Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 63

Thread: Fundamental Mormons seek recognition for polygamy

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041

    Fundamental Mormons seek recognition for polygamy

    CENTENNIAL PARK, Arizona (Reuters) - When Ephraim Hammon returns home from a day of working construction near Arizona's border with Utah, he's greeted by his wife SherylLynne. And then by his wife Leah.

    Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.

    The growing confidence of polygamists and their willingness to go public come at an awkward moment for mainstream Mormons, who are now in the spotlight as Republican Mitt Romney, a prominent Mormon, seeks the U.S. presidency.

    The Salt Lake City, Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon church, introduced polygamy before the Civil War but banned it in 1890 when the federal government threatened to deny Utah statehood. Today, about 40,000 "fundamentalist Mormons" in Utah and nearby states live polygamy illegally.

    Romney, whose great-grandfather had five wives and whose great-great-grandfather had a dozen, has dismissed the practice as "bizarre" -- a comment that infuriates Hammon, whose father and grand-father practiced plural marriage.

    "If it was me, I wouldn't apologize for my past. My ancestors did what they did. I can't help that," said Hammon, 36, who legally married SherylLynne, 32, in 1994 and was joined with Leah, 21, a decade later as his "celestial bride" in a religious ceremony that has no legal binding.

    Leah bristles at the idea of women being forced into polygamy. "The women in this society are educated," she said.

    Her husband likened the struggle for acceptance with the civil rights movement. "It's like the work Martin Luther King did in relation with African Americans," he said, holding year-old Ava, one of his eight children, in the living room of his three-story home in Centennial Park, a dry, dusty Arizona town run by polygamists near the Utah border.

    Excommunicated by the church, they see themselves as true believers in Mormonism as practiced by founder Joseph Smith.

    Historians say Smith took at least two dozen wives, some of them before 1843, the year he announced a revelation from God saying polygamy was a crucial key to entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

    "I don't think the revelation that Joseph Smith received came from Christ," said John Llewellyn, a retired Salt Lake County policeman who once practiced polygamy but now campaigns against it. "I think it came from his Y (male) chromosome."

    'TERRIBLY WRONG'

    Llewellyn, an author of several books on polygamy, said the mainstream church could do more to stop it. Its "Woodruff Manifesto," which banned polygamy, never revoked Smith's revelation on plural marriage, which remains in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a Mormon book of scriptures.

    "We believe in this continuing flow of revelation, and it's (God's) right to authorize and de-authorize -- to turn it on or turn it off," said Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Presidency of the Seventy, a leadership body of the mainstream Mormon church.

    To revive polygamy, he added, the church's 96-year-old president, regarded as a living prophet, must receive a revelation from God sanctioning it.

    "That's where we think that those who have left the church to pursue a polygamous lifestyle have gone terribly wrong. They assume their right to choose that and to authorize it when there is only a divine sanction possible to authorize that."

    Polygamist advocate Anne Wilde said the church has the right to its beliefs, just as polygamists should be allowed their interpretation of Mormonism without persecution.

    "As consenting adults, which is the key, we ought to have that choice to live that lifestyle. We live it because of strong religious convictions," said Wilde, 71.

    'BIG LOVE'

    The attorneys general of Utah and Arizona said in separate interviews they had no intention of prosecuting polygamists unless they commit other crimes such as taking underage brides -- a practice authorities said was rampant in a Utah-Arizona border community run by Warren Jeffs before his arrest in August.

    "We are not going to go out there and persecute people for their beliefs," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

    Adds Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff: "We determined six or seven years ago that there was no way we could prosecute 10,000 polygamists and put the kids into foster care. There's no way that we have the money or the resources to do that."

    The last big prosecution, in 1953, backfired. Arizona's National Guard raided a polygamist colony on the Utah/Arizona border, but images of kids split from mothers, with fathers jailed, provoked national sympathy for the polygamists.

    "No matter how much persecution the people have endured because of their belief, history has borne out that it will survive," said Ephraim Hammon's mother, Marlyne, who was a four-month-old baby in the colony when it was raided.

