PDA

View Full Version : Legal With the Iowa ruling, how long before polygamy is legal?


chris
04-03-2009, 10:52 AM
Quoting petegz28 on gay marriage: "I am torn on the issue. I am for State's Rights. However, the Constitution states "All are equal under the law..."

Surely, as gay marriage spreads, there will be court cases for the right of polygamy.

Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

Having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. It's all about religion, power, and submissive wives.

so where is the line drawn about what is private in the home and what is not?

Thoughts?

Brock
04-03-2009, 11:00 AM
Polygamy should be legal.

BigCatDaddy
04-03-2009, 11:01 AM
If Gay marriage is legal, I really don't see how one could argue against polygamy. Actually a stronger arguement for polygamy could probably be made and is would make for a more efficient household... 2 income providers and 1 stay at home parent so you get the best of both worlds in this case.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 11:01 AM
Polygamy should be legal.

As long as it isn't hurting someone, yep.

chris
04-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Polygamy should be legal.

Curious; have you ever seen it; or spoken to women who used to live in the culture?

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:02 AM
As long as it isn't hurting someone, yep.

Good luck figuring out child custody, alimony, child support, "divorce"....etc.

:rolleyes:

chris
04-03-2009, 11:05 AM
As long as it isn't hurting someone, yep.

Please define "isn't hurting".

How about the young girls that are "forced" to marry a 40 year old man to maintain family honor and to go to heaven? Or the women who submit to being one of multi wives rather than seek mental help?

On and on....

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:05 AM
The Iowa ruling will be overcome by a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage voted for by the people.
Watch and see.

wazu
04-03-2009, 11:05 AM
Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? As far as I understand, polygamy just means having more than one wife, and does not imply a right to marry 14 year olds and abuse women. There are other laws in place to protect against that. (And they probably work for polygamists about as well as they do for monogamists.)

Brock
04-03-2009, 11:05 AM
Curious; have you ever seen it; or spoken to women who used to live in the culture?

The culture of what? The FLDS? Polygamy doesn't have to have anything at all to do with a screwed up religion.

Brock
04-03-2009, 11:06 AM
Good luck figuring out child custody, alimony, child support, "divorce"....etc.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, gosh. That's a real obstacle. :rolleyes:

Brock
04-03-2009, 11:07 AM
Pleas define "isn't hurting".

How about the young girls that are "forced" to marry a 40 year old man to maintain family honor and to go to heaven? Or the women who submit to being one of multi wives rather than seek mental help?

On and on....

Stop forcing young girls to marry a 40 year old man, then. That has nothing to do with polygamny being legal or not.

chris
04-03-2009, 11:08 AM
Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? As far as I understand, polygamy just means having more than one wife, and does not imply a right to marry 14 year olds and abuse women. There are other laws in place to protect against that. (And they probably work for polygamists about as well as they do for monogamists.)

So if I have a 14 year daughter that I want to marry a 45 year man, that should be OK?

Happens all the time. 14s can marry with parents signature.

The cult in Texas is perfect example. Multiple DNA in multiple very young women.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 11:08 AM
Yeah, gosh. That's a real obstacle. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect you to understand the very complicated issues that would be created. You can go back to your assembly line.

Brock
04-03-2009, 11:09 AM
I wouldn't expect you to understand the very complicated issues that would be created. You can go back to your assembly line.

Don't you have to get back to your babysitting job? Or is this another inservice day?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 11:10 AM
Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? As far as I understand, polygamy just means having more than one wife, and does not imply a right to marry 14 year olds and abuse women. There are other laws in place to protect against that. (And they probably work for polygamists about as well as they do for monogamists.)

And Bingo was his name-o.

petegz28
04-03-2009, 11:11 AM
So if I have a 14 year daughter that I want to marry a 45 year man, that should be OK?

Happens all the time. 14s can marry with parents signature.

The cult in Texas is perfect example. Multiple DNA in multiple very young women.

Wow, one cult represents the entire base? :thumb:

petegz28
04-03-2009, 11:12 AM
Good luck figuring out child custody, alimony, child support, "divorce"....etc.

:rolleyes:

Can you cry anymore?

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:14 AM
Curious; have you ever seen it; or spoken to women who used to live in the culture?

Abuse should be illegal.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
The Iowa ruling will be overcome by a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage voted for by the people.
Watch and see.

Gotta get it on the ballot first.

Governor Gronstal isn't gonna allow that, he's got taxes to raise.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
Good luck figuring out child custody, alimony, child support, "divorce"....etc.

:rolleyes:

That's not much (any) more complex than adoption, severance, etc.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:17 AM
Gotta get it on the ballot first.

Governor Gronstal isn't gonna allow that, he's got taxes to raise.

Where is Governor Ray when you need him?

Hoover
04-03-2009, 11:17 AM
The Iowa ruling will be overcome by a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage voted for by the people.
Watch and see.

Doubt it brother.

Iowa's process is long and difficult. I wrote about it on my website.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/gay-marriage-legal-in-iowa/)

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:18 AM
So if I have a 14 year daughter that I want to marry a 45 year man, that should be OK?

Happens all the time. 14s can marry with parents signature.

The cult in Texas is perfect example. Multiple DNA in multiple very young women.

That's an issue in single marriages. Perfectly leagal now.

Hoover
04-03-2009, 11:18 AM
Where is Governor Ray when you need him?

Governor Ray wouldn't lift a finger to support a constitutional amendment. Neither would Branstad.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:24 AM
Doubt it brother.

Iowa's process is long and difficult. I wrote about it on my website.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/gay-marriage-legal-in-iowa/)

Wow, nice work. Still I have faith in the people to prevent Iowa from becoming the gay marriage haven of the US.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:24 AM
Governor Ray wouldn't lift a finger to support a constitutional amendment. Neither would Branstad.

Ray would not have stood still for gay marriage IMHO.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 11:26 AM
Wow, nice work. Still I have faith in the people to prevent Iowa from becoming the gay marriage haven of the US.

Isn't that Massachusetts?

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:32 AM
Isn't that Massachusetts?

Are they marrying gays in MA?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 11:35 AM
Are they marrying gays in MA?

I thought they still were. I could be wrong, though.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 11:42 AM
Doubt it brother.

Iowa's process is long and difficult. I wrote about it on my website.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/gay-marriage-legal-in-iowa/)

Exactly.

The people will never get to vote on an amendment because the legislature gets to decide on whether or not to put it on the ballot.

This issue, and this state, was chosen for a reason.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:46 AM
I thought they still were. I could be wrong, though.

No, according to Wiki you are right.

"Immediately after the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, efforts began to overturn this decision by amending the state constitution. The most recent effort to amend the state constitution to forbid same-sex marriage was defeated by the state legislature on June 14, 2007.[6] As a result, same-sex marriage will remain legal in Massachusetts until at least 2012, barring an unforeseen decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court or the United States Supreme Court on the topic or a federal constitutional amendment banning such marriages."
But it isn't quite the same:

"Because federal law confers marital benefits only upon opposite-sex marriages, more than 1,100 benefits remain unavailable to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts."

vailpass
04-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Exactly.

The people will never get to vote on an amendment because the legislature gets to decide on whether or not to put it on the ballot.

This issue, and this state, was chosen for a reason.

If enough people unite and speak loud enough the issue will make the ballot. I really believe this. I have to believe this.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 11:51 AM
If enough people unite and speak loud enough the issue will make the ballot. I really believe this. I have to believe this.

Well, if the guys in charge repeal federal deductibility then we're definitely going to see a shift in power in 2010.

The problem is that the "conservative" party in this state is chickenshit.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 11:55 AM
Exactly.

The people will never get to vote on an amendment because the legislature gets to decide on whether or not to put it on the ballot.

This issue, and this state, was chosen for a reason.

I'm sure that's true from a strategic POV.

However, if it is a big enough consensus against the ruling among the people of Iowa, it would either make it through the leg or the voters would replace the leg with one that would get it through.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 12:03 PM
I'm sure that's true from a strategic POV.

However, if it is a big enough consensus against the ruling among the people of Iowa, it would either make it through the leg or the voters would replace the leg with one that would get it through.

There's a big enough consensus now to pass a constitutional amendment.

The problem is that neither party will support putting it on the ballot. The FIRST attempt to put it on the ballot came during a time when the Democrats were in a minority. The Republicans could have easily put it on the ballot but didn't, because they don't have the guts to piss people off even if those people are a very, very small minority.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 12:06 PM
Well, if the guys in charge repeal federal deductibility then we're definitely going to see a shift in power in 2010.

The problem is that the "conservative" party in this state is chickenshit.

They are also the majority. Push them hard enough, tax them deep enough, piss them off enough and they will rise up. Whether it is too late by then remains to be seen.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 12:07 PM
I'm sure that's true from a strategic POV.

However, if it is a big enough consensus against the ruling among the people of Iowa, it would either make it through the leg or the voters would replace the leg with one that would get it through.

Agreed.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 12:12 PM
There's a big enough consensus now to pass a constitutional amendment.

The problem is that neither party will support putting it on the ballot. The FIRST attempt to put it on the ballot came during a time when the Democrats were in a minority. The Republicans could have easily put it on the ballot but didn't, because they don't have the guts to piss people off even if those people are a very, very small minority.

Then it's not nearly the issue you are making it out to be.

If they are at risk of getting voted out for putting it on the ballot and not at risk for getting voted out for NOT putting it on the ballot... people don't really care that much about the issue.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 12:15 PM
Then it's not nearly the issue you are making it out to be.

If they are at risk of getting voted out for putting it on the ballot and not at risk for getting voted out for NOT putting it on the ballot... people don't really care that much about the issue.

Until yesterday it wasn't an issue. We'll see if that changes. If not then the people will have spoken through their silence.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 12:19 PM
Then it's not nearly the issue you are making it out to be.

If they are at risk of getting voted out for putting it on the ballot and not at risk for getting voted out for NOT putting it on the ballot... people don't really care that much about the issue.

People do care. The problem is that there aren't many politicians that can be trusted to do what they say.

6 state reps were elected the session before last specifically because they said they would put the issue on the table. However, when it came time to vote, they were silent. Of course, they were voted out next session, but the people that replaced them are liars as well.

Ultra Peanut
04-03-2009, 12:40 PM
chris's threads always make me think of this, for some reason:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtRHrZaW10w&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qtRHrZaW10w&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

FishingRod
04-03-2009, 12:47 PM
Please correct me if I am wrong but, I believe it is perfectly legal for 1 man and 2,3, 6 women to all live together, hump their little brains out and create all the children they want assuming they are of legal age. If that is the case it is an issue as to if adults can join in a legal partnership with more than one person. I think the government should stay out of Marriage altogether. I believe that two consenting adults regardless of their sex or if they are having sex or not should be able to form a civil partnership that entitles them all to the same rights as Married couples enjoy now. Or equally so there shouldn't be any laws discriminate against single people by providing preferential treatment for those that are married. Other than it running contrary to an individuals personal religious beliefs the real issue is insurance benefits and social security benefits. I really don't see sorting that out as some Herculean task. Frankly I see as a similar issue of one couple that has 12 kids paying the same health insurance rate as a couple with one.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 12:51 PM
...I and other liberals don't really care that much about the issue.

FYP

petegz28
04-03-2009, 01:03 PM
Please correct me if I am wrong but, I believe it is perfectly legal for 1 man and 2,3, 6 women to all live together, hump their little brains out and create all the children they want assuming they are of legal age. If that is the case it is an issue as to if adults can join in a legal partnership with more than one person. I think the government should stay out of Marriage altogether. I believe that two consenting adults regardless of their sex or if they are having sex or not should be able to form a civil partnership that entitles them all to the same rights as Married couples enjoy now. Or equally so there shouldn't be any laws discriminate against single people by providing preferential treatment for those that are married. Other than it running contrary to an individuals personal religious beliefs the real issue is insurance benefits and social security benefits. I really don't see sorting that out as some Herculean task. Frankly I see as a similar issue of one couple that has 12 kids paying the same health insurance rate as a couple with one.


:clap:

Ultra Peanut
04-03-2009, 01:07 PM
FYPWe call him Middle-of-the-Road-Mr!

FishingRod
04-03-2009, 01:23 PM
Pete, Jaz and Fishingrod on the same side of an issue?

[T]his city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Mayor: What do you mean "biblical"?
Dr. Raymond Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos!
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2009, 01:25 PM
We call him Middle-of-the-Road-Mr! Liberals are NOT middle of the road....moonbats and Rush's Ditttoheads are cut from the same Lunatic Fringe cloth. Glad to not be associated with either, most of the time.

jAZ
04-03-2009, 01:26 PM
People do care. The problem is that there aren't many politicians that can be trusted to do what they say.

6 state reps were elected the session before last specifically because they said they would put the issue on the table. However, when it came time to vote, they were silent. Of course, they were voted out next session, but the people that replaced them are liars as well.
The problem is that everyone who runs for office is secretly so afraid of the teh gheys that they lie to the mass of rabid anti-gay marriage voters to get elected, but have so little concern for all those rabid anti-gay marrige voters when it comes time to get re-elected.

Got it.

htismaqe
04-03-2009, 01:31 PM
The problem is that everyone who runs for office is secretly so afraid of the teh gheys that they lie to the mass of rabid anti-gay marriage voters to get elected, but have so little concern for all those rabid anti-gay marrige voters when it comes time to get re-elected.

Got it.

Afraid of "teh gheys"? No.

They're afraid to put a constitutional amendment on the table, for any issue, not just this one.

And yes, that's precisely what they've done - lie to get elected only to see themselves not getting re-elected. And it's not just gay marriage that they're lying about.

I can't even begin to tell you WHY they're doing it, but by and large, there is ZERO difference between the two parties in this state. They both like spending money, they both want to raise taxes, and so on. If I had to guess, I'd think the Republicans are jealous of the amount of power the Dems have so they want to play "little brother" to see if they can get in on some of it.

Hoover
04-03-2009, 02:15 PM
Well, if the guys in charge repeal federal deductibility then we're definitely going to see a shift in power in 2010.

The problem is that the "conservative" party in this state is chickenshit.

And we have a winner!

Pitt Gorilla
04-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Polygamy should be legal.It probably should be, but I can't imagine being retarded enough to want more than one wife. Guh.

FishingRod
04-03-2009, 03:12 PM
It probably should be, but I can't imagine being retarded enough to want more than one wife. Guh.

Turn out the lights this thread is over. The voice of reason has finally been heard.

mlyonsd
04-03-2009, 03:19 PM
I dunno, you could be married to 2 or 3 Jenny McCarthy's. That might be worth it.

But to the thread title. I don't see constitutionally how Iowa can now keep polygamy from happening or even two siblings from marrying.

Chief Henry
04-03-2009, 03:38 PM
Well, if the guys in charge repeal federal deductibility then we're definitely going to see a shift in power in 2010.

The problem is that the "conservative" party in this state is chickenshit.



You got that right...but I've been seeing some good things out of Matt Strawn.

Chief Henry
04-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Doubt it brother.

Iowa's process is long and difficult. I wrote about it on my website.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/gay-marriage-legal-in-iowa/)

Nice website. I'll be dipping into it frequently.

Baby Lee
04-03-2009, 03:45 PM
I dunno, you could be married to 2 or 3 Jenny McCarthy's. That might be worth it.

But to the thread title. I don't see constitutionally how Iowa can now keep polygamy from happening or even two siblings from marrying.

And we should just shut down the Green Card Marriage Genuineness Investigation Unit, WGAS WGAF?

chris
04-03-2009, 03:59 PM
It probably should be, but I can't imagine being retarded enough to want more than one wife. Guh.


or mother-in-laws...as the joke goes.:)

Adept Havelock
04-03-2009, 05:10 PM
Polygamy should be legal.

As long as all involved are consenting adults, I agree.

irishjayhawk
04-03-2009, 05:11 PM
As long as all involved are consenting adults, I agree.

Better phrasing than the harm route I took.

vailpass
04-03-2009, 06:47 PM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?

Hydrae
04-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Doubt it brother.

Iowa's process is long and difficult. I wrote about it on my website.
(http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/04/03/gay-marriage-legal-in-iowa/)

I have to say I enjoyed this response on your site:

Sam wrote on 3 April, 2009, 11:50
On Laura Schlesingerís radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr.Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. **************************************************** Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding Godís Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abominationÖ End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of Godís Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why canít I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I donít agree. Can you settle this? Are there Ďdegreesí of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldnít we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that Godís word is eternal and unchanging.

Simplex3
04-04-2009, 01:54 PM
Good luck figuring out child custody, alimony, child support, "divorce"....etc.

:rolleyes:

This is what a contract is for. Try spending two seconds not relying on the government.

Simplex3
04-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Please define "isn't hurting".

How about the young girls that are "forced" to marry a 40 year old man to maintain family honor and to go to heaven? Or the women who submit to being one of multi wives rather than seek mental help?

On and on....

Polygamy and forced marriage aren't the same thing. Is it more common in polygamy? Maybe. I haven't seen any studies that show it is, though.

Brock
04-04-2009, 02:06 PM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?

So should we limit the number of kids (dependents) a family should have, since they will need insurance too?

Pitt Gorilla
04-04-2009, 03:26 PM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?What benefits get extended currently (in your hypothetical)? In my case, my wife and kids are eligible, but we pay through the nose to have them covered.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?

Well, since that's private insurance it would be up to them to determine this. Not any govt.
But if all kinds of marriages are made a "civil right" I can see insurance companies getting to have the govt force them to cover certain marriages. That may just drive insurance premiums up for us all too.

Simplex3
04-04-2009, 05:15 PM
...That may just drive insurance premiums up for us all too.

Aren't we all so glad we're dealt with on a group basis instead of an individual one?

Valiant
04-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Wow, nice work. Still I have faith in the people to prevent Iowa from becoming the gay marriage haven of the US.

They need something to get people to move to that state..

KC native
04-04-2009, 10:24 PM
Well, since that's private insurance it would be up to them to determine this. Not any govt.
But if all kinds of marriages are made a "civil right" I can see insurance companies getting to have the govt force them to cover certain marriages. That may just drive insurance premiums up for us all too.

You really have no clue how anything financial works. Insurance gets cheaper as the risks are spread over a larger population.

Jenson71
04-05-2009, 06:10 PM
I wouldn't expect you to understand the very complicated issues that would be created. You can go back to your assembly line.

What the fuck? Three days ago you railed on me for supposedly living in an ivory tower.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 06:34 PM
What the ****? Three days ago you railed on me for supposedly living in an ivory tower.

Rapunzle, Rapunzle, let down your hair! :p

htismaqe
04-06-2009, 09:50 AM
Well, since that's private insurance it would be up to them to determine this. Not any govt.
But if all kinds of marriages are made a "civil right" I can see insurance companies getting to have the govt force them to cover certain marriages. That may just drive insurance premiums up for us all too.

What kind of insurance do you have? The largest health insurance provider in the nation already COVERS same-sex couples, regardless of legal status.

gblowfish
04-28-2009, 10:12 AM
A buddy of mine who's a cartoonist sent me his take on the situation:

FishingRod
04-28-2009, 11:10 AM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?

That is a valid an pertinent question. I assume It would have the same answer as to "How many Children are traditional couples allowed to have?" Why is it fair for me to pay the same as someone that believes God's will is to go forth and multiply and multiply until they are no longer physically able to do so? The answer is, it is not. Logically as far as health insurance is concerned a policy's premium should go up with each individual. It certainly has some messy issues and frankly the reality of more than one wife is far scarier than the woody inducing fantasy of adding a young filly to the stable from time to time. For me it just boils down to my core political belief that, the less the Government is involved in our personal lives, the better. I realize life requires balance and as a society some personal freedoms must be curtailed for the safety and general welfare of our communities but, I will tend to error on the side of personal freedom.

Iowanian
04-28-2009, 11:24 AM
Curious; have you ever seen it; or spoken to women who used to live in the culture?


Have you ever seen what jr high kids say to a classmate with 2 special daddies?

vailpass
04-28-2009, 11:25 AM
You really have no clue how anything financial works. Insurance gets cheaper as the risks are spread over a larger population.

Yes especially if more of the population is high risk. Why don't you quit talking and start mowing?

Iowanian
04-28-2009, 11:26 AM
I've started working on Brideowanian on the benefits of taking say, a silky skinned 23 year old Venezuelan 2nd wife.

Its not so popular yet, but....

Iowanian
04-28-2009, 11:27 AM
A buddy of mine who's a cartoonist sent me his take on the situation:


He should have drawn them with their pitchforks touching.

KC native
04-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Yes especially if more of the population is high risk. Why don't you quit talking and start mowing?

What's that? You don't understand how risks spread over a larger pool lowers the cost for everyone so you make another racist insult? :thumb: Read a fuqing book about insurance and actuarial practices. Until then STFU.

vailpass
04-28-2009, 12:14 PM
What's that? You don't understand how risks spread over a larger pool lowers the cost for everyone so you make another racist insult? :thumb: Read a fuqing book about insurance and actuarial practices. Until then STFU.

Exactly why :cigar: aren't actuaries.

Chief Henry
04-28-2009, 02:44 PM
In Iowa its OK to marry a F A G ---- but you can't smoke one !!!

KC native
04-28-2009, 03:27 PM
Exactly why :cigar: aren't actuaries.

Another poor insult. Just because you don't understand math doesn't mean I don't understand math. Try again.

vailpass
04-28-2009, 04:42 PM
Another poor insult. Just because you don't understand math doesn't mean I don't understand math. Try again.

Okay I'll try math again. Perhaps algebra.

X (Y)-Z=A

where x is the number of illegal aliens that can fit into one 12 year old pick-up truck and y is the number of US ememergency room and social services dollars the illegals will steal in a calendar year subtracting Z as the amount of illegals arrested and detained by border agents, ICE and law enforcement in the same calendar year resulting in A the number of illegals we still need to round up, vigorously prosecute and deport.

KC native
04-28-2009, 04:47 PM
Okay I'll try math again. Perhaps algebra.

X (Y)-Z=A

where x is the number of illegal aliens that can fit into one 12 year old pick-up truck and y is the number of US ememergency room and social services dollars the illegals will steal in a calendar year subtracting Z as the amount of illegals arrested and detained by border agents, ICE and law enforcement in the same calendar year resulting in A the number of illegals we still need to round up, vigorously prosecute and deport.

Not funny. Keep trying buddy.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2009, 04:47 PM
No man will be able to afford polygamy just like most Muslims can afford 4 wives. Especially when Obama is done with the economy. Unless we taxpayers have to support them in any way.
Let's hope few work for the govt too.
Only the richest men, and the woman who only care about money will do it. There won't be enough to go around imo. That leaves just those who'd practice it for religious reasons. Those are the ones where the women have to stay barefoot and pregnant most of their life...so it will just be the religious sects that practice it.

KC native
04-28-2009, 04:48 PM
Okay I'll try math again. Perhaps algebra.

X (Y)-Z=A

where x is the number of illegal aliens that can fit into one 12 year old pick-up truck and y is the number of US ememergency room and social services dollars the illegals will steal in a calendar year subtracting Z as the amount of illegals arrested and detained by border agents, ICE and law enforcement in the same calendar year resulting in A the number of illegals we still need to round up, vigorously prosecute and deport.

And just to be a prick, your formula is nonsensical. It wouldn't end with the units that you desire. Try again.

Brock
04-28-2009, 05:54 PM
No man will be able to afford polygamy just like most Muslims can afford 4 wives. Especially when Obama is done with the economy. Unless we taxpayers have to support them in any way.
Let's hope few work for the govt too.
Only the richest men, and the woman who only care about money will do it. There won't be enough to go around imo. That leaves just those who'd practice it for religious reasons. Those are the ones where the women have to stay barefoot and pregnant most of their life...so it will just be the religious sects that practice it.

So far, who cares?

Jenson71
04-28-2009, 05:59 PM
It sounds like there weren't any real protests going on in Iowa on the first day. Just a prayer vigil here, or a support show there.

vailpass
04-28-2009, 07:12 PM
And just to be a prick, your formula is nonsensical. It wouldn't end with the units that you desire. Try again.

Dance monkey dance.

Saul Good
04-28-2009, 07:23 PM
What's that? You don't understand how risks spread over a larger pool lowers the cost for everyone so you make another racist insult? :thumb: Read a fuqing book about insurance and actuarial practices. Until then STFU.

You are completely wrong. Spreading the risk over a larger pool AVERAGES the cost for everyone. It doesn't lower the cost for everyone.

If one house out of 100 burns to the ground each year, spreading the risk increases the cost for 99 and lowers it for 1. The point of insurance isn't to lower the cost. It's to spread the risk.

BucEyedPea
04-28-2009, 07:25 PM
So far, who cares?

That was my point said differently.

alanm
04-28-2009, 10:56 PM
Gotta get it on the ballot first.

Governor Gronstal isn't gonna allow that, he's got taxes to raise.Priorities, I understand.

Iowanian
04-28-2009, 11:36 PM
It sounds like there weren't any real protests going on in Iowa on the first day. Just a prayer vigil here, or a support show there.

Its because we're working.

Mr. Kotter
04-28-2009, 11:40 PM
It sounds like there weren't any real protests going on in Iowa on the first day. Just a prayer vigil here, or a support show there.

Real people have....jobs and lives. Unlike full-time students, unemployed types, and "activists." Ignore the "silent majority" at your own risk.

Jenson71
04-28-2009, 11:46 PM
I'm not ignoring the silent majority. I have little doubt that if turned to a popular vote, gay marriage would be outlawed in Iowa.

Just relaying the news that I've seen: no one is making a huge show over this.

Mr. Kotter
04-29-2009, 12:01 AM
I'm not ignoring the silent majority. I have little doubt that if turned to a popular vote, gay marriage would be outlawed in Iowa.

Just relaying the news that I've seen: no one is making a huge show over this.

Then we should have a "vote of the people" on the issue, afterall. Of course, that is....IF you really believe in true democracy. If you don't, I understand...of course. Heh.

:hmmm:

Taco John
04-29-2009, 12:23 AM
It's started! I just noticed that my neighbors have bought two chickens. It won't be long until their college aged kids living over there are going to want to marry one of them. I can sense it!

Mr. Kotter
04-29-2009, 12:27 AM
It's started! I just noticed that my neighbors have bought two chickens. It won't be long until their college aged kids living over there are going to want to marry one of them. I can sense it!

When did you move to Arkansas? :spock:

Ultra Peanut
04-29-2009, 04:50 AM
Real people have....jobs and lives. Unlike full-time students, unemployed types, and "activists." Ignore the "silent majority" at your own risk.Real people smoke Newports and eat Honey Nut. Ignore the "silent majority" at your own risk.

Ultra Peanut
04-29-2009, 05:06 AM
Then we should have a "vote of the people" on the issue, afterall. Of course, that is....IF you really believe in true democracy. If you don't, I understand...of course. Heh.

:hmmm:We should put equal rights to a vote before we go around handing them out all willy nilly, HEH. What do you mean our system is set up to prevent the majority from holding down the minority? YOU AIN'T NO REAL AMERICAN.

Its because we're working.http://j.photos.cx/descent-c03.jpg

Iowanian
04-29-2009, 07:59 AM
Its just fine with me if pickle-tucker-Americans feel more comfortable living in other states, man.

Ultra Peanut
04-29-2009, 08:38 AM
Its just fine with me if pickle-tucker-Americans feel more comfortable living in other states, man.Watch out, you could hurt someone with that edge you're bandying about!

el borracho
05-02-2009, 08:55 PM
I don't know; go ask Canada- they legalized gay marriage nearly 4 years ago.

Oh, wait! I just remembered... there isn't any correlation at all between same-sex marriage and polygamy, nor bestiality nor any of the other ridiculous slippery slope arguments posed against same-sex marriage.

Nightwish
05-02-2009, 10:04 PM
Quoting petegz28 on gay marriage: "I am torn on the issue. I am for State's Rights. However, the Constitution states "All are equal under the law..."

Surely, as gay marriage spreads, there will be court cases for the right of polygamy.

Should a marriage between a man and multiple women, some the age of 14, be allowed?

Having lived in Utah for 10 years, I've personally seen where polygamy abuses women and children. It's all about religion, power, and submissive wives.

so where is the line drawn about what is private in the home and what is not?

Thoughts?
Do you really want to go down that same slippery slope that thousands before you have fallen flat on?

el borracho
05-02-2009, 10:41 PM
Question for those who would legalize polygamy: would you then expect the husband's medical insurance carrier to extend benefit eligibility to all the wives in the same fashion they now do for a traditional spouse?

Nope, choose your favorite to receive benefits. Pay for the rest yourself.

el borracho
05-02-2009, 10:47 PM
Have you ever seen what jr high kids say to a classmate with 2 special daddies?

Kids are mean to everybody; they will always find an excuse to pick on each other whether it is this excuse or some other excuse.

Dottefan
05-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Who cares if two guys or two girls want to marry each other....oh wait, narrow minded conservative dinasuors do...but the rest of NORMAL AMERICA doesn't...