• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

vesper said:
Before they get done redefining marriage, it will be legal between a brother and a sister, father and daughter, a mother and son, gay men/women, straight men/women will be allowed multiple spouses and the consent laws will get lowered. And who knows maybe a man who loves his sheep or the woman who loves her cat. You keep hearing more and more people willing their money to their animals.
Click to expand...

Who cares what someone else does as long as it involves consenting adults? No one is harmed.

My only objection is if the govt chooses to hand out more benefits, rights, privileges, etc per partner. Because THEN it is not equitable.

Altho I dont believe the govt should be involved at all but that's just not realistic at this point.

I dont understand why people are so concerned about what 'other' people do that really doesnt affect them.
 
Lursa said:
Who cares what someone else does as long as it involves consenting adults? No one is harmed.

My only objection is if the govt chooses to hand out more benefits, rights, privileges, etc per partner. Because THEN it is not equitable.

Altho I dont believe the govt should be involved at all but that's just not realistic at this point.

I dont understand why people are so concerned about what 'other' people do that really doesnt affect them.
Click to expand...

The truth is, some choices we make as individuals do indeed affect others and society as a whole. In the case of a polygamist who produces 18 children as Kody Brown has with his 4 wives, it means Kody needs a really good job to provide for 23 people. Kody got lucky and is being paid well for a TLC series about his polygamist lifestyle plus a job in advertising. Not everyone is that lucky. In his particular case three of his wives are stay at home moms caring for the children, while one wife is working outside the home. That would be equivalent to a traditional family where the mother/father both worked and had 18 kids and three nannies/housekeepers all living under the same roof. You would need at least 7 bedrooms with an average of 4 persons sharing each one. The master probably has a revolving door. The home would need at the very least 3 bathrooms and a dang mess hall for everyone to sit down for a meal. OMG the grocery bill! You would need multiple stoves, refrigerators, and a mini laundry mat. Just to go someplace as a family would require a friggin school bus. There is no way most could afford to provide for all those children properly on a two parent income. So most likely the "spiritual" wives which the state does not recognize as marriages are on the government dole which means We the People are left paying for this insanity. When you can not take full responsibility for your own life choices and expect others to provide for them, then it becomes the business of those who are forced to pay.
 
vesper said:
The truth is, some choices we make as individuals do indeed affect others and society as a whole. In the case of a polygamist who produces 18 children as Kody Brown has with his 4 wives, it means Kody needs a really good job to provide for 23 people. Kody got lucky and is being paid well for a TLC series about his polygamist lifestyle plus a job in advertising. Not everyone is that lucky. In his particular case three of his wives are stay at home moms caring for the children, while one wife is working outside the home. That would be equivalent to a traditional family where the mother/father both worked and had 18 kids and three nannies/housekeepers all living under the same roof. You would need at least 7 bedrooms with an average of 4 persons sharing each one. The master probably has a revolving door. The home would need at the very least 3 bathrooms and a dang mess hall for everyone to sit down for a meal. OMG the grocery bill! You would need multiple stoves, refrigerators, and a mini laundry mat. Just to go someplace as a family would require a friggin school bus. There is no way most could afford to provide for all those children properly on a two parent income. So most likely the "spiritual" wives which the state does not recognize as marriages are on the government dole which means We the People are left paying for this insanity. When you can not take full responsibility for your own life choices and expect others to provide for them, then it becomes the business of those who are forced to pay.
Click to expand...

That assumes that you have people in the poly lifestyle who want that many children. Kody and his wives have that many children because that is part of their faith, similar with Catholics and their belief of no birth control. Most poly families don't have that many children, although they probably do have a higher than average number. But in reality how is Kody really any different than a monogamous couple having 7 or more children today? There was a Petty Officer in my division who had that many. Even on E-5 pay with the number of years he had in, he barely made ends meet. Kody averages 4.25 per wife. Who is burdening society more?

Basicly right now you are assuming that the earth is flat based upon casual observation and conjecture. Do you have any evidence to support the "possibilities" you presented, outside of the FLDS compounds where we already know they are abusing the system, for poly families here in the US? Let's leave out the rest of the world for the moment.
 
maquiscat said:
That assumes that you have people in the poly lifestyle who want that many children. Kody and his wives have that many children because that is part of their faith, similar with Catholics and their belief of no birth control. Most poly families don't have that many children, although they probably do have a higher than average number. But in reality how is Kody really any different than a monogamous couple having 7 or more children today? There was a Petty Officer in my division who had that many. Even on E-5 pay with the number of years he had in, he barely made ends meet. Kody averages 4.25 per wife. Who is burdening society more?

Basicly right now you are assuming that the earth is flat based upon casual observation and conjecture. Do you have any evidence to support the "possibilities" you presented, outside of the FLDS compounds where we already know they are abusing the system, for poly families here in the US? Let's leave out the rest of the world for the moment.
Click to expand...

The polygamy lifestyle is generally associated with producing many children. It is no secret these huge families game the welfare system. About a decade ago in Utah it was revealed that about 2% of the population engaged in polygamy lifestyle and that these communities were big users of welfare. A man only registered being married to one wife could have 7 uncounted ones all producing babies and listed as single moms with children with the government and each one maxing out on benefits. That income doesn't effect the reported income of the head of the household when he pays his taxes but sure gets the benefit from it. Texas, Utah, Arizona and other mainly western states have these communities where polygamy is accepted so that is where they tend to go.

You didn't want to talk about other countries in regard to this post but I think it is important to point out that this is common practice in many places where polygamists reside. The UK has had several stories recently about how the citizens are being bilked for welfare from practicing Muslim polygamists. Canada not too long ago was reporting about the same thing. A google search I'm sure will verify all this.
 
vesper said:
The polygamy lifestyle is generally associated with producing many children. It is no secret these huge families game the welfare system. About a decade ago in Utah it was revealed that about 2% of the population engaged in polygamy lifestyle and that these communities were big users of welfare. A man only registered being married to one wife could have 7 uncounted ones all producing babies and listed as single moms with children with the government and each one maxing out on benefits. That income doesn't effect the reported income of the head of the household when he pays his taxes but sure gets the benefit from it. Texas, Utah, Arizona and other mainly western states have these communities where polygamy is accepted so that is where they tend to go.
Click to expand...

The FLDS are the most visible and most oft looked at within the poly lifestyle, polygamy or not. Thus they become the sterotype for the whole, but the sterotype does not hold true for the majority of us. That's like looking at the hip-hop and gansta lifestyles and thinking because of the large black population within them that that is how all blacks or most blacks are. It's simply not true. That isn't to say that these FLDS members are not bilking the system or that there are not other polys bilking the system. Many singles and monogamous people are also bilking the system. The problem is with the system for the most part but as far as those who are taking adavtage of it, it's not just or even a majority of the polys doing it.

You didn't want to talk about other countries in regard to this post but I think it is important to point out that this is common practice in many places where polygamists reside. The UK has had several stories recently about how the citizens are being bilked for welfare from practicing Muslim polygamists. Canada not too long ago was reporting about the same thing. A google search I'm sure will verify all this.
Click to expand...

I had set aside the other countries and especially the Mid-East Muslims aside beause those Muslims are no better than the FLDS in their view of women. However, the issues stem of the poor view of women that they have and not from polygamy in and of itself.
 
I did know Catholic families when I was growing up who had up to 15 kids with just two parents; however, as far as I know they didn't use welfare (I could be wrong, I was a kid, what did I know?)

But the Mormon fundamentalists have definitely put a bad twist on polygamy - with their abuses of women, their marrying off of young girls to old men, their use of welfare to finance their lifestyle, control of their communities, etc.

Polyamory with consenting adults doesn't have to be abusive.

If only there was a way to get the fundamentalists "exposed" to other ways of living, to get their kids educated so they can make choices freely, etc.

And the marrying of young women to old men... that just has to stop. No matter what the young women say, they've been brainwashed through their upbringing to think it's a good thing.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Click to expand...

What? Utah couldn't even become a state till it officially denounced polygamy. Plenty of precedent. Regardless, there are various arguments and real world examples to point to in order to discourage polygamy. But if it ever became an institute which could uphold the rights and liberties of all involved, then who really cares?
 
vesper said:
The truth is, some choices we make as individuals do indeed affect others and society as a whole. In the case of a polygamist who produces 18 children as Kody Brown has with his 4 wives, it means Kody needs a really good job to provide for 23 people. Kody got lucky and is being paid well for a TLC series about his polygamist lifestyle plus a job in advertising. Not everyone is that lucky. In his particular case three of his wives are stay at home moms caring for the children, while one wife is working outside the home. That would be equivalent to a traditional family where the mother/father both worked and had 18 kids and three nannies/housekeepers all living under the same roof. You would need at least 7 bedrooms with an average of 4 persons sharing each one. The master probably has a revolving door. The home would need at the very least 3 bathrooms and a dang mess hall for everyone to sit down for a meal. OMG the grocery bill! You would need multiple stoves, refrigerators, and a mini laundry mat. Just to go someplace as a family would require a friggin school bus. There is no way most could afford to provide for all those children properly on a two parent income. So most likely the "spiritual" wives which the state does not recognize as marriages are on the government dole which means We the People are left paying for this insanity. When you can not take full responsibility for your own life choices and expect others to provide for them, then it becomes the business of those who are forced to pay.
Click to expand...

Hello Vesper.

Dont get me wrong. I am appalled by that family on TV that has 19 kids and keeps having more. I have personal objections to that on a few levels.

However they completely support their family without public assistance and seem to instill a good work ethic and education in their children.

So as an American, I cannot object to their right to reproduce that way. I agree, I "believe" that a major tenet of the Mormon religion is to be fruitful and multiply. However the compounds that they have do not seem deprived...well, socially and culturally perhaps...but not financially. Because as you said, it doest take alot of $$ to support them, but they seem to have organized and developed methods to do so communally.
 
QUOTE=Lursa;1062678833]Hello Vesper.

Dont get me wrong. I am appalled by that family on TV that has 19 kids and keeps having more. I have personal objections to that on a few levels.

However they completely support their family without public assistance and seem to instill a good work ethic and education in their children.

So as an American, I cannot object to their right to reproduce that way. I agree, I "believe" that a major tenet of the Mormon religion is to be fruitful and multiply. However the compounds that they have do not seem deprived...well, socially and culturally perhaps...but not financially. Because as you said, it doest take alot of $$ to support them, but they seem to have organized and developed methods to do so communally.[/QUOTE]
Evening Lursa,
You and I seem to be in agreement on having objections to the "TV family". Allow me to list mine.
1. They are not the norm in reflecting the lifestyle of polygamous relationships.
2. Kody has a good paying job in advertisement. His legal wife works. And TLC is paying them quite well for the series. They can get by without government assistance. Most don't have a television series that pays real good to help provide for their needs. There is too much evidence out there that shows the "common" polygamist who doesn't have a television show relies on his "spiritual" wives that the government counts as single moms to collect welfare to bring home the bacon.
3. It sickens me to think there are young ladies being raised in an atmosphere that teaches they are no more than a cow to be provided to the prize bull. It is demeaning, degrading and IMO child abuse. To teach their young boys such things is producing irrehensibly damaged mindsets. If I could I would bitch slap every last one who promotes such things.

Finished with my rant....;)
 
sangha said:
From the embarrassment of claiming that this decision was somehow linked to DOMA, even though you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim
Click to expand...
Apparently this guy, the subject of the case, thought so. However, that's not the point. The point of the OP was whether anyone else believed that DOMA carried any weight in this judge's decision. At no time did I ever claim that the judge DID weigh that in to his decision. My exact words were:
This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Click to expand...
Utah polygamist family featured on 'Sister Wives' celebrates DOMA ruling - Oklahoma City TV | Examiner.com



sangha said:
We're talking about what you said in your OP. I understand why you don't want to see that done, but it is ridiculous for you to assert that discussing what you said in your OP is somehow off-topic
Click to expand...
No, what a very few decided to do is instead of debating the topic, they decided to debate whether DOMA was in the article or not. At no time did I claim that the article said anything about DOMA. The only thing I said about DOMA was that many users believed the repeal of it would affect future rulings on polygamy. So, out of the many that have posted on this thread, you have joined the very few who decided that instead of debating the topic they would debate whether the article said something I never claimed it did. Now, if you would like to debate the actual topic, which is whether you believe DOMA held any sway on this decision, be my guest. If not, my previous statement stands
If you don't like the topic, move along man.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
What? Utah couldn't even become a state till it officially denounced polygamy. Plenty of precedent. Regardless, there are various arguments and real world examples to point to in order to discourage polygamy. But if it ever became an institute which could uphold the rights and liberties of all involved, then who really cares?
Click to expand...
What I meant by precedent was that I believe the DOMA ruling will make many judges believe that the precedent of "no gov't in marriage" has been set. Therefore, they will most likely rule that polygamy is legal in the future. I don't care either way, I'm just debating whether DOMA has any effect on future marriage rulings. I believe it does.
 
vesper said:
Evening Lursa,
You and I seem to be in agreement on having objections to the "TV family". Allow me to list mine.
1. They are not the norm in reflecting the lifestyle of polygamous relationships.
2. Kody has a good paying job in advertisement. His legal wife works. And TLC is paying them quite well for the series. They can get by without government assistance. Most don't have a television series that pays real good to help provide for their needs. There is too much evidence out there that shows the "common" polygamist who doesn't have a television show relies on his "spiritual" wives that the government counts as single moms to collect welfare to bring home the bacon.
3. It sickens me to think there are young ladies being raised in an atmosphere that teaches they are no more than a cow to be provided to the prize bull. It is demeaning, degrading and IMO child abuse. To teach their young boys such things is producing irrehensibly damaged mindsets. If I could I would bitch slap every last one who promotes such things.

Finished with my rant....;)
Click to expand...

1) Agreed, they are not even the norm for the idiot FLDS.

2)What evidence do you have that the "common" polygamist is having thier other spouses (note that some of us don't usethe stereotype of the one man many wives) on welfare? What evidence do you have that the FLDS members are the "common" polygamist?

3) Agreed, the FLDS members are abusive f**ks in how their treat their women and offspring, both the boys and the girls.
 
If (all sex is OK) then {
who are you to judge
} else {
lol, obviously unreasonable humanity, and it's comical disregard for morality. Clearly, not all sex is OK.
}

exit();
 
MarineTpartier said:
Apparently this guy, the subject of the case, thought so. However, that's not the point. The point of the OP was whether anyone else believed that DOMA carried any weight in this judge's decision. At no time did I ever claim that the judge DID weigh that in to his decision. My exact words were:
Utah polygamist family featured on 'Sister Wives' celebrates DOMA ruling - Oklahoma City TV | Examiner.com




No, what a very few decided to do is instead of debating the topic, they decided to debate whether DOMA was in the article or not. At no time did I claim that the article said anything about DOMA. The only thing I said about DOMA was that many users believed the repeal of it would affect future rulings on polygamy. So, out of the many that have posted on this thread, you have joined the very few who decided that instead of debating the topic they would debate whether the article said something I never claimed it did. Now, if you would like to debate the actual topic, which is whether you believe DOMA held any sway on this decision, be my guest. If not, my previous statement stands
Click to expand...

No one said you said "the article mentioned DOMA" What was pointed out that it was *you* who mentioned DOMA and you expressed the opinion that DOMA had something to do with the decision.

Now you're running away from it and tossing out straw men in a futile attempt to distract from what you said.
 
sangha said:
No one said you said "the article mentioned DOMA" What was pointed out that it was *you* who mentioned DOMA and you expressed the opinion that DOMA had something to do with the decision.

Now you're running away from it and tossing out straw men in a futile attempt to distract from what you said.
Click to expand...

Credit where credit is due. The only line in the OP that might suggest that he was talking about DOMA being the cause of the decision would be "This, I believe, is a reaction to that.". The word "this" is rather nebulous in that sentence as to what it is referring to. It could be referring to the case, or to the "...gay community ... winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm" statement.

Do you have anything that directly shows that MarineTpartier directly believes that DOMA influenced the judge's decision in this case? Otherwise it seems to me that he is asking do the individual people here feel that it did or did not?
 
Harshaw said:
MA, according to its supreme court:



CA, according to the landmark Perry case:



IA, according to its supreme court:



NJ, according to its supreme court:
Click to expand...

Those aren't laws those are court decisions.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
If (all sex is OK) then {
who are you to judge
} else {
lol, obviously unreasonable humanity, and it's comical disregard for morality. Clearly, not all sex is OK.
}

exit();
Click to expand...

If (losing argument) then {
straw man
} else {
more straw man
}
exit();
 
maquiscat said:
Credit where credit is due. The only line in the OP that might suggest that he was talking about DOMA being the cause of the decision would be "This, I believe, is a reaction to that.". The word "this" is rather nebulous in that sentence as to what it is referring to. It could be referring to the case, or to the "...gay community ... winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm" statement.
Click to expand...

That interpretation of "this" would make no sense. The gay community is a reaction to this judge's decision?

Do you have anything that directly shows that MarineTpartier directly believes that DOMA influenced the judge's decision in this case? Otherwise it seems to me that he is asking do the individual people here feel that it did or did not?
Click to expand...

Yes

MarineTpartier said:
What I meant by precedent was that I believe the DOMA ruling will make many judges believe that the precedent of "no gov't in marriage" has been set. Therefore, they will most likely rule that polygamy is legal in the future. I don't care either way, I'm just debating whether DOMA has any effect on future marriage rulings. I believe it does.
Click to expand...

Which is nonsense because the DOMA decision, like various SSM decisions, explicitly state that the govt has a legitimate interest in marriage.
 
Deuce said:
Those aren't laws those are court decisions.
Click to expand...

Unusually lame, even for you.

Those are supreme courts saying the laws of their states did not allow homosexuals to marry, which is what you wanted.

But hey, if Deuce disagrees, they must not know what they were talking about.
 
maquiscat said:
1) Agreed, they are not even the norm for the idiot FLDS.

2)What evidence do you have that the "common" polygamist is having thier other spouses (note that some of us don't usethe stereotype of the one man many wives) on welfare? What evidence do you have that the FLDS members are the "common" polygamist?

3) Agreed, the FLDS members are abusive f**ks in how their treat their women and offspring, both the boys and the girls.
Click to expand...


Read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - covers a range of polygamous communities, talks about their use of welfare, and their abuse of the women and girls (and sometimes the young men who are driven out to leave more women for the old guys).
 
re the whole discussion of "did DOMA affect this?" remember - the judge explicitly said it's still illegal to marry more than one person (at a time); this decision was about legalizaing co-habitation, about which DOMA had nothing to say.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Read Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" - covers a range of polygamous communities, talks about their use of welfare, and their abuse of the women and girls (and sometimes the young men who are driven out to leave more women for the old guys).
Click to expand...

If I can find a copy at the library, I might consider it. But let's just look at the summery over at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806 said:
Jon Krakauer’s literary reputation rests on insightful chronicles of lives conducted at the outer limits. He now shifts his focus from extremes of physical adventure to extremes of religious belief within our own borders, taking readers inside isolated American communities where some 40,000 Mormon Fundamentalists still practice polygamy. Defying both civil authorities and the Mormon establishment in Salt Lake City, the renegade leaders of these Taliban-like theocracies are zealots who answer only to God.
Click to expand...

You are still only focusing on the FLDS members and not the poly community at large. There are a hell of a lot more of us out here then just those wackos in the mid-west. For that matter they don't practice polygamy at all. They practice polygyny. I challenge you to find among them even one family that is practising polyandry. Of course most people are too lazy to bother to learn the difference between the three words.

Among the rest of the poly community, however, polyandry is practised. We are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and even atheists and agnostics, sometimes all blended into a single family. Some of our families/marriages are closed, others are open. Some of the poly community do not practice any kind of marriage, save maybe "common law". The rest of us abhor the abuses that the FLDS members and the mid-east Muslims practice.
 
Maquiscat, I agree the FLDS gives a bad name to polygamy.

I have no problem with fully informed consenting adults being in some form of a polyamorous relationship. If they are adult enough to handle it, to do powers of attorney and contracts to ensure everyone is taken care of and that splits are dealt with - no prob, go for it.

I don't know how many are actually practicing polyamourous relationships outside of FLDS and other religious, generally misogynist, sects. If you have the numbers for that, I'd love to see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom