Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
'Sister Wives' Family Challenges Utah Bigamy Law  
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 3202 times:

Another political hot potato involving marriage rights as well as Mormanism:

Quote:

The polygamous family, stars of the TLC show "Sister Wives," has sued Utah and the county they fled from, hoping to persuade a federal judge to overturn the state's bigamy law as unconstitutional.

The case could potentially decriminalize a way of life for tens of thousands of self-described Mormon fundamentalists, most of whom live in Utah where bigamy is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won't prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn't overreach.

Seems to me one day polygamy will be legal, just not sure when.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 3192 times:

TLC actually made a reality show on polygamy ?   

Anyone remember when they had the extreme machines series ???



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 3185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Seems to me one day polygamy will be legal, just not sure when.

One man treating several women as his property to aquire and dispose of at will.

There is a medieval concept whose time has come again!!

Retrograde court challenges and legislation may make it legal.. it still a concept that should stay in the dark ages!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 3181 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 2):
One man treating several women as his property to aquire and dispose of at will.

There is a medieval concept whose time has come again!!

These days it seems to be quite the opposite.
Guy meets girl, they marry, they divorce, he's broke, she's set for life, in many cases.

Do you know what the real penalty for polygamy is?
Two wives!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2994 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I personally think Government should get out of marriage completely.


Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

Fixes so many problems in society for equality.

-DONE-



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):
I personally think Government should get out of marriage completely.


Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

      

Could not agree more.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5433 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):
Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

Fixes so many problems in society for equality.
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-07-27 09:17:54]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Who am I to judge whether a true union is between two people, three people, or 24 people?

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

I see no reason why three people can't agree on life decisions. It migth be harder, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean I want to deny someone the right to do it.

There are people who have open marriages, people who have multiple girl/boyfriends, people who are bisexual, whatever. I don't really see this as any different.

Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!

A menageority.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3064 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting David L (Reply 8):
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Hell, at least with three people, you can have a majority!

A menageority.

You came out of hibernation to say THAT???!!!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

Quoting alberchico (Reply 1):
TLC actually made a reality show on polygamy ?

Anyone remember when they had the extreme machines series ???

Both TLC and The History Channel have turned into crap.

What gets me about that show is they get this surfer looking guy who has this "It's cool man" air about him. Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat? Guess that would not get the ratings they like.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 954 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3037 times:

Well, if it is ever legalized, ya better keep track of the gene pool....


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):

I am suitably chastised. However, as I recall, you didn't like the King of Queens, either.   


User currently offlinedcaviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat?

They have show about him and young men in these polygamy groups. Its on Nat Geo and its called "I survived Cult".


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

This is where a true "union" of people is at its core between two people.

Tugg

All this may be true, but "Who cares" is the point. At the end of the day it should be THEIR problem, not the people's problem. I resent the fact that the gov't I'm funding would waste its time on dictating the nuts and bolts of how people should live their lives.

My view is that if someone is stupid enough to accumulate more than one person who could potentially cut off his/her life support, then that is the price they pay for legitimizing multiple bedtime options!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

What about allowing that, but banning the cult ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting David L (Reply 12):
I am suitably chastised. However, as I recall, you didn't like the King of Queens, either.

If you're talking about the show, you are correct. Terrible. Don't remember a reference here, though.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10):
What gets me about that show is they get this surfer looking guy who has this "It's cool man" air about him. Why not someone like Warren Jeffs, looks like a troll, who has sex with underage girls? Or stories about how young men in these polygamy groups are excommunicated over the slightest infraction because the older men see them as a threat? Guess that would not get the ratings they like.

So they can't show people living supposedly happy lives? They have to show the bad side of everything?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

If people want to live in polygamous or polyandrous or polyamorous relationships, I have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with legally sanctioning such relationships without having a clear framework in place for who gets to make decisions on whose kids, property, divorce, etc. Bipartite marriages can be pretty uniform from that perspective. But once you get into multipartite marriages, it gets really confusing. What happens when the single husband dies, leaving five wives? Who inherits what? Can they remarry? It's a total mare's nest from a legal perspective and that's the only reason that I don't support legally recognizing these unions. "Morality" and "tradition" are irrelevant to me. Polygamy *is* traditional in a lot of the world and was traditional even in Judeo-Christian history. How many wives did Solomon have? Let's not even get into the concubines.

If they want to make their own legal arrangements, that's fine. But a marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around two people.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
If they want to make their own legal arrangements, that's fine. But a marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around two people.

I hate to say it Doc, but you know what that sounds like, right?

"Marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around a man and a woman."



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 18):
I hate to say it Doc, but you know what that sounds like, right?

"Marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around a man and a woman."

