Posted on 02/23/2011 4:25:29 AM PST by Daisyjane69
meh...
I guess the old “Mormon Mafia” people talked about in Howard Hughes’ day is still alive and well. Or at least that Jeffs subgroup’s version is.
In the past, when men were kicked out, their wives and children were reassigned to other men.Please, O Defenders Of Polygamy. Defend this. I dare you.
They’ll come a-runnin...trust me. I go round with them every few months.
All I can say is that if FReepers came here to S. Utah and saw this spectacle with their own eyes...there wouldn’t be a defender of it left on FreeRepublic.
It’s about as ugly a lifestyle as one can have the misfortune of seeing.
What is wrong with these people?
They need to abandon their dated philosophy and move into the modern age.
Why can’t they just practice homosexual sodomy, have lesbian relationships and enter into same sex marriages like good, progressive Americans?
And their old fashioned notions of having extended families!
Can’t the women just lay around having multiple babies by annonymous sperm donors while the men wander around impregnating them, one after another?
Or they could practice female circumcision like good muslims.
I don’t have to see it to detest the idea of it.
You have to be pretty freaking mathematically challenged — arithmetically challenged, really — not to be able to foresee the huge damage such a lifestyle will do if it spreads to the wider society.
Even if you can’t do the math (1 + 1 = 2), just look at the muzzie societies, where the rich have 4 wives and the poor men are all practicing fags who publicly denounce fagness and many of whom become terrorists who willingly blow themselves up to get 72 virgins.
It’s a sick sick lifestyle and one of the main reasons I’m against “gay marriage”, because I want to preserve Western Civilization which depends on, among other things, the preservation of the sanctity of marriage and family.
Call me, oh, I don’t know, a conservative. But that’s just the way I think.
Oh, and I forgot to mention one little detail in my rant against polygamy: the abject slavery of women.
I’m gonna pretend you left out the sarcasm tag.
Otherwise, I’m likely to conclude that you are ignorant, offering an “authoritative” opinion of something you have not personally seen.
Do you consider polygamy to be an example of “old fashioned notions of having extended families”?
I agree with Daisyjane. I’m confused by your tone. Are you being sarcastic?
I know in the beginning of your post you are but then through the middle and end clarity fades.
Especially at the end where you mention muslims and try somehow to imply...well, I don’t know what you’re trying to imply.
So I’ll just ask you:
You do know that muzzies practice polygamy, don’t you? And you do know that it’s one of the reasons that their societies are so messed up, don’t you?
You’re against gay “marriage” because you want to preserve Western Civilization.
Which states a Great Truth (in the converse).
Those promoting homo “marriage” seek the destruction of Western Civilization.
Actually, you have described it perfectly: the defenders of polygamy don’t want to understand that what we have here is A MATH PROBLEM. One they seek to codify and normalize into our culture.
Any lifestyle that produces an excess of single, unattached males will need to wage war to cull the herd. Period. Yet, any lifestyle that resticts males (by the artificial means of kicking them out of the family by making them homeless) will, by simple math, need to continue to lower the age of eligible females. Right up through, and including: incest, child brides, etc.
Oh, and I won’t call you a “conservative”,
I’ll be more accurate and descriptive -
you’re an “Americanist”.
The muzzies practice polygamy as part of their demographic jihad.
If Western traditional families would defy the leftist secular humanist worldview and have a few more kids,
we could counter this demographic jihad.
I don’t understand your point.
Catholics have many children and they don’t need polygamy to do it.
Look at population growth in Latin American (Catholic) countries. It matches muzzie growth.
How does restricting the number of fathers promote more offspring among the mothers? Please explain.
If every woman is capable of having (let’s say, for example) 10 children in her lifetime, how does assigning women 4 - 1 to certain wealthy males increase the number of children overall? Please explain.
You are obviously one of the arithmetically challenged people I was referring to.
And Daisyjane, you were right. They flocked.
you’re an “Americanist”.I'm an American conservative who doesn't have the slightest idea what an "Americanist" is, though I suspect it's some kind of Ron Paul Libertarian BS.
One more thing I neglected to mention...
There is a very good reason why the lawyers for the first Jeff’s trial wanted to move the trial out of St. George UT (where this Catholic chick lives), Washington County and instead hold it up north, in SLC.
Because it’s very easy to excuse this cult when you have some distance. (And by “cult” I am not referring to mainstream LDS people. I am specifically referring to the FLDS. Regular LDS people are fine.)
They wanted the trial OUT of here because people here have a front row seat to the consequences of this twisted gig. Jeffs was never going to get away with his happy horseshit here and they knew it. And they were right. :)
People here in St. George are on the front lines of this; we are the ones who see the 13 & 14 year old boys walking along I-15 in the middle of winter, with only the clothes on their back. We’re the closest “city” and so it’s where the girls who manage to escape end up. Here, there are the charities/organizations that sprung up to help these youngsters. LDS, other faiths, and no faiths at all....everyone pitches in.
Jeffs was getting no sympathy here. And he didn’t.
I’m using the word “Americanism” to describe modern conservatism to point out that those opposed to conservatism, ie, the “Progressives”, are inherently anti-American, and oppose to the traditional American culture.
Traditional Americanism has a _little_ in common with what I understand of Ron Paul’s viewpoint, but RP seems to reject the social conservative/American”ist” ideology which the founders, and their contemporary Americans, held to be dear and essential to freedom.
I wasn’t promoting polygamy amongst Westerners.
I was promoting traditional families (one mother, one father + children) having bigger families in spite of the left’s “jihad” against the traditional family.
Excellent postings, Daisyjane. Thank you for everything you have written here today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.