- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,705
- Reaction score
- 12,260
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I understand the ruling. I was being more rhetorical than anything.
Sorry I didn't catch that......
I understand the ruling. I was being more rhetorical than anything.
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.
Sorry I didn't catch that......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:From the embarrassment of claiming that this decision was somehow linked to DOMA, even though you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim
Utah polygamist family featured on 'Sister Wives' celebrates DOMA ruling - Oklahoma City TV | Examiner.comThis, 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.
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 standsWe'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
If you don't like the topic, move along man.
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.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?
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....
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
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.
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:
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();
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?
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.
Those aren't laws those are court decisions.
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.
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).
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.