Obama/Biden versus Romney/Ryan?

[yoko]

My friends dad is crazy but all other normans I have meet are great people.

I really like how family oriented they are and how they are raised to help people

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by NicoleLJ

Sorry but being an ex-mormon myself I have to fully disagree with most of what you have said. In the mormon faith abortion is a kin to murder. And the use of birth control in any form is extremely frown upon and when you go in for your Temple recommend interview and if you report you use it then you can and in many cases will be denied a Temple Recommend on just that reason alone. They believe that God decides how large your family will be and that you have to let God decide that and to stop it is a sin.

i believed (and still do) that abortion as BC is murder LONG before i ever developed religious convictions. which is part of the point, the proabortion pundits are ASSUMING ONLY people of abrahamic faiths oppose abortion as BC. Actually BC is DOCTRINALLY a private matter between husband & wife(them & god) and i have NEVER been asked about it at any interview. I have been asked about pornography but never BC.

Originally Posted by NicoleLJ

As for men and women being equal that is a total laugh. I have been in this church since I was 3, all across Canada and parts of the US including Salt Lake. There is a defiante higherarchy between the sex's. Prime example just look at Temple marriage. If a wife divorces her husband she has to get permission from her ex AND the higher athorities to have that Temple marriage annuled to get remarried in the Temple. Otherwise she will "eternally" be married to the one she divorced and in the churches eyes only married till death do you part to her new spouse. That gives a man HUGE power and authority even after the marriage has legally been declared over. As for domestic abuse in the Mormon faith it is actually a HUGE problem. Not a small one. And if a woman was to report it to the Bishop, her home teachers or so on she is told it is her fault. How do I know this? Not only did I go through it but I know many others that have as well. She is then counceled to be a better wife, more attentive and so on. If she is a better wife, prays more and such then her husband would not be treating her that way. This is not just words from multiple Bishops but also from multiple Hoe Teachers AND the counslors that they send you too as well. That is how it is handled. And then it is rug swept. And no the abuser is not condemed or ignored. Many times it is the wife that is shunned since obviously she is not being a good enough wife.

after reading this i had to wonder if you weren't FLDS (Warren Jeffs freaky crew). SO much of your experience is contrary to everything I have been taught & experienced.
i have a brother inlaw got divorced several years ago, because his wife got a divorce for cause (his adultery) she didn't need to get his permission to get it annulled so she could remarry in the temple.
first off a home teacher isn't supposed to do marital counselling, he is SUPPOSED to report abuse to the Quorom president & the Bishopric AND if it involves violence against children it is SUPPOSED to be reported to Child Protective Services by THE HOME TEACHER. This is training I received in preisthood meeting at general conference years ago at the direction of the first presidency which makes it OFFICIAL church policy & doctrine. anything less is a failure in the individual to uphold church policy & doctrine.

Originally Posted by NicoleLJ

It really gets me when someone shows the "Public churchs" side of things and not the realistic truth that is being dictated and done. Just because in public they say one thing does not mean it is truth. In public the church teaches it's members and states that it's founding Prophet Jospeh Smith only had one wife. When in fact he had multiple wives, many married to other men and some were 14yrs old. So publc truth and actual working truth are two totally different things in this religion.

i've never been taught that he didn't practice polygyny himself. i will admit it isn't generally discussed but i've never heard it denied. I am not informed of the particulars of the brides so can neither confirm nor deny.

Originally Posted by NicoleLJ

As for the churchs standing on Gays, it is simple. Look up the documentary called Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition. You just have to see what they tried to pull in California to stop Gay marriage. And how they treat gays in their religion. They did affect, seriously, the rights of many people.

[sillysally]

I just wanted to point out that not everyone who is anti-abortion is religious. My dad is not religious at all (agnostic), but believes abortion for BC is wrong and murder. He is very liberal in every other way.

[corgipower]

Morgan as a write in!!

Srsly.

She promises a National Mandatory Nap Time and federal incentives for hot dog vendors.

[release the hounds]

forget it

[Izzy's Valkyrie]

I have no idea where I said that LDS/Mormon men beat their wives. In fact, I did not at all say that men were hurting their wives. I was saying that there are people who believe that men should govern their wives bodies (GOVERN ie Control what she can and can't do with her own body) based on a (Yes Maikoda, misconstrued) passage from the bible.

I personally do not believe in anything the bible has said. However, there are many people who do pick and choose what they want to use as rules for others based on little snippets here and there of scripture.

I have also been part of the LDS commnity as a child before I was given the choice whether or not to attend church. When I asked the Bishop of my church about the disparity between opportunities for men and women to be powerful leading figures (meaning, ordained) int he church, he told me women did not need the ability to be ordained because their "greater gift of power is the ability to give birth and bring life into this world" I'm sorry but that's a male chauvinist point of view if I ever saw one "You don't need to be a leader in the church, just be happy you can make us babies". I am not saying all LDS churches are run this way but some are. That was one of the huge turn offs from that church for me. I would not have minded staying around for the community aspect of the church rather than the spiritual but I couldn't swallow how much women were expected to do only what they were allowed to do instead of what they wanted to do.

[Renee750il]

Originally Posted by Izzy's Valkyrie

When I asked the Bishop of my church about the disparity between opportunities for men and women to be powerful leading figures (meaning, ordained) int he church, he told me women did not need the ability to be ordained because their "greater gift of power is the ability to give birth and bring life into this world" I'm sorry but that's a male chauvinist point of view if I ever saw one "You don't need to be a leader in the church, just be happy you can make us babies". I am not saying all LDS churches are run this way but some are. That was one of the huge turn offs from that church for me. I would not have minded staying around for the community aspect of the church rather than the spiritual but I couldn't swallow how much women were expected to do only what they were allowed to do instead of what they wanted to do.

Funny how the same concept can get re-interpreted and changed.

For some, that's the reason women DO have more say and higher standing, for others, it's a rationale to keep women barefoot and pregnant -- and expected to be thrilled about it.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

I'm pretty sure neither one of you are citing references, so insulting someone for something you're also failing to do is like calling the kettle black. Remember: keep this civil if you would like this thread to last.





http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

http://www.ontheissues.org/mitt_romney.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=lruG938Puag

Since most speeches can't be found on YouTube...you can simply research their vote history. They have both voted against gay rights, against abortion, against contraceptive, against allowing gays to adopt, and Paul Ryan even voted against a bill that stopped hate crimes against gays.

and again no where in there did either of them promote banning contraceptive, denying homosexuals basic civil right & liberties nor taking away the civil right or liberties of women.AND ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in your links did either of them make the statements in Izzy's post that I bolded when i quoted it. so yes hyperbolic rhetoric very much in line w/ beck & limbaugh.
I happen to oppose the very idea of hate crimes because you're punishing thought not deed and so would vote against ALL hate crime bills. that does NOT in any way mean i condone violence against homosexuals or other races. additionally many people vote against bills they would otherwise support due to riders attached by politicians of opposing views on unrelated issues. it is YOU who are ASSUMING that he voted against it because he hates gays and want to treat them as less than human.
this is really gonna burn your butt. prior to this thread I was ignorant of Ryan & OPPOSED to Romney (but definitely not in favor of Obama). thanks to some of the actual information shared here, i don't support Romney but i'm no longer opposed to him either.

[Renee750il]

Originally Posted by Pops2

I happen to oppose the very idea of hate crimes because you're punishing thought not deed and so would vote against ALL hate crime bills. that does NOT in any way mean i condone violence against homosexuals or other races. additionally many people vote against bills they would otherwise support due to riders attached by politicians of opposing views on unrelated issues. it is YOU who are ASSUMING that he voted against it because he hates gays and want to treat them as less than human.

The legal system should use MOTIVE in the equation, not thought. Emotion is factored in by differentiation (i.e. first, second degree murder, manslaughter). There's a difference, subtle, but there. When working within the confines of the law, words matter, as do the subtle differences in meanings. "Hate" is an emotion and within the boundaries of legal reasoning, should denote a mitigating factor rather than a compounding one. The concept and labeling of "hate crime" legislation is yet another symptom of political pandering to public emotions -- like BSL.

Someone who kills another person because of their beliefs is arguably guilty of first degree murder and sentencing under those guidelines. An assault should fall under aggravated assault. The laws are in place. Catchy, vote-whoring names only muddy the waters. And make for misleading political campaigns.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by NicoleLJ

Excuse me but I am not a proffesional victim as you call it. Please keep your name calling to yourself. All you have to do is google Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition and that proves that part of what I state easily. Then do a goggle of how many wives the prophet had. Here I will do it for you:

http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Two of which were 14yrs old. Many of which were married to other men at the time he wanted them.

Temple marriage divorce:
http://lds.about.com/od/temples/a/mormon_divorce.htm

The paper work and such through the Bishop they are speaking of is the permission the wives have to get from the ex's to get the Temple Divorce. A woman can only be Temple married to one man. But a man can be to multiple women even if they are legally divorced. Agian how do I know? My mother has been married 5 times. Twice in the Temple. She had to get her ex's permission to have their sealing canceled before she could be married to her next spouse. That is my personal example I know many who had to do the same thing.

Just because you do not like me does not make what I post false and does not make me a perfessional victim. So please stop calling me that.

Editted to add: Thanks for taking out the Proffesional Victim part in your reply. I appreciate that.

i will say again my brother in laws ex did not have to get his permission. he was an admitted adulterer on church discipline. his bishop TOLD him what was going on and did NOT ask his permission for her to get the sealing cancelled.

the inference is that the marriages were for selfgratification, but really how many women in their fifties were hot in the 19th century? kind of calls into question the motives.
keep in mind also that at the onset of polygyny MOST of the additional wives of the church leaders (including the teens) were widows of the MO & IL persecutions and had to be married to protect their personal property rights.