• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

sister wives guy is being investigated for bigamy

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.
 
According to what I have read, cohabitation is enough to cross the legal line. The state of Utah routinely looks the other way in these cases. But when your dumb enough to sign up for a reality TV show highlighting your polygamist family and discussing your relations with your 4 wives (legal or not), then you pretty much deserve what you get.

Even though casino gambling is illegal in my state nobody cares about the routine poker game on Friday nights. But your not going to see me signing up for a reality TV show for "Friday night high stakes poker at GD's house"
 
GuitarDaddy said:
Even though casino gambling is illegal in my state nobody cares about the routine poker game on Friday nights. But your not going to see me signing up for a reality TV show for "Friday night high stakes poker at GD's house"
Click to expand...

i'll bet you that's because the rake is illegal, not gambling itself.
 
ElFenix said:
i'll bet you that's because the rake is illegal, not gambling itself.
Click to expand...

Uh, NO

gambling on card games in Texas is illegal, rake or no rake


§ 47.02. Gambling
(a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) makes a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest;
(2) makes a bet on the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or on the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or
(3) plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.
 
GuitarDaddy said:
According to what I have read, cohabitation is enough to cross the legal line. The state of Utah routinely looks the other way in these cases. But when your dumb enough to sign up for a reality TV show highlighting your polygamist family and discussing your relations with your 4 wives (legal or not), then you pretty much deserve what you get.

Even though casino gambling is illegal in my state nobody cares about the routine poker game on Friday nights. But your not going to see me signing up for a reality TV show for "Friday night high stakes poker at GD's house"
Click to expand...
thats messed up. i cant stand u.s. gov intrusion in peoples lives. it shouldnt be any of the gov's business
 
GuitarDaddy said:
Uh, NO

gambling on card games in Texas is illegal, rake or no rake


§ 47.02. Gambling
(a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) makes a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest;
(2) makes a bet on the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or on the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or
(3) plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.
Click to expand...
Isn't lottery is gambling?
 
WTH? Four wives and none of them hot? I MIGHT hit the brunette on his far left if beer goggles, but only based on that picture. I cannot commit to anything yet.
 
So stretching the definition of marriage to include new couplings is an absolute must, but at the same time people argue that this guy and his family don't have the right to live peacefully together? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
 
PokerGuy said:
So stretching the definition of marriage to include new couplings is an absolute must, but at the same time people argue that this guy and his family don't have the right to live peacefully together? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Click to expand...

It appears most people in this thread are agreeing he should be left alone.
 
nonlnear said:
It is about time the ridiculous polygamy laws made it to SCOTUS. Interesting times...
Click to expand...

While I agree in theory that there is nothing wrong with polyamory (be it 1 man/multiple women, 1 woman/multiple man, or multiples of both), in reality though legally allowing polyamory creates many issues.

How does one determine who gets benefits? Spouse 1, 2, 3, etc? What about work extending benefits to your spouse? Should they extend it to all your spouses? With 1 spouse, these questions are obvious. With multiple spouses, everything becomes much more complex. About the only way I would support polyamory laws allowing multiple spouses was if it stated you had one "primary" spouse who was equated to a monogamous couples spouse. Anybody else is a "secondary" spouse and has no legal grounds for anything. It's more of a marriage through ceremony, but not legally recognized.

I also do not believe that we should go after people in polyamorous relationships.

edit: also, don't expect SCOTUS to say anything about polyamory type laws. Look at the gay rights movement still fighting to get equal protection under the law.
 
Last edited:
MJinZ said:
Nothing wrong with it, as long as he isn't getting off easier on taxes.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DisgruntledVirus said:
While I agree in theory that there is nothing wrong with polyamory (be it 1 man/multiple women, 1 woman/multiple man, or multiples of both), in reality though legally allowing polyamory creates many issues.

How does one determine who gets benefits? Spouse 1, 2, 3, etc? What about work extending benefits to your spouse? Should they extend it to all your spouses? With 1 spouse, these questions are obvious. With multiple spouses, everything becomes much more complex. About the only way I would support polyamory laws allowing multiple spouses was if it stated you had one "primary" spouse who was equated to a monogamous couples spouse. Anybody else is a "secondary" spouse and has no legal grounds for anything. It's more of a marriage through ceremony, but not legally recognized.

I also do not believe that we should go after people in polyamorous relationships.

edit: also, don't expect SCOTUS to say anything about polyamory type laws. Look at the gay rights movement still fighting to get equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

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

excellent point.
 
DisgruntledVirus said:
While I agree in theory that there is nothing wrong with polyamory (be it 1 man/multiple women, 1 woman/multiple man, or multiples of both), in reality though legally allowing polyamory creates many issues.

How does one determine who gets benefits? Spouse 1, 2, 3, etc? What about work extending benefits to your spouse? Should they extend it to all your spouses? With 1 spouse, these questions are obvious. With multiple spouses, everything becomes much more complex. About the only way I would support polyamory laws allowing multiple spouses was if it stated you had one "primary" spouse who was equated to a monogamous couples spouse. Anybody else is a "secondary" spouse and has no legal grounds for anything. It's more of a marriage through ceremony, but not legally recognized.

I also do not believe that we should go after people in polyamorous relationships.
Click to expand...
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! 😀
edit: also, don't expect SCOTUS to say anything about polyamory type laws. Look at the gay rights movement still fighting to get equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top