I moved this from the "sex news" forum where it started. The subject has drifted off that topic, and really belongs here.

comments preceeded by > are my quotes from fzzy:

You're right, I don't agree.

"The State", whether that state be a state in the sense of a political sub-unit of the USA, or in the broader sens of a nation-state has NO legitimate interest in enforcing the concept of monogamous marriage.

By *your* own admission:
>the man cannot make enough money to support all the wives and children

And this is different from single parents how...?
The whole concept of "The 'Man' of the family must support the family" is a post WW-II fiction of how society is supposed to be, instituted by the social elite who were the only ones who could afford to do so in the first place. It was and is part and parcel of the elitist sexism that propped up a highly oppressive society-there are many other examples of social institutions that also supported this society, but this is the only one that touches on this immediate subject.

>and claim they don't know who the father is

And this is different from either single parents, or in countless examples of legally monogamous marriages how...?

>... or that they are not married

As you point out, they aren't. Period. So, how is this relevant to anything else?

>I know that in Utah when they prosecute polygamists it has never been for polygamy but about other things such as theft of services from the state as mentioned above

This is nothing more than an example of the state abusing it power. What happens is that, for political reasons (including at many times, private political reasons), various law enforcement agencies persecute (the change of verb here is not an accident) certain individuals. Basically, these individuals are the target of fishing expeditions.

>or in harmful treatment of family members who have appealed to the state for them to do so

Are you saying that spousal/child abuse is an inherent part of a polygamous relationship? I hope that's not what you are saying. If it isn't, than I have misunderstood your point here. Please clarify. If it is, I have one response: You're so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

To sum up: Marriage in our society is a legal status, not a personal one. It has nothing to do with people's relationships, ande everything to do with property rights. The whole idea of state-enforced monogamy is an example of the clear violation of the first amendment of the constitution of the United states, in that it enforces a particular brand of the Judeo/Christain/Islamic religion on the entire populace.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

Would I have understood what this is about if I had seen the original post?

I’m totally fucking confused. :dizzy:

__________________

It's all about the $$$$ which I believe is a huge reason why this administration wants to ban marriages, unions etc. Yes there is a political/religious agenda but you better believe there is a $$$$ one as well.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Oh, but Lilith, you forget yourself: we have a $$$$ based society. All political/religious agendas are tied up with $$$$ agendas. Money has become politics, and politics has become money.

Remember even that the entire field of "economics" used to be called "political economy". Names were changed to protect the rich, I mean, uh, hide the connection., I mean, uh, make things simpler.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

Oh, PF: the original post is to be found in "Sex News", the "Judge Upholds Ban on Polygamous Marriage" post.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

Hi gekko ... since you've taken the time to ask questions, I'll do my best to answer .... First of all, let me say that I was giving information on a couple of specific cases .... not stating an opinion.

Second, in no way did I mean to imply that abuse of any kind (against the "state" or against individuals) is inherent in polygamy. I was simply stating that there are only a few cases (well publisized though they may be) in Utah in the last several decades where a polygamist has been prosecuted for something while the press makes it out as being about polygamy. Those couple of cases have been about only a few issues .... so I stated what they are ... there is an additional case which was back in the 70's (or early 80's) where it was about tax fraud as well (I believe the man's name was Alex Joseph - but not absolutely certain on that one).

Third, I think I made it plain that I was talking about larger polygamist groups in the western US .. a great many of which say that they are "fundamentalist Mormon" though the Mormon Church does not and will not allow them to be members if they practice polygamy. Since I don't come from other areas where polygamy is practiced by other groups ... religious or otherwise, I don't know specifics about them, but I am fairly familiar with the ones who claim to have their origins in Mormonism. I personally know people who left their families in the dead of night to get out of a polygamist situation, and who had to hide, change their name, etc. in order not to be "kidnapped" back into it ... But, I don't have a clue how common (or uncommon) that may be, so I am not saying that happens often ... I don't know.

On the issue of the state prosecuting others for "theft of services" ... I don't think that the state uses this as an excuse to TARGET polygamists, but in the situation that I know this was (or is) being tried in the courts in Utah ... that man had several wives (6 or 7 if memory serves me correctly) and several children with each wife ... totalling approximately 30 or more children ... The comment I have heard from those who had been a part of that particular group of polygamists and have left is that they are taught that the state is there to support their religious beliefs in having these families and so it is ok to steal from the state in this situation. Since I've heard that on a "documentary" I cannot personally vouch for whether or not this is true, but I certainly think it is possible. However, I must say that if a duplicate situation were known where polygamy was not factored into it ... I'd still expect the state to prosecute such a flagrant abuse of the system and the laws that are in place.

I do and always have believed that if you don't like a law, you have the option to try to change it ... if you choose to break it, then you are accountable for your own actions.

DISCLAIMER: Everything I've mentioned is in relation to my personal understanding and experience of a few specific cases .. it was never meant to applied across the board of all polygamous marriages!

And on a side note ... nope gekkogekko, my eyes are actually green.

>I was simply stating that there are only a few cases (well publisized though they may be) in Utah in the last several decades where a polygamist has been prosecuted for something while the press makes it out as being about polygamy.

And I'm certainly not going to jump to the defense of "the press" here. In the majority of cases I've seen, the press as a body doesn't bother to take the time to get the details right if that means getting in the way of a story that sells more advertising space. It is possible, however, that yes, the cases you cite were about pologamy *even though* they wern't the specific charges. I honestly don't know how many criminal cases have been brought against individuals, where the basic underlying attitude was "well, if we can't get them on what we want to get them for, we'll go looking for something we can get them on".

>a great many of which say that they are "fundamentalist Mormon" though the Mormon Church does not and will not allow them to be members if they practice polygamy.

It won't now, but remember that the Mormons were forced out of the eastern US primarily because they practised polygamy as part of their belief system. The Mormon Church as a group, decided that it was to their political advantage for Utah to become a state (in the sense of a subunit of the US), and hence, as a church, outlawed polygamy. Here, we have case of one group's (the mainstream christians in control of the US at the time) religious politics running roughshod over another group's (the Mormon church, as it was constituted in the late 19th century) religious politics.

>I personally know people who left their families in the dead of night to get out of a polygamist situation, and who had to hide, change their name, etc. in order not to be "kidnapped" back into it

Here we have cases of abuse, where polygamy was used as the excuse for abusing people. But this again, is not inherent in polygamy. If people are abusing their spouse(S), then they should be prosecuted ON THAT BASIS, regardless of their legal marital status. There really is no excuse for abuse.

>On the issue of the state prosecuting others for "theft of services" ... I don't think that the state uses this as an excuse to TARGET polygamists

The state most certainly does, although I couldn't tell you how prevelant it is...see response above.

>I do and always have believed that if you don't like a law, you have the option to try to change it ... if you choose to break it, then you are accountable for your own actions.

And if the law is abusive of humanity?

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

[QUOTE=gekkogecko And if the law is abusive of humanity?[/QUOTE]

Then as I said in my previous post ... work to change it.