| DOMA |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: james ® 05/08/2002, 14:25:23 Author Profile Mail author |
Everything I wanted to know about DOMA (from an LDS perspective) but was afraid to ask! The LDS people have been active in supporting DOMA (defense of marriage act) I have noticed some curious things about this. Mormons are supposed to believe in 'free will' and philosophical/religious freedom. (let them worship how, where or what they may). Didn't Joseph Smtih teach something about teaching 'correct principles' and letting the individual make their own choices? So, why support this act of congress and deprive individuals from exercizing 'free will'. Mormons and others can still perform their own marriages as they see it, no matter what other people are doing, or not doing. From my point of view, it was an act of maintaining 'status quo'. Its that 'we form and maintain images of the American family'. I suppose that Joseph might have had enough sense to limit his opposition to the pulpit. Anyone care to state their point of view?
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: DOMA Re: DOMA -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Wayne Wilson ®
05/08/2002, 18:22:22
Author Profile Mail author
James
I have heard nothing of this act. Is it before U.S. Congress or is it Utah?
Wayne
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: DOMA Re: Re: DOMA -- Wayne Wilson Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
05/08/2002, 19:38:04
Author Profile Mail author
Wayne,
Here is some information reguarding doma and other matters from this webpage. http://www.lds-mormon.com/discrimination.shtml
I have scanned it, but not read it completely. This website is so expansive in information or misinformation as some might view it.I would have to do more research to find the complete wording of the act, but I believe its already passed, and it was a national campaign. The wording has something to do with 'states rights' to reject marriage vows of another state. Also has something to do with defining marriage as a union between one man and one wife. I certainly could be misinformed, and I am not a lawyer, so I am sure that some input will be in order.
My main question had to do with why legislate a religious point of view? Especially if an organization expects members to live a standard apart from non-members, legal or not. Social customs or not. There could be other motivations for the LDS churches involvement with the act, but all I see is an exercise of political muscle, and 'encouraging' public opinion to match church teachings.
Thank you,J
Modified by james at Wed, May 08, 2002, 19:42:51
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: DOMA Re: Re: DOMA -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Wayne Wilson ®
05/08/2002, 20:16:25
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks for the info James. I do remember that there was a bit of hubub here in California, over THE CHURCH'S involvement in the campaign to block same sex marriages. The bill that was passed (all counties passed it, except the Bay area and Santa Cruz county) really just reafirmed an existing law.
The Curch's involvment does make them seem more like a political organization. What church is not political to a certain extent?
Wayne
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: DOMA Re: Re: DOMA -- Wayne Wilson Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/09/2002, 03:52:18
Author Profile Mail author
I'm afraid you are mistaken on a key point, Wayne. This was NOT simply a reaffirmation of an existing law! This act is, in fact, a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause.
Prior to the act, California, like every other state, was obligated by the U.S. Constitution to automatically accept marriages of any kind that were lawful in the state they were performed. With the passage of the new law, California was required to reject any marriages from other states not between a man and a woman.
However, the new law is a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution and will never survive a Supreme Court challenge (at least we could be certain of that if that court didn't have despicable despots like Scalia and Thomas on the bench). As it is, a test case hasn't appeared yet and never will if CRUEL (see my previous post in this thread) has it's way.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Thu, May 09, 2002, 04:48:08
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: DOMA Re: DOMA -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/09/2002, 03:29:05
Author Profile Mail author
This evil, un-American campaign of the LDS Church is yet another powerful reason to despise it utterly! And I do, believe me. As should every American.
With it, they joined the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists in the Churches Reveling in Unconscionable Evil League (CRUEL).
It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can respect these instituions.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Challenge James Re: DOMA -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/10/2002, 18:21:36
Author Profile Mail author
Its that 'we form and maintain images of the American family'.
James, I challenge anyone here to define "the American family". What is it?
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Accepting your challenge Re: Challenge James -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rpcman ®
05/10/2002, 19:26:04
Author Profile Mail author
"The American Family" is a family full of Americans. ;)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
American Family Re: Challenge James -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: James ®
05/10/2002, 20:25:16
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki,
Good observation, perhaps more what a lot of people might make. I made the mistake of 'assuming' a certain point of view of the LDS faith. But, I do believe I am not totally out of line as far as the image that is presented by the church of the ideal family.The ideal LDS family is one composed of One father and One mother, and at least one or two children, and maybe more. The parents are loving and caring. The father works hard to support the family economically, the mother works at home to keep the family in clean clothes, fed. Perhaps the parental roles can be switched, or parents can do a little of each. I am sure no one could fault them for making things work as they see fit.
