• 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!

Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy

Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Polygamy as currently practiced involves one wife who is legally married to a man who may have an unlimited number of "celestial" wives who are married as far as their church is concerned, but are not legally married to him. They don't qualify for his health insurance etc. If polygamy is decriminalized, that doesn't mean the celestial wives become legally married. It just means that nobody goes to jail.

It really means that the State of Utah will no longer stand in the way of corrupt old men gathering a harem with which to "bleed the beast".
The "beast" is the Federal Government and all the taxpayer dollars you and I pour into it.
Now there will be fewer obstacles to the growing phalanx of interrelated harems practicing genetic purity and creating a race of imbeciles who draw on our tax dollars for survival and have no other choice, because their IQ is 35.

Utah has basically said that Warren Jeffs is A-OK, so I guess they will release him now.
"Keep sweet!"
 
It really means that the State of Utah will no longer stand in the way of corrupt old men gathering a harem with which to "bleed the beast".
The "beast" is the Federal Government and all the taxpayer dollars you and I pour into it.
Now there will be fewer obstacles to the growing phalanx of interrelated harems practicing genetic purity and creating a race of imbeciles who draw on our tax dollars for survival and have no other choice, because their IQ is 35.

Utah has basically said that Warren Jeffs is A-OK, so I guess they will release him now.
"Keep sweet!"

If the victim here is the federal government, it seems to me that the feds should do something about it.
 
Have always wanted to see a wife in Utah to have 4 or 5 husbands.

That way she could spend a "little bedroom time" with each male nightly . Unlike the polygamist setup of one husband and 4 or 5 wives where each wife has to wait for her "night".

It seems the wife with 4 or 5 husbands that she has a "little bedroom time" nightly with each of them can walk by the other women and just smile widely.

How about two husbands...Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood? Paint Your Wagon? It was one of my favorite movies. Mariaaaaaahhhh....
 
Utah senate unanimously moves to decriminalize polygamy | US news | The Guardian

Sponsor says bill would help otherwise law-abiding polygamists gain access to critical services, but critics say polygamy is harmful

The Utah state senate voted unanimously on Tuesday to effectively decriminalize polygamy among consenting adults, reducing penalties for a practice with deep religious roots in the predominantly Mormon state.

The bill, which would treat the offense of plural marriage as a simple infraction on par with a parking ticket, now moves to the Utah house of representatives, where it is likely to face greater resistance.
====================================================================
This is odd - Utah was only allowed to join the United States after it abolished polygamy. See Utah's very interesting path to statehood - National Constitution Center

'Most significant was lawmakers' and others' hostility toward the church's practice of polygamy, which the Republican Party had denounced as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery. (The church opposed slavery.)

Polygamy was forbidden by a series of federal laws. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in 1879, Reynolds v. U.S., ruled against a Mormon husband who called plural marriage his religious duty as protected by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite wrote:

“Can a man excuse his practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”
========================================================
Dealing with one wife is plenty for me but having my choice of sleeping partners might be worth a try. Variety is the spice of life.

Homosexuality, polygamy and incest over 18 are similar: consenting adults, period.

Anyone for gay marriage but not for polygamy or incest (18+) is a hypocrite and is against polygamy/incest simply because they find it offensive.
 
Homosexuality, polygamy and incest over 18 are similar: consenting adults, period.

Anyone for gay marriage but not for polygamy or incest (18+) is a hypocrite and is against polygamy/incest simply because they find it offensive.

I'm not for incest because of the genetic damage it does to the offspring.
 
I'm not for incest because of the genetic damage it does to the offspring.

and with children, the issue of consent is always in doubt even if the "child" is over 18
 
and with children, the issue of consent is always in doubt even if the "child" is over 18

Yup, especially if they were "groomed" by the adults.
 
I'm not for incest because of the genetic damage it does to the offspring.

I'll go with that a bit. What about a daughter having sex with dad, but dad has been snipped? Father/son incest wouldn't produce offspring either. It's simply the 'yuck' factor of two consenting adults.

If we penalize based on the chance of birth defects, older women giving birth (heterosexually) needs to be looked at.
 
I'll go with that a bit. What about a daughter having sex with dad, but dad has been snipped? Father/son incest wouldn't produce offspring either. It's simply the 'yuck' factor of two consenting adults.

If we penalize based on the chance of birth defects, older women giving birth (heterosexually) needs to be looked at.


That sounds more like rape and child abuse.

Nowadays women can freeze their eggs and have children when they're older...so the risk of birth defects is minimal.

So what is it with you and penalizing women?
 
Back
Top Bottom