XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: me4guns@centurylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Wayne"  wrote in message   
   news:m0jta8$mul$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   >   
   > "Scout"  wrote in message news:m0ib1f$2sv$1@dont-email.me...   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > "deep" wrote in message news:8lap2aleg8u57h9eb5jg3rid0m6tma9u9b@4ax.com...   
   >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 20:53:29 -0400, "Scout"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> No, think about it for a second. Even by your own example, a man and a   
   >>>>> woman marry....now THEY (as a group) marry another woman. That's a   
   >>>>> marriage but it no longer consists of one man and one woman, but   
   >>>>> rather   
   >>>>> it's a man and a woman marrying another woman.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> No, NO, NO!!! That's NOT what happens.  In polygyny it's NOT a man and   
   >>>> a   
   >>>> woman marrying another woman.  Its' a man marrying a woman, then the   
   >>>> same   
   >>>> man marrying another woman.   
   >>>   
   >>>So you're saying that if one wife has no duties, obligations,   
   >>>commitments,   
   >>>etc to the other wife?   
   >>>   
   >>>That if one wife dies the other wife doesn't inherit anything, doesn't   
   >>>get   
   >>>any custody over the children of the other wife, etc?   
   >>   
   >> Not legally, no.   
   >   
   > # Really? So where polygamy is legal you claim that one wife has none of   
   > these   
   > # things?   
   >   
   >>  The states do not recognize any marriages after the   
   >> first one.   
   >   
   > # And you think the current marriage laws in the 50 US states constitute   
   > the   
   > # sum of law for the whole world, much less throughout it's history?   
   >   
   > Not a mormon, but I understand that only one man and wife are legally   
   > married.  The rest of the marriages may or may not be recognized by the   
   > particular branch of the church, but none beyond the first have any legal   
   > standing.   
   >   
   > If one is to dick around with the definition of marriage, logic would   
   > indicate that the additional marriages should have legal standing.   
      
   And again, you imply that US laws are global in scope.   
      
   Free hint: There are places in the world where polygamy is not only   
   practiced but utterly legal.   
      
   And yes, wives do have legal considerations and rights of inheritance.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)