• 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

Only bearpoker has mentioned "polyandry" (post #21). I haven't read the Utah bill with its' definition of marriage and I must wonder what the men of the Mormon church would say when confronted by a woman with multiple husbands

Polyandry is a form of polygamy in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry is contrasted with polygyny, involving one male and two or more females, though the common understanding of polygamy is almost always equating it with polygyny.
 
JacksinPA said:
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.
Click to expand...

Polygamy, so every woman can marry a nice guy!
 
Somerville said:
Only bearpoker has mentioned "polyandry" (post #21). I haven't read the Utah bill with its' definition of marriage and I must wonder what the men of the Mormon church would say when confronted by a woman with multiple husbands

Polyandry is a form of polygamy in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry is contrasted with polygyny, involving one male and two or more females, though the common understanding of polygamy is almost always equating it with polygyny.
Click to expand...

If polyandry were permitted alongside polygyny, it would solve the problem of the extra males that Joko pointed out. :mrgreen:
 
joko104 said:
No, it's not the same at all. Gay monogamy and heterosexual monogamy are the same basic relationship structure and the diametric opposite from polygamy. What made polygamy seem more acceptable is the near total breakdown of the moral code of no sex outside of a monogamous marriage.

Once it became accept to have many lovers - unless married - in a bizarre way marriage became entering into a "less sex" contract, where before marriage was permission to have sex with one person.
Click to expand...

You're correct if the government issuing a marriage licence is a license for two people to have sex with each other. If the marriage license grants permission, then what of sex before obtaining such a license? I didn't need to pay the $50 license fee to have sex with my wife, since I had already had sex with her before obtaining the license.

Likewise, 2 women and one man don't have to get licensed permission from the government to have a 3some. They can all have sex on Tuesday, then the two women on Wednesday, then the man and the first woman on Thursday, etc. All of this is perfectly legal without the $50 marriage license.

If sex can be had in multiple combinations without a marriage license, what is the purpose of a marriage license?
 
Last edited:
Cougarbear said:
This is just the beginning. The liberals started down this road supporting and defending gays and transvestites and transgender people the right to marriage and other things straight people don't even get. This will go on to other states as well. Eventually, it will end up back in the Supreme Court to decide about Polygamy. Ironic it's starting with Utah... I don't see how it's any more harmful than gays marrying and having children...
Click to expand...

It actually been documented to be very harmful to young males who are driven out of their families and communities because they are viewed as competition by older males as competition for young wives.
 
bearpoker said:
If polyandry were permitted alongside polygyny, it would solve the problem of the extra males that Joko pointed out. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Not really since the institutions rarely occur in the same communities.
 
CriticalThought said:
Not really since the institutions rarely occur in the same communities.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking theoretically. In reality polygyny occurs in male dominated societies that would never permit polyandry.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
The problem is that when a woman enters into a polygamous relationship, whether individually or part of a community/cult, she diminishes herself, emotionally, financially, and as parent. When a woman wants to leave a polygamous relationship, she pays a massive price, emotionally, financially, and as a parent.

Consequently, women who enter into polygamous relationships soon find they are for all practical purposes, slaves, especially if they have children. And they can't simply walk away. Polygamy only works in societies where women have no rights to begin with. They are born chattel, and they remain chattel for their entire lives.
Click to expand...

Of course they can walk away. Just like anyone who abandons a religion pays a price.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yup.

Lost boys (Mormon fundamentalism) - Wikipedia

Sons of Perdition (film) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

One could believe we should try to be more tolerant in modern times.

After all, their elders are not "banishing the Youth of the Community" for purely spiritual reasons but those of this mundane, secular, and temporal world.

Surely there must be some historic practice or ritual that can be applied in modern times. We should not forget our historical and Traditional past if it can be applied to solve modern problems.
 
danielpalos said:
One could believe we should try to be more tolerant in modern times.

After all, their elders are not "banishing the Youth of the Community" for purely spiritual reasons but those of this mundane, secular, and temporal world.

Surely there must be some historic practice or ritual that can be applied in modern times. We should not forget our historical and Traditional past if it can be applied to solve modern problems.
Click to expand...

Banishing and ostracizing from the community is the historic and traditional practice that was used to solve most problems.
 
danielpalos said:
When done for the greater glory of our immortal souls, not mere political and non-political passions on Earth.
Click to expand...

Funny how easy it to rationalize the latter is the former when it serves our purposes.
 
Rickeroo said:
You're correct if the government issuing a marriage licence is a license for two people to have sex with each other. If the marriage license grants permission, then what of sex before obtaining such a license? I didn't need to pay the $50 license fee to have sex with my wife, since I had already had sex with her before obtaining the license.

Likewise, 2 women and one man don't have to get licensed permission from the government to have a 3some. They can all have sex on Tuesday, then the two women on Wednesday, then the man and the first woman on Thursday, etc. All of this is perfectly legal without the $50 marriage license.

If sex can be had in multiple combinations without a marriage license, what is the purpose of a marriage license?
Click to expand...

A marriage license is a statutorily defined, protected and enforced legal contract. Sex with someone(s) is not. A person can just walk away if there is no marriage license - though if children or property involved they MAY be a lawsuit over such matters.
 
danielpalos said:
even in modern times? seems like a lot of talent is being wasted.
Click to expand...

In the fundamentalist mormon sects, the extra males do get driven out, one way or another. It used to be that they could go out and find female converts to bring home, but now the sects are too insular to permit that sort of thing.
 
bearpoker said:
In the fundamentalist mormon sects, the extra males do get driven out, one way or another. It used to be that they could go out and find female converts to bring home, but now the sects are too insular to permit that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

It merely seems more holy and more moral, when the Religious take the moral high ground.
 
danielpalos said:
One could believe we should try to be more tolerant in modern times.
Click to expand...

Tolerant of what? Child abuse? Yeah, an eighteen year-old woman "voluntarily" enters into a marriage relationship with a man in his mid forties with three women old enough to be her mother and she can walk away free as a bird anytime she wants.

Ignorance is astounding.
 
I would like to see each candidate for president asked if they support decriminalizing polygamy. How do you think each would answer?
 
vegas giants said:
And yet it is true. Dont like it....walk away
Click to expand...

And leave the children behind? With no resources (like job skills) to support her children, that is her choice. A woman in a polygamous relationship has no practical or legal rights. It is a tragedy waiting to happen.
 
joko104 said:
I would like to see each candidate for president asked if they support decriminalizing polygamy. How do you think each would answer?
Click to expand...

Maybe Trump could pardon Warren Jeffs, currently serving life plus 20 years.

No, Trump knows adultery is much better than polygamy.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
And leave the children behind? With no resources (like job skills) to support her children, that is her choice. A woman in a polygamous relationship has no practical or legal rights. It is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

What? She can do what happens in any divorce. Seek remedy in court. Look the amish shun people who leave their religion. Should we outlaw their religion because it makes it hard for women to leave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom