Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't legalize polygamy
254 comments | Read story
John Pack Lambert | 10:00 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
That said, I think there is a compelling case for laws against polygamy.
However I think the supporters of these laws hurt their cause by the ways they
try and support them.
Instead of focusing on verifiable and legally actionable issues, they too often focus on social difference issues.
The question is not what level of access to technology do children in polygamist families have or what level of planning to be mothers do the girls in the families have.
The question has to be are there systematic causes of abuse and neglect. However too much of what gets thrown around is hearsay.
The state probably can demonstrate that it has a compelling reason to ban plural marriage, especially since actual practice can be used when actually considering a ban. However, so many of the gripes against plural marriage as practiced by groups in Utah seem to exempt many groups that practice it in Minnesota and New York, that the question has to come up, should we prosecute people in those states based on actions in Utah and if the answer is no, than we have to admit it is not plural marriage that need regulation.
Instead of focusing on verifiable and legally actionable issues, they too often focus on social difference issues.
The question is not what level of access to technology do children in polygamist families have or what level of planning to be mothers do the girls in the families have.
The question has to be are there systematic causes of abuse and neglect. However too much of what gets thrown around is hearsay.
The state probably can demonstrate that it has a compelling reason to ban plural marriage, especially since actual practice can be used when actually considering a ban. However, so many of the gripes against plural marriage as practiced by groups in Utah seem to exempt many groups that practice it in Minnesota and New York, that the question has to come up, should we prosecute people in those states based on actions in Utah and if the answer is no, than we have to admit it is not plural marriage that need regulation.
Here We Go Again... | 10:15 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009
"The Bible says..." "God is the same yesterday, today and
forever." If polygamy is God's prescribed form of marriage, why was it
changed? I guess God changed his mind. Then why has the Bible been changed over
and over through time to the point that many things are unrecognizable to the
early texts that have come to light?
Do you understand that scholars state that the "Sin of Sodom" was not homosexuality but being unwelcoming and not providing shelter to travelers. Something that was considered a GRAVE SIN at the time that book was written.
Do you understand that scholars state that the "Sin of Sodom" was not homosexuality but being unwelcoming and not providing shelter to travelers. Something that was considered a GRAVE SIN at the time that book was written.
Comments continue below
Yes, you are so right | 8:05 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
And we get tired of small minded people trying to compare polygamy and
homosexuality! They are different! Polygamy has been shown time and again to
cause many problems. It is wrong...plain and simple. There are not always bad
people in polygamy, but polygamy itself, is bad!
re: Here We Go Again... | 10:15 | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Polygamy IS God's prescribed form of marriage IN certain situations
(frequently when believer population is low, but not only then), not 100% the
time. That has stayed consistant.
Arthur | 8:47 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
re: Yes,you are so right
The same statement you used was used against homosexuality. Try to use it again against homosexuality and it will be called bigotry and hate. How is it not bigotry and hate against poligamists too?
Again people say there are problems with polygamy. I'm sure there are! I've yet to hear specifics that weren't just armchair bias against FLDS who make up less than a tenth of a percent of polygamy history.
The same statement you used was used against homosexuality. Try to use it again against homosexuality and it will be called bigotry and hate. How is it not bigotry and hate against poligamists too?
Again people say there are problems with polygamy. I'm sure there are! I've yet to hear specifics that weren't just armchair bias against FLDS who make up less than a tenth of a percent of polygamy history.
We are talking about | 9:09 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
polygamy in this forom and yet some try and bring up other issues to draw the
attention away from polygamy's horrible track record. If you want to think
that polygamy is ok that's up to you, but we are talking about's
it's problems. It won't be legalized....we say this as time after
time we have arrests and complaints almost everyday on the news. As far as gay
marriage...I'm not for or against because it doesn't affect me. But
this is a different issue and does not involve multiple relationships, some
underage marriages and care of many children that polygamy normally produces.
Again, there may be some good people in polygamy, but polygamy itself is not
good!
"Gods" prescribed form? | 9:15 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Really? You are wrong and many people would agree. You polygamists (or
polygamist's sympathizers) need to get a life and face reality! This
lifestyle has caused much pain in the world. And here's a clue..were is it
mostly practiced? In third world countries. We can rise above some of the
hurtful things of the past and start treating people the the same respect that
we, ourselves desire. It is not advanced thinking to think that the goal in life
is to collect women, have many children and continue in heaven. This is
ridiculous and hurtful. Start thinking for yourselves and at the same time think
about how others feel.
Beth | 10:11 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is the phrase "equal
protection under the law". If same sex marriage is validated in the courts
then eventually incest and polygamy will have to be validated as well because
these people are also being denied "equal protection under the law".
Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, whether abuses can occur in any of
these relationships is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
And the above-mentioned argument that marriage in this country has always been established as between two people is stupid. It has also ALWAYS been established as between a man and a woman and you're looking to change that.
And despite what earlier posters may have said the comparison between same sex marriage and incest or polygamy is a fair comparison to make legally. Because if homosexuals are indeed being denied "equal protection under the law", so are these other groups.
Personally I think that if our founding fathers had realized our country would eventually become so completely bereft of morals they would have included marriage as between a man and a woman and abortion as illegal in the constitution...
And the above-mentioned argument that marriage in this country has always been established as between two people is stupid. It has also ALWAYS been established as between a man and a woman and you're looking to change that.
And despite what earlier posters may have said the comparison between same sex marriage and incest or polygamy is a fair comparison to make legally. Because if homosexuals are indeed being denied "equal protection under the law", so are these other groups.
Personally I think that if our founding fathers had realized our country would eventually become so completely bereft of morals they would have included marriage as between a man and a woman and abortion as illegal in the constitution...
realitycheck | 10:09 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
re Homosexuality 7:28pm
see - that's your problem. You think this is a religious issue.
Maybe you care what your "Lord Jesus Christ" thinks (or thought, since he's dead), but many don't even believe in that. (I know - blasphemy!! whatever - welcome to the 21st century.)
Why should laws be made that fit into your idea of religion? Why should laws be based on someone that many believe was a smart and kind philosopher but certainly not a god. And I mean no offense by that. It is simply fact.
this is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue.
Even if homosexuality is a choice, there is no reasonable excuse for not allowing two consenting adults to be married. Note that I said two - not three or 20 - just two. That gives both parties equal rights, which is the goal. Any marriage that involves more than two people cannot provide equal rights (unless some type of new contract is drawn up.)
As I said it before, I see no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult, and a new contract is create that provides equal rights for everyone involved.
see - that's your problem. You think this is a religious issue.
Maybe you care what your "Lord Jesus Christ" thinks (or thought, since he's dead), but many don't even believe in that. (I know - blasphemy!! whatever - welcome to the 21st century.)
Why should laws be made that fit into your idea of religion? Why should laws be based on someone that many believe was a smart and kind philosopher but certainly not a god. And I mean no offense by that. It is simply fact.
this is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue.
Even if homosexuality is a choice, there is no reasonable excuse for not allowing two consenting adults to be married. Note that I said two - not three or 20 - just two. That gives both parties equal rights, which is the goal. Any marriage that involves more than two people cannot provide equal rights (unless some type of new contract is drawn up.)
As I said it before, I see no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult, and a new contract is create that provides equal rights for everyone involved.
Arthur | 10:12 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
I am neither a polygamist or a polygamist sympathizer. I dearly hope that
polygamy never becomes allowable by law (I have my reasons). However I'm
not naive enough to think that it won't. Especially now that gay marriage
is opening the door. And no one has provided me any reason to believe it wont
in the years I've asked.
You can say it wont pass because its goy a bad track record, its icky, its unholy, its messing with children. But those same exact things were said about homosexuality yet we are on the doorstep of homosexual marriage.
You can say it wont pass because its goy a bad track record, its icky, its unholy, its messing with children. But those same exact things were said about homosexuality yet we are on the doorstep of homosexual marriage.
Prude | 10:24 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
""This lifestyle has caused much pain in the world. And here's a
clue..were is it mostly practiced? In third world countries.""
We're talking about situations in which a man has children or a relationship with more than one woman?? Sounds like the US is a third world country then!!
The only thing we're missing here is a legal form!
Whats the difference between a man having children with more than one woman in the US and a man having children with more than one woman in a foreign country?? They take financial care of those women, we usually dont. Polygamy - responsability = American Promiscuity
We're talking about situations in which a man has children or a relationship with more than one woman?? Sounds like the US is a third world country then!!
The only thing we're missing here is a legal form!
Whats the difference between a man having children with more than one woman in the US and a man having children with more than one woman in a foreign country?? They take financial care of those women, we usually dont. Polygamy - responsability = American Promiscuity
Well Beth | 10:28 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Here again we see someone uncomfortable with a changing world. The
"old" way of marriage sometimes included a man and a number of women
because men considered themselves to be superior to women and this was a way to
"spread their seed". This is still practiced some in third world
countires (and very unsuccesfully here) because more advanced societies.
Monogamy is certainly not perfect (as evidenced by divorce, affairs and other
issues), but the concept of two people being in a relationship and then ending
it before another marriage is the goal. Further, this is the only kind of
relationship that succeeds in the end. More than two people in marriage causes
inequality and more hurt than imaginable for young girls, women and children.
Gay marriage may become legal (is in certain countries) because the goal is the same: TWO people in a relationship at a time. The mention you make about incest and such relationships is ridiculous. This is hurtful to children and families and will never be protected (in fact this is oftentimes a result in polygamy). You need to organize your comparisons and realize the differences.
Gay marriage may become legal (is in certain countries) because the goal is the same: TWO people in a relationship at a time. The mention you make about incest and such relationships is ridiculous. This is hurtful to children and families and will never be protected (in fact this is oftentimes a result in polygamy). You need to organize your comparisons and realize the differences.
re Beth 10:11am | 10:29 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
"so completely bereft of morals"? did you really say that?
who's morals? yours? what makes your idea of morals right?
If it doesn't harm other people, there is no need to make it illegal. Can you grasp that concept? That is the basis of our societal laws and constitution today. Not 200 years ago but today. Yes - we have come a long way, thankfully.
Slavery is gone. Women have rights the same as men. Everyone is on an equal footing. We have an african american president. We are not completely equalized, but we're trying.
Does same sex marriage harm anyone? no. Do laws against same sex marriage harm anyone? yes - it harms those that would join together, regardless of sexual orientation.
does polygamy harm anyone? yes. it harms the women and children, since the rights of 2nd and 3rd, etc wives (and their children) do not have the same standing - and there is no legal contract that provides for it. Create a contract that provides equal protection for all parties and I have no problem with it. But you probably won't be able to call it marriage since a new contract would be involved.
who's morals? yours? what makes your idea of morals right?
If it doesn't harm other people, there is no need to make it illegal. Can you grasp that concept? That is the basis of our societal laws and constitution today. Not 200 years ago but today. Yes - we have come a long way, thankfully.
Slavery is gone. Women have rights the same as men. Everyone is on an equal footing. We have an african american president. We are not completely equalized, but we're trying.
Does same sex marriage harm anyone? no. Do laws against same sex marriage harm anyone? yes - it harms those that would join together, regardless of sexual orientation.
does polygamy harm anyone? yes. it harms the women and children, since the rights of 2nd and 3rd, etc wives (and their children) do not have the same standing - and there is no legal contract that provides for it. Create a contract that provides equal protection for all parties and I have no problem with it. But you probably won't be able to call it marriage since a new contract would be involved.
The difference... | 11:23 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
between polygamy, affairs etc. is the key! Polygamous men are usually telling
women that this is what "God" wants. There is sometimes abuse
including incest, under age marriages and emotional hurting of women. They are
telling them that they are the "worthy" ones to be with them. An
affair in a so called monogamous marriage is different in that nobody is proud
of it. There is often promises (oftentimes broken) of leaving their spouse.
Nobody ever says this is correct and it is always the goal to turn things
around. Neither lifestyle is right and "two wrongs don't make a
right"!
realitycheck | 11:46 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009
re the difference 11:23am
I agree with you that one of the main problems with polygamy is that women feel they have no choice because they are told that it is "God's will". If polygamy wasn't strictly a religious practice, then I could see it working. But as soon as you throw in "God's will", you are taking it from a choice and turning it into fear.
Those that continually compare polygamy to men being with multiple women, having babies out of wedlock, affairs, etc fail to realize that those women are making a choice. Granted, sometimes they are coerced into it, but in general they make an informed choice to be with that person. That is a major difference from feeling (due to indoctrination) that you have no choice and if you don't do it you are going against God's will.
The use of "God's will" causes WAY more harm than good in almost every situation. In fact, I cannot think of a single instance where the invocation of the phrase "God's will" has done anything but cause harm.
No one knows God's will. Stop throwing it around and the world will be a much better place.
I agree with you that one of the main problems with polygamy is that women feel they have no choice because they are told that it is "God's will". If polygamy wasn't strictly a religious practice, then I could see it working. But as soon as you throw in "God's will", you are taking it from a choice and turning it into fear.
Those that continually compare polygamy to men being with multiple women, having babies out of wedlock, affairs, etc fail to realize that those women are making a choice. Granted, sometimes they are coerced into it, but in general they make an informed choice to be with that person. That is a major difference from feeling (due to indoctrination) that you have no choice and if you don't do it you are going against God's will.
The use of "God's will" causes WAY more harm than good in almost every situation. In fact, I cannot think of a single instance where the invocation of the phrase "God's will" has done anything but cause harm.
No one knows God's will. Stop throwing it around and the world will be a much better place.
D | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
"CATHOLIC FRANCHISE: RULE OF LAW WITH FALLACIES:" Don't legalize
polygamy.
Arthur | 1:38 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Incest, underage marriage, abuse, and female emotional hurt are not unique to
polygamy, those are a danger of marriage in general, not a specific type.
As far as an increase of those if the polygamy is religious, no one is discussing religious union here. We're talking about one man or woman entering into a union with more than one consenting adult into a unanimously agreed family unit.
As far as an increase of those if the polygamy is religious, no one is discussing religious union here. We're talking about one man or woman entering into a union with more than one consenting adult into a unanimously agreed family unit.
hwellNC | 2:13 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
My grandfather had a mistress. Everyone knew he had a mistress. Some places
that kind of stuff was hush hush but in certain curcumstances tolerated. As long
as it wasnt flaunted in the open. My grandma knew, even knew the mistress, but
tolerated it, due to some health issues she couldnt be there for my grandfather
100%. Thats her reasoning anyhow. The mistress probably got a little money to
help with rent but thats about it. This isnt a unique situation. Am I to
understand if my grandma were to allow this lady into the family as a wife the
mistress would be worse off???? I guess she can count herself lucky that
polygamy is illegal and she could live and die by herself with no inheritance.
realitycheck | 2:26 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
re Arthur and D
Arthur - I agree. Find us some polygamists that don't practice it as part of their religion and maybe we can talk about it. But as of now, I am unaware of any polygamists that don't consider it a basic tenet of their religion.
You take religion out of polygamy and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. You're right - it's the religion that is bad, not the polygamy.
And you'd need a new contract that guarentes the rights of all parties. Similar to the laws we have now guarenteeing the wife some portion of the assets if the union is disolved. Good luck coming up with that....
D -
what Catholic franchise?
who's rule of law?
which fallacy?
why do you waste your (and our) time with comments that make no sense? And the caps lock button is on the far left side of your keyboard...
Arthur - I agree. Find us some polygamists that don't practice it as part of their religion and maybe we can talk about it. But as of now, I am unaware of any polygamists that don't consider it a basic tenet of their religion.
You take religion out of polygamy and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. You're right - it's the religion that is bad, not the polygamy.
And you'd need a new contract that guarentes the rights of all parties. Similar to the laws we have now guarenteeing the wife some portion of the assets if the union is disolved. Good luck coming up with that....
D -
what Catholic franchise?
who's rule of law?
which fallacy?
why do you waste your (and our) time with comments that make no sense? And the caps lock button is on the far left side of your keyboard...
Beth | 2:40 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Re: Beth,
Did you read how I started the paragraph with the word "Personally"? Yes, I did mean my morals. And yes, I do think that America is tossing morality out the window and that there will be bad consequences for that in the future. You say that same sex marriage harms no one and I would have to disagree with you. In the secular world morality is so subjective. I know people who think that wearing fur or driving gas guzzlers is immoral because they think of those things are harmful while others don't. Many of my morals came from my belief in God and my religion, but everyone gets them from somewhere (church, parents, teachers, friends, books).
And as for my comment about how marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman in America, it was in response to a previous pro same-sex marriage posting that said that polygamy wouldn't happen because in America marriage has always been between two people.
And not that I'm an advocate of polygamy, but if several consenting adults enter into it, is it harmful? Why does it matter to you? Legalizing polygamy is not legalizing child brides and abuse.
Did you read how I started the paragraph with the word "Personally"? Yes, I did mean my morals. And yes, I do think that America is tossing morality out the window and that there will be bad consequences for that in the future. You say that same sex marriage harms no one and I would have to disagree with you. In the secular world morality is so subjective. I know people who think that wearing fur or driving gas guzzlers is immoral because they think of those things are harmful while others don't. Many of my morals came from my belief in God and my religion, but everyone gets them from somewhere (church, parents, teachers, friends, books).
And as for my comment about how marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman in America, it was in response to a previous pro same-sex marriage posting that said that polygamy wouldn't happen because in America marriage has always been between two people.
And not that I'm an advocate of polygamy, but if several consenting adults enter into it, is it harmful? Why does it matter to you? Legalizing polygamy is not legalizing child brides and abuse.
John Pack Lambert | 3:25 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To the 10:28 commentator,
What is your definition of a third world country. I defy you to prove me wrong that polygamy is more practiced in France than in Brazil.
Also, counties in the Middle East where polygamy is practiced have way higher GDPs per capita than countries in Latin America where it is not practiced.
There are poor countries where polygamy is practiced and rich countries where it is fully illegal. However the claims inherent in bashing counties where polygamy is practiced with the pejoritive label "3rd world" really do not address any issues at all.
Until you recognize the extent to which Muslims are practicing polygamy in western Countries, you will continue spouting false notions on the issue.
Of course, since many western countries still treat polygamy as a criminal offense, there are no direct statistics on this matter.
What is your definition of a third world country. I defy you to prove me wrong that polygamy is more practiced in France than in Brazil.
Also, counties in the Middle East where polygamy is practiced have way higher GDPs per capita than countries in Latin America where it is not practiced.
There are poor countries where polygamy is practiced and rich countries where it is fully illegal. However the claims inherent in bashing counties where polygamy is practiced with the pejoritive label "3rd world" really do not address any issues at all.
Until you recognize the extent to which Muslims are practicing polygamy in western Countries, you will continue spouting false notions on the issue.
Of course, since many western countries still treat polygamy as a criminal offense, there are no direct statistics on this matter.
John Pack Lambert | 3:30 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To the 11:23 commentator,
While your assesment of the situation with polygamy may apply to the inter-mountain West I would challenge its application to the United States, and in the world context of polygamy your notion is so off base it is laughable.
Most of the polygamy in the world is practiced in Africa. Although much of this is by Muslims, to view it as a religious tenet of Muslims is incorrect. Muslims allow polygamy, but do not view it ever as commanded of God.
The view that God has commanded polygamy is not unique to groups that claim to derive the practice from the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors. There are "Christian polygamist" groups that reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet that support polygamy as commanded of God from their reading of the Bible.
However among Muslim, non-Muslim African, and Asian groups that practice polygamy it is understood as a social and not a religious practice. So many of the practitioners of polygamy in the United States fall into one of the three groups listed at the start of this paragraph, that they probably are the majority of practitioners in the US.
While your assesment of the situation with polygamy may apply to the inter-mountain West I would challenge its application to the United States, and in the world context of polygamy your notion is so off base it is laughable.
Most of the polygamy in the world is practiced in Africa. Although much of this is by Muslims, to view it as a religious tenet of Muslims is incorrect. Muslims allow polygamy, but do not view it ever as commanded of God.
The view that God has commanded polygamy is not unique to groups that claim to derive the practice from the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors. There are "Christian polygamist" groups that reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet that support polygamy as commanded of God from their reading of the Bible.
However among Muslim, non-Muslim African, and Asian groups that practice polygamy it is understood as a social and not a religious practice. So many of the practitioners of polygamy in the United States fall into one of the three groups listed at the start of this paragraph, that they probably are the majority of practitioners in the US.
It won't happen..... | 3:46 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
because too much harm has come from polygamy. Also, people have suffered from
hurtful affairs and mistress type situations (as mentioned above), but overall
people are finally becoming aware of these hurtful types of behavior and we are
confronting it. Whenever people start to confront bad behavior it slowly
changes. Secrecy has been the way of these behaviors and now that they are in
the open they will slowly go away.
As far as gay marriage we don't know. But we do know that it has been legalized in several countries. This type of relationship (between two people) may not go away. If not, this is not the hurtful relationships such as cheating or polygamy that we are talking about in this forum. Gay marriage has been handled in other courts and will continue to be because it does not have the problems associated with the above.
As far as gay marriage we don't know. But we do know that it has been legalized in several countries. This type of relationship (between two people) may not go away. If not, this is not the hurtful relationships such as cheating or polygamy that we are talking about in this forum. Gay marriage has been handled in other courts and will continue to be because it does not have the problems associated with the above.
John Pack Lambert | 3:51 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To realitycheck,
Go find any Hmong polygamist, or polygamist from West African and you will have the answer. The New York Times found several West African polygamists in New York City when they looked in the spring of 2007 so it is not hard.
Go find any Hmong polygamist, or polygamist from West African and you will have the answer. The New York Times found several West African polygamists in New York City when they looked in the spring of 2007 so it is not hard.
John Pack Lambert | 3:54 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To realitycheck,
You have a twisted and deformed view of the constitution. To say that a practice can be made illegal if it is realigiously based but should be tolerated if it is secular is to deney freedom of religion and may even be an example of establishing secularism on a religious basis.
I am not sure of the latter, but I know the former part of your reasoning contradicts every ruling that courts have ever made. No justice has ever supported an argument that would allow making a practice illegal conditional on it having a religious route.
If that is not a plan to deney freedom of religion and oppress people there has never been a plan ever in all of human history to do such things.
You have a twisted and deformed view of the constitution. To say that a practice can be made illegal if it is realigiously based but should be tolerated if it is secular is to deney freedom of religion and may even be an example of establishing secularism on a religious basis.
I am not sure of the latter, but I know the former part of your reasoning contradicts every ruling that courts have ever made. No justice has ever supported an argument that would allow making a practice illegal conditional on it having a religious route.
If that is not a plan to deney freedom of religion and oppress people there has never been a plan ever in all of human history to do such things.
Arthur | 4:01 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Nice one realitycheck! That actually makes me feel a little better. Your right
that while polygamy doesnt by definition require religious involvment as far as
I know always does. And thats religious link does cause issues policy wise.
While I do agree with some of the other posters that a form of unofficial unreligious polygamy is practiced in the states by way of multiple partners and fatherless children, those arent the kind of people I'd see picketting for the legalization of anything!
With the religious angle plus equal protection laws, there just may be hope for gay marriage without a polygamous foot in the door!
While I do agree with some of the other posters that a form of unofficial unreligious polygamy is practiced in the states by way of multiple partners and fatherless children, those arent the kind of people I'd see picketting for the legalization of anything!
With the religious angle plus equal protection laws, there just may be hope for gay marriage without a polygamous foot in the door!
Anonymous | 4:08 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Please show me a society that practices polygamy where women are equal to men.
I haven't seen one. It is kind of a hidden truth that to practice
polygamy, that man is the boss. This is against everything we have learned in
America in the last century. It should remain illegal.
Well John Pack Lambert... | 4:21 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
I'm not an expert on the areas of the countries that practice polygamy (not
do I want to be)...maybe I should have said "mainly third world" or
perhaps that "this hasn't been accepted well in the western
countries". But my point is well documented that polygamy has caused much
damage and it will NOT be legalized in our country. On that you can mark my
words! And you can also mark my words that adultry and the like are bad too and
that they will slowly die out becasue the secret is out! What will not die out
is the fact that people will sometimes get divorced and then remarried. I am not
trying to say that people will not have multiple relationships in their
lifetimes. But what I am trying to say is that this will be on more fair ground
between men and women. As a woman perhaps I could tell someone that
"God" wants me to be married to multiple people too. But do many women
do that? No, because we usually have good sense and we are usually able to make
wise choices.
re: Anonymous 4:08 | 4:28 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Not even regular marriage has a total spread of equality. And if polygamy
becomes legal by diluting the definition of marriage even more it would allow
for polyandrous marriage as well (woman as the boss).
Frank | 4:35 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
""But my point is well documented that polygamy has caused much damage
and it will NOT be legalized in our country. On that you can mark my
words!""
I've heard that statement before. Except exchange gay marriage with polygamy, or anything else for that matter that was eventually legalized.
I've heard that statement before. Except exchange gay marriage with polygamy, or anything else for that matter that was eventually legalized.
realitycheck | 4:42 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
the fact is - polygamy creates more 2nd class citizens and reduces the rights of
women and children. If a decent contract (such as the marriage contract - yes,
it is a contract) could be drawn up protecting the rights of the additional
wives and children, then perhaps it would work.
John Pack Lambert fancies himself to be a constitutional expert and wordsmith. Perhaps he can come up with a template (although it's unclear to me that he understands the problem... and reading comprehension also seems to be a hurdle...)
John Pack Lambert fancies himself to be a constitutional expert and wordsmith. Perhaps he can come up with a template (although it's unclear to me that he understands the problem... and reading comprehension also seems to be a hurdle...)
Arthur | 4:47 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
"With the religious angle plus equal protection laws, there just may be
hope for gay marriage without a polygamous foot in the door!"
I need to rephrase myself. If gay marriage goes countrywide, polygamy will still have a foot in the door regardless, but the question now is does it have the strength to push it through.
I need to rephrase myself. If gay marriage goes countrywide, polygamy will still have a foot in the door regardless, but the question now is does it have the strength to push it through.
oink oink onik grunt grunt | 4:54 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Well, if you want to trash the world then by all means legalize polygamy. Women
and Men can both have as many spouses as they please. They can share diseases
and condemn the whole world to eternal damnation.
John Pack Lambert | 4:57 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Another place where polygamy was legal well into the 20th century is China.
I have read writings by anthropologists who totally reject the notion that polygamy is inherently connected with second-class status for women.
Even the assessment that women have been historically treated worse then men in sub-Saharan African societies that practiced polygamy is not universally agreed upon.
It is accepted by at least large numbers of historians that the social status of women was better in African than in Europe in 1500.
I have read writings by anthropologists who totally reject the notion that polygamy is inherently connected with second-class status for women.
Even the assessment that women have been historically treated worse then men in sub-Saharan African societies that practiced polygamy is not universally agreed upon.
It is accepted by at least large numbers of historians that the social status of women was better in African than in Europe in 1500.
Anonymous | 4:58 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Hey, John Pack Lambert, Unless you are married? Please kindly cut the noise!
Anonymous | 4:58 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
"Not even regular marriage has a total spread of equality. And if polygamy
becomes legal by diluting the definition of marriage even more it would allow
for polyandrous marriage as well (woman as the boss)."
Why doesn't regular marriage have a total spread of equality now? If the mother is the breadwinner and the father stays home and there is a divorce, the father is given the children and alimony. It is about as equal legally as it can be right now. If your marriage is not equal, that is the situation that you and your spouse set up.
Women marrying more than one man is an anomaly. Very seldom has it happen in history, but I do agree that if men can legally marry more than one, so can women. Whether or not they will be the boss is yet to be seen.
BUT, you missed the point of my post. Polygamy grows in societies where the man rules. I have never seen anything different. This breeds abuse and as such, I believe that it should remain illegal.
Why doesn't regular marriage have a total spread of equality now? If the mother is the breadwinner and the father stays home and there is a divorce, the father is given the children and alimony. It is about as equal legally as it can be right now. If your marriage is not equal, that is the situation that you and your spouse set up.
Women marrying more than one man is an anomaly. Very seldom has it happen in history, but I do agree that if men can legally marry more than one, so can women. Whether or not they will be the boss is yet to be seen.
BUT, you missed the point of my post. Polygamy grows in societies where the man rules. I have never seen anything different. This breeds abuse and as such, I believe that it should remain illegal.
Legalize disease | 5:00 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
How about spreading some polygamy and sexual diseases.
Wife Swapping | 5:06 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Who needs a father? Most polygamist men don't even know one polygamist kid
from a bunch of other polygamists kids. And who knows who's kids are
who's? Especially when they start swapping wives?
Stink | 5:08 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Polygamy is immoral and that is that! One who knows!
realitycheck | 5:09 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
John Pack Lambert
it seems obvious that you took one of my posts and commented about it, where I had posted other posts and was kind of following up.
Please explain why everyone that is promoting the legalization of polygamy is doing so based on religious reasons? Not for civil rights issues - only for religious reasons.
And is it your opinion that something should be made legal simply because someone wants to practice it as part of their religion, regardless of the harm it causes?
My religion says that all money is common and you should give me half of your bank account. You ok with that? (I'll be waiting by the mailbox for a check...)
it seems obvious that you took one of my posts and commented about it, where I had posted other posts and was kind of following up.
Please explain why everyone that is promoting the legalization of polygamy is doing so based on religious reasons? Not for civil rights issues - only for religious reasons.
And is it your opinion that something should be made legal simply because someone wants to practice it as part of their religion, regardless of the harm it causes?
My religion says that all money is common and you should give me half of your bank account. You ok with that? (I'll be waiting by the mailbox for a check...)
Jon B. Holbrook | 5:16 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Plural marriage can only be practiced when the Lord commands it. The Lord
withdrew the permission to practice plural marriage at the end of the 19th
century and the beginning of the 20th century. Plural marriage is a higher law
of marriage as the law of consecration and stewardship is a higher law than
tithing. Both will be restored when Zion is fully established.
The law now is simply complete chastity before marriage, complete fidelity after marriage and marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Right now we live in a constitutional republic which recognizes certain inalienable rights based on the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
Legally recognizing other forms of 'marriage" as morally equivalent would destroy the basic unit of society which is the traditional family. It would also lead to a legal quagmire. When Denmark recognize homosexual marriage in that country, the institution of marriage collapsed altogether. God's wisdom is superior to man's.
The law now is simply complete chastity before marriage, complete fidelity after marriage and marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Right now we live in a constitutional republic which recognizes certain inalienable rights based on the Judeo-Christian Ethic.
Legally recognizing other forms of 'marriage" as morally equivalent would destroy the basic unit of society which is the traditional family. It would also lead to a legal quagmire. When Denmark recognize homosexual marriage in that country, the institution of marriage collapsed altogether. God's wisdom is superior to man's.
John Pack Lambert | 5:19 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Why I have to be married to speak on the legal issues involved in religious
freedom or on where certain forms of marriage are practiced is beyond me.
Have I said I favor legalizing polygamy? No.
Have I said I think people should practice polygamy? No.
I have just pointed out that most people who practice polygamy in the world do not justify it on religious grounds. Unlike realitycheck, I do not think not justifying it on religious grounds would make it workable.
Of course there is an issue in the practice of polygamy in China that I did not bring up. Wives past the first in iterature related to China are always refered to as concubines.
The best I can say on this issue is that the first large wave of documents in the west on religious issues in China were written by Protestant missionaries who disliked the system of plural marriage in China and sought to malign and discredit it as best they could. Like "scallawags" and the "redemption governments", modern historians have accepted the terms of past writters despite the fact that they do not accept the assumptions inherent in the terms.
Have I said I favor legalizing polygamy? No.
Have I said I think people should practice polygamy? No.
I have just pointed out that most people who practice polygamy in the world do not justify it on religious grounds. Unlike realitycheck, I do not think not justifying it on religious grounds would make it workable.
Of course there is an issue in the practice of polygamy in China that I did not bring up. Wives past the first in iterature related to China are always refered to as concubines.
The best I can say on this issue is that the first large wave of documents in the west on religious issues in China were written by Protestant missionaries who disliked the system of plural marriage in China and sought to malign and discredit it as best they could. Like "scallawags" and the "redemption governments", modern historians have accepted the terms of past writters despite the fact that they do not accept the assumptions inherent in the terms.
Queridas=Mistresses | 5:24 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
queridas = mistresses in Spanish all over Latin America! The more poverty, the
more mistresses.
John Pack Lambert | 5:24 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
My assessment of why second wives in China are always refered to as
"concubines" is largely a guess on my part.
However in my history of China class I never heard a coherent explanation of why they were concubines and not wives. In China your family standing is determined by your father, not your mother. So the children of the concubine have equal social standing with those of the first wife, so this is not a case where the legitimacy of the concubines children is not full.
My main point in sighting polygamy by immigrants from Africa and the Middle East in the United States is to show that most discussions of polygamy in the United States ignore who most of the people who are engaged in the practice are and thus make false assumptions related to other issues connected with the practice.
I still stand by my statement that realitycheck's notion that if without a religious background polygamy could be acceptable is the exact opposite of any accepted jurisprudence based on the First Admendment.
It deriives directly from his hatred of religion and his opinion that all religions are oppresive.
However in my history of China class I never heard a coherent explanation of why they were concubines and not wives. In China your family standing is determined by your father, not your mother. So the children of the concubine have equal social standing with those of the first wife, so this is not a case where the legitimacy of the concubines children is not full.
My main point in sighting polygamy by immigrants from Africa and the Middle East in the United States is to show that most discussions of polygamy in the United States ignore who most of the people who are engaged in the practice are and thus make false assumptions related to other issues connected with the practice.
I still stand by my statement that realitycheck's notion that if without a religious background polygamy could be acceptable is the exact opposite of any accepted jurisprudence based on the First Admendment.
It deriives directly from his hatred of religion and his opinion that all religions are oppresive.
Control freaks | 5:38 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Mr B. Holbrook
There has never ever been such a commandment from god to practice polygamy. Men created polygamy for their own self gratification. Quit being stupid! Some of you people on here are really strange and don't have it together whatsoever.
There has never ever been such a commandment from god to practice polygamy. Men created polygamy for their own self gratification. Quit being stupid! Some of you people on here are really strange and don't have it together whatsoever.
John Pack Lambert | 5:38 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To realitycheck,
I have actually argued that most people do not support polygamy for religious reasons.
Your statement in your 11:46 AM post was "If polygamy was not strictly a religious practice than I could see it working".
I guess I have extrapolated that you are saying it should be legal in that context, but I think this is because we have different notions on the questions of what should be legal and what grounds should be used to make something illegal.
It however is you in the 11:46 post who claim that "polygamy is strictly a religious practice" that is your phrase, not mine.
My point was that wroldwide the vast majority of practionioners of polygamy do not do it as a religious practice.
My only comments on polygamy as a religious practice were to point out that comparing it to religious practices that lead to the loss of human life is inaccurate, since polygamy does not kill people.
The assumption is that practices that lead to the death of a human should be more easy to regulate and that a comparison between such and others is inherently flawed.
I have actually argued that most people do not support polygamy for religious reasons.
Your statement in your 11:46 AM post was "If polygamy was not strictly a religious practice than I could see it working".
I guess I have extrapolated that you are saying it should be legal in that context, but I think this is because we have different notions on the questions of what should be legal and what grounds should be used to make something illegal.
It however is you in the 11:46 post who claim that "polygamy is strictly a religious practice" that is your phrase, not mine.
My point was that wroldwide the vast majority of practionioners of polygamy do not do it as a religious practice.
My only comments on polygamy as a religious practice were to point out that comparing it to religious practices that lead to the loss of human life is inaccurate, since polygamy does not kill people.
The assumption is that practices that lead to the death of a human should be more easy to regulate and that a comparison between such and others is inherently flawed.
realitycheck | 5:39 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
re John Pack lambert
you need to read the posts at 5:16pm by Jon Holbrook, Stink at 5:08pm, others at:
4:54pm
8:18am
7:28pm
and just keep going through the posts. Everytime someone is in favor of polygamy or against same-sex marriage, it is based on religious views.
THATS why I said it may be ok if you can take religion out of it. Simply because if religion was out of it, NO ONE WOULD EVEN WANT TO DO IT. And anything that people want legalized or made illegal simply because of their religious views can't be a good thing. (my opinion)
you need to read the posts at 5:16pm by Jon Holbrook, Stink at 5:08pm, others at:
4:54pm
8:18am
7:28pm
and just keep going through the posts. Everytime someone is in favor of polygamy or against same-sex marriage, it is based on religious views.
THATS why I said it may be ok if you can take religion out of it. Simply because if religion was out of it, NO ONE WOULD EVEN WANT TO DO IT. And anything that people want legalized or made illegal simply because of their religious views can't be a good thing. (my opinion)
John Pack Lambert | 5:46 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Mr Holbrook,
I would recomend you go and read the actual text of D&C 132. The higher law of marriage is eternal marriage. It is the length of the marriage not the number of marriages that is the key.
I know I have probably totally baffled some people. However, this is because I reject the notion that the ends justify the means. Just because I believe that polygamy is wrong in the sight of God, and support the policy of The Church of Jesus Christ in excommunicating those who seek to promote or practice it, does not mean that I believe we need to try and pin down every evil action and act that has ever been committed on polygamists.
I will take issue with any claim that implies that polygamy is a higher order than monogamy. I will not be influenced by quotes from leaders of the Church in the 19th century that seem to indicate this, because you must read their use of monogamy as refering to the practices of monogamists who are not practicing eternal marriage, and usually in the climate of political debate these speakers have obvious reasons to highlight their persecutors faults.
I would recomend you go and read the actual text of D&C 132. The higher law of marriage is eternal marriage. It is the length of the marriage not the number of marriages that is the key.
I know I have probably totally baffled some people. However, this is because I reject the notion that the ends justify the means. Just because I believe that polygamy is wrong in the sight of God, and support the policy of The Church of Jesus Christ in excommunicating those who seek to promote or practice it, does not mean that I believe we need to try and pin down every evil action and act that has ever been committed on polygamists.
I will take issue with any claim that implies that polygamy is a higher order than monogamy. I will not be influenced by quotes from leaders of the Church in the 19th century that seem to indicate this, because you must read their use of monogamy as refering to the practices of monogamists who are not practicing eternal marriage, and usually in the climate of political debate these speakers have obvious reasons to highlight their persecutors faults.
Alert!!!! | 5:45 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Would All polygamy supporters on this post please find the nearest lake or cliff
and PLEASE jump OFF!
Linda Petersen NY
Linda Petersen NY
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Grizzlies lend forward to AHL team 2:06 a.m.
- Basic Sports Training clinic Saturday 2:06 a.m.
- Tony Finau reaches Big Break finale 2:05 a.m.
- Chicken-lovers dance for free food 2:02 a.m.
- Kansas' Secret Santa gives away $ 1:24 a.m.
- 75 hostages seized in Phillippines 1:24 a.m.
- Gates: US to be Afghan partner 1:23 a.m.
- Al-Qaida claims credit for blasts 1:23 a.m.
- Utah Utes campus briefs 12:39 a.m.
- SUU campus briefs 12:37 a.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Snow brings big chill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Letters: Global warming a lie
229 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall184
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead119
- Revive full food tax?100
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke94
- Palin signs books, chats with fans94
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Top 5 Players in minutes played: Utah 1 Fr, 2 Jr, 2 Sr Jr Carlon Brown...
Yep "self righteous" if the rest of us who don't rubber neck left, you would...
Thank you for keeping the team here for all of these years, and for always...
of misery, inconsistency, road games losses and of course, NO TITLE ! Long...
Glad to hear about Matt and the others who demonstrate you can play at a high...
I guess they forgot that God made clothes for Adam and Eve and that was...
and good luck.
There is an inherent problem in any rating system -- it takes into account...
Give Phillips some credit. He was 5/5 in field goals in the YBU game, and the...
Mr. Bender's kind of thinking doesn't even acknowledge that the world is...
Advertisements
To act upon something is to choose. Human beings act and are not acted upon. Therefore, the reasoning about homosexuality as inheritant is completely fabricated. It is a choice. This whole thing about civil rights is nothing more than a way to force a lifestyle upon the World. The definition of marriage between man and woman is defined by our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. It is ordained of God and no other definition is acceptable to either, nor should it be acceptable to anyone on earth. Almost all religions on this earth condemn homosexuality.
Pologamy however, is permitted by our Heavenly Father given the correct circumstances. There are even some religions where it is practiced, other than Christianity.