Originally posted by Blurr I had once again refuted all your false arguments but the site lost it. And you know what, I'm tired of trying to explain this stuff to you. You obviously don't know how to have an intelligent debate without resorting to name calling or personal attacks. You could have responded to my last post, it had no name calling. You claim I'm inferior because I'm Canadian and then you conveniently forget to acknowledge that you've said so. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased with an American debating you about the laws of your country when that American probably hasn't read them. You don't appear to even read what you're writing. You just keep running back to the constitution but only as long as it benefits you. It always benefits me. In polygamist societies, women are treated as second class citizens. Same with Christians. That makes it illegal by your constitution. It's illegal for our politicians to make laws that abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States. Our states shall not enforce them either. As far as relationships between couples or multiples, well thats up to them. You may think the women are being treated as second class but that is your opinion. Second class treatment happens through all different types of relationships. It's no reason to outlaw any particular type. Back in the "I love Lucy" era (50s) woman in couples were very much treated as second class, does that mean we outlaw all couples? No. Women are not allowed to marry more than one man, they are not treated equally. Actually Polygamy has three different forms or sects polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (some combination of polygyny and polyandry). I say man having multiple wives because that is most common as opposed to a woman having men which is very rare. The woman can leave if they don't enjoy the religion. Young girls are married off to older men before the age of consent, against their will. So what? Then whoever did that then gets in trouble. Christians have done illegal things in America but we don't outlaw Christianity! They are treated like slaves. Young men are driven out of the society or not allowed to marry because they are seen as a threat to the older men in the society. All this stuff makes it illegal according to the constitution.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I'll be wife #3 as long as wife #2 cleans and wife #1 grocery shops and cooks and I can just game all day
Sounds good to me!
Seriously though, It just sounds like caveman days... a commune where there's an alpha male, spreading seed to spawn several offspring, killing or driving away younger males, females start churning out babies very young and continue to churn them out. Caveman or something that might happen after a nuclear winter.
Originally posted by Rinna I'll be wife #3 as long as wife #2 cleans and wife #1 grocery shops and cooks and I can just game all day Sounds good to me! Seriously though, It just sounds like caveman days... a commune where there's an alpha male, spreading seed to spawn several offspring, killing or driving away younger males, females start churning out babies very young and continue to churn them out. Caveman or something that might happen after a nuclear winter. And sorry but religious freedom only goes so far as your opinion?
You guys have to realize that you share this world with a couple billion other people. Lets try and get along huh? If something like Polygamy doesn't affect you in any way then why stop other people from exercizing it? It just gets more people upset than anything and they lose something and you gain nothing. The people who get happier about this are just the powerhungry (Christians among others) and they have nothing to benefit from it.
Obviously males and females both want the freedom to be legally recognized as a Polygamist family.
“We are not brainwashed, mistreated, neglected, malnourished, illiterate, defective or dysfunctional,” 17-year-old Jessica [Jessica is a FEMALE] said. “My brothers and sisters are freethinking, independent people; some who have chosen this lifestyle, while others have branched out to a diversity of religions.”
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
You know what alex? Everything you say is just your opinion.
The courts are of the opinion that polygamy is illegal. The government is of the opinion that polygamy is wrong and illegal. The majority of people in your country believe that polygamy is illegal.
The supreme court has ruled that religion is not a defense for breaking the law.
Alot of people alot smarter than you have pondered this idea for alot longer. As of right now, polygamy is illegal.
Probably because those in power feel they have a moral obligation to keep the society from going down the crapper.
This isn't oppression of religion, it's oppression of criminalism. These people are just trying to use religion as a defense to their criminal actions.
If they want the ruling over turned, they need to go to court and prove that it's wrong. They don't get to break the law just because they don't like the law.
Oh, and you like to say Christianity is doing the same things wrong as polygamy. In Christianity, young girls aren't married off without their consent as a piece of property in order to provide status for the leader. Young men aren't told that they cannot marry someone because another man wants that person for his 5th wife or whatever.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by AlexAmore “We are not brainwashed, mistreated, neglected, malnourished, illiterate, defective or dysfunctional,” 17-year-old Jessica [Jessica is a FEMALE] said. “My brothers and sisters are freethinking, independent people; some who have chosen this lifestyle, while others have branched out to a diversity of religions.”
I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in polygamy whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion....
"Hi my name is Jessica... And my goal in life is to have an arranged marriage with a man I dont love that has 4 other wives. And I want to only be allowed to spend time with my husband on Tuesdays... .Oh and maybe on my birthday... On those other days I will sleep alone in my bed while my husband is having sex with his other wives.... Then I'm going to get pregnant over and over again and Kick out children like a soccer game... And we will probably have to share everything we have and My kids will probably only ever have hand me downs.... But I can't WAitt!! "
I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong... just saying that your quote from Jessica doesn't really do much to show how she's going to benefit from being a polygamist. Having that show of kids doesn't really show anything... The only way we can really say what's what is if there is an objective view into the lives of polygamists to determine the quality of their life (especially for the women)... And as we all know there is no such thing as an objective view.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Blurr The courts are of the opinion that polygamy is illegal. The government is of the opinion that polygamy is wrong and illegal. The majority of people in your country believe that polygamy is illegal.
It's illegal now... But it's a very old law... Soon enough this law is gonna tumble sadly alot like the gay marriage thing. which is tumbling as we speak.... America is slowly loosing it's values... I remember back in the eightees where saying "@ss" would get bleeped on T.V. now it's on nickelodeon... I remember when Nudity was never allowed... Now Brittney spears is practically nude for any award show... and Abacrombie and Fitch magazine regulary has bare breast (apparently showing people without clothes on is the way A&F sells clothes)..
America is slowly loosing it's morals and values... I'm glad I'm not american.. Definitely gonna move away to raise my kids... And no offense... Wont be raisin em in Canada either...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Well, as far as Canada goes we have our good sides and bad sides. Sure the whole gay marriage thing, but it's really only relegated to Toronto, which many Canadians don't count as part of Canada . The rest of the country is great (except quebec, hehe).
Another strike against polygamy is that it promotes a very poor income economical structure. Women are rarely allowed to work, if at all. This means that one man's income has to support 3-7 wives and however many children. It's no coincidence that alot of polygamist communities are in out-of-the-way small towns and farming communities.
Edit: wanted to add in regards to your post methane: I agree. The North American culture has become so bloated with this "It's not my fault" "you can't tell me what to do" "I know better than everyone else" bullcrap that people are losing their morals left and right. Nobody can stand for anything anymore.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr You know what alex? Everything you say is just your opinion.
Actually it's a fact that they can't ban Polygamy. The courts are of the opinion that polygamy is illegal. Yes it's an opinion. The government is of the opinion that polygamy is wrong and illegal. So basically these Christians in power are using their religion to break the Constitution's law?? That's a no no, right?
The majority of people in your country believe that polygamy is illegal. Doesn't matter because we live in a Constitutional Republic. I love repeating myself. The supreme court has ruled that religion is not a defense for breaking the law. Doesn't matter because they work under the Constitution, not above it. Alot of people alot smarter than you have pondered this idea for alot longer. Opinion. As of right now, polygamy is illegal. Unconstitutionally. Probably because those in power feel they have a moral obligation to keep the society from going down the crapper. Opinion: that it will go down the crapper. How has Polygamy hurt you and the society around you? Remember Polygamy has been going on in for awhile so please tell me what changed in your life. This isn't oppression of religion, it's oppression of criminalism. These people are just trying to use religion as a defense to their criminal actions. Marrying more than one wife is not hurting the wives or the man or you. It does not infringe on their freedoms, infact restricting it is infringing on their freedoms. Anything that happens in the relationships like abuse then goes to court and we go through all the processes just like when normal relationships abuse eachother (they do btw). If they want the ruling over turned, they need to go to court and prove that it's wrong. They don't get to break the law just because they don't like the law. Oh, and you like to say Christianity is doing the same things wrong as polygamy. I didn't say that but I see that you aren't very good with comprehension which explains a lot. You said women in Polygamy are treated second class and I said Christianity treats women second class too. In Christianity, young girls aren't married off without their consent as a piece of property in order to provide status for the leader. Not all Polygamists do this. Young men aren't told that they cannot marry someone because another man wants that person for his 5th wife or whatever. Not all Polygamists do this.
Do you want me to list every crime that's been commited in a normal relationship? Killing, rape, abuse, cheating..ect. Should we ban normal relationships?
I see you have stopped trying to use the Constitution (I don't know if you ever really have used it) to argue with and instead have gone to the Supreme Court. Just remember Constitution/Bill of Rights > Supreme Court.
I've already given you Admendment 1, 5, and 14.
I just read this btw from wikipedia. This is probably where you got your argument from.
"The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based."
This is flawed because King James's law is irrelevant when it comes to our freedoms. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can only marry one mate at a time. King James says we have too but guess what? It doesn't matter, it was just something Americans did out of tradition and because they had their beliefs.
Also King James sponsored the King James Bible so this whole law King James made was based on his religion and it was breaking the Constitution's law.
Also there is no difference between "exercise" and "action"...none at all. look at the definition of each of them. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Exercise Exercise: 1."exercises A program that includes speeches, presentations, and other ceremonial activities performed before an audience: graduation exercises." 2."To put into play or operation;employ: Proceed, but exercise caution."
Although the constitution did not define religion, Did NOT define religion. No ifs, ands, or buts. the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." Boy if this is the best the Supreme Court can do then they must have been grasping at straws with this investigation lol. First, this was just a letter and there were more people than Thomas Jefferson at work with the Constitution. Here is the rest of that letter from Jefferson:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” So basically Jefferson wanted the first admendment as it's written because well...it got into the Constitution The supreme court took the first part but they missed where Jefferson contradicted himself which won out in the end.
All of a sudden it looks like the Supreme Court turned into Faux News; love to spin things.
The court argued that if we allowed polygamy, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, That's why we have the other Amendments. That's why we have investigations, to see if this is what the person wanted (the dead person). and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Bull, we have other admendments to make sure that doesn't happen. Marrying more than one woman at a time is not against the Constitution anywhere, and we have Amendment 10 where it says :
"The powers not delegated, to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Add that to Amendment 14 section 1 and Amendment 5, and everything else that I have said throughout the thread, and you must allow Polygamists to marry multiple wives.
The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore “We are not brainwashed, mistreated, neglected, malnourished, illiterate, defective or dysfunctional,” 17-year-old Jessica [Jessica is a FEMALE] said. “My brothers and sisters are freethinking, independent people; some who have chosen this lifestyle, while others have branched out to a diversity of religions.”
I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in polygamy whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion.... I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in Christianity whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion. (Unbiased opinion is a contradiction btw).
"Hi my name is Jessica... And my goal in life is to have an arranged marriage with a man I dont love that has 4 other wives. And I want to only be allowed to spend time with my husband on Tuesdays... .Oh and maybe on my birthday... On those other days I will sleep alone in my bed while my husband is having sex with his other wives.... Then I'm going to get pregnant over and over again and Kick out children like a soccer game... And we will probably have to share everything we have and My kids will probably only ever have hand me downs.... But I can't WAitt!! "
I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong... just saying that your quote from Jessica doesn't really do much to show how she's going to benefit from being a polygamist. Your little made up quote doesn't do anything to prove your point either. Having that show of kids doesn't really show anything... The only way we can really say what's what is if there is an objective view into the lives of polygamists to determine the quality of their life (especially for the women) I don't think you should worry about them. let them live their life. If the woman are treated badly then they leave. I'm sure they could care less about your "unbiased opinion" about their life. ... And as we all know there is no such thing as an objective view. So why are you throwing out all these views you have? and condemning other views?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by Blurr The courts are of the opinion that polygamy is illegal. The government is of the opinion that polygamy is wrong and illegal. The majority of people in your country believe that polygamy is illegal.
It's illegal now... But it's a very old law... Soon enough this law is gonna tumble sadly alot like the gay marriage thing. which is tumbling as we speak.... America is slowly loosing it's values... I remember back in the eightees where saying "@ss" would get bleeped on T.V. now it's on nickelodeon... I remember when Nudity was never allowed... Now Brittney spears is practically nude for any award show... and Abacrombie and Fitch magazine regulary has bare breast (apparently showing people without clothes on is the way A&F sells clothes)..
Ahh yes the evil body. I'm sure God really appreciates you condemning the naked body. I'm sure God didn't work very hard on them. "Ass" can also mean donkey, thats' why it's allowed but i'm sorry you're not very thick skinned.
America is slowly loosing it's morals and values... I'm glad I'm not american.. Definitely gonna move away to raise my kids... And no offense... Wont be raisin em in Canada either...
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Blurr Well, as far as Canada goes we have our good sides and bad sides. Sure the whole gay marriage thing, but it's really only relegated to Toronto, which many Canadians don't count as part of Canada . The rest of the country is great (except quebec, hehe). Another strike against polygamy is that it promotes a very poor income economical structure. Women are rarely allowed to work, if at all. This means that one man's income has to support 3-7 wives and however many children. It's no coincidence that alot of polygamist communities are in out-of-the-way small towns and farming communities. damn farms.... Edit: wanted to add in regards to your post methane: I agree. The North American culture has become so bloated with this "It's not my fault" "you can't tell me what to do" "I know better than everyone else" bullcrap that people are losing their morals left and right. Apparently you know better than everybody else? Or do you just get your morals from government and church? They aren't losing them; they have different morals. Are you king of Morals? What happened to your "Majority" talk? Don't you think majority = right? So if the majority are changing morals then doesn't that mean they are right???
Nobody can stand for anything anymore. Like you can't stand Gay marriage and Polygamy?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in Christianity whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion. (Unbiased opinion is a contradiction btw). Exactly... Your little made up quote doesn't do anything to prove your point either.
I'm wasn't proving a point..... I was just showing that you can't use the word of someone who's already entrenched in the system to be the sole rightness/wrongness of it.
I don't think you should worry about them. let them live their life. If the woman are treated badly then they leave. I'm sure they could care less about your "unbiased opinion" about their life.
I think we all should leave em alone and let them live there lives... Chances are those Mormon kids are growing up with more values and morals then all of the US (for most things)....
So why are you throwing out all these views you have? and condemning other views?
Where did I condemn other views here? I said I'm not saying Polygamy is wrong... I was saying your use of Jessica to show that it is Right is wrong
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Ahh yes the evil body. I'm sure God really appreciates you condemning the naked body. I'm sure God didn't work very hard on them. "Ass" can also mean donkey, thats' why it's allowed but i'm sorry you're not very thick skinned.
Yes God wants everybody to be naked all the time... thats why the Cananites were cursed after their father amused himself because Noah was naked... Stop trying to use the bible for help...
It's not the naked body that is "evil" Its the perversion of the mind... That is why Nude art is allowed in libraries but sexual explicit art is not... It's not the body it's the intent... And A&F uses sex... They have their people kissing and grindin in the groin area.... while topless... and they are giving this stuff you young kids... you know because... Lil teenage boys and girls NEed to see 20 year olds grinding atop onanother and showing tits...
And if the word Ass was USED to describe the donkey there would BE no problem but it's not... I doubt schoolage kids even recognize that synonym anymore.... Just like using "Teabagging" while playing an online game is funny and humerous... but Teabagging in the workplace can get you put in sensitivity training...
Lets please not talk about Semantics....
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in Christianity whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion. (Unbiased opinion is a contradiction btw). Exactly... Your little made up quote doesn't do anything to prove your point either.
I'm wasn't proving a point..... I was just showing that you can't use the word of someone who's already entrenched in the system to be the sole rightness/wrongness of it.
I don't think you should worry about them. let them live their life. If the woman are treated badly then they leave. I'm sure they could care less about your "unbiased opinion" about their life.
I think we all should leave em alone and let them live there lives... Chances are those Mormon kids are growing up with more values and morals then all of the US (for most things)....
So why are you throwing out all these views you have? and condemning other views?
Where did I condemn other views here? I said I'm not saying Polygamy is wrong... I was saying your use Jessica to show that it is Right is wrong
Okay I was reading too much into your post I guess.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore
Ahh yes the evil body. I'm sure God really appreciates you condemning the naked body. I'm sure God didn't work very hard on them. "Ass" can also mean donkey, thats' why it's allowed but i'm sorry you're not very thick skinned.
Yes God wants everybody to be naked all the time... thats why the Cananites were cursed after their father amused himself because Noah was naked... Stop trying to use the bible for help...
It's not the naked body that is "evil" Its the perversion of the mind... Without our "perversion" then how could we care for sexual intercourse? Mankind would die off. We need the urge. That is why Nude art is allowed in libraries but sexual explicit art is not... It's not the body it's the intent... And A&F uses sex... They have their people kissing and grindin in the groin area.... while topless... and they are giving this stuff you young kids... you know because... Lil teenage boys and girls NEed to see 20 year olds grinding atop onanother and showing tits...
And if the word Ass was USED to describe the donkey there would BE no problem but it's not... I doubt schoolage kids even recognize that synonym anymore.... Just like using "Teabagging" while playing an online game is funny and humerous... but Teabagging in the workplace can get you put in sensitivity training...
Lets please not talk about Semantics....
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore Without our "perversion" then how could we care for sexual intercourse? Mankind would die off. We need the urge.
LLLOOL ... True true... We need that itch... lol... But I guess I want my kids to wait till their OUTA MA HOUSE to try to save Mankind
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by AlexAmore Without our "perversion" then how could we care for sexual intercourse? Mankind would die off. We need the urge.
LLLOOL ... True true... We need that itch... lol... But I guess I want my kids to wait till their OUTA MA HOUSE to try to save Mankind
ROFLOLOL!!
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Blurr lol corn, I was hardly the one to throw the first stone. Don't get mad because you can't take the medicine of your compatriots, or your own. Seeing as you guys like quotes so much, here's one on the "it doesn't hurt anyone idea" "I think polygamy is a bad idea for society. With a couple of exceptions, polygamy is really polygyny one man, multiple women. What happens in polygynous societies is that low status men dont get to marry at all. This, it seems to me, is just unfair and un-American. Moreover, in every case I have read about of polygyny, even in societies in which it was well established, the wives are never really ok with the fact that their husband has other wives and other children." - William (Beau) Weston Sociology professor. Swarthmore and Yale. One of the main reasons that polygamy is illegal is because it fosters situations that are prone to the infringement of rights. Young girls are not given the choice of who to marry, but married off almost like a piece of property. In many instances they are married before the age of consent, often to much older (50+) men. Older men control the society and subjugate the women as their property. While one man often has many wives, it's almost unheardof for a woman to have more than one husband. Younger men are driven out of the society because they are seen as a threat by the older men. Women are treated as second-class citizens and are expected to obey absolutely. It's a breeding ground for pedophilia against young girls. Women are psychologically and emotionally abused to keep them in line. Women become a status symbol for the men to determine who is the leader of the society. There is alot of emotional turmoil because women don't really want to share their husband, but feel they have to. When an old man dies sometimes his wives are given to another in his will. Sexual disease spreads very quickly. Young men and women who do not subscribe to the lifestyle are shunned, sometimes disowned, and sometimes run out of town. I wonder if any of that infringes on people's rights. A couple of you seem to be experts on that, any idea?
I understand what happens with poligamy, I'm not for it but just because it doesn't fit with my morales doesn't mean that it should be illegal. I truly whould hate a person that had more than one wife, but by the first amendment it should be legal. that is my point.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Alex you seem to love to point out how christianity is bad and these polygamists are good.
What religion do you think these polygamists claim to be? Do you even know what the word "christianity" means?
And you missed a couple things about the court case in 1879.
First of all, they made the point that polygamist societies go against the natural order and peace of the communities around them, thereby infringing on their rights.
Second of all, the courts determined that marriage is a civil contract. As such, the civil government is in control of who does and does not get to marry. Particularly with respect to things like legal status, income, taxes, etc. You can have a priest say a few words and marry you to a goat, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you a marriage license.
As far as the government is concerned, from a civil point of view regarding the benefits and legal status of marriage, they only legally recognize two people per marriage.
So you can have as many women as you want, you can call them your 'wives', but the government only makes legal allowance for one "wife" or one "husband". Only one person counts as your spouse for tax purposes. Only one person counts as your spouse for the purposes of government I.D., etc. You are just cheating on your wife with a bunch of women that live with you. (And are thus pursuant to the crimes of bigamy/adultery if the gov't decides to prosecute you for them).
Religion cannot dictate to government how it recognizes you. That's why religion is not a valid defense in trying to get the marriage laws changed. It's the same reason you can't create a religion that allows you to never pay taxes, or gives you immunity to being prosecuted in court.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by cornoffcob I understand what happens with poligamy, I'm not for it but just because it doesn't fit with my morales doesn't mean that it should be illegal. I truly whould hate a person that had more than one wife, but by the first amendment it should be legal. that is my point.
The government can't dictate how your religion is practiced, but it does get to dictate your legal status in the country. The government has decided that you get ONE husband or wife, legally.
Polygamy does not grant you any legal rights, because the legal benefits of marriage are solely up to the government. Polygamy lets you try and skirt around being prosecuted for bigamy, etc, but it does not mean the government owes you legal status for 5 wives.
That's the whole point.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Here's a great article done by an attorney who deals with polygamy.
Salt Lake Tribune Sunday, May 7, 2000
Legalizing Polygamy Would Deny Rights of Children, Change a Crime
BY DOUGLAS F. WHITE
I read, with great interest, the article written by Boyer Jarvis, "Legalizing Polygamy Would Recognize Culture, History," on April 9, 2000. As the attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy, for the past 15 months I have been privileged to delve into the secret polygamy culture of several of the well-known groups. I have acquired an acute appreciation for the women and children and even some men feebly attempting to extricate themselves from the all-encompassing and tortuous polygamy culture. Most languish and die as victims of others' dreams of utopia.
I am compelled to reject Mr. Jarvis' reasoning. The only sentence in Boyer Jarvis' article proposing to legalize polygamy that had any grain of truth or responsibility was his opening line. It read: "It is time to be honest and forthright about the existence of polygamy in Utah, and about the consequences of that lifestyle for children." Therefore, let us be honest and forthright.
The U.S. Constitution by its very nature creates the ideology that we Americans have agreed to live in an ordered society, obeying civil law and criminal law, created and enforced by the power of the majority of the people. We forget that even the "minority of the people" agreed to be bound by this most basic principle.
The Revolutionary War had something to do with this concept. By 1896, when Utah became the 45th state, polygamy had been a crime for many years in the United States of America. Hence, the language in the Utah Constitution "Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited" is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S. Constitution, and is very consistent with the notion that "Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed." Put even plainer, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state Constitutions agree that whatever "act" is defined as being criminal by the majority of the people is simply not religion. The Constitutions therefore do not afforded the status of a "right" religious or otherwise to criminal conduct and therefore such act is not protected by the state or federal government. In fact, Constitutions grant society the "right" to act in self-defense to such criminal acts and hence we have public prosecutions of those acts which are deemed to be harmful to our society. Polygamy being one. Does any state allow or protect the use of cocaine in the name of religious activities? No.
A person can "believe" that any "act" is a religious tenet but he can not exercise the "act" even in a religious context is the conduct amounts to a criminal act. Reynolds vs. U.S. 98 U.S. 145.
Although some have tried all have failed to convince the courts and public opinion to the contrary. In the past 150 years every single solitary case ruled upon by either a federal or state court in regards to the practice of polygamy and whether it was a protected religious freedom has ruled against the practice of polygamy. No exceptions. The most recent case being a Utah case. Potter vs. Murray City, 760 F.2nd 1065 in 1985 stated: "Beyond the declaration of policy and public interest implicit in the prohibition of polygamy under criminal sanction, [Utah] has established a vast and convoluted network of other laws clearly establishing its compelling state's interest in and commitment to a system of domestic relations based exclusively upon the practice of monogamy as opposed to plural marriage. Monogamy is inextricably woven into the fabric of our society. It is the bedrock upon which our culture is built."
Today, would anyone argue that past religious beliefs and the ritual act of sacrificing a young virgin girl to your God is a protected religious freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Now, "let's be honest and forthright about . . . the consequences of the polygamy lifestyle for children" as posed in The Tribune article on April 9.
Are we not still condoning the offering up of a "human sacrifice" when a 40-year-old polygamist pretends to marry a 13-year-old virgin in a religious ceremony with the intent on having sex with her and producing 7 to 10 children by her by the time she is 30 years old? This same girl will be involuntarily taken out of public school in the eighth grade, if she has been allowed to attend school at all, never to return. This child's children will be born without medical care. This child at age 30 will have no birth certificate, no education, no job except what the polygamist's business gives her, no money, no retirement, no social security, no medical coverage for her or her children, no community involvement, no respect, no self-esteem . . . no real life. Dead at age 13. A human sacrifice in every sense of the word. All in the name of God. This is the "honest and forthright" culture proposed to be legalized.
Although the writer correctly cites Article III of the Utah State Constitution in that: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of his or her mode of religious worship;" he should also interpret this language as a protection for those who cannot protect themselves from criminal acts disguised as religious acts. The constitutional language should also be read as follows: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of [someone else's] mode of religious worship;" Utah's constitutional language is meant to be a shield not a sword.
Children are being molested in Utah every day because of someone else's religious beliefs and acts. These are children not even old enough to consent to a sexual relationship let alone have the maturity or means to protect themselves from their parents and so-called religious leaders. Their parents and religious leaders demand their obedience of their minds and their bodies. What civil rights do they have? Absolutely none. All in the name of God.
Legalizing polygamy cannot be done unless we also legalize child rape, incest, and several other forms of sexual abuse and the conspiracy to commit these crimes committed by the children's parents and religious leaders.
Lastly, I do agree with Mr. Jarvis: "The curtain of secrecy that surrounds polygamy in Utah must be removed," but not by legalization. The secrecy of polygamy can only be removed by innovative education and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law. Legalizing polygamy will no more cure the complex and heinous problems created by polygamy than legalizing prostitution will stop rape. We must all become part of the solution and not part of the problem. _________
Douglas F. White is the Salt Lake attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy.
How many horror stories of young girls essentially put into sex slavery do we need to hear guys?
alex will try to say "christianity rapes children too" but that's just a false argument. Any stories of priests and molestation were isolated incidents of a small few abusing their power. You can't keep hiding behind that defence because it doesn't hold water. Not only that, but it absolutely was wrong, and any time it came out the priests were punished. Oh and guess what, what they did was AGAINST the religion. These people are trying to say that it's part of their religion. Does that make them immune from the law?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Here's a great article done by an attorney who deals with polygamy. Salt Lake Tribune Sunday, May 7, 2000 Legalizing Polygamy Would Deny Rights of Children, Change a Crime BY DOUGLAS F. WHITE I read, with great interest, the article written by Boyer Jarvis,"Legalizing Polygamy Would Recognize Culture, History," on April 9, 2000. As the attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy, for the past 15 months Ihave been privileged to delve into the secret polygamy culture of severalof the well-known groups. I have acquired an acute appreciation for thewomen and children and even some men feebly attempting to extricatethemselves from the all-encompassing and tortuous polygamy culture.Most languish and die as victims of others' dreams of utopia. I am compelled to reject Mr. Jarvis' reasoning. The only sentence inBoyer Jarvis' article proposing to legalize polygamy that had any grain oftruth or responsibility was his opening line. It read: "It is time to be honestand forthright about the existence of polygamy in Utah, and about theconsequences of that lifestyle for children." Therefore, let us be honestand forthright. The U.S. Constitution by its very nature creates the ideology that weAmericans have agreed to live in an ordered society, obeying civil lawand criminal law, created and enforced by the power of the majority ofthe people. We forget that even the "minority of the people" agreed to bebound by this most basic principle. The Revolutionary War had something to do with this concept. By 1896, when Utah became the 45th state, polygamy had been acrime for many years in the United States of America. Hence, thelanguage in the Utah Constitution "Polygamous or plural marriages areforever prohibited" is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S.Constitution, and is very consistent with the notion that "Perfect tolerationof religious sentiment is guaranteed." Put even plainer, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state Constitutionsagree that whatever "act" is defined as being criminal by the majority ofthe people is simply not religion. The Constitutions therefore do notafforded the status of a "right" religious or otherwise to criminal conductand therefore such act is not protected by the state or federalgovernment. In fact, Constitutions grant society the "right" to act inself-defense to such criminal acts and hence we have public prosecutionsof those acts which are deemed to be harmful to our society. Polygamybeing one. Does any state allow or protect the use of cocaine in the nameof religious activities? No. A person can "believe" that any "act" is a religious tenet but he cannot exercise the "act" even in a religious context is the conduct amounts toa criminal act. Reynolds vs. U.S. 98 U.S. 145. Although some have tried all have failed to convince the courts andpublic opinion to the contrary. In the past 150 years every single solitarycase ruled upon by either a federal or state court in regards to thepractice of polygamy and whether it was a protected religious freedomhas ruled against the practice of polygamy. No exceptions. The most recent case being a Utah case. Potter vs. Murray City, 760F.2nd 1065 in 1985 stated: "Beyond the declaration of policy and publicinterest implicit in the prohibition of polygamy under criminal sanction,[Utah] has established a vast and convoluted network of other lawsclearly establishing its compelling state's interest in and commitment to asystem of domestic relations based exclusively upon the practice ofmonogamy as opposed to plural marriage. Monogamy is inextricablywoven into the fabric of our society. It is the bedrock upon which ourculture is built." Today, would anyone argue that past religious beliefs and the ritual actof sacrificing a young virgin girl to your God is a protected religiousfreedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Now,"let's be honest and forthright about . . . the consequences of thepolygamy lifestyle for children" as posed in The Tribune article on April 9. Are we not still condoning the offering up of a "human sacrifice" whena 40-year-old polygamist pretends to marry a 13-year-old virgin in areligious ceremony with the intent on having sex with her and producing 7to 10 children by her by the time she is 30 years old? This same girl willbe involuntarily taken out of public school in the eighth grade, if she hasbeen allowed to attend school at all, never to return. This child's childrenwill be born without medical care. This child at age 30 will have no birthcertificate, no education, no job except what the polygamist's businessgives her, no money, no retirement, no social security, no medicalcoverage for her or her children, no community involvement, no respect,no self-esteem . . . no real life. Dead at age 13. A human sacrifice inevery sense of the word. All in the name of God. This is the "honest andforthright" culture proposed to be legalized. Although the writer correctly cites Article III of the Utah StateConstitution in that: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested inperson . . . on account of his or her mode of religious worship;" he shouldalso interpret this language as a protection for those who cannot protectthemselves from criminal acts disguised as religious acts. Theconstitutional language should also be read as follows: "No inhabitant ofthis state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of [someoneelse's] mode of religious worship;" Utah's constitutional language is meantto be a shield not a sword. Children are being molested in Utah every day because of someoneelse's religious beliefs and acts. These are children not even old enough toconsent to a sexual relationship let alone have the maturity or means toprotect themselves from their parents and so-called religious leaders.Their parents and religious leaders demand their obedience of their mindsand their bodies. What civil rights do they have? Absolutely none. All inthe name of God. Legalizing polygamy cannot be done unless we also legalize child rape,incest, and several other forms of sexual abuse and the conspiracy tocommit these crimes committed by the children's parents and religiousleaders. Lastly, I do agree with Mr. Jarvis: "The curtain of secrecy thatsurrounds polygamy in Utah must be removed," but not by legalization.The secrecy of polygamy can only be removed by innovative educationand criminal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law. Legalizingpolygamy will no more cure the complex and heinous problems createdby polygamy than legalizing prostitution will stop rape. We must allbecome part of the solution and not part of the problem. _________ Douglas F. White is the Salt Lake attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy. How many horror stories of young girls essentially put into sex slavery do we need to hear guys? alex will try to say "christianity rapes children too" but that's just a false argument. Any stories of priests and molestation were isolated incidents of a small few abusing their power. You can't keep hiding behind that defence because it doesn't hold water. Not only that, but it absolutely was wrong, and any time it came out the priests were punished. Oh and guess what, what they did was AGAINST the religion. These people are trying to say that it's part of their religion. Does that make them immune from the law?
