STORM2K

Click here for details

This guy is nuts.

*slaps forehead and nods in agreement to Stormraiser*

Only in Utah....

EDIT: Despite my sarcastic comment, I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal. And I would support this guy, if it werent for his spotty record. With his rape charges and nonsupport of his children, I will raise stormraiser's "nuts" to just plain "creepy".

the supreme court opened up a can of worms. if more than one woman wants to marry the same man, what is the problem?

I'm with OtherHD... :-?

rainstorm wrote:the supreme court opened up a can of worms. if more than one woman wants to marry the same man, what is the problem?

In defense of marriage (ahem!) and IMHO, it should be a legal and/or, if they are religious, spiritual commitment between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. You can't very well be committed, faithful, and monogamous to your spouse if you have more than one.

Furthermore, he has no religious grounds to stand on if he were to try to claim his freedom of religion was being stomped on.

In the article, the journalist wrote:Polygamy was renounced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890 as part of a deal to grant Utah statehood, and the church now excommunicates those members who practice or advocate it.

That guy is a whack job, that's for sure. And any woman willing to be 1 of 5 wives must be suffering with mental illness. Polygamy is illegal and that's how it should remain. Why do whackos think they need to challenge every law? Just pure ridiculous if you ask me.

Goin' back the old days are they?

Besides his five-year sentence, he faces up to life in prison after being convicted of child rape for having sex with one of his five wives when she was 13.

He might think he can argue his polygamy case, but he's been convicted of child rape and I hope he gets the maximum sentence.

GalvestonDuck wrote:

rainstorm wrote:the supreme court opened up a can of worms. if more than one woman wants to marry the same man, what is the problem?

In defense of marriage (ahem!) and IMHO, it should be a legal and/or, if they are religious, spiritual commitment between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. You can't very well be committed, faithful, and monogamous to your spouse if you have more than one.

Furthermore, he has no religious grounds to stand on if he were to try to claim his freedom of religion was being stomped on.

In the article, the journalist wrote:Polygamy was renounced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890 as part of a deal to grant Utah statehood, and the church now excommunicates those members who practice or advocate it.

why cant a man love more than one woman? with the supreme court rulings of recent weeks it would be discrimination to outlaw polgamy. and why cant a woman have 5 husbands? if 5 men want to marry the same woman, whats the problem?

rainstorm wrote:why cant a man love more than one woman? with the supreme court rulings of recent weeks it would be discrimination to outlaw polgamy. and why cant a woman have 5 husbands? if 5 men want to marry the same woman, whats the problem?

Like I said, a person can't be faithful, committed, and MONOgamous to more than one spouse.

That, IMO, is the problem.

but, what about husbands and wives, that arent committed, faithful, and monogamous now?

What about them? They obviously don't value the sanctity of marriage.

mrschad wrote:That guy is a whack job, that's for sure. And any woman willing to be 1 of 5 wives must be suffering with mental illness. Polygamy is illegal and that's how it should remain. Why do whackos think they need to challenge every law? Just pure ridiculous if you ask me.

AMEN!!!

FYI, polygamy was sanctioned as a Mormon tenet in order to swiftly increase its numbers...it worked out very well, as by the 1850's, the Mormon militia alone had more troops than the Federal Army (pre-Civil War).

GalvestonDuck wrote:What about them? They obviously don't value the sanctity of marriage.

so, anyone can be unfaithful. why single out people who want more than 1 husband or wife?

rainstorm wrote:the supreme court opened up a can of worms. if more than one woman wants to marry the same man, what is the problem?

My question......."Who wants more than ONE wife? I have a hard enough time with just one, can you imagine having more than ONE mother in law??" "GEEESH!"

Dennis

rainstorm wrote:so, anyone can be unfaithful. why single out people who want more than 1 husband or wife?

You just proved my point. If anyone can be unfaithful, why subject FIVE wives or FIVE husbands to emotional distress, jealousy, anger, depression, and whatever else accompanies the victim of an unfaithful marriage, whether the unfaithful acts comes from outside the marriage or within?

How can five women feel totally devoted and monogamous to one man, when that one man can push one aside for the night and choose to be with another? What does that say about how we as a society feel about (*gag* if I sound like a feminist because I'm not) the equality of the spouses? How convenient for the individual spouse to be able to have a group of lovers from which to choose. Say Mary is married to Bob, John, George, Joseph, and Eric. If somewhere along the line, she gets tired of Joseph, she can just divorce him and throw him away like a used Kleenex. After all, she still have four other husbands. If a married couple does not keep their vows sacred, who's to say a group of spouses married to one person would?

Above all, this sick child molestor's case is ridiculous because he is trying to defend his desire to marry more than one person and to marry someone underage basd on a freaking law that has nothing to do with marriage and more to do with an adult act. That's like someone trying to say that they should no longer have to obey a pooper-scooper law because some court overturned a law against keeping neighborhood yards trimmed.

My feeling is that if you want to be with more than 1 person at a time, don't get married.