Author Topic: Is it Ironic  (Read 1062 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Is it Ironic
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:30:41 AM »
 Is it Ironic....


....That the issue of marrage being properly between one man and one woman is going to help elect a devout Morman to the presidency?

.... That the issue of immagration is counted against the grandson of a Mexican citizen in his bid for the presidency?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2012, 01:50:42 PM »
I do not see as ironic in any way. It turns out that Mitt's grandfather was monogamous. His great grandfather, however was not.

George Romney's grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children owing to the federal government's prosecution of polygamy.[1] His maternal grandfather was Helaman Pratt (1846–1909), who presided over the Mormon mission in Mexico City before moving to the Mexican state of Chihuahua and who was the son of original Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt (1807–1857).[2][3] In the 1920s, Romney's uncle Rey L. Pratt (1878–1931) played a major role in the preservation and expansion of the Mormon presence in Mexico and in its introduction to South America.[4] A more distant kinsman was George Romney (1734–1802), a noted portrait painter in Britain during the last quarter of the 18th century.[5]

Romney's parents, Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876–1926), were American citizens and natives of Utah. They married in 1895 in Mexico and lived in Colonia Dublán in Galeana in the state of Chihuahua (one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico) where George was born on July 8, 1907.[1][3][6] They practiced monogamy[1] (polygamy having been abolished by the 1890 Manifesto, although it persisted in places, especially Mexico).[7] George had three older brothers, two younger brothers, and a younger sister.[8] Gaskell Romney was a successful carpenter, house builder, and farmer who headed the most prosperous family in the colony,[9][10] which was situated in an agricultural valley below the Sierra Madre Occidental.[11] The family chose U.S. citizenship for their children, including George.[11]

What is deeply strange is that the Republican party is so devoid of competent, electable people that Mitt Romney is the best of the bunch. There are better possible candidates, like Huntsman, but the teabaggers have turned the party into a band of stubborn and ignorant stooges that will not nominate their best people.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2012, 04:15:01 PM »
Romney is not a tea party candidate, far from it.

And Obama's father was a polygamist, not sure that making a big deal about Romney's great grandfather helps your cause.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2012, 04:19:41 PM »
Which brings us to Obama's latest half-hearted pronouncement which was that he is in favor of redefining the definition of marriage. If so, what could he possibly have against polygamy and polyandry? As long as all are consenting adults and truly love one another what business is it of the state to deny them that right?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2012, 04:43:12 PM »
Cause?

My "cause" does not ignore the truth.

This thread title is the question, Ironic? or doesn't qualify as an irony.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2012, 05:10:36 PM »
You may call it ironic if you wish. What is ironic and what is not seems to me to be like what is funny and what is not.

I do not see where this redefines marriage: two people are legally bound together by some agency recognized by the state and/or society. That is my definition of marriage. Whether two people are legally married is their concern. I know lots of people that are surely legally married, but in my entire life I have seen exactly six marriage licenses.

I don't think anyone's relatives being polygamous has a thing to do with them: neither Obama nor George nor Mitt Romney had any say in their ancestors being polygamous.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2012, 05:56:39 PM »
If polygamy doesn't matter why did you bring it up?


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2012, 06:20:28 PM »
The last time a redefinition of marrage this big happened was Roman times.

Poligamy was normal marrage untill the Romans made their preferences the norm.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2012, 06:29:15 PM »
The times are a'changing

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2012, 07:01:12 PM »
Change is nutral.

Bad or good is decided later, with the advantage of hindsight.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2012, 09:53:42 PM »
Quote
Change is nutral.

Change in politics and governance is pro-active. It is a conscious decision. It is not neutral.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2012, 12:26:57 AM »
Marriage is like food. What it becomes depends entirely on the married couple, just as food depends on the cook.

No government can prevent bad marriages, nor can it cause them.

I brought up polygamy because it was what caused the Mormons to go the Utah. It defined Mormon culture for fifty years.

It is an element of the irony that Plane sees in the current presidential election.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2012, 01:24:00 AM »
  Good point.

The Mormons wanted to depart from scripture in a smaller way than modern homosexuals , and the reaction of the people at large was practicly warfare.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2012, 11:37:50 AM »
Here is what happened in Missouri. There was a huge earthquake in SE Missouri in the early 1800's. Lots of people were washed out and killed. The territorial legislature promised land on NW Missouri to the afflicted, because the Indians had been moved over to Kansas. Most of the new settlers were illiterate, they took land and settled on it. About 30 years later Smith led the Mormons to NW Missouri. He claimed that the Garden of Eden had been in Missouri (I suppose compared to upper NY State with its awful winters, it looked that way to him).

The Mormons were literate, mostly. They understood land deeds and registering for homesteads and such, and claimed land that had previously been claimed by the locals, many of who claimed more than they could clear off and farm. Naturally, this made the Mormons unpopular. Another way of gaining land was to marry into the families of the original settlers. Mormons did this too, and when it was discovered that the Mormon has several other wives, that really pissed off the locals.

Eventually Missourians elected a governor and a legislature who declared that shooting a Mormon was not to be regarded as illegal. Smith was arrested and jailed, a local lawyer freed him, and he was convinced to leave Missouri.
The Mormons took off   for Nauvoo, Illinois

Gay marriages do not threaten anyone's property or livelihood as the Mormon's polygamy did.

At present, if Adam lives with Steve, people do not bother them. If Adam and Steve are allowed to marry, the only difference will be that they have a piece of paper that legalizes them living together and sharing their lives as a male/female marriage would. Odds are that few, if any will ever even SEE this piece of paper.

So no, there is a major difference in terms of Mormon polygamy and gay marriage. The former threatened non=Mormons in several ways. The latter threatens no one in any way.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is it Ironic
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2012, 03:46:36 PM »
   It is not presently illeagal for men to cohabitate, women either.

   They don't need that peice of paper for any practical reason.

     What they want is the blessing of society , and they would deconstruct the society to get it.