Polygamy Activism On The Rise

[visionary]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/

:doh:

(I knew this was coming, and I don't blame these folks a bit.)

"March 20, 2006 issue - Marlyne Hammon knows what it's like to feel hated and hunted. In 1953, when she was an infant, her father—along with dozens of other men in her tiny community of Short Creek, Ariz.—was arrested and sent to jail on charges of polygamy."

[dreamingwolf]

I hate vagina hoarders

[LD0506]

Well you know what the punishment for polygamy is don't you?

More than one mother-in-law

[MisterPinstripe]

Well, I do not agree with them, but it makes sense. If gays can do it, why not them? Just watch and wait for all the rest of the weird ideas to come out of the woodwork.

[Dead Money]

Seriously? One woman is tough enough to handle.. can you imagine several wives? :doh:

[dfitzo53]

Well, I do not agree with them, but it makes sense. If gays can do it, why not them? Just watch and wait for all the rest of the weird ideas to come out of the woodwork.

You might be surprised to learn how many of the world's societies are polygamist. I'm not saying it's the way I'd do things, but weird is a subjective term.

[georgiaredskin]

I hate vagina hoarders

:laugh:

Lots of people I work with are from Africa, and they say in their country some guys have like 30 wives. They make no bones about trying to hit on me although they are married/trying to have a girlfriend on the side. Never in my life have I been used to that. And to a lot of them having a girlfriend means nothing to them. I say, here's two words for ya: starts with an M, ends with an ARRIED.

[Blondie]

I hate vagina hoarders

Some may think this statement is really funny.

I just think it is over the boundry.

Blondie

[ntotoro]

I'd rather be left alone than married to two women at the same time.

I'm sure women would feel the same way about being married to two men.

Well, maybe not. I know I couldn't hang, though.

[Blondie]

Seriously? One woman is tough enough to handle.. can you imagine several wives? :doh:

Ain't that the truth!!!

:laugh:

Blondie

[Johnny Punani2]

Polygamy is just an attempt to justify adultery.

[RonJeremy]

Sounded good to me until I saw the women who were activists for the cause

:puke:

[Johnny Punani2]

Sounded good to me until I saw the women who were activists for the cause

:puke:

:shiver: It's all you Jebediah...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I know a number of people in polygamist relationships. They're friends of mine from my college days (more than a decade ago). In both relationships it's M-F-M, not F-M-F and in neither case are the men sexually involved with each other. In both cases the woman is legally married to one of the men and the other man lives in the same house with the married couple as a complete, three person family unit.

Shortly after the Communistwealth of Mass. granted same-sex couples the right to marry, I asked the members of both these relationships if they felt that they should have the right to all be married as well. Both responses were identical.... "We don't care. We do what we do, whether the law recognizes it or not. We've dealt with it our own way and that's all that matters to us."

Just thought that information might make an interesting addition to this conversation.

[DeanCollins]

Sounded good to me until I saw the women who were activists for the cause

:puke:

they've all got that "stepford wives" look on thier faces :insane:

[JMac]

Seriously? One woman is tough enough to handle.. can you imagine several wives? :doh:

:laugh: I can barely afford the one I have now

[Destino]

I thought part of the issue with polygamy was the great deal of abuse and control that is needed to keep the women from simply leaving. Don't they marry the girls off at a young age?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I thought part of the issue with polygamy was the great deal of abuse and control that is needed to keep the women from simply leaving. Don't they marry the girls off at a young age?

In the cases where it is a societal thing, yes that can be a problem at times. That's not the only place that polygamy exists anymore. It is also a social/relationship choice being made by a number of men and women throughout this country and others.

[Destino]

In the cases where it is a societal thing, yes that can be a problem at times. That's not the only place that polygamy exists anymore. It is also a social/relationship choice being made by a number of men and women throughout this country and others.

I did know about that, and I am sorry for not seperating the two. The one you describe while not in agreement with my beliefs isn't as sinister as the form I was describing.

[Art Monk Fan]

I’m sure you’ll all remember a year or so ago when anti-sodomy laws were challenged in the courts. At the time Rick Santorum came out and argued that this needed to be decided in the legislatures of the country and not the courts. He argued that a successful legal challenge to anti-sodomy laws would also negate any legal grounds for anti-polygamy and anti-polyamory laws. The legislature could easily write the anti-sodomy laws out of existence without setting a dangerous legal precedent.

Now, of course, Santorum was attacked as a right-wing nut using fear and outrageous comments to polarize people against the issue. He was labeled a homophobe, a bigot and worse. That he was totally right didn’t seem to bother anyone then — maybe it will now.

How do you legally sanction sodomy, and likewise gay marriage, on the grounds that two adults — both of whom consent to the activity — have an inherent right to privacy in matters of sexuality, and then ban polygamy and polyamory? The only thing that has changed is the number of consenting adults involved.

:2cents:

[Destino]

I’m sure you’ll all remember a year or so ago when anti-sodomy laws were challenged in the courts. At the time Rick Santorum came out and argued that this needed to be decided in the legislatures of the country and not the courts. He argued that a successful legal challenge to anti-sodomy laws would also negate any legal grounds for anti-polygamy and anti-polyamory laws. The legislature could easily write the anti-sodomy laws out of existence without setting a dangerous legal precedent.

Now, of course, Santorum was attacked as a right-wing nut using fear and outrageous comments to polarize people against the issue. He was labeled a homophobe, a bigot and worse. That he was totally right didn’t seem to bother anyone then — maybe it will now.

How do you legally sanction sodomy, and likewise gay marriage, on the grounds that two adults — both of whom consent to the activity — have an inherent right to privacy in matters of sexuality, and then ban polygamy and polyamory? The only thing that has changed is the number of consenting adults involved.

:2cents:

You left out a lot. He most certainly did not limit his statement to polygamy. Here it is:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

It's funny that you accuse his critics of "using fear and outrageous comments to polarize people against the issue" when that is EXACTLY what Santorum did.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I did know about that, and I am sorry for not seperating the two. The one you describe while not in agreement with my beliefs isn't as sinister as the form I was describing.

No problem. I spend a lot of time with these people, so I've had a lot of discussions with them about how they see the world and how the world tends to see them. They're not interested in forcing their worldview on the rest of society so long as society is willing to leave them alone.

[Art Monk Fan]

You left out a lot. He most certainly did not limit his statement to polygamy. Here it is:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

It's funny that you accuse his critics of "using fear and outrageous comments to polarize people against the issue" when that is EXACTLY what Santorum did.

Depending on the wording of the Supreme Court's decision, and the breadth of the new privacy shield it would create, all of the sexual acts he mentioned might have received sanction, plus more that he didn't.

Obviously bigamy and polygamy would be covered under this new sheild.

For incest involving two or more consenting adults -- on what gournds do you violate their privacy right?

Hell, you already have the right to adultery since most states have adopted no-fault divorce laws. While these were intended to allow divorce without the need to build a case first, they also stripped any punative sanctions in the settlement for adulterous acts.

So which of the acts he enumerated was outrageous?

[Destino]

Depending on the wording of the Supreme Court's decision, and the breadth of the new privacy shield it would create, all of the sexual acts he mentioned might have received sanction, plus more that he didn't.

"might" but really have not. None of the laws concerning those have been overturned.

Obviously bigamy and polygamy would be covered under this new sheild.

Absolutely incorrect. Bigamy and polygamy isn't about "sex" it's about marriage - particularly how many spouses one is allowed to have. Privacy in your own bed room does not shield either of those.

For incest involving two or more consenting adults -- on what gournds do you violate their privacy right?

Incest laws are largely drawn from birth defects and child abuse - not privacy. While they MIGHT be able to argue two adult family members should be protected by a privacy ruling - the incest people are concerned about isn't between two adults. It's between a parents and child, and that most certainly would not be protected.

Hell, you already have the right to adultery since most states have adopted no-fault divorce laws. While these were intended to allow divorce without the need to build a case first, they also stripped any punative sanctions in the settlement for adulterous acts.

You are correct and it is something I disagree with as well. Sad that destroying a family that depend on you has become acceptable.

So which of the acts he enumerated was outrageous?

Polygamy, bigamy, the child abuse side of incest.

[Art Monk Fan]

Depending on the wording of the Supreme Court's decision, and the breadth of the new privacy shield it would create, all of the sexual acts he mentioned might have received sanction, plus more that he didn't.

"might" but really have not. None of the laws concerning those have been overturned.

None of them have been overturned yet, but that is the whole point of this article — the process is beginning.

Obviously bigamy and polygamy would be covered under this new sheild.

Absolutely incorrect. Bigamy and polygamy isn't about "sex" it's about marriage - particularly how many spouses one is allowed to have. Privacy in your own bed room does not shield either of those.

I disagree. The challenge to anti-sodomy laws was always about gay rights, and a stepping stone toward legal sanction of gay marriage. As I originally asked, how do you legalize gay marriage on the grounds that consenting adults have an absolute right to enter into a marriage contract on their own terms, and then deny them that right in the cases of bigamy, polygamy or polyamory?

For incest involving two or more consenting adults -- on what grounds do you violate their privacy right?

Incest laws are largely drawn from birth defects and child abuse - not privacy. While they MIGHT be able to argue two adult family members should be protected by a privacy ruling - the incest people are concerned about isn't between two adults. It's between a parents and child, and that most certainly would not be protected.

I'll grant you partial credit on this one -- incest against children could and would still be banned. However, a challenge arguing that birth defects are highly possible in adult-on-adult incest would likely not. We do not currently restrict people with inherited maladies from procreating. Folks with inherited heart defects aren't banned from having children, regardless of the fact that they are highly likely to pass it along to their offspring.

Hell, you already have the right to adultery since most states have adopted no-fault divorce laws. While these were intended to allow divorce without the need to build a case first, they also stripped any punitive sanctions in the settlement for adulterous acts.

You are correct and it is something I disagree with as well. Sad that destroying a family that depends on you has become acceptable.

I can tell you from personal experience it's more than just sad, it's ****ing devastating.

So which of the acts he enumerated was outrageous?

Polygamy, bigamy, the child abuse side of incest.

I'll grant you child-abuse incest (though Santorum never specified this), but not the others.