(no subject)

[iftsiga]

The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives

random find of the day that just left me nearly speechless.

Comments

[squamous.livejournal.com]

Yikes - !

[simmeringhatred.livejournal.com]

Did you see the stuff I posted about offshoot Mormons a while back?
You'd think that wide-scale organised child abuse would be something all those moralists in washington would want to do something about, but they just cant bear to take on the subject of religious freedom, especially when it is white christian men, for all that they are clearly evil heretic fuckups by most 'christian' standards.
I love that the reason given in the article is "fears of a new Waco". i know how they could avoid a new Waco- tell the FBI not to deliberately murder everyone this time.

[xauenmurph.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll have to go back and look, or you could direct-link me, because I don't remember that post offhand. I'm sure we've discussed the subject more than once.

FEARS of a new Waco. Riiiight. Haven't you heard though, quarantines (http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=3935250&nav=0zGo) are easier than sieges. (Though I expect there's some overlap.)

[simmeringhatred.livejournal.com]

The only reason the military could be used quarantines like that is because of Bill Clintons legal anti-terror response to Oaklahoma, something we are told was directly related to....the Waco 'siege'! I wonder exactly what Bush thinks would happen when large sections of the the US were sealed off and peoples freedom of movement was curtailed by armed guards. How many guns are there per county in the US, and how many people might not like being forcably confined to an area with a disease raging in it?

Mormon stuff is at
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005 in my LJ, but the link is:
"http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur03022005.html

"Paedophile colonies", unmarked baby cemetaries, constant breaking of state and federal laws, but hell! They pay their taxes, so lets just leave them alone, huh? "

[xauenmurph.livejournal.com]

I'd be fine with polygamy if it weren't (1) forced, (2) forced on kids, and (3) polygyny only, disallowing other options such as polyandry or same-sex unions.

The fringe mormons are some sick evil fuckers, but I don't care for the tone in that article (and elsewhere) that polygamy is inherently abusive (any more than arranged, guy-in-charge monogamous marriage was representative of all monogamy, or the absence of laws against marital rape in most states til recently condemned heterosexuality). Forced marriage, child rape and child abandonment are abusive, no question whatsoever.

[simmeringhatred.livejournal.com]

Well, as you know, and as Im sure you would agree, I would like to see the unfair and inherantly abusive institution of heterosexual marriage and all its priveledges abolished. If people want their god to witness their union of man and man, man and woman, woman and woman, man and many women, woman and many men, many women with many men, man with tree, woman with kitten, whatever, thats their business. Giving tax breaks and special rights to people because they claim their deity has sanctified how they live is ridiculous. The male priviledge of heterosexual marriage is what has given these Mormon bastards their position in the world in the first place, even if how they live is clearly a far out aberration of what most 'normal' people would consider to be marriage.
The people writing the article are trying to boost support for something being done about the communities of offshoot mormons, so they have to adopt a tone of "we know whats right and normal and this aint it", wether thats what they believe or not.
I would say that in a neutral sense, polygamy is not inherantly abusive, but the world is not neutral, and the unfair distribution of power between men and women makes polygamy inherantly abusive in the real world.