BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

[SirJosephPorter]

Polygamy takes away no rights from anyone. You made up rights that aren't present then claim those made up rights are taken away. Its been clearly shown they are not.

Sure it does. The rights we take for granted today (the right to marry anyone we choose, the right to raise our children the way we want, right to decide how our children should be brought up and many more rights) will disappear or will be severely curtailed in a polygamous relationship.

And there is on way to square the circle, there is no way to ensure that nobody loses any rights. That is why I will be very surprised if Supreme Court legalizes polygamy.

 

[VanIsle]

Islandpacific, the original Mormon faith strongly endorses polygamy. The Mormon leader, Brigham Young (who led the Mormons to Utah) had 27 wives. So polygamy is the true Mormon faith.

The problem came when Utah applied for statehood. The federal government plainly told Utah that polygamy has to go, otherwise no way will Utah be admitted to statehood. So their leader had a ‘revelation’ from God telling him that polygamy is wrong.

But the original true faith very much endorses polygamy and the breakaway group (I think they are called the Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints) is the one that remain true to the faith, the so called ‘revelation’ from God notwithstanding.

No Sir, they are not called the reformed church of Latter Day Saints. They are just the Church of Latter Day Saints. They simply do not endorse multiple marriages. It's difficult to condemn the families that go to these churches. (the ones that do not endorse multiple marriages). Certainly not all of them follow the basic way of life they follow but it appears most do. They do believe in their church. They highly believe in family. They really look out for family. They look out for their church. I believe that they tithe no matter what and they seem to look out for one another in a way that they make sure they have a career that allows them to tithe. However, I do really only know one family well and some others not so well.
They look after what they eat - no caffeine for example, no smoking and they fast every Sunday. Small children can have juice that day but other than that, I believe it's just water for the day.

 

[VanIsle]

That is simply not true, many polygamous (or more accurately due to the laws Polyamourous) relationships exist. This is your own false preconception.


You are basing this off other countries laws on polygamy. The flaw being other countries laws on Monogamy also treat women as cattle with no rights.





Actually it requires the consent of all 10 people. Thats the way partnership and contract laws work. Which is all a marriage really is, a partnership agreement.



No it isn't, Bigamy is still a crime today. A married man can already not marry anyone he chooses. Thats the nature of marriage.



This is again, false. A person has the right to marry someone if all parties concerned consent. That is the two people (men or women) and if one or both are under 18, the parents.

This does not change.



Again, no its not. You are drawing faulty conclusions. If a man currently decides to marry someone else, without his wifes consent (through divorcce) thats bigamy.




Polygamy takes away no rights from anyone. You made up rights that aren't present then claim those made up rights are taken away. Its been clearly shown they are not.

Zzarchov:
Are you a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints and do you have more than one wife? You seem to be the only one arguing for polygamy.

 

[petros]

This thread makes me crave baklava and justice. Both are pretty sweet.

 

[Zzarchov]

Polygamy takes away no rights from anyone. You made up rights that aren't present then claim those made up rights are taken away. Its been clearly shown they are not.

Sure it does. The rights we take for granted today (the right to marry anyone we choose, the right to raise our children the way we want, right to decide how our children should be brought up and many more rights) will disappear or will be severely curtailed in a polygamous relationship.

And there is on way to square the circle, there is no way to ensure that nobody loses any rights. That is why I will be very surprised if Supreme Court legalizes polygamy.

So for me to lose a right, in polygamy I would lose the right to marry anyone I choose. Lets see if that right is one I have currently.

Already being married , lets see If I can go out and get married again, I must because according to you , I as someone already in a marriage must have that right. That is the right you are talking about being taken away.


What you are doing is taking laws from countries with very different views on women, then acting like we would use those exact same legal standards for polygamous marriages, but not adopt them for monogamous marriages.

You are being truly daft if to think to have working polygamous marriages we need to use the laws of a despotism. We have working monogamous marriages without the need for Dowries and legal guarantees of Virginity.

We have legal homosexual marriages, we didn't feel the need to copy the homosexual marriage regulations present in Iran (Which for the record, has allowed homosexual marriages longer than we have), which forces one party to assume the gender role (with surgery as applicable) of the opposing gender.

Your logic is deeply, deeply flawed and based on prejudices. You assume that because other regions allow polygamy to suit religious reasons that only the religious practice polygamy and any laws we pass have to cater to those whom are religious.


And no, I am not polygamous, and even If I were that does not mean Im a fundementalist Mormon or Islamic and its pretty insulting that you lump blanket insults like that around. Its akin to saying "Well if you are gay you must be Atheist"

But I do know polygamists, and I don't see why they should suffer because you don't agree with their lifestyle choice. It isn't your damn business and it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Already being married , lets see If I can go out and get married again, I must because according to you , I as someone already in a marriage must have that right. That is the right you are talking about being taken away.

Zzarchov, evidently you didn’t read my posts properly before posting. Let me reproduce a paragraph from one of my posts here.

Bigamy has nothing to do with it. Today, if a man is permitted to marry by law (being single); he has the right to marry anybody he chooses (provided the other person agrees). Under polygamy, even if a man can marry under the law, in your scenario he cannot marry unless he gets the consent of eight other women. This is clearly a curtailment of his rights.

Which part of this don’t you understand? I never said that if you are married you could marry again. If you are going to debate, at least take the trouble to find out what I said, before you try to refute it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What you are doing is taking laws from countries with very different views on women, then acting like we would use those exact same legal standards for polygamous marriages, but not adopt them for monogamous marriages.

Like it or not, those are the existing standards for polygamy. And I personally don’t see any way of constructing a polygamous relationship with everybody involved in it having equal rights, somebody is going to lose rights somewhere (like the right to marry whoever he wants, without another person interfering and having a veto on it).

You are being truly daft if to think to have working polygamous marriages we need to use the laws of a despotism. We have working monogamous marriages without the need for Dowries and legal guarantees of Virginity.

But that is just the point, one cannot have polygamy without despotism ,without male superiority, without denying rights to those involved in polygamy. Try to construct a polygamous relationship with equal rights for everybody, and you will see how difficult it is, if not impossible. Polygamy equates denial of equal rights, denial of fundamental rights.

We have legal homosexual marriages, we didn't feel the need to copy the homosexual marriage regulations present in Iran (Which for the record, has allowed homosexual marriages longer than we have), which forces one party to assume the gender role (with surgery as applicable) of the opposing gender.

For your information, Iran does NOT have homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are put to death in Iran, and according to their Prime Minister, there are no homosexuals in Iran. So don’t make out Iran to be a paragon of tolerance (by supposedly permitting gay marriage). If a man gets sex change surgery and become s a woman, then he may marry another man, but that is hardly a homosexual marriage.

Your logic is deeply, deeply flawed and based on prejudices. You assume that because other regions allow polygamy to suit religious reasons that only the religious practice polygamy and any laws we pass have to cater to those whom are religious.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I don’t’ care what any religion says about polygamy. Polygamy is directly contrary to the equality provision of the Charter, and that is why I think it will never be legalized in Canada.

But I do know polygamists, and I don't see why they should suffer because you don't agree with their lifestyle choice. It isn't your damn business and it doesn't hurt anyone.

Quite right, it is none of by business. However, when the men involved in polygamy try to get legal recognition, then it becomes my and everybody’s business. I have already said before this, if people want to be in polygamous relationship, that is their affair, but when they try to demand that state recognize their relationships, then the question of equal rights, human rights become of paramount importance.

Anyway, so for all the reason I have outlined, I think it is highly unlikely that Courts will legalize polygamy, like they did gay marriage. Gay marriage grants more rights, while polygamy actually takes rights away from those involved in polygamous relationship.

 

[Zzarchov]

Already being married , lets see If I can go out and get married again, I must because according to you , I as someone already in a marriage must have that right. That is the right you are talking about being taken away.

Zzarchov, evidently you didn’t read my posts properly before posting. Let me reproduce a paragraph from one of my posts here.

Bigamy has nothing to do with it. Today, if a man is permitted to marry by law (being single); he has the right to marry anybody he chooses (provided the other person agrees). Under polygamy, even if a man can marry under the law, in your scenario he cannot marry unless he gets the consent of eight other women. This is clearly a curtailment of his rights.

Which part of this don’t you understand? I never said that if you are married you could marry again. If you are going to debate, at least take the trouble to find out what I said, before you try to refute it.

Because its non-sequitar, you are making up stuff that doesn't exist.

You are adding the right of a married person to marry again. That does not exist. Even in countries with polygamous marriages there is no inherint right of someone in a marriage to then add more people to marriage.

Where do you get this transferance that because a single person can freely enter into a marriage, it is a curtailement of rights if a single person can now enter into a marriage with two people.

Your logic is that because a married person cannot enter into another marriage now, its a curtailment of rights if a married person cannot enter into another marriage after polygamy.

You are trying to prove an illogical contradiction. You don't lose rights by adding options. Women didn't lose the right to be politically neutral because they gained the right to vote. Homosexuals did not lose the right to be single because they can now marry.

I have read your post, it does not follow logic. You cannot lose a right you do not currently have.

Being married is different than being single currently. Married folks cannot make a whole slew of decisions without the consent and agreement of their spouse, that is the nature of being married and a clearly spelled out obligation.

 

[Zzarchov]

Again with your blatant bigotry.

Polygamy does not have to even involve men. That is a fact, and you are wrong.

Polygamy can and has been instituted without a "dominant master". The same exact bullship logic was used with granting women the status of persons.

"You cannot have a marriage without a well defined master, it simple doesn't work..who has the final say in matters?"

In a monogamous relationship in our country, important decisions require the consent of two people, thus by your logic , each person has lost the right to make these decisions themselves. In a polygamous relationship you simply need 3 or 4 or what have you consent.

Nor is there reason why more people are added to a marriage. If you get married with 2 people you stay married with 2, if you enter into a marriage with 3 people, you stay with 3. Thats no different than current laws on bigamy.

And Iran does allow homosexual marriages. They allow homosexuals, so long as you follow their barbaric practices of deciding you are born of the wrong gender. Men are forced to undergo surgery and women are forced to undergo hormone therapy. Never the less it is still a homosexual marriage. So if you are going to say all polygamous marriages have to follow the barbaric laws of nations like that you have to assume all types of marriages exist following their models. Which is crap.


You are being blatantly discriminatory by equating polygamy as something "men do" and something soley the domain of the religious.

I personally know polygamists who are all women and neither Mormon nor Islamic.

Your bigotry fails in the face of direct evidence.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your logic is that because a married person cannot enter into another marriage now, its a curtailment of rights if a married person cannot enter into another marriage after polygamy.

It most certainly is. Right of free association, the right to decide with whom we are going to associate is one of the fundamental rights. If a man has to get consent of 7 or 8 individuals before he is allowed to marry someone, that does violate his right of free association.

The right to marry more than one person does not come in vacuum, it is associated with other rights. And if right to marry several person at the same time curtails your right of free association, then it is not advancement of rights, it is regression.

You are trying to prove an illogical contradiction. You don't lose rights by adding options.

Depends upon what the options are. For example, if we add an option, whereby any person may voluntarily become a slave of another person, that such an arrangement will be recognized by the state. Here you have not added any rights, you have actually taken rights away by adding options. Polygamy is similar.

I have read your post, it does not follow logic. You cannot lose a right you do not currently have.

Quite right, However, we currently have the right of free association, the right to decid how we are going to bring up our kids without a third person interfering etc. these are existing rights which will be severely compromised in a polygamous relationship.

Being married is different than being single currently. Married folks cannot make a whole slew of decisions without the consent and agreement of their spouse, that is the nature of being married and a clearly spelled out obligation.

Well, yes. But in current marriage constraints we do not lose our basic rights. Nobody has the right to tell the couple which school they should send their kids to, which church they should send their kids to, how to bring their kids up etc. These rights will be impaired in a polygamous relationship (e.g. other wives will want a say in these things, besides the father and the mother).

Polygamy will lead to impairment of basic, fundamental rights.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Again with your blatant bigotry.

Oh, my. I have been called a lot of things before this, but never a bigot.

Polygamy does not have to even involve men. That is a fact, and you are wrong.

Polygamy can and has been instituted without a "dominant master". The same exact bullship logic was used with granting women the status of persons.

Sure polygamy does not have to involve men. But if you think that there is a horde of lesbians who are clamoring for polygamy to be legalized, you are living in a cloud cuckoo land.

The push to legalize polygamy is coming from Mormons and Muslims, both highly male dominated societies. Sure polygamy can be instituted without a dominant master, but it rarely is, almost invariably there is a Patriarch, a (presumably) benevolent dictator who makes all the decisions.

In a monogamous relationship in our country, important decisions require the consent of two people, thus by your logic , each person has lost the right to make these decisions themselves. In a polygamous relationship you simply need 3 or 4 or what have you consent.

There is a big difference between monogamous and polygamous marriage. In monogamous marriage, sure the important decisions are (or at least should be) made jointly. However both had a part in producing the child, so it is only proper that both have a say in how the child should be raised.

However, in a polygamous marriage there are several individuals who have nothing whatever to do with giving birth to the child. As members of the marriage they will have a say in which school the child should attend, which church he should attend and so on. Indeed, if there are many wives, they can even overrule the biological father and mother in these important matters. Thus father and mother have lost their right in deciding how their child should be brought up, it may be decided by individuals who had nothing whatever to do with the parentage of the child.

Nor is there reason why more people are added to a marriage. If you get married with 2 people you stay married with 2, if you enter into a marriage with 3 people, you stay with 3. Thats no different than current laws on bigamy.

Sure it is different. In a monogamous marriage, there is one wife and it stays that way. But in a polygamous marriage, why stop at 2 or 3? Why not 4, 5 10 or 20? Some Arab Sheiks have more than hundred wives. It may not necessarily stop at 2 or 3. If it is a traditional polygamous marriage, then man is the boss and he decides how many wives he is going to have.

And Iran does allow homosexual marriages.

Iran does NOT have homosexual marriage, two biological males or two biological females cannot get married in Iran. If a man gets sex change operation and becomes a woman, then he is permitted to marry another man. That is not a homosexual marriage, at least as I understand the word.

As I said before, homosexuals are put to death in Iran, so there is no question of permitting them to marry (or maybe they first marry them and then immediately put them to death, as their honeymoon present).

You are being blatantly discriminatory by equating polygamy as something "men do" and something soley the domain of the religious.

I personally know polygamists who are all women and neither Mormon nor Islamic.

That may be your experience Zzarchov, but if you are saying that the push to legalize polygamy is coming from lesbians, you are out to lunch. The push to legalize polygamy is coming form Muslims and Mormons, both highly patriarchal societies.

 

[Zzarchov]

I notice you leave out the bits that blatantly contradict you.

The push to legalize polygamy is coming from Mormons and Muslims, both highly male dominated societies. Sure polygamy can be instituted without a dominant master, but it rarely is, almost invariably there is a Patriarch, a (presumably) benevolent dictator who makes all the decisions.

And they treat Monogamous relationships the same way, the man is still the master. Those were our laws until recently as well.

There is a big difference between monogamous and polygamous marriage. In monogamous marriage, sure the important decisions are (or at least should be) made jointly. However both had a part in producing the child, so it is only proper that both have a say in how the child should be raised.

Actually no, in monogamous relationships, the vast majority, the decisions are made by the dominant man who is master.

Those were our laws until recently. It was argued for a monogamous relationship to work the man has to be master, there needs to be an overall boss. Citing that in all human organizations there has traditionally been one person who makes the final decision. It was crap.

However, in a polygamous marriage there are several individuals who have nothing whatever to do with giving birth to the child. As members of the marriage they will have a say in which school the child should attend, which church he should attend and so on. Indeed, if there are many wives, they can even overrule the biological father and mother in these important matters.

And how is that different than stepchildren? Oh thats right! Its not and we already have laws that cover that.

Thus father and mother have lost their right in deciding how their child should be brought up, it may be decided by individuals who had nothing whatever to do with the parentage of the child.

Like step parents you mean? The situation we already have existing and have laws to cover?

Sure it is different. In a monogamous marriage, there is one wife and it stays that way. But in a polygamous marriage, why stop at 2 or 3? Why not 4, 5 10 or 20? Some Arab Sheiks have more than hundred wives. It may not necessarily stop at 2 or 3. If it is a traditional polygamous marriage, then man is the boss and he decides how many wives he is going to have.

And in a traditional monogamous marriage the woman is property of the man, and the woman has no say in whether or not she gets marriage. Traditional monogamous marriage is a father paying a man to deal with her upkeep, and the woman has no say in the matter, not even speaking or required to be present at the wedding.

Iran does NOT have homosexual marriage, two biological males or two biological females cannot get married in Iran. If a man gets sex change operation and becomes a woman, then he is permitted to marry another man. That is not a homosexual marriage, at least as I understand the word.

No its not how you understand. Its their barbaric mockery. Likewise, Monogamous marriages have barbaric mockeries of our way of handling them, and polygamous are no different.

As I said before, homosexuals are put to death in Iran, so there is no question of permitting them to marry (or maybe they first marry them and then immediately put them to death, as their honeymoon present).

Homosexuality is crime, gender identity issue is a disease. Therefore a homosexual in Iran is forced to have a sex change. Its barbarism, but you can't say we are unable to differentiate between their polygamous laws and our own, but we are able to differentiate between their laws on homosexuality and our own.

That may be your experience Zzarchov, but if you are saying that the push to legalize polygamy is coming from lesbians, you are out to lunch. The push to legalize polygamy is coming form Muslims and Mormons, both highly patriarchal societies.

So what? Does that mean our laws should follow their definition or our own.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And they treat Monogamous relationships the same way, the man is still the master. Those were our laws until recently as well.

Zzarchov, as I said before, monogamy is a red herring, we are not discussing monogamy here. If we were discussing whether monogamy should be legalized, your comments may have some validity. We are discussing whether polygamy should be legalized.

Actually no, in monogamous relationships, the vast majority, the decisions are made by the dominant man who is master.

Those were our laws until recently. It was argued for a monogamous relationship to work the man has to be master, there needs to be an overall boss. Citing that in all human organizations there has traditionally been one person who makes the final decision. It was crap.

Ditto my previous comment. Monogamy is not relevant here. If we are discussing whether nicotine should be restricted, it is totally irrelevant to point out that sugar is bad for you, but it is legal, it is not restricted. So what?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And how is that different than stepchildren? Oh thats right! Its not and we already have laws that cover that.

I found this comment very amusing. So you are saying that children in polygamous marriage should be treated the same as step children.

Sorry Zzrachov, but the issue of step children is totally different. Dad lives away form home, the child lives with mom (or other way around). Mom and dad together take part in rearing the child, the step parent does not have much of a say. This issue is handled by the courts.

This works fine because the two parents live separately, they interact and step parent is not really involved in it. Since there are tow different households, courts get involved in custody disputes, child support etc. That is right and proper.

But in the case of polygamy, parents do not live separately, they live in the same house, they live together. Are you saying that in a polygamous marriage the courts should handle the issue of children? That when a child is born, the mother or father may go to the courts and try to settle the custody issues?

So then you are not only supporting polygamy, you are also supporting courts getting involved in the internal affair of the marriage, perhaps on a continual basis (like they do with step children). Your polygamous marriage cannot survive without continual interference by the courts.

So let me get this straight. The mother is not happy that the other women have overruled her. Then does she go to the court and get the courts to rule in her favour? Are you saying that a polygamous marriage cannot work without courts getting involved in it.

Now, I am sure lawyers will appreciate the extra business. In a marriage of one man and eight women we can expect say, 20 children, and there will be plenty of fodder for the lawyers. Why, lawyer expenses will probably be the major expenses of the household.

Sorry, but the whole thing is nonsense. It is one thing for courts to get involved with step children (who has what visitation rights, how much child support should be paid etc.). It is totally different for courts to interfere in a family and start dictating the arrangement of baby sitting, how much should be spent on the child, who should spend it etc. That would be the result if children in polygamous marriage are treated same as step children.

So in addition to resulting in loss of basic rights, if a polygamous marriage is going to require constant monitoring by courts (as is required for step children), that is another argument against polygamy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Homosexuality is crime, gender identity issue is a disease. Therefore a homosexual in Iran is forced to have a sex change.

Quite right, Zzarchov. Now, that may be your definition of a homosexual marriage (a man turned woman marrying another man), it is not mine. To me, a homosexual marriage is a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. The kind of marriage that you describe probably was occurring in Canada even before gay marriage was legalized.

So what? Does that mean our laws should follow their definition or our own.

So nothing. You seemed to imply that it is the lesbians who want polygamy legalized, so I thought I would set you straight (that the push is coming form Mormons and Muslims).

 

[karrie]

I could use and extra husband or two, so I'd appreciate if someone got on excusing the whole polygamy bit, please. More breadwinners. Perfect. Mind you, yesterday, I was discussing with a girlfriend of mine how hard it was getting for hubby to paint my house in the evenings due to the lack of good lighting in the house, and commented that I wished my shoulder wasn't messed up, so that I could paint for him. She ended up spending the day painting my house for me while I spent the day making her lunch, playing with her baby, and doing some of the 'putting aside' of groceries we've been stock piling lately from discount grocers. So, the extra wife thing does come in handy too I suppose. It definitely made for a lovely night for hubby when he got home.

What bothers me the most is that these charges aren't being brought against these men because of polygamy.. they're being brought against them because of the indoctrination and abuse of young girls. It bothers me when we have to resort to red herring prosecutions in order to follow through on what we truly find repugnant.

 

[Zzarchov]

And how is that different than stepchildren? Oh thats right! Its not and we already have laws that cover that.

I found this comment very amusing. So you are saying that children in polygamous marriage should be treated the same as step children.

Sorry Zzrachov, but the issue of step children is totally different. Dad lives away form home, the child lives with mom (or other way around). Mom and dad together take part in rearing the child, the step parent does not have much of a say. This issue is handled by the courts.

That isn't how it works at all. Often the Step-parent is the guardian and primary care giver. Either way, living togethor isn't really the issue now is it?

This works fine because the two parents live separately, they interact and step parent is not really involved in it. Since there are tow different households, courts get involved in custody disputes, child support etc. That is right and proper.

But in the case of polygamy, parents do not live separately, they live in the same house, they live together.

5 minutes ago you were saying we have to make our laws follow the Muslism and the Mormons, you are aware that in those cases the wives do not usually live togethor right? They all have their own homes.

Are you saying that in a polygamous marriage the courts should handle the issue of children? That when a child is born, the mother or father may go to the courts and try to settle the custody issues?

You already yourself showed how marriage and custody rights are not linked. There are the parents, then there are the spouses of the parents, and they do not always line up. Thats our current law.

So then you are not only supporting polygamy, you are also supporting courts getting involved in the internal affair of the marriage, perhaps on a continual basis (like they do with step children). Your polygamous marriage cannot survive without continual interference by the courts.

Again, you are pulling this red herring out of thin air.

So let me get this straight. The mother is not happy that the other women have overruled her. Then does she go to the court and get the courts to rule in her favour? Are you saying that a polygamous marriage cannot work without courts getting involved in it.

Are you saying parents shouldnt' be able to re-marry after a divorce? Because I brought up these issues are already settled with step children. Which is all this is. The child of your spouse who is not your biological child.

Now, I am sure lawyers will appreciate the extra business. In a marriage of one man and eight women we can expect say, 20 children, and there will be plenty of fodder for the lawyers. Why, lawyer expenses will probably be the major expenses of the household.

IF you expect eight wives sure, but that isn't your issue what they do.

Sorry, but the whole thing is nonsense. It is one thing for courts to get involved with step children (who has what visitation rights, how much child support should be paid etc.). It is totally different for courts to interfere in a family and start dictating the arrangement of baby sitting, how much should be spent on the child, who should spend it etc. That would be the result if children in polygamous marriage are treated same as step children.

They are step children. The child of a spouse who is not your child. Thats it, there aren't these bizzare needs you think there are.

So in addition to resulting in loss of basic rights, if a polygamous marriage is going to require constant monitoring by courts (as is required for step children), that is another argument against polygamy.

No, thats an arguement against allowing divorce by your logic. No rights have been lost, its been shown quite clearly.


You are merely against it on emotional and moral grounds.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, thats an arguement against allowing divorce by your logic. No rights have been lost, its been shown quite clearly.

Zzarchov, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. I say polygamy takes rights away from polygamous couples, you say it doesn’t. I say polygamy always has to repress women, that man is always the boss in any polygamous arrangement, you say that is not the case (which probably will come as news to all those Muslim and Mormon women involved in polygamous relationship).

Well, we will wait and see what the Supreme Court says about it. Personally, I would be very surprised if Courts legalize polygamy, but well, I have been wrong before.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I could use and extra husband or two, so I'd appreciate if someone got on excusing the whole polygamy bit, please. More breadwinners.

karrie, how do you intend to work out the sex angle? Some sort of schedule, perhaps? I remember in the Hindu epic, Mahabharata, the heroine had five husbands. They had worked out a strict rotation, two months and twelve days with each husband.

If any of them walked in on the woman and her current sex partner, he would have to go into exile for one year.

You might find some arrangement like that profitable. I personally wouldn’t mind several wives. But they will all have to be career women (doctors, lawyers, executives etc.) bringing in the big bucks.

 

[karrie]

I could use and extra husband or two, so I'd appreciate if someone got on excusing the whole polygamy bit, please. More breadwinners.

karrie, how do you intend to work out the sex angle? Some sort of schedule, perhaps?

Why would sex be the biggest concern? To me matters of sex tend to work themselves out easily, it's the kids, yard work, home life issues which are the sticky bit.