That article did make some great points. The thing you said that got me worked up earlier had to do with you sayintg that we just need to obey the law. It seemed to me that you didn't understand how subjectory obeying every law passed really is.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Originally posted by Blurr Alex you seem to love to point out how christianity is bad and these polygamists are good. I believe Polygamy should be legalized, not that they are "good". I hate a lot of Christian sects but I believe they should be legalized.
What religion do you think these polygamists claim to be? Do you even know what the word "christianity" means? I know they are Christians but you're a different type of Christian.
And you missed a couple things about the court case in 1879. First of all, they made the point that polygamist societies go against the natural order and peace of the communities around them, thereby infringing on their rights. Did they explain how or are they speculating? Right now there are Polygamists in American but I haven't seen anything hurting anyone outside of Polygamy.
Second of all, the courts determined that marriage is a civil contract. As such, the civil government is in control of who does and does not get to marry. Nope, that is depriving people liberty and equal protection under the law. Particularly with respect to things like legal status, income, taxes, etc. You can have a priest say a few words and marry you to a goat, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you a marriage license. As far as the government is concerned, from a civil point of view regarding the benefits and legal status of marriage, they only legally recognize two people per marriage. Because of an old law under King James which is not a legal law in America so it's irrelevant. Again I love repeating myself. So you can have as many women as you want, you can call them your 'wives', but the government only makes legal allowance for one "wife" or one "husband". Only one person counts as your spouse for tax purposes. Only one person counts as your spouse for the purposes of government I.D., etc. You are just cheating on your wife with a bunch of women that live with you. (And are thus pursuant to the crimes of bigamy/adultery if the gov't decides to prosecute you for them). Religion cannot dictate to government how it recognizes you. That's why religion is not a valid defense in trying to get the marriage laws changed. It's the same reason you can't create a religion that allows you to never pay taxes, or gives you immunity to being prosecuted in court. I'm not using religion as my argument, i'm using the Constitution.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by cornoffcob I understand what happens with poligamy, I'm not for it but just because it doesn't fit with my morales doesn't mean that it should be illegal. I truly whould hate a person that had more than one wife, but by the first amendment it should be legal. that is my point.
The government can't dictate how your religion is practiced, but it does get to dictate your legal status in the country. The government has decided that you get ONE husband or wife, legally.
Polygamy does not grant you any legal rights, because the legal benefits of marriage are solely up to the government. Polygamy lets you try and skirt around being prosecuted for bigamy, etc, but it does not mean the government owes you legal status for 5 wives.
That's the whole point.
Why does people having the freedom to do what they want to do bother you so much? If you believe in the principles of freedom then you would defend someone's freedom to do as they see fit even if you disagree with what they're doing.
How would a person practicing polygamy effect you? How would it change the way you live your life at all?
Originally posted by Blurr Here's a great article done by an attorney who deals with polygamy.
Salt Lake Tribune Sunday, May 7, 2000 Legalizing Polygamy Would Deny Rights of Children, Change a Crime
BY DOUGLAS F. WHITE I read, with great interest, the article written by Boyer Jarvis, "Legalizing Polygamy Would Recognize Culture, History," on April 9, 2000. As the attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy, for the past 15 months I have been privileged to delve into the secret polygamy culture of several of the well-known groups. I have acquired an acute appreciation for the women and children and even some men feebly attempting to extricate themselves from the all-encompassing and tortuous polygamy culture. Most languish and die as victims of others' dreams of utopia. I am compelled to reject Mr. Jarvis' reasoning. The only sentence in Boyer Jarvis' article proposing to legalize polygamy that had any grain of truth or responsibility was his opening line. It read: "It is time to be honest and forthright about the existence of polygamy in Utah, and about the consequences of that lifestyle for children." Therefore, let us be honest and forthright. The U.S. Constitution by its very nature creates the ideology that we Americans have agreed to live in an ordered society, obeying civil law and criminal law, created and enforced by the power of the majority of the people. Strike one! Majority of the people do not make laws, we do not live in a democracy. Constitutional Republic. What a retarded lawyer. We forget that even the "minority of the people" agreed to be bound by this most basic principle. Bound to the Constitution. The Revolutionary War had something to do with this concept. By 1896, when Utah became the 45th state, polygamy had been a crime for many years in the United States of America. Hence, the language in the Utah Constitution "Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited" is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S. Constitution, and is very consistent with the notion that "Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed." Am I reading this right? Basically he is saying "For some reason having to do with the revolutionary war, America illegalized Polygamy, which happens to be a religion, so because of that it is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S Constitution." "Religious sentiment" was never guaranteed in the Constitution, for 1 he never defined what the sentiment is, and 2 what we do have guaranteed is religious freedom of expression and exercise/action. Put even plainer, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state Constitutions agree that whatever "act" is defined as being criminal by the majority of the people is simply not religion. U.S Constitution does not say that! What an outrageous lie! Also, we are not a democracy! Strike 2. The Constitutions therefore do not afforded the status of a "right" religious or otherwise to criminal conduct and therefore such act is not protected by the state or federal government. In fact, Constitutions grant society the "right" to act in self-defense to such criminal acts and hence we have public prosecutions of those acts which are deemed to be harmful to our society. Polygamy being one.
Does any state allow or protect the use of cocaine in the name of religious activities? No. Does cocaine use break the Constitution law? No. A person can "believe" that any "act" is a religious tenet but he can not exercise the "act" even in a religious context is the conduct amounts to a criminal act. Reynolds vs. U.S. 98 U.S. 145. I already refuted this. It was laughable at best. Although some have tried all have failed to convince the courts and public opinion to the contrary. So now our founding fathers write our Constitution and we have to teach our judges what is says? In the past 150 years every single solitary case ruled upon by either a federal or state court in regards to the practice of polygamy and whether it was a protected religious freedom has ruled against the practice of polygamy. No exceptions. Judges are human. Most are probably subscribed to f'ing Bible more than the Constitution therefore having their religion as a basis to break the law, otherwise they simply have agendas or are plain stupid. The most recent case being a Utah case. Potter vs. Murray City, 760 F.2nd 1065 in 1985 stated: "Beyond the declaration of policy and public interest implicit in the prohibition of polygamy under criminal sanction, [Utah] has established a vast and convoluted network of other laws clearly establishing its compelling state's interest in and commitment to a system of domestic relations based exclusively upon the practice of monogamy as opposed to plural marriage. Monogamy is inextricably woven into the fabric of our society. It is the bedrock upon which our culture is built." Monogamy may be more popular but our Constitution was designed to give equal rights to the minority. Today, would anyone argue that past religious beliefs and the ritual act of sacrificing a young virgin girl to your God is a protected religious freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Now you're jumping from the whole basis of debate with is "plural and monogamous relationships" to now including sacrificing and past beliefs? Now, "let's be honest and forthright about . . . the consequences of the polygamy lifestyle for children" as posed in The Tribune article on April 9. Polygamy is "The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time." That's all i'm debating here and all that is worth debating. After they have a plural wedding anything they do after is subjected to equal protection under the law which is in Amendment 10 and 14 section 1. Are we not still condoning the offering up of a "human sacrifice" when a 40-year-old polygamist pretends to marry a 13-year-old virgin in a religious ceremony with the intent on having sex with her That's illegal and being a US citizen they must be punished. and producing 7 to 10 children by her by the time she is 30 years old? This same girl will
be involuntarily taken out of public school in the eighth grade, if she has been allowed to attend school at all, never to return. Involuntarily? How do you know? This child's children will be born without medical care. This child at age 30 will have no birth certificate, no education, no job except what the polygamist's business gives her, no money, no retirement, no social security, no medical coverage for her or her children, no community involvement, no respect, no self-esteem . . . no real life. Uhhh she is 30 years old. If she wants to leave then she can leave. If she is restricted then whoever restricted her must be punished. Dead at age 13. Polygamists go from 30 and upon death die at 13? A human sacrifice in every sense of the word. Oh the sacrifice of a little girl. Yeah that is illegal. All in the name of God. This is the "honest and forthright" culture proposed to be legalized. I'm proposing to allow plural weddings. Although the writer correctly cites Article III of the Utah State Constitution in that: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of his or her mode of religious worship;" he should also interpret this language as a protection for those who cannot protect themselves from criminal acts disguised as religious acts. The constitutional language should also be read as follows: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of [someone else's] mode of religious worship;" Utah's constitutional language is meant to be a shield not a sword. Children are being molested in Utah every day because of someone else's religious beliefs and acts. These are children not even old enough to consent to a sexual relationship let alone have the maturity or means to protect themselves from their parents and so-called religious leaders. Their parents and religious leaders demand their obedience of their minds and their bodies. What civil rights do they have? Absolutely none. All in the name of God. Then go after them, but don't ban Polygamy which by definition is to marry more mates than one. Having multiple wives does not inherently = molestation, rape,...ect. It means marriage of more than one mate but you're bringing in raping children. Legalizing polygamy cannot be done unless we also legalize child rape, incest, and several other forms of sexual abuse and the conspiracy to commit these crimes committed by the children's parents and religious leaders. Nope, Polygamy means marrying more than one wife or husband, nothing more. Lastly, I do agree with Mr. Jarvis: "The curtain of secrecy that surrounds polygamy in Utah must be removed," but not by legalization. The secrecy of polygamy can only be removed by innovative education and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law. Legalizing polygamy will no more cure the complex and heinous problems created by polygamy than legalizing prostitution will stop rape. We must all become part of the solution and not part of the problem. _________ Douglas F. White is the Salt Lake attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy.
How many horror stories of young girls essentially put into sex slavery do we need to hear guys? There are more horror stories from from children being abused from monogamous citizens or ones who believe or would be in one if they chose to get married. Off the top your head I bet you can only think of a few examples of children being abused from Polygamy but only because these types of stories get lots of publicity. You never hear of a normal loving Polygamous family because that doesn't get news rating. alex will try to say "christianity rapes children too" but that's just a false argument. Any stories of priests and molestation were isolated incidents of a small few abusing their power. You can't keep hiding behind that defence because it doesn't hold water. Not only that, but it absolutely was wrong, and any time it came out the priests were punished. Anytime we hear about Polygamous families abusing they get in trouble too. Oh and guess what, what they did was AGAINST the religion. These people are trying to say that it's part of their religion. Does that make them immune from the law? Like I said, no. I'm debating if they should be able to get married. After that they will be equal and must live according to the Constitution. I believe in letting monogamous relationships get married but after that if they get abusive to eachother or their children (trust me it happens A LOT) then someone must be held accountable. I believe in letting Polygamous relationships get married but if they go against the Constitution then they will get in trouble. It's called equal rights under the law and all US Citizens are protected....at least they are suppose to according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I'll be wife #3 as long as wife #2 cleans and wife #1 grocery shops and cooks and I can just game all day
Sounds good to me!
Seriously though, It just sounds like caveman days... a commune where there's an alpha male, spreading seed to spawn several offspring, killing or driving away younger males, females start churning out babies very young and continue to churn them out. Caveman or something that might happen after a nuclear winter.
And sorry but religious freedom only goes so far.
No bitchers.
Obviously males and females both want the freedom to be legally recognized as a Polygamist family.
“We are not brainwashed, mistreated, neglected, malnourished, illiterate, defective or dysfunctional,” 17-year-old Jessica [Jessica is a FEMALE] said. “My brothers and sisters are freethinking, independent people; some who have chosen this lifestyle, while others have branched out to a diversity of religions.”
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
You know what alex? Everything you say is just your opinion.
The courts are of the opinion that polygamy is illegal. The government is of the opinion that polygamy is wrong and illegal. The majority of people in your country believe that polygamy is illegal.
The supreme court has ruled that religion is not a defense for breaking the law.
Alot of people alot smarter than you have pondered this idea for alot longer. As of right now, polygamy is illegal.
Probably because those in power feel they have a moral obligation to keep the society from going down the crapper.
This isn't oppression of religion, it's oppression of criminalism. These people are just trying to use religion as a defense to their criminal actions.
If they want the ruling over turned, they need to go to court and prove that it's wrong. They don't get to break the law just because they don't like the law.
Oh, and you like to say Christianity is doing the same things wrong as polygamy. In Christianity, young girls aren't married off without their consent as a piece of property in order to provide status for the leader. Young men aren't told that they cannot marry someone because another man wants that person for his 5th wife or whatever.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in polygamy whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion....
"Hi my name is Jessica... And my goal in life is to have an arranged marriage with a man I dont love that has 4 other wives. And I want to only be allowed to spend time with my husband on Tuesdays... .Oh and maybe on my birthday... On those other days I will sleep alone in my bed while my husband is having sex with his other wives.... Then I'm going to get pregnant over and over again and Kick out children like a soccer game... And we will probably have to share everything we have and My kids will probably only ever have hand me downs.... But I can't WAitt!! "
I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong... just saying that your quote from Jessica doesn't really do much to show how she's going to benefit from being a polygamist. Having that show of kids doesn't really show anything... The only way we can really say what's what is if there is an objective view into the lives of polygamists to determine the quality of their life (especially for the women)... And as we all know there is no such thing as an objective view.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
It's illegal now... But it's a very old law... Soon enough this law is gonna tumble sadly alot like the gay marriage thing. which is tumbling as we speak.... America is slowly loosing it's values... I remember back in the eightees where saying "@ss" would get bleeped on T.V. now it's on nickelodeon... I remember when Nudity was never allowed... Now Brittney spears is practically nude for any award show... and Abacrombie and Fitch magazine regulary has bare breast (apparently showing people without clothes on is the way A&F sells clothes)..
America is slowly loosing it's morals and values... I'm glad I'm not american.. Definitely gonna move away to raise my kids... And no offense... Wont be raisin em in Canada either...
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Well, as far as Canada goes we have our good sides and bad sides. Sure the whole gay marriage thing, but it's really only relegated to Toronto, which many Canadians don't count as part of Canada
. The rest of the country is great (except quebec, hehe).
Another strike against polygamy is that it promotes a very poor income economical structure. Women are rarely allowed to work, if at all. This means that one man's income has to support 3-7 wives and however many children. It's no coincidence that alot of polygamist communities are in out-of-the-way small towns and farming communities.
Edit: wanted to add in regards to your post methane: I agree. The North American culture has become so bloated with this "It's not my fault" "you can't tell me what to do" "I know better than everyone else" bullcrap that people are losing their morals left and right. Nobody can stand for anything anymore.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I see you have stopped trying to use the Constitution (I don't know if you ever really have used it) to argue with and instead have gone to the Supreme Court. Just remember Constitution/Bill of Rights > Supreme Court.
I've already given you Admendment 1, 5, and 14.
I just read this btw from wikipedia. This is probably where you got your argument from.
"The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based."
This is flawed because King James's law is irrelevant when it comes to our freedoms. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can only marry one mate at a time. King James says we have too but guess what? It doesn't matter, it was just something Americans did out of tradition and because they had their beliefs.
Also King James sponsored the King James Bible so this whole law King James made was based on his religion and it was breaking the Constitution's law.
Also there is no difference between "exercise" and "action"...none at all. look at the definition of each of them. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Exercise
Exercise:
1."exercises A program that includes speeches, presentations, and other ceremonial activities performed before an audience: graduation exercises."
2."To put into play or operation; employ: Proceed, but exercise caution."
Although the constitution did not define religion,
Did NOT define religion. No ifs, ands, or buts.
the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
Boy if this is the best the Supreme Court can do then they must have been grasping at straws with this investigation lol. First, this was just a letter and there were more people than Thomas Jefferson at work with the Constitution. Here is the rest of that letter from Jefferson:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
So basically Jefferson wanted the first admendment as it's written because well...it got into the Constitution
The supreme court took the first part but they missed where Jefferson contradicted himself which won out in the end.
All of a sudden it looks like the Supreme Court turned into Faux News; love to spin things.
The court argued that if we allowed polygamy, how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion,
That's why we have the other Amendments. That's why we have investigations, to see if this is what the person wanted (the dead person).
and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Bull, we have other admendments to make sure that doesn't happen. Marrying more than one woman at a time is not against the Constitution anywhere, and we have Amendment 10 where it says :
"The powers not delegated, to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Add that to Amendment 14 section 1 and Amendment 5, and everything else that I have said throughout the thread, and you must allow Polygamists to marry multiple wives.
The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in polygamy whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion....
I don't think asking someone who is entrenched in Christianity whether it's good or not is going to give you an unbiased opinion. (Unbiased opinion is a contradiction btw).
"Hi my name is Jessica... And my goal in life is to have an arranged marriage with a man I dont love that has 4 other wives. And I want to only be allowed to spend time with my husband on Tuesdays... .Oh and maybe on my birthday... On those other days I will sleep alone in my bed while my husband is having sex with his other wives.... Then I'm going to get pregnant over and over again and Kick out children like a soccer game... And we will probably have to share everything we have and My kids will probably only ever have hand me downs.... But I can't WAitt!! "
I'm not saying that polygamy is wrong... just saying that your quote from Jessica doesn't really do much to show how she's going to benefit from being a polygamist.
Your little made up quote doesn't do anything to prove your point either.
Having that show of kids doesn't really show anything... The only way we can really say what's what is if there is an objective view into the lives of polygamists to determine the quality of their life (especially for the women)
I don't think you should worry about them. let them live their life. If the woman are treated badly then they leave. I'm sure they could care less about your "unbiased opinion" about their life.
... And as we all know there is no such thing as an objective view.
So why are you throwing out all these views you have? and condemning other views?
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
It's illegal now... But it's a very old law... Soon enough this law is gonna tumble sadly alot like the gay marriage thing. which is tumbling as we speak.... America is slowly loosing it's values... I remember back in the eightees where saying "@ss" would get bleeped on T.V. now it's on nickelodeon... I remember when Nudity was never allowed... Now Brittney spears is practically nude for any award show... and Abacrombie and Fitch magazine regulary has bare breast (apparently showing people without clothes on is the way A&F sells clothes)..
Ahh yes the evil body. I'm sure God really appreciates you condemning the naked body. I'm sure God didn't work very hard on them. "Ass" can also mean donkey, thats' why it's allowed but i'm sorry you're not very thick skinned.
America is slowly loosing it's morals and values... I'm glad I'm not american.. Definitely gonna move away to raise my kids... And no offense... Wont be raisin em in Canada either...
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Yes God wants everybody to be naked all the time... thats why the Cananites were cursed after their father amused himself because Noah was naked... Stop trying to use the bible for help...
It's not the naked body that is "evil" Its the perversion of the mind... That is why Nude art is allowed in libraries but sexual explicit art is not... It's not the body it's the intent... And A&F uses sex... They have their people kissing and grindin in the groin area.... while topless... and they are giving this stuff you young kids... you know because... Lil teenage boys and girls NEed to see 20 year olds grinding atop onanother and showing tits...
And if the word Ass was USED to describe the donkey there would BE no problem but it's not... I doubt schoolage kids even recognize that synonym anymore.... Just like using "Teabagging" while playing an online game is funny and humerous... but Teabagging in the workplace can get you put in sensitivity training...
Lets please not talk about Semantics....
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Yes God wants everybody to be naked all the time... thats why the Cananites were cursed after their father amused himself because Noah was naked... Stop trying to use the bible for help...
It's not the naked body that is "evil" Its the perversion of the mind...
Without our "perversion" then how could we care for sexual intercourse? Mankind would die off. We need the urge.
That is why Nude art is allowed in libraries but sexual explicit art is not... It's not the body it's the intent... And A&F uses sex... They have their people kissing and grindin in the groin area.... while topless... and they are giving this stuff you young kids... you know because... Lil teenage boys and girls NEed to see 20 year olds grinding atop onanother and showing tits...
And if the word Ass was USED to describe the donkey there would BE no problem but it's not... I doubt schoolage kids even recognize that synonym anymore.... Just like using "Teabagging" while playing an online game is funny and humerous... but Teabagging in the workplace can get you put in sensitivity training...
Lets please not talk about Semantics....
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
ROFLOLOL!!
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I understand what happens with poligamy, I'm not for it but just because it doesn't fit with my morales doesn't mean that it should be illegal. I truly whould hate a person that had more than one wife, but by the first amendment it should be legal. that is my point.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Alex you seem to love to point out how christianity is bad and these polygamists are good.
What religion do you think these polygamists claim to be?
Do you even know what the word "christianity" means?
And you missed a couple things about the court case in 1879.
First of all, they made the point that polygamist societies go against the natural order and peace of the communities around them, thereby infringing on their rights.
Second of all, the courts determined that marriage is a civil contract. As such, the civil government is in control of who does and does not get to marry. Particularly with respect to things like legal status, income, taxes, etc. You can have a priest say a few words and marry you to a goat, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you a marriage license.
As far as the government is concerned, from a civil point of view regarding the benefits and legal status of marriage, they only legally recognize two people per marriage.
So you can have as many women as you want, you can call them your 'wives', but the government only makes legal allowance for one "wife" or one "husband". Only one person counts as your spouse for tax purposes. Only one person counts as your spouse for the purposes of government I.D., etc. You are just cheating on your wife with a bunch of women that live with you. (And are thus pursuant to the crimes of bigamy/adultery if the gov't decides to prosecute you for them).
Religion cannot dictate to government how it recognizes you. That's why religion is not a valid defense in trying to get the marriage laws changed. It's the same reason you can't create a religion that allows you to never pay taxes, or gives you immunity to being prosecuted in court.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
The government can't dictate how your religion is practiced, but it does get to dictate your legal status in the country. The government has decided that you get ONE husband or wife, legally.
Polygamy does not grant you any legal rights, because the legal benefits of marriage are solely up to the government. Polygamy lets you try and skirt around being prosecuted for bigamy, etc, but it does not mean the government owes you legal status for 5 wives.
That's the whole point.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Here's a great article done by an attorney who deals with polygamy.
Salt Lake Tribune
Sunday, May 7, 2000
Legalizing Polygamy Would Deny Rights of Children, Change a Crime
BY DOUGLAS F. WHITE
I read, with great interest, the article written by Boyer Jarvis,
"Legalizing Polygamy Would Recognize Culture, History," on April 9, 2000.
As the attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy, for the past 15 months I
have been privileged to delve into the secret polygamy culture of several
of the well-known groups. I have acquired an acute appreciation for the
women and children and even some men feebly attempting to extricate
themselves from the all-encompassing and tortuous polygamy culture.
Most languish and die as victims of others' dreams of utopia.
I am compelled to reject Mr. Jarvis' reasoning. The only sentence in
Boyer Jarvis' article proposing to legalize polygamy that had any grain of
truth or responsibility was his opening line. It read: "It is time to be honest
and forthright about the existence of polygamy in Utah, and about the
consequences of that lifestyle for children." Therefore, let us be honest
and forthright.
The U.S. Constitution by its very nature creates the ideology that we
Americans have agreed to live in an ordered society, obeying civil law
and criminal law, created and enforced by the power of the majority of
the people. We forget that even the "minority of the people" agreed to be
bound by this most basic principle.
The Revolutionary War had something to do with this concept.
By 1896, when Utah became the 45th state, polygamy had been a
crime for many years in the United States of America. Hence, the
language in the Utah Constitution "Polygamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited" is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S.
Constitution, and is very consistent with the notion that "Perfect toleration
of religious sentiment is guaranteed."
Put even plainer, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state Constitutions
agree that whatever "act" is defined as being criminal by the majority of
the people is simply not religion. The Constitutions therefore do not
afforded the status of a "right" religious or otherwise to criminal conduct
and therefore such act is not protected by the state or federal
government. In fact, Constitutions grant society the "right" to act in
self-defense to such criminal acts and hence we have public prosecutions
of those acts which are deemed to be harmful to our society. Polygamy
being one. Does any state allow or protect the use of cocaine in the name
of religious activities? No.
A person can "believe" that any "act" is a religious tenet but he can
not exercise the "act" even in a religious context is the conduct amounts to
a criminal act. Reynolds vs. U.S. 98 U.S. 145.
Although some have tried all have failed to convince the courts and
public opinion to the contrary. In the past 150 years every single solitary
case ruled upon by either a federal or state court in regards to the
practice of polygamy and whether it was a protected religious freedom
has ruled against the practice of polygamy. No exceptions.
The most recent case being a Utah case. Potter vs. Murray City, 760
F.2nd 1065 in 1985 stated: "Beyond the declaration of policy and public
interest implicit in the prohibition of polygamy under criminal sanction,
[Utah] has established a vast and convoluted network of other laws
clearly establishing its compelling state's interest in and commitment to a
system of domestic relations based exclusively upon the practice of
monogamy as opposed to plural marriage. Monogamy is inextricably
woven into the fabric of our society. It is the bedrock upon which our
culture is built."
Today, would anyone argue that past religious beliefs and the ritual act
of sacrificing a young virgin girl to your God is a protected religious
freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Now,
"let's be honest and forthright about . . . the consequences of the
polygamy lifestyle for children" as posed in The Tribune article on April 9.
Are we not still condoning the offering up of a "human sacrifice" when
a 40-year-old polygamist pretends to marry a 13-year-old virgin in a
religious ceremony with the intent on having sex with her and producing 7
to 10 children by her by the time she is 30 years old? This same girl will
be involuntarily taken out of public school in the eighth grade, if she has
been allowed to attend school at all, never to return. This child's children
will be born without medical care. This child at age 30 will have no birth
certificate, no education, no job except what the polygamist's business
gives her, no money, no retirement, no social security, no medical
coverage for her or her children, no community involvement, no respect,
no self-esteem . . . no real life. Dead at age 13. A human sacrifice in
every sense of the word. All in the name of God. This is the "honest and
forthright" culture proposed to be legalized.
Although the writer correctly cites Article III of the Utah State
Constitution in that: "No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in
person . . . on account of his or her mode of religious worship;" he should
also interpret this language as a protection for those who cannot protect
themselves from criminal acts disguised as religious acts. The
constitutional language should also be read as follows: "No inhabitant of
this state shall ever be molested in person . . . on account of [someone
else's] mode of religious worship;" Utah's constitutional language is meant
to be a shield not a sword.
Children are being molested in Utah every day because of someone
else's religious beliefs and acts. These are children not even old enough to
consent to a sexual relationship let alone have the maturity or means to
protect themselves from their parents and so-called religious leaders.
Their parents and religious leaders demand their obedience of their minds
and their bodies. What civil rights do they have? Absolutely none. All in
the name of God.
Legalizing polygamy cannot be done unless we also legalize child rape,
incest, and several other forms of sexual abuse and the conspiracy to
commit these crimes committed by the children's parents and religious
leaders.
Lastly, I do agree with Mr. Jarvis: "The curtain of secrecy that
surrounds polygamy in Utah must be removed," but not by legalization.
The secrecy of polygamy can only be removed by innovative education
and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law. Legalizing
polygamy will no more cure the complex and heinous problems created
by polygamy than legalizing prostitution will stop rape. We must all
become part of the solution and not part of the problem.
_________
Douglas F. White is the Salt Lake attorney for Tapestry of Polygamy.
How many horror stories of young girls essentially put into sex slavery do we need to hear guys?
alex will try to say "christianity rapes children too" but that's just a false argument. Any stories of priests and molestation were isolated incidents of a small few abusing their power. You can't keep hiding behind that defence because it doesn't hold water. Not only that, but it absolutely was wrong, and any time it came out the priests were punished. Oh and guess what, what they did was AGAINST the religion. These people are trying to say that it's part of their religion. Does that make them immune from the law?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
That article did make some great points. The thing you said that got me worked up earlier had to do with you sayintg that we just need to obey the law. It seemed to me that you didn't understand how subjectory obeying every law passed really is.
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The government can't dictate how your religion is practiced, but it does get to dictate your legal status in the country. The government has decided that you get ONE husband or wife, legally.
Polygamy does not grant you any legal rights, because the legal benefits of marriage are solely up to the government. Polygamy lets you try and skirt around being prosecuted for bigamy, etc, but it does not mean the government owes you legal status for 5 wives.
That's the whole point.
Why does people having the freedom to do what they want to do bother you so much? If you believe in the principles of freedom then you would defend someone's freedom to do as they see fit even if you disagree with what they're doing.
How would a person practicing polygamy effect you? How would it change the way you live your life at all?
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American