Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:45 AM
Original message
Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy
SALT LAKE CITY - In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."

She has been prodded about her sex life: "He rotates. It's easy -- just one, two, three." Quizzed about her decision to share a husband with two other women: "You really have a good frame of reference when you marry a man who already has two wives." Interrogated about what it's like to live in a house with 21 children: "Remodeling a kitchen, that's no small feat with three wives and a husband involved."

All the while, the petite brunette with a smile as bright as Utah's sky has insisted that she's just like you and me: "I'm a soccer mom. My kids are in music lessons. They go to public school. I'm not under anyone's control."

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15822320 /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. Stop them! They're Republican and they're breeding
I believe that Democratic LDS folk are as rare as hen's teeth.

These are truly fundamentalist Mormons. Joseph Smith would be proud of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. C'mon and legalize Polyandry too.
If a man has a right to multiple wives, than a woman should have the right to multiple husbands.

It's only fair :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Polygamy means multiple spouses.
Polygyny is the term for more than one wife, and polyandry refers to more than one husband. Polygyny & polyandry are forms of polygamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. "...you say tomato, and I say tomato...you say potato, and I say potato...
why not just legalize ORGIES for old fat ugly white men who wouldn't be able to get a date otherwise and be done with it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Sometimes it's not good to have information...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Show_Me _The_Truth Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
65. Thanks to you too.
See my post #64. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Show_Me _The_Truth Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
64. Thanks for teaching me a new word.
I just fulfilled one of my dad's key pieces of advice for today, "You should learn something new everyday."

Thanks. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks to these winners (and other LDS fundies)
There are a strong number of homeless male teenagers booted from their cult and onto the streets so that dirty old men can live their dream (religiously approved dirty old man dreams!)

They can lick dog scrote. Let 'em marry female sheep. That'll keep 'em happy and solve the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwlauren35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. I hope this works...
It's amazing to see a conservative group and a liberal group facing such a similar set of issues. Both groups are plagued with accusations of abuse and pedophilia, and while these things may happen, they aren't necessarily the norm. However, it becomes easy to use such incidents to label, ostracize and condemn.

It should be very interesting to watch this play out. Mormons aren't the only religious group with a history of polygamy.

Perhaps marriage needs to morph into something that is based more on level of commitment, than the gender or number of participants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. There was a documentary on CNN I think, about these nuts
Some of the wives on this were routinely abused, kept constantly pregnant, and because the parties involved are genetically close there are often birth defects and mental retardation in many of the children they have. They had two women on this documentary who had to run away in the middle of the night, one grabbing her children on oxygen tanks, fleeing for her life.

There are actually support groups to help those lucky enough and strong enough to escape. It's nothing like "Big Love".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. This story has little to do with the fringe bunch and the CNN documentary.
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 11:48 AM by mcscajun
There are insular, off-the-grid, abusive groups (like the Warren Jeffs bunch of nuts), and the CNN documentary was about them. The people in this story are closer to mainstream, with ties in the outside non-polygamous world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. If polygamy is legalized, what next? Gay marriage?
One can certainly hope so. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. I just want to say...
i LOVE your avatar ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. Will a woman be able to have 4 husbands???or at least 2???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. You're thinking of (medieval) Islam, friend.
The limit of 4 wives is in the Qu'ran. The Book of Mormon has no such limitation whatsoever (though the mainstream LDS church renounced polygamy so Utah could gain statehood); Brigham Young is said to have had 27 wives! (And remember, that was generations before Viagra :P )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. More on Warren Jeffs, Hilldale, and Fundamentalist Mormons
where it sounds like there's so much wrong. The real problem with polygamy seems to be that it tends to hellholes like this - arranged marriages for girls who you doubt have real choice in the matter, young men driven off to keep the man-woman balance uneven, and the status of women reduced to just a way of a powerful man having more children.

Fawn Broadbend ran away almost three years ago, when she was 16, and now also lives in Salt Lake City. She remembers before she left being told not to laugh, but that was not why she fled Hilldale. At the age of 14 her name was added by her father to the "joy book", a list allegedly collated by Jeffs of young girls whose parents believed they were ready to be put out to marriage, often with a husband who already had one or several other wives. When Broadbend learned that she was in the book, she resisted: her elder sister had become the 23rd wife of a polygamist with 106 children in Bountiful, an outpost of the faith in British Columbia, Canada, and she didn't want that for herself.

In January 2004, fearing that she could be married off with just 15 minutes' notice, as had happened to others in the community, Broadbend ran. The day before had also proved to be the final straw for her when Jeffs had called an extraordinary meeting of townspeople. In front of a crowd of 1,500, he read out a list of 21 of the community's fathers, telling them they had sinned but without telling them why, and ordering them to leave immediately. All 21 men packed their bags and were gone that night. Most of them are still expelled from the town, separated from their wives and children, frantically trying to work out which sins they must repent.

Many teenaged boys were also turfed out of the community. Chuck, also a false name, is 15. Last December he was called in to a meeting of church leaders in Hilldale and told he had broken the rules by wearing T-shirts and going to the cinema. He was told to leave by the following morning. Diversity, a group in Salt Lake City that works with teenagers thrown out of Hilldale - the Lost Boys, as they are known locally - puts their number at up to 1,000.

At its most extreme, the reign of Jeffs saw families torn apart at his whim. Carl Holm, 42, was ostracised by the church elders several years ago for having married outside the religion, and now lives in Salt Lake City. His sister is one of more than 40 women in Hilldale believed to be married to Warren Jeffs (he is said to have more than 60 children). Two other sisters were married to the same man - a common practice in Hilldale - until Jeffs stepped in and ordained that one of the sisters was no longer to be married. Again, without being told her sin, she was banished from the family. All her children were "reassigned" to the other sister.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1953193,00....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. All so Jeffs and other 'pious' members of his flock can live a
dirtly old man's religiously endorsed dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. on YOUR tax money
each "wife" recieves a welfare check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. This is the stuff that is truly horrifying. Families torn apart, children abandoned
(the "Lost Boys") young girls sexually enslaved to older men. Ugh.

I cannot imagine being a 23rd "wife" -- sounds more like an Ottoman Empire harem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
77. This seems to be totally beside the point...
1.) statutory rape is illegal.
2.) coercing someone into marriage is illegal.
3.) beating your spouse is illegal.
4.) abandoning children younger than 18 is illegal.
5.) forcably detaining someone against their will is illegal.

Given that all of these things (which represent the only societal interest in what goes on in someone else's home) are already illegal, why would it be necessary to ***criminalize*** being married to more than one person?

As long as everyone is of age, consenting, not abused and can leave whenever they want, why is it any of the government's damn business who is married to whom?

And yes, benefits are another kettle of fish- which is why I support only allowing two people to enter into a "domestic partenership" kind of arrangement, but do you seriously think people should be going to jail simply because they are married to more than one person?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TlalocW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
11. Captain Spaulding: Let's get married!
Mrs. Whitehead: All of us?
Captain Spaulding: All of us.
Mrs. Rittenhouse: Why, that's bigamy!
Captain Spaulding: Yes, and it's big of me too.

TlalocW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seeking Serenity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
47. That's big of all of us.
Capt. Spaulding: Let's be big for a change. I'm tired of these conventional weddings. One man and one woman was good enough for your grandmother, but who wants to marry your grandmother? Nobody. Not even your grandfather.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the other one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. Just so long as everyone is of legal age
then I don't care what people do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. AND that they don't look to the government
to fund their families as many do or are abusing the women and children whom they've married
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sugapablo Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Ding ding ding!
Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
13. As much as I despise religious-based polygamy...
As a polyamorous person in a committed LTR, I'd like to be able to get married too...sigh... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. kudos for your forbearance
I live with my partner without marriage by choice: two people, heterosexual, perfectly free to marry if we wanted, neither of us wants anything to do with the institution.

Back when I was in law school 30 years ago, our jurisdiction's laws were changing to give unmarried opposite-sex partners basically the same rights and responsiblities, as between themselves, as married partners -- support obligations, pension rights, etc. (Here in Canada, unmarried opposite-sex partners gradually acquired most of the same obligations and rights, so when same-sex marriage was formally recognized, it didn't make a lot of difference in practical terms for same-sex partners either.)

This treatment of unmarried-partner relationships does not make me happy. I am free, white and 21, as it were (and if you'll forgive an old saying used facetiously) -- I am educated, self-supporting, intelligent and independent. I do not want rights to my partner's income, and I do not want him to have rights to mine that I have not expressly granted. I want to organize my life as I choose, and not have it organized for me based on whom I choose to have sex with. Much as gay and lesbian couples who want to marry feel. ;)

But I recognize (and certainly learned about in law school) that many women in "common-law" relationships do not have the advantages and resources I have, and that without the protections extended by these laws they are vulnerable to exploitation and abandonment. Women who became dependent on men as a result of child-bearing and child-rearing, and foregoing economic opportunities based on decisions made jointly or under pressure from their partners, can find themselves poor and with no claim on assets their partners have acquired from income earned while the women were at home, or family businesses the women helped build up.