Sounds like it, but it isn't. I just laid out some very cogent legal and logistical reasons why it shouldn't be done. Opponents of gay marriage, under oath, have been unable to list even one.

Now, if someone can come up with a general arrangement that will allow any number of consenting adults of any gender to enter into a group marriage while dealing with all of the complications I've mentioned (and those I haven't), I'll lead the parade supporting it. Good luck to whomever that may be.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Sounds like it, but it isn't. I just laid out some very cogent legal and logistical reasons why it shouldn't be done. Opponents of gay marriage, under oath, have been unable to list even one.

I understand. But sound bytes are sound bytes....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
But once you get into multipartite marriages, it gets really confusing. What happens when the single husband dies, leaving five wives? Who inherits what? Can they remarry?

There must be some things that can be learned even from ancient times, or from what is done currently in places like Saudia Arabia.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
It's a total mare's nest from a legal perspective and that's the only reason that I don't support legally recognizing these unions.

Bipartite marriage is a total mare's nest from a legal perspective, and yet there's a thriving services community out there set up to handle it. I think you should reconsider your point on this topic, it doesn't make much sense to me.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
ere must be some things that can be learned even from ancient times, or from what is done currently in places like Saudia Arabia.

The trouble is that if you only legalize polyGAMY, but not polyANDRY or polyAMORY, you now have gender discrimination. Let's posit that it's essentially inevitable that gay marriage will become legal within the next few years. It's not going to fly to allow a man to marry three wives, but not a woman to marry three husbands, or three men to get married. So at that point, any historical examples fly out the window.

Furthermore, the historical examples of how marriage law was handled was pretty medieval (now that's begging the question, innit?   ). In some systems, a wife could be divorced by saying "I divorce you!" three times. In others, a man could whip or beat a nagging wife (oh, how many men wish that were still the case?   ). Certainly, it wasn't a marriage of equals.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):

Bipartite marriage is a total mare's nest from a legal perspective, and yet there's a thriving services community out there set up to handle it. I think you should reconsider your point on this topic, it doesn't make much sense to me.

A marriage is a single agreement between two consenting adults. Because there are only two adults, if they break up, they wind up single. Their stuff and children (and divorce is mostly about "stuff" and children) must be divided between two people. That makes matters relatively simple. And even then, divorce and marriage law are a horrible mare's nest as it is.

So now you have to deal with what to do when Mary and Jack want to stay together, but Pat wants to go his/her separate way. Or what happens when all three want to break up? There are an enormous (possibly infinite?) number of potential combinations and thus, complications. Can you imagine how byzantine the law would have to be?

Like I said, if someone can come up with a viable legal solution, I'll lead the parade for legal recognition. I just doubt that anyone can.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The state, meanwhile, has publicly said it won't prosecute consenting adult polygamists unless there are other crimes involved, but insists the law doesn't overreach.

This is going to be pretty bad time for Mormons to bring this up. They have a Mormon running for President and a lot of the religious right are going to be far from impressed. Let's see if it becomes a plank on the GOP Platform.   

As for me, I found it can be a challenge to keep one wife somewhat happy for 43 years. No way would I want multiple wives. But then I must admit that I was fortunate to have been able to marry a woman who was smarter than I am and who would be impossible for me to match. If some Mormons needs multiple wives then I believe that they just did an incompetent in selecting the first one.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2890 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
And that person is the true "partner". The theory behind a union via either marriage or whatever is that the parties are "equal" (yes they can view that they have different levels and responsibilities within the marriage but LEGALLY by view of law, they are each equal to make decisions for the other if incapacitated). That isn't ever the case in a group, some have more authority than others, some join later than others and so have varying levels of "accrued interest" in whatever value is create in the group, etc. Once you go beyond the first "pair" is starts to get complicated but there is always a "core" pair that are above the rest.

I don't know, that could happen, but there can be a completely dominant and submissive person in a bigamous relationship... I say let consenting adults do whatever. If a woman wants to give up power and enter into a polygamous marriage (or bigamous marriage for that matter,) let her, it's her choice.

I think the government should get out of the business of marriage all together. Let people set their inheritance for whoever. I can set it for my mom and dad if I want, for my future wife, for my friends... who cares. Marriage will just be a word... churches can perform marriages to whoever they want, a man can decide to "marry" a man (for marriage will be a ceremony, defined by him.)

If someone wants to marry dogs or toasters, who cares!? Under the system I wrote, the government wouldn't write down anything about marriages, it's just what you say it is. He obviously wouldn't be able to set his inheritance to his dog or toaster, as they are not consenting adults, and as long as he doesn't sexually abuse his dog, that can be his husband/wife. Or toaster wife. Who cares.

The only problem I could see is when you get to insurance and job benefits... obviously jobs will want 1 clearly defined spouse, otherwise a pilot could just "marry" all his/her friends and get them all non-rev privileges. I'll have to think about that one.

To sum up, it would give more freedom to people... they could define what marriage is for them. Religious institutions can continue to marry man and woman or man+women, men+woman, man+car, etc. The toaster weirdos will probably be weird regardless if they "marry" their toasters or not...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3948 posts, RR: 28
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

I find it profoundly ironic that people that were getting their panties in a twist about objections to the usage of the word marriage "equality" in the NZ thread are so opposed to this...

Then again, if a child can have multiple (as in, more than 2) parents, as is being proposed in California, not sure why they shouldn't be able to have more than one spouse.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):

I personally think Government should get out of marriage completely.

Agree (other than notarizing any contract signed between two consenting parties and making it enforceable in a court of law,of course).

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 4):
Polygamy, Polyandry, Gay Marriage, who cares... make it all a common law arrangement done by testaments and legal documents.

And don't give them any tax breaks. And let me direct my forced contributions to Social Security to whoever the hell I want if I die before my time (or better yet, don't make me contribute).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
This is going to be pretty bad time for Mormons to bring this up. They have a Mormon running for President and a lot of the religious right are going to be far from impressed. Let's see if it becomes a plank on the GOP Platform.

Just an FYI (which you may already know): "fundamentalist Mormon" groups that believe in polygamy are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is the major, well-known, Mormon denomination, of which Romney is a member).



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2331 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
OK, so who is the "number one"? Who gets to make the life decisions? There can only be one.

Well, in Switzerland we have a government that works exactly like this. 
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
I see no reason why three people can't agree on life decisions. It migth be harder, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean I want to deny someone the right to do it.

  

I know three people who are in a relationship together. Two males are in a relationship to the same female, and they decided to give it a try. The first thing they had to agree upon was that in a relationship, nobody is somebody else's property. And like knowledge, love is something that gets more valuable when you share it.

They have had hard times with arduous discussions, to straight things out. But all three are great people, and I can't see any reason why this ménage à trois would fail.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Then again, if a child can have multiple (as in, more than 2) parents, as is being proposed in California, not sure why they shouldn't be able to have more than one spouse.

Why not? It depends on the "stepfathers" or "stepmothers" if they are up to their tasks! There are always people that fail, and there are always people that do a top-notch "job" as (ex-)husbands, (ex-)wives, fathers, brothers, friends. It just starts with remaining on speaking terms if you end a relationship.

We are free to change everything except those pesky natural laws. 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25013 posts, RR: 85
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
I find it profoundly ironic that people that were getting their panties in a twist about objections to the usage of the word marriage "equality" in the NZ thread are so opposed to this...

I started the NZ thread (and used the words marriage equality) and I'm not opposed to it if that's what people want to do. I would expect strong legal provisions for the protection of the spouses, though.

It amuses me that one of the constant (religious) objections to marriage equality - as in "same-sex" marriage - is that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yet the Old Testament smiles sweetly on the polygamy of the Patriarchs.

I don't understand the Mormon position, though, as I believe polygamy was widely practised and then dropped - in order to get the financial benefits of statehood, perhaps?

mariner

[Edited 2012-07-28 22:33:06]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

Quoting dcaviation (Reply 13):
They have show about him and young men in these polygamy groups. Its on Nat Geo and its called "I survived Cult".

I stand corrected.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16):
So they can't show people living supposedly happy lives? They have to show the bad side of everything?

They already have that show, it's called Sister Wives. Why don't they have a weekly show that shows the other side of this story?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
The trouble is that if you only legalize polyGAMY, but not polyANDRY or polyAMORY, you now have gender discrimination. Let's posit that it's essentially inevitable that gay marriage will become legal within the next few years. It's not going to fly to allow a man to marry three wives, but not a woman to marry three husbands, or three men to get married. So at that point, any historical examples fly out the window.

This whole Sister Wives thing has more to do with religious fundamentalism than marriage rights. Because if you were to ask that guy if they win their case does that mean one of his wives, or daughters, can marry multiple men? Or how about one of his sons marrying three other guys? Being a member of a fundamentalist Christian sect I can guess what his answer is going to be.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
This whole Sister Wives thing has more to do with religious fundamentalism than marriage rights. Because if you were to ask that guy if they win their case does that mean one of his wives, or daughters, can marry multiple men? Or how about one of his sons marrying three other guys? Being a member of a fundamentalist Christian sect I can guess what his answer is going to be.

I know that, and that's why it's not going to fly unless it's legalized for as many adults of whichever gender they like.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7146 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
If they want to make their own legal arrangements, that's fine. But a marriage is a cookie-cutter arrangement based around two people.

Surprised at you Doc how the hell can you support gay marriage and not polygamy. What give gays more right to marriage than folks who want to marry more than one person?


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
I know that, and that's why it's not going to fly unless it's legalized for as many adults of whichever gender they like.

The second you do that be prepared for the s%t storm from the religous right. Including Mr Sister Wives guy.


User currently onlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

I encounter this everyday at work.

In MN we have Somali men who will have three wives, only be legally married to one of them and the other two will be considered single moms sucking up welfare benefits despite the fact that he spends every third or fourth night over there. My office had to actually hire a full-time employee to respond to requests for these men's financial information from various government agencies. It is further complicated by the tendency for Somali men to be named Mohamed Mohamed and have January 1st as their birthday. Which one is the pappy?

I think there should be some sort of legal recognition for multiple-spouse marriages if only to make the men instead of the taxpayers take care of their copious amounts of children.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 29):
They already have that show, it's called Sister Wives. Why don't they have a weekly show that shows the other side of this story?

Because that's not how TV stations work.

"Oh, we can't put that show about marriage on TV unless we put a show about divorce on there too!"

or

"We show NFL games; I guess we need a show about the guys who have gotten permanently paralyzed/seriously injured playing football!"

is not their line of thinking.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 26):
Just an FYI

The question is if the voters can identify and accept the difference.

There is a difference in the Jewish faith - conservative and reform

Muslims? They are not all radical terrorists, but see if voters will agree.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 31):
how the hell can you support gay marriage and not polygamy.

I'm in a straight marriage, but can understand how Doc can take that position. It is one of two people wanting to spend their lives together, not a situation where some pretty weird guys want multiple women to screw and share the housework. Odd, isn't it, that a lot of these yo-yos want their new wives to be young. No surprise that in some of these groups the young men are kicked out of the group so competition for the younger girls is reduced.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
not a situation where some pretty weird guys want multiple women to screw and share the housework. Odd, isn't it, that a lot of these yo-yos want their new wives to be young. No surprise that in some of these groups the young men are kicked out of the group so competition for the younger girls is reduced.

That's pretty closed minded, don't you think? There is even an example earlier in this thread describing the relationship between two men and a woman. I can see legal concerns in regards to polygamy, but being against it because you don't like the premise of it is as bad as being against gay marriage for the same reason



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

The thing is that "progressive" people that want to live with several people (polyamory) don't care about marriage, that thing of the past. So people practicing polygamy are pretty much always backwards, something the state shouldn't encourage.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 37):
So people practicing polygamy are pretty much always backwards, something the state shouldn't encourage.

Wow now I really see that both sides of the gay marriage debate have hypocritical stances. So much for open mindedness! (not just you Aesma, there seem to be a lot of other posters)      



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9805 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 37):
The thing is that "progressive" people that want to live with several people (polyamory) don't care about marriage, that thing of the past. So people practicing polygamy are pretty much always backwards, something the state shouldn't encourage.

What about all the straight, monogamous couples who don't care about marriage? Should the state break them up?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12359 posts, RR: 25
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
It is one of two people wanting to spend their lives together, not a situation where some pretty weird guys want multiple women to screw and share the housework.

Personally, I don't see the difference between a guy wants one woman to screw and to do the housework vs many women to screw and to do the housework, as long as everyone involved agrees.

I see Doc's point about how unraveling such unions would be pretty messy, but unraveling the current bipartite unions are messy anyhow, and it should be about what the people want, and not about how difficult it is for the courts to sort out if/when things get ugly.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Wow now I really see that both sides of the gay marriage debate have hypocritical stances.

Because Aesma is "one side of the gay marriage debate?" No, he isn't. So hop off that train because it's not sitting on the rails.

It is not hypocritical to argue for gay marriage and against polygamy. In fact, that is EXACTLY what gay marriage opponents argued; that legalizing gay marriage would clear the way for polygamy. Gay marriage supporters pointed out (rightly) that this is not the case.

And it *ISN'T* "because we don't like it" or Aesma's "they're backward" argument. Those are not valid reasons to oppose multipartite marriages.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):
I see Doc's point about how unraveling such unions would be pretty messy, but unraveling the current bipartite unions are messy anyhow, and it should be about what the people want, and not about how difficult it is for the courts to sort out if/when things get ugly.

Given that the people pay for those same courts... But also, it's not that simple. A bipartite marriage is a contract between two individuals, A and B. In the absence of a pre-nuptial agreement, it is a single, uniform agreement. There is only one way for that agreement to be broken, and it winds up with those two people being single. In the case of a multipartite marriage, there are many different ways it could go and the state DOES have a secular interest in avoiding such massive cases. There is also a huge potential for abuse if there is no limit on the size of people entering into a marriage, abuse which is difficult to regulate and enforce.

Also, there is a legalistic reason why it is not a right. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the argument went like this:
"Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby may not marry Jenny because Bobby is Black." Clear violation of Equal Protection and the Civil Rights Act. In the gay marriage case, the argument is "Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby may not marry Scott because Bobby is a man." Again, clear violation of Equal Protection clause.

However, in the case of polygam/andr/amory, the argument is: "Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby and Jenny may not marry Susie because Bobby and Jenny are two people." No law has ever held that being a group of people is a protected class or that groups of people have the same protections and immunities as individuals. Groups, of course, do enjoy some protections, but they do not enjoy the same protections as individuals. For example, groups may not cast a ballot. Groups do not have the right to trial by jury (the individuals in the group do have the right to their own individual jury trials). Etc.

So there are a number of very good secular and legal reasons why multipartite marriages should not be allowed.

By contrast, there are ZERO secular and/or legal reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed. And this has been demonstrated in court after court after court.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6281 posts, RR: 34
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

I was having a discussion with someone just the other day regarding polygamy. She didn't understand my point that legaly there is no such thing. Marriage is sanction only by the state and as such you can have only 1 wife, the rest are live in girlfriends and a man can have as many of them as he can get.


Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
Because Aesma is "one side of the gay marriage debate?" No, he isn't. So hop off that train because it's not sitting on the rails.

It is not hypocritical to argue for gay marriage and against polygamy. In fact, that is EXACTLY what gay marriage opponents argued; that legalizing gay marriage would clear the way for polygamy. Gay marriage supporters pointed out (rightly) that this is not the case.

And it *ISN'T* "because we don't like it" or Aesma's "they're backward" argument. Those are not valid reasons to oppose multipartite marriages.

If you looked at my posts, I even pointed out that there are more complications with polygamy, I even said:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36):
I can see legal concerns in regards to polygamy, but being against it because you don't like the premise of it is as bad as being against gay marriage for the same reason

and I was commenting on:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 37):
that thing of the past. So people practicing polygamy are pretty much always backwards, something the state shouldn't encourage.

So the state should comment on what is right or wrong? That's exactly what they are doing when they denied gay marriage. You could easily change the quote to:

"The thing is that "progressive" people that want to live with the same gender (homosexuality) don't care about marriage, that thing of the past"

...so why make gay marriage legal?

THAT is what I found super hypocritical



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):

The government should not recognize ANY form of marriage...man-woman, same sex, multiple partners...

Marriage is s religious construct that should have always remained religious.

If two or more people want to legally share different assets or responsibilities, they should write a contract to cover the agreement.

The days of Defined benefit plans and private health care are over. Those were the last 2 reasons for government to recognize marriage. Everything else can be covered by contract law and common law.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 44):

     
That's what I was trying (and failing) to say myself, well put!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

Here's another vote for no state involvement in marriages. And no preferential tax treatment, either.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 44):
The government should not recognize ANY form of marriage...man-woman, same sex, multiple partners...

Agreed. But they do. And until they don't, then they should recognize gay marriage, but not multipartite marriages.

And frankly, we're never going to do away with it. Whether you call it "marriage" or "domestic partnership" or "glump-glump," it's going to be a contract between two people to share all their stuff, make decisions together, share benefits, etc. etc. etc.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7146 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
I'm in a straight marriage, but can understand how Doc can take that position. It is one of two people wanting to spend their lives together, not a situation where some pretty weird guys want multiple women to screw and share the housework.

Woopee I'm in a straight marriage as well, so is the Iragi muslim down the road from me, however he has two wives, they all appear to get on pretty well, also he's not a weird guy at all, in fact he's a nice helpful bloke.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
And until they don't, then they should recognize gay marriage, but not multipartite marriages.

Still doc I don't think you can support one type of alternative non standard marriage and not recognise that others also want to be in alternative non standard types of marriage. I really don't see any difference between gays getting married and multiple people wanting to get married, neither are 'normal' both are going to upset certain people but I don't see how one can be supported without supporting the other.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
So the state should comment on what is right or wrong? That's exactly what they are doing when they denied gay marriage. You could easily change the quote to:

"The thing is that "progressive" people that want to live with the same gender (homosexuality) don't care about marriage, that thing of the past"

...so why make gay marriage legal?

THAT is what I found super hypocritical

I live in a country where there is an active fight against cults (for example scientology) and most people are fine with it. I live in a country where married couples do get tax advantages, because it is estimated that marriage leads to kids, and kids are good. Kids also bring tax advantages and "welfare money", no matter if you're married and even if you're a millionaire. We're seeing with Italy and Germany that they don't have kids and those countries will soon be in big trouble (more than half my family is Italian and I've far more cousins in France than Italy).

Personally I don't care about marriage, even if I can accept the way it works here, where religious marriage is not recognized and even illegal if you're not first married by a mayor. However as long as there is such marriage then it should be allowed for 2 men and for 2 women (it will soon be the case here, and I'm pretty sure there won't be that many marriages happening). Our president don't want to marry and that hasn't prevented him to get elected.

Now back to polygamy, it's common here and it's always practiced by Muslims. Not "historical" Muslims from North Africa, but Sub-Saharan Muslims, the same ones that cut the genitals of girls. Also practiced by newly converted Muslims being taught by fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia.

Now, maybe you can show me a polygamist family/community where women aren't treated as inferior relative to men ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 44):
Marriage is s religious construct that should have always remained religious.

Look at the tax codes and you can see it is not restricted to a religious affair.

Also consider the reality of a civil ceremony to marry two people, not a drop of religion needed there.

In reality, marriage is a legal bond where the state allows and authorizes various religions to perform the ceremony instead of an authorized civil practitioner, judge, etc.


User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 50):
Look at the tax codes and you can see it is not restricted to a religious affair.

Also consider the reality of a civil ceremony to marry two people, not a drop of religion needed there.

In reality, marriage is a legal bond where the state allows and authorizes various religions to perform the ceremony instead of an authorized civil practitioner, judge, etc.

That is exactly my point!

It USED to be a religeous affair (and the government should have kept their noses out of it then as well)

The legal "bond" can be taken care of with civil law and contract law. The State should keep their noses out of it, including that the State should not give preferential tax treatment to those who are "married" or in "civil unions" or anything else.

Get the State completely out of the bedroom and private lives of the citizens.

If someone wants to have a religeous or civil ceremony, that is their business...but there is no reason for any government to recognize any of them, be they hetero, homo, tri-party, or any other combo.


User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 26):
Just an FYI (which you may already know): "fundamentalist Mormon" groups that believe in polygamy are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is the major, well-known, Mormon denomination, of which Romney is a member).

Technically true but it is a matter of opinion. The "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is still part of LDS doctrine and is described in the LDS scripture "The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132". And all LDS temple married couples have covenanted to obey the Law when they were sealed in the LDS temple. Every LDS member over the age of 45 were taught back in the olden days before 1990 that polygamy would return to the earth during the millenium and that a man cannot enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom (Mormons' version of heaven) without having multiple wives. I was taught that and I taught it when I taught the Gospel Doctrine class in the 1980's.

Polygamy is a dirty little secret that the LDS Church wishes would go away. And to think that it all started when the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, needed a way to explain his infidelities to his wife when she caught him in the sack with his childrens' nanny. Viola: plural marriage was commanded by God.



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
I don't understand the Mormon position, though, as I believe polygamy was widely practised and then dropped - in order to get the financial benefits of statehood, perhaps?

Pretty good guess there, Mariner.

There were a few reasons that the LDS Church abandoned polygamy. One was to achieve statehood. The second was to prevent the takeover of the state by the federal government and the prosecution of the church leaders for polygamy. And although the LDS Church officiall banned polygamy in 1890 it was still practiced secretly by the leaders and membership until the early 1900's when the US Govt clamped down and told the church to knock it off once and for all.

As soon as Utah became a state the leaders opened polygamist colonies in northern Mexico which is where MItt's father was born as the result of a polygamist marriage. Mitt has numerous cousins and other family members still living in the Colonies on those former polygamist ranches and compounds. He just doesn't talk about it.



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25013 posts, RR: 85
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 53):
Mitt has numerous cousins and other family members still living in the Colonies on those former polygamist ranches and compounds. He just doesn't talk about it.

Does anyone ask him (I mean publicly, the press) what attitude he has to polygamy?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):
I live in a country where there is an active fight against cults (for example scientology) and most people are fine with it.

That's just skirting around the issue. Fight the cults, don't deny rights for harmless, innocent citizens. Polygamy does not equate to cults, does not always mean 1 man + multiple women

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):
Now, maybe you can show me a polygamist family/community where women aren't treated as inferior relative to men ?

I'm sure it happens throughout many societies, just at a much lower rate than 1 + 1 marriages, but here you go:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 27):
I know three people who are in a relationship together. Two males are in a relationship to the same female, and they decided to give it a try. The first thing they had to agree upon was that in a relationship, nobody is somebody else's property. And like knowledge, love is something that gets more valuable when you share it.

Doesn't sound cult like or dominating to me. 1 guy plus multiple wives doesn't mean the guy is dominant either... it can often lead to that, but those are different arguments. Fight the cults themselves, not the idea which can be legitimately used in an equal, non-cultish manner



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 48):
Still doc I don't think you can support one type of alternative non standard marriage and not recognise that others also want to be in alternative non standard types of marriage. I really don't see any difference between gays getting married and multiple people wanting to get married, neither are 'normal' both are going to upset certain people but I don't see how one can be supported without supporting the other.

If my several carefully constructed arguments haven't convinced you, then I don't know what else to say. If your argument is that "normalcy" defines what should and shouldn't be permitted, then you'll have a hard time explaining that to someone who actually makes, interprets, and executes laws.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):

Now, maybe you can show me a polygamist family/community where women aren't treated as inferior relative to men ?

If it is polyGAMY, which means multiple wives (specifically), then by definition there is a different treatment of men and women. But in any Western society legalizing such a thing, it would be impossible to legalize polygamy without legalizing other sorts of multipartite marriages.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 51):
Get the State completely out of the bedroom and private lives of the citizens.

Agreed. While we're at it, let's legalize all drugs and lower the drinking age to 18. And I'd like a pony, too.

It's not going to happen, so let's deal with the here and now.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 51):
It USED to be a religeous affair

You need to remember about the separation of Church and State in the US.

The State has the right to pass laws related to marriage. The State has allowed different religions to perform marriage ceremonies according to various religious traditions, but the couple getting married still has to obtain a marriage license from the State (generally a local court house), the marriage has to be recorded and made public record.

Other countries can totally ignore the issue of marriage, leaving it to various religions or groups to do what they want, but not in the US.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57):

The State has the right to pass laws related to marriage. The State has allowed different religions to perform marriage ceremonies according to various religious traditions, but the couple getting married still has to obtain a marriage license from the State (generally a local court house), the marriage has to be recorded and made public record.

And the other thing is that there is no law stopping polygamists from marrying two, ten, or ten thousand (god help that man) wives. The law stops any more than one wife from being LEGALLY recognized as his wife. But if he and ten thousand of his closest lady friends want to call themselves married, there is no legal objection as long as they don't try to claim benefits or something.

Gay marriage is illegal in California, and yet I wear a ring and call my hubby my husband. We're not LEGALLY married, no, but I've never really cared much about what the busybody law has to say about such things.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):
Gay marriage is illegal in California, and yet I wear a ring and call my hubby my husband. We're not LEGALLY married, no, but I've never really cared much about what the busybody law has to say about such things.

Don't you miss out on legal/financial benefits though?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
Don't you miss out on legal/financial benefits though?

Well, yes. And when it becomes legal within a couple of years, we will go sign the necessary paperwork.

The only place it really affects us is on our federal taxes and on the fact that my health insurance comes out of his paycheck post-taxes. We can file jointly in-state, though.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):

Not trying to pose a loaded question, and I don't think I have seen you answer this, but what happens to a family with 1 husband and 2 wives, multiple children per wife, comes over here? Maybe one does not agree with this arrangement, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the wives (and possibly her children) are left for dry. She can't possibly be expected to abandon all she knows and find a new husband...

Also, it seems that your arguments against polygamy are legal (I think.) What if every member goes to a lawyer and drafts out a set in stone contract. Wouldn't that get past most of the legal problems?

(shifting my attention away from you, Doc, talking in general) I'm still unconvinced with the "backwards" argument. It seems very cultural-centric and broadly paints polygamy as always bad, always backwards, even though it can easily not be (plus, we are talking about consenting adults here.) Maybe I'll have to agree to disagree. I just see that as the same thinking that the far right uses saying gay marriage is immoral, backwards, etc



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61):
Not trying to pose a loaded question, and I don't think I have seen you answer this, but what happens to a family with 1 husband and 2 wives, multiple children per wife, comes over here? Maybe one does not agree with this arrangement, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the wives (and possibly her children) are left for dry. She can't possibly be expected to abandon all she knows and find a new husband...

They are subject to the laws of the United States. If they don't like it, they don't have to come.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61):
Also, it seems that your arguments against polygamy are legal (I think.) What if every member goes to a lawyer and drafts out a set in stone contract. Wouldn't that get past most of the legal problems?

That's fine, but it's not legally a "marriage," which is a two-person union. If you want to come up with custom civil contracts, I can't possibly imagine any objection to that. However, private companies like insurance carriers are not required to cover all parties to the contract.

And that is one argument against multipartite marriages. You could form a multipartite "marriage" with literally millions of members and only one of them receiving benefits through a private insurance carrier, but now that carrier would be required to cover all ten million "spouses." You can see how this quickly leads to serious logistical problems.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61):
I'm still unconvinced with the "backwards" argument.

I would argue that any society that gives men and women different legal standing is probably pretty backwards. But that is not, in and of itself, a reason to ban a practice.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 56):
If it is polyGAMY, which means multiple wives (specifically), then by definition there is a different treatment of men and women.

