The largish gent in the center is Tom Green. (No, not that Tom Green, else he'd be sticking his tongue in the ear of the person next to him.) The middle row includes Mr. Green's five wives, and he is currently being prosecuted for polygamy.

It looks like an idyllic scene in the picture. In reality the family was destitute, thrown out of a mobile home park and forced to find a remote land in Utah on which they could settle. The home was destroyed by a windstorm at one point and at another point one child was killed in a fire.

Mr. Green's apparent m.o. was to marry these women in their teens, then divorce them and continue to live with them while they received welfare. But as time went by he couldn't afford to pay the bills, especially since his "job" was selling magazine subscriptions all over the west. Work that left him living out of his car - until that car broke down.

If he divorced them I'm not sure why it was considered illegal. I'll allow for any lifestyle people want to take up, but this one doesn't seem to have worked very well for him.

He broke the 11th Commandment--Don't get caught. And was stupid enough to brag about living with so many women. And in Utah of all states. This sounds like something out of my native Missouri.

Re: Polygamy

Re: Re: Polygamy

The athens bid is a terorist disaster waiting to happen.

But seriously, this guy is jsut sick, he married these kids when they wre barely out of puberty (13 on of them!!) (if not before), they haven't see anyhtign else, he shoudl be fucking locked up, or castrated.

Re: Re: Re: Polygamy

Actually, I have one complaint to voice about the Olympics, at least based on what I've heard.

Being the hockey fan that I am, I was disappointed to learn that the hockey games will be in 2 small venues, apparently. The new ice complex is for skating only.

That is such shit!!! Hockey (although not as popular as skating) has become rather popular, particularly since the NHL players will be there. And this time, we'll be able to watch it at a decent hour. *remembers being at a bar in Chicago at 11:30 on a Sunday night in 1998, watching the US play a game at Nagano*

As far as polygamy goes, I say leave it alone. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing polygamous marriages. It is an area best left to state and local governments. I fault Mr. Green for the age at which he married these girls, not at the number of wives.

There are many religions in the world which practice ploygamy. In my opinion, the first amendment takes precedence unless there is a "clear" danger to society.

One aspect of the case was disturbing. Even though Mr. Green divorced all but one of his wives, he was still living with all of them. The state declared that by cohabitating they were his "common law" wives and therefore he was committing polygamy.

In theory, this means that if you set up housekeeping with two women, even without exchanging vows, in a state with common law marriage, you run the risk of becoming an "accidental bigamist". This could open up a whole new way for the goverment to interfere in personal lifesytles.

back to topic

Re: back to topic

Re: Re: back to topic

[quote]Originally posted by richlevy

Re: Re: Re: back to topic

Too much energy for me

There was a story about this guy on NPR a while back. From the picture, the family seems quite proud to share a father. And they seem fairly well taken care of, if not quite well. I am sure it can't be easy appropriating enough funds to raise all of those children, but they seem okay on the surface. I think Utah has a bad taste in its mouth from the whole polygamy thing. They have had to live with a freakish reputation to outsiders for a long time, even though they publicly shun the practice. I truly did not expect a man by the name of Tom Green to look like this either.

Re: Too much energy for me

Re: Re: Re: Re: back to topic

This one stirs the pot with the folks at church

OK for the record...

- My faith is Christian. I most closely align myself with the southern baptists.

- My political affiliation is Libertarian (with a capital L). I'm not only registered as such, but I pay my dues every year.

If that unusual combination by itself wasn't enough to make your heart skip a beat, let's go another step.

Why do I align myself with the southern baptists? Because I think they are the denomination who most strictly adheres to Biblical law despite what the US of A thinks about it. They have done some really politically incorrect things, and upon closer examination I think that biblically it is the right thing.

There are a couple of key areas where I disagree with most southern baptists. I'll save one of them for another discussion if it ever comes up. The one that is relevant to this thread though is polygamy.

There is a lot of biblical support for polygamy. King David, the only man in the Bible described as "a man after God's own heart", was given a plethora of wives as a gift from God. Moses, too, had many wives. Throughout the old testament this is quite common and fine with God.

This isn't very common in the new testament but I think that is because of a natural change in customs in that time period and not because of any commandment in scripture. Remember, most of the people of that time period were not followers of Christ so there is no reason for one of Christ's commandments to have such a profound effect on culture during His own time.

I believe the only sort of plural marriage that the Bible expressly forbids is a union including multiple males.

As both a Christian and as a Libertarian, I wish our government would just lay off and let plural marriages happen as they have for thousands of years (or more). In a time where we're starting to accept homosexual unions (something decidedly un-Christian) what is the harm in accepting what really is a more traditional model in polygyny?

Back to Mr. Green. Why was he the first man prosecuted for polygamy in over 50 years in Utah? Surely he's not the first to have done this in all that time. It is estimated that there are 30,000 plural marriages in Utah today. There are other circumstances that set this man apart:

1) One of his wives was 13 when he consumated the relationship. I don't care what anyone says, this is sick.

2) He is a "deadbeat dad", approximately $50,000 behind on his child support. It is estimated he has at least 29 children, and not all of them live with him.

3) He is not able to keep the children in good means with his income. Four of his five wives were pregnant at the time of the trial. If he can't afford the kids he has, why have more? He's just breeding a good future for the Jerry Springer show at this point.


Ignoring Mr. Green's specific case at the moment, who is the victim in a plural marriage? Why is this a crime?

Re: This one stirs the pot with the folks at church

Slight problem when you measure rightness (in law) against an a book that can't evolve*. If you strictly follow any book with supposed set of rules of law.. you CAN'T have a democratic (as in non-McCarthyist) society.

I love people like Green.. oh they are such lovers/followers of a "god".. please.. I don't see him performing any blood sacrifices. (just one of MANY examples.. you understand)


* ex: Twins born sharing one heart.. what to do.

serge your argument is weak and easily broken through. Reading the Bible front to back even once would have prevented you from having this misunderstanding.

The Old Testament was, to oversimplify it, a series of prophecies leading up to the New Testament. Along the way, God had made several covenants with His chosen people. The blood sacrafices were necessary as sin has the high price of blood. But animal sacrafices were not enough. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross was the beginning of the new covenant. The blood of a man who died without sin was good enough to pay the wages of sin for every man.

God does not change. God does not evolve. Evolution, in theory, is a process of refining an imperfect species towards something more perfect (for a specific environment, or a prey animal, or evading predators, etc.) What use does a perfect being have with evolution? You look at the Bible and see a book of laws that does not evolve. I look at it and see something that is perfect in its timelessness. In the last 50-60 years we humans have gone out of our way to cut our ties to God, and for what? Single parent families, latchkey kids, school shootings.... shall I go on?

It was the Romans who brought about a change towards monogamy. Not Christianity. There was no law or commandment in the Bible against polygyny. The "Christian family value" of monogamy was something of man, not of God. Monogamy is not in and of itself immoral. It is but one of several options in family structure.

My wife and I are both of the belief that patriarchal Christianity is of God. But we also both believe that it is not for us. I practice monogamy, but I fully support the right of a patriarch to marry plurally within the confines of Biblical law.

*sighs*
warthog, where do i start (please relaise you've caught me in a bad mood, I will regret this) For a start polygyny is open to abuse by people like green (If it was legal) becuase of the way these women were taken advantage, many polygynous relationships start like this, few from adult women. It is a continuation of the chauvanistic practise from the past called harem keeping, and is to one hell of alot of people dispiciable for very good reasons.

You are basing everything on the bible, the bible said this, the bible said that, well hate to break it to you but that bible is not what law is based on(phew), and not what everyone beleives (phew again). Law is based on the rational thinking and long debated thoughts of ellected officals in the best interest of the poeple who elected them (or so it SHOULD be).

Not on a many-times translated fictional novel with no factual basis.

Hate to bring religion into this but if you want to live your life round a book, good for you, i'm glad you have the blind faith to be able to do that(there are other words i could use but I will refrain). The bible is not a very easy book to defend, it makes its 'god' look so hypocritical that after a bit of analysis its like trying to keep water in a sieve. (read Mark Twains letters from earth?)

warthog please understand.. I tried to make the post as concise as possible while making a specific point pertaining to the issue.. basically did not want to start a 'religion' flame war.

Understand also that the "arguments" in your post can be easily disproven... but again I DO NOT wish to lower the quality of the board. If you want we can both edit (delete) our posts in this thread.

Pardon my post for getting a tad...personal?
but when somthing strikes close to home like this.....

It seems serge, i took up where you left off, but hey, i wasent' going to let this lie as justifying this kind of thing....and there is no tiptoeing round such firey subjects.

Religion is an arguement/debate that can never won, personally i find it impossible to have 'faith' in somthing wihtout reasonable proof. Religion can do alot of good, but it cna do alot of bad, as Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses, he had a point.

the Bible is the ultimate word of God

Sycamore said:
> Warthog, it would seem that your argument
> is based on the premise that the Bible is the
> ultimate word of God [snip]

Yes, that would be a safe assumption to make. This is why I put it above our deeply rooted traditions and "morals" of the 21st century. I contend that some of the morals which our western society holds dear are merely vestigial remains of the Roman empire's influence on us. Kind of like the reason that train tracks are the exact width that they are (I can post that if anyone cares). Nobody ever just thought "Why do we do things this way?"

Since u don't seem to want to try and repond to most of eihter mine or sycamores post i'm curious, what are these morals or values that are so out dated...

And your kinda of missing the point of morlas, unlike the universal (amoung chrisitans) bible, morals are a personal thing, everyone can have different morals, different people care about different things more than others, with me its womens rights and drug issues, i've beaten the crap out of a guy that date-raped(stupid term) a friend of mine at a party, i consider that morally correct. Morals need to change with the times, to suit today, not yesterday, otherwise they are simply a burden, which is partly what serge said.
Beleive it or not i'm not ona crusade to get you, just pointing somthing out.