, where you live, and other such pieces of information, have I NOT tried to get you fired, or harassed you or your family — especially since you insist I would do it?
The reason why you’re such a coward is that you know if your employer and family saw what you do here they’d see what a scumbag you are and probably would fire you and disown you.
How do you know they don’t? 🙂
Just because you don’t know my real name doesn’t mean that other people don’t, my dear. Notice that never once have I said that I was worried about you outing me; what I was worried about is an unhinged person like you making multiple threats, harassing phone calls, etc. to my employer, friends, and family — none of whom particularly deserve that sort of abuse.
And that leads us to this:
If you had any confidence in your own integrity you wouldn’t be worried about what other people might say about you, your integrity would speak for itself – but you don’t have any integrity and your afraid to let those who know you see what a low-life you truly are.
My identity is rather an open secret in the right circles; indeed, even some commentors here know who I am, where I live, etc., how to contact me, and what I do in and about the community.
What I think is more revealing is the fact that you, who don’t know me at all, are assuming no one else knows my identity, that I have children chained up in the basement to molest, that I hate all gays and would never do anything positive for them, etc.
Part of the fun in keeping my identity veiled, Randi, is that it opens the door to exposing your stereotypes, bigotries, and prejudices. Since you don’t know me, you have nothing on which to go, and what you come up with based solely on my political ideology and ever-willingness to challenge the brainwashed gay status quo is downright hilarious.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Once again Northdallass, I never said that love and sexual attraction were the absolute requirement for marriage and nowhere in that quote of mine did I. What I said was that children shouldn’t be allowed to marry, incestuous and polygamous marriages should be disallowed and you screamed “That’s discrimination!” in your attempts to justify those perversions.
Northdallass said “Say clearly, Randi, that the government is well within its rights to prevent people from marrying and having sex with whomever they “love most” without it affecting “equal rights”.”
Not quite Northdallass, the correct statement which I’ve made several times is that the government is acting appropriately when it has good reason to prevent people from marrying and does so. Not liking the gender of someone’s spouse is not good reason, preventing pedophilia, incest, and polygamy are good reasons. According to your logic the government can’t make exceptions to the first amendment, but it is well known that it does. The law isn’t an all or nothing thing, its just a little bit more complicated than that, apparently a bit more complicated than your simple mind can grasp.
I said “You’ve lied about and slandered me left and right and there’s no reason to believe wouldn’t try to get me fired.
Northdallass said “Except the fact that I haven’t done it.”.
Of course you have, you claimed I “assualted relgious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, that I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex wherever and whenever. That you would tell those lies and then lie about telling them leaves no reason to believe that you wouldn’t harrasse or attack me and my family or try to get me fired. You obviously can’t be trusted to have any sort of ethics.
The only thing that holds you back from doing those additonal things is the thousands of miles between us and the knowledge that you can’t smear me to people who know me because unlike you I’ve shown decades of integrity. You’re afraid of people telling your family and employer what your like because you know they’re all to likely to see that as consistent with your behavior. You’re afraid of people hearing someone wonder if you’ve got an eight year old chained up in the basement because it would be easy to believe that sort of thing about you whereas no one would believe it of me.
Northdallass said “What I think is more revealing is the fact that you, who don’t know me at all, are assuming no one else knows my identity, that I have children chained up in the basement to molest, that I hate all gays and would never do anything positive for them, etc.”.
I know how you’ve behaved here and that your behavior elsewhere is going to be consistent with that. You’ve repeatedly displayed a desire to attack and hurt gays, to lie habitually, have justified and defended child molestation, incest, and polygamy, the idea that somehow you become an ethical person apart from here is beyond belief.
That’s why you’re too much of a coward to reveal your name, just like you lie here you’ve lied to the people in your private life and claimed your something your not. You’re afraid to take responsibility for your lies here because it will uncover your big lies elsewhere. You can spin, twist, weasel, and claim you have “valid” reasons for hiding your identity, but we all know the real reason is you’re afraid to take responsibility for the insane lies and hatred you spout here day after day.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I must admit, Randi, you’ve outdone yourself.
Of course you have, you claimed I “assualted relgious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, that I have multiple sex partners, that I “demand to have public sex wherever and whenever.
All of which, even if they happened as she claims, have been here.
How, exactly, is that trying to get her fired from her job or harassing her family — as she claims I’ve done (“of course you have”)?
And this is where it gets really funny:
That’s why you’re too much of a coward to reveal your name, just like you lie here you’ve lied to the people in your private life and claimed your something your not.
Or:
You’re afraid of people telling your family and employer what your like because you know they’re all to likely to see that as consistent with your behavior.
Or:
You’re afraid of people hearing someone wonder if you’ve got an eight year old chained up in the basement because it would be easy to believe that sort of thing about you whereas no one would believe it of me.
She seems awfully certain of things she has no way of knowing — because, as she rants, I hide my identity.
And finally:
I know how you’ve behaved here and that your behavior elsewhere is going to be consistent with that.
So, based on that theory, we can assume that Randi goes around claiming that people who disagree with her have eight-year-old-children chained up in their basement to molest.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “How, exactly, is that trying to get her fired from her job or harassing her family — as she claims I’ve done (“of course you have”)?”.
What I said Northdallass, is that contrary to your lie you have lied about me and slandered me – you said I have multiple sex partners, that I demand to have public sex, that I’ve assaulted heterosexuals and religious people in all possible manner. I never said you tried to get me fired from my job or harrassed my family although it may well be that you have. Someone has and you’re the only person who’s expressed animosity towards me and verbally assaulted me every chance you’ve gotten. Fortunately people don’t take anonymous cranks seriously, they know me by the integrity that I’ve displayed for decades.
Northdallass said “So, based on that theory, we can assume that Randi goes around claiming that people who disagree with her have eight-year-old-children chained up in their basement to molest.”
You lie, I never said you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you did. Obviously you don’t stick to what I’ve actually said, facts are irrelevant to you and no one need take seriously anything you say. Its obvious to everyone that a person who says its discrimination to prevent him from marrying a child and who says it shouldn’t be assumed children can’t give informed consent is someone who might molest a child. Unlike you I have not and would not claim that that which I can’t know is true, but what I do know is that molesting children is consistent with the immoral, dishonest person known as Northdallass. You’ve shown again and again on IGF that you can’t be trusted, that you consider yourself above the rules of fairplay, and that your main concern is to attack others for your own enjoyment. You can cowardly hide your name, but we know who you are deep inside.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is my favorite of your statements, Randi.
I never said you tried to get me fired from my job or harrassed my family although it may well be that you have.
So even though you say I haven’t, I have. Got it.
But a close second is this one:
Unlike you I have not and would not claim that that which I can’t know is true, but what I do know is that molesting children is consistent with the immoral, dishonest person known as Northdallass.
So you can’t claim it, but then you do claim it. Got it.
Its obvious to everyone that a person who says its discrimination to prevent him from marrying a child and who says it shouldn’t be assumed children can’t give informed consent is someone who might molest a child.
If people want to see what I said, they are more than welcome to look here.
By and large, I think I’ve made my case against molesting children pretty clearly.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “So even though you say I haven’t, I have. Got it.”
You lie, I never said that, I said it may be that you have, that’s not saying that you did, its saying that its a possibility. Once again facts and what I actually said are irrelevant, you make up a straw man because you can’t argue against reality.
Northdallass said “So you can’t claim it, but then you do claim it. Got it.”
Once again, you lie, I never claimed to know that you are a child molester, what I said is that your nature is consistent with being one – its possible that despite that you may not be but once again it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if you are. Once again, the suggestion of a possibility is not the statement of a certainty, only in your twisted dishonest mind can the two be equated. Its this sort of consistent lying on your part that makes people discount your contradictory claims of innocence especially when juxtaposed with the defense of child molestation.
Northdallass said “If people want to see what I said, they are more than welcome to look here.”.
And there it is in black and white just as I’ve pointed out several times already – I opposed underage marriages because children can’t give informed consent and you jumped all over me saying “I’m sorry, Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination.”.
Once again, your statements are consistent with being a child molestor which is not saying that you necessarily are, although it would be no big surprise.
Northdallass said “By and large, I think I’ve made my case against molesting children pretty clearly.”.
Obviously no one can believe any statements you make against child molestation when you’ve so clearly supported it here. The fact is you try to saddle gays with that issue when its you that’s supporting underage marriages – typical, you can’t take responsibility for your own words you have falsely blame gays for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and again, Randi, your bullying behavior keeps shining through.
You accused me of harassing you and your family, then backpedaled when you were cornered on it.
You accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest, and then backpedaled when you were cornered on it.
What you’re used to is someone retaliating in kind — that is, writing an “It wouldn’t surprise me IF” statement meant as an insult to you, which then justifies your actions.
And again, the way to neutralize you is to get you to admit that you have no proof whatsoever that I either harassed your family or am a child molestor, and that the possibility exists that I did not or am not.
Which you just did.
And now your actions are abundantly clear; you made a statement associating me with behavior that is almost universally reviled and that would mark me as a bad person that you knew a) you had no proof of me doing and b) that the possibility existed that I was not doing it.
In other words, you tried to insult me, you did it deliberately, and you deliberately tried to craft it so that you could avoid being held responsible for your insult.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You accused me of harassing you and your family, then backpedaled when you were cornered on it.”
Once again you lie, I said you may have I didn’t say it was a certainty.
Northdallass said “You accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest, and then backpedaled when you were cornered on it.
Once again you lie, I never said you did, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you did and I stand by that statment as 100% the truth.
Northdallass said “And again, the way to neutralize you is to get you to admit that you have no proof whatsoever that I either harassed your family or am a child molestor, and that the possibility exists that I did not or am not.”.
I’ve been saying that from the very beggining. Still the fact remains that I wouldn’t be surprised if you have an eight year old chained up in the basement that you molest everyday given you defense of child molestation and criticisim of me for opposing underage marriages.
Still the fact remains that me and my family have been harrassed and you are the only suspect in that harrassment.
Still the fact remains that you have no proof whatsoever and you lied about me saying I assaulted religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners.
Still the fact remains that you have no proof whatsoever and you lied about me saying I have multiple sex partners.
Still the fact remains taht you have no proof whatsoever and you lied about me saying I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever.
Still the fact remains that despite the habitual liar you are and all your verbal attacks on me I’d never stoop to treating you in the way you’ve treated me. I have a morality that applies to even those I dislike. You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word morality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ve been saying that from the very beggining.
No, you have not.
You acknowledged in your own post that you first made the charge of child molestation on June 21, and that you did not acknowledge the possibility that I may not be molesting children until your cited post on June 26th.
And even now, you are still accusing me of harassing your family, claiming that I am the “only suspect” — a clear implication that I did it.
Still the fact remains that despite the habitual liar you are and all your verbal attacks on me I’d never stoop to treating you in the way you’ve treated me.
Or so says the person who has accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest and of harassing her and her family and trying to get her fired from her job — all, as she acknowledges, with no proof whatsoever that I did it.
Meanwhile, Randi, if anyone needs proof of your assaulting people, they can just look at your accusations against me — and apply your theory that the way you behave on this blog. Since you loudly claim that people with whom you disagree are child molestors and harass your family, it can be assumed, by your own theory, that you do the same thing.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “No, you have not”.
Yes I did at June 22, 2007, 6:19pm I clearly stated “I never made any such claim, [that you had a child chained up in the basement] I said it wouldn’t surprise me IF you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.” and on June 23, 2007, 12:33pm I said “You weren’t honest enough not to make a statement about something you couldn’t possibly know and you were desperate enough to lie as you so frequently do. I didn’t make a statement about that which I couldn’t know”. Not making a “statement about that which I couldn’t know” is the same as saying I have no evidence that you have a child chained up in your basement to molest. Once again you’re caught in your lies by the very words that have been typed in black and white.
Northdallass said “You acknowledged in your own post that you first made the charge of child molestation on June 21”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester, I said at June 21, 2007, 5:51pm I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were. Once again you ignore what I actually wrote to substitute a straw man and its clear no one need take seriously anything you say. You can’t argue against what I actually wrote so you make stuff up.
Northdallass said “Or so says the person who has accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest and of harassing her and her family and trying to get her fired from her job”.
Again with the lies. I said IF you had an eight year old chained up to molest, not that you actually did. I said you may have been the one harrassing me, not that I had proof that you did, although it is highly suspicious that in your own words you took out time to find out “your name, where you live, and other such pieces of information”.
Northdallass said “Since you loudly claim that people with whom you disagree are child molestors and harass your family, it can be assumed, by your own theory, that you do the same thing.”.
Once again, you can’t argue with my actual position so you lie. I never said mere disagreement with me makes someone a child molester, what I said whas your attacking me for opposing underage marriage, your dishonesty, and your lack of concern for others makes one wonder IF you have an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest. Unlike you I don’t claim that proves something I can’t know while you pathetically lie and say I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manner, that I have multiple sex partners, that I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever – things you cannot possible know to be true, but yet your dishonesty and desire to hurt innocent people is so deeply ingrained you say those lies anyway.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes I did at June 22, 2007, 6:19pm I clearly stated “I never made any such claim, [that you had a child chained up in the basement] I said it wouldn’t surprise me IF you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.” and on June 23, 2007, 12:33pm I said “You weren’t honest enough not to make a statement about something you couldn’t possibly know and you were desperate enough to lie as you so frequently do.
I quote you, Randi:
I’ve been saying that from the very beggining.
The “very beggining”, as you identify it, was on June 21.
Even allowing the interpretations you spun above, those posts you cite were on June 22 and June 23 — days after the “beggining”.
Next:
I said you may have been the one harrassing me, not that I had proof that you did, although it is highly suspicious that in your own words you took out time to find out “your name, where you live, and other such pieces of information”.
Ummm……you publish your name here on your posts, do you not?
You’ve made it clear you live in Canada, have you not?
You’ve talked about your parents, your occupation, and your partner, have you not?
You’ve sent me (and others) emails with distinct identifiers on them, have you not?
I fail to see how suspicion should fall on me for trying to “find out” information when it is information that you yourself have published to this very blog and others or sent via email.
Once again, you can’t argue with my actual position so you lie.
Um, Randi…..your position is that people act in real life exactly the same way as they do on this blog.
Given that you do call people with whom you disagree child molestors…..
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Even allowing the interpretations you spun above, those posts you cite were on June 22 and June 23 — days after the “beggining”.”
So, you admit that you lied when you said the first I mentioned of it was on the 26th -good, that’s at least a bit of progress. And as to the 22nd and 23 that was one and two days after I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester – big deal. And the statement itself on that date made it clear I wasn’t claiming there was any concrete evidence that you were.
Northdallass said “You’ve made it clear you live in Canada, have you not?”
Knowing that I live in Canada is a long ways from knowing where I live, you claimed you know where I live.
Northdallass said “You’ve talked about your parents, your occupation, and your partner, have you not?”.
I have not talked about my parents or my occupation. Once again, if you know about those things you went out of your way to dig them up and your motivation for doing so is highly suspicious. If you don’t know about those things then you lied about knowing “other things about me”.
Northdallass said “your position is that people act in real life exactly the same way as they do on this blog.”.
Once again, you lie about my position. My postition is that you lie habitually on this blog, you attack innocent people for pleasure and that you’re too cowardly to take responsibility for it by attaching your name because you don’t want people you know to see what you’re really like. My postiion is that given your lies here its a given that you lie in your personal life although probably not to the same degree you do here because you have to be accoutable in your personal life
Northdallass said “Given that you do call people with whom you disagree child molestors”.
You lie, I’ve never said anyine I disagree with is a child molester, not even you despite your attacking me for opposing underage marriage. What I said for the umpteenth time is that I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained up in the basement so you could molest him every day. At no point did I say it was a fact that you do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, you admit that you lied when you said the first I mentioned of it was on the 26th -good, that’s at least a bit of progress.
As I referenced above:
You acknowledged in your own post that you first made the charge of child molestation on June 21, and that you did not acknowledge the possibility that I may not be molesting children until your cited post on June 26th.
The problem here, Randi, is that your story changes every time the facts are presented as you twist and spin to try to cover up and avoid the consequences of your behavior.
For instance, this statement:
Once again, if you know about those things you went out of your way to dig them up and your motivation for doing so is highly suspicious. If you don’t know about those things then you lied about knowing “other things about me”.
And again, you try to make excuses for the fact that you have published this information and you have mentioned it in emails. You are, as is typical for you, trying to blame other people for the fact that you yourself have published this information — and that you are now screaming that anyone who points out what you have published is “harassing” you.
In short, you accused me of child molesting and you accused me of harassing you — but you admit that you knew prior to making said accusations that you have no proof of either and that there is a strong possibility that your accusations are not true.
In that case, why did you make them?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You acknowledged in your own post that you first made the charge of child molestation on June 21”.
Its like arguing with a four year old. You’re lying, I never said you were a child molester, I said I wouldn’t be surprised If you were.
Northdallass said ” You are, as is typical for you, trying to blame other people for the fact that you yourself have published this information.” Once again, you claimed to know where I live and “other information” about me. You said I had published information about my parents and my occupation which I did not. If you know those things you dug them up on your own which is highly suspicious and lends credence to the possiblity that you’re the one that’s been harrassing me. You said I live in Canada which suggests you don’t know where I live and you were lying about that and if you don’t know about my parents or occupation then you were lying about those as well.
Northdallas said “In short, you accused me of child molesting and you accused me of harassing you — but you admit that you knew prior to making said accusations that you have no proof of either and that there is a strong possibility that your accusations are not true.”.
Again, you lie like a four year old, stop being so childish – I never said it was a certainty you were a child molester or that you were the one harrassing me. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF that were true and from the very beginning that made it clear I was not claiming to have proof of them.
The fact of the matter is that it would not be surprising if you had an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest, that is perfectly consistent with your defending child molestation, your dishonesty, and your well demonstrated desire to hurt the innocent for your own pleasure. The fact is that it would make sense if you were the one harrassing me.
You’ve got no one to blame for your poor reputation but yourself. If you don’t want people to think ill of you its time you started behaving honestly, stopped blaming innocent people for the wrongs of others, and stopped attacking people who oppose underage marriage. You can start by acknowledging the fact that you lied when you said I attack religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, by acknowledging that you lied when you said I have multiple sex partners, and by acknowledging that you lied when you said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF that were true and from the very beginning that made it clear I was not claiming to have proof of them.
So you accused me of child molestation and harassing you without having any proof of them.
Go figure.
And then, as is typical, you whine and cry about how I made you accuse me — as exemplified by your statement here:
If you don’t want people to think ill of you its time you started behaving honestly, stopped blaming innocent people for the wrongs of others, and stopped attacking people who oppose underage marriage.
LOL…..given your accusation that I have children chained up in the basement to molest despite your own admittance that you have no factual basis or proof of it to think that, it should be obvious to anyone that your decisionmaking is based, not on the reality of a situation, but on your own prejudicial and bigoted opinions about someone.
And it’s time I undo this very simply, Randi; what would you say if a religious person said, “It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true that gays molest children; that is perfectly consistent with their inability to control their sexual urges, as shown by the fact that many of them have public sex in steam rooms, and the fact that they like younger people as sex partners, as shown by their tendency to call each other “boiz”, for the websites out there showing teenage porn, and for their preference for younger people.”
Because according to your spin, that’s not an insult, nor is this person accusing gays of molesting children — since it only says this person “wouldn’t be surprised IF”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And Fitz has provided us a lovely example.
Yes- people who support same-sex ?marriage? (with very little exception) are intellectually and temperamentally incapable of helping to maintain a healthy and coherent marriage and family culture.
Since he said “very little exception”, according to the Randi rule, this isn’t an insult or stereotype of all gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “So you accused me of child molestation and harassing you without having any proof of them……..given your accusation that I have children chained up in the basement to molest despite your own admittance that you have no factual basis or proof of it to think that”
You lie, I never said you did have a child chained up in the basement, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if you did given your support of child molestation, your habitual dishonesty, nad your habitual attempts to hurt others for your own pleasure.
Northdallass said “you whine and cry about how I made you accuse me”.
I never accused you, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molestor. And your dispicable behavior, and rationalizations of child molestation did force me to have that impression – you have no one to blame but yourself.
Northdallass said “what would you say if a religious person said…”.
I’d say demonstrate that that’s typical of gays. By that token it has been well demonstrated on this blog that you’re a habitual liar, that you attack those who oppose underage marriage, that you attack innocent people for your own pleasure.
What would you say if with no proof whatsoever I accused you of “assaulting religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, if I accused you of having multiple sex partners, if I accused you of demanding to have public sex whenever and wherever?
Northdallass said “Since he said “very little exception”, according to the Randi rule, this isn’t an insult or stereotype of all gays.”.
Agreed, its not an insult or stereotype of all gays, its an instult or stereotype of the vast majority of gays. (what a fucking idiot)
Matthew 25:1
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.”.
As we can see contrary to your lies that most Christians reject polygamy they promote and honour a book that compares polygamy to the heavean. Obviously no one can take Christians seriously when the speak out of both sides of their mouths, condemning polygamy on one hand and promoting it with their bible on the other.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What would you say if with no proof whatsoever I accused you of “assaulting religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, if I accused you of having multiple sex partners, if I accused you of demanding to have public sex whenever and wherever?
You already are accusing me of molesting children and harassing you. I’d just add it to the list of other accusations you’re making without proof.
Next, Randi’s attempt to spin away her insulting and accusatory behavior:
I’d say demonstrate that that’s typical of gays.
But then, when Fitz provides just such a qualified statement, what does she shriek?
its an instult or stereotype
Thought as much.
Just like before, when she was caught clearly saying that one exception disproves a statement, then saying in a later post when it was her own statement that one exception does NOT disprove it, she applies rules to others that she clearly violates herself.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You already are accusing me of molesting children and harassing you. I’d just add it to the list of other accusations you’re making without proof.”.
I never said you are actually molesting children or that its a certainty that you’re harrassing me. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molestor and that it may that you are harassing me. And we can see the double standard you live by, you say its wrong to make accusations without proof but then you do just that by falsely accusing me of assaulting religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners amongst other false accusations. We can see you have no morals at all and that’s why people wonder if you might be a child molester or harrassing people trying to get them fired.
Just like you do Fitz’s statement had no proof whatsoever behind it.
Northdallass said “Just like before, when she was caught clearly saying that one exception disproves a statement, then saying in a later post when it was her own statement that one exception does NOT disprove it, she applies rules to others that she clearly violates herself.”
Depends on the statmenent you fool. One white bird does NOT falsify the statement that there are black birds. One black bird DOES falsify the statement that there are no black birds. Now stop being childish and just admit you were wrong as your own statement pointed out – the law does require consummation “in a few states.
And not surprising you don’t want to touch the fact that the bible you claim to worship promotes, supports and sanctifies polygamy as do all Christians by virtue of their promotion of the bible. You’re too small a person to admit the truth, you have to resort to lies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We can see you have no morals at all and that’s why people wonder if you might be a child molester or harrassing people trying to get them fired.
And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.
You made the accusations, Randi; I forced you to do nothing.
Depends on the statmenent you fool.
Nope; as I’ve demonstrated, it depends on who makes the statement.
In short, Randi can shriek that consummation is required when there are clear examples that it is not and still be right, and a person who says it is not required and who points out more than a “few” examples that it is not required is always wrong.
And not surprising you don’t want to touch the fact that the bible you claim to worship promotes, supports and sanctifies polygamy as do all Christians by virtue of their promotion of the bible.
Mhm…..and the fact that a modern wedding also has “maidens” — hence the term “bridesmaids” — that serve the same ceremonial function as in the passage you described; does that mean they all become the wives of the groom, as you insist happened here?
And finally, you insist that all Christians support polygamy by their promotion of the Bible….but when it comes to ACLU members and their own organization’s endorsement of polygamy, or NGLTF members based on the NGLTF’s endorsement of the polygamy-pushing Beyond Marriage:
The idea that all ACLU members are polygamists or that they support polygamy is insane.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie.
Northdallass said “Nope; as I’ve demonstrated, it depends on who makes the statement”.
LOL, still clinging to “logic” that has been soundly trounced as false. You insisted that if one statement is falsified by an exception that another must be as well. That is neatly demonstrated as false by two statements:
A white bird does NOT falsify the statement that there are black birds. A black bird DOES falsify the statement that there are no black birds. The rule of thumb you insist makes you correct is shown to be false and what is true is that one state requiring consummation VALIDATES my statement that the law requires consumation and one state requiring consummation INVALIDATES your statement that the law does not require consummation.
Northdallass said “a modern wedding also has “maidens” — hence the term “bridesmaids”.
The passage doesn’t refer to bridesmaides, it refers to virgins and in verse 11 the bridesgroom tells five of them “go away, I know you not”. Know is biblical speak for to have sex with, obviously the bridesgroom has sex with his wives – once again you lie about your bible to try and hide the truth about the perversions it promotes and supports.
Northdallass said “And finally, you insist that all Christians support polygamy by their promotion of the Bible….but when it comes to ACLU members and their own organization’s endorsement of polygamy, or NGLTF members based on the NGLTF’s endorsement of the polygamy-pushing Beyond Marriage”.
All ACLU and NGLTF members don’t go around claiming they unconditionally support all of those organizations actions and positions but ALL Christians do unconditionally support and accept ALL of the bible as the word of god whom they pledge to follow. There’s no comparison there.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.
You made the accusations, Randi; I forced you to do nothing. You are trying to blame other people for what you typed.
LOL, still clinging to “logic” that has been soundly trounced as false.
Only if one holds the same “Randi is always right, even if she’s wrong” attitude as I have demonstrated you do.
The passage doesn’t refer to bridesmaides, it refers to virgins and in verse 11 the bridesgroom tells five of them “go away, I know you not”. Know is biblical speak for to have sex with, obviously the bridesgroom has sex with his wives – once again you lie about your bible to try and hide the truth about the perversions it promotes and supports.
Or, “I don’t know who you are.”
As it is made clear in numerous other translations that are not old English and in the original. Honestly, do you believe that everywhere Shakespeare, for instance, says “I know him”, or “I knoweth him not”, he’s referring to sex?
All ACLU and NGLTF members don’t go around claiming they unconditionally support all of those organizations actions and positions but ALL Christians do unconditionally support and accept ALL of the bible as the word of god whom they pledge to follow.
LOL…Randi, you yourself have claimed that many Christians don’t follow the Bible.
Again, you’re applying the “Randi is always right, even if she’s wrong” rule; you twist and change your stances to explain why reality doesn’t match what you’ve previously stated.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You DO make claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possilbe manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you liked and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see you I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
Northdallass said “Honestly, do you believe that everywhere Shakespeare, for instance, says “I know him”, or “I knoweth him not”, he’s referring to sex?”.
Of course not, but what is clear is that when one talks about virgins coming to the bridesgroom and biblically knowing them, one is talking about sex and polygamy.
Northdallass said “Randi, you yourself have claimed that many Christians don’t follow the Bible.”.
They’re hypocrites Northdallas, like you, you claim to follow the bible but don’t. You claim to be a Christian but yet you break the commandment “thou shalt not bear false witness” with a frequency that would make Alberto Gonzalez blush. Christians promote the bible as indisputably and completely good and in so doing promote polygamy as well despite their lying hypocritical protestations that they don’t.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
end
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.
But then again, we’re all acquainted with the obvious point that Randi is always right even when the facts say otherwise.
Of course not, but what is clear is that when one talks about virgins coming to the bridesgroom and biblically knowing them, one is talking about sex and polygamy.
And yet, the clear endorsement of polyamorous multiple-partner sex and polygamy by the NGLTF and the ACLU doesn’t mean they support and are talking about polyamorous multiple-partner sex and polygamy.
In short, Randi, you’re trying to infer out of the Bible things you can’t recognize when they’re written in plain English elsewhere.
Now, Randi, since you insist that polygamy and polyamory are sick and disgusting and that any organization who would support, allow, or endorse it is misogynist, sick, disgusting, and repulsive, say that the NGLTF, the ACLU, the numerous other gay and leftist organizations, and all LGBT persons who believe in polyamory and that signed on to Beyond Marriage are.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And again, you spin, trying to blame me for the fact that you accuse me of being a child molestor and of harassing you, despite your own admittance that you have no proof of either.”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know, I’m not a liar like you.
And of course I take no reponsibility for the reputation you’ve developed. That’s entirely your doing, you have no one to blame but yourself for the way you’re perceived. You attack those who oppose underage marriage, you’re habitutally dishonest, and you habitually try to hurt innocent people for you own pleasure. Yes you most certainly made me perceive you the way I do.
Northdallass said “In short, Randi, you’re trying to infer out of the Bible things you can’t recognize when they’re written in plain English elsewhere.”.
I’m just showing you what’s in your buy-bull. Its support for incest and polygamy is clear throughout. The revered Solomon had many wives, many biblical figures had many wives, Abraham married two woman including his half-sister. The bible undisputably supports, and promotes polygamy and incest.
Northdallass said “say that the NGLTF, the ACLU, the numerous other gay and leftist organizations, and all LGBT persons who believe in polyamory and that signed on to Beyond Marriage are.”
Admit that you lied when you said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, when you said I have multiple sex partners, when you said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever, apologize, and then I’ll entertain your demands.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes you most certainly made me perceive you the way I do.
You may perceive me however you wish in the privacy of your own mind, Randi.
But when you come out here and start publicly accusing me of child molestation and harassing you when you have no facts or proof of me doing so, that’s a different matter entirely. No one forced you to type that; you did it yourself.
I’m just showing you what’s in your buy-bull. Its support for incest and polygamy is clear throughout. The revered Solomon had many wives, many biblical figures had many wives, Abraham married two woman including his half-sister. The bible undisputably supports, and promotes polygamy and incest.
And yet, mainstream Christian churches, as well as the main Mormon body, condemn polygamy and excommunicate people for practicing it.
Admit that you lied when you said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, when you said I have multiple sex partners, when you said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever, apologize, and then I’ll entertain your demands.
(shrug) Suit yourself. Use a transparent avoidance tactic.
As I thought, you insist that Christian churches that condemn and excommunicate people who practice polygamy are misogynist, sick, disgusting, and repulsive because of the Bible….but you refuse to say that organizations like NGLTF and the ACLU that clearly welcome and support polygamy and polyamory in their endorsements and rules are.
You don’t oppose polygamy and polyamory, Randi, nor do you think it’s misogynistic, sick, disgusting, or repulsive; if you did, you would have no problem condemning the ACLU and the NGLTF for supporting and endorsing it, and you wouldn’t need to avoid doing it.
You merely use it as an excuse to bash Christianity hypocritically.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “But when you come out here and start publicly accusing me of child molestation and harassing you when you have no facts or proof of me doing so, that’s a different matter entirely. No one forced you to type that; you did it yourself”
You came out here and publicly accused me of assaulting religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, of having multiple sex partners, of demanding to have public sex whenever and wherever with no facts or proof of me doing so that’s a different matter entirely. No one forced you to type that; you did it yourself.
In contrast I most certainly did not accuse you of being a child molester or having harrassed me. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester and that you may have been the one harrassing me. Unlike you I would never lie and claim something to be true that I couldn’t know.
Northdallass said “And yet, mainstream Christian churches, as well as the main Mormon body, condemn polygamy and excommunicate people for practicing it.”.
And they print, promote, and distribute a book that contradicts that position and sanctifies and justifies polygamy and incest. Obviously you can’t take a Christians word for what they believe.
Northdallass said “You don’t oppose polygamy and polyamory.”
Again Northdallass resorts to lies to support his impoverished “arguements”. I most certainly do oppose polygamy and polyamory. This is typical of the dishonesty and desire to hurt innocent people that combined with your support of child molestation makes people think you may be a child molester.
If you were sincere about wanting me to condemn the ACLU and NGLTF stands on polygamy you’d have no problem renouncing your lies about me and apologizing. You obviously are too immoral to do so and wouldn’t know what sincere meant if it bit you in the ass.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No one forced you to type that; you did it yourself.
I do not recall ever stating that you made me do anything.
But you accuse me of forcing you to publicly accuse me of child molestation and harassing you when you have no facts or proof of me doing so.
Next:
And they print, promote, and distribute a book that contradicts that position and sanctifies and justifies polygamy and incest. Obviously you can’t take a Christians word for what they believe.
Mhm.
Will you now also say that you can’t take an NGLTF or ACLU member’s word for what they believe, since you insist that they oppose polygamy and polyamory while printing, promoting, and endorsing organizational rules and materials that specifically support and endorse polygamy and polyamory?
Of course not, just as you won’t condemn the NGLTF and ACLU for being misogynistic, sick, disgusting, or repulsive by virtue of their support of polygamy and polyamory. You see nothing wrong with either polygamy or polyamory; you only care about it when you can use it to bash Christians, and you whine, kick, scream, and try to bring up irrelevant topics when asked to explain why you can’t condemn the NGLTF’s and ACLU’s support of it similarly.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I do not recall ever stating that you made me do anything.”
And I never stated that you forced me to type anything.
Northdallass said “But you accuse me of forcing you to publicly accuse me of child molestation and harassing you when you have no facts or proof of me doing so.”.
A double lie. I most certainly did not accuse you of being a child molester or having harrassed me. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester and that you may have been the one harrassing me. And I never accused you of forcing me to express my oppinion. What you have done is force people to have a negative opinion of you.
Northdallass said “Will you now also say that you can’t take an NGLTF or ACLU member’s word for what they believe, since you insist that they oppose polygamy and polyamory while printing, promoting, and endorsing organizational rules and materials that specifically support and endorse polygamy and polyamory?”.
Will you admit you lied about me and apologize? Will you admit that you can’t take a Christians word that they oppose polygamy and incest when they praise and promote the entire bible including its sanctification of incest and polygamy – will you condemn the bible itself. Oh, wait, I forgot, you’re the one that condemned me for opposing polygamy and incest, of course you won’t.
Northdallass said “You see nothing wrong with either polygamy or polyamory”.
LOL, I’ve opposed it throughout these threads and YOU’ve condemned me for that. Its pretty obvious where we both stand. You support polygamy incest, and child molestation and I condemn you for it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I never accused you of forcing me to express my oppinion
Mhm.
If you weren’t so immoral, hateful, and defending child molestation people wouldn’t wonder if you’ve got an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest.
Or:
You’ve got no one to blame for your poor reputation but yourself. If you don’t want people to think ill of you its time you started behaving honestly, stopped blaming innocent people for the wrongs of others, and stopped attacking people who oppose underage marriage.
Or:
We can see you have no morals at all and that’s why people wonder if you might be a child molester or harrassing people trying to get them fired.
And finally:
That’s entirely your doing, you have no one to blame but yourself for the way you’re perceived. You attack those who oppose underage marriage, you’re habitutally dishonest, and you habitually try to hurt innocent people for you own pleasure. Yes you most certainly made me perceive you the way I do.
And none of that forced you to publicly accuse me of child molestation and harassing you when you had no facts or proof of it.
And now you’ve stopped spinning and publicly admitted you accuse me of child molestation.
You support polygamy incest, and child molestation and I condemn you for it.
Finally, this is hilarious.
Will you admit you lied about me and apologize? Will you admit that you can’t take a Christians word that they oppose polygamy and incest when they praise and promote the entire bible including its sanctification of incest and polygamy – will you condemn the bible itself.
So the hypocrite Randi insists that we can’t automatically assume that ACLU and NGLTF members are lying when they say they don’t support polygamy, but that we should automatically assume Christians are lying when they say THEY don’t.
Furthermore, the hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Mhm…or…or…finally”
And that proves my point. At no point did I say you forced me to express my opinion. You lied yet again. Once again, like the joke you are, your links prove my point and not yours.
Northdallass said “And now you’ve stopped spinning and publicly admitted you accuse me of child molestation”.
You lie, I most certainly haven’t admitted to something I haven’t done. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester, at no point did I say you were. Once again you have to ignore the facts because you can’t argue against reality.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, the hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF”.
Nonsense, you lie, I just made fullfilling your demand that I do so conditional upon you acknowledging you lied about me and apologizing. Life’s a two way street, you don’t get to order me around without demonstrating some reciprocity.
Northdallass said “the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory”.
You lie, I’ve repeatedly opposed it and YOU’ve condemned me for my stand. You screamed that opposing them was discrimination, you claim the buy-bull that sanctifies and promotes incest and polygamy is your unquestionable guide, you along with every other Christian. I’ve been consistent, you and your “christians” have been hypocrites.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
At no point did I say you forced me to express my opinion.
Which is why you blamed ME throughout every one of those phrases for what YOU typed and stated — which you admitted you had no evidence or proof of me doing that which you accused me of doing.
I just made fullfilling your demand that I do so conditional upon you acknowledging you lied about me and apologizing. Life’s a two way street, you don’t get to order me around without demonstrating some reciprocity.
And the hypocrite Randi stalls.
And even more hilariously:
I’ve been consistent, you and your “christians” have been hypocrites.
So the hypocrite Randi insists that we can’t automatically assume that ACLU and NGLTF members are lying when they say they don’t support polygamy, but that we should automatically assume Christians are lying when they say THEY don’t.
Furthermore, the hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Which is why you blamed ME throughout every one of those phrases for what YOU typed and stated”.
Nonsense, I did no such thing, you’re a liar. What I said is you’re 100% responsible for the negative opinion people have of you.
Northdallass said “Randi insists that we can’t automatically assume that ACLU and NGLTF members are lying when they say they don’t support polygamy, but that we should automatically assume Christians are lying when they say THEY don’t.”.
The members of the ACLU, unlike the Christians don’t claim to faithfully follow and believe everything the ACLU does. Christians unconditionally believe and follow the bible, worship its every page and promote it blindly and completely to others. Christians are hypocrites and ACLU members are not.
Northdallas said “Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory”.
I don’t refuse, I don’t take orders from the likes of scum like you. If you had asked me my opinion on the ACLU rather than arrogantly demanding I say what you want me to this would be a differnet story.
Northdallass said “Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory”.
I most certainly do and I have repeatedly stated my position which YOU condemned me for. Obviously Christians like you and your bible support polygamy and incest.
posted by dalea on
Probably the first populizer of complex marriage in the postwar era was conservative/ libertarian author Robert Heinlein. His novels ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ and ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ both present complex sexual arrangements that are acceptable as some form of ‘marriage’. So in this case, I think we can safely say that the push for polygamy began on the right, not the left. Both works are generally considered to be classics of Libertarian thought.
Currently, the Unitarian Universalist Society has a group organizing for recognition of polyandry. It is a recognized subgroup within the Society.
IMHE, polyandry is quite common among Wiccans and other NeoPagans. I have personally known dozens of such arrangements. And they were all eminently workable. L had two wives; one worked at a professional job, the other raised the children and kept house. I was involved in one for several years: his wife recognized me as her husband’s husband. It was a wonderful experience.
This seems to come from Wicca’s practice of regarding each aspect of marriage as having a reason for being and a purpose. So, we can quite happily handfast Rhiannon and Wolf for the purpose of bearing and raising children. And then handfast Rhiannon and Cerridwen for lifelong love. And then handfast Wolf and Freja and Asgard for sexual pleasure. It is quite common for a devout Wiccan to be simultaneously part of several marriages.
I suspect Randi is right here. While secular elites may prattle on about complex marriage and polyandry; religious people actually go out and do it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I said is you’re 100% responsible for the negative opinion people have of you.
Mhm — while you’re making accusations of which you admit you have no proof that I am a child molestor and harassing you.
I don’t refuse, I don’t take orders from the likes of scum like you. If you had asked me my opinion on the ACLU rather than arrogantly demanding I say what you want me to this would be a differnet story.
I repeat myself:
The hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
And now we have another example, since the spinning Randi will NOT condemn fellow “LGBT” dalea for polyamory, even though she insists that all such relationships are sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Mhm — while you’re making accusations of which you admit you have no proof that I am a child molestor and harassing you.”.
You lie, I never accused you of anything, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester, and that you may the one who’s been harrassing me.
Northdallass said “Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory”
I don’t refuse, I don’t take orders from the likes of scum like you. If you had asked me my opinion on the ACLU rather than arrogantly demanding I say what you want me to this would be a different story.
Northdallass said “Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory”.
I’ve been consistent in my opposition to polygamy, incest and child molestation and YOU condemned me for it, screaming, “that’s discrimination!”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So the spinning Randi continues to accuse me of child molestation and harassing her while continuing to refuse to condemn polygamy and polyamory as sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women when practiced, endorsed, and supported by NGLTF, the ACLU, and her fellow “LGBT” dalea.
I repeat myself:
The hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
And now we have another example, since the spinning Randi will NOT condemn fellow “LGBT” dalea for polyamory, even though she insists that all such relationships are sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Randi continues to accuse me of child molestation and harassing her while continuing to refuse to condemn polygamy and polyamory as sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women when practiced, endorsed, and supported by NGLTF, the ACLU, and her fellow “LGBT” dalea.”.
You lie, I never accused you of anything, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester, and that you may the one who’s been harrassing me.
I don’t refuse to condemn anyone’s support of polygamy, I just don’t take orders from the likes of scum like you. If you had asked me my opinion on the ACLU rather than arrogantly demanding I say what you want me to this would be a different story.
I’ve been consistent in my opposition to polygamy, incest and child molestation and YOU condemned me for it, screaming, “that’s discrimination!”
You don’t even have scanty evidence to suggest I support such things, you’re just a flat out liar. And its hilarious that you refer to your bible as “scanty” evidence. I’m sure most Christians don’t consider the bible scanty evidence as to what they believe. The bible clearly sanctifies polygamy incest and murder of innocents and Christians are unrepentant in their support and promotion of it. Its clear Christians can’t be taken seriously when they say they oppose polygamy given their fawning over a bible that does.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So the spinning Randi continues to accuse me of child molestation and harassing her while continuing to refuse to condemn polygamy and polyamory as sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women when practiced, endorsed, and supported by NGLTF, the ACLU, and her fellow “LGBT” dalea.
I repeat myself:
The hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
And now we have another example, since the spinning Randi will NOT condemn fellow “LGBT” dalea for polyamory, even though she insists that all such relationships are sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ” Randi continues to accuse me of child molestation and harassing her”.
You lie, I never accused you of anything, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were a child molester, and that you may the one who’s been harrassing me.
Northdallass said “Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory”.
You lie, I said if you want me to condemn them then in reciprosity you have to admit that you lied when you said I attack religious people and heteroesexuals in all possible manners, that you lied when you said I have multiple sex partners, that you lied when you said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever and apologize for doing so.
Northdallass said “She doesn’t.”
I’ve been consistent in my opposition to polygamy, incest and child molestation and YOU condemned me for it, screaming, “that’s discrimination!”
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You lie, I said if you want me to condemn them then in reciprosity
“In ‘reciprosity'”?
Odd, Randi previously was saying that she would condemn ANYONE who was practicing polygamy and polyamory, claiming that it was a matter of principle; it doesn’t matter who was practicing it.
Now, though, when confronted with clear examples of the ACLU, NGLTF, and her leftist LGBT allies like dalea, she will NOT condemn their polygamy- and polyamory-supporting, she is in essence saying that she will NOT condemn them out of principle.
I repeat myself:
The hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
And now we have another example, since the spinning Randi will NOT condemn fellow “LGBT” dalea for polyamory, even though she insists that all such relationships are sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory”
You lie, I said if you want me to condemn them then in reciprosity you have to admit that you lied when you said I attack religious people and heteroesexuals in all possible manners, that you lied when you said I have multiple sex partners, that you lied when you said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever and apologize for doing so.
Northdallass said “She doesn’t.”.
I’ve been consistent in my opposition to polygamy, incest and child molestation and YOU condemned me for it, screaming, “that’s discrimination!”
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“In ‘reciprosity'”?
Odd, Randi previously was saying that she would condemn ANYONE who was practicing polygamy and polyamory, claiming that it was a matter of principle; it doesn’t matter who was practicing it.
Now, though, when confronted with clear examples of the ACLU, NGLTF, and her leftist LGBT allies like dalea, she will NOT condemn their polygamy- and polyamory-supporting, she is in essence saying that she will NOT condemn them out of principle.
I repeat myself:
The hypocrite Randi refuses herself to condemn the ACLU or NGLTF for their promotion and endorsement of polygamy and polyamory — but insists that everyone condemn Christianity and the Bible for allegedly promoting polygamy.
And that’s why I postulate that the hypocrite Randi does NOT oppose polygamy and polyamory; as is obvious, she opposes Christianity, and uses polygamy and polyamory as a scanty excuse to do it.
If she opposed polygamy and polyamory on their basis alone, she would condemn equally any and all organizations that supported and endorsed it.
She doesn’t.
She screams, flails, and throws temper tantrums to AVOID condemning “LGBT” organizations and leftist organizations that clearly do it. Meanwhile, she flatly ignores the vast quantity of churches that excommunicate and warn AGAINST polygamy. Finally, she stalls and spins as to why she won’t condemn it when the ACLU and NGLTF do it, even though she’s made clear she’ll condemn all Christians for supporting polygamy on the scantiest of evidence and in the face of massive amounts of evidence that they don’t.
And now we have another example, since the spinning Randi will NOT condemn fellow “LGBT” dalea for polyamory, even though she insists that all such relationships are sick, disgusting, and exploitative of women.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Now, though, when confronted with clear examples of the ACLU, NGLTF, and her leftist LGBT allies like dalea, she will NOT condemn their polygamy- and polyamory-supporting, she is in essence saying that she will NOT condemn them out of principle.”.
You lie, I’ve consistently opposed polygamy, incest and child molestation all along, and YOU condemned me for taking that stand, screaming that “that’s discrimination!”