Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

So, in the context of this conversation, what this says to me is that you
feel that it is fair to impede the legal rights of the non-criminal to free
exercise of religion based on the fact that a select group within that
religion behave criminally.  

Either that or you're missing the context in which the conversation was
originally framed and what Dave and I mean when we say that we must
"support" their legal rights if we expect support for *our* legal rights.  

Analogy - in a recent effort to prevent female genital mutilation, the GA
state legislature (brilliant birds that they are) outlawed genital piercing
- for women only - in a 160-0 vote (in the House at least, I don't know if
it ever made it to the Senate.)  The punishment is 2-20 years in prison.
So, to protect non-consensual victims, the GA House passed an amendment
which would make outlaws of every woman (and *women only*) who sought
consensual piercing as well as those who performed those piercing. 

" Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told
after the vote that some adults seek the piercings. 

'What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve
of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing.'"
(AP article 3/25/04)

So, what you're saying equates to me like What Rep Heath says above -
because you don't agree with it, you're willing to abrogate the religious
freedoms of people who are doing something which you admit is not abusive
because some other people observe that religious practice in an abusive
manner. 

By that logic, one could ultimately conclude that all marriage should be
outlawed, since some marriages are abusive. 

NT, 
Cat

-----Original Message-----
From: uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org
[mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+catdeville=cox.net@uupa.org] On Behalf Of Amanda
Birmingham
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:19 PM
To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

> Part of what always disturbs me about this conversation, when it comes 
> up
> (and it invariably does) is that it *assumes* that all Mormon 
> polygynous
> relationships are equal to the abusive ones.
It seems to me that you're inferring an assumption that is not 
necessarily present.  I don't believe all Mormon polygynous 
relationships are abusive.  But I do think that I have yet to see 
evidence that the *institution* of fundamentalist mormonism is clearly  
against the abusive ones, therefore I will not support that institution 
even though I will support individual healthy relationships within that 
institution.