To "USU-Logan" if sex is the only thing that makes them unequal, then I
don't really see a problem with polygamy.What you have failed
to do is consider the group of gays. If a group of gays decide to enter into
polygamy, is there anything unequal there? If gays can be choose polygamy where
they are all 100% equal, why can't straight people have the same choice
even if they do not all have the same number of sex partners?
@Redshirt1701Don't already admit that Mr. Brown and his wives
are unequal when it comes to sex? Sex is a fundamental part of
marriage. and that is exactly why it is absurd for you to equate spouse-spouse
relationship with parent-child relationship.
To "USU-Logan" lets look at what legalizing polygamy could do. Imagine
that you have 4 gay people that love eachother and want to get married. You now
a situation where each person in the relationship has 3 partners. Is there any
inequality?You said earlier that mariage is about more than sex, but
the only inequality that you can find when 1 man marries multiple women has to
do with sex. Is there any rational reason why there is an inequality?If anything the women receive more beneifits in a polygamous marriage than in
a monogamous relationship. They have less need of babysitters. They can more
easily persue careers outside of the home, and have a built in support network
for problems that they may encounter. Plus, if any one of them is sick, they
can receive better care from the multiple people that are not ill.So
again, tell us what the problem is with polygamy.
You two (Redshirt and Chris B) do realize that if you prove that gay rights
supporters are just like you in that they oppose polygamy due to some form of
moral disgust you're just proving you oppose gay marriage due to a similar
moral disgust, right? One of the things your side is supposed to be doing in
court is prove that Amendment 3 isn't based on animus. So you're kinda
making a good argument for gay marriage... and a decent one for polygamy. You
oppose both so... probably not the way to go.
@Chris B"Where are the libs and the cries for equality for these
people?"Do you badger interracial couples if they support
equality for polygamists? I'm just wondering since you seem to think a
person who supports any one expansion in marriage should support all expansions
so you must think interracial marriage supporters are hypocrites. At least you
would if you didn't have double standards.
@RedShirtCalTechWhen will you ever stop equating spousal
relationship with parent-child relationship? Do I need to remind you again that
married couples have sex? Not only spousal relationship is a sexual one, it is
life partnership, parent-child relationship is not.With or without
child, in a monogamous marriage, the couples have each other and only each other
as life partner, the two spouses are equal in such an institution.But in Mr. Brown's polygamous marriage, the husband has 4 partners, the
woman however, not only merely has one husband, she has to share her only
partner with 3 other women. husband and wife are simply not equal in such an
institution.If you believe that in polygamy, like Mr. Brown's,
husband and wife are equal, fine by me. I'd better live on a corner of the
roof than argue with you over the same issue again and again. but don't
expect others will buy your argument, especially a judge, that Mr. Brown vs any
of his four wives, are equal in such arrangement. if you still
don't understand, or do not want to understand, I can't help you.
Reduce and simplify activities.
To "USU-Logan" you still have not expressed what is unequal. You keep
saying that things are not equal.Does sharing a husband really lead
to anything unequal? Do the women still have access to him even if it
isn't "their week" for him?Using your logic, as
children are born, women lose a portion of their husbands. Is that really the
case?In many ways, those women can have better lives than women in
monogomous marriages. Think of it this way. If 1 wife wants to persue a career
and 1 wants to say home, they can both do that and raise children without the
risks of daycare.I am still waiting for a description about how
things are not equal if a woman shares her husband with other women.
USU-LoganSo as long as you have the framework of equality to start
then it is legal. Gotcha. I do, however, agree with you that the state
doesn't have to recognize the marriage, but should leave them alone as long
as all parties are of legal age and are happy with the arrangement.Although I don't know Mr. Brown or any other polygamist personally, I
tend to think that it could be an ideal arrangement for some people and they can
make it work rather well.
@Brahmabull"Do you honestly think that in every legal marriage
that the partners are equal?" Would you please stop making straw man
in here? No one believes in every single legal marriage the partners are equal,
just like not all one-father-one-mother families are loving and supportive to
their children. However, in a monogamous marriage, the couples have
each other and only each other. Monogamy at least provides a framework of
equality as an institution.But for polygamy, like Mr. Brown's
marriage, the husband has 4 wives or partners, but the woman not only has merely
one husband, she has to share her only partner with 3 other women. Such
arrangement is not equal from the very beginning, it's a non-starter."Let adults choose how they want to live and move on". I
agree, and Mr. Brown should not be prosecuted, the law to put polygamous family
in jail should be repealed. However, if they go further and ask government to
recognize their polygamy, the government has legitimate interest to deny.
UTSUWe don't live in a fantasy land here. Do you honestly think
that in every legal marriage that the partners are equal? Equal in what way. One
does more financially, one may do more around the house, one may have more say
here or there and one may do what the other says. Yes, traditional marriages
must have all partners exactly equal... right. Why not just let
adults choose how and who they want to marry as you are afforded that same
right. It is not logical to allow a man to sleep with many women at a time (and
have children with multiple people that aren't his spouse) but then condemn
somebody who wants to do the same thing but live with them and take care of the
children. How is that fair?Let adults choose how they want to live
and move on.
To "USU-Logan" so then you agree that 1 man with 4 wives is equal to 1
man and 1 woman.What is in inequality here. You keep saying that
there is an inequality, yet cannot define the inequality. Please tell us what
is not equal?
@RedShirtI have to bring up the issue of sex because you start to
equate spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship."How does sharing the same partner make them unequal?" Don't try
to make a straw man here. I have never said such thing, That's your logic
fallacy. For the four wives who share their husband, they are equal one to
another, what is not equal here is the husband and one of his wives in this
To "UTSU" let me get this straight. You agree taht marriage is about
more than sex, yet your argument that they are unequal uses sex.How
does sharing the same partner make them unequal? Are you saying that if a
spouse becomes incapicated and can no longer take part in sexual relationships
that they are considered to not be married? You still have not explained how
they are unequal. Your example of an emperor and his concubines is irrelavant
because an emperor has supreme power and concubines are wives with no claim on
inheritance.Again, how are they unequal? What does sharing the same
man have to do with being unequal?
@RedShirt"You do know that marriage is about more than sex don't
you?"----Of course we all do. but nobody can deny sex is a
fundamental part of marriage. That is exactly why it is ridiculous for you to
equate spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship.For
Mr. Brown and his 4 wives, he has 4 sexual partners, but each wife has to share
her only partner with 3 other women in this arrangement. if you say Mr. Brown
and his women are equal in this polygamy, who are you kidding? You might just go
on and claiming an emperor and his concubines are equal.
Why hasn't Utah long ago fixed the problem they created in 1847 and then
again in 1890?With the LDS Church's abrupt about-face in
denying plural/celestial marriage, they created more havoc with their
sub-culture of newly disgraced but devout polygamists. The huge disgrace is the
inequality shown to Fundamentalists by those who brought "The Principle"
put west initially.To deny that fact is mind boggling. Rectifying/legalizing this religious injustice for thousands may actually help
their stigmatized underground, which poses harm to many young women. At least
we can try and see if it helps this culture so shrouded in secrecy and
To "UTSU" PROVE it. You keep claiming that if a man is married to more
than one woman, that the women have less of a husband each, yet lack any proof
to show that the women have a fractional "share" of a husband.You do know that marriage is about more than sex don't you?
If you take "sex" out of the equation, Polygamy could probably be
considered noble and praiseworthy.Any man who takes on children, and
women, and cares for them lovingly and with respect is probably laudable in
How ironic to recall the origin of polygamy laws in Utah, and how it relates to
current events.Just before the beginning of the 20th century, some
of my own ancestors were imprisoned in the Federal Penitentiary - as punishment
for practicing polygamy. I guess that puts me in my proper place.The Federal Government reputedly imposed polygamy laws on the State as a
requirement for Utah Statehood.
The people of who hit the blogs of the DNews seem to be unwilling to address the
polygamy issue. It gets little attention. I'm curious as to why?The conservatives go wild about marriage being between a man and woman. The
liberals go wild about equal rights for all... yet neither group says much
here?I would think both would have plenty to say?
@RedShirtThis has nothing to do about comparing a husband with
another husband, this is about whether a husband and a wife are equal in such an
institution. If they are not equal, then government has compelling interests to
against such institution. Unless Mr. Brown can prove 4 equal to 1/4, he
won't get his polygamy recognized.And BTW, are you equating
spouse-spouse relationship with parent-child relationship? You do know that
married couples have sex, right?
To "UTSU" I will make this simple.Prove that a man with 4
wives is any less of a husbad to those 4 women than a man with only 1 wife.While you are at it, prove that parents with only 1 child are less of a
parent when multiple children are involved.If you can do that, prove
that 1 person cannot love multiple people equally.
@RedShirtYour argument is hard to understand. My point is, unless
Mr. Brown can prove that, he, a 4-wife-husband, and one of his 4 wives, who has
to share her husband with three other women, are equal, have equal right in such
an institution, there won't be legal recognition for their polygamy.
To "Miss Piggie" I don't think you would want multiple husbands.
Imagine you 2 guys together that are buddies. You will never see either one of
them, and now you gave your first husband a video
game/fishing/hunting/biking/weight lifting/farting buddie that is around all the
time.To "UTSU" But it is equal. Can you prove that that
multiple women with one man is equal to only having 1/4 husband?
@Chris BUnless you can prove that, Mr. Brown having 4 wives and a
wife having 1/4 husband, are equal, his polygamy is not going to get legal
Where are the libs and the cries for equality for these people?After
all, they were just born differently, with a desire to marry many.don't they deserve equal rights?
It would be interesting to know how many people who support legalizing illegal
immigrants to prevent the break-up of families oppose the move to legalize
polygamy even though it breaks up families. And allowing adults to cohabit
in a house should be illegal if they are legally married to one person and
spiritually married to the rest.
@Vanceone:"...if polygamy is legalized, Utah ceases to be a
state."That's easily fixed. Just Get Judge Robert Shelby
onto the case.
No need to repeal the law. Just stop enforcing it.Obama soes it
with immigration, the Obamacare law, and others. At a time when
families (by any definition) are under attack and declining, a law that bans a
polygamous family is sort of silly. Especially when rampant random cohabitation
and procreation is tolerated, if not actually encouraged today.
Vanceone,You bring up an intriguing point to think about: what if a
federal judge should ever rule the Utah constitution unconstitutional? While
the idea itself is absurd in my opinion, some other judicial rulings in recent
years have been almost as bold.
Utah can't legalize polygamy for a very simple reason, and it's a
compelling state interest: According to Utah's state charter and also the
state constitution, if polygamy is legalized, Utah ceases to be a state. It was
all part and parcel of being admitted to the Union.
This is all part of leaving the barn door open with the many issues surrounding
marriage equality. At this point, everything should be fair game.
@miss piggieJust a thought, reading the article before commenting my
help prevent an off topic comment in the future. "In December,
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the part of the bigamy law that
bans cohabitation. Waddoups said the provision was a violation of the First
Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The Utah attorney general's
office might appeal the ruling, so Anderson said he's dropping his proposal
this year because lawmakers don't want to interfere."
Cory Brown and his four wives shouldn't have any problem once the same-sex
issue is resolved. Perhaps I should begin scouting for a second and even a
third husband. This could get exciting. I have assets and other things to pass