    A turning point for polygamists came in August 2003 when dozens made a public stand by showing up en masse at a "polygamy summit" in St. George, Utah, organized by the Utah and Arizona attorneys general. "Before then, we discussed all these things in private," said Hammon.

    Many are finding they have an unlikely ally in Hollywood, since the start of "Big Love," HBO's series about a fictional polygamous family.

    But many polygamists still live discreetly in middle-class neighborhoods next to conventional families, fearing the stigma of the practice could threaten careers and cause their children to be taunted at school.

    Although encouraged by the state's reluctance to prosecute them, several expressed fears of the future and want some legal protection in case the public mood turns against them.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    For those of you that feel same-sex marriage should be regonized, how do you feel about this, polygamy? How does it affect you personally? Why does it bother(if it does)?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Marriage, IMHO, is a religious thing, like Baptism, Confirmation, Bar Mitzfa (sp?), Xmas celebrations, etc. Anyone who can get a clergyman to perform a wedding for them, well, that's fine by me. Same sex, different sex, multiple people, animals and people, that's fine by me. If those Christian polygamists want to have religious ceremonies binding multiple people, why not?

    The agreements and contracts that the government recognizes and enforces in courts, that's another matter. I see no reason why a ceremony performed by a clergyman should change the legal status of a man and a woman in a court of law, or in the eyes of the IRS. That's the sort of thing best left to secular authorities -- that's the function of a marriage license. Seems to me that anyone who wants to fill out a marriage license and appears in court to become liable for each other's obligations & etc, should be free to do so.

    Offhand, I can't think of any reason why multiple people shouldn't be allowed to do this. Of course, I really haven't given the subject much consideration; perhaps there are good reasons why polygamous contracts shouldn't be allowed. And perhaps you can offer a few?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Within the next 25 years, US citizens will be allowed to "marry" anyone/anything that they wish. If equal rights under the law is applied to homosexual civil unions, there will be no stopping other more diverse unions in the future. We are now onto gay civil unions and we are discussing polygamist marriages. Next they will be trying to legitimize beastiality. And when we have totally lost ourselves, NAMBLA will be stepping up trying to validate what they do. If we keep moving the line back in the sand, sooner or later the line will overtake us.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Within the next 25 years, US citizens will be allowed to "marry" anyone/anything that they wish. If equal rights under the law is applied to homosexual civil unions, there will be no stopping other more diverse unions in the future. We are now onto gay civil unions and we are discussing polygamist marriages. Next they will be trying to legitimize beastiality. And when we have totally lost ourselves, NAMBLA will be stepping up trying to validate what they do. If we keep moving the line back in the sand, sooner or later the line will overtake us.
    In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must enter into the contract of their free will. Can a person enter into a legally binding contract with a horse? No. Is a child expected to be reasonably knowledgable of the consequenses of entering into a contract with another person? No.
    Therefore, contracts, including marriage contracts, with both animals and children are not enforcable.
    So your concerns are unfounded.


    Anyway, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of legal polygamy. I asked for reasons why polygamy should be prohibited, and instead got a rant about bestiality and child molesters.
    Can't you stay even remotely on-topic?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must enter into the contract of their free will. Can a person enter into a legally binding contract with a horse? No. Is a child expected to be reasonably knowledgable of the consequenses of entering into a contract with another person? No.
    Therefore, contracts, including marriage contracts, with both animals and children are not enforcable.
    So your concerns are unfounded.


    Anyway, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of legal polygamy. I asked for reasons why polygamy should be prohibited, and instead got a rant about bestiality and child molesters.
    Can't you stay even remotely on-topic?
    lol lol lol

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Originally Posted by Tock
    Can't you stay even remotely on-topic?


    Quote Originally Posted by deadlifts
    lol lol lol
    I guess not.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must enter into the contract of their free will. Can a person enter into a legally binding contract with a horse? No. Is a child expected to be reasonably knowledgable of the consequenses of entering into a contract with another person? No.
    Therefore, contracts, including marriage contracts, with both animals and children are not enforcable.
    So your concerns are unfounded.


    Anyway, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of legal polygamy. I asked for reasons why polygamy should be prohibited, and instead got a rant about bestiality and child molesters.
    Can't you stay even remotely on-topic?
    think........The age of consent could be lowered. 20 years ago the idea of homosexuals wanting to marry was unthinkable, look where we are on this today. Just remember what I said 20 years from now.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    think........The age of consent could be lowered. 20 years ago the idea of homosexuals wanting to marry was unthinkable, look where we are on this today. Just remember what I said 20 years from now.
    There states in the US where you can already get married when your under 18. And these laws have been in place since the founding of this country. So this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    think........The age of consent could be lowered. 20 years ago the idea of homosexuals wanting to marry was unthinkable, look where we are on this today. Just remember what I said 20 years from now.

    now it's your turn to think...the age of consent can/will only be lowered by public vote, I think the public would not be lower the age of consent to marry to an absurb level. But you still haven't responded to the fact that you cannot enter into a contract with an animal. Equating marriage between humans (m4w, m4m, m4wwwww,etc) and man/animal is ridiculous, and just another attempt to hinder people's right to the 'pursuit of happiness'. As long as all parties are consenting adults, I don't see the problem.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must enter into the contract of their free will. Can a person enter into a legally binding contract with a horse? No. Is a child expected to be reasonably knowledgable of the consequenses of entering into a contract with another person? No.
    Therefore, contracts, including marriage contracts, with both animals and children are not enforcable.
    So your concerns are unfounded.


    Anyway, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of legal polygamy. I asked for reasons why polygamy should be prohibited, and instead got a rant about bestiality and child molesters.
    Can't you stay even remotely on-topic?

    What if the horse really acts like it loves the person?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Within the next 25 years, US citizens will be allowed to "marry" anyone/anything that they wish. If equal rights under the law is applied to homosexual civil unions, there will be no stopping other more diverse unions in the future. We are now onto gay civil unions and we are discussing polygamist marriages. Next they will be trying to legitimize beastiality. And when we have totally lost ourselves, NAMBLA will be stepping up trying to validate what they do. If we keep moving the line back in the sand, sooner or later the line will overtake us.
    Excellent reply Logan! and to Tock this is on topic. If you start to re-define marriage for one group then every group will jump on the band wagon. As for NAMBLA, well in Canada where gay marriage is legal the age of consent is 14!!! So a 60 year old man can marry his 14 year old boyfriend(or girlfriend) and the State(which includes the citizens) has to regonize it. It is a slippery slope and where it will lead is to a complete break down in the institution of marriage.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Excellent reply Logan! and to Tock this is on topic. If you start to re-define marriage for one group then every group will jump on the band wagon. As for NAMBLA, well in Canada where gay marriage is legal the age of consent is 14!!! So a 60 year old man can marry his 14 year old boyfriend(or girlfriend) and the State(which includes the citizens) has to regonize it. It is a slippery slope and where it will lead is to a complete break down in the institution of marriage.
    Are you saying the age of consent went down because of the legalization of gay marriage? Do you know the date when Canada made it legal to marry at age 14.I bet the law has been in place forever and has nothing to do with gay marriage but you can prove me wrong by providing a date.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Repost
    Posts
    7,433
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    Are you saying the age of consent went down because of the legalization of gay marriage? Do you know the date when Canada made it legal to marry at age 14.I bet the law has been in place forever and has nothing to do with gay marriage but you can prove me wrong by providing a date.
    1890

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...s/prb993-e.htm

    It's a law that is a reflection of the times. There has been talks of raising it to 16, but it hasn't gotten any further from that.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    US
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    Within the next 25 years, US citizens will be allowed to "marry" anyone/anything that they wish. If equal rights under the law is applied to homosexual civil unions, there will be no stopping other more diverse unions in the future. We are now onto gay civil unions and we are discussing polygamist marriages. Next they will be trying to legitimize beastiality. And when we have totally lost ourselves, NAMBLA will be stepping up trying to validate what they do. If we keep moving the line back in the sand, sooner or later the line will overtake us.
    I've been saying the same thing. Screw it, who cares what anyone does? Let's see how happy all these gay couples are about marriage once they get hit with alimony and lose half their wealth.

    Hell, "the government wont let us get married, lets just be together" sounds like a freakin deal to me!

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Marriage, Anyone who can get a clergyman to perform a wedding for them, well, that's fine by me. Same sex, different sex, multiple people, animals and people, that's fine by me.
    Hey Tock....I want to marry a zebra, will you be my best man?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by deadlifts
    Hey Tock....I want to marry a zebra, will you be my best man?
    I'll be the best man you've ever had.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    I'll be the best man you've ever had.
    wait a minute...are you the guy I saw on "to catch a predator" last night?
    Last edited by deadlifts; 06-12-2007 at 09:40 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    I'll be the best man you've ever had.
    ROTFLMAO!!!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Marriage, IMHO, is a religious thing, like Baptism, Confirmation, Bar Mitzfa (sp?), Xmas celebrations, etc. Anyone who can get a clergyman to perform a wedding for them, well, that's fine by me. Same sex, different sex, multiple people, animals and people, that's fine by me. If those Christian polygamists want to have religious ceremonies binding multiple people, why not?

    The agreements and contracts that the government recognizes and enforces in courts, that's another matter. I see no reason why a ceremony performed by a clergyman should change the legal status of a man and a woman in a court of law, or in the eyes of the IRS. That's the sort of thing best left to secular authorities -- that's the function of a marriage license. Seems to me that anyone who wants to fill out a marriage license and appears in court to become liable for each other's obligations & etc, should be free to do so.

    Offhand, I can't think of any reason why multiple people shouldn't be allowed to do this. Of course, I really haven't given the subject much consideration; perhaps there are good reasons why polygamous contracts shouldn't be allowed. And perhaps you can offer a few?

    I cant believe it tock. Something we agree on

    I have never thought that marriage should have anything to do with the government.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Offhand, I can't think of any reason why multiple people shouldn't be allowed to do this. Of course, I really haven't given the subject much consideration; perhaps there are good reasons why polygamous contracts shouldn't be allowed. And perhaps you can offer a few?
    I think the best way to look at this is by what actually happens not by hypothetical arguements of what it will lead to or what is would be like, we can all speculate as to what we think it would be like. Right now here in the US polygamy is happening.

    "Those who live in their own communities do not tend to find their additional spouses from within their own communities or networks of like communities. In many cases, this involves daughters of polygamous families entering into arranged marriages with much older men who already have a number of wives. In some cases, a man marries a woman who has children from a previous marriage, then marries the children.
    Marriage age is often young and sometimes below the legal minimum. It is also not uncommon for fairly close relatives to marry, leading to inbreeding, though part of this comes from the difficulty of keeping track of the complex net of familial relations."

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    In many cases, this involves daughters of polygamous families entering into arranged marriages with much older men who already have a number of wives. In some cases, a man marries a woman who has children from a previous marriage, then marries the children.
    Ya, well, we're not talking about arranged marriages, we're talking about voluntary polygamy.
    IMHO, if a guy down the street from me in Dallas wants to marry two women, neither of them Mormon, both of them old enough to know what's what, and there's no issue of intermarriage, arranged marriage, and both women understand what they're volunteering for, why not? Do you have any good reason why they shouldn't?














    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Marriage age is often young and sometimes below the legal minimum. It is also not uncommon for fairly close relatives to marry, leading to inbreeding,."
    Sounds like a heterosexual version of NAMBLA. And you say the problem with these rampaging heterosexuals is "not uncommon?"

    Horrors!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Sounds like a heterosexual version of NAMBLA. And you say the problem with these rampaging heterosexuals is "not uncommon?"
    It is all done in the name of a religion with many of these "arranged" marriages into polygamy. How else could young girls be tricked into this lifestyle. Hell, I wouldn't mind having 2 wives...........

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    It is all done in the name of a religion with many of these "arranged" marriages into polygamy. How else could young girls be tricked into this lifestyle. Hell, I wouldn't mind having 2 wives...........
    Ok, if the law was re-written to ban arranged marriages for polygamists, would you be happy with that?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    It is all done in the name of a religion with many of these "arranged" marriages into polygamy. How else could young girls be tricked into this lifestyle. Hell, I wouldn't mind having 2 wives...........

    In theory it sounds good but think about it more. 2 wives.

  26. #26
    in the government's eye, marriage is just a contract between to consenting adults, the number of adults who want to get involved or their gender has no bearing on the contract

  27. #27
    I love a good "man on man" wedding. Instead of saying "you may kiss the bride" they say "dude you may kiss the bro"

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Polygamy is wrong in my opinion, someone mentioned in another thread that it is demeaning to women and I agree. For some reason in every country and religion that practices/regonizes polygamy it is ALWAYS one man and multiple wives, never had I heard of the reverse,one woman with multiple husbands(with the exception of Liz Taylor).

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Polygamy is wrong in my opinion, someone mentioned in another thread that it is demeaning to women and I agree. For some reason in every country and religion that practices/regonizes polygamy it is ALWAYS one man and multiple wives, never had I heard of the reverse,one woman with multiple husbands(with the exception of Liz Taylor).
    polygamy seems to occur more often in the natural world than monogamy. polygamy is not causing the abuse, it's the man that abuses his wife/wives that is. more woman are abused in monoganist relations than in polygamist marriages. i can also see a biological reason why we almost always see a man with multiple wives than a woman with mutiple husbands. the strongest male wants to father as man kids as the can while the female what only the strongest male to father her kids. Like the way lions do it.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Polygamy is wrong in my opinion
    Ok, but why?





    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    someone mentioned in another thread that it is demeaning to women and I agree.
    If a guy and 3 or 4 women think their plural marriage is a good thing, if none of them think it's demeaning, why should they be prevented from all getting married?


    As I mentioned before, I'm ambivalent on this issue, but since I can't think of any valid reason why polygamy should be banned, and since the Bible allows polygamy, I'm voting to allow it. But if any of y'all who are so dead set against it can offer reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, I'm willing to consider what ya have to say.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Doesnt bother me if a dude has 10 wifes, or a girl has 10 husbands or whatever combination imaginable(aslong as it involves only humans and no kids). Its not my thing, but I dont se why it should be illegal since it doesnt hurt anyone.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    I've been working like a slave (LOL, and for those who don't know I am a black man, just pokin fun) recently Kfrost. I missed our debates as well... you too logan! Anyway, I've changed my position recently after speaking with some fundamentalist Mormons in my community (I live in Las Vegas and believe it or not, there is a huge Mormon population here). Anyway after speaking with both the women and the men, I've realized that it is their choice to enter into such endeavors. I still think it demeans women because in those relationships the men hold all the power, but it believe it's their decision to make. People make the mistake to enter into m/f marriage all the time, but they are allowed to make that mistake. I don't see the ramifications on society the way you see it. There are two communities (one in Colorado and one in Arizona) that are polygamists communities and they get along fine. They don't abuse the welfare system and their day to day lives are just as 'normal' as ours. While I don't agree with that lifestyle, who am I to say it isn't right, if it doesn't affect me either way. As far as the drug issue is concerned, I do feel if someone wants to use crack or any other drug it's their choice. But this is a whole other issue, the war on drugs is a complete failure and man has wanted to get high since he came out of the trees, or the garden of Eden, whichever you believe, LOL!!! But seriously, I don't think it's a good correlation between marriage and ***raved drug use. The two are far from compariable, IMO!

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    I've been working like a slave (LOL, and for those who don't know I am a black man, just pokin fun) recently Kfrost. I missed our debates as well... you too logan! Anyway, I've changed my position recently after speaking with some fundamentalist Mormons in my community (I live in Las Vegas and believe it or not, there is a huge Mormon population here). Anyway after speaking with both the women and the men, I've realized that it is their choice to enter into such endeavors. I still think it demeans women because in those relationships the men hold all the power, but it believe it's their decision to make. People make the mistake to enter into m/f marriage all the time, but they are allowed to make that mistake. I don't see the ramifications on society the way you see it. There are two communities (one in Colorado and one in Arizona) that are polygamists communities and they get along fine. They don't abuse the welfare system and their day to day lives are just as 'normal' as ours. While I don't agree with that lifestyle, who am I to say it isn't right, if it doesn't affect me either way. As far as the drug issue is concerned, I do feel if someone wants to use crack or any other drug it's their choice. But this is a whole other issue, the war on drugs is a complete failure and man has wanted to get high since he came out of the trees, or the garden of Eden, whichever you believe, LOL!!! But seriously, I don't think it's a good correlation between marriage and ***raved drug use. The two are far from compariable, IMO!
    That's interesting because the official church of the mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supports enforcing laws against polygamy and the church will excommunicate any member found to be practicing polygamy. The mormons I know are outraged by the polygamist and feel it gives all mormons a bad name because, well, you know, people will tend to stereotype mormons with the fringe groups calling themselves mormons.

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    That's interesting because the official church of the mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supports enforcing laws against polygamy and the church will excommunicate any member found to be practicing polygamy. The mormons I know are outraged by the polygamist and feel it gives all mormons a bad name because, well, you know, people will tend to stereotype mormons with the fringe groups calling themselves mormons.
    just because these church dominations no longer recognize polygamy, does make polygamy wrong. would these churches excommunicate Jacob from the bible?

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    Anyway, I've changed my position recently after speaking with some fundamentalist Mormons in my community (I live in Las Vegas and believe it or not, there is a huge Mormon population here). Anyway after speaking with both the women and the men, I've realized that it is their choice to enter into such endeavors. I still think it demeans women because in those relationships the men hold all the power, but it believe it's their decision to make.
    Not all polygamist relationships are bad and demeaning to the women involved. But there are definately those out there who have been forced into such a situation. I really do not have an issue with a "healthy" polygamist union, as long as it does not spur welfare cases.......

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Yeah Logan, I see what you are saying, but there is a world of difference between marriage between of-age, consenting, human beings and humans and animals. You are reaching in your assumptions.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    162
    i can barely handle my girl, all be it she is super high maintenance, couldnt imagine 4 for her running around my house

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Repost
    Posts
    7,433
    I don't make enough laundry or dishes to justify having more than one wife

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Here's a thought. If the government makes us recognize polygamy then employers will have to cover the spouses of their empolyees with health insurance. I wonder what would happen with health care cost. Now, now do not say that the wives would be working because no educated woman would marry a married man. The type of woman that would marry a despot is the one that is uneducated and doesn't work. Now with multiply wives comes many many children. With one wife even the most fertile is limited to about 1 child a year, having multipy wives one could have 10+ kids/year, in Arabia where polygamy is legal having 100's of kids is not unusual. Let's forget about how one man can be a father figure for 100s of kids and focuss just on the cost of care....WOW! Can you imagine what the health care for that poor employer would be, of course he'd have to share the cost with all the responsible employees who still believe in marriage. I quess that is how liberals work though, make the workers, the average guy pay for the lifestyle of the despots and their ***ravity while at the same time calling them backwards, closed minded and fanatics.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Here's a thought. If the government makes us recognize polygamy then employers will have to cover the spouses of their empolyees with health insurance. I wonder what would happen with health care cost. Now, now do not say that the wives would be working because no educated woman would marry a married man. The type of woman that would marry a despot is the one that is uneducated and doesn't work. Now with multiply wives comes many many children. With one wife even the most fertile is limited to about 1 child a year, having multipy wives one could have 10+ kids/year, in Arabia where polygamy is legal having 100's of kids is not unusual. Let's forget about how one man can be a father figure for 100s of kids and focuss just on the cost of care....WOW! Can you imagine what the health care for that poor employer would be, of course he'd have to share the cost with all the responsible employees who still believe in marriage. I quess that is how liberals work though, make the workers, the average guy pay for the lifestyle of the despots and their ***ravity while at the same time calling them backwards, closed minded and fanatics.

    Absolutely not true. Sure many of those women are uneducated and don't work, but you would be surprised the type of women who are involved in polygamy. Many are educated with good jobs. Many support the family while the man stays home or works in the 'church'. As far as health care is concerned, I'm sure their would be a payment schedule for additional family members like some insurance plans already offer.

    And you comment about liberals is simply untrue and you know it. Very few people support polygamy and the vast majority of polygamists are conservatives.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •