Multiple Spouses

[Yeager]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[vorticon]

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...

[miko2d]

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

[rpm]

(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.

[Steve]

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.

[Dead Man Flying]

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

[lord dolf vader]

man i love watching yeager get pounded.

somone buy him a mirror.

[Saintaw]

I know I would enjoy many wives.

I recommend you switch to muslim religion.

[Dowding]

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!

[lazs2]

mormons have pretty decent gun collections.

lazs

[miko2d]

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

[Steve]

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.

[slimm50]

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?

[miko2d]

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