Polygamist family applies for 2nd marriage license in Montana...

a reply to: Annee

I quite frankly don't care. 1 partner at a time is good enough for me. The thing is that this is the law and it will NEVER change. Why? 1- It's not about equal rights, thus has little political traction but something else does. 2- Insurance companies. Do you think they would allow a person with benefits to have access medical/dental/etc for 3 spouses and 11 children? Not gonna happen.

originally posted by: Randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Annee
Thank you for posting that. I got my own terms mixed up a little.

It is legal in the U.S. to live with multiple partners(polyamory), but not legal to be married to more than one of those partners. Bigamy.

That depends on whether you have minor children or not

In CA you can not legally have a non related adult living in the same home as a minor. Although its usually not enforced unless there's an issue.

I'm not sure about that. Can you site the law you are suggesting?

CPS investigation.

Lots of laws you don't know until there's a complaint.

Here's one. Its hard to pinpoint this stuff down sometimes.

Despite how common cohabitation is today, seven states still actually make it illegal for unmarried couples to live together. While these laws are rarely enforced, they add to the stigma for this type of family. Several states also forbid fornication, even in the privacy of a home between consenting adults. People living in these states are forbidden by federal law to claim an unmarried partner as a dependent on their income taxes; this can add a financial hardship to unmarried couples with families, especially when one parent stays at home to raise the children. Domestic partnership laws do not fill the gap, since they are usually not applied to heterosexual couples; this can also affect finances by limiting insurance coverage and other benefits. www.legalzoom.com...

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: intrepid

Cast aside orientation for a moment and focus on partners.

The gay movement was about having the partner of your choice.

The bigamy movement (if there really is one) is about having partners of your choice.


Eerie are the similarities I think...

Not in the least. A partner is legal, whether gay or not. Partners, whether gay or not, has always been illegal.

Why are you being so bigoted about this?

No love is greater than another. They have the right to have two spouses if they want.

Equal rights! Equal love!

If they all fall in love w each other they have right to equal benefits under the law

a reply to: Annee

Yes, yes it is.
Actually I am talking about all mormons that practice polygamy. Wanna play whack-a-mo? Go ahead and name a mormon polygamist sect and I'll cite a case of the higher ups getting caught raping children. It's been happening since the invention of the faith. The founder of the faith even raped children. Joseph Smith was marrying 14 years at a time when the average age of menarche was 17.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It sounds like you are using this as an opportunity to Mock the GLBTQ+ rights movement

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It sounds like you are using this as an opportunity to Mock the GLBTQ+ rights movement

Im not mocking anything..........

Im simply pointing out that the LGBT community was up against the same accusations that Intrepid was puting out there too..

There was a time that it you couldt be Gay and married, and it changed.......

Point is hes using the same argument people came out against Gay Marriage for........

Whats the difference?

How is it NOT about equal rights?

How do they not have the same rights to benefit just like straight and gay couples do?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Annee

I quite frankly don't care. 1 partner at a time is good enough for me. The thing is that this is the law and it will NEVER change. Why? 1- It's not about equal rights, thus has little political traction but something else does. 2- Insurance companies. Do you think they would allow a person with benefits to have access medical/dental/etc for 3 spouses and 11 children? Not gonna happen.

Oh, I'm against that stuff too.

You'd be surprised. People tend to call me Liberal, but I'm a "What you don't earn has no value" person.

I'd build self contained homes (like Boy's Town) and remove any child that is not being cared for properly. I have ZERO tolerance for irresponsible breeding.

originally posted by: intrepid

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

Doesn't the fact that until recently it was illegal in most states for two consenting adults to engage in sodomy (which the LBJQ#!Z claim unfairly discriminated against gay men) show that your argument is moot?

Why is it unfathomable to imagine the possibility that the SCOTUS could rule that limiting a persons number of life partners is unconstitutional?

As for your comparison of a marriage license to a contract, you do realize you can have more than two parties sign a contract, right?

How dare you kudge their love. BIGOT!

originally posted by: NotTooHappy
a reply to: Annee

Yes, yes it is.
Actually I am talking about all mormons that practice polygamy. Wanna play whack-a-mo? Go ahead and name a mormon polygamist sect and I'll cite a case of the higher ups getting caught raping children. It's been happening since the invention of the faith. The founder of the faith even raped children. Joseph Smith was marrying 14 years at a time when the average age of menarche was 17.

Child molestation is not limited to any group.

Depends on who you read regarding Joseph Smith and the 14 year old "ward" he married.

One thing I learned as a Mormon - - - is that the majority of what you read about Mormon's is BS.

It amazes me how non-Mormons think they are experts on Mormonism. I had someone ask me a question once. I answered as honestly as I could. He looked me straight in the face and told me I was wrong. Then proceeded to tell me his "expert" version - - - which was kinda like listening to FOX news.

a reply to: Klassified

Interesting to see peoples' opinions on this. There seems to be a lot of same sex marriage supporters arguing why one should be legal and the other not and there's others who seem to think that both are equally "wrong" and should therefore be illegal.

Me? I say why the hell not?

The fact is that regardless of official recognition, people are going to love who they want, have sex with who they want, live with who they want, bear and raise children with who they want and do so in whatever combination that the parties find mutually agreeable.

GENERALLY ACCEPTED TERMINOLOGY

Sex is defined as either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. (Biological)

Gender is the cultural roles and mores associated with two sexes: masculine and feminine. (Sociocultural)

Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female. (Biological)

Non-binary gender (see also genderqueer) describes any gender identity which does not fit within the binary of masculine and feminine. (Sociocultural)

A sexual orientation is defined by the object(s) of sexual/romantic interest:

heterosexual: attracted to the opposite sex
homosexual: attracted to the same sex
bisexual: attracted to both sexes
asexual: not attracted to either sex

These terms are more like points on a number line ...

Humans are more like every point on the number line, and some humans are more fluid than others.

I think you'd have to be insane to share your spouse with another person. Can insane people give consent? I don't think so.

Seriously though the entire Mormon set-up of polygamous families is a bad deal for women and children. Boys are competition for newer younger wives and girls are pushed into marriage at a young age and become baby-making drudges. The men are little more than con artists, applying for government aid to feed cloth and house their legal wife + multiple girlfriends and children. Check out all the "I escaped Mormonism and lived to tell the tale" books on amazon. Polygamy reduces humans to the "herd" mentality- much like a herd of cattle or deer- they live on instinct not on the higher thought that humans are capable of. We need to evolve as a species, not devolve and polygamy is going backward, not forward.

Sal

a reply to: Klassified

a reply to: theantediluvian
Exactly. Telling people who they can and can't be with in whatever capacity has never worked particularly well, and it won't work now. They'll either do it in secret if it's illegal, or in public if it isn't. So we may as well have it all out in the open as long as no one is getting hurt, or their rights as a human being violated.

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
I think you'd have to be insane to share your spouse with another person. Can insane people give consent? I don't think so.

Seriously though the entire Mormon set-up of polygamous families is a bad deal for women and children. Boys are competition for newer younger wives and girls are pushed into marriage at a young age and become baby-making drudges. The men are little more than con artists, applying for government aid to feed cloth and house their legal wife + multiple girlfriends and children. Check out all the "I escaped Mormonism and lived to tell the tale" books on amazon. Polygamy reduces humans to the "herd" mentality- much like a herd of cattle or deer- they live on instinct not on the higher thought that humans are capable of. We need to evolve as a species, not devolve and polygamy is going backward, not forward.

Sal

a reply to: Klassified

I guess I'm insane because me and my 2nd old lady were "swingers"? GASP! Oh the horror! We were honest with each other and expanded our sexual adventures to include other couples and orifices? Call Steven King, Clive Barker!

As much as I hate political correctness? Those who preach morality and judge others on their sexual appetites aren't too far behind...........

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
I think you'd have to be insane to share your spouse with another person. Can insane people give consent? I don't think so.

Seriously though the entire Mormon set-up of polygamous families is a bad deal for women and children. Boys are competition for newer younger wives and girls are pushed into marriage at a young age and become baby-making drudges. The men are little more than con artists, applying for government aid to feed cloth and house their legal wife + multiple girlfriends and children. Check out all the "I escaped Mormonism and lived to tell the tale" books on amazon. Polygamy reduces humans to the "herd" mentality- much like a herd of cattle or deer- they live on instinct not on the higher thought that humans are capable of. We need to evolve as a species, not devolve and polygamy is going backward, not forward.

Sal

a reply to: Klassified

... but do I understand that you are against religious discrimination? You believe in the 1st Amendment?

a reply to: seeker1963

The scandal! The horror!

a reply to: SallieSunshine

I think you'd have to be insane to share your spouse with another person.

Ones persons insanity is another persons pleasure. Mate swapping and "swinging" have been around for as long humans have.

Seriously though the entire Mormon set-up of polygamous families is a bad deal for women and children.

Most certainly it is, because it's lopsided. All the power in those relationships is in the hands of men.

The men are little more than con artists, applying for government aid to feed cloth and house their legal wife + multiple girlfriends and children. Check out all the "I escaped Mormonism and lived to tell the tale" books on amazon.

I've read some of those stories.

Polygamy reduces humans to the "herd" mentality- much like a herd of cattle or deer- they live on instinct not on the higher thought that humans are capable of. We need to evolve as a species, not devolve and polygamy is going backward, not forward.

I'm not so sure polygamy is necessarily bad for our social evolution. I see it as a matter of choice. There's nothing wrong with monogamy OR polygamy from my perspective, as long as it is consensual, and there is equality between the genders. If a man can have more than one spouse, then women should have that same right. Going backward to me, is taking away peoples right to make that choice for themselves.

Just my thoughts on the matter, though. Everyone is entitled to their own, but legislating consensual relationships is not my idea of evolving.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can use "religious belief" to justify anything - from molesting babies to ritual human sacrifice. So no, I don't believe in "religious freedom". Religions are created by humans. People do both wonderful and terrible things in the name of religion and I am not so sure that the wonderful things and terrible things don't cancel each other out. So what was the point of the religion in the first place?

Sal

originally posted by: SallieSunshine
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can use "religious belief" to justify anything - from molesting babies to ritual human sacrifice. So no, I don't believe in "religious freedom". Religions are created by humans. People do both wonderful and terrible things in the name of religion and I am not so sure that the wonderful things and terrible things don't cancel each other out. So what was the point of the religion in the first place?

Sal

Don't disagree with that.

What do you make of the First Amendment then?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963

The scandal! The horror!

I knew sooner or later you and I would find common ground!