lexy2014:


Stop getting emotional. Pls quote d law in d US that supports polygamous marriage based on customs and religion. Is that too difficult for u to do? In d screenshot I shared with u, did u see any evidence of ur claim? Or are u saying d authors of d info I shared don't no what they are doing? If u feel Wikipedia is trash, then provide genuine info that negates my "trash". Its that simple. So far, u have nothing.

Its funny how u contradict urself. Check this out:



But u are d one who has always insisted that there are laws in d US that support polygamy based on culture and religion despite d existence of d Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. What u said now is what I have been telling but here u are saying it. So who is now d foolish one?

There are laws in Nigeria that criminalise all sorts of criminal activities. Does that mean u won't still find people engage in those criminal activities? Relax. U getting urself all worked up

KanuSE:


Ain't you born from heterosexual intercourse , answer my question biko.

What's wrong with being gay?

KanuSE:


It's all about violence/aggression ehn, no intellectual discourse - doing it the black man's way.

NotComplaining:


Being thrown head first off the highest peak in town then being stoned, then dying a disbeliever... Need more?

I can give you countless benefits of heterosexual intercourse, you give me one benefit of sodomizing another man.

comradewanle:
This white pple should know that this is Africa.

KarateFeet:
the law is the law... let them deport this foolish man who does NOT want to follow the laws of the country that welcomed him.

then, when Saudi Arabia will be stoning people to death LAWFULLY, these same bastards would be quiet. btw that same crime of homosexuality is punishable by DEATH in Saudi Arabia.

***spit on floor***

KanuSE:
[s][/s]

Too many words but ...SMH

Just revisit my questions and spare me your junks. You argue blindly!

You don't gerrit, do you?

Blindersoff:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-15/zambia-says-ambassador-should-leave-after-defending-gay-couple

bromen:
then you third world poverty countries shall die in you poverty, hate, ignorance and underdevelopment.

lexy2014:


I am not aware of u asking any question of considerable importance neither have I noticed u say anything that can add value to a third party who will read ur comments. So am not too sure what it is u are trying to give urself credit for.

For someone who hasnt been able support anything he has said with facts, its funny u still find out time to say someone else "argues blindly". Like I told u earlier, u have run out of things to say

Blindersoff:


Gay people everywhere.

KanuSE:



You may have forgotten or missed my questions while you were busy running riot with your Wikipedia junk. Here below are my questions again -

My assertion is that US marriage law recognises the rights of individuals to marry more than one wife on religious and customary grounds. The only clause is that those exceptions are not sanctioned coz multiple marriage licenses cannot be issued to the man (e.g. Muslim ) who chooses to marry more than one wife.

My questions -

Are people penalised for exercising their rights to marry more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

Although declared as illegal, where's the potency of the laws prohibiting polygamy or bigamy in the US.

Are there no polygamous families in the US?

Are people not allowed to marry more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

FYI, no one is disputing that polygamy isn't illegal in the US (though in contention).

Your answers will determine if I will provide proof of my claim/assertion but if you will not give answers, this is the last time I will quote you.

KanuSE:

FYI, no one is disputing that polygamy isn't illegal in the US (though in contention).

KanuSE:

You may have forgotten or missed my questions while you were busy running riot with your Wikipedia junk.


Your answers will determine if I will provide proof of my claim/assertion but if you will not give answers, this is the last time I will quote you.

KanuSE:

My assertion is that US marriage law recognises the rights of individuals to marry more than one wife on religious and customary grounds. The only clause is that those exceptions are not sanctioned coz multiple marriage licenses cannot be issued to the man (e.g. Muslim ) who chooses to marry more than one wife.

KanuSE:

how do you expect the body of law that prohibits something, to also enshrine same.

KanuSE:

My questions -

Are people penalised for exercising their rights to marry more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

Although declared as illegal, where's the potency of the laws prohibiting polygamy or bigamy in the US.

Are there no polygamous families in the US?

Are people not allowed to marry more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

lexy2014:


Let me begin by bringing to ur attention a contradiction in ur piece. In fact it is one of several which I had in one of my previous post made known to u.



How can u not be disputing something yet u say that d same thing u aren't disputing is in contention?



B4 u call something "junk" or "trash", u should be able to provide info that negates what u call "junk" or "trash". 4d fact that u use those words to qualify d info I provided from Wikipedia doesn't validate what u have said that it is junk/trash & it doesn't prove that u are more knowledgeable than d authors in Wikipedia. What will validate ur claim that d info I lifted from Wikipedia is junk/trash, is when u provide superior argument backed up by facts. So far, u have fallen short over& over again. As far as science is concerned, d info I provided from Wikipedia remains valid until u can prove otherwise & am certain that u can't.

Now ur excuse that my answers is d motivation u need to substantiate ur claims is an escapist ploy which those who make baseless claims employ in order to save face. A millions answers from me can't help ur case. Do u no why? because u have nothing.

Once again u insisted that:



As I have asked several times, I ask again. Can u pls quote d law in d US that supports ur assertion? Obviously u can't because no such law exists. Like I also noted earlier, if such a law exists, it is a contradiction of d Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. But u refused to openly accept that fact. I also provided u graphical evidence to show u d distribution of d legality of polygamous marriages around d world. But u seem to no more than d guys at wikipedia even though u cant prove it. But funny enough and characteric of u, u unwittingly contradicted urself when u said:



I wish u could help me answer ur question urself. So how do u want me to take u serious when u don't even no what u are saying?

With regards to your questions, in my last post, I called them "considerably unimportant" and pedestrian. D reason isn't far fetched. I tried providing u analogies to help ur understanding. Let's try it again.



D existence of a law criminalising an activity or activities doesn't in anyway mean that people will automatically cease from engaging in such activities. And for people to engage in those activities even though they haven't been punished doesn't mean that those people are operating within d law.

Whether d govt chooses to enforce a law or s frequency of enforcement doesn't in anyway mean d law doesn't exist. If in ur opinion d law isn't potent, doesn't negate d existence of d law. Is it every crime breaker in d US that is jail?

In terms of d potency of d law, pls read d following. I sent it to u b4 from Wikipedia but ur emotions beclouded ur sense of judgement. Now u are taking us back, asking questions even when d answers were right b4 ur eyes.


"United States: Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states[93] as well as federally according to the Edmunds Act. From about 1847 to 1857, in what is now the state of Utah, many Mormons practiced polygamy, which was widely condemned in the rest of the US. The US federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and made polygamy illegal through the enforcement of Acts of Congress such as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act".

Am sure u can see d word "enforcement" in d above. Start from where it says "The US government...".

Whether u choose to reply me or not is ur choice. Am not expecting much from u cos like I noted several times b4, u have run out of things to say

Is Polygamy Illegal in the United States

Over the last few years there have been a number of television shows regarding the polygamist lifestyle. This has led some to wonder whether polygamy may be legal anywhere in the U.S. It also raises questions about why bigamy is outlawed and whether this is a trend that may be changing.

Currently, every state has a law outlawing polygamy. Additionally, the federal government has several laws that also criminalize the act of being married to more than one person. Enforcement of these laws is relatively difficult given the often secretive nature of many polygamists and the fact that most will have only one marriage on paper. As a result, many of these laws attempt to target those who cohabit with more than one member of the opposite sex. But, these laws are problematic given the increase in those who may have multiple roommates of mixed genders.

Many of these laws arose in the 19th Century, often in response to what was seen as a
moral threat posed by Mormonism. Because many of these laws are based on purely moral grounds , they are increasingly subject to challenge in the courts using similar arguments as those that have been used to decriminalize homosexual acts and legalize same-sex marriages.

More recently, a federal judge ruled that the language used in Utah's anti-bigamy laws were too vague to be enforceable. They were once based on the notion that people of opposite genders would not cohabit without engaging in a committed romantic relationship akin to marriage. But the modern realities are very different, leaving such laws anachronistic, an invasion of the privacy of those targeted with prosecution, a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and unconstitutional both as written and applied.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-polygamy-illegal-in-the-united-states-31807

xpool:

Your comments are insipid.
You did not pass any information, I know you are beating your chest now thinking you made logical progress. But you were just rabble rousing.

Picking out scanty reasons to prove what?
Murder and stealing are as old as man, does it make them right?
Many people are pedophiles, does it make it right?
Some seem to be born kleptomaniacs, should we encourage them to continue stealing?

Homosexuality is abnormal, and in many cases social maladaptive behavioural expression.

May all your children be gays, may all your children marry same sex, amen

wirinet:
It's obvious you are arguing purely on emotional religious lines. You are failing to accept the fact that polygamy is practiced in the full public glare and the so called anti polygamy law is unenforceable.

I had lots of lawyer friends in my undergraduate days. They also told me that the bigamy laws in Nigeria is useless. It a law that's only on paper, it's unenforceable. It's very difficult to regulate what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

KarateFeet:
All these white idiot disrespecting African Laws, can they try this in Saudi Arabia?

KanuSE:


Lol You're rational in thinking and views on critical issues unlike the clanging cymbal I cc'd... hahahaha

cc lexy2014

lexy2014:


U sound like u reeling from d interaction u had with me. Its not my fault that u couldn't defend ur claims. If u felt so bad about ur performance which u demonstrated by saying u were done with d conversation, u should have substantiated ur claims. That would have helped to restore some of ur pride

KanuSE:
[s][/s]

You talk too much and argue blindly... easy to spot!

It was even easy for wirinet to spot your inadequacy...lol

Abeg go smoke a junk joint with ya wikipvssy...NO TIME.

lexy2014:


Like I noted b4, how can u say I argue blindly when u couldnt even defend urself or d things u said? U were insisting on a certain point of view with no evidence or proof. D best u have resorted to when u run out of things to say is to embark on all these ur personal attacks. Ur accusations are more or less a description of u.

U really getting emotional because I don't think what u are accusing me of is d reason u sound so pained. Ur ego was bruised& ur words show that u are hurt.

Relax. Keep ur emotions in check. Its not as bad as u are taking it. Since u feel hurt, take ur time. U will heal

KanuSE:
[s][/s]

Your argument is defeated coz no one is disputing that polygamy isn't illegal in the US BUT where you're now trapped is failing to admit that the Polygamy/Bigamy laws are impotent in the context of religion and customs. And that individual rights are being exalted far above the penal code of provisions of the said laws.

Now are you ready to answer my questions?

Does the US marriage law not recognise the rights of individuals to marry more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

Is there any case of people being jailed for marrying more than one wife based on religious and customary grounds?

Ain't there polygamous families in the US?

YES or NO ?

wirinet:

It's obvious you are arguing purely on emotional religious lines. You are failing to accept the fact that polygamy is practiced in the full public glare and the so called anti polygamy law is unenforceable.

I had lots of lawyer friends in my undergraduate days. They also told me that the bigamy laws in Nigeria is useless. It a law that's only on paper, it's unenforceable. It's very difficult to regulate what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Read this report;

lexy2014:


Of course, "no one is disputing that polygamy isn't illegal in the US". If that is d case, then my argument isn't defeated as u claim because that isn't my argument. My request to u is that u should quote d section of d US marriage law that u say supports recognises polygamy based on customs and tradition. U still haven't been able to quote d law or d reference in US law. So who is now arguing blindly?

Point of correction. D US doesn't have "polygamy/bigamy laws". What it has are Anti-Bigamy or Anti-Polygamy laws. To d best of my knowledge, there's no provision in d US statutes that negates its provision. Even u noted by saying:

"how do you expect the body of law that prohibits something, to also enshrine same."

So u just going round in circles, taking us back to were we have threaded. With regard ur questions, pls avail urself my previous posts and comments. U will find ample information that have adequately put to bed ur concerns except as I noted that may not be ur major objective. All these ur back & forth might just b an attempt to mend a bruised ego.

KanuSE:


There you go again

How do you expect a body of law that prohibits something to enshrine same - does it make sense to you, or what sort question is this torí Olorun.

Why is it difficult to answer my questions? Mind you, I have never the word 'support' but 'recognise the rights of individuals'...

I think use of English is what you're struggling with.

KanuSE:

How do you expect a body of law that prohibits something to enshrine same - does it make sense to you

KanuSE:

My assertion is that US marriage law recognises the rights of individuals to marry more than one wife on religious and customary grounds.

KanuSE:

How do you expect a body of law that prohibits something to enshrine same - does it make sense to you, or what sort question is this torí Olorun.

lexy2014:


In my struggle with English, pls what is d difference between support and recognise in d context of this discussion? Maybe u can shed some light based ur proficiency in English.



This is d mystery I have been expecting u to unravel. because on one hand u say

But when u are asked to quote d law that supports this ur assertion, u go:


I thought I was d one u said was struggling with English? U see y I said that ur accusations are nothing but a reflection of u?

Ur questions/enquiries have been adequately addressed by my previous posts. My posts are a treasure throve of verifiable data, both primary and secondary. If u could call wikipedia which is my secondary source of data junk/trash without being able to negate it with new information, then it shows that ur concerns are beyond d confines of this discussion. If u can't see d answers in my previous posts, then no new attempt can help ur case. That is beyond my sphere of influence. D answers u seek are right b4 ur eyes. But am not surprised that u can't see them

lexy2014:


In my struggle with English, pls what is d difference between support and recognise in d context of this discussion? Maybe u can shed some light based ur proficiency in English.



This is d mystery I have been expecting u to unravel. because on one hand u say

But when u are asked to quote d law that supports this ur assertion, u go:


I thought I was d one u said was struggling with English? U see y I said that ur accusations are nothing but a reflection of u?

Ur questions/enquiries have been adequately addressed by my previous posts. My posts are a treasure throve of verifiable data, both primary and secondary. If u could call wikipedia which is my secondary source of data junk/trash without being able to negate it with new information, then it shows that ur concerns are beyond d confines of this discussion. If u can't see d answers in my previous posts, then no new attempt can help ur case. That is beyond my sphere of influence. D answers u seek are right b4 ur eyes. But am not surprised that u can't see them

darkwan:


why should he even bother....bleepin another guy in the anus is something,i dont even know how to discuss....
anybody that is not into this madness would close up too....

its you that dont see the bigger picture....you think this gays are only after grown up men....??
how about young boys that cant defend themselves against sick people....??

a hole is a hole to this morafvckers....
everybody and everything will be anused....

sodom ad gomorrah is not fairytails....

KanuSE:
[s][/s]

Next time, try to be concise while making your point & spare me your epistle ok.

Well, I didn't bother reading that crap...

lexy2014:


So in d end, u have successfully indicted urself.