Skip to comments.
3 Utahns try to open door for polygamy (more grease on the slippery slope)
The Salt Lake Tribune ^
| 11/27/05
| By Pamela Manson
Posted on 11/28/2005 7:46:22 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: ChildOfThe60s
I heard that men talk about 1000 words/day whereas women use 4000/day. Anyone wanting more then one wife gets what they ask for.
Can you imagine coming home and having three wives saying "Honey, we need to TALK".
21
posted on
11/28/2005 8:10:48 PM PST
by
freedomlover
(This Fall a Woman will be the Mother of a Mouse)
To: ChildOfThe60s
Another reason we need a marriage defined as between one man and one woman...
22
posted on
11/28/2005 8:10:52 PM PST
by
yldstrk
(My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
To: ChildOfThe60s
More proof that paragraphs are our friends.
23
posted on
11/28/2005 8:11:13 PM PST
by
freedomlover
(This Fall a Woman will be the Mother of a Mouse)
To: Army Air Corps
The three - who are all more than 45 years old and say polygamous marriage is a requirement for their exaltation and eternal salvation - The three, meaning... a husband, wife and wife. Is there a wife, husband and husband, too? Yikes, this whole thing is so perverted.
To: freedomlover
And as Rodney Carrington says, "We need to talk doesn't mean we need to talk, it means you need to sit and listen while I tell you all the ways you've been up."
25
posted on
11/28/2005 8:17:45 PM PST
by
Mr. Blonde
(You know, Happy Time Harry, just being around you kinda makes me want to die.)
To: Torie
Thanks for the post. My eyes are grateful.
To: ChildOfThe60s
Polygyny has more historical precedent than 'gay marriage'.
27
posted on
11/28/2005 8:21:50 PM PST
by
supercat
(Sony delinda est.)
To: Victoria Delsoul
28
posted on
11/28/2005 8:23:03 PM PST
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: ChildOfThe60s
For the love of God, one wife is enough!
More seriously, there's a Wisconsin brother and sister convicted of incest who are appealing, arguing that Lawrence invalidates such laws. I believe the first level appeal was rejected, but the judge sure had to do some fancy legal wrangling to avoid that conclusion.
To: Army Air Corps
Double yikes, but you got a point.
To: Victoria Delsoul
"Double yikes, but you got a point."
Read post #29. Ick!
31
posted on
11/28/2005 8:31:10 PM PST
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: Army Air Corps
Ick is right. Man oh man!
To: pierrem15
"More seriously, there's a Wisconsin brother and sister convicted of incest who are appealing, arguing that Lawrence invalidates such laws."
I think that I'm gonna vomit...
33
posted on
11/28/2005 8:34:03 PM PST
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
Comment #34 Removed by Moderator
To: oolatec
You better have a LOT of money first!;))
To: ChildOfThe60s
Polygamy usually consists of predatory older men preying on young and vulnerable while hiding behind religion.
36
posted on
11/28/2005 9:09:14 PM PST
by
tkathy
(Ban the headscarf. (All religious headdress). The effect will creat a huge domino effect..)
To: wigswest
"does this mean that in Utah, a woman can have 3 husbands?" This is an interesting concept. By your proposal, I need to act like a husband only two days a week (conjugal rights, helping out in the kitchen, reading to the kids, putting down the toilet seat). And, on the other five days I can run around like a single guy -- meaning, staying out until closing time with buddies, playing golf all weekend, flirting with other girls, etc.
Sign me up! Sounds like the perfect marriage!
[just kidding, dear, I really didn't mean iiiiit ... ouch! ouch! Don't you know a joke when you see one? ouch!]
37
posted on
11/28/2005 9:12:05 PM PST
by
tom h
To: Army Air Corps
The only way states are gonna get out of this legal straightjacket that
Lawrence created is to start arguing -- and codifying into law -- a "compelling interest" argument that the state has in protecting, preserving, and institutionalizing marriage as between one man and one woman.
Anything else becomes a religious argument, and though I personally stand behind that 100% (uh, except in the Mormon context), it obviously won't stand in courts anymore.
38
posted on
11/28/2005 9:12:52 PM PST
by
alancarp
(Will hack code for oil)
To: Army Air Corps
You are very correct in stating that once one widens the definition of marriage, the freaks will pop-up in droves. Two widowed sisters might marry for the benefits. No sex, just married.
To: tom h
LOL, the flowers! You forgot the FLOWERS!!!
oh yeah, and the dancing...
oh, and could one of you guys pick me up a sixpack of chocolate on the way home??
;) ;)
40
posted on
11/28/2005 9:38:21 PM PST
by
wigswest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson