'Sister Wives': Polygamy law challenge called demand for equality

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well no matter how you slice the melon there is still another edge on the sword.

I personally have religious beliefs, but in the eyes of the law there is a separation between church and state.. Really though these religious organizations have quite a bit of pull in society and the views of their followers are registered voters and still a vast majority (mostly considering denominations of Christianity some of which are so different from each other it would be like comparing Buddhism to voodoo.) However the fact still remains the Majority view still wins out.. Right or wrong if people at large (which depending on beliefs) think that Polygamy should be illegal.. Then it should be illegal whether in reality it should or not..

However I was touching on the hypocrisy of the whole dilly'o. Polygamists (mostly LDS polygamists) think that polyandry is an abomination... So back to the other edge of the sword.. If they cannot accept the practice being inclusive of both sexes (as gay marriage would be ergo Lesbian and Gay) then it is inherently discriminatory and therefore should not be given a second look until they can support law allowing for both practices.

Originally posted by Leahn
And with minds like yours, women end up alone, childless, ranting misandrist blog posts asking "where all the good men have gone?" and "why no one wants to marry them?" while posting facebook pictures of the cats that keep them company during the cold nights.

Really? I just celebrated my 22nd wedding anniversary to an amazing man 21 years younger then me.

He was raised by his grandparents who come from Swedish "farm stock". He is a rare find in men these days. He was raised with hard work and integrity. To the day his grandpa died - - he refused to accept any written contract. A handshake was the only contract he honored.

He's quite brilliant in computers - - but also helps the office staff in their letter writing.

I'm considering a "sister wife". I told my husband before I married him - - that I would never let my age get in the way of him having a full life. NEVER has he made any reference to my age. Not once.

I love this amazing man unconditionally - - - and will do everything I can to make sure his life is lived to the fullest. If that means bringing another woman into our lives - - then that is what I will do.

You mention Utah, marriage, polygamy etc but the connecting factor is MORMONISM. Do you realize this all has to do with their religious beliefs? There has been nothing but scandal, cover ups and lies coming from that state. They are a magnet for many illegal activities and this lawsuit if won, will only perpetuate and reinforce Utah's separation from the rest of the states. I agree that the degredation of women this Polygamy AND Mormonism has caused and making it legal will only further the hardship women must overcome. All those children who will be raised in these massive families are subject to a life that isn't freely thought of as productive for society. How can one husband afford to feed, clothe, shelter, and care for all those people? In a bad economy it's difficult for single people and so much more for families to thrive. I suppose all of that tithing that the mormon's have hoarded will be going to polygamist families breeding more and more Mormons. It's a win for them. I hope this draws Americans to learn more about Utah and it's criminal practices.

reply to post by wildoracle13


I'm not LDS (which is the technical term for the Morman church) but I do know that the main LDS church does not condone nor does it allow polygamy which was actually due to a compromise made to gain them statehood.
Polygamists are actually a lower denomination of Mormanism ( a different version if you will) that is separate from the LDS church and would get no support from the LDS church (which probably means there are no Tithings) as they are dependent on this staying Illegal for political purposes.

I would also scroll up a little bit and read my comments about Polyandry.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
it is clear you know very little about Christianity.

I was raised Christian. My many years (60) of searching for God - - lead me to Atheism.

Oh - - and in that search I was Mormon for 5 years - - - in addition to other beliefs I tried.

Do I know what it is to actually live your life in love without judgment as Jesus taught? Yes.

Do I have any interest in dogma/doctrine and man made religion? Absolutely Not.

I am all for polygamy as long as the women can have more then one husband/partner,

reply to post by getreadyalready


I agree with what you said. I don't think I could have said it better myself.

It's not about right or wrong, because no two people will ever agree fully on all things. As long as someone elses rights don't violate my rights, I don't care what they do. They have to live with the results. And stupid people shall be punished. Thus no welfare in my utopia. If heroin was legal, and you were dumb enough to get hooked on it, I shouldn't have to pay for you to get off of it. Pretty simple.

Once again, well said getreadyalready.

reply to post by Annee


*watches point sail off into distance*

*waves goodbye*

least you finally decided to chime in. i guess thats a step.

Originally posted by DaMod
Here's my problem with Polygamy..

There is a practice called polyandry which is a woman with multiple husbands.. The problem here is in the US Polygamists are against the practice of polyandry and therefore if they cannot accept that a wife can have multiple husbands than why should a husband be allowed to have multiple wives?

I don't think this should be allowed if one cannot accept the other.

edit on 13-7-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

OH is that what it is called I had no idea,

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by wildoracle13

 

I'm not LDS (which is the technical term for the Morman church) but I do know that the main LDS church does not condone nor does it allow polygamy which was actually due to a compromise made to gain them statehood.
Polygamists are actually a lower denomination of Mormanism ( a different version if you will) that is separate from the LDS church and would get no support from the LDS church (which probably means there are no Tithings) as they are dependent on this staying Illegal for political purposes.

I would also scroll up a little bit and read my comments about Polyandry.

edit on 13-7-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

I'll admit I don't know much about thier political agenda and would assume that mainstream LDS'ers wouldn't be willing to change thier minds about polygamy so easily considering thier morals related to gay people. But because they are not worried about thier state-hood I would venture to guess that a hungry polygamist child residing in Utah in need of that tithing money would be priority over a hungry black child of Detroit. Just saying... * there's a mormon bible quote that says something about being white and delightsome is why I made the comparison with a black child.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I am all for polygamy as long as the women can have more then one husband/partner,

It's than, not then.Then is used when stating order. For instance: First a law would be passed allowing polygamy, THEN women would be dissapointed when they found out that there aren't many men who like to share their women.

Originally posted by NEWclearMind

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I am all for polygamy as long as the women can have more then one husband/partner,

It's than, not then.Then is used when stating order. For instance: First a law would be passed allowing polygamy, THEN women would be dissapointed when they found out that there aren't many men who like to share their women.

Thank you .

Originally posted by Leahn
You don't have to really worry about children getting married for now. The next logical step after polygamy is polyamory, and then marrying your relatives. I think it was Sweden that was passing a law a while ago legalizing the marriage of cousins.

You do know that 20 states in the US have no laws against 1st cousins marrying - - right?

www.ncsl.org...

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Well no matter how you slice the melon there is still another edge on the sword.

I personally have religious beliefs, but in the eyes of the law there is a separation between church and state.. Really though these religious organizations have quite a bit of pull in society and the views of their followers are registered voters and still a vast majority (mostly considering denominations of Christianity some of which are so different from each other it would be like comparing Buddhism to voodoo.) However the fact still remains the Majority view still wins out.. Right or wrong if people at large (which depending on beliefs) think that Polygamy should be illegal.. Then it should be illegal whether in reality it should or not..

However I was touching on the hypocrisy of the whole dilly'o. Polygamists (mostly LDS polygamists) think that polyandry is an abomination... So back to the other edge of the sword.. If they cannot accept the practice being inclusive of both sexes (as gay marriage would be ergo Lesbian and Gay) then it is inherently discriminatory and therefore should not be given a second look until they can support law allowing for both practices.

edit on 13-7-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

Polyandry is an abomination because it's the opposite of what they believe. Men hold total power, women are subordinate. In the afterlife, Men get their own planet filled with many many wives of their choosing. If a wife dies before her husband, she waits in limbo for him until he dies and decides whether or not to invite her to his planet. This is the gist of the story as I understand it. So, yes, polyandry is an abomination to any LDS/Mormon polygamist or non-polygamist. To throw polyandry into the mix is only pointing out the deep corruption of moral values mormons hold, like you said 'hypocrisy"

Did you know Mormon women in Utah had the right to vote before becoming a state?

Mormon women gave up a lot of rights for Utah to become a state.

Also Mormon polygamy is religious based. The church often assigned women to a man. The man could not say no - - but the woman could.

Also - - he had to provide separate homes for each wife.

In terms of New Testament references, I seem to find that I Corinthians 7:2 suggests an arrangement in which each man has his own wife, and each woman has her own husband:

1 Corintians 7:
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The question that I ask is, "how can a woman claim her huband as "her own" husband if she's sharing him with another wife?", or even, "how can a man claim his wife as "his own" wife if he's sharing her with another husband?"

Doesn't that go against the concept of having "one's own"?

Am I reading it correctly?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I was just messing with you. Thanks for not slamming me. I just figured my example would expound on your comment.

Originally posted by wildoracle13
Just saying... * there's a mormon bible quote that says something about being white and delightsome is why I made the comparison with a black child.

What is a Mormon bible?

Originally posted by Annee
What crap!
I get so tired of the anti-feminists blaming women's independence for everything.
Man went to war - - Man left women home to fend for themselves - - take care of EVERYTHING. Women had to go to work to build war machines.Then man comes home and expects woman to become subservient to his needs and stop being an independent person.

And I am tired of feminists acting like "feminism" didn't have any negative consequences in total and absolute denial of the evidence in front of them. Statistics say that since the advent of feminism the male wage has been steadily on the decrease, which means less buying power for the man. Do you know how the "wage gap" was closed? Hint: it wasn't by raising the wages of women faster than the wages of men.

In the past, we had the concept of "family wage" (look it up) which granted to any man the right to a wage that was enough to support a family (defined as a wife and two children). The advent of feminism destroyed the "family wage" right for men because women wanted equal pay, even though they didn't have a family to support. The result is that neither men nor women can support a family by themselves now, and both have to work to make ends meet.

Yes, it is a consequence of the feminism you so eagerly defend. Deal with it.

There has never been a moment in American history when women couldn't be independent, if they wanted to. The myth that "feminism" allowed women to be independent is just that, a myth.

Now if man encouraged women to have their mothers or other relatives live with them and offered to take up some of the household and child raising responsibilities so that his wife could continue working or going to school - - that would have been a positive step forward in family evolvement.

Seriously, could you be any more selfish? So, now, you want your mother and your other relatives to share part of your responsibility so you can "continue working" or "go to school"? What if your mother wants to "continue working" or "go to school"? Should she not do it so you can do it? What if she wants to enjoy her retirement, after working her entire life and fulfilling her duty as a mother, and don't want to deal with it anymore? Should she suck it up and do it anyway, because your needs are paramount?

And why is it the man that has to go and convince your mother to do it? Why? Ain't you independent? Why do you need men to do it for you? Do you lack a mouth that you can't ask her yourself?

If you can't handle being a mother and working, pick one and stick to it. Do not expect others to share your burden. You wanted to be part of the men's world. You wanted equality. Now you have it. And you will wish you didn't.

We can't blame MAN for walking away from his wife and children. I'm sure the woman and stress of it all - - was just too much for him.

You do know that over 70% of the divorces is the woman that walks away, right?

I don't see how gay marriage and polygamy are even close to the same. I also don't see how polygamy can be the next logical step.

Regardless of its romanticism in culture, marriage in legal terms in simply a contract. A contract that's used to establish household sets for censuses, tax purposes, insurance purposes, next-of-kin, inheritance in case of a lack of a will.

Gay marriage merely opens it up to more gender combinations; legal polygamy completely destroys the design altogether.