| polyamory4ever | 04-20-2008 01:10 [E,W] | Love, Peace and Blessings:
Thank you so much for writing this well informed and well documented article. I had not seen much about this topic on the news or online and I am very interested. I am particularly interested in the judgemental way that so-called Christian conservatives view couples who have not been "married". It is really an uninformed perspective because during biblical times couples used to do it differently for many years until the state found that it was a way to push their own agenda and reap the financial benefits.
In Islam, a man is allowed up to 4 wives while other non-Christian religions or lifestyles have some kind of variations. In some traditional cultures including some indigenous or tribal groups in the Americas women were allowed and often chose to be with more than one man.
At this time, I am very concerned and I am watching the situation with the FLDS and the state of Texas very carefully. As someone who is very interested in a polyamorous lifestyle, a closed triangle with two women in love and a man in love with both I find myself being anxious about the outcome of that situation.
The state should have no say in adult behavior that does not harm younger people or children. They have no proof that young girls were forcefully married. In fact, the five young women who they claimed were pregnant and under 17 have not even been tested properly to verify their age. We all know that people who have a healthy diet tend to look younger especially if they also have a less stressful lifestyle.
Anyway, here we go again, I can only say another Republican in office would continue to slaughter of our civil rights while making society so vicious that children are left alone or put in abusive situations because caring parents have to be out there looking for work. And I dare say that Billary would just continue with the previous mandates that they set during their most recent years in office. So, I don't trust them. They had a chance and opportunity to do it but they chose to go for their own political ambitions.
I mean, they could have come out during all the sexual scandals involving Bill Clinton and made a statement to the effect that they were products of the 1960s and that they were free love people who had an open marriage. In fact, I had heard that Hillary had other same sex relationships. I dismissed it as pure sexist and homophobic because she was seen as a castrating feminist. But later, I realized that it may have been true because his philandering was so prevalent and for so long.
All the same, I pray for someone in office who will be open minded and compassionate.
Free love is powerful and I believe that adults can and should make their own decisions about who and when and how to be in love.
Blessings and One Perfect Love. | | Rianon | 01-28-2008 18:40 [E,W] | | Well said, you took the words out of my mouth...so to speak! Thank you! | | Tammy | 01-28-2008 15:22 [E,W] | I think you forgot to include Ron Paul:
*"Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well." (wiki)
*voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004
*2005 - introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[101] If made law, these provisions would allow states to regulate sexual practices and same-sex marriage independently.
* June 2007 on the subject of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - he said "I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
* In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (reason? Because it is a state issue and the power to decide does belong with the states).
Sorry, but I'm extremely pro Ron Paul and hate to see him consistently being left off lists like this as well as excluded and ignored by the main stream media. I back him because he makes sense. I don't agree with everything he says, but there is no flip-flopping and everything he says is backed by teh 1 document that our country's power is vested in -- the Constitution. I would urge others to read more about him at www.RonPaul2008.com ... ESPECIALLY his recently published economic plan. Ron Paul's numbers are growing! If you don't think he can make a difference, then just ask yourself... why is he being excluded? what is he saying that others (candidates, media, etc.) don't want us to hear? | | Alan | 01-28-2008 02:26 [E,W] | > When I begin looking for a candidate
> that meets all of my needs; economic,
> homeland security and respect for my
> own personal family choices,
You can't expect any candidate to meet all your needs -- let's be real -- but there will be huge differences regardless, and that's what's important. As Robert Heinlein (I think it was) said, "Among governments, the difference between good and better is not nearly as important as the difference between bad and worse."
|
|