Posted on 12/02/2003 9:49:23 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:10:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A Utah man with five wives is in court fighting to get his bigamy conviction overturned on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that decriminalized homosexual relations.
The legal action by polygamist Tom Green in the Utah Supreme Court seems to confirm predictions of a Republican lawmaker and other social conservatives who warned that the high court's decision would open the door to attempts to legalize other sexual activities that historically have been outlawed by states, such as bigamy, polygamy, prostitution, adult incest and even bestiality.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The Clintons.
It's a mainstreaming of abberations and an open disregard for norms.
He'll marry a Chinese gal so that he can take her millions of dollars and use it for his wife Hillary's presidential campaign.
Then after Hillary's 8 years are up, he'll just keep marrying floozy Americans so that he can keep running for "unelected co-president".
Polygamy may also be a way for wealthy people to counteract the effects of poor health/sanitation in some communities by restocking the gene pool with more people if there is high disease and a low birth survival rate. If a poor man is trying to be a polygamist, he will likely be peeing against the wind since he will be unlikely to provide for all of his offspring, dooming them to an early grave.
In the modern western world polygamy doesn't make as much sense.
Not acknowledged and not practiced are two different things. I've had girlfriends whose fathers had multiple wives from Islamic parts of the world. Even many (non-Islamic) Asian cultures have open polygamy, though you don't hear about it as much. (Oddly, I did not know my lady's uncles had two wives until recently -- it never even occurred to me that it was common in their culture, and it is one I am familiar with. After all these years, she just assumed it was common knowledge since I know some of these guys. Heh, probably my fault for not being able to keep all the women in the family straight.)
Yeah, I never had a problem with it. I've known way too many people from various parts of the world where it is common (i.e. most of the non-European world) and it just seemed so normal with them that I got used to it really quickly. I've even dated the daughters of guys with multiple wives.
I will say that once you view it in a more pragmatic setting it ain't all that, though it does have practical advantages.
I've been asking myself that for years. Marriage should be solely in the domain of the church (or whatever your local equivalent is).
Oh, the thought of fifteen wives a-nagging...
This is what you get when we have liberal judges throw out all standards. Nobody is allowed to judge what is right and wrong therefore all things are good and legal. Man to marry pet dog next.
Throughout human history, polygamous societies have been in the majority.
Here in America, because a successful and powerful man is not allowed to take multiple wives, he takes mistresses instead.
It would be far healthier for all concerned if this kind of thing didn't need to be concealed, if our laws were guided more by human nature instead of by the purchasing power of spoiled women.
Because of the cultural changes in sexual roles and child protection and adoption--most especially since the 1960s and even earlier--all the reasons the state should involve itself in marriage have been eroded away.
At the time when each cultural change was foisted upon us, the harm in that change was too complex for the average person to perceive, and so the change was effected.
Frogs in water brought to boil:
Soon the average schmuck will not be able to logically object when the liberals propose there's no reason for state-supported marriage of any sort to exist any longer . . .
And the liberals would be right, because liberals have been systematically removing one good reason after another until there's soon to be no logical reason for state supported marriage to continue.
After all, if everyone is allowed to to their own thing for however long and wherever they want to do it with whomever(s) they feel like--how does the law make and enforce rules for that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.