• 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

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...

Your post shows your absolute ignorance about the genesis of polygamy in Utah! It's not a "liberal road" the Mormons who are the progenitors of this thing are actually very conservative.

Also Utah, as a whole is a very conservative state.

Anyway... continue with your ignorant posting we'll do our best to help you out.
 
Dear chics,

I really am too bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice to "just show you my weenie" even in unisex bathrooms.

xoxo
 
lurchadams said:
Your post shows your absolute ignorance about the genesis of polygamy in Utah! It's not a "liberal road" the Mormons who are the progenitors of this thing are actually very conservative.

Also Utah, as a whole is a very conservative state.

Anyway... continue with your ignorant posting we'll do our best to help you out.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word "Ironic" means? It seems that you don't. As a liberal, you take things and use them to get your way regardless of how it hurts society. I'm well aware of what Utah is. I lived there, went to college there and was baptized a member of the Church there. Get a dictionary and look up Ironic.
 
Cougarbear said:
Do you know what the word "Ironic" means? It seems that you don't. As a liberal, you take things and use them to get your way regardless of how it hurts society. I'm well aware of what Utah is. I lived there, went to college there and was baptized a member of the Church there. Get a dictionary and look up Ironic.
Click to expand...

The first sentence of your post was a clear indication of your intent - which was to bash and blame liberals, regardless of the political lean of Utah.

Try to weasel your way out of your hateful and ignorant post as much as you want - the ironic nature of your communication style implicates no one but you.
 
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.
 
Crosscheck said:
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.
Click to expand...

When the male-wives get old enough, they'll stop complaining.
 
If women go for it.... that's all it takes for it to spread.
 
While people are spinning in commentary.... there are a few things people forget.... "how many xxx rated video's have you ever seen when there were not bisexual women in it? People accept that more readily as commonality when they watch these films... not only men, like the idea of two women, there is not a woman who does not know that many men think at some point in his life about "being with two women".... either way, it never happens unless the women are willing participants.

That's NOT saying all women are bi sexual and its it NOT saying all women would want to be... its simply saying that in general society... that imagery and act of two females and a man is far more acceptable than people want to admit to.
 
Crosscheck said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a law of nature that is being overlooked... its the fact a woman can be impregnated by "one man at a time".... where as a man, can impregnate 'many women at a time". ....
 
I was wondering why this had not happened yet. The move is a natural result of Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 case that mandated the legality of same sex marriage. The logic of the case extends not just to a same sex pairs, but to any number and any mix of sexes.

danielpalos said:
What polygamist would not want "his own gang of wifes"?
Click to expand...
Or her own gang of husbands.
 
RealityNow said:
There is a law of nature that is being overlooked... its the fact a woman can be impregnated by "one man at a time".... where as a man, can impregnate 'many women at a time". ....
Click to expand...

The beauty is that all the husbands wouldn't know whose child it is. But they are a real family so shouldn't really matter.
 
Jay59 said:
I was wondering why this had not happened yet. The move is a natural result of Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 case that mandated the legality of same sex marriage. The logic of the case extends not just to a same sex pairs, but to any number and any mix of sexes.


Or her own gang of husbands.
Click to expand...

only if she believes in equality.
 
lurchadams said:
The first sentence of your post was a clear indication of your intent - which was to bash and blame liberals, regardless of the political lean of Utah.

Try to weasel your way out of your hateful and ignorant post as much as you want - the ironic nature of your communication style implicates no one but you.
Click to expand...

There's a good reason to bash and blame liberals. They are viruses who plague society with their bad illogical ideologies like socialism. I find it funny after 3 years of bashing, blaming and hating Trump that you complain about being bashed, blamed and being hated. Ironic!
 
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...

I guess they broke their contract agreement and now they are going to be independent. Good for them. We have got to stop letting these damn fools make any rule they like whether it fits our national Constitution or not.
 
Cougarbear said:
There's a good reason to bash and blame liberals. They are viruses who plague society with their bad illogical ideologies like socialism. I find it funny after 3 years of bashing, blaming and hating Trump that you complain about being bashed, blamed and being hated. Ironic!
Click to expand...

"viruses who plague society with their bad illogical ideologies" .. LOL.. holy cow! Hysterical much?
 
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...

Should bakers also be informed?
 
My view has always been consistent. With respect to the equal protection arguments comparing either Loving or Obergefell to any potential SCOTUS case down the road on multiparty marriage is futile. Its advocates legal brief pretty much writes itself based on precedent, but whether we apply a rational basis or compelling interest standard, we need to see the state's interest defined and crystalized in a couple of good legal briefs to see how it will measure up with the rather legally pathetic cases Loving and Obergefell were able to muster.

I can't say what my own opinion will be about multi-party marriage, let alone what my view of the constitutional issues because the arguments are so arcane and old. The state interest is based on cultural anecdotal experience and fears from Utah in the 1960's and 70's, hypothetical extrapolation of old genetics studies, and family law principles that have not seen a creative look in decades. My bias, and my inclination, is to give this a go and legalize this, in a few states at least, based on the same desire to see adults prosper under the family structure that that they aspire towards.

But I honestly cannot know whether I can support this extension of legal marriage until I at least read a few legal briefs from states who oppose it based on twenty-first century American culture, and twenty first century science and twenty first century law. We can't possibly know what's myth from what is real in multi-party marriage if we are defining its risks from cultural experiences before the first phase of women's liberation was finished, before the internet made communication and information omni-present in every village and knook and cranny of America, and before our understanding of human genetics was out of diapers.

I suspect states that are scared by the ramifications on family court, will stay scared, until a couple are forced to come up with answers, rather than brick walls by a court or two. But its not a cop-out to say multi-party marriage is a very different legal and cultural animal than same sex or interracial marriage. Its 100% true.
 
I was wondering how long they(Mormons) can ignore that their two main Founder/leaders could ignore that they themselves were polygamist
 
I'm not sure there is any longer a basis to oppose polygamy if it's among consenting adults.
 
I don't see the point in opposing it, unless one wants to make a big show of self-righteous religiosity.

Who cares if it's among consenting adults? Their headaches, not mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom