Is irony the correct word?

some have found it ironic and even inconsistent for 'today's'LDS to oppose legalizing "gay marriage" given its endorsement of polygamy in the past.....but this objection confuses two very separate issues.

polygamy ---

~the LDS never asked that their marital arrangements be condoned or legally recognized by the state.

~neither did they ask for others to endorse their religion or lifestyle.

~they did not ask for legal benefits to accrue to their spouses, who were not legally "wives" in a civil sense.

what did they ask? only to be left alone, to be permitted their exercise of the rights of citizenship, and to be free from unlawful persecution.....and there was a time following abraham lincoln's pledge to leave BY and the mormons alone if they would leave him alone.

we do not dispute the civic right of those who wish to privately engage in homosexual acts to do so...(although we consider it unwise and sinful), that is a personal choice and we believe in free agency.

nowhere in the US are homosexuals systemically denied the right to vote, or the right to own property and enjoy it unmolested.

and not like the 19th-century mormons, they are generally free to enjoy sexual relations privately with any other consenting adult without being disenfranchised, jailed, or stalked by government agents.

and homosexuals who want to establish committed, exclusive relationships have no obstacle whatsoever any more than heterosexual couples who live together out of wedlock. however - by cloaking the issue in the language of civil rights "gay marriage rights" by EXTREME contrast, they request societal endorsement and support of such relationships.

civil rights have always sought to restore something to one group that others have had....gay marriage seeks to restore nothing. they already have the same rights others have. homosexuals have not been deprived of the law's equal protection, nor of the right to marry --- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." but they don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. they want it on entirely new terms....with a meaning it has never before had

AND they prefer that it be done undemocratically --- by judicial fiat.

whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.

the point is society may well choose to refuse to endorse gay marriage--OR polygamous ones--and so refrain from providing societal support to such relationships......which is an entirely different matter from forbidding others to exercise their personal and religious convictions and tastes privately, and harassing them with legislatures and courts.

today's homosexuals already have the privileges which the polygamists sought in vain.

poetic justice? What goes around comes around? (that would require re-wording) I think the closest is poetic justice facetious deservedness Entertainment value Edit: I have seen "irony" used in a blank space like yours before. It's not precisely correct, but itt's close, would be understood, and most people wouldn't even give it a second look.

More like intolerance. Their intolerance & the intolerance towards them. Sure I see nothing wrong with voluntary separation. But I see something very wrong with trying to rid somebody from the face of the earth. Even if your talking about different Government systems. As long as there's a good & low cost immigration system to Nations that your more compatible with, with international peace keepers & support what's the harm with it. Or if your the type that wants a whole bunch of people with different belief systems in the same Nation that's fine to. But it should be a choice.

Everybody wants to expel everybody else who thinks differently from them from their Country. And maybe there are certain people that shouldn't live together under the same Nation, but that should be up to them to decide. And when they make that decision they should be able to make it. And not be held back somewhere else because they can't be by themselves with their own little group of people. I'd be cool with Utah being it's own little LDS Nation personally. As long as there was free & uninhibited immigration in & out of there based on compatibility.

But there should be a place for everyone. As long as they don't go all Imperial & want to expell all other types & views from the planet. One Group Nation or Multi-Group Nation it makes no difference to me. Just give them a place where they're not ridiculed & treated with extreme prejudice. And where they can live their lives to the fullest based on their beliefs.

It depends on how you look at it. To the LDS Church, marriage is a sacred covenant that should only be between a man and a woman. Gay marriage doesn't figure in with that definition, polygamy does.

Other people choose to look at only one point of view, which is that the LDS Church is hypocritical.

Notice that after polygamy was made illegal, the LDS Church stopped practicing it. Also notice that where Gay marriage has been made legal, Mormons have respected the law and not protested it.

its not ironic because its actually very typical that persecuted people like to persecute other people. THe word you are looking for is maybe hypocritical...however that assumes that homosexuality and polygamy are similar things....and they kinda arent.

"Idlenesss...it's more about both groups being denied what they want from marriage, rather than what they want from marriage"...well that just means they share some random similarity. SO you can put both things in the same category....just like persecution of mormons and persecution of homosexuals are both in the category of persecution. But that doesnt imply they are hypocritical because in their opinion homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is not, and you cant say that they are both the same thing...they are different....even if you disagree that homosexuality is wrong.

The only reason us Mormons practiced polygamy for that short time was because during that time lots of LDS men were in the army and the women needed someone to protect them. we stopped doing it because the laws were changed so that polygamy could not be practiced.

We believe that same-sex marriage conflicts with our Heavenly Father's plan for us.

Actually, they pretty much kept the plural marriage thing on the QT until they got to Deseret Territory.

No, not really. You're talking about polygamous marriages. Same-sex monogamous marriage is different from this.

No, in my opinion that would not be the correct word. "Mutually exclusive" may be better. There is two separate issues here, with one of them involving the procreation of children. The other deals with sin.

According to the Bible, it is NOT a sin to participate in polygamy, as evidenced by many, and I repeat many, Old Testament prophets practicing polygamy. Homosexuality is clearly presented as a sin in the Bible.

Irony is good.

I take issue with the book you read. Mormons were harassed, but it wasn't for their theology. It was for their bad manners and polygamy. They moved into areas in large groups, used block voting to control local politics, engaged in land speculation, plundered the original settlers, and declared the land was theirs because God wanted it for them. The people they moved in on generally took a lot of abuse before they pushed back.