Other wife found on Facebook: 'Friends' on Facebook reveal bigamous relationship

Examiner.com ^ | April 16, 2013 | Jay Petrillo

[Mastador1]

Well we agree on that! No SANE...

[ZirconEncrustedTweezers]

“You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it’s not as sharp as the original?”

[stuartcr]

People been doing that sort of stuff forever...any port in a storm

[caver]

“Honestly now, who would want more than one wife???”

A buddy of mine once remarked, “Why would I want another woman, I’d have to talk to her.”

[Vaduz]

How smart do you have to be to put anything on facebook?.

[kjam22]

We don’t know all of this story yet. He “friended” both wives on facebook. Yet his last name now was different than first wife knew him as? So she knew he had changed is name etc? This kinda makes no sense...

[Rebelbase]

Facebook? People are too stupid to use Facebook without getting into trouble?

We’ve become a nation of idiots.

[Bender2]

Re: You might... like this one

Sorry, Sarge, been there... done that--

As Clifton says, "Having only one family... is futile."

Well said, Bend... well said--

As I have always testified, "Two steel balls... are always better than one."

Bendy, Cliffy, Queegy, now, if two families are deemed to be so much better, then I must ask for honesty: do these two... do?

No sure about Bend, Cliff and the Captain, but in over six million forms of communication to my knowledge, they surely do... they surely do!

C3P0, you insufferable bucket of bolts, stop... calling me "Shirley!"

And in keeping on this offshoot topic, if two are good, then four... is even better!

McCoy, that is not the double secret probation... I was speaking about!

May so, maybe not, Dean, but Dr. Frankenstein... loves these knockers--

Bender, why does every thread... I guide you to turn into a thanks for the mammaries fiesta?

Well, Sarge, guess you just bring out... the best in all of us!

[tx_eggman]

One wife is too restrictive for many men. Some men just have more love to give to more than just ONE woman. What on earth do people have against one man loving two women (do I need to add that that is all sarcasm)

The penalty in Texas for bigamy is ...










...wait for it ..









two wives

[Colofornian]

But at the same time how many “conservatives” have been caught with mistresses and how many Republicans have gone so far as to have families with their mistresses? Arnold Schwarzennegger anyone? Seems that it’s perfectly fine if a man has a family with his wife and a family with his mistress just so long as he doesn’t take responsibility for the mistress and her children...Or a liberal like Charlie Sheen or Hugh Hefner can live openly with multiple women and be celebrated in the media for doing it. But let a man commit to multiple women and then attempt to do right by them and THAT’S WRONG? That’s where we draw the line? And then it’s perfectly fine for conservatives like Newt Gingrich to engage in serial monogamy which, according to the Bible, is nothing but polygamy. In this case the man is wrong for not telling his wives about what was going on...but why would it be even worse if they were okay with it? And please ping me when Charlie Sheen or Hugh Hefner finally gets prosecuted for polygamy.

Let me get this straight: Are you justifying polygamy on the basis of contrast & compare vs.
(a) guys who sneak around with their wives with mistresses?
(b) guys who commit adultery?
(c) guys who rack up "ex" partners?
(d) Hefner types?

Really????

(Ya know, you forgot to mention rapists, pedophiles, homosexuals, beastly sexual orientation types, etc...I'm sure ANYBODY you want to elevate for their polygamous lifestyle would good by such a compare & contrast list!)

[eastforker]

Why did preachers used to say ‘if there is anyone here who knows any reason why this man and woman should not be married speak now or forever hold his peace’” I was told it was for reasons of multiple wives

No, that was not the reason why the preacher asked that question. It was more in the line of the bride and groom might possibly be blood related such as half siblings.

[eastforker]

Why did preachers used to say ‘if there is anyone here who knows any reason why this man and woman should not be married speak now or forever hold his peace’” I was told it was for reasons of multiple wives

No, that was not the reason why the preacher asked that question. It was more in the line of the bride and groom might possibly be blood related such as half siblings.

[Colofornian]

Or a liberal like Charlie Sheen or Hugh Hefner can live openly with multiple women and be celebrated in the media for doing it...And please ping me when Charlie Sheen or Hugh Hefner finally gets prosecuted for polygamy.

On my next post I want to look @ your comment via the eyes of Jesus' assessment of marriage and quote something I wrote on FR Dec. 20, 2011; but before I do that, let's look at this thru the eyes of why govt has to sanction one-man, one-woman marriage...vs. other alternatives.

Therefore, allow me to quote something I wrote to another poster on FR Dec. 30, 2011 [strange how your comments prompt previous things I said from the same time period]:

From 12/30/11:

Such a position in effect endorses three guys marrying each other. This is a pro-family Web site. If you embrace that, you might as well "zot" yourself before somebody else does it for you.
...Your position would be much easier to handle economically in our society if we didn't have (a) DEAD-BEAT DADS; AND (b) Government welfare economically rescuing all those strange "family" configurations when most of them dissolve or deteriorate...
IOW, as a taxpayer who funds that "safety net" -- and as a government that "bails out" these individual configurations when they fail...I have a "say" and the government has a "say."
If the govt wasn't so financially invested (welfare), it would have to take a more "hands-off" approach. It doesn't. It has a vested interest in not having to bail out configurations that fail at higher rates.

IOW...a male-as-head-of-a-harem -- should he "bail out" or die -- is going to leave a larger "wake" of welfare tabs upon the guv...which is worse in a socialist/"welfare" society like ours & Europe than other countries that don't try to run up the taxpayer tab.

(I don't see Hugh Hefner leaving little Hueys all over the place, do you?)

[Colofornian]

But let a man commit to multiple women and then attempt to do right by them and THAT’S WRONG? That’s where we draw the line?

Here's what I wrote to a poster 12/20/11:

Let's look at our Lord's "guideline" on marriage, shall we?
...A MAN will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE, and the TWO will become ONE flesh’? 6 So they are no longer TWO, but ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Jesus, Matthew 19:5-6)

24 That is why A MAN leaves his father and mother and is united to his WIFE, and they become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

I didn't see plural men or plural wives in those two passages? (Did you?...You able to discern non-existent specific numbers in other passages)

I didn't see four-becomes-one as an option available in those two passages. Do you?

And if in marriage, two becomes one FLESH, you're not going to seriously suggest, are you, that another woman or women plural figuring into that becomes part of that overall ONE FLESH...are you?

Are you claiming that "sister wives" become one flesh? (And what would then be the difference between that and two or three or four lesbian women claiming they are "one flesh" coupled with an occasional guy who helps them get pregnant for sheer parenting purposes?)

So. Tell us why Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5-6 doesn't militate vs. polygamy.

[Colofornian]

One other thought on picking adulterers, those who rack up "ex" partners, and Hefner-Sheen types to promote polygamy is that the 19th-century Mormons essentially did the same thing.

Some of them touted how polygamy was better than prostitution.

So, hey, in all your citations, you forgot to add all those men who visit prostitutes.

By adding them, you can join the 19th century Mormons in the way they, too, attacked monogamy:

Here was a post of mine from November 2010:

One early Mormon, Benjamin F. Johnson, recalled that Joseph Smith taught him that plural marriage was the only means by which prostitution could be eliminated. (B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, p. 16)

So--not from a personal perspective necessarily (within the household) but from a Joseph Smith policy perspective--Johnson's remembrance shows that a true purpose of plurality (not the only one) was in effect to have an "in-house" prostitute. How base is that for 19th LDS to have embraced that vantage point? Hardy cited other LDS who thought that mass polygamy would "eliminate sexual wickedness" and LDS general authority/legislator, William Gibson, who after-the-fact claimed to have voted against the Manifesto putting the brakes on polygamy, called it "the best antidote to sexual sin." (Solemn Covenant, p. 145, citing William Gibson, who was quoted in "Polygamous Issues," DN, March 28, 1896.)

Hardy writes: "The need for prostitution...was seized on by Mormons as evidence that monogamy was manifestly an incorrect system of marriage...From the 1850s until the end of the century, Mormon writers and speakers struck at what they considered their detractors' hypocrisy for criticizing Mormon marriage when, as the First Presidency affirmed in 1886, adultery and prostitution were the consequences of the monogamic arrangement.... (Solemn Covenant, p. 89, citing "An Epistle of the First Presidency..." March 1886, Messages 3:68...Hardy cites in the same footnote about 8 other sources from Lds "apostles" and "prophets" Heber C. Kimball to Brigham Young to John Taylor to George Q. Cannon to apostle Erasmus Snow).

So there ya go! The embracing of polygamy naturally led to an elitist position where polygamists looked down upon, frowned upon, and even openly dismissed or criticized "monogamy!" When you have an LDS "prophet" in 1886 claiming that adultery and prostitution were the consequences of monogamy, that's a major, major problem!!! Hardy devotes a full chapter in his book to how 19th century LDS regarded polygamy as sexually superior--not for erotic or orgy reasons--but for what they regarded was the "opposite"--associating prostitution and the resulting ill-health with monogamy, etc.

[reaganaut]

Just because people do it doesn’t make it right or legal. Would you like to share with the class what you freepmailed me yesterday, Megan, about why you spend so much time defending polygamy?

[shhrubbery!]

This reminds me of a man who lived a stone's throw away from me. He worked as a Port Authority police officer. He was tragically killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

When it came time to assign the survivors' benefits, two families signed up. Neither knew about each other. Remarkably, the first wife showed great charity toward the "other woman" and allowed the woman's child to receive a share of the benefits, even though the 2nd marriage wasn't legal.

I don't want to hurt anyone from his two families, so won't post the man's name here. It's a true story though.

[reaganaut]

Polygamy is ungodly and abusive...in ALL cases. And last time I checked this site is pro TRADITIONAL Marriage.

[Elsie]

Other wife found on Facebook

OOOOPs!

[Elsie]

I’m Henry the eighth I am...