The specific term is polygyny. Mormons called it plural marriage since they never endorsed one woman marrying multiple men (obviously that would spoil the Mormon leaders' fun).


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
You could form a multipartite "marriage" with literally millions of members and only one of them receiving benefits through a private insurance carrier, but now that carrier would be required to cover all ten million "spouses." You can see how this quickly leads to serious logistical problems.

Agreed...

I think we are arguing the same thing actually... are you against the government being involved in marriages?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3948 posts, RR: 28
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):
We're seeing with Italy and Germany that they don't have kids and those countries will soon be in big trouble

Having kids is not in itself a positive. If the people who are having kids are the people who, all things considered, should not be breeding, but are doing so for the benefits, it is quite the opposite, in fact.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 52):
Polygamy is a dirty little secret that the LDS Church wishes would go away. And to think that it all started when the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, needed a way to explain his infidelities to his wife when she caught him in the sack with his childrens' nanny. Viola: plural marriage was commanded by God.

Anglicanism was founded because Henry VIII was tired of his wife and wanted a new one, and yet is the basis for the religion followed by a good chunk of the U.S. population...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
And that is one argument against multipartite marriages. You could form a multipartite "marriage" with literally millions of members and only one of them receiving benefits through a private insurance carrier, but now that carrier would be required to cover all ten million "spouses."

Very, very simple to solve - you want your "spouse" to have benefits, you pay for it. Why should the single employees pay for the married ones?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25013 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 65):
Anglicanism was founded because Henry VIII was tired of his wife and wanted a new one, and yet is the basis for the religion followed by a good chunk of the U.S. population...

Directly, yes, but the divorce was only the tipping point.

Indirectly there were many more cogent reasons for the split with Rome than that, to do with the concept of the nation state, the use of power and the resentment of Rome.

The same applied to some other European countries who, quiescent (to Rome) in the Dark Ages, were beginning to feel their national oats stirring.

mariner

[Edited 2012-07-30 22:48:33]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 65):
Very, very simple to solve - you want your "spouse" to have benefits, you pay for it. Why should the single employees pay for the married ones?

You are talking about making a "group" out of nothing. It makes perfect sense if you support the ObamaCare idea that there should be no pre-existing conditions. It makes no sense if you don't.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 64):
I think we are arguing the same thing actually... are you against the government being involved in marriages?

Not as such, no. But I'd rather see the government grant domestic partnerships and marriage be a personal/religious arrangement.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3948 posts, RR: 28
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 67):
You are talking about making a "group" out of nothing. It makes perfect sense if you support the ObamaCare idea that there should be no pre-existing conditions. It makes no sense if you don't.

You don't need to support Obamacare to defend that. The spouse can get access to the group at their own employer. Stay at home mom? Tough shit, nobody should be providing you any incentives (fiscal or otherwise) for you to stay at home and watch Oprah the whole day.

Oh, and just because the employer would not be paying the healthcare for the spouse doesn't mean the spouse cannot be added to the group - just means they would have to pay the full rate.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5621 posts, RR: 6
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 61):
Not trying to pose a loaded question, and I don't think I have seen you answer this, but what happens to a family with 1 husband and 2 wives, multiple children per wife, comes over here? Maybe one does not agree with this arrangement, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the wives (and possibly her children) are left for dry. She can't possibly be expected to abandon all she knows and find a new husband...

They are subject to the laws of the United States. If they don't like it, they don't have to come.

Doc, I'd want a site on that. I don't think you are correct. Almost all countries recognize a validly preformed marriage on citizens of a country when those persons come to another country. Some long ago international treaty, I believe, and it make sense, you recognize ours, we'll recognize yours.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Germany's Electoral Law (still) Unconstitutional posted Wed Jul 25 2012 09:18:00 by NoUFO
Terrorist Acts Against Orthodox Family In Egypt posted Sun Jan 2 2011 17:56:23 by RussianJet
Human Rights Law Is An Ass posted Fri Dec 17 2010 04:52:49 by skidmarks
'Arizona Style' Immigration Law Proposed In Texas posted Mon Nov 8 2010 13:00:13 by windy95
New Super Strict Drink Drive Law In BC posted Fri Oct 8 2010 20:45:26 by YVRLTN
The 10 Commandments: Not The Basis Of Western Law posted Sat Aug 28 2010 01:45:17 by tugger
Judge: No To Controversial Parts Of AZ Law posted Wed Jul 28 2010 10:49:03 by Longhornmaniac
President Obama Signs Financial Reform Into Law posted Wed Jul 21 2010 12:21:44 by propilot83
TFA Harder To Get Into Then Law School! posted Tue Jul 13 2010 20:48:07 by marsciguy
Alabama City Supports AZ Immigration Law posted Wed Jul 7 2010 18:59:19 by TSS