So I live with the template imposed on my life that I don't want. It hasn't affected me -- but as the sole income earner in the household (don't ask), and a high earner at that, it could, if we separated and things turned nasty. Then I might be a little less sanguine. I really oughta get one of those cohab agreements signed ...

Anyhow, I don't protest because I realize I am advantaged, and I am willing to put other women's welfare ahead of my principles.

I would probably agree that people in freely chosen polygamous relationships should be able to marry, and there is no reason why the possibly complex issues of mutual rights and obligations could not be organized reasonably. But at present, allowing this would just open the door to horrific exploitation and abuse, and it doesn't really seem that that problem could be avoided while allowing people not subject to exploitation and abuse to organize their lives as they choose.

Mind you, the exploitation and abuse is obviously going on apace even without the societal recognition of the relationships. Nonetheless, societal disapproval seems to continue to be important in reducing the risk, and the numbers of women to whom it happens, even if it doesn't prevent it altogether.

So when polygamous partners don't make the obvious argument that if opposite-sex couples may marry and same-sex couples may marry (as they may, where I am), so should they be able to, I do appreciate it. Not because you shouldn't jeopardize same-sex couples' prospects in the U.S., for instance, by opening the door to the floodgates argument, but because you're making a sacrifice to protect people who are more vulnerable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
51. What if you were in an accident?
If you were in Critical Care, would your partner be allowed to see you? If you passed away, would your joint possessions go to your partner, or to your sister, or nephew? Would he have any say in the disposition of your remains, or would the job fall to your parents?

I understand, I think, why people don't feel they need the "piece of paper". . but it comes with some important stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Fortunately, I don't live in the middle ages
... or the United States. ;)

The idea that any of the things you suggest would happen to me makes my skin crawl, and makes me glad I live where I do every time I think about it.

Yup, back when I was in law school 30 years ago, some of those problems existed here.

These days, there just aren't that many people in Canada who think it is their business how I organize my personal life. The notion that someone would try to prevent my partner from seeing me in hospital -- I can't tell you how utterly bizarre that seems to anyone living in Canada, or Europe, or Australia ... or, I would strongly suspect, Togo.

I understand, I think, why people don't feel they need the "piece of paper". . but it comes with some important stuff

I don't actually feel I don't need the piece of paper -- I actively don't want it. To me it symbolizes patriarchy, and puts my private life on public display ... and really is just downright silly. When someone asks me why I don't want to get married, all I can say (much as when someone asks me why I don't believe in god) is why do you want to??

Here in Canada, the only real distinction left (although I'm not quite sure about claims on a spouse's property on relationship breakdown) is societal. And that's why gay men and lesbians claimed and got the right to marry: because "married" status carries with it social recognition of a relationship. I can't imagine why anyone would want social recognition of his/her sexual/emotional relationship, but it's none of my business if s/he does! And obviously I don't care whether I have it or not. ;)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
16. Do you suppose a lot of these women are closet lesbians?
>>Bonnie said that what attracted her to polygamy was the chance it gave her to bond with women as well as with her husband.

"I always had an inner feeling that I'd be a plural wife," she said. "I was very excited to join his family. I had a really good feeling with his first wife."<<

It gives women a way not only to have someone father their children, but also to live with female lovers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. It's not like that
When you live in little polygamous towns way out in the desert, far from the bright lights of even Salt Lake City, in the grip of a religion that glorifies men, having a "sister wife" in the same boat with you might just make her your best friend. If there is any lesbian activity that goes on, it's on the level of what goes on with one's cellmate in prison. Not a true choice, just the only real option for love and understanding from a fellow human being possible in that circumstance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. 21 children - 1 father? He must make a nice income....
or we are paying for those kids. Anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Many of them: We are
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. yes, we are paying for them with tax dollars
Unless they are self insured for health insurance which is highly unlikely.

I work in the Utah welfare office, trust me, most polygamists receive public assistance of one form or another; food stamps, housing, medicaid, cash assistance. Once children enter the picture, you can't turn your back on them.

Tom Green was prosecuted for bigamy several years ago. The real charges were statutory rape (at least one of his wives was underage when she got pregnant) and criminal non-support. Tax payers paid a minimum of $60,000 per year for their support which did not include medicaid expenses.

Think about that. Most polygamists are on welfare, that one family (5 wives, 30 kids) was costing upwards of $100K a year in tax dollars.

The other side of the coin is there would likely be fewer forced marriages or kicking boys out if it were legal. Keeping it illegal has kept them isolated which may contribute to many abuses.

The other issue I have with legalization is 50% of marriages end in divorce which is difficult for the children. What do you do where there are three mothers? In Big Love each mother has a separate home where she lives with her kids, but that is not the norm for polygamists in Utah. Most commonly they can't afford separate homes and all live together. If one wife leaves and takes her kids and its a legal relationship, how do you divide the property and what do you do about visitation with the children?

I supported making it legal until I saw the economic realities when I took this job 9 years ago. You can't say "if you take a second wife you will no longer be eligible for public assistance" because the ones you hurt will be the kids.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
24. We can't accept that. Next thing you know, people will demand GAY MARRIAGE!
Man on man and woman on woman sex!

just...thinking...about...it...unnn...

what will we tell the CHILDREN?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
27. Sexist and Chauvinistic. I will always oppose the creation of harems. (nt)
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 08:41 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. I know some polyamorous men...
Edited on Wed Nov-22-06 01:48 AM by Triana
...they are all verbally, psychologically, and emotionally abusive. NO thanks. If THAT is what this is like, I'll pass. If these guys were different, I could more readily accept the idea of multiple partners and in general it's OK, but OMG are these fellas emotionally and verbally abusive to their partners. Jeeeeze. It just makes me back off. What IS it with these guys? And, it makes me wonder what their attitude towards women really are considering their lifestyle and what they expect their women to tolerate.

I know that abusive men were often conditioned from an early age to feel entitled to be a privileged character in relationships where the partner(s) cater to them. Their high entitlement leads them to have unfair and unreasonable expectations, as well as double standards in their relationships. One common double standard is that only the male is allowed to express hurt or anger in the relationship (no matter WHAT), but not his partner(s). The women MUST be emotional eunuchs to even be able to deal with the relationship, and the men I know who are polyamorous ARE emotional eunuchs. Detached. Lacking committment. Self-centered, narcissistic, verbally abusive. When they want a new woman in their life YOU had BETTER get and STAY out of their way while they pursue and court her or GET OUT of the relationship. Period. They're like bulldogs in a chinashop. They want what (who) they want when they want her and nothing or nobody including any expectations or committments of any other relationship is going to stop them. If another partner is bothered by his pursuits - TOUGH - she gets told that's "her crap" and she can just deal with it. Don't bother getting attached - emotionally or otherwise, to one of these guys.

Sound FUN, ladies?

I'm sorry but I am NOT impresssed with the way these men treat women or with the parameters and dynamics of their relationships. If that is what it's about - to hell with it. If it was different then maybe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Wow.
I, too, have known polyamorous men and not had that experience at all. In fact, I have been involved in poly relationships and considered those positive experiences.

What you're saying is akin, in my mind, to saying that all marriage should be illegal because some men beat their wives.

Utter bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I never said polyamory should be illegal - where did I write that?
Edited on Wed Nov-22-06 11:47 AM by Triana
SHOW ME where I wrote that.

I said IF that's what it's like, it's not for me. So, your claim that I stated that it should be illegal is - to use your own words, utter bullshit.

To each his/her own. If people want those type of relationships, more power to them. I only said that I personally do not due to my own experience with them which was NOT, I assure you, bullshit.

It was very real.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
59. Well I want polygamy to *stay* illegal. It has no place in the modern world. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
29. Plural wives pass themselves off as single mothers in order to...
receive public assistance. This is condoned as "bleeding the beast" Grifters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. playing both sides of the game
Unfortunately, by the official rules, they are single mothers! However, being unmarried does not relieve fathers of support obligations, so it shouldn't be too hard to hit them with support orders. Easier said than done in most cases, undoubtedly.

As an immigration lawyer, I once acted for a woman who wanted to join the rest of her family (parents, siblings) in Canada. Because she was an adult, she could not be sponsored, and had to qualify on her own -- unless she was the "last remaining family member" abroad. She could only qualify under that provision if she did not have a spouse, child, parent or sibling outside Canada.

Well, she had a spouse -- but he had another spouse too, and the other spouse was the first spouse chronologically. So my client, by Canadian law, did not have a spouse. She indicated to me that she was prepared to leave her husband (not that they actually lived together; they were quite well to do, and the wives lived separately in England while the husband tended to his businesses in the middle east).

Her application was successful, and she became a Canadian permanent resident (green card status equivalent).

And a year later, there she was in my office wanting to sponsor her husband. Sorry, my dear. No can do.

I do suspect that she was a bit of a pawn in the husband's own game, of course -- that the plan on his part had been to use her family connections to get him residence in Canada. (So that he could then sponsor his other spouse and live happily ever after??)

If there was exploitation going on, at least Canadian law drew a line under it, based on the woman's own choices, of course. Unfortunately, when everybody lives in the same jurisdiction, it's harder to do that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
30. It's like the drug trade:
Sure there are some problems that go with polygamy as it is currently practiced in many areas. Examples of this are treating women like chattel and welfare fraud. If plural marriage was legal, these problems would be less easy to hide. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E-Z-B Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
35. Polygamy is a bad idea for the economy
Imagine one man with multiple wives - how does health insurance work? Are all his wives covered under his single "family plan"? This seems like an economic and legal nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
78. Generally the wives wouldn't be
but all of the children would be - regardless of whether their mother was the legally recognized wife or one of the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
37. Although polygamists proclaim equality for women, I have no
Edited on Wed Nov-22-06 12:42 PM by hedgehog
knowledge of any society in which polygamy didn't lead to treating women as chattel. Inevitably, the woman's fertility becomes her only value.

On a lighter note, just how does the guy end up finding his second, third etc wives? I'm imagining him coming home and saying "Don't bother with supper for me tonight hon, I've got a hot date!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. polyamorists proclaim equality for women too
Edited on Wed Nov-22-06 02:03 PM by Triana
However, women / wives (just from what I've seen) are expected to be silent partners and to adhere to some very strict behavior rules in order to live that lifestyle. They're expected to vanish into a drone-dom from which they cheerfully take care of house and home, kids, maintain the relationship alone, settle for whatever sex is provided, never ask for anything, never complain no matter what (or WHO) and keep a low profile.

And, in that lifestyle, YES that is exactly what happens. The guy has hot dates and often when he has them, nothing/noone else is on his mind. No one else has anything to say about it. If a relationship develops with the new hot date, then all other bets are off in all other relationships until the 'romance' wears off with the new hottie. Meanwhile, other partner(s) had better shutup and stay out of the way. If they get tired of no sex or of sitting home alone - tough. That's their "crap" and they are expected not to burden Mr. Himself with any of it while he courts his hot pursuits. Polyamorists also tend to get rather careless and more verbally abusive with their old partner(s) when they have new lovers - because they simply don't give a crap about the 'old' ones anymore. They're "in love" with someone ELSE and that's all they care about at that point. The old cow gets put out to pasture till he gets bored with the new one - six months to a year or so.

It's just a really selfish (JUST from what I've seen personally) way to relate and live. There seemed to be no substantial committment to any of their relationships - only to getting their own "needs" met while those of others went unmet. It could be different outside the several examples I've seen but...well that's what I've seen - that's all I can say. And there are women who buy into this and who act that way themselves in the reverse, which is just as unacceptable for me personally. They seemed to be rather superficial relationships that lack depth.

But - in the end, I think if that's how people want to live, it's their business. None of this should be illegal. However, it's important to look at real world examples and not buy into the marketing of these more 'evolved' love/lifestyles too quickly. Just like monogamy, what's underneath the pretty wrapping may not be what people bargained for or what they think they're getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I Wouldn't Say Legalize It
Edited on Wed Nov-22-06 02:29 PM by Crisco
Don't allow secondary *civic* marriages, don't allow tax breaks on dependents that come from others while still in the first marriage.

If they want to have their secondary religious ceremonies, let them. But if they want that, legalized, while denying civic marriages to gays, fuck 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Good point! I agree on that. To do otherwise is unfair (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. tax breaks for dependants
don't allow tax breaks on dependents that come from others while still in the first marriage

What -- mothers of children whose fathers are married to someone else can't claim child support?

Fathers of children born outside of marriage shouldn't be able to claim tax exemptions for the support paid?

I think in both cases, the answer is no. Child support can be claimed from fathers who are not married to the child's mother, and such fathers can (where I am, and I would certainly hope in the US) claim tax exemptions for the support paid.

Why? Because it is in the interests of the child. The money paid by a non-custodial parent to support a child, and a certain portion of the income of a custodial parent, is exempt from tax, to the limits established by tax laws. The tax exemption is granted as a matter of public policy to assist people who have children in providing for those children. Our societies recognize that it is good public policy to recognize that it is in the public interest for parents to provide for their children, and to assist them in doing so to this small extent.

Why should a child whose parents are not married be treated differently from a child whose parents are married? Why should the obligations of a parent to support a child not be recognized equally, regardless of whether the parents are married?

Tax law is not a vehicle for approving some people's choices, and condemning other people's choices, in ways that discriminate against innocent parties. Children are entitled to support from parents regardless of whether the parents are married or who a parent is married to -- and to the enhanced ability of their parent to support them that tax law provides, as a matter of public policy in the interests of the children -- regardless of what the relationship between their parents is.

Everything really isn't about someone trying to pick someone else's pockets.

I, for instance, think it would be just dandy to deny tax exemptions for third, fourth or subsequent children, to discourage people from having children the world does not need and cannot afford. Except that I actually don't, because I see no reason to punish children for their parents' stupid and selfish behaviour. No more is there any reason to punish the children of the parents in question here.

Denying tax exemptions for bigamous fathers' expenses to care for their children would look rather like China's policy of denying social benefits to a couple's second or third child, I'd say. The sins of the fathers, and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Have It Your Way, Then
And keep polygamy 100% illegal. I'd love to see one of them try to claim all of their extraneous dependents, as is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. whatever that is

I'd love to see one of them try to claim all of their extraneous dependents, as is.

Well, you might want to look into it. If the child resides with a parent who has taxable income, polygamous or no, I can't imagine why the parent would not be claiming a tax exemption, or getting it.

Status as a parent actually has bugger all to do with status as a spouse, as quite a few unmarried parents and their children can attest to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. There's many a divorced parent paying support and
claiming a child or children as tax exemptions when married to someone else.

I have no moral problem with polygamy or polyandry, so long as all partners are informed consenting adults, all have equal opportunities and freedom to leave the relationship, and no force, coercion or abuse is involved.

The other side of the FLDS coin is that when a few males monopolize the desirable females, the many males who are left out may resort to "sharing" the less desirable females. Although it may look like polyandry -- one woman having several husbands -- in fact it is not. The woman is not in a position of authority or power, she has not entered into the relationships freely and of her own choice, and she rarely has the option of leaving.

The case currently being pressed against Warren Jeffs is not of polygamy but of rape for his forcing a fourteen-year-old girl to marry against her will. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=65...

In cases of polygamy that are brought into the courts, the charges are NOT based on the multiple marriages, since usually only one is performed legally. The others are spiritual marriages and actually conform to a "separation of church and state" notion.
(see http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy93.h... )
So it is other facets of the multiple marriages that bring criminal or civil charges, such as welfare fraud, statutory rape, etc.

Warren Jeffs and the other "leaders" of the FLDS communities generally fall back on the "right" to practice their religion as "guaranteed" by the First Amendment. As with all "rights," I believe there is a limit imposed when the rights of one person infringe on the rights of another. (The right to free speech does not include the right to libel or slander, the right to advertise false claims for products, the right to lie on loan documents, etc. etc. etc.) If Fundamentalist Aztecs started capturing "enemies" and slashing open their chests to offer beating hearts to their "gods," I have a feeling someone might object, regardless of First Amendment guarantees. Likewise, when a "religion" requires the rape of young women to ensure the rapist a place in heaven, it's time to say "I don't effing think so."

Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. I got no beef with you!
as my post giving kudos for someone who practises informal polygamy, for not demanding formal recognition of the practice, indicates.

I just take exception to the knee-jerk, finger-pointing, wallet-clutching silliness of some people's responses to some things.

As with all "rights," I believe there is a limit imposed when the rights of one person infringe on the rights of another.

I support interferences with exercises of rights that oppress and exploit people who are vulnerable to the point that they are unable to exercise their own rights. Oppression and exploitation are the problems that liberalism, in the usual sense of the word historically and outside the present-day US, fails to address. Where power is not equal, oppression and exploitation will occur.

Some women may be capable of consenting to polygyny, just as some adolescents may be capable of consenting to sexual contact with adults and various other things -- but so many are not, that it is justifiable to interfere relatively trivially in the rights of those who are to protect those who aren't from harm that is more than trivial.

Here's one for you that I ran across while searching for polygamy / child tax exemptions:
http://www.christianpolygamy.com /
They're recruiting ...


http://www.christianpolygamy.com/futurewives.htm

(dang, you have to go to the site for the full effect -- when you hover your mouse over the little lady, she bows down)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Eeeeiuw, I don't even want to go there! ;-)
I'll take your word for it.

And I understand you have no beef with me, and I have none with you, either. I was merely pointing out that the problems of child support and tax exemptions is already handled quite competently (????) under our current system that deals with divorce and remarriage and children "out of wedlock" and so on, and therefore it ought to be able to handle one man with 27 "wives" and 86 children. It's just a matter of degree.

