Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

267 comments

More? (3, Funny)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548668)

Blah blah FACEBOOK blah ARREST blah!

Re:More? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548750)

Informative! Topical! Technological! Have you considered submitting this comment to Slashdot? It's front-page material, lad.

Re:More? (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548920)

I agree with the GP and would have voted against the story had I seen it in the firehose. "Man arrested for bigamy after posting news of his second wedding in the dead tree newspaper classifieds".

Informative? No more informative than "Britney Spears in rehab again". It doesn't affect me, nor should it you. Nothing to learn == !informative.

Topical? How? Just another normtard doing something stupid.

Technological? It's a damned web site! Sheesh! Now, "EMC anti-crhacking division crhacked" is informative, topical, and technological. This isn't.

Re:More? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548972)

You do realize he was joking about the parent post and not the fine article, right? Here, have a woosh.

Re:More? (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549036)

Rule #0 of the Internet: "If you're on the internet, you're on the autistic spectrum."

I firmly believe this.

Re:More? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549020)

Thank you.

Brothers and sisters (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548670)

So he unfriended his first wife, but are they still brother and sister?

Re:Brothers and sisters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548756)

...but are they still brother and sister?

Yes, they are. But are they still father and daughter?

Why didn't he start a second facebook account? (2)

JimboG (1467977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548674)

... I thought polygamists got more than one.

I don't get it (5, Insightful)

Nialin (570647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548686)

It makes no sense to me that something like polygamy is an arrestable offense. Aside from the mediocre tax breaks you get from marriage, what are the benefits that you can glean from multiple marriages that would cause it to be inherently illegal?

Re:I don't get it (2)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548694)

it is a bit crazy... best just not get married in the first place or have some kind of more sensible arrangement like a concubine.

Re:I don't get it (5, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548776)

Actually, concubinage isn't really that different from marriage. The difference was just that concubines, unlike wives, didn't bring a dowry into the relationship. Most societies that permitted multiple concubines also permitted multiple wives. It was just easier to attract multiple concubines, as they were generally poorer women who lacked the options available to dowered girls.

Re:I don't get it (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548942)

It depends where you live... keeping a mistress isn't (or wasn't) too uncommon in France. inheritance rules and privilege can be different for concubines (or has been throughout history).. I think traditionally (from roman Greek times) it's a young male slave for fertility.

1+++ wifes under Muslim rules seem to fit the would be spinster idea of multiple wifes.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548990)

sensible arrangements involve remuneration... and that's also illegal. unless you're being filmed.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549044)

sensible arrangements involve remuneration

Only in societies that value money more than personal freedom and happiness ;)

Re:I don't get it (4, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548772)

Depending on the marriage vows/contract, it could certainly be considered a breach of contract and a form of fraud.

Because it seems the guy was being dishonest, that's always a good hint that someone is doing something wrong.

If he just wanted to consensually have sex with multiple partners, that's not a problem in the USA, but in most states, it is generally assumed that "marriage" means you can't go around doing that.

From an "evolution" POV it's no surprise that many humans view cheating seriously. They don't produce offspring in the millions.

BTW committing adultery could technically get you a life sentence in Michigan, if they follow the law to the letter: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-24/news/17225912_1_sexual-conduct-sentence-michigan-court [sfgate.com]

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549242)

Violating a contract is a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one.

Banning polygamy (or same sex marriage) is yet another example, like outlawing smoking marijuana while at home, or blocking teens from drinking with parents' permission, where the State is acting like the Church to enforce their moral values, instead of allowing individuals the Liberty to "pursue happiness" in whatever manner they choose.

Re:I don't get it (5, Funny)

stor (146442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548892)

Reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What's the punishment for polygamy?

A: Multiple wives.

-Stor

Re:I don't get it (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548984)

hmmm, maybe something about multiple wife sentences would have more zing ....

messed it up (4, Funny)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549086)

No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.

Re:messed it up (1)

whitesea (1811570) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549528)

No, it's multiple mother-in-laws.

Not necessarily. If you marry sisters, you may have just one mother-in-law. And if your wives are orphans, you may have zero mothers-in-law. It pays to learn about your fiancees' ancestry before getting married.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549430)

lol

Re:I don't get it (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548964)

More importantly, how can the city hall allow to marry someone if they're already listed as married to someone else?
It's the city hall that is wrong here, not the person...

Re:I don't get it (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549118)

because the government doesn't share it's information that it has about you with other parts of the government willingly.

that is called bureaucracy.

Re:I don't get it (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549310)

Or, less cynically, Federalism.

(Sometimes having jurisdictions not share information is a good thing!)

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549070)

What I find even more interesting, is due to DOMA and the weird way we treat homosexual marriages in this country, it's possible that someone could marry a person of the same sex in Massachusetts, move to Texas, and marry a person of the opposite sex, and Texas could not technically charge the person with polygamy. But then, if the person ever went on vacation (or even just had a layover in a city in a state that recognized both marriages) then they could be arrested in that state for polygamy.

Seriously, this is the whole reason why "full faith and credit" was supposed to be in the Constitution, to keep these sorts of weird ass "am I married in _THIS_ state though?" questions from coming up. Like, there are people in Texas who have been denied a divorce for a legal marriage performed elsewhere, because another state let them get married out of state, but won't allow an out of state divorce, so they have to get divorced in the state they live in, but since Texas doesn't recognize the marriage, it won't grant them a divorce... so they're stuck being married unless they move back to Massachusetts or whatever it was.

Seriously, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PEOPLE... it causes a lot fewer headaches...

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549200)

It allows successful males to fill whole communities with their offspring, while other males will then fail to reproduce.
I'd argue that this is bad for genetic diversity.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549286)

I don't know the reasons for the law, but in general it is a good thing that polygamy is illegal - because it has the ability to destabilize the society.

If everyone is doing it, there will be a surplus of angry males unable to *ever* get a woman. Or sex. While this can be an advantage if they are used for expansion - i.e. war - you will have trouble if you can no longer export the extra males to another place. Of course, you could try to make them believe that they will get "a lot of easy sex" as a reward in an "afterlife" or similar, and hope they stay calm... But honestly, I would not like to live in such a (purely hypothetical) society.

Re:I don't get it (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549382)

I believe it was because of Mormons, they believe in polygamy and the government considered them a threat so it became illegal.

Why is that a crime? (5, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548688)

Ok, why exactly is that a crime in the first place? Has that something to do with tax evasion or whatever or is that just moral code enforced by law?

Re:Why is that a crime? (1, Funny)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548702)

I bet it has something to do with Michigan.

Re:Why is that a crime? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548726)

I'm presuming there's two issues involved:

a) Marriage as currently recognized by law is a contract between two people and gives certain financial benefits. It would presumably not be illegal to have a civil ceremony with more than one marriage if you never filed the papers to try to make it official.

b)In this case it appears the first wife never approved, meaning there should have been a divorce first. There's quite a difference between an agreed upon unglamorous relationship and somebody going behind the back of his spouse.

I dunno if that's all there is to it or if the Michigan law is actually really daft, but as far as I am aware nothing is stopping you from having more than one marriage, or a marriage involving several people. It's when you seek official recognition things get messy (And no, I don't think it should be that way. Ideally government should stay the hell out of marriage and not create a bunch of benefits that makes regulation necessary in the first place ).

Re:Why is that a crime? (1)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548734)

Ironically here is the quote of the day as it appears for me now:

Natural laws have no pity.

The history behind why it is illegal goes back to the Mormon prosecution and was used as leverage against the early settlers of the Salt Lake Valley. I don't know all the specifics about it but it wasn't a crime until the late 1800's.

Re:Why is that a crime? (5, Funny)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548852)

It is a crime by law in most western countries and carries it own unique penalty as summed up by Groucho Marx.

"Do you know what the ultimate penalty for Bigamy is ?

2 mothers in law......"

Re:Why is that a crime? (3, Interesting)

Starfleet Command (936772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548856)

Because most "morality" laws traditionally are based on Judeo-Christian rules and regs. Even in the 21st century we have to suffer under the hand on the Religious Reich.

Re:Why is that a crime? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548980)

Tax evasion, I guess. Over here (.nl) married couples can fine a combined tax return that results in the couple paying lower taxes than they would have paid as two separate households.
Also things like inheritance (spouses pay a lower estate tax).

Because it's illegal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548992)

Polygomy is illegal in all 50 states.

It's that simple.

Why is it illegal? Have no idea, but it comes down to government sticking their noses into people's lives.

Polygomy, Gay marriage, whatever ....

Remeber that Mormons the next time you fight against a same sex marriage bill. If you allowed it, you might have been able to leagalize your polygomy - short sighted bigoted morons.

Re:Because it's illegal. (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549504)

Why is it illegal? Have no idea, but it comes down to government sticking their noses into people's lives.

It comes down as your neighbours sticking their noses into people's lives.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Why is that a crime? (1, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549032)

Jail? Aren't two sets of in-laws more than enough punishment?

Re:Why is that a crime? (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549104)

Ask people who want to marry, but are not allowed to. It's close to impossible to give a long-term unmarried relationship the same legal status as a marriage (workarounds like power of attorney tend to not as reliable).

This is why I hate the justice system. (1)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548730)

They're talking about locking this guy up for four years because he didn't fill out some paperwork. Don't they have better things to do?

Re:This is why I hate the justice system. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548828)

Like run after guys who got money from a bank without the requisite paperwork? :p

Re:This is why I hate the justice system. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549050)

better than some other government agencies that will murder your family because they claim you didn't pay a $5 tax.

world coalescing around permanent disarmament (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548736)

had to happen? we've much more important things to do than explode ourselves, & everybody else. otherwise, 'cranky', & 'just not themselves', may take on a whole new dimension for us?

illegal why? (0, Flamebait)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548762)

And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)

Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.

Re:illegal why? (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548800)

Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.

And monogamy has a long history outside of Judeo-Christian writings. In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women, have a whole bunch of kids with them, be unable to support them, kick the mothers out, and carry on with the younger girls. You could argue that with mandated child support, and women in the workforce we've outgrown the need for that, but ask any single parent and they'll tell you it's much harder solo.

You really should actually investigate things instead of just dumping everything on the scapegoat of the moment.

Re:illegal why? (5, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548842)

> In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women

and leave back an army of unmarried angry young man. As to my knowledge the ban of polygamy was primarily to prevent a few wealthy old men marrying dozens of young women off the market and leaving hordes of young men without a way to reproduce, leading to explosive social unrest. The Bible had nothing to do with it, the Old Testament, on which the model of the Mormon practices and scriptures was based, was highly polygamous itself.

Re:illegal why? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549096)

I guess it depends. In many societies, there was a glut of unmarried women - men having a much higher mortality rate due to general risk-taking behaviour, and of course, war. The mortality rates changed post-marriage, when women's mortality rates jumped due to childbirth.

Re:illegal why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549254)

You mean like mega rich do in arab countries? But we turn a blind eye to it because they have lots and lots of money, and even more oil.

Re:illegal why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549326)

and what about ganga banga style marriage, where one female and loadza male? Can't some nympho girls benefit from that too?

Re:illegal why? (1)

Ranavalona (1610097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549602)

That may be true, but it still shouldn't be a criminal matter. It should be civil.

Re:illegal why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548928)

Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.

And what is the reason that you're being asked that? Well, the fact that polygamy is illegal, of course, so this is kind of a non-argument when you think about it.

Re:illegal why? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549084)

Well, if you ignore the rest of my post in which I address that, yes.

Re:illegal why? (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548988)

Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.

Not being a US resident, nor being married, I cannot help asking if the oath in question does not depend on the ritual itself? That is, not all rituals have an explicit question of other marriages. Or is it a part of the mandatory paperwork?

Re:illegal why? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549074)

I'm not a US resident myself, but when I got married in Australia, I had to sign a statutory declaration prior to the wedding itself. It wasn't requested by the church, it was required by the state. I assume that it's similar in the US.

Re:illegal why? (1)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549246)

Not being a US resident, nor being married, I cannot help asking if the oath in question does not depend on the ritual itself? That is, not all rituals have an explicit question of other marriages. Or is it a part of the mandatory paperwork?

It's the paperwork. The marriage ceremony is, well, ceremonial. Without a government issued marriage license, the government generally does not recognize that the marriage exists (which means that for the purpose of taxes, social security, etc, the two people are still single).

(there are "common law marriages", which are still legally valid in some states in the US, that require no marriage license, but these are becoming rarer and rarer - only 9 states still allow them).

Re:illegal why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549398)

"You really should actually investigate things instead of just dumping everything on the scapegoat of the moment."

Ok, I live the life. Does that count? There are 3 of us in this relationship for 15years now, all very consenting, all very nervous about being persecuted in this country - and our state is MUCH worse than Michigan. If the shit ever hits the fan I will run for an atheist lawyer - straight away from any bible thumper I see.

This is ALL about religion. There is no logic to telling consenting adults what they can and can not love. We don't believe in any god, let alone theirs, and we do not have a single religious tie to monogamy. We get no tax break, we even go out of our way to double pay taxes so the state can't say we are gaming the system. We have to explicitly argue -and make a loud scene of it so the memory sticks (legal advice)- with friends and family that attempt to call us married because our state has 'common law' which means the state can declare us married THEN hit us for polygamy.

And I'm getting really sick of assholes like you painting polygamists as child abusers and deadbeats. By that logic all christians are extremist terrorists. Ya see what I did there? No, no you don't. And that makes me sad. Go read your holy book and become a better person and stop finding bullshit excuses, factoids and truthieness to force the tenants of your pathetic religion on other people.

OP is spot on. This is the religious using the government's power to force people to follow their rules. Can someone please get the government out of my private life? GOP? That's all you whine about... please... follow through.

Re:illegal why? (2)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548814)

And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)

.

And why is the state even involved in regulating marriage?

Re:illegal why? (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549006)

And why is the state even involved in regulating marriage?

Because marriage has legal status and benefits attached to it and stop people from abusing those benefits.
The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.

Think of the children (1, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549226)

The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.

It shouldn't. At least not marriage itself. It's the family that needs legal protection. Think of the children.

The only logical reason for regulated marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children. Otherwise it would be a civil contract like any other.

You can have a partner for whatever purposes you both agree to. You can start a business, a charity, a club, a scientific society, or you can just agree to live together. That's why I think this "gay marriage" thing is so stupid. Unless you intend to raise children it's just a contract like any other.

Until greed comes along. What gay partners want is not recognition, they are after the pensions and tax benefits that were created for families. It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.

Re:Think of the children (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549366)

Until greed comes along. What gay partners want is not recognition, they are after the pensions and tax benefits that were created for families. It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.

Except the tax breaks aren't for families; married couples without children are eligible for them too. That makes it an issue of fairness, not greed.

Also, by the way, some gays reject the compromise of "civil unions." They, at least, do want recognition.

Re:Think of the children (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549576)

Except the tax breaks aren't for families; married couples without children are eligible for them too

There's a slippery slop there. Many couples plan on having children, they make decisions based on that. To be fair, a couple that does not intend to have children is cheating on the system.

A totally neutral system would do away with all tax breaks for dependents, but it sucks to be born in a family that cannot sustain itself, so we give children a break. They never asked to be born, did they?

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549418)

So using your logic a married heterosexual couple without children is being "greedy" as well. Should not a grown woman also be working for herself, or do I sense a bit of "barefoot and pregnant" thinking going on here as well? I think I understand the problem that gay people experience with their opponents in this marriage debate a whole lot better now after reading that post.

BTW, I also believe that marriage should be none of the government's business, that tax breaks for children should be eliminated entirely and rates should be lowered across the board accordingly to compensate, so that everyone pays a more fair rate. What you choose to do or not do for a family should have no bearing on the taxes you pay. If you want to talk about "greed", then I think out of fairness people with children should pay more taxes than people without since they are using more resources and services. I'm willing to not go that far in practice, but I'm sick of giving people tax breaks for their particular life choices. (Yes, that also includes getting rid of mortgage interest deductions and the ridiculous tax giveaways to corporations as well. It's time corporations actually start paying for the resources and services they use, like they did when the US actually had a strong economy.)

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549450)

Until tax benefits are only given to couples with kids the gay people who want to live like any other married couple have the right to the same benefits.

Re:Think of the children (1)

byuu (1455609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549468)

It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.

In that case ... why should I have to pay for all of your children's education(s) with my tax dollars in the first place? At worst, I should only have to pay for one education, my own. Oh, as you just said:

Until greed comes along.

There are couples, both gay and straight, that want marriage primarily for monetary purposes. But I'm certain they are a super minority. Most people get married because they love each other. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. Hi, this is my husband, Tom. Or hi, this is my (business? What's domestic mean?) partner, Tom. Hospital visitation was a major problem until just recently, and it may still prove to be when we get our next Republican president. Then there's inheritance rights. Then there's the power to make important medical decisions. And the ability to avoid anti-gay family members from interfering in the most devastating point of your life.

Why do you want tax breaks specifically for having kids, anyway? If you can't afford them, don't have them.

Re:illegal why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548840)

Moron.

Marriage goes back a lot father and across more cultures than your limited intellect can fathom.

Re:illegal why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548846)

Because if 25% of the men had 4 wives 75% would have none.

Think of the social unrest if only the rich and powerful had wives.

Re:illegal why? (2)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549058)

A solution to that is to allow women to have multiple husbands as well.

Re:illegal why? (2)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549116)

If a man could marry n women, and each of these women could marry n men, each of which in turn could marry other n-1 women, wouldnt this allow for a possible situation where every man is married to everyone, or connected to everyone through a chain of marriages? (Which would, by the way, basically lead to a redefinition of the Kevin bacon number to through how many marriage nodes somebody is married to Kevin Bacon.) (And to a renaming of Facebook to be a "marriage network", etc.)

Re:illegal why? (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549094)

While I agree with that point, I believe not all women are whores who will marry for financial status alone. People do still marry for love. And since women are supposed to be equal and have jobs of their own, think about a three-way marriage. Two people working, one staying at home will be much better off than a couple with only 50% income (compared to the two thirds).

Another underlying problem: I personally believe that a three-way relationship can only work if everyone in it has a relationship with both other participants. A 'V' Structure just has less chance to work compared to a triangle. Again, only my belief. But going from there, what does it mean? Gay marriage will have to be allowed before three-way marriage (and more) could be discussed.

Or from another POV: Marriage, before the law, is about being able to make decisions for your spouse (in case of medical issues and such) and having claim to their property in case of their death. In a polyamourous situation, everyone involved should have the same claims. So sexuality doesn't even come into play at this point and still same sex marriages need to be equal to old-school marriage.

It's all not quite that easy from a social POV.

Re:illegal why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549202)

The process of falling in love can (subconsciously) be motivated by the prospect of money, wealth and power since this will be beneficiary to the offspring. Simply put, even if the woman is not a whore she can still fall for man of wealth

Re:illegal why? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549128)

Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.

Uh, cite? Seriously, I mean it... :)

You'd actually be hard-pressed to find prohibitions against polygamy in the bible. During the periods of time that "goat herding" were prominent economic activities it was actually fairly mainstream for the well-off.

Stable society, perhaps? (1)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549208)

Monogamous relationships seem to be a basic part of stable human societies. Polygamous societies have, by definition, a shortage of suitable mates for young men; young men need to "prove" themselves to have a chance at a mate, which tends to involve violence, aggression, etc. That is oversimplified, but the pattern is clear to see: societies with widespread polygamy tend to be economic disasters with frequent civil wars.

With a broad brush: most of Africa is traditionally polygamous, and most of Africa is a mess. Most of the Middle East is polygamous, and is a mess. Asia is a mixed bag: those countries that are doing well economically are mostly or entirely monogamous (China, Japan, India, etc.); those doing poorly tend to be polygamous (e.g., Bangladesh).

Someone is going to say that correlation is not causation. That may be true, however the correlation alone is enough: if you want a reasonably peaceful, successful society, choose one that is monogamous. This is a non-religious reason for governments to regulate the marriage practices of the societies they govern.

Re:illegal why? (1)

whitesea (1811570) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549548)

And polygamy is illegal why, exactly? (assuming that all involved are ok with it)

Oh yes, because it's written in that holy book from an ancient goat-herders culture that we somehow think still applies to live in a world that is so radically different.

No it is not. Two words: Leah and Rachel.

100's of citizens arrested in dc pr blitzkrieg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548780)

war protesters? we are not at war? we have no (0) declared enemies (feel the love?)? they must be jailed. simple.

ALL MOMMYS....

cuban citizens acquiring yachts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548836)

they're just floating by, why waste them, they say?

public assembly/speech/discourse; rights or wrongs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549150)

are they terrorists? just what is their problem? fortunately, their right to remain silent has been maintained/enhanced?

Heh. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548784)

I still think that it's rather funny that the country enforces a single marriage lifestyle. In reality, people should be allowed to do damn near whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect the rights of others or the environment (too seriously).

To me, the 'single spouse' law would be like a 'single car' law, which pretty much wouldn't affect me at all but I could still laugh about and have debates about from time to time. On one hand, I'll never have two spouses/two cars. On the other hand, I feel that people SHOULD be able to have two spouses/two card.

His comment (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548794)

But I thought that unfriending was the same as a divorce.

Were the two women okay with this? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548796)

If yes, then why the hell is it a crime?

Re:Were the two women okay with this? (3, Informative)

Ibn al-Hazardous (83553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548926)

RTFA. The first one was left without any explanation, and to the second one he said that he was divorced.

Re:Were the two women okay with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549414)

RTFA, when the first woman found out, she reported it.

Fiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548798)

I call BS.

Bet neither Barton or his first wife was on Facebook in 2004 (after the wedding), making atleast part of the story untrue.

They don't really strike me as Ivy league types.

"In 2004, Barton reportedly married a Rhode Island woman, whom he’d met about a year earlier online. Not long after their wedding, Barton mysteriously removed his new bride from his Facebook account"

Re:Fiction (2)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548952)

Well, to play devil's advocate (to AC, sigh):

He could have been on Facebook in 2004, provided (as you mention) that he was in an Ivy League school. I am fairly certain that by the end of 2004, he could have had a Facebook with just a .edu address. However, the quote you reference doesn't explicitly say that he met his first wife on Facebook, it just says they met in 2003 and they met online. Heck: that could have been on AC2 or EQ or a MUD or etc etc.

Then again, people could have their dates all screwed up. The word "reportedly" plays strong in the sentence you quote. How many people have you met in, for example, December of 2007 that if asked you'd say you've known for at least four years? Similarly "not long after" is rather ambiguous. Depending on what your perception is of "a long time" that could be a few days, months, or even right at or a little over a year.

Re:Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549138)

I am fairly certain that by the end of 2004, he could have had a Facebook with just a .edu address.

I was on Facebook in 2003 with an email address from the University of Mississippi [olemiss.edu] —which, despite the good education I got there, and the good time I had, is not an Ivy League school. So I'd say it's more than plausible that this individual could have been on Facebook in 2004.

Re:Fiction (2)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549176)

Really? Because, you know, multiple [wikipedia.org] other [nytimes.com] sources [crunchbase.com] say [imdb.com] that Zuckerberg started the prototype in September of 2003, and what we know as Facebook was launched in February of 2004.

If I recall rightIy, my vt.edu [vt.edu] email address allowed me to register sometime in late 2004 or early 2005. On campus, it was starting to generate a lot of buzz as a great tool to bring lots of people together on short notice.

Your response is typical of what I was talking about though -- memory is a strange and elastic thing. You've been on Facebook for so long it feels like it's been 8 years, but it hasn't, and it really couldn't possibly have been.

Never tired of FB stories (5, Insightful)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548914)

Contrary to some comments here, I am all about learning new FB horror stories. These stories provide me useful real-life evidence that I use when advising my friends (and my students) why they shouldn't ever post things that might get used against them. Think 10 times before hitting 'submit'.

I'm not yet prepared to be that miserable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35548940)

My dad always said "divorce never... murder, quite likely" & he had just the one wife. I've been there before and have a great kid outta it but seriously, only a freakin sadist would want 2 or more. Hey, I'm not knocking it, & see no reason why anyone shouldn't have multiple wives, each to their own and all, it's just that I'm not yet prepared to be THAT miserable.
I can only echo the comments of others
"And polygamy is illegal why, exactly?"

Unfriending is not enough? (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548982)

> The man unfriended his first wife on the social network before marrying his second wife, but unsurprisingly that wasn't enough

Reminds me of an episode in The Office where Michael Scott screams "I declare bankruptcy"... The accountant had to tell him that it was not enough to just say it.

Facebook is a slut! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549066)

There, I said it.

CSI Michigan: Special Polygamy Unit (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549082)

"Drop those wives, and come out with your hands up!"

So how does Michigan deal with religions that permit polygamy? Do they have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? And yes, I would consider posting stuff on Facebook "telling."

Why not try this when making introductions to the new neighbors:

"This woman is my wife. This woman is my housekeeper. This woman is my cook, etc."

Re:CSI Michigan: Special Polygamy Unit (1)

quetwo (1203948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549482)

The same way they deal with gay marriage -- they don't reconize it, and if you try to file official paperwork trying to get the financial and legal benifits of marriage in the State of Michigan for one of these unreconized marriages then you will be denied.

There's a lot of bible-thumpers here (in Michigan) outside the major cities that give lots of people hardships for trying to do things above board.

Unfriending as a form of divorce (1)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549108)

Rhode Island recognizes common law marriage. Assuming that it was a common law arriage, hasn't the accused a reasonable expectation to be divorced after unfriending his wife on Facebook, and generally stopping interacting with her?

Re:Unfriending as a form of divorce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549476)

A common law marriage that is legal may only end with a formal divorce. (http://public.findlaw.com/bookshelf-mdf/mdf-2-4.html)

If you don't want to be required to divorce a person in order to stop being married to them, don't marry them, common law or not.

Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549154)

Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..

Re:Strange (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549280)

Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..

Because the supply of bitches is limited and the rich guys would get them all. Children, houses, and cars can be made in unlimited amounts, but not bitches.

On the average, for every bitch that's born, a mofo is born. And every mofo wants at least one bitch (that is if he isn't gay, of course). Do the math.

I'd expect as much from an utter and publisher... (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549172)

...whatever that means.

do all religious trainings include real sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549264)

that's a damned good question. turns out, A LOT of us got sex-Ed from the clergy, relatives, other folks we tried to trust, butt it was NEVER discussed, so our anonymity was spared, thank god, etc...?

good thing for (most of) us, babys rule now. "upside down kingdumb". as it was written?

so being sexdead by a trustdead one is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35549318)

no, it's WAY old. way too old. newclear power, & better math are kicking in everywhere. see you there? babys rule. that's an absolute.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...