Multiple Spouses

[Steve]

Miko, thanks for taking the time to answer.  It seems we merely have a difference of opinion on what widespread means.

[59bassman]

One wife nagging me is enough.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by miko2d

 Polygyny is a kind of polygamy when one male has several female wives.
 The fundamental mormons in Utah engaged in polygamy almost exclusively practice polyginy, not polyandry or other arrangements.   miko [/B]

Well I'll be....you learn something every day. Guess I can go back to sleep now I've bagged my knowlege quota for the week. Thanks Miko:D

[dread-]

No one has made mention of 1 woman , multiple husbands....I wonder why?

It would appear that the multiple wives is convenient for men and thus their offspring being diverse, but for women it would be for a work harem or bukkake fest.....hmmm?

then on the other hand it would be great financially if she had multiple lawyers for instance or a varied set of resourceful men, plumbers, contractors, OB GYN, Plastic Surgeon, etc....

hmmm? Male harems? Harems filled with corpulent men? Or just the svelt fabio types? maybe opinionated internet geeks?

[miko2d]

Steve: Miko, thanks for taking the time to answer.  It seems we merely have a difference of opinion on what widespread means.

 Right. And on the use of some expletives and epithets... Let's both try to be more civil.


59bassman: One wife nagging me is enough.

 Do you think two wives would be twice as nagging than one? I believe they would be half as much nagging if at all.

 Imagine your girlfirend has another boyfriend. Would you nag her in his presentce or would you keep your mouth shut and try to be extra nice?

 miko

[Sabre]

DFM, you are both wrong and right.  The legal arguments being made for declaring California’s defense of marriage law unconstitutional rests first on the argument that it discriminates based on sexual orientation.  Below is an excerpt from the counter-complaint filed to stop the mayor of San Francisco from conducting any more same-sex marriages:

Cross-Complainant contends that Family Code section 308.5 does not apply and
cannot bar the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in California. Cross-Complainant also contends that Family Code sections 300 and 301, which require City officials to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, are unconstitutional in that they violate same-sex couples' rights under article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, in that they (a) discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the State Equal Protection Clause; (b) discriminate on the basis of gender in violation of the State Equal Protection Clause; (c) violate liberty interests protected by the State Due Process Clause; and (d) violate privacy interests protected by the State Due Process Clause.

It has yet to be determined if the gender discrimination argument can be applied to a “relationship”, as opposed to an individual.

What a silly and uninformed example. This does not apply at all if laws regulating incestuous relationships apply equally to all genders and possible gender relationships.

First, your response here is condescending and offensive to me.  My analogy was neither silly nor uninformed; it was merely contrary to your opinion.  It was in fact offered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when penning the dissenting view in the Texas Sodomy case last year.  Your point that followed was a reasonable position to debate, but preceding it with a personal attack costs you cool points.  In addressing your point here, the laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman do apply equally to all people, regardless of the individuals’ gender.  You may have the last word on this, as it is obvious our opinions differ, and I don’t feel like spending more time on the debate.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Pongo
I aggree with Yeagers original contention. Once you throw open the door on what marriage means to accomodate a few. The door is open.

Preacher:
Do you, Bubba, take Fluffy to be your lawfully married sheep?

Bubba: Ah does.

Preacher: Do you, Fluffy, take Bubba to be your lawfully married husband?

Fluffy: Mbaaaaaaa.

Preacher: And now, by the authority vested in me by the new PC liberal guvment, I now pronounce you husband and sheep.

What's next on the agenda?

Witness: The Michael Jackson - Little Joey wedding.

[bpti]

I'm all for that.
or better yet,let's eliminate marriage as an institution:rofl

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Sabre
DFM, you are both wrong and right.  The legal arguments being made for declaring California’s defense of marriage law unconstitutional rests first on the argument that it discriminates based on sexual orientation.  Below is an excerpt from the counter-complaint filed to stop the mayor of San Francisco from conducting any more same-sex marriages:

[/B]

Sabre, the text that you posted appeals to the unconstitutionality of California state law.  That is, there must be a provision in the California constitution granting equal protection according to sexual orientation -- or, in the least, state courts over time have decided that this state clause encompasses sexual orientation as a protected status.  However, the federal constitution does not typically recognize sexual orientation as protected like gender or race.  Naturally, a federal constitutional amendment defining gender roles in marriage trumps any state constitutions should it come down to that.

It has yet to be determined if the gender discrimination argument can be applied to a “relationship”, as opposed to an individual.

[/B]

Obviously that is up to state and federal courts to determine absent a constitutional amendment.  I did not attest to the validity of the claims made by same-sex marriage proponents, merely to the apparent strategies they employ and the seriousness with which gay marriage opponents take the chances of such legal challenges succeeding in the courts.

It was in fact offered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when penning the dissenting view in the Texas Sodomy case last year.

[/B]

Justice Scalia penned the dissenting opinion in this case, not the Chief Justice.  Rehnquist merely agreed with the dissenting view.  Incidentally, the Court voted 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas, so you're look at 2/3rd of the Court disagreeing with the apocalyptic assessments of Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas.  It was rather silly when Scalia wrote it (not to mention a stretch and in response to the reasoning presented in O'Connor's non-binding concurring opinion rather than the actual opinion of the Court), and it's pretty silly now.

I do see a legitimate reason for concern among conservatives as Lawrence v. Texas does appear to pave the way for shooting down existing marriage laws.  But incest couples?  Please.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Holden McGroin]

Utah State Code

76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.

Utah also recognises "Common Law Marraige" so application to get a marriage license is not required to be in violation of the bigamy law.

[OIO]

i dont know what the issue is. if 2 men or 2 women or 1 man and 1+X women love each other or 1 woman and 1+X men love each other


I say let 'em at it.


They are adults, its their lives, its none of the gov's bussiness if they live together or not.

Putting any restrictions or LAWS on marriage should be inconstitutional imo. As with any modern marriage, one term: PRENUP.

If both adults agree to a 'contract' that binds them to each other and only each other then the state should be allowed to prosecute either 'spouse' for breach of contract (or whatchamacalllit). If 'prenup' agree that they can have more partners added to the 'clause' then heck, they AGREED to it. Its no different from a damn mortage clause.


I should run for president dammit.

[Lazerus]

Here's a simple solution.

Take goverment out of marriage. Make the "tax breaks" universal to all citizens. Make the decisions  in a hospital based on a living will. Eliminate the recognition of marriage by the goverment completely. The seperation of a mutually agreed upon union can still be decided in a court of law, ie child support, alimony. The only recognizable union would be through the church, which is where it started in the first place.

Simple solution to a simple problem.

[Lazerus]

or Louisiana with Witch Doctors.

Down in louisiana where the black wood grow
lives a voodoo lady named Marie LaVeaux,
she has a black cat tooth,
and a mojo bone,
and anyone that wouldn't just a leave her alone,
she goes yeeeEEEEEhoo, another man done gone...