Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Periphery Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

mormons-quit-in-mass-resignation


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 121 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:51:14 AM PDT
It would take a lot of resources - time and money - to get just a subset of the benefits one gets by signing a marriage license.

Why? We have an institution in place. It's called "marriage", and conveys a whole host of legal protections, rights, economic benefits, etc.

I see no good reason why we should just dump that institution, and force people to go it alone.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:53:43 AM PDT
Jack Vix says:
If you're insecure enough that you need a "better" "public" legal promise, then that's a red flag already. Also people that need that money just to support their kids shouldn't be having them to begin with. They do, but it's not like all the money is used actually supporting the kid. More like paying expenses and buying mommy some new stuff. So yes, if you're not ready to have a child but want one anyway and are a dependent person, then marriage is great.

Alimony is an antiquated sexist law.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:01:49 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
The bride worked there. She was 15 and her groom was 17 and they had the mother's permission. Yeah, pretty screwed up. So the management of the Chuckie Cheese let her have the venue in the morning before opening for lunch. They had all the mechanical animals there and everything. I got a blow-by-blow description of the event from my girlfriend, the much older sister of the bride. And yes, this was in the south.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:03:59 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
What Bubba is describing is actually common policy in many states in the U.S. sad, but true.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:04:52 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Jack -

Always a delight to hear your take on things.

Men are notoriously slow about being "ready" to have a family. Generally they find that if they were in a good relationship before, they are glad to have gotten the push.

But how to raise kids is one of the "big 3" sources of conflict in a marriage, and if the man up and leaves, it is a disaster for Mommy.

"people that need that money just to support their kids shouldn't be having them in the first place"

I was talking about whether the promise means something, and whether it is valuable. You may think only women of independent means should have kids, but I think that is a very restrictive view of the value of having children.

"Alimony is an antiquated sexist law."

You try giving up your career to raise kids, then have the other parent leave you on your own. Oh, I forgot, only people with lots of money should have kids. So that makes it an antiquated sexist law? Very interesting viewpoint, there, Jack.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:05:32 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:06:56 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
When your entirely identity is tied up onto an institution, when all your family, friends and business associates are part of that institution, and when you leave that institution you almost always forfeit those relationships and run the risk of being physically shunned by your former family, friends, and business associates, then, yes, leaving that institution In a public way is one helluva big deal.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:08:25 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Do I smell misogyny here, Jack? Sounds like it to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:08:38 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
:) Why are you so full of hate? I'm happy for them. Again, it's not drama to them, it's relief. And I wasn't assuming anything it was a suggestion. Oy vey.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:12:20 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Jack: A family of you loved one would be so estranged as to not allow you to be with a dying or dead partner? I've never heard of such a thing. I've been to the funeral of a non-relative before, and the bedside of a dying friend. As long as you know the family there isn't an issue.

SK: You apparently live in a hermetically sealed bubble way out in the woods somewhere. Stuff like this goes on all the time. In the real world, that is.

And in North Carolina, they just passed a law, which the governor signed, making all forms of domestic partnership illegal, whether for gays OR straights. So no legal arrangement of incorporation would be able to get around that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:16:16 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
OK. So convenience over reason is your preference. I never said we should "force people to go it alone". Just that it's an antiquated ritual that really has nothing to do with a mature relationship. If you need those benefits, then you have no business having children. There's no need to defend and promote dependence. There are other institutions if one really needs financial help. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but again, dependence isn't an excuse for having unsupportable children and taking others money. Either through tax or an enabling participant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:18:12 PM PDT
Swedey says:
Oh I agree it's a big deal to the one who is leaving and their friends, (and in a different way) the family who chooses for whatever reason to stay behind. That's not my point. It's a huge deal to them. Tell me how a ceremony/party in a park is going to soften or fix those broken bonds.

I'm unclear as to why people here aren't seeing my point. In the end, these people have a tough road ahead for them. Drama and media attention often makes the journey more difficult for people who are seeking a better road. I don't have a problem with them doing it of course. I'm thankful we live in a country where our freedoms allowed them to do it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:20:34 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
Hahaha. I thought it would be less of a joke. They didn't have a kid did they? "Dag nabbit! How many tickets we got to support our baby?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:21:47 PM PDT
Swedey says:
Hate? A dissenting opinion makes me a hater now? I see now how you would be attracted to the drama aspect of it. That's OK with me.

'Suggestions' are hard to figure out because of the nature of the communication here. Sorry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:22:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 12:23:21 PM PDT
"So convenience over reason is your preference."

Attempts to dismiss the massive amount of effort that would be required to get a *sub-set* of what one gets by just signing on the dotted line of a marriage license as being merely a matter of "convenience" is dishonest... at best.

"Just that it's an antiquated ritual that really has nothing to do with a mature relationship."

Society is built upon those relationships... so it has a stake in regulating / supporting them.

And, still, you haven't given us a good reason to dump this existing institution, a reason that justifies the effort / losses incurred by doing so.

I get that you think marriage is an outdated institution. I get that you think people shouldn't have children unless they can do so without outside existence.

Is that *all* you have? You mention "convenience over reason", but you haven't given us much of anything in the way of actual reason... just your personal dislikes.

So, reason: got any?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:40:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
HM: Men are notoriously slow about being "ready" to have a family. Generally they find that if they were in a good relationship before, they are glad to have gotten the push.

JV: And who's picking and sticking by these gems and letting them inseminate them? It's a two way street.

HM: You may think only women of independent means should have kids, but I think that is a very restrictive view of the value of having children.

Yes, how restrictive. Only when you're ready to do it is so restrictive! /sarcasm

HM: You try giving up your career to raise kids, then have the other parent leave you on your own. Oh, I forgot, only people with lots of money should have kids. So that makes it an antiquated sexist law?

JV: I don't have to, because I'm not co-dependent or irresponsible. You don't need "lots of money", or any at all. A poor woman could have a kid, how dumb and wreckless that would be. There should be a law against pumping out unsupportable kids. You need a license to fish, but any dope or maniac can pop out a few kids and turn them into whatever they want. It's not something to promote and support. Yes, you should have ENOUGH money to support a kid. That's reasonable. Women aren't victims for choosing to be mothers. If they want to be something it's their choice and they're not helpless housewives.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:45:41 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Because it was apparently cathartic for these ex-Mormons to cut the ties publicly with a religious institution which they believe is oppressive and unjust. They wanted the publicity because they wanted to public to know about what believe to be oppression and injustice. That's why people take stands, protest, make public stands. They want the rest of the community to know how they feel. Teu want to give others the courage to leave the Mormon church.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:46:26 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Don't know. I lost touch with this friend about two decades ago. Never found out how this all ended up.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:55:39 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
I make a point about inequality and it makes me a "misogynist"? If you sensed any "misogyny" in that you might be a misandrist. I'm for equality, and I love men and women. Society has been brainwashed into this idea that it's only sexist if it's negative toward women.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:07:27 PM PDT
Bubba says:
It is especially bad in Virginia, but it also happens in many of the former Confederate states. I had to allow a hospital in Virginia to believe that I was my (now ex) partner's brother in order to visit him in the emergency room.

One famous case was in Florida:

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=97026

Court Tosses Suit by Lesbian Allegedly Denied Visitation with Her Dying Partner

... a Washington woman whose partner succumbed to a stroke while on vacation says that she, and the women's children, were denied visitation privileges even as the stricken woman lay dying in a Florida hospital.
...
A suit that followed the incident was tossed out of federal court on Sept. 29.
...
In the two and a half years since Pond's death in February of 2007, Florida voters have also approved an amendment to the state constitution denying family equality to gays and lesbians as a matter of the state's bedrock law.
...
In his "Gay South Florida" blog, Steve Rothaus quoted Lambda Legal attorney Beth Littrell, who said, "The hospital took the position that we thought was pretty extreme--that it has no duty, no legal obligation, to allow visitors [of any sort] in the hospital. "The court agreed."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:19:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 1:20:24 PM PDT
Bubba says:
That hard-hearted society I live in is DIRECTLY the result of the actions of Christians enforcing their hate and disgust of gays by enacting anti-gay laws and rules. If you want to be truly disgusted, look at Virginia's anti-gay state constitutional amendment.

I realize that you are UCC, and I know that the UCC is liberal concerning gays. I don't think that you have any idea how hateful, spiteful, and vindictive your fellow Christians are, especially Fundamentalists, Roman Catholics, and Mormons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:25:04 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
That's ridiculous. It's never happened to me. No one should be prevented from free association. What a disgusting law. That law should be removed as well. Regulation is out of hand. Government is too involved in social restrictions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:26:01 PM PDT
QUESTER says:
All the King's Men says:

I don't understand all the gloating about it. It's essentially a publicity stunt, Mormons quit the Mormon church everyday. Some just quietly quit going, others want their baptism annulled. Some need drama, a setting free party, like these folks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for such an event ... speaks to the difficulty in exiting the Mormon church.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:26:39 PM PDT
Jack Vix says:
You're willfully ignoring me. So I'll return the favor and put you on ignore. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:38:09 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seemed to imply that having children is all a woman's choice and responsibility, especially once her man leaves her high an dry. And that somehow, it's the woman's resources that need to be considerable enough to raise children. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  121
Initial post:  Jul 1, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions