minty, I love ya like a brother (not hyperbole - I’m not that close to my brothers ), but this is ridiculous. Are you honestly arguing “but-for” causation? There are scores of activities that in themselves are harmless, but carry a significant risk of social harm. The solution is not to ban the socially harmless conduct, but instead act against the harms that thereafter arise.
KellyM - minty is off-base, but the comparison to Brian Bunnyhurt is WAAAAAAY off-base. minty may have drawn the wrong conclusions, but the bases for his conclusion do not exist in a Bunnyhurtian never-never land.
Oh, dear. I suppose I really should apologize, then. Brian, I’m sorry I compared you to a lawyer. I understand how that could be construed as defamatory. Please accept my apologies.
[QUOTEKellyM - minty is off-base, but the comparison to Brian Bunnyhurt is WAAAAAAY off-base. minty may have drawn the wrong conclusions, but the bases for his conclusion do not exist in a Bunnyhurtian never-never land.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno about that. Read some of Brian’s and especially Daniel’s comments in the previous thread. There is a striking similarity in the arguments offered by Brian and Daniel for criminalizing polygamy and those offered by minty, including the hyperbolic suggestion that the only way to prevent child and spousal abuse in Utah is to criminalize polygamy. It’s not my fault that minty seems to be arguing the same points the same way as two of the board’s most decorated lunatics…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Irishman *
**Buck Nekked said:
minty green replied:
Irishman responded:
**
Irishman, you are correct in your assumption that I am up to speed. However, I think Minty knew that already. I took his response as a good-natured jab. I thought that my response was very much on topic with the OP, even if it was four months ago.
Karl Malone’s race is indeed different from that of Tom Green, but more importantly, so are his religion and state of residency, as well as the respective states of residency of his concubines. And, as Minty so subtly pointed out, most importantly, so is his marital status. However, the familial lifestyles of these two men are virtually identical. Shouldn’t the law punish criminal activity with an even hand? I was somehow under the impression that justice was blind. Why does Tom Green’s compliance with the law (marriage) make him a criminal, while Karl Malone is not? It’s a fair question, and I stand by it. And, if this is off topic, my apologies to the OP.
I should clarify that “familial lifestyles” does not imply that Karl Malone is banging a thirteen year old girl. Obviously, that’s a different topic altogether.
Of course men have a right to mate.
Everyone should have a man or woman to choose from.
I was just wondering if the ratio were skewed one way or the other, what would happen?
If there were more men, maybe women would take multiple husbands.
No offense was meant or reading into it. Just a curious question.
Robodude: I do not want a wife.
Sure, take your time, go to Honduras, come back and blast my post.
True, can’t make mindsets illegal. Certainly you can make actions illegal even if they are religiously motivated actions, as long as the reason is not to single out that religion and the enforcement is evenly spread. The question becomes which actions should you make illegal and why. But I’m not convinced that polygamy is the action that is hurtful, even as practiced by this sect. The acts that are hurtful should be illegal - underage marriage, cheating welfare, physical and psychological abuse, sexual assault, incest, etc should be enforced and even strengthened in some cases, but I still don’t see how enforcing polygamy eliminates those. It seems like saying we should outlaw pets because some people abuse their pets or let them run rampant and create an overabundance of strays. Or we should make cars illegal and force everyone to use public transportation because of reckless driving.
Buck Nekked, actually I think that was arguing against someone else’s comments in another thread, rather than minty’s. I followed your comment as an on topic response and totally valid.
I’ve breezed through most of this thread and if these questions have come up already, I apologize.
1.How in the heck does a polygamist fill out his tax forms?
With 5 fives and 29 kids, it just boggles my mind.
Has anyone else noticed in the picture of this Tom Green ( I keep thinking of Drew Barrymore’s Tom Green) that these guys are usually put-a-bag-over-his-face-holy-moley
-what-what-did-your-mama-sleep-wit’-to-beegat-somethin’-like-you- kind of fugly?
3.What if a polgyamist from some other country where it is legal, moves to the US. Is his marriages legal or illegal? If so, naturally, how are the taxes handled and (this is even a worse nightmare) health insurance.
OK i haven’t read the whole thread but ill still give my two cents…
It was the Reynolds v U.S. (1879) Supreme Court case that upheld the original Utah territorial law prohibiting polygamy (even for religious reasons). Look up the case sometime and read the opinion of the court. The reasoning is actually pretty absurd–it wouldn’t hold up today. It’s pretty safe to say that if that same case were before the Supreme Court today, they would rule in favor of the polygamists on religious freedom grounds.
Before 1879 Polygamy was one of the most fundamental and essential beliefs of Mormonism. After the decision, Mormons thought that the end of the world was near and that there was literally going to be an apocalyptic war between God and U.S. Government (I’m still trying to picture that but having trouble). Eventually, after the government sent non-mormon federal judges to preside over polygamy cases, the LDS church saw that it could not continue to resist and instead took a rigid stand against polygamy and has even helped law enforcement to turn polygamists in. But there are all sorts of small Mormon fundamentalist sects that still practice it. However, in the last few decades there have been relatively few polygamy cases compared to the number of people who are actually practicing it. This might be because if it is enforced to strongly it will eventually be appealed to the Supreme court and possibly overturned. It would be interesting though to see if the Mormon Church changed their position on polygamy if the laws against it were someday struck down as unconstitutional.
I say ‘who cares?’ If the marriages are consensual let them do whatever they want. Hell, who would want more than one wife anyway? I love my wife, but I don’t think I could handle two or three.
He must disavow all but one of his wives before he can be granted an entry visa. Federal law prohibits any person from entering the country with the intent of practicing polygamy. This even applies to visitor’s visas, IIRC.
I am not usually one for details or deep thought, so here is my contribution.
Ummmm, wouldn’t this be infringing on his personal rights and the right worship as he choses. Honestly, wouldn’t this be something right up the ACLU’s ally?
You’d think so, but it doesn’t. The Supreme Court concluded, a little over a century ago, that polygamy inevitably leads to despotism and is contrary to democracy, so the government can ban it if it wants to. See previous discussion in this thread.
), but this is ridiculous. Are you honestly arguing “but-for” causation? There are scores of activities that in themselves are harmless, but carry a significant risk of social harm. The solution is not to ban the socially harmless conduct, but instead act against the harms that thereafter arise.