sister wives guy is being investigated for bigamy

[nonlnear]

Marriage is just a piece of paper saying he is legally married to only one of the four sister wives. But evidently the sister wives all share the sport of jumping on his joystick, and multiple children, some with the legal limbo standard of bastards are resulting.

And its the children without legal status that would give the State reason to intervene.

How exactly are these children "without legal status"?

Also this show is filmed in a community where polygamy is entrenched for generations, so claiming that the state's interest is the legal status of the children is pretty weak. They go to a school that the state has known about for, well, ever where all the children are from polygamous families. The only reason the state is making noise about it now is that this puts polygamy under the national spotlight free from the more common prejudices, opening the door for a sane discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because polygamy is almost always about one guy having multiple wives I would support it if provisions are made to euthanize males a few years into adulthood who can't find women. Such men are probably ugly, stupid, lazy, or boorish, all reasons that would make them a drag and danger to society and this would insure a transmission of better genes via culling of the worthless. Sadly, because most men are actually truly worthless and wouldn't make the cut, I think they will make sure polygamy never becomes legal.

n: I don't know if there is a mathematical operation to carry out repeated addition, but if there were it might come in handy for this situation!

There are multiple reasons why such operations are yet to be invented, I am sure.

 

[MJinZ]

There's nothing wrong with it, but it taxes shouldn't have any say in a logical discussion about it. There are all sorts of differences in taxes between filing types. Why can I claim my uncle how lives with me and I provide more than 50% of his support, but I couldn't claim a second wife? What's the difference between the two situations?

Well you don't fuck your Uncle do you? I know some people do and hey Incest Porn can be pretty hot.

 

[nonlnear]

Well you don't fuck your Uncle do you? I know some people do and hey Incest Porn can be pretty hot.

I don't know about CPA, but your mind seemed to make the connection between an uncle and fucking pretty fast. Almost like it felt natural to you...

 

[MJinZ]

I don't know about CPA, but your mind seemed to make the connection between an uncle and fucking pretty fast. Almost like it felt natural to you...

Of course! I have a dirty dirty mind. Sex all day.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course! I have a dirty dirty mind. Sex all day.

Doubtless the result of having an IQ of 175.

 

[MJinZ]

Doubtless the result of having an IQ of 175.

At least 25 points of IQ is reserved for constant mental sexual cinema.

Thus, I only have about 150 to discuss pointless topics here on AT.

 

[Kadarin]

Marriage is just a piece of paper saying he is legally married to only one of the four sister wives. But evidently the sister wives all share the sport of jumping on his joystick, and multiple children, some with the legal limbo standard of bastards are resulting.

And its the children without legal status that would give the State reason to intervene.

Does the state "intervene" in the case of every child born out of wedlock?

 

[PricklyPete]

I really could care less what they do. Just let them do what they want to do as long as he's only legally married (which comes along with legal/tax/health care implications).

 

[FTM0305]

I don't agree with what they're doing and cringe thinking that all those kids will be raised Mormon but they're not breaking any laws and they're not hurting anyone.

Leave them be.

Mormons do not practice Polygamy anymore. Any group that does is a splinter group.

 

[PricklyPete]

yeah the guy is a idiot. also 2 of his wive's are hot the other 2 are not..

What? From the commercials I saw...all of them are ugly.

Edit: From the blurry picture in the OP...I'd say the one of the far right *might* be good looking...but I'd have to see more evidence

 

[OutHouse]

Does the state "intervene" in the case of every child born out of wedlock?

excellent point

 

[Lemon law]

Does the state "intervene" in the case of every child born out of wedlock?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point, the state does not and can not. But in the case of sister wives in this story, we are not dealing with random bad behavior, we are dealing with an organized conspiracy to flout the marriage laws and having too many children.

In the case of the random child born out of wedlock, all too often the State becomes responsible for the support of the child.

But we could argue, but but but, this fellow and his four sister wives will be financially responsible for the 13 children and presumably more on the way. But if we state sanction such a living arrangement for all, given our divorce rate, its far too probable such a sister wive relationship will not survive the test of time and the State may have to found a whole new Orphanage every time such a famdamily busts up.

 

[woolfe9999]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point, the state does not and can not. But in the case of sister wives in this story, we are not dealing with random bad behavior, we are dealing with an organized conspiracy to flout the marriage laws and having too many children.

In the case of the random child born out of wedlock, all too often the State becomes responsible for the support of the child.

But we could argue, but but but, this fellow and his four sister wives will be financially responsible for the 13 children and presumably more on the way. But if we state sanction such a living arrangement for all, given our divorce rate, its far too probable such a sister wive relationship will not survive the test of time and the State may have to found a whole new Orphanage every time such a famdamily busts up.

If the state puts the parents in jail, wouldn't that mean the kids could become wards of the state?

- wolf

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Last I checked I paid an increased premium for extending my employer provided benefits to my spouse. Strangely it seems to be about... double the premium of just me. If only they could somehow extend that formula to numbers bigger than two for marriages that include more than two spouses. I don't know if there is a mathematical operation to carry out repeated addition, but if there were it might come in handy for this situation!
IMHO the gay rights movement will probably get their landmark SCOTUS ruling in less than five years, and they will probably win. If the noise starts building for polygamy now, they will be well times to piggyback the gay rights movement.

Your employer also most likely pays a portion of the total expenses. For you AND your spouse/children. That means it costs the company more for every person you add. If you pay for you insurance all on your own, then it shouldn't matter who you put on it since you bear 100% of the costs.

I tend to agree that within 5 years or so the gay rights movement will have their SCOTUS landmark decision. I don't believe that polyamory is something that would really be able to "piggy back" on that movement. I know some people in poly relationships, and people who are G/L/B. The two groups have overlap and are similar in social aspects (generally very open about sex, not part of "traditional" American society, etc), there are important differences. Namely, for this discussion, the difference being that gay monogamous relationships are still monogamous relationship. Polyamorous ones obviously aren't.

Why does it matter? Benefits are a private industry issue and most would be handled by current community property or common law laws.

Unfortunately, there are many laws and legal situations that arise when you have multiple spouses with our current set of laws and judicial system.

I'm not saying I don't think it SHOULDN'T happen, because they should be able to. I'm saying realistically I don't see it happening due to the legal aspects (namely benefits and such).

 

[nonlnear]

Your employer also most likely pays a portion of the total expenses. For you AND your spouse/children. That means it costs the company more for every person you add. If you pay for you insurance all on your own, then it shouldn't matter who you put on it since you bear 100% of the costs.

So what would be wrong with a company saying "we pay x% of the total premium up to a total cap of $y per year"? That'd would work just dandy.

I tend to agree that within 5 years or so the gay rights movement will have their SCOTUS landmark decision. I don't believe that polyamory is something that would really be able to "piggy back" on that movement. I know some people in poly relationships, and people who are G/L/B. The two groups have overlap and are similar in social aspects (generally very open about sex, not part of "traditional" American society, etc), there are important differences. Namely, for this discussion, the difference being that gay monogamous relationships are still monogamous relationship. Polyamorous ones obviously aren't.

That sounds a lot like someone who might argue that straight and gay relationships have important differences. Namely, for this discussion, the difference being that gay relationships are dirty homos, while divinely blessed straight ones aren't.

By piggy back I didn't mean that one ruling would cover both, but that the gay ruling (when it comes) will erode the state-sponsored line of reasoning that historical prejudice is sufficient to construe a compelling state interest for denying equal rights. (After all, that is what all the arguments against both gay marriage and polygamy boil down to.) In that way the gay marriage ruling would make it a much easier legal step to argue for the legality of polygamy.

 

[OutHouse]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly the point, the state does not and can not. But in the case of sister wives in this story, we are not dealing with random bad behavior, we are dealing with an organized conspiracy to flout the marriage laws and having too many children.

in the case of the random child born out of wedlock, all too often the state becomes responsible for the support of the child.

But we could argue, but but but, this fellow and his four sister wives will be financially responsible for the 13 children and presumably more on the way. But if we state sanction such a living arrangement for all, given our divorce rate, its far too probable such a sister wive relationship will not survive the test of time and the state may have to found a whole new orphanage every time such a famdamily busts up.

wtf?

 

[Pocatello]

Mormons do not practice Polygamy anymore. Any group that does is a splinter group.

After you leave the Salt Lake City area and heading south, there are a lot of "splinter groups".

 

[Darwin333]

And its the children without legal status that would give the State reason to intervene.

Come again?

What legal status are the children missing? Last I checked there are a ton of married guys who accidentally knock up their girlfriends on the side but the child is not "without legal status". Child still has a mother and a father on its birth certificate, they just happen to not be married.

 

[BoberFett]

Come again?

What legal status are the children missing? Last I checked there are a ton of married guys who accidentally knock up their girlfriends on the side but the child is not "without legal status". Child still has a mother and a father on its birth certificate, they just happen to not be married.

Apparently Lemon Law forgot to take off his Klan outfit before posting.

Give the Democrats a slight majority, and you'd be amazed at how quickly they begin to sound exactly like the right wingers they hate so much.

 

[Darwin333]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly the point, the state does not and can not. But in the case of sister wives in this story, we are not dealing with random bad behavior, we are dealing with an organized conspiracy to flout the marriage laws and having too many children.

In the case of the random child born out of wedlock, all too often the State becomes responsible for the support of the child.

But we could argue, but but but, this fellow and his four sister wives will be financially responsible for the 13 children and presumably more on the way. But if we state sanction such a living arrangement for all, given our divorce rate, its far too probable such a sister wive relationship will not survive the test of time and the State may have to found a whole new Orphanage every time such a famdamily busts up.

Is there a law on the books requiring you to be married to have children (thus "flouting" the marriage laws as you argue)?

Is there a law on the books that specifies how many children a person may have? Is it per partner or total children? What if you have children from a previous marriage, does the law exempt you and therefor allow you to have more children if you remarry? Is the limit for life or just until the child reaches 18? If they do drop off the "official count" at 18 can you start trying for another child when the oldest is 17 years and 3 months old? If the new child is born premature are you in violation of the law?

 

[woolfe9999]

Apparently Lemon Law forgot to take off his Klan outfit before posting.

Give the Democrats a slight majority, and you'd be amazed at how quickly they begin to sound exactly like the right wingers they hate so much.

Sorry, but you are committing the fallacy of composition here. Lemon Law is not a stand in for all Democrats.

- wolf

 

[Lemon law]

Ok, in such a sister wife relationship, what happens if daddy dies while many of his children are minors? Without committing bigamy, he can marry only one of his four defacto wives. As the estate is probated, do only the children of the actual wife have a right of inheritance, leaving 3/4 of the children out in the cold, or what? And how about the non-married sister wife's legal rights?

Same sex or heterosexual legal models easily accommodate a two person marriage, but once you have three or more consenting adults, it defies definition.

 

[BoberFett]

Sorry, but you are committing the fallacy of composition here. Lemon Law is not a stand in for all Democrats.

- wolf

This is P&N. This shithole is one big fallacy and should only be used for entertainment purposes.

 

[OutHouse]

Ok, in such a sister wife relationship, what happens if daddy dies while many of his children are minors? Without committing bigamy, he can marry only one of his four defacto wives. As the estate is probated, do only the children of the actual wife have a right of inheritance, leaving 3/4 of the children out in the cold, or what? And how about the non-married sister wife's legal rights?

Same sex or heterosexual legal models easily accommodate a two person marriage, but once you have three or more consenting adults, it defies definition.

its called having a will. you can leave your shit to your cat if you wanted to.