Polygamist, Under Scrutiny in Utah, Plans Suit to Challenge Law - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #1 07-25-2012, 04:07 PM

NY Times

Personally I hope they win. Government has no business tell anyone who can or cannot get married.

MTI · #2 07-25-2012, 04:13 PM

Reynolds vs US . . . here we come.

martureo · #3 07-25-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

NY Times

Personally I hope they win. Government has no business tell anyone who can or cannot get married.

Well since government only has the right to RECOGNIZE marriage and provide the avenue for civil unions among the non-religious, you're right.

Government has never had the right to redefine marriage as the term as the term existed long before the US govt.

What it comes down to is that guy thinks the conman Joseph Smith was the shiz. (and to those curious, he's a truer Mormon than Mitt Romney)

aklim · #4 07-25-2012, 04:33 PM

According to the article, he has 1 civil union and the rest are not formally married. So if you want to call it married or that he has a polyamorous relationship, have at it. If he wants the church to recognize it, that would be a different story. However, in this case, he has not broken any law since he didn't have multiple civil licenses, no incest, no child abuse, etc, etc so where is the issue besides the fact that it runs against what religion teaches us?

davidmash · #5 07-25-2012, 04:40 PM

I'll have to look again but I seem to recall reading that Utah had laws on the books about multiple people living in a single home and raising kids. Very bizarre but when taken in the context of Utah it made more sense.

elchivito · #6 07-25-2012, 05:22 PM

As bats hit crazy as I think anyone wanting more than one wife must be, I hope he wins too.

Dudesky · #7 07-25-2012, 05:25 PM

Notice all the chicks were smiling?

SwampYankee · #8 07-25-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

As bats hit crazy as I think anyone wanting more than one wife must be, I hope he wins too.

That's where I'm at.

It's tough enough keeping one happy, I can't imagine 2...3...5?!?!?! And when they all "synch"????

I question their sanity but don't understand why it's illegal.

davidmash · #9 07-25-2012, 08:08 PM

There is a legitimate state interest in preventing family from marrying family. Genetic diversity is paramount for a health kid. Take a look at the Amish if you have any questions.

As for animals, that line of BS has been discussed adnausium and is just that. BS.

Dudesky · #10 07-25-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

There is a legitimate state interest in preventing family from marrying family. Genetic diversity is paramount for a health kid. Take a look at the Amish if you have any questions.

As for animals, that line of BS has been discussed adnausium and is just that. BS.

So where you at making statements such as this:

Personally I hope they win. Government has no business tell anyone who can or cannot get married.

Dave, you can't have it both ways.

aklim · #11 07-25-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

So where you at making statements such as this:

Personally I hope they win. Government has no business tell anyone who can or cannot get married.

Dave, you can't have it both ways.

Well, I would think that he should probably have an attorney draft the statement. But seriously, as long as we don't have to have genetic offspring that can potentially cause society to pay, I'm ok with it. So if you wanted to have sex with your sister but you were sterilized, I'm ok.

davidmash · #12 07-25-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

So where you at making statements such as this:

Personally I hope they win. Government has no business tell anyone who can or cannot get married.

Dave, you can't have it both ways.

Yes it can. Health issues are separate from religious bias. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from likely genetic issues that arise from offspring generated with in a family. There is no state interest in religious bias.

elchivito · #13 07-25-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

As for animals, that line of BS has been discussed adnausium and is just that. BS.

Of course it is. I just figured I'd throw it out there in jest before someone else came along and seriously proposed it again.

davidmash · #14 07-25-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Of course it is. I just figured I'd throw it out there in jest before someone else came along and seriously proposed it again.

I know. Was not directed at you.

elchivito · #15 07-25-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

There is a legitimate state interest in preventing family from marrying family. Genetic diversity is paramount for a health kid..

In the case of the Amish, their isolation and subsequently necessary intermarriage is self imposed, they've made their own bed. Polygyny or for that matter polyandry where it's accepted by the larger society would not of itself lead to "line breeding" as we call it in the livestock world. Polygamist groups isolate themselves to avoid legal issues, real or imagined. If they had a larger gene pool in an accepting society, I see no reason why they'd necessarily have inbreeding issues.

I still fail to see why it's such a big issue for anyone who's not polygamous. The bible is full of polygamy. How can it be a religious issue? The founders of the Abrahamic faiths were polygamous.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode