Re: [UUPoly-L] Poly reality

[Amanda Birmingham <lists@imladris.com>]

It feels to me that the tone may be becoming unnecessarily 
confrontational.  It is definitely possible that, as you say, I am 
"missing the context in which the conversation was originally framed".  
However, since I was explaining my own thoughts, I can confidently say 
that I was NOT attempting to convey the idea that I wanted to impede 
free exercise of religion via consenting Mormon polygyny.  What I *was* 
saying is that want to support that free exercise in a way other than 
by presenting myself as an ally of the fundamentalist Mormon church 
because I'm don't see good evidence that the church is really dedicated 
to consent.  As a clarifying example: I believe in the right to 
practice consensual BDSM.  If I ran across a hypothetical organization 
that said it espoused the right to engage in consensual BDSM but had 
been shown to, for instance, encourage members to ignore their partner 
calling out a safe word, I would decide that I would not say I 
supported that group, even though I do support the right to practice 
consensual BDSM.

That's all I was trying to convey.   Maybe someone could refresh me on 
the context so I understand how my (mis?)understanding of what was 
meant by supporting their legal rights differs from what was originally 
intended.

Thanks,
Amanda

On May 20, 2007, at 12:34 AM, Catherine Deville wrote:

> 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