Reader comments
Readers' forum: Don't legalize polygamy
254 comments | Read story
nurse-Deedra | 5:53 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Oh, John Lambert
Of course, polygamy can kill people, and with sexual transmitted diseases. What's wrong with you? Some of you guys on here really nutso!
Of course, polygamy can kill people, and with sexual transmitted diseases. What's wrong with you? Some of you guys on here really nutso!
John Pack Lambert | 5:56 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To the 5:24 commentator,
Your statement ignores the fact that the Church excommunicates people for adultery in the United States. It ignores the extra-marital relations that many wealthy basketball players are involved in. Most of all it ignores the official mistresses of the French Kings under the Ancient Regime and related issues.
Your linking of poverty with promiscuity is far too simplitic.
Your statement ignores the fact that the Church excommunicates people for adultery in the United States. It ignores the extra-marital relations that many wealthy basketball players are involved in. Most of all it ignores the official mistresses of the French Kings under the Ancient Regime and related issues.
Your linking of poverty with promiscuity is far too simplitic.
Comments continue below
mistress | 6:00 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Ricki Lake Show - Minisode - I'm Ready to Confront My H ...with FIVE
MISTRESSES.
Shows / Drama, Docs and Reality TV / TV Reality Shows / The Minisode Network
Shows / Drama, Docs and Reality TV / TV Reality Shows / The Minisode Network
John Pack Lambert | 6:03 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To realitycheck,
While as I said, in the inter-mountain west support for polygamy may be based on religion in most cases, this is not true if we take a broader view of the United States let alone the world.
There have been many posts on here arguing a secular reason for rejecting same-gender marriage. You may disagree with their logic, but I would reccomend that you accept that the people truly believe their reasoning makes sense.
Secondly, I would recomend you think about the so-called "religious case for same gender marriage". Some of your logic becomes convoluted if you do that.
Thirdly, just because no Hmong polygamists or Polygamists who practice it because of their cultural origins in West Africa have posted on this discussion board does not mean they do not exist.
Lastly your logic that since no one would support plural marriage without a religious argument for it we should ban it, even if it were based on truth about the reasons behind plural marriage, is faulty. You are saying we should seek to eradicate a practice because it is only a religious practice.
More
While as I said, in the inter-mountain west support for polygamy may be based on religion in most cases, this is not true if we take a broader view of the United States let alone the world.
There have been many posts on here arguing a secular reason for rejecting same-gender marriage. You may disagree with their logic, but I would reccomend that you accept that the people truly believe their reasoning makes sense.
Secondly, I would recomend you think about the so-called "religious case for same gender marriage". Some of your logic becomes convoluted if you do that.
Thirdly, just because no Hmong polygamists or Polygamists who practice it because of their cultural origins in West Africa have posted on this discussion board does not mean they do not exist.
Lastly your logic that since no one would support plural marriage without a religious argument for it we should ban it, even if it were based on truth about the reasons behind plural marriage, is faulty. You are saying we should seek to eradicate a practice because it is only a religious practice.
More
Pete | 6:05 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Polygamy is for over sexed deviates. Women who want more than one husband are
just as bad as the men are. These kind of people need emotional help for their
lack of self control. Oh yeah, quit blaming god.
realitycheck | 6:05 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
I just read your 5:46pm post and it is clear what the problem is... you are
looking at this as an issue with your religion's covenants.
I haven't and wouldn't read your religious books, based on some dude using seer stones. I also don't believe ANYONE has actually had a conversation with God. So while you follow a bunch of strict rules written by men that portray themselves to have God's ear, I simply use common sense in determining what is right and what is wrong.
If it hurts others, or reduces the rights of anyone (like polygamy), it is a bad thing. if it hurts no one (like same sex marriage), it is ok. If it helps people and hurts no one, it is a good thing.
It's that simple. Don't need a bunch of books to stay on God's good side. It pretty much just boils down to the golden rule - written by a great philosopher many years ago..
is it fairly clear that my opinion of organized religion is that it falls into the first category?
I haven't and wouldn't read your religious books, based on some dude using seer stones. I also don't believe ANYONE has actually had a conversation with God. So while you follow a bunch of strict rules written by men that portray themselves to have God's ear, I simply use common sense in determining what is right and what is wrong.
If it hurts others, or reduces the rights of anyone (like polygamy), it is a bad thing. if it hurts no one (like same sex marriage), it is ok. If it helps people and hurts no one, it is a good thing.
It's that simple. Don't need a bunch of books to stay on God's good side. It pretty much just boils down to the golden rule - written by a great philosopher many years ago..
is it fairly clear that my opinion of organized religion is that it falls into the first category?
TO: 2:13 p.m | 6:11 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
TO: 2:13 p.m
mistress | 6:00 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Ricki Lake Show - Minisode - I'm Ready to Confront My H ...with FIVE MISTRESSES.
Shows / Drama, Docs and Reality TV / TV Reality Shows / The Minisode Network
mistress | 6:00 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Ricki Lake Show - Minisode - I'm Ready to Confront My H ...with FIVE MISTRESSES.
Shows / Drama, Docs and Reality TV / TV Reality Shows / The Minisode Network
John Pack Lambert | 6:09 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Realitycheck,
At least as I understand the most anti-religion ruling in US history, well, second most anti-religion ruling, Employment Devision v. Smith, the state can outlaw soemthing if it has a secular purpose, but if its purpose is to destroy a practice that is only condemned because it only arises from religion than the state does not have a secular, non-discriminatory purpose.
If you take the un-overtuned Idaho Test oath ruling by the supreme court you can argue that certain religious practices are so repugnant that the state can take proactive steps to see that they are eradicated.
While the US Supreme Court has not overturned this ruling both the Utah and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have made rulings that make it so that the government can not deney someone such freedoms as freedom of speech merely because they are using this freedom to promote polygamy.
However Shepp v. Shepp, the one that seems to say that, is an odd case. This is largely because it is built on the false reading of the Yoder case encapsulated in the Smith case.
Persnally I think the ruling in Shepp v. Shepp is unwise. More.
At least as I understand the most anti-religion ruling in US history, well, second most anti-religion ruling, Employment Devision v. Smith, the state can outlaw soemthing if it has a secular purpose, but if its purpose is to destroy a practice that is only condemned because it only arises from religion than the state does not have a secular, non-discriminatory purpose.
If you take the un-overtuned Idaho Test oath ruling by the supreme court you can argue that certain religious practices are so repugnant that the state can take proactive steps to see that they are eradicated.
While the US Supreme Court has not overturned this ruling both the Utah and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have made rulings that make it so that the government can not deney someone such freedoms as freedom of speech merely because they are using this freedom to promote polygamy.
However Shepp v. Shepp, the one that seems to say that, is an odd case. This is largely because it is built on the false reading of the Yoder case encapsulated in the Smith case.
Persnally I think the ruling in Shepp v. Shepp is unwise. More.
FANTASYCHECK | 6:16 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
TO: realitycheck
From: fantasycheck
From: fantasycheck
John Pack Lambert | 6:18 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Shepp v. Shepp was a case involving a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Shepp) and her ex-husband (also Shepp) who had been
excommunicated for trying to convince his step daughter to become his second
wife. Shepp had re-married, but had not yet convinced anyone to become his
second wife, but he was clearly still determined to do so.
Shepp argued that because polygamy is illegal in Pennsylvania, the visitation rights of Mr. Shepp should be terminated or at least he should be forbidden from trying to teach their daughter ideas in favor of polygamy.
I think Ms. Shepp should have been granted this request since she had custody, and I think the parent having custody should be able to make actual decisions in raising the child.
However, there is the problem that the court followed Smith and held that if the issue was merely plural marriage, then Ms. Shepp would win. However they claimed that this also invoked the Yoder principal of parental control of child education, and with two issues invoked Mr. Shepp won.
I dislike the notion that religious freedom only works when it is paired with another violation of rights.
Shepp argued that because polygamy is illegal in Pennsylvania, the visitation rights of Mr. Shepp should be terminated or at least he should be forbidden from trying to teach their daughter ideas in favor of polygamy.
I think Ms. Shepp should have been granted this request since she had custody, and I think the parent having custody should be able to make actual decisions in raising the child.
However, there is the problem that the court followed Smith and held that if the issue was merely plural marriage, then Ms. Shepp would win. However they claimed that this also invoked the Yoder principal of parental control of child education, and with two issues invoked Mr. Shepp won.
I dislike the notion that religious freedom only works when it is paired with another violation of rights.
realitycheck | 6:22 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
to clarify my last comment - no, I don't think religion should be illegal.
That would be rediculous. But I do think that practices that hurt people that
are based on religious principles shouldn't be legal simply because someone
wants to do them for religious purposes. (I also think organized religion
causes way more problems than it solves, especially in isolation. But
that's an entirely different matter and this isn't the right
forum.)
I am actually suprised that someone like John Pack Lambert, who comes across as fairly educated, would be in the mormon religion. No offense to mormons, but revolving your life around the writings of someone that used seer stones to predict the future just doesn't seem very logical... again - no offense intended.
I am actually suprised that someone like John Pack Lambert, who comes across as fairly educated, would be in the mormon religion. No offense to mormons, but revolving your life around the writings of someone that used seer stones to predict the future just doesn't seem very logical... again - no offense intended.
Your own evil | 6:22 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
If you want an evil world than do as the devil would do, and go get a bunch of
wives. AND THEN, TO TOP IT ALL OFF! GO AND BLAME GOD FOR IT!
Anonymous | 6:25 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
The person who wrote this article is a lame brain.
John Pack Lambert | 6:26 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To the 5:53 commentator,
Well, the comparison to honor killings which is what I actually responded to was a comparison to something that will kill you.
On the other hand, on occasion people have drowned while being baptized, or at least while coming back to shore from where they were bapatized.
If your doctrine of heightened risk of sexually transmitted disease had any legal merit, than Lawrence v. Texas would have been decided in favor of Texas. The highetened risk of contracting the AIDS virus from sodomy as opposed to other forms of sexual contact would justify outlawing such conduct.
You have to keep in mind that polygamy can get someone put in prison and sodomy can not, and to defend the former you have to come up with an issue that apllies at least less to the latter. In the case of STDs it is the other way around, sodomy is the form of sexual contact most likely to spread a whole host of diseases.
Well, the comparison to honor killings which is what I actually responded to was a comparison to something that will kill you.
On the other hand, on occasion people have drowned while being baptized, or at least while coming back to shore from where they were bapatized.
If your doctrine of heightened risk of sexually transmitted disease had any legal merit, than Lawrence v. Texas would have been decided in favor of Texas. The highetened risk of contracting the AIDS virus from sodomy as opposed to other forms of sexual contact would justify outlawing such conduct.
You have to keep in mind that polygamy can get someone put in prison and sodomy can not, and to defend the former you have to come up with an issue that apllies at least less to the latter. In the case of STDs it is the other way around, sodomy is the form of sexual contact most likely to spread a whole host of diseases.
D | 6:32 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
***************************************************
IDEAL TEST CASE (Checklists for Anti/Pro-Polygamy SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS)
( ) "GENDER NEUTRAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS (TEST/PROOF), AND
( ) "IDEALLY ASYMMETRIC EQUALITY OF GENDERS (TEST/PROOF),
( ) "BASIC-MINIMUM GENDER EQUALITY STANDARD (TEST/PROOF)," IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS (ULTRA-SECULAR COURTS)"
IDEAL TEST CASE WITH CORE:
( ) WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in all States) (as FIRST TEST CASE) with parental rights;
( ) CIVIL UNIONS CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in some States) (SECOND TEST CASE);
( ) DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in some States) (SECOND TEST CASE),
( ) COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (UTAH ONLY) (SECOND TEST CASE)
( ) Mutual-commitment registry for polygamists/ous (SECOND TEST CASE)
CRITERIA:
( ) ATTAINABLE
( ) CREDIBLE
( ) INEVITABLE
NOTICE OF MORAL RIGHTS OTHER CREDITS AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO DEBATER AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AS FACTS AND FICTION, QUASI-FACT AND QUASI-FICTION, AND RESEARCH, IN PREVIOUS CLAIMERS AND DISCLAIMERS.
***************************************************
IDEAL TEST CASE (Checklists for Anti/Pro-Polygamy SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS)
( ) "GENDER NEUTRAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS (TEST/PROOF), AND
( ) "IDEALLY ASYMMETRIC EQUALITY OF GENDERS (TEST/PROOF),
( ) "BASIC-MINIMUM GENDER EQUALITY STANDARD (TEST/PROOF)," IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS (ULTRA-SECULAR COURTS)"
IDEAL TEST CASE WITH CORE:
( ) WRITTEN PRENUPTIAL CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in all States) (as FIRST TEST CASE) with parental rights;
( ) CIVIL UNIONS CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in some States) (SECOND TEST CASE);
( ) DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (in some States) (SECOND TEST CASE),
( ) COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP CONTRACTS for polygamists/ous (UTAH ONLY) (SECOND TEST CASE)
( ) Mutual-commitment registry for polygamists/ous (SECOND TEST CASE)
CRITERIA:
( ) ATTAINABLE
( ) CREDIBLE
( ) INEVITABLE
NOTICE OF MORAL RIGHTS OTHER CREDITS AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO DEBATER AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AS FACTS AND FICTION, QUASI-FACT AND QUASI-FICTION, AND RESEARCH, IN PREVIOUS CLAIMERS AND DISCLAIMERS.
***************************************************
John Pack Lambert | 6:32 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
To 6:05,
The problem is that you refuse to recognize that there are millions of people on the earth who have practiced polygamy without ever having heard of Joseph Smith or the Bible, and that even though saying that most practitioners of it today are ignorant of these things totally is probably a bit strong, most practitioners of polygamy world wide do not base their practice on the belief that they are fulling a specific commandment of God to practice it.
After that you next biggest problem is that although some of your arguments about having a religious origin in the practice would apply to "Christian" polygamists who base the practice on their reading of the Bible, at least the most vocal supporters of this movement in the United States reject underage marriages and insist polygamy must be built on mutual love, and in no way claim that a man can recieve a revelation that makes it so a specific woman must marry him.
The fact that the most vocal supporters of Christian polygamy in the US are website operators in Maine who apparently do not actually practice it, makes it easy for them to be so idealistic.
The problem is that you refuse to recognize that there are millions of people on the earth who have practiced polygamy without ever having heard of Joseph Smith or the Bible, and that even though saying that most practitioners of it today are ignorant of these things totally is probably a bit strong, most practitioners of polygamy world wide do not base their practice on the belief that they are fulling a specific commandment of God to practice it.
After that you next biggest problem is that although some of your arguments about having a religious origin in the practice would apply to "Christian" polygamists who base the practice on their reading of the Bible, at least the most vocal supporters of this movement in the United States reject underage marriages and insist polygamy must be built on mutual love, and in no way claim that a man can recieve a revelation that makes it so a specific woman must marry him.
The fact that the most vocal supporters of Christian polygamy in the US are website operators in Maine who apparently do not actually practice it, makes it easy for them to be so idealistic.
Well, it's been interesting... | 6:35 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
But I am signing off on this discussion. Before I do let me say that I enjoy
"Realitycheck" and although I find John Lambert intersting, I also
find him very long winded and go into things that aren't necessary (in my
opinion). To simplify things I would like to summorize by repeating something
I've said and others have also. Be good to each other and treat others as
you would want to be treated yourself. Don't hurt others (men or women)
because you would not like to be hurt yourself. And please don't tell
people that "God" has spoken to you or your leaders. Of course, you
may believe that inside, but you really should consider getting psychological
help.
Same Song, Differnt words | 6:41 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Yes, you are so right,
�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!�
Circa 1969:
And we get tired of small minded people trying to compare gay people and straight people! They are different! Homosexuality has been shown time and again to cause many problems. It is wrong...plain and simple. There are not always bad homosexuals, but homosexuality itself, is bad!
The arguments were the same then. Only the minority group has changed.
�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!�
Circa 1969:
And we get tired of small minded people trying to compare gay people and straight people! They are different! Homosexuality has been shown time and again to cause many problems. It is wrong...plain and simple. There are not always bad homosexuals, but homosexuality itself, is bad!
The arguments were the same then. Only the minority group has changed.
I Respect women & 1 wife | 7:19 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Ya, know, John Pack Lambert...I don't give a hoot who, or where, or how
it's practiced --- POLYGAMY is morally wrong!
PETE
PETE
BIG LOVE SITCOM | 7:49 p.m. Jan. 15, 2009
Review: 'Big Love' on HBO
awsomeron | 5:02 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Don't legalize polygamy: The only objection I have to polygamy is that it
is against the Law.
Provided of course everyone is over 18 and taking part of their own free will, and is not otherwise related.
I would not do it, however the above aside. If their is No Physical or Mental Abuse and the family supports its self and the kids are well cared for. Then I don't care if you do. I will not keep my kids from playing with your kids.
There are situations that are a lot worse. I am not going to ask personal questions because it is non of my business. I will just be a good neighbor and friend and i know my wife will do the same. My kids do not pick on people so that�s not an issue. Nor do they allow themselves to be picked on.
Again my main and only objection is that it is against the Law. Change The Law.
Same goes for Gay Marriage. If you do not like work within the system to change the Law. We can do that in America.
In the mean time the Law stands.
Provided of course everyone is over 18 and taking part of their own free will, and is not otherwise related.
I would not do it, however the above aside. If their is No Physical or Mental Abuse and the family supports its self and the kids are well cared for. Then I don't care if you do. I will not keep my kids from playing with your kids.
There are situations that are a lot worse. I am not going to ask personal questions because it is non of my business. I will just be a good neighbor and friend and i know my wife will do the same. My kids do not pick on people so that�s not an issue. Nor do they allow themselves to be picked on.
Again my main and only objection is that it is against the Law. Change The Law.
Same goes for Gay Marriage. If you do not like work within the system to change the Law. We can do that in America.
In the mean time the Law stands.
There's no argument for SSM... | 7:55 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
...that can't be adopted for polygamy in various forms (polygyny,
polyandry, or group marriage). I am no apologist for polygamy, nor do I desire
to see it legalized. But the arguments against it here are pretty weak:
-It's immoral and wrong (Why? Many claim the same of SSM.)
-Its bad record (Need to see past the FLDS stereotype - just as SSM shouldn't be judged by the Castro District and 70's/80's bath houses in San Francisco. Legalization would bring polygamy out of the underground to where it can be policed.)
-It's anti-women (So was traditional marriage until the last 50 years; there's no reason that legal safeguards can't exist as with regular marriage. Polyandry and group marriage are hardly anti-women, nor is polygyny by consenting women.)
-It's something only religious folks want (Even if true, so what? If SSM was connected to religion, would that undermine it? If SSM/polygamy is held to be a civil right, the whole secular/sectarian argument is meaningless.)
-Marriage is between two people (Polygamy has a heckava longer resume than SSM when it comes to defining what marriage is.)
-It'll bring God's wrath (Maybe so, but that's hardly very compelling from a legal standpoint.)
-It's immoral and wrong (Why? Many claim the same of SSM.)
-Its bad record (Need to see past the FLDS stereotype - just as SSM shouldn't be judged by the Castro District and 70's/80's bath houses in San Francisco. Legalization would bring polygamy out of the underground to where it can be policed.)
-It's anti-women (So was traditional marriage until the last 50 years; there's no reason that legal safeguards can't exist as with regular marriage. Polyandry and group marriage are hardly anti-women, nor is polygyny by consenting women.)
-It's something only religious folks want (Even if true, so what? If SSM was connected to religion, would that undermine it? If SSM/polygamy is held to be a civil right, the whole secular/sectarian argument is meaningless.)
-Marriage is between two people (Polygamy has a heckava longer resume than SSM when it comes to defining what marriage is.)
-It'll bring God's wrath (Maybe so, but that's hardly very compelling from a legal standpoint.)
To those of you that | 8:21 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
think that the arguments against polygamy are weak...maybe you have not heard
the many personal stories that I have (even in my own family tree). My great
great grandfather married his second and third "wives" on the same day
while my great great grandmother hid at her parents home and was great with
child. There was no "divorce" (or she didn't know of it) so she
stayed with him, but had little to do with him. After shortage of food and
money, much pain and heartache my great great grandfather gave up the practice
and told all around him the faults of this practice and of his ways. The family
is still a little bitter about it to this day. I'm not saying all stories
are the same and I'm sure that occasionally good things may happen. But
basically this practice is faulty. Of course relationships will not always last,
but both women and men should end their past relationships before starting
another one. It is only common sense.
Rachael | 9:20 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Re :To those of you that
My Gr, Gr, grandparents were Mormon polygamist and the women in my family involved hated polygamy. My story is also a sad one and much like yours. There is no doubt that women do suffer under these immoral conditions. Some polygamist were even told to say to others that it was good, and to put up and shut up no matter if they believed in it or not. It was a mans world --not a women's. Men had choices and women had none.
My Gr, Gr, grandparents were Mormon polygamist and the women in my family involved hated polygamy. My story is also a sad one and much like yours. There is no doubt that women do suffer under these immoral conditions. Some polygamist were even told to say to others that it was good, and to put up and shut up no matter if they believed in it or not. It was a mans world --not a women's. Men had choices and women had none.
To Jon B. Holbrook | 9:46 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
"When Denmark recognize homosexual marriage in that country, the
institution of marriage collapsed altogether."
It was collapsing LONG before gay marriage was accepted in that country. Check you facts.
It was collapsing LONG before gay marriage was accepted in that country. Check you facts.
re 7:55am | 9:50 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
you are quite wrong on point 3. It does harm women. If there is one man and
multiple women, then the women will not have as many rights as the man,
especially the 2nd, 3rd, etc wives.
You want polygamy legalized? then come up with a contract for all parties. Instead of a marriage contract, it would be a multi-marriage contract. All parties would need to sign it - all wives and the husband.
the current marriage contract, whether man/woman or same sex, is fairly specific, and there are laws in each state defining the rights of each party.
I think you would get very little push-back to legalizing polygamy if all parties had to read, UNDERSTAND, and sign a contract between the multiple parties, explaining each party's individual rights and duties.
You ok with that? Because I bet most polygamist men would have a real hard time signing away so many of their "assumed" rights when bringing on a second wife (his property now split 3 or more ways) and there would be many 1st or 2nd wives that refuse to sign away some of their property or inheritance rights.
But polygamy would be legal.... go for it.
You want polygamy legalized? then come up with a contract for all parties. Instead of a marriage contract, it would be a multi-marriage contract. All parties would need to sign it - all wives and the husband.
the current marriage contract, whether man/woman or same sex, is fairly specific, and there are laws in each state defining the rights of each party.
I think you would get very little push-back to legalizing polygamy if all parties had to read, UNDERSTAND, and sign a contract between the multiple parties, explaining each party's individual rights and duties.
You ok with that? Because I bet most polygamist men would have a real hard time signing away so many of their "assumed" rights when bringing on a second wife (his property now split 3 or more ways) and there would be many 1st or 2nd wives that refuse to sign away some of their property or inheritance rights.
But polygamy would be legal.... go for it.
Progression of Marriage | 10:02 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Watch and see, this will probably happen.
1. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman
2. Marriage = 2 men or 2 women
3. Marriage = 1 man + 2 or more women
4. Marriage = 1 woman + 2 or more men
5. Marriage = 2 or more men + 2 or more women
6. Marriage is so encompassing it is meaningless, so it is abolished as a Government sanctioned institution. To borrow a line from The Incredibiles: "and when everyone is special, no one is"
1. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman
2. Marriage = 2 men or 2 women
3. Marriage = 1 man + 2 or more women
4. Marriage = 1 woman + 2 or more men
5. Marriage = 2 or more men + 2 or more women
6. Marriage is so encompassing it is meaningless, so it is abolished as a Government sanctioned institution. To borrow a line from The Incredibiles: "and when everyone is special, no one is"
And so the saga continues | 10:09 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
I agrree with you that they would have to come up with a fair, legal, contract.
And what are the chances of that happening? Almost none. I guess this is
kind've like "reverse psycholgy" in that a person would have to
come up with fair, equal agreements for all when the very practice is not fair
or equal at all. So in the reverse psychology sense, I agree. Go for it (if
you can) polygamists!
to D 6:32pm | 10:13 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
it's quite obvious you wannabe a lawyer.
unfortunately, you do not have the proper communications skills. I strongly suggest the Evelyn Woodhead reading course and the Gary Troderite logic course. Or you can just keep posting totally incomprehensible comments in CAPS.
your call...
unfortunately, you do not have the proper communications skills. I strongly suggest the Evelyn Woodhead reading course and the Gary Troderite logic course. Or you can just keep posting totally incomprehensible comments in CAPS.
your call...
re: 9:50 am | 10:13 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
""you are quite wrong on point 3. It does harm women. If there is one
man and multiple women, then the women will not have as many rights as the man,
especially the 2nd, 3rd, etc wives.""
Your right, having not as many rights as the man is A LOT worse than having no rights whatsoever, which is closer to the current situation.
Your right, having not as many rights as the man is A LOT worse than having no rights whatsoever, which is closer to the current situation.
warm & cozy | 10:22 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
The world is immoral anyway you look at it, So what's wrong with a few
wives to help out with us men, and keep us fellers all happy and satisfied?
The problem with legalizing it-- is how do we keep woman from having a dozen husbands?
The problem with legalizing it-- is how do we keep woman from having a dozen husbands?
realitycheck | 10:32 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
I wrote the 9:50 post - should have signed
to continue -
all you wannabe polygamists should consider developing such a contract. It would have to be different than the regular marriage contract since it has to cover more than 2 people, plus any children, etc.
and when a wife filed for divorce, many assets would need to be liquidated so the spouse leaving would be able to get her share. (This would hurt the remaining parties).
And the amount of child support the man would have to pay would get very high if a wife leaves with her children. (This too would hurt the other wives).
The man wouldn't have as much claim to the children since the wife has 50% of the children and the man has a lesser % (everything he has is split by all parties so with 5 wives he would only have a 20% stake in each child). And any assets aquired during the time of multiple wives would be owned by all parties.
I think it would get very interesting - and very ugly.
I say we go for it. If nothing else, it would make a great reality TV show...
to continue -
all you wannabe polygamists should consider developing such a contract. It would have to be different than the regular marriage contract since it has to cover more than 2 people, plus any children, etc.
and when a wife filed for divorce, many assets would need to be liquidated so the spouse leaving would be able to get her share. (This would hurt the remaining parties).
And the amount of child support the man would have to pay would get very high if a wife leaves with her children. (This too would hurt the other wives).
The man wouldn't have as much claim to the children since the wife has 50% of the children and the man has a lesser % (everything he has is split by all parties so with 5 wives he would only have a 20% stake in each child). And any assets aquired during the time of multiple wives would be owned by all parties.
I think it would get very interesting - and very ugly.
I say we go for it. If nothing else, it would make a great reality TV show...
Shame on you! | 10:35 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
HEY! do you folks realize that you are talking about legalizing immorality? What
is wrong with you nut heads?
realitycheck | 10:36 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
re poster at 10:13am
well, I read your post 3 times and still can't figure out whether you're agreeing or disagreeing - or what you are trying to say.
who has no rights whatsoever? which "current situation"? you need to be more specific....
well, I read your post 3 times and still can't figure out whether you're agreeing or disagreeing - or what you are trying to say.
who has no rights whatsoever? which "current situation"? you need to be more specific....
MA | 10:43 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Where is that whippersnapper, polygamist, KNOW IT ALL, JOHN PACK LAMBERT?
I'm afraid this boy is looking excommunication straight forward in the eye.
Mike M. | 10:48 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
To Shame on you! at 10:35 a.m.
Oh your mindless tunnel view is really something to laugh at. Let me make it simple for you dear. No one is legalizing immorality. Just because you think something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Just because your silly books that you read, that were written ages ago by so called "prophets" doesn't mean that everyone has to follow those rules! Live your life, let others live theirs, it is that simple. No one is legalizing immorality, we are legalizing fredom of choice! If I am not mistaking, that was Christ's plan since the very beginning- FREE AGENCY!
Oh your mindless tunnel view is really something to laugh at. Let me make it simple for you dear. No one is legalizing immorality. Just because you think something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Just because your silly books that you read, that were written ages ago by so called "prophets" doesn't mean that everyone has to follow those rules! Live your life, let others live theirs, it is that simple. No one is legalizing immorality, we are legalizing fredom of choice! If I am not mistaking, that was Christ's plan since the very beginning- FREE AGENCY!
re Shame on you! 10:35am | 10:48 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
based on who's morals? yours? what makes your morals right?
and what do you base your morals on? God? who's God? which God?
you need to understand that your morals and everyone elses morals are not necessarily the same. and basing laws on your religious beliefs doesn't work because your God isn't necessarily the same God as everyone elses...
yeah, yeah - I know - blasphemy!!!
and what do you base your morals on? God? who's God? which God?
you need to understand that your morals and everyone elses morals are not necessarily the same. and basing laws on your religious beliefs doesn't work because your God isn't necessarily the same God as everyone elses...
yeah, yeah - I know - blasphemy!!!
movie stars think we love them | 10:58 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Tom Hanks never speaks out on politics- But the first time he spoke it was
against the church. I can't wait to boycott his programs and
movies....Hanks, Executive Producer, for HBO�s
controversial polygamist series �Big
Love,� made his feelings toward the Mormon
Church�s involvement in California's Prop 8 (which
prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show�s premiere
party on Wednesday night.
�The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,� he told Tarts. �There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them.
�The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,� he told Tarts. �There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them.
re movie stars 10:58am | 11:09 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
if you want to boycott someone because you don't like what they said, then
go ahead.
I only boycott those that don't speak the truth, and since everything he said is true, I just can't justify boycotting him for that....
I only boycott those that don't speak the truth, and since everything he said is true, I just can't justify boycotting him for that....
Anonymous | 11:11 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
"I can't wait to boycott his programs and movies...."
So it is perfectly fine to boycott any business in which the individual owners or managers donated to Prop 8? It is the same thing, isn't it?
So it is perfectly fine to boycott any business in which the individual owners or managers donated to Prop 8? It is the same thing, isn't it?
Ha Ha! | 11:18 a.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Oh, funny! now you people are bringing HOLLYWOOD into the picture on here. That
makes sense though, with "Big Love" an HBO series and also the series
"REAL SEX".. SAME CHANNEL & SAME STATION --- A REAL pigga-thon!
to Anon 11:11am | 12:18 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
yes - it is the same thing.
and yes - it is perfectly fine.
and yes - it is perfectly fine.
@ re 7:55 | 12:24 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
You're mistakenly assuming that the issue is the potential for abuse and
subordination of spousal rights. While that's certainly a concern, the
issue is whether a consenting adult should have the right to enter into such a
relationship and have it legally recognized. If SSM becomes a protected right
(because consenting, loving gay adults want their relationship recognized by the
state), then why does the same not apply to people who are in love with multiple
people and want similar recognition? Where does one draw a line between what is
a legally acceptable relationship and what is not?
The principle of whether such a right exists is independent of the mere potential for abuse. The law recognizes traditional marriage regardless of the possibility of coercive or unequal relationships (pre-nups being a classic example). The point is that consenting adults may freely choose to enter such legal marriages, despite understanding that such a marriage may not leave them as equals. You enter a marriage with open eyes and reap the consequences.
***For the record, I do NOT support recognition of polygamous marriages - I just think it's silly to argue for SSM while ignoring the unintended possibilities of other legal relationships.***
The principle of whether such a right exists is independent of the mere potential for abuse. The law recognizes traditional marriage regardless of the possibility of coercive or unequal relationships (pre-nups being a classic example). The point is that consenting adults may freely choose to enter such legal marriages, despite understanding that such a marriage may not leave them as equals. You enter a marriage with open eyes and reap the consequences.
***For the record, I do NOT support recognition of polygamous marriages - I just think it's silly to argue for SSM while ignoring the unintended possibilities of other legal relationships.***
realitycheck | 12:46 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
poster at 12:@4pm (to @re 7:55) (I wrote the post)
no - I am not assuming the issue is the potential for abuse. I am merely stating that there already exists a contract (and associated laws) that protect all parties for 2-person marriages.
You want multi-person marriages? then come up with a contract (and associated laws) that protect all parties for multi-person marriages.
since all parties are affected, all parties must sign. So unfortunately for the man, his prior wives must all sign, and they would be giving up some rights (or at least some right to some properties.)
like I said - if people want polygamist marriages (or multi-person marriages) then that's fine. Just make it legal via a contract. And just like any other contract, all parties must sign (just like both parties sign on a regular 2-person marriage).
I just think that the guy will have a hard time getting the earlier wives to sign the contract, and he might not like having to sign away most of his property, since it now must be split between a lot more people. 2 person marriage means both parties get half. Multi-person marriage means everyone gets a percent.
no - I am not assuming the issue is the potential for abuse. I am merely stating that there already exists a contract (and associated laws) that protect all parties for 2-person marriages.
You want multi-person marriages? then come up with a contract (and associated laws) that protect all parties for multi-person marriages.
since all parties are affected, all parties must sign. So unfortunately for the man, his prior wives must all sign, and they would be giving up some rights (or at least some right to some properties.)
like I said - if people want polygamist marriages (or multi-person marriages) then that's fine. Just make it legal via a contract. And just like any other contract, all parties must sign (just like both parties sign on a regular 2-person marriage).
I just think that the guy will have a hard time getting the earlier wives to sign the contract, and he might not like having to sign away most of his property, since it now must be split between a lot more people. 2 person marriage means both parties get half. Multi-person marriage means everyone gets a percent.
Anonymous | 1:14 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
realitycheck | 12:46 p.m
I absolutely agree with you. Polygamy is practiced in countries where the man owns the property (and usually the wives.) Who, in their right minds would want to have such a convoluted contract?
I say make it legal and see how many men can get more than one sane woman to sign up for this. As far as that goes, see how many sane men want this.
I absolutely agree with you. Polygamy is practiced in countries where the man owns the property (and usually the wives.) Who, in their right minds would want to have such a convoluted contract?
I say make it legal and see how many men can get more than one sane woman to sign up for this. As far as that goes, see how many sane men want this.
re: realitycheck | 1:15 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
If your only concern is drawing up a contract to define the rights of the
marital parties, then I don't see what the issue is. The legal mechanics
of drafting such a contract would be interesting (Are each of the partners in
the marriage taking property as tenants in common? Tenants by the entirety?),
but certainly not impossible. Likewise with issues like estate planning and
intestacy.
Provided the legal right to enter a polygamous marriage exists, the law doesn't care if the husband (or wife in polyandry) can't get a potential spouse to sign on the dotted line.
Provided the legal right to enter a polygamous marriage exists, the law doesn't care if the husband (or wife in polyandry) can't get a potential spouse to sign on the dotted line.
Kevin | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
@ 11:18****I agree with you. I'm not an LDS member, and i have seen both
perverted series on HBO. Once was more than enough for me, and as you said, a
REAL PIG-A-THON of nothing but perverted sexual trash.
awsomeron | 1:34 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Realitycheck: I agree with you Gays are not Pedophiles no more then
Heterosexuals are.
Pedophiles weather they like girls, boys, or both and what age group is completely different from being Straight or Gay. What I do not agree with is that its opportunistic, in short what ever is there will do. Very much not the case.
Plural marriage in all its forms, provided everyone is of legal age. Is not pedophilia. To connect the two gives both a bad name.
Other then Not being legal, Plural Marriage does not have to be harmful.
Pedophiles by their very nature and the nature of what they do are harmful and dangerous 24/7.
Pedophiles weather they like girls, boys, or both and what age group is completely different from being Straight or Gay. What I do not agree with is that its opportunistic, in short what ever is there will do. Very much not the case.
Plural marriage in all its forms, provided everyone is of legal age. Is not pedophilia. To connect the two gives both a bad name.
Other then Not being legal, Plural Marriage does not have to be harmful.
Pedophiles by their very nature and the nature of what they do are harmful and dangerous 24/7.
producers think we love them | 1:41 p.m. Jan. 16, 2009
Tom Hanks***Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8
happen,� he told Tarts. �There are a
lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them."
Hollywood spends large amounts of money to get Bambi Obama elected, a lot of people think that is un-American, and I am one of them.**
And I will still boycott his stupid HBO movies and films.
I call the boycott a TV remote.
Hollywood spends large amounts of money to get Bambi Obama elected, a lot of people think that is un-American, and I am one of them.**
And I will still boycott his stupid HBO movies and films.
I call the boycott a TV remote.
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.
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime 1:11 a.m.
- UVU beats SUU; USU wins big 12:57 a.m.
- BYU spikers end season with a loss 12:55 a.m.
- Iverson may be headed to 76ers 12:34 a.m.
- Credit Coug defense for win 12:33 a.m.
- Aggies blow away T-birds 12:32 a.m.
- Mo steals show in Cavaliers' victory 12:31 a.m.
- Editorial: Facilitate Big Brother? 12:22 a.m.
- Mom befriends wife of PTSD vet 12:21 a.m.
- Political clash over U.S. debt 12:21 a.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- BYU is champion of the state
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- Idaho woman dies after fall
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
396 - Hall mouths off about hate of Utah150
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
- Letters: C02 causes warming70
Latest comments
watch out for next year for sure, the negatives are just closet (and...
And something else, I generally follow players from the state schools when...
I could care less that Max Hall said what he did. The feeling is mutual BYU...
Dear Max, probably could have done without that comment. Probably would've...
As a Utah fan, let me first say congratulations to Max Hall, the Cougars, and...
Geno's and Pat's are good.. but, they are mostly for tourists, the real...
(You even got a middle initial... how's that for 'ya Max) It's nice to see...
Even today, I still cannot get enough of this movie or Charles Gitonga Maina....
...disappointed with Max Hall's comments that he hates everything about UofU....
Over the last few days I read comments of people complaining about tasteless...
Advertisements
In both these cases the terms technically have a very broad meaning, but they are used in very limited senses. "The Jews" John speaks of are the leaders of the Jews, and in the same way, 19th Century church leaders would have conveyed better to our understanding what they meant had they said things like "the monogamists in congress who are passing these oppresive laws".