Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 367

Thread: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

  1. #271
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Before they get done redefining marriage, it will be legal between a brother and a sister, father and daughter, a mother and son, gay men/women, straight men/women will be allowed multiple spouses and the consent laws will get lowered. And who knows maybe a man who loves his sheep or the woman who loves her cat. You keep hearing more and more people willing their money to their animals.
    Now there's a non-sequitor red herring. Leaving their money to their animals for the care of said animal is a whole other creature (no pun intended) from wanting to marry said animal.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    What part don't you get, it doesn't have to be legal for someone to practice polygamy. In Utah for practicing playing house with multiple wives came with jail time if caught. The judge changed that.
    First off you can't complain about polygamy being allowed and then warn next they will allow women to have multiple husbands. It's one in the same. Up till now most of what you've posted, intended or not, put forth the concept of polygamy and the rest of your slippery slope being legal. Which is why everyone's been arguing against you that it's not. And before you tell me that's not what you been putting out, why are we all telling you the same thing? Like I said, you may not have intended to express your view in that manner but you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Living with multiple partners is not polygamy. It's polyamory. Marrying multiple partners is polygamy.
    Actually, polyamory is holding multiple intimate relationships at the same time. It does not necessarily require co-habitation or marriage. Secondly, there are at least 2 if not 3 aspects to marriage; legal, social and religious (the last two possibly being considered as one). One can get married without going through the state. In such a case the marriage is not legally recognized and thus no laws dealing with marriage and bigamy and such can be applied. But to claim that those people who are living in polygamy are not simply because there is no paperwork is disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The pro-gay movment had to first tackle sodomy laws before moving on anything else. Likewise the pro-polygamy movement has to move on cohabitation before anything else. Next will be insurance, adoption, housing and job discrimination, just like SSM went. When there is sound legal foundations for those agenda items then the fight for polygamy will begin at the federal level, just as with SSM.
    The pro-gays tackled it because they were the only ones targeted by it. Sodomy by legal definition was any act other than straight vaginal intercourse. This included both oral and anal regardless of gender combination. However, those enforcing the law were only targeting gays with the law. It was a blatant abuse of the law for discrimination. Had they enforced it across the board those laws would have fallen a lot sooner.

    All arguments in support for SSM also support polygamy. There is no argument unique to SSM, or polygamy, for that matter. To allow one is to allow them all.
    You could include incest in that as well, especially in dealing with those only legally related.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
    Actually it would be a return to these states of marriage (with the exception of human/animal if someone wants to try to make that argument) as poly and same sex and incest marriages have all existed in the past and with government approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    What next? You going to post a story about the price of tea in China so you can stir the debate about gun control?
    If multiple people were taking that position earlier then it would be a logical move.

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I'm pretty sure absolutely no American court has said that.
    Where the hell have you been? For a long time the courts were telling people they couldn't marry outside their own race. People even got arrested for it as in Loving v. Virginia. It was also illegal to marry your own gender. It's also illegal to marry someone related to you by blood or legality (within a certain distance). So yeah the courts have been telling people that they can't by the very act of upholding the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I believe you thought the article was evidence that DOMA somehow influenced a judge to rule in favor of polygamy. I believe that once it became clear that the judge's 1st amendment ruling had nothing to do with DOMA you tried to save face by concocting this ruse that the story had nothing to do with the thread even though the title of the thread is "Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah." I believe that the best argument YOU can come up with against polygamy is "well the gays are not allowed to marry." I believe in the future you should read things before you post them and make sure they actually say what you think they say before you try to "stir debate."

    That is just what I believe. Good night.
    Um...doesn't the thread title HAVE to be that because it's the article's title....by DP rules?

  2. #272
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,884

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Incorrect. Nobody has ruled polygamy itself is a violation of the constitution, just things that are sometimes associated with it. All of the things you listed such as lack of public schools or government interference has nothing to do with a few people marrying other.

    So either provide a case showing POLYGAMY ITSELF is a violation of the constitution, or shut up about it. For some reason you think it's your god given right to interfere in the personal lives of free citizens.
    I never stated polygamy itself is a violation, I stated the practice was at the heart of forming a dominance in an area in a relatively short period of time which led to constitutional violations in the past. Today however, there are those who find it violates women under the equal protection clause. And I agree.

  3. #273
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,884

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Now there's a non-sequitor red herring. Leaving their money to their animals for the care of said animal is a whole other creature (no pun intended) from wanting to marry said animal.



    First off you can't complain about polygamy being allowed and then warn next they will allow women to have multiple husbands. It's one in the same. Up till now most of what you've posted, intended or not, put forth the concept of polygamy and the rest of your slippery slope being legal. Which is why everyone's been arguing against you that it's not. And before you tell me that's not what you been putting out, why are we all telling you the same thing? Like I said, you may not have intended to express your view in that manner but you did.
    Since the traditional definition has been forever changed, redefining marriage has become a slippery slope. Laws have consequences. You don't care for how I expressed those views trying to show the reality that a slippery slope exists? Tough cookies.

  4. #274
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I'm aware of that but what the judge did in his ruling has made those who do practice polygamy( as they view themselves married), the law can no longer punish them for it. Kody Brown and his "wives" when filing the suit used the law of only being legally married to one wife, he was not breaking any law even though he practices "spiritual matrimony" with the other three women which he calls his wives.

    Why should the government tell two (or more) consenting adults who they can and cannot live with?

    See this is the inconsistency of many social conservatives, they talk about smaller, more limited government and the return to individual freedom. But then they advocate the control of government in who lives in who in personal relationships (i.e. those which have no impact on the government).


    >>>>

  5. #275
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Since the traditional definition has been forever changed, redefining marriage has become a slippery slope. Laws have consequences. You don't care for how I expressed those views trying to show the reality that a slippery slope exists? Tough cookies.

    You realize that polygamy has been the definition of marriage for thousands of years and predates Christianity right and is still practiced in many religions and countries around the world.

    The idea that one man and one woman is the only "traditional" marriage is pretty bogus. (You are free to now move the goalposts and narrow the criteria to met you needs.)


    >>>>

  6. #276
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage. Fun fact: married couples don't even have to have sex with each other!
    Actually, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #277
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Actually, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment.
    Only if one part is withholding sex from the other.

    If they both agree, it's not a problem.


    >>>>

  8. #278
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Only if one part is withholding sex from the other.

    If they both agree, it's not a problem.


    >>>>
    Again, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment of the marriage. It has no time limit.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #279
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Again, if I'm not mistaken, failure to consumate a marriage is legal grounds for an annulment of the marriage. It has no time limit.
    You are not mistaken, it is grounds for an annulment. However, that only applies one parter is withholding sex from the other.

    If they both agree, it's not a problem.

    There is no requirement that a couple "consummate" their marriage and it takes one of the couple to apply for an annulment (or divorce as would happen later in the marriage). There is not test of consummation, there is no requirement, after the honeymoon you don't have to file an affidavit of consummation, and no one is going to go ask - the annulment process would required one of the spouses to initiate the proceedings.



    >>>>

  10. #280
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    You are not mistaken, it is grounds for an annulment. However, that only applies one parter is withholding sex from the other.

    If they both agree, it's not a problem.

    There is no requirement that a couple "consummate" their marriage and it takes one of the couple to apply for an annulment (or divorce as would happen later in the marriage). There is not test of consummation, there is no requirement, after the honeymoon you don't have to file an affidavit of consummation, and no one is going to go ask - the annulment process would required one of the spouses to initiate the proceedings.



    >>>>
    I simply wanted to counter the impression left by another poster that marriage had nothing to do with sex.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •