Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by RedGod

---

are you just confused or what?
mormonism has been around longer than the Constitution.
no administration has ever attempted to outlaw the mormon religion.

The Latter Day Saint movement, including Mormonism, originated in the 1820s in western New York. Restored by Joseph Smith, Jr., the faith drew its first converts while Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. This book described itself as a chronicle of early indigenous peoples of the Americas, portraying them as believing Israelites, who had a belief in Christ many hundred years before his birth. Smith claimed he translated over 500 pages in about 60 days,[2] and that it was an ancient record translated "by the gift and power of God".[3] During production of this work in mid-1829, Smith, his close associate Oliver Cowdery, and other early followers began baptizing new converts into a Christian primitivist church, formally organized in 1830 as the Church of Christ. Smith was seen by his followers as a modern-day prophet.

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". It has been amended twenty-seven times; the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2]

At this time, the male leadership of the LDS Church supported and widely practiced polygamy or "plural marriage." It is estimated that 20% to 25% of Latter-day Saints were members of polygamous households with the practice involving approximately one third of Mormon women who reached marriageable age.[15] The LDS leadership viewed plural marriage as a religious sacrament.[16]

However, the rest of American society rejected polygamy with some even accusing the Mormons of gross immorality. During the Presidential Election of 1856 a key plank of the newly formed Republican Party's platform was a pledge "to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery."[17] The Republicans linked the Democratic principle of popular sovereignty to the acceptance of polygamy in Utah, and turned this accusation into a formidable political weapon.

the practice of polygamy has never been "legal" in the US, it is just punished differently depending on location.

History of polygamy

Polygamy in the United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy (generally polygyny)[7] and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice.[8] Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.[8]

Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.[8] Utopian and communal groups established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny. (Loue, pp. 27–30) There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.[8]

Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-19th century, and in many individual states before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited. Consequently, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of the practice in the past and at the present time.

actually, there is no law against polygamy either ... the law being breached is that of "bigamy".

And quite frankly, that's exactly how the polygamists are able to continue on in their lifestyle, today.
Generally, there is only one legal marriage ... that makes the 'premise' of the arrangement legal.
however, it is still subverting the law as stated.
and this is my point about all of it ... you want it changed, change the law ... quit sneaking through the side and back doors.

and by all points of reason, Quit teaching the children that breaking the law is a good thing.

Originally posted by RedGod
reply to post by Honor93

---

So, if I see a good looking girl, sixteen or seventeen years old maybe, dressed to show a lot of skin and easily mistaken for 18 or 19, maybe even 20 (and yes, this is based on people I've seen), you're telling me I don't want to have sex with her for sex, but rather because I desire power and control? Guess that's what you see all sex as then. Which is sad.

Yes, there are lots of ways to mitigate the risk of rape, one of them is not dressing like a target. I don't understand the immediate jump to "You're blaming the victim!" When I say "If you dress in a way that highlights or enhances your sexual appeal, you will attract sexual attention. Some men will not want to take no for an answer. You can reduce that risk by being only a touch more conservative. But if you don't, and something happens, it's still the attacker's fault."

That "power and control" nonsense that's been fed to you as being 100% of the time is probably closer to 50%. Sometimes, it's just about the sex. That doesn't make it any better or worse.

But if you don't, and something happens, it's still the attacker's fault.

And since the laws against bigamy prevent polygamy

Originally posted by Charmed707
reply to post by RedGod

---

I can't understand why anyone would be so naive about age if they are planning to get into sexual relations with a stranger who looks young. There are 13-year-olds that look 18 and 16-year-olds who could pass for 30....and it's not because of the way they dress. You should take some responsibility for your sexual behavior and not be so reckless as to end up sleeping with someone you know nothing about who ends up being 15. Underage girls don't even have to be dressed provocatively to get hit on by older men. True, dressing that way does increase her chances of receiving sexual attention, but all she has to be is attractive to get hit on at all. Not being so careless would decrease the chances of you unknowingly breaking the law.

Are you not a parent? I think your view of parenting is far too simplistic. So many underage girls dress the way they do because society sends the message that the only path to womanhood is to be overtly sexual. Their parents are to blame first and foremost but you can't disregard the influence of society.