So, this is the ideal LDS family as far as what I think the church would like to promote in the world. In actuality, its often quite far from ideal. Domestic violence, alcoholism, teen pregnancy etc... Do the LDS people have judgements of single parent households? I don't know. Do they have judgements of the following: Open relationships/multiple partners in a marrige, homosexuality... Yes
What is your point? I think everyone needs to find something that works for them. I am not advocating any particular arrangement.
J
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
My point is the children Re: American Family -- James Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/10/2002, 20:54:41
Author Profile Mail author
James,
I think the LDS view of the family is naive, bigoted and insenstive. As the child of a single parent I can tell you first hand that any child in a single parenting situation that is exposed to the LDS view (and no, it's not just the LDS as Martin seemed to note) will suffer serious psychological and emotional damage upon hearing that the only acceptable family model contains 1 Father, 1 Mother, and a collection of children.
Where does this leave the child of the single parent? The child living in foster care and far removed from their biological parent(s)? Where does this leave the child of the homosexual couple? When one "explains" that a viable family contains the features I describe above, the message received by the child in non-traditional situations is "I" am not viable. "I" am not authentic. "I" am not whole.
My definition of the ideal family: a group of two or more people, who share an emotional/psychological bond, who nurture and care for eachother, who are interested in the well being of eachother, who support eachother, who love eachother, who strive to meet eachothers needs, who grow together.
If the LDS (and others) are so bloody interested and devoted to the "worth of a child" they would do well to consider the impact of their viewpoints on the very children they claim to value, and embrace them.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Fri, May 10, 2002, 21:02:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I love your definition Vicki! Re: My point is the children -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/13/2002, 02:05:24
Author Profile Mail author
You said:
"My definition of the ideal family: a group of two or more people, who share an emotional/psychological bond, who nurture and care for eachother, who are interested in the well being of eachother, who support eachother, who love eachother, who strive to meet eachothers needs, who grow together."
I don't think I could improve on that definition if I tried. I do think, however, that if there are children in the family, it is easier on both them and the adults if at least two members of such a family are adults. Single parent families with children have a much harder time keeping themselves above the poverty line, though some manage to do it.
Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I agree Re: My point is the children -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/13/2002, 11:22:11
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vicki:
I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I know for a fact that the LDS Church focuses on instilling this message of family at all costs, but it considers only their type of ideal family structure. This will damage psychologically those who don't fit the mold. The rationalization for this is that these children need to learn that they suffer because the parents didn't live up to their obligations. Will the child suffer? Sure, but its the parents fault for not keeping it together....
Where does that leave the child? In a dysfunctional definition of self. Unfortunately, this could be brought further Vicki....
You say:
My definition of the ideal family: a group of two or more people, who share an emotional/psychological bond, who nurture and care for eachother, who are interested in the well being of eachother, who support eachother, who love eachother, who strive to meet eachothers needs, who grow together.
Along the same lines, one could say that your definition is not good because there are many children who grow up in environments where there is no love, support, and care. How do you differentiate the impact of your definition from the impact of the LDS's definition? The only difference is in demographics. Your definition impacts fewer people perhaps, but it does impact some just like the LDS's does.
So can we even consider the idea of Ideal Family? Perhaps we should not, and focus more on what it means to be an ideal person and human being.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I agree Re: I agree -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/13/2002, 17:14:14
Author Profile Mail author
Vines,
My definition was for the "ideal" family. It is far less restrictive than the LDS version for it does not place values on gender or even blood lines. You don't want to engage me on the subject of adverse environments and children Vines. Trust me you don't! I'll whip out statistics and solutions like Martin whips out adjectives. Then I'll be in my element and you won't be able to sleep tonight. Trust me or try me, your choice.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, May 13, 2002, 17:14:57
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I agree Re: Re: I agree -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/16/2002, 08:57:02
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vicki:
Your definition may have been that of the Ideal Family, but who cares? The issue was not what is the ideal family, the issue was your claim that the LDS opinion in regards could cause psychological damage to children who didn't fit the mold, and hence, would feel removed and inferior.
As I said, I agree with your point, and personally I find that teaching a child about the importance of family structure is not done by pointing out what the ideal family is, but rather by pointing out what it means to be the ideal family member, an ideal individual. In essence, one should give a definition of what it means to be a good human being, and perhaps how being the latter benefits a family.
On the other hand you gave your own version of what an ideal family is, and I take it by your response that you didn't like the fact that I pointed out that your definition also hurts those who don't fit the mold of your definition, just as some are hurt by the LDS defintion, as you pointed out.
In essence, you did exactly what the LDS did by simply defining the Ideal Family. The fact that the damage done by your definition hits, MAYBE, a smaller demographic slice of the population was not the issue of my response. The issue was the validity of defining the ideal, and the contradiction you put yourself in by so doing.
In essence, the very logic you used to attack the LDS definition automatically discredited your own.
BTW, it seems I am not good at understanding intentions lately, but it seems your comments at the end... were... off the topic, and seemed a bit abrasive. (?)
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Shoot me Vines! Re: Re: I agree -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/16/2002, 10:18:33
Author Profile Mail author
Vines,
I asked James to define the American Family, after many replies...I offered my own definition of what a family is. The last part of my reply to you was NOT off topic! It was YOU that brought up the issue of adverse environments when you spoke of children being raised without support, etc. Good Grief!
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hey hold on Re: Shoot me Vines! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/16/2002, 10:38:50
Author Profile Mail author
Hey Vicki:
I jumped into the discussion to comment that I agreed with you regarding what you said about the LDS message having an effect on children that don't fit the ideal family mold. I said nothing of adverse environments to start, just commented based on what you said. You presented the idea that the LDS belief was damaging.
Did I misunderstand something?
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Hey hold on Re: Hey hold on -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/16/2002, 12:45:00
Author Profile Mail author
No, TV, you didn't misunderstand anything. At this point it seems we're going in circles and I think I'm done here.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Exactly! Re: Re: Hey hold on -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/16/2002, 19:54:24
Author Profile Mail author
Your position is just as bad as the LDS one, so stop bad mouthing it or change your own as well.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No Vines Re: Exactly! -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/17/2002, 09:31:32
Author Profile Mail author
How do you figure that in any regard, my definition of what constitutes an "ideal" family is in any fashion inferior to that of the LDS view?
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
It's not, its superior Re: No Vines -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/17/2002, 21:34:19
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vicki:
Hey girl, I didn't say it was inferior, I said clearly that it was superior, in that it damaged a smaller demographic section. Your definition is no doubt more inclusive, and hence better!
The issue I brought up was that even with your defintion there are still a significant slice of society that are left out in the cold because they have never had a supportive, loving family, be it a single parent, a homosexual couple, etc... Hence, the objection you raised against the LDS definition as being discriminitory, which is absolutely valid, applies automatically to your definition too, given that your's is still less damaging by your standard.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I need an interpreter here!!! Re: It's not, its superior -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/18/2002, 07:50:09
Author Profile Mail author
Vines, Either I'm not reading you right or you are contradicting yourself here. Is anyone else reading this dialogue? Help us out?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You know Vicki just read my posts above Re: I need an interpreter here!!! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 10:46:17
Author Profile Mail author
Stop playing games Vicki.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Games? Are you serious? Re: You know Vicki just read my posts above -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/18/2002, 11:47:52
Author Profile Mail author
Games Vines? In your posts you brought up the issue of children who grow up in adverse environments. When I responded to that you accused me of posting OFF TOPIC. Are you kidding? You said my definition of the ideal family could hurt people. How in the hell do you figure that? My definition transcends blood lines and gender. IOW it includes ALL possibilities unlike the LDS (or Southern Baptist or any other fundamentalist Christian view) of what constitutes "the family". Are you saying that because I define what I think of as the ideal family that it hurts children who are abused? This is nonsense! I have made many attempts here to answer you straight forwardly Vines and it seems to me you shift direction whenever I do. I do NOT play games Vines and your accusation offends me greatly. Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Sat, May 18, 2002, 11:55:38
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Get real Re: Games? Are you serious? -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 22:34:46
Author Profile Mail author
VICKI:
Are you saying that because I define what I think of as the ideal family that it hurts children who are abused?
This is nonsense! I have made many attempts here to answer you straight forwardly Vines and it seems to me you shift direction whenever I do. I do NOT play games Vines and your accusation offends me greatly.
What I said is that you claimed that the LDS definition hurt children who didn't fit the mold of their defintion. By that same logic your definition hurts all those children who don't fit your definition. Can't deal with it? Tough.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Get off it Vines! Re: Get real -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/19/2002, 00:38:41
Author Profile Mail author
EVERY child and EVERY primary caregiver fits into my definition! For you to suggest otherwise suggests to me that you either did not read my post or failed to reflect on it. I can deal with virtually anything you have to offer Vines.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Get off it??? Re: Get off it Vines! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/19/2002, 01:54:54
Author Profile Mail author
Let me remind you exactly of your nonesense:
I think the LDS view of the family is naive, bigoted and insenstive. As the child of a single parent I can tell you first hand that any child in a single parenting situation that is exposed to the LDS view (and no, it's not just the LDS as Martin seemed to note) will suffer serious psychological and emotional damage upon hearing that the only acceptable family model contains 1 Father, 1 Mother, and a collection of children.
Where does this leave the child of the single parent? The child living in foster care and far removed from their biological parent(s)? Where does this leave the child of the homosexual couple? When one "explains" that a viable family contains the features I describe above, the message received by the child in non-traditional situations is "I" am not viable. "I" am not authentic. "I" am not whole.
My definition of the ideal family: a group of two or more people, who share an emotional/psychological bond, who nurture and care for eachother, who are interested in the well being of eachother, who support eachother, who love eachother, who strive to meet eachothers needs, who grow together.
If the LDS (and others) are so bloody interested and devoted to the "worth of a child" they would do well to consider the impact of their viewpoints on the very children they claim to value, and embrace them.
That is what you said!
Now above you say:
EVERY child and EVERY primary caregiver fits into my definition! For you to suggest otherwise suggests to me that you either did not read my post or failed to reflect on it.
LOL!!!
Every child fits into your description? What about abused children, children that don't have anyone to nurture them, who have no one to strive to meet their needs, and who have no one to grow with?
What utter nonesense! If you were half as humble as you were ridiculous you would have recognized the conceptual contradiction you committed when you so openly criticized the LDS view (which I also disagree with) and then went ahead and made the same conceptual mistake. Now you have wasted my time trying to point out this error notwithstanding your proud defense of a ridiculous statement!
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Vines, the direction you're going . . . Re: It's not, its superior -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/18/2002, 10:26:54
Author Profile Mail author
. . . seems to suggest that the ideal definition of the ideal family would be one that everyone can say reflects their actual family. That way no one would be hurt by being excluded from the definition.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No Re: Vines, the direction you're going . . . -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 10:52:34
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Cal:
I must say that my frustration lately is increasing because obviously I do not convey my thoughts properly...
I am making no definitions of ideal family at all. I could care less to define such a thing. I do not believe in an ideal family, just in good people trying their best...
If you go back and read my comments to Vicki you will find that she shoots down the LDS definition of Ideal Family saying that it is damaging to the children who don't fit the mold of that definition in that it makes them feel inferior, etc...
Then she goes on to define the ideal family. The objections she raises to the LDS definition are applicable to her definition. I pointed this out and she still is dodging the issue. That's it...
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What crap! Re: No -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/18/2002, 12:01:49
Author Profile Mail author
Dodging WHAT issue Vines? Tell me how the objections I raised to the LDS view on the the family also apply to my definition of what constitutes the ideal family?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Indeed you are full Re: What crap! -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 22:30:58
Author Profile Mail author
As I said in numerous posts before, which you read and doged, your statement that the LDS definition of "Father, Mother, children"- type ideal family was damaging to those children who could not identify with this structure either because they were raised by a singe parent or were part of a homosexual family, etc... you reamed the LDS Church for their inconsiderate statements and then you blindly go on to make statements regarding your definition of ideal family as characterized by a "loving enviroment", "support" , etc..... and I clearly stated to you that your definition was not good either because the VERY OBJECTION YOU RAISED TO THE LDS DEFINITION APPLIED TO YOURS.
Tell me smarty pants are all families loving, nurturing, supportive, etc.... NO! So your definition also excludes all those children who cannot identify.... The very objection you made to the LDS definition!!!!!!!!
Why don't you take a hike you proud twit! If you weren't so bent on feeling attacked you would have realized that I was just pointing out a conceptual inconsistency in your thinking, but since all you seem to care about is expressing your ideas to be praised (what else can I conclude since you react so negatively to any criticism), then I have nothing to say more about your stupid definition.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sweet Vines, Re: Indeed you are full -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/19/2002, 01:10:27
Author Profile Mail author
It would take you, backed by a rather large army of Martin's before I would come remotely even close to feeling "attacked" here. Here you resort to name calling, go figure.
The LDS/Fundamentalist Christian view of what constitutes "the family" EXCLUDES same-sex partners, single parents, unrelated members and their children. Mine transcends ALL of those conditions! Including age! The family, by my definition is not limited by blood lines, gender or even age.
NEITHER definition includes abused children because (I can't believe I have to actually type this out) abuse is not IDEAL! For pete sakes, Vines. You are mixing apples and oranges the way you did on the other thread. Let's see...here's the definition of the family according to Vines...
Mother, Father, Children
love, abuse and neglectWhile that may describe, in part, the conditions that are present in the real world Vines, it has nothing to do with idealistic goals for the health of the family. The LDS/FC version of the Mother, Father, x number of children presents itself as the only valid familial model within which healthy families can exist. Healthy Vines, not dysfunctional. It leaves out vast portions of society where mine does not. Why do you have a problem distinguishing between reality and idealistic outlines for a healthy family? The LDS/FC version EXCLUDES men, women and children living in non-traditional groupings from the get-go. It writes them off as invalid human beings, their relationships as not legitimate, their lives as not viable or conducive to health.
Call me anything you wish, I'm not going anywhere.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Sun, May 19, 2002, 01:25:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
How ridiculous can you be? Re: Sweet Vines, -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/19/2002, 01:44:03
Author Profile Mail author
Don't describe ideal family for me... Your constant avoidance of the real topic is just symptom of the intellectual dishonesty affecting you.
I specifically stated that I would not define ideal family at all. I maid that very clear but you didn't even bother to read... From the beginning I made this very clear.
Don't pull the victim baloney on me child... You are the one that posted that I was full of crap! Get a life and why don't you follow your own advice and FORGET IT!
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
My name isn't girl/twit or child Re: How ridiculous can you be? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/19/2002, 05:00:39
Author Profile Mail author
My name is Vicki. Nowhere did I say that you were full of crap. If I thought that Vines, I would say it straight out. I said that your claim that I've dodged anything here is crap, not you. Actually Vines, it was you that implied that I am full of it in your post title above. Why are you projecting your own behavior on to me? Either that's the case or you simply can't keep track of what you said.
I have made repeated attempts to communicate with you Vines and perhaps the glitch is on my end. You have yet to make me see where I have failed to address any topic.
The LDS/FC version of the family is the religious IDEAL
My definition of the family describes a socially broader IDEALNEITHER definition includes victims of abuse, neglect, indifference or intolerance because those constitute ADVERSE conditions, NOT THE IDEAL.
As for your advice Vines, in spite of my background I do not find taking a hike enjoyable, when I wish to "forget it" I will, I already have a life and just for the record--I don't chase easily.
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Mon, May 20, 2002, 01:24:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I apologize for the negative tone nt Re: My name isn't girl/twit or child -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/20/2002, 23:56:15
Author Profile Mail author
.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Family Re: My point is the children -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
05/13/2002, 18:31:48
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki,
I hear you. I want you to understand that I know there are all sorts of family arrangements. I never said that the LDS ideal was the only workable arrangement. I think you misunderstood the orginal posting and my earlier response. I also want you to know that I am not LDS, and I think they go way to far in promoting their values. That was the whole reason for my posting.
J
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: DOMA Re: DOMA -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: shooter ®
05/11/2002, 18:04:49
Author Profile Mail author
"The ideal LDS family is one composed of One father and One mother, and at least one or two children, and maybe more. "
Actually this is a recent idea. In past LDS beliefs this was not the ideal.
LDS as a general group don't really care much about their kids. Abuse of all kinds is known yet nothing is done. Stake Presidents & GA's down to the run of the mill mormon abust spouses, kids & family and it is kept quiet with some of these bastards even being protected.
It is a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do". The Catholic priests have no monopoly on hypocricy, nor do Mormons. But living among Utah Mormons especially, one can see it in action on a daily basis.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Whoa! Re: Re: DOMA -- shooter Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
05/11/2002, 23:18:13
Author Profile Mail author
You're right that the notion of Dad, Mom and the Kids in "traditional" monogamous familial bliss hasn't always been the Mormon ideal. After all, present-day Mormons are the heirs of a church that came into conflict with the US government over the practice of polygamy for God's sake.
But, as an ex-Mormon agnostic with my own axes to grind about the church, I still can't help saying: You're not only plain wrong here but also silly and bigoted.
Do you, for example, really take these two claims to be true? I quote verbatim from your post:
(1) LDS as a general group don't really care much about their kids.
(2) Abuse of all kinds is known yet nothing is done.
And the only evidence you offer is the fact that, in living among Utah Mormons, "one can see [this] in action on a daily basis."
Well: I, for one, am a returned missionary with a huge Mormon extended family that, for years, has shown me "on a daily basis"--even after I apostatized--that you're wrong on both scores. I've also witnessed a general concern for their kids and disapproval of abuse in my (apostate) wife's extended family, not to mention . . . well, nearly every LDS family I've met. My guess is that my impressions offer better anecdotal evidence than yours.
At any rate, it's you that has the burden of proof here. You'd better provide some good, solid evidence for what you say because the accusations are so extreme: If you're right, those Utah Mormons you've witnessed are almost uniquely monstrous.
Modified by Cal at Sat, May 11, 2002, 23:23:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
incredibly irresponsible post Re: Re: DOMA -- shooter Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/12/2002, 11:51:18
Author Profile Mail author
shooter, Do you go by "shooter" because you continually shoot off your mouth? Or it is because you like to shoot from the hip?
In this post, you make a number of prejudicial accusations, without a shred of evidence. You say:
1. LDS as a general group don't really care much about their kids.
2. Abuse of all kinds is known yet nothing is done.
3. Stake Presidents & GA's down to the run of the mill mormon abust spouses, kids & family and it is kept quiet with some of these bastards even being protected.
Like Cal, I can only offer anecdotal evidence regarding your acusations. Most of my large extended family and all of my wife's large extended family are LDS. Not one of the nasty assertions you have made describes any of them. The adults in both families are loving and caring parents who make enormous sacrifices for their children. I was raised LDS, and I can honestly say that I had a nearly ideal childhood and young adulthood - surrounded by loving and supportive adults - nothing even remotely like the hell you depict.
Based on this and your previous posts, you appear to me to be nothing more than another bigot intent on spreading lies and innuendo.
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
'uncaring' parents Re: incredibly irresponsible post -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
05/18/2002, 01:25:16
Author Profile Mail author
Craig,
My experience being raised in an LDS family has been something other than a good memory. I would 'agree' that my parents were 'caring' as far as trying to provide a roof over my head, and making sure that I didn't do anything blantantly harmful to myself or others. And tried to 'protect me' from the outside world.
Where they 'went wrong' was in making sure that my mind was always in step with the faith. I could join the Moonies, become catholic, or buddhist, or what not...but I was also welcome to move out of the house. I got caught masterbating once, and that really, really caused a lot of moral heat to say the least...I will never forget it.
James
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: 'uncaring' parents Re: 'uncaring' parents -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
05/18/2002, 07:21:01
Author Profile Mail author
Hello James, I am sure you realize that controlling parents such as yours are found in every demographic group. My beef with Shooter was his across-the-board characerization of Mormon parents as uncaring and abusive.
I can see why the masturbation incident is a sore spot for you, though I do not think that most Mormon parents would respond as yours did. Frankly, I would question the honesty of any man who claimed to have never masturbated. Because the Church treats this as a sin, many boys and men are saddled with a guilty conscience at some point. I would not be surprised if the "moral heat" you received from your parents was tied to their own feelings of guilt.
I hope that you will be able at some point to forgive your parents for their bad behavior so that you will be able to find your own peace of mind
Sincerely,
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Ditto to what Cal and Craig C. said! Re: Re: DOMA -- shooter Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/13/2002, 02:20:49
Author Profile Mail author
I too come from an LDS background, and am a product of a very close and loving family. The same is true of my wife and most of the close friends and relataives I have in the church. I know there are exceptions to that, and I have known some, but among those LDS people with whom I have personally been acquainted, they are rather infrequent exceptions. Based on my own anecdotal experiences, I seriously doubt that child abuse and disfunctional families are any more common among LDS than among any other religious groups. They really do value their commitment to families and children. This commitment is not just lip service.
Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
