Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on March 03, 2004, 08:15:51 AM
-
If a man should be lawfully able to marry a man, and a woman marry a women then I cannot think of any reason why a man should not be able to have two wives, or more. And a woman should be able to have more than one husband.
While Im at it, I think a man should be able to have several husbands and a woman should be able to have several wives.
A man should be able to have as many husbands and wives as he can attain and of course same goes for women.
Early Mormons practiced polygamy but were denied that freedom by a repressive government. I am surprised that Mormons have not taken advantage of the current climate to bring back the practice. I know I would enjoy many wives.
Seriously :rofl
-
I'll bet Kobe Bryant is glad he doesn't have several wives.
-
Hey at *least* the opposite sex married one another. I can't think of too many animals or insects in the world that have same-sex intercourse and are able to reproduce. After all, thats why we exist.
-
Yeager: I am surprised that Mormons have not taken advantage of the current climate to bring back the practice. I know I would enjoy many wives.
You are mistaken here. First, the polyginy practice among mormons is quite widespread.
Second, the mormons practicing polyginy today have been taking advantage for quite a while. The wives are legally considered to be single mothers and qualify and receive welfare benefits.
US government is subcidising mormons' polyginy practice, not deterring it.
miko
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If a man should be lawfully able to marry a man, and a woman marry a women then I cannot think of any reason why a man should not be able to have two wives, or more. ... I know I would enjoy many wives.
No, you wouldn't. They cut into your Aces High flight time. And weekends with the guys. And taking all those wives to football games would exorbitant. And don't even get me started on trying to plan vacations and doing holidays at relatives' houses!
-
Might want to talk to a latter day mormon miko. The mormon church discontinued the practice years ago under pressure from the federal government. It almost resulted in a war between Utah and the feds.
Polygamy is unlawful in Utah today, as it is throughout the US.
There are some fringe offshoots of the mormon church that practice polygamy in hiding. One media case several years ago landed the happy husband in prison. Turns out one of his many wives hadnt yet started puberty.
Its all quite interesting, Im just waiting for polygamy to rear its inevitable head once again.
-
You'd be happy in Utah Yeager.
-
Yeager: Might want to talk to a latter day mormon miko. The mormon church discontinued the practice years ago under pressure from the federal government.
Nevertheless thousands of people living in Utah and calling themselves mormons continue to practice polyginy.
Polygamy is unlawful in Utah today, as it is throughout the US.
Not unlawfull - just not legally recognised. There is a difference. When AH players form a squad, that is not legally recognised by the state but it is not unlawfull.
A man is not breaking any laws by living in a single household with several women, having sex and children with them, etc., as long as they do not apply for multiple marriage licenses. They are just not recognised by the state and feds as legal wives for the purposes of inheritance, insurance, etc.
There are some fringe offshoots of the mormon church that practice polygamy in hiding.
They are not really hiding. There are whole towns of them with civic leaders being polyginists as well. The numbers are estimated to be around 30,000 but they are not advertising themselves, so it may be a low estimate.
One media case several years ago landed the happy husband in prison. Turns out one of his many wives hadnt yet started puberty.
Having sex with people below the age of concent is unlawfull and punisheable. It has nothing to do with polyginy. That man would have gone to jail if his bride was the only wife.
There is a lot of atricious and abusive crap going on among some mormons and othes but it is not caused by polyginy but by their religious and cultural views.
Its all quite interesting, Im just waiting for polygamy to rear its inevitable head once again.
Most of the US and western world is widely practice serial polygamy - even catholics who's church totally bans the practice of unsanctified marriage or divorce.
What's a big deal if some people practice parallel marriage?
miko
-
Why do I feel like a bug trying to punch through a windshield going 60 mph?
-
I don't know, because you really ought to feel like a bug crushed by the boot of reason.
-
If a man is dumb enough to marry more then one women; i say go ahead enjoy living hell.
You know miko has a point yeager. There are plenty of crazy fringe morons that have entire trailor parks filled with family members. Its like waco without the guns.
-
dowling you are a simple moron. you completely fail, once again, to understand even the most basic of points.
Let me break the point down for you into its most elementary particles so that you may understand MY POINT.
====
Once marriage is opened up for redefinition what prevents people from claiming that marriage is open ended, without boundries?
====
You fool, I brought the mormons up as an EXAMPLE of an entire class of people that could sieze the opportunity to define marriage to their liking, as the gay class are trying to do.
Miko is talking things I have never heard of. Polygamy is legal in Utah simply because it is not legal?
There are thirty thousand active palygamists in Utah? huh?
Once again dowling you are a moron. Im going to squelch you for life if you dont start offering even sub useful points to any topic you pollute :mad:
Forget it. Never going to read your crap again. Ignored
-
I can just about cope with 1 girlfriend, 2 would drive me nuts. It's prob illegal just to keep men sane.
-
Originally posted by thrila
I can just about cope with 1 girlfriend, 2 would drive me nuts. It's prob illegal just to keep men sane.
I wholeheartedly agree.
h
-
I think I might cry.
Miko refuted the 'facts' supporting your position. Your bug analogy didn't fit. Don't take it so personally.
-
Gender is considered a somewhat "protected" status under the Equal Protection Clause. As such, except in some very specific cases, laws must apply equally to both men and women. Gay marriage proponents argue that laws attempting to define marriage through gender do not apply equally to same-sex couples. Hence, such laws are unconstitutional.
The last time I checked, the Equal Protection Clause does not cover the number of potential marriage partners since "number" is not a protected status.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Good call DMF. I had not considered that angle but it makes sense. Will it be enough to use equal rights as the boundry with which not to cross or will fringe groups co-opt the redifinition of mariage movement for their own designs? To me its more than just about equal rights, its about plain simple engineering.
dowling your on permanent ingore fella but I can safely say stfu already!
:D
-
The government should not regulate marriage, end of story.
-
Eat my SHORTS, dude.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Early Mormons practiced polygamy but were denied that freedom by a repressive government. I am surprised that Mormons have not taken advantage of the current climate to bring back the practice. I know I would enjoy many wives.
Early Christians and especially Jews practiced polygamy.
both testiments are filled with examples of this - and with God's blessings.
Several religions continue this practice today - specifically Muslims.
There's absolutely nothing immoral about multiple wives and husbands.
-
Yeager: Miko is talking things I have never heard of.
I was pretty surprised myself when I learned about that stuff few years ago. Back in Ukraine we had no idea of the enourmous divercity of the american society.
Polygamy is legal in Utah simply because it is not legal?
I am not saying that. All I am saying it is legal to live in polygamous marriage as a way of life. What is not legal is registering such marriage with the state.
Having multiple spouses is legal. Applying for multiple marriage licences is not.
There are thirty thousand active palygamists in Utah? huh?
There are also some outside Utah - I believe Colorado is one of the populat states with them and even Canada.
On the matter of marriage difinition, I basically agree with you. It is historically (western society) an arrangement of a man and one or more women.
As Funked, I believe that the State should have no involvement with marriage whatsoever. No marriage licenses, no special privileges or penalties for being married. From legal point, marriage is just a contract. A person does not even have to be legally married in order to have one's rights protected incase of divorce.
When state interferes with marriage, bad things happen. Sooner or later the people will come to power who have opposite views of those that originated the state involvement - and they will inherit the power.
thrila: I can just about cope with 1 girlfriend, 2 would drive me nuts. It's prob illegal just to keep men sane.
That is not true. It is easier to deal with two girlfriends than with one - as long as they are aware of each other.
First, women often find a man desirable when other women desire him too. Once she has a man to himself, she may lose some of her interest or stop valuing him as she did before. Same applies to men, obviously.
Besides, competition is always good for the customer. It keeps the suppliers alert and attentive to his wishes.
Also, when a woman has a claim on your time, she attempts to claim all of you time. But if she does not have you exclusively, she is content with some of your time. Two women actually leave you more private time than one!
A woman will be jelous of the time you spend with another one but not the time you spend alone or with your friends. In fact she will be very carefull pressing for more of your time since it will threaten to upset the balance or make her appear needy and thus make the other girlfriend more attractive.
If you care for that, note that it works only if the girlfriends are not too close - at least not closer with each other than they are with you. So dating sisters or especially twins is out if that is your concern.
Dowding: Miko refuted the 'facts' supporting your position.
I didn't refute his facts as much as clarified the use of terms. He was talking about legal definitions but in some places confused them with actually practiced customs.
There is a state-legal concept of marriage and there is a practical one that is not against the law.
A man and a woman living together and having sex, children and common household without a state license are maried for all practical and religious purposes.
A man and a woman who obtained a legal marriage sertificate but have never consummated their marriage, live separately, do not have sex or common household are not practically married but are legally married where the state is concerned. That's all.
miko
-
First, the polyginy practice among mormons is quite widespread
BULL
Even if your numbers about polygamy were correct in Utah, which I doubt by the way as you haven't supported your claim w/ ANY evidence, thirty thousand people doing something is hardly widespread. Do you have any conception as to how many people there are in the world?
US government is subcidising mormons' polyginy practice, not deterring it.
BULL
-
I aggree with Yeagers original contention. Once you throw open the door on what marriage means to accomodate a few. The door is open.
-
I believe the point Yeager was making is that if the equal rights provision in the Consitution can be used to strike down "defense of marriage laws" as it was in Mass., then those who want to make other types of definitions of marriage legal, such as polygamists, could do the same. After all, since the term "marriage" is not currently defined in the Constitution, any attempt to limit it would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. That doesn't even get into the arena of freedom of religion, since the idea of polygamy is not the sole territory of religious sects. Same goes for those who wish to practice incest. After all, we don't allow a father to marry his daughter, or a sister to marry her brother. The legal arguments are the same. What about that lady in France who was granted the right to marry her deceased fiancee?
The bottom line is that we have activist judges and rogue public servents either making their own laws or breaking the ones they don't agree with, all in defiance of the will of the people. Because of that, I am firmly in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage. The definition itself should be decided in the course of that debate.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I believe the point Yeager was making is that if the equal rights provision in the Consitution can be used to strike down "defense of marriage laws" as it was in Mass., then those who want to make other types of definitions of marriage legal, such as polygamists, could do the same.
Except that they could not since banning polygamy does not violate any form of equal protection. Polygamy simply refers to the number of spouses and not the gender, so any law regulating the number of spouses regardless of their gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Polygamists would not enjoy the same equal protection rights as same-sex couples, and I can't think of any compelling argument they could make to prove otherwise.
The bottom line is that we have activist judges and rogue public servents either making their own laws or breaking the ones they don't agree with, all in defiance of the will of the people. Because of that, I am firmly in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage. The definition itself should be decided in the course of that debate.
[/b]
If "activist judges" and "rogue public servants" wish to flaunt the law, I don't see how a constitutional amendment would change matters. They would simply continue to ignore the amendment as they have supposedly ignored the laws.
In reality, the political actors in question hope to force a constitutional showdown about same-sex marriages. By violating the current marriage laws -- in the same way Rosa Parks violated bus seating rules -- they hope to provoke legal confrontation and force a judicial decision concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Their argument centers around equal protection violations and, at least in the minds of Republican strategists, appears to present quite a strong legal challenge. Thus we see the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would, in essence, override the Equal Protection Clause for gender as it specifically relates to marriage. This would remove any constitutional doubt about the legality of same-sex marriages.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Steve: Even if your numbers about polygamy were correct in Utah, which I doubt by the way as you haven't supported your claim w/ ANY evidence
You can doubt all you want - and the more ignorant you are, the more you can doubt, so feel free to preserve your ignorance. If you are too stupid to realise that it would have taken you less time to do a google search than to type that sentense, I am not going to waste my time educating you here.
BULL
For someone who fails in basic reading comprehension, you should not throw that word around.
, thirty thousand people doing something is hardly widespread. Do you have any conception as to how many people there are in the world?
What does "the world" have to do with it? Can't you read? I said clearly " the polyginy practice among mormons is quite widespread". Even 30,000 - and possibly several times more, nobody is interested in disclosing the real numbers, not the government, not the mainstream mormons, not the polyginists themselves - it is quite a lot to deserve a label "widespread" among mormons. Also, that number refers only to Utah while polyginous mormons also live in other states - Idaho, Montana and Arizona, Colorado, etc.
Even if you care to refer to "the world", the 30,000 alleged Utah mormon polyginists would not be the only ones practicing that custom. You have over a billion muslims who consider polyginy legitimate, you have other cultures that practice other polygamous marriage.
US government is subcidising mormons' polyginy practice, not deterring it. -- BULL
You would have to explain yourself here - that is if you are capable of multi-syllable words.
I claim that when a woman is married to a man but legally she is a single mother receiving welfare, the polyginous family receives subcidy from the state that it would not receive if the woman was officially listed as the man's dependant. This allows a man to marry more women since he does not have to provide for them financially.
miko
-
Except that they could not since banning polygamy does not violate any form of equal protection. Polygamy simply refers to the number of spouses and not the gender, so any law regulating the number of spouses regardless of their gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Polygamists would not enjoy the same equal protection rights as same-sex couples, and I can't think of any compelling argument they could make to prove otherwise.
I disagree. Amendment XIV, Section 1 says nothing about gender. Gender is irrelevant in the arguments being used to justify this violation of state and federal laws.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is no constitutional definition of marriage. Therefore, either the state and federal laws defining it are not in violation of the Constitution, or all laws limiting it are in violation of it.
Another way to look at it is that no gay person is being denied the right to get married; only the form of the union is being regulated. Just like the assault weapons ban upheld the right to bear arms, but allowed laws to regulate the type of guns deemed legal. Therefore, gay persons are not being denied anything, since a straight person is also not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Equal treatment under the law. And what about incest couples (and yes, there are practitioners of this form of union)? Under the gay community’s definition of equal protection, are not any laws banning marriage of incestuous couples also in violation? The Supreme Court justice who wrote the dissenting view in that Texas Sodomy case was prophetic indeed when he warned that we were going down a dangerous path by overturning Texas state law.
-
Miko, the pratice of polygamy amoung members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints" (referred to as "mormons" by some) is not widespread, nor is it excepted by the LDS church leadership. It is grounds for excommunications, in fact. Isolated pockets of break-away members of the LDS church have set up a small number of enclaves, all of which are condemmed by the LDS church. While they may refer to themselves as mormons, they are not.
-
If dowding wasnt right you wouldnt hate him so much yeager.
-
I would shoot for 3-4 hot wives with bisexual tendencies, but hey, thats just me.
-
froggy you dork! I dont hate dowling for being right. I hate dowling for being a moron. And your perilously close to tunneling yourself into the same classification as dowling with your blithering banter. Im tired of making a genuine effort to contribute to threads only to have dorks like you and morons like dowling pop in, lay mouth turds all over decent enjoyable threads, and rarely if ever provide anything worthwhile to any discussion.
Beware you froggy, start making sense and contributing to the forward momentum of humanity or you too will be ignored, forever -as is dowling, the moron.
:lol
-
Sabre: Miko, the pratice of polygamy amoung members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints" (referred to as "mormons" by some) is not widespread
I can't really argue here because there is no strict definition for the word "widespread". 30,000 is a large number but only 1.5% of the Utah population of about 2 million.
Of course that number includes only adult people practicing polyginy while population count includes children. If we include the children living in polyginous families - which are usually large - you may well get several times more.
That's why I cited the actuall number so that people are not misled by my use of the term "widespread".
, nor is it excepted by the LDS church leadership.
Right. I would not insist are mormons. Just that a bunch of people in US calling themselves "mormons" practice open polyginy.
[EDIT] BTW, less than 60% of Utah adults identify themsleves as "Mormon", so the percentage of polyginists would be even higher.
miko
-
why is it illegal in the first place?
and i dont think redefining marriage will allow polygamists to get recognized...gay marriages dont have a specific law saying NO they just have a poorly worded definition (well as far as canada is concerned anyway) so the redefinition while some may disagree as to wether or not it should be done it is legal still "legal"...polygamists do have a specific law against it so redefining to allow it would be illegal.
of course im probably wrong about that...
-
vorticon: why is it illegal in the first place?
It is just an accident of history. Originally family arrangements were personal and did not involve the state or any other governments. Private agreement or religious ceremony was enough. Also, the state was not involved in regulating employment agreements, sales of services like insurance, and others.
Then the state barged in and helped with the marriage by having the clerks perform the ceremonies. Obviously the prevalent form of marriage was recognised and the excluded did not care much because the state registration did not make any difference.
Then the government become much more intrusive. It imposed income taxes on people but gave breaks to married people. It introduced gift taxes but excluded the property passed between legal spouses. It mandated the employers to provide specific kinds of insurance to employees and their legal spouses. It introduced pension system for legal spouses of some people. It imposed all other kinds of restrictions on people and made loopholes for spouses.
Suddenly, it became a huge deal whether you are legally married or not.
In a gay couple living together for 20 years if one gives another a gift, the taxes have to be paid. If one dies, the other does not qualify for inheritance and even with explicit will the relatives of the deceased may dispute his claim and the taxes on inheritance have to be paid.
The employers do not have to provide them family insurance, the hospitals do not grant them acces to each other as they do to family members, etc.
At the same time a heterosexual couple that has a legal marrage - even a fictional one - does not have to pay taxes on passed property, the inheritance is not disputed and tax-free, the employers provide insurance, the hospitals admit without questions - and allow to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse.
There is obviously a huge deal to be gained by having one's relations treated exactly like a legal marriage.
It would be possible to create the concept of the Civil Union and make it equal to mariage in all legal respects but most people rightly do not want that. It would mean higher taxes on everybody, higher insurance premiums, etc. - after all someone has to pay for the benefits that the newly-recongised civil union partners would now receive. So the measure has little chance of being passed through legislation.
Instead the gays use the standard way to create the law that would never be legislatively and democratically enacted - through activist courts and maveric executives ignoring the existing laws.
miko
-
(Marking this on the calender) Yeager is correct. Polygamy is no longer acceptable in CJCLDS. In the early stages of it's existence it was acceptable. In the early stages of Christianity, stoning, cutting babies in half, plucking eyes and other acts were acceptable. Both religions have undergone changes and no longer practice these as acceptable behavior.
His point, if I understand correctly, is once you start redefining what's acceptable once again, where do you stop. Utah is about as packed full of Polygamists as Texas is with Branch Davidians or Louisiana with Witch Doctors.
-
Miko, I'm quite capable of multisyllabic words. You obviously use English as a second language so I was trying to keep it simple for you.
Your comments about subsidies and mormon polygamy being widespread is bullchit.. plain and simple. I didn't see any reason to delve any deeper.
You really shouldn't comment on comprehension and a person's ability to use the English language when you yourself use it soo poorly.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I disagree. Amendment XIV, Section 1 says nothing about gender. Gender is irrelevant in the arguments being used to justify this violation of state and federal laws.
[/B]
The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to conditionally apply to gender. As such, the courts consider gender a "protected" status much like race and subject to equal protection under the laws except in very specific instances such as military service. I can look up the applicable cases for you if you wish, but I don't have time at the moment.
There is no constitutional definition of marriage. Therefore, either the state and federal laws defining it are not in violation of the Constitution, or all laws limiting it are in violation of it.
[/b]
Incorrect. Laws laying out the legal requirements for marriage (such as issuing a license, requiring pre-marriage counseling, banning polygamous marriages, etc.) do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they ostensibly apply to all applicants for marriage regardless of gender. They potentially run afoul of equal protection when those standards and laws apply to only one kind of gender relationship (male and female).
The issue that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to push is gender equality and not sexual orientation equality. This is a wise strategy since sexual orientation is not, to my knowledge, considered protected by the Equal Protection Clause.
Another way to look at it is that no gay person is being denied the right to get married; only the form of the union is being regulated. Just like the assault weapons ban upheld the right to bear arms, but allowed laws to regulate the type of guns deemed legal. Therefore, gay persons are not being denied anything, since a straight person is also not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
[/B]
You are assuming regulation based on sexual orientation rather than gender. The crux of the same-sex marriage legal argument centers around gender inequality; if you regulate different-sex marriages but ban same-sex marriages, you essentially create seperate and unequal laws centering around the gender of those involved rather than their sexual orientation. If you allow male and female unions but not male/male or female/female, gender becomes the defining legal difference. Same-sex marriage proponents argue that these differences violate the Equal Protection Clause.
And what about incest couples (and yes, there are practitioners of this form of union)? Under the gay community’s definition of equal protection, are not any laws banning marriage of incestuous couples also in violation?
[/B]
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.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
man i love watching yeager get pounded.
somone buy him a mirror.
-
I know I would enjoy many wives.
I recommend you switch to muslim religion.
-
You seem to be making an awful lot of fuss about your ignore priviledges; it's not a heart-rending experience to be subject to a mouse click. If you think it is, perhaps you need to re-evaluate how much this BBS means to you, Chuckie.
As for gay 'marriage'. Simply don't call it marriage. Think of it as an extension of certain legal and financial priviledges - perhaps like forming a limited company. We all want to avoid the tax man. Even gays!
-
mormons have pretty decent gun collections.
lazs
-
Steve: Your comments about subsidies and mormon polygamy being widespread is bullchit.. plain and simple. I didn't see any reason to delve any deeper.
Yes - it is usually the case. Where a smart person is puzzled, everything seems plain and simple to the fool.
US government pays welfare to the the wives of polyginists as if they were single mothers. That is called subcidy.
Who really gets that subcidy? The husband. He gets that money and spends it for the family and himself. The more wives and childlen he has, the bigger welfare check he receives to spend as he wishes. If he had to support them, he would not be able to marry as many, period.
You really shouldn't comment on comprehension and a person's ability to use the English language...
I was talking about the prevalence of polyginy among Utah adult mormons. You countered it with an offensive statement that 30,000 is a small number compared to the population of the world. You obviously did not comprehend what I was writing about. That is called poor reading comprehension.
Your use of English language in an argument consisted of the word "BULL".
After which you hyppocritically *****ed about insufficient argumentation for a well-know fact on my part.
Just ignore my posts from now on. Save your fingers the wear of typing.
I do not care for unsubstantiated BS on you part and I see none of it in your posts. I know withouit you that there are plenty of militant stupid ignorants around that want to stay that way. No argument is possible with such as you because you would not substantiate your opinions. You do not want them changed - fine. I do not care to educate you for free either.
Just do not whine like Dago does if I ignore your "arguments".
miko
-
US government pays welfare to the the wives of polyginists as if they were single mothers. That is called subcidy.
Actually that's call fraud, handsomehunk. Maybe among your Jr. High School drop out friends you can twist things to suit your needs.. not w/ me.
You claim my arguments are unsubstantiated.
Substaniate your claim that polygamy is widespread among mormons.
I was talking about the prevalence of polyginy among Utah adult mormons.
It's prevalent? Prove it.
You continue to impugn my intelligence yet you spell like a third grader. Sorry, this kind of hypocricy just won't fly, handsomehunk.
-
Nevertheless thousands of people living in Utah and calling themselves mormons continue to practice polyginy.
[/B]
Miko, that would be "polygamy", or are you making a play on words that I'm just to obtuse to see?
-
Steve: Actually that's call fraud, handsomehunk.
I am not talking what it may be called, but what it is. The nature of an act does not change when you change labels. the government takes tax money and gives it to the polyginists.
Anyway, what's so fradulent about it? The woman is really not legally married - shecould not be legally married even if she wanted to. The children are real and even the goverment bureaucrats know that any child must have had a father. Everything is totally legal. You could go and disclose any such case and still the government would continue to pay welfare to them, because they would not be breaking any rules.
Substaniate your claim that polygamy is widespread among mormans.
Media reports 30,000 practicing people calling themsleves Mormons in Utah. I believe that number is too low and another one here http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm claims 60,000. Let's split the difference and say 48,000. Total population is about two million. Less than 60% of Utah residents identify themselves as Momon, so that leaves 1.2 million.
48,000/1.2 mil = 4% of the total population in Utah practice polygamy. One third of Utah population are children who do not practice any marriage arrangement, so among adults the ratio would be 6% - quite widespread in my estimate.
Alternatively, we can consider that fundamantalist mormon families, especially polygamous ones, have many more children per woman than average for the mormons.
So while 4% of Utah Mormons are adults living in polygamous families, it is probably around 10% of people - adults and children - living in such families. Maybe more.
We have 5% of jews in US and saying jews are widespread compared to some other countries would not be incorrect.
We have just twice as many blacks and hispanics - 12% each. They are undoubtedly widespread.
If that is not widesplread enough for you, so be it. It's widespread enough for me.
slimm50: Miko, that would be "polygamy", or are you making a play on words that I'm just to obtuse to see?
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
-
Miko, thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems we merely have a difference of opinion on what widespread means.
-
One wife nagging me is enough.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm all for that.
or better yet,let's eliminate marriage as an institution:rofl
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...