And of course liberalism has problems with tolerance for "the different" or "the other" that conservatism doesn't have. At what point does tolerance on one hand run into exploitation or oppression on the other? That's the dilemma for liberalism in this case, and I think generally modern (or post-modern??) liberals will come down on the side of protection of the exploited and oppressed rather than protection of the dogma that exploits and oppresses. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work in theory. . .. . .


Tansy Gold, who gave up trying to explain postmodernism to her boyfriend. . . . .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #48
57. It's Not Just the Children, But Also Wives
Granted, I have no dependents, and don't itemize, but I would imagine that someone trying to claim, say, 18 or more dependents, with two or more of them being wives, it ought to raise an eyebrow at the IRS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. The way it was explained to me about 20 years ago. . . .
I got this from two different Mormons. One was LDS with one wife and seven kids; the wife had been born and raised in one of the "colonias" in Mexico and had relatives who were polygamous. The other was former FLDS from Colorado City, AZ; his mother had fled a polygamous marriage when he was very young.

The way SOME of them do the tax thing is to have the husband file on behalf of #1 wife and children, then the other wives (if they have taxable income) claim their children. Like many other families and individuals, they are free to utilize any and all loopholes for hiding income, dividing income, etc. Subsequent wives may be de facto "employees" of husband, etc.

My ex-brother-in-law -- not LDS -- routinely put some of his self-employment income under his sons' names, effectively avoiding paying tax on it. There are all kinds of ways, and some of them are even legal.


TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
55. Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
61. Excuse the fuck outta me...
:mad: How dare you?

"Polyamorists also tend to get rather careless and more verbally abusive with their old partner(s) when they have new lovers - because they simply don't give a crap about the 'old' ones anymore. They're "in love" with someone ELSE and that's all they care about at that point. The old cow gets put out to pasture till he gets bored with the new one - six months to a year or so."

"It's just a really selfish (JUST from what I've seen personally) way to relate and live. There seemed to be no substantial committment to any of their relationships - only to getting their own "needs" met while those of others went unmet. It could be different outside the several examples I've seen but...well that's what I've seen - that's all I can say. And there are women who buy into this and who act that way themselves in the reverse, which is just as unacceptable for me personally. They seemed to be rather superficial relationships that lack depth."

I can't believe I have to read this shit on DU....jesus f'n christ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunyip Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. The bigotry in this thread is very embarrassing.
Guess some minorities just aren't fashionable enough to be defended.

Same-sex relationships can have emotional/verbal/physical abuse too.

Any category of relationship can.

Not a reason to restrict other's freedom to marry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Thank you
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed....

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunyip Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Thanks, bb!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. Bigotry Against Something That Is Used as a Form of Slavery in the US?
Edited on Thu Nov-23-06 10:54 PM by Crisco
If not being into the idea of using women as chattel makes me bigoted, sign me up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Me too....
...and if not being into the idea of being a spock-like housecleaning, child-begetting, permissivie-at-all-costs drone makes me bigoted, sign me up too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #68
72. Then ban marriage...
Marriage was originally a property transaction anyways, a father's property, the daughter would be transferred, in addition to a dowry, to her new owner, oops, I mean husband. For thousands of years, even in monogamous marriages, this was tradition, women had few to no rights, in many cases couldn't divorce, and couldn't inherit either.

The thing is this, Marriage is an evolving institution, and eventually, it evolved into a partnership between a man and a woman. Now we are fighting to have this become a relationship that isn't limited by gender, why should it be limited by numbers as well?

I'm not a polygamist myself, to be honest, I'm one of those type of guys that will commit myself to one woman, that's just the way I'm wired, I guess. In other words, I don't go out with women to score, so to speak, but more to find a soul mate. But I also recognize that not everyone is wired the same as me, so I don't judge others about HOW their relationships are structured, as long as they aren't harming others, or being coerced into such relationships, then I don't really think there is any excuse to not recognize such relationships legally.

As far as problems associated with polygamy, well, if all the marriages are recognized, then the "single mother" welfare checks go bye bye. In addition, as far as taxes, well, there could only limit claims on spouses to those that AREN'T on public assistance, or they could limit the number of spouses that could be claimed. Of course, I say, this is something lawyers should figure out, its out of my depth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Apparently I'm wired same as you and...
...it seemed to me those polyamorist 'relationships' - weren't. But as we say - to each his/her own, as long as no children are being sold into the 'lifestyle' and no one is being harmed (and that is debateable IMO at least in polyamorist circles).

Anyway, I agree w/ you. I see no reason to limit marriage by gender or number - I DO see a reason to limit the tax breaks people get for having multiple spouses and children by multiple spouses. IMO - ALL tax breaks for married people and people with kids ought to be eliminated. Even for 'traditional' couples with kids. We have a population problem. (Duh) People ought to be taxed for having kids, not getting tax breaks for having them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. Very well said. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #68
75. For my part, I'm trying to delineate the differences
between religious-based polygamy and secular polyamory. Two very different things, and the latter is based on consensus, not coercion. And the above poster apparently equates the two with each other and is making frankly ridiculous assertions and generalizations about something that I believe she truly knows little about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
67. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue with it.
Seriously, that may be the Mormon experience, but that is not what the average non-religious poly family is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. This has nothing to do with Mormon. I'm not Mormon ....
...and neither are the non-religious polyamorous couples and relationships I've observed/been part of been Mormon. Where the f*ck do you get THAT? This hasn't to do with the OP. It has to do with the ***REALITY*** that the Mormon experience, or the polyamorous, or the polygamous or the polyandrist experience (AND the monogamous experience) is NOT all it's cracked up to be regardless of religion and that people ought not to swallow the pretty marketing wholesale.

AND I said and I'll say it AGAIN, none of it ought to be illegal, however taxpayers ought not have to foot the bill for it or for the offspring it produces, should people choose to live that way. It's their choice if they want substance-free relationships, but taxpayers ought not to have to support the offspring of men or women who choose to participate in harems.

Regardless of the 'women as chattel' problem, which is a seperate issue in and of itself.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. I still find this bizarre
taxpayers ought not to have to support the offspring of men or women who choose to participate in harems.

So why should taxpayers have to support the offspring of ANYONE? What distinguishes these children from anyone else's children? Do they eat dirt and sleep in caves, making them cheap dates indeed? Or should they?

How about: they -- and everyone else's children -- should have to attend public schools. That would be a good way to break whatever horrible social cycle is going on, bring the children out into the light of day, reduce the risk of abuse ... all the things we are supposedly concerned about.

How about: public agencies do a somewhat better job of monitoring these children, and intervening when their situations are obviously not in their best interests, before it comes to polygamous child marriages.

A whole lot of people engage in good old serial polygamy -- or just indiscriminate more or less simultaneous mating -- and have children with well more than one partner, whether or not they are married to any of them. If your position is taken to its logical conclusion, very few children would be eligible for parental tax exemptions or social assistance, I think. Wouldn't denying tax/welfare benefits be a good way to deter a lot of other people from producing children they can't support? and from engaging in the distasteful lifestyles that produce them?

I don't at all disagree with your assessment of polygamy as it is overwhelmingly practised, and I refuse to kowtow to yet another infinitessimal minority of people demanding that their weird and wonderful sexual practices be glorified with titles and membership in the respectable folks' club. But I fail to see how denying children what other children are entitled to solves the problems.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. Wait a minute...
"minority of people demanding that their weird and wonderful sexual practices be glorified with titles and membership in the respectable folks' club."

You know that I'm polyamorous and not polygamous, but...

Ok, first off, my relationship is a loving and committed one, not based on sex in the slightest. I have a *family*. And simply because we are in a family of 3 and not two, that does not mean for one minute that we are not "respectable folks". But thanks for the slam... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
43. There's a whole can of worms waiting to be released.
Think of the complications of family law. Divorces, child support, etc.

How do you ensure that all the wives (or husbands) are treated equally in regard to inheritance, social security, child support, etc.

Would each spouse and child have equal protection under the law?

They should, but how enforceable would that be?

Plus, these marriages tend to produce FAR too many offspring.

We need LESS people on this planet, not more.

Ugh.

What consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms is their business, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Bingo!
"What consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms is their business, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill."

I agree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuaneBidoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-22-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
45. As long as brainwashed underage girls aren't involved I have no problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
56. Yet they oppose gay marriage...
So much for the "sanctity of marriage" argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
58. Free choice for all adults
Whatever works for people, each person has their own formula.

I can see how a larger marriage can work for someone,
much like a wife and a mistress is the unstated norm preferred
in a man's world, why not officialize it and offer a cultural
place where such roles can be recognized.

Why shouldn't a woman have 2 lovers if she's happy with it and
its working for her? Why shouldn't she want to be married to
them, or to 1 man and 1 woman... the world has worse problems
than bothering to oppress free will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 18th 2018, 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC