• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

If polygamy is ever legalized, are we supposed to have a wish list ready? :lamo:

Polygamy is legal in several countries, but they do not have their taxes based on marriage. Because of deductions and other tax incentives, that is where our problems lie.
 
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.

If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.
 
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.

If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.

First in our town halls -- then in our sex ed classes!
 
What I don't understand is on what grounds same-sex marriage is in any way a legitimate part of this discussion, seeing as how the only legal precedent that mattered was the First Amendment.

Sorry, I don't know any other languages and I thought I described my position pretty clearly in English.
 
From the article linked in the OP:



In other words, no, you couldn't "shack-up" with as many people you wanted in Utah under this law.

And now you can. The law that was struck down didn't even permit you to move in with one girlfriend.
 
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.

If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.

Can we have wild heterosexual orgies too?
 
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News

I certainly don't mind any of this but it seems that the consequences of the social changes going on over the past few decades seems to lead for more freedoms and fewer responsibilities for men and less security and happiness for women. But I am prepared to be 100% wrong because I care about individual liberties a great deal, and to each his/her own.
 
It does not appear to me that people are really connecting the dots here. Polygamy X Gay marriage = wild homosexual orgies.

If we don't watch ourselves, surely they will become mandatory.



OOOO!!! finally a law I could go for!!!

Re this case -

I'm not sure how the govt can dictate who lives in a house together, so the judge's decision makes sense. Glad he kept the part about the marriage license though - that more than one is bigamy.

It's a very tough issue. I have no problems with polyamory among consenting adults who are well aware of their legal rights - and also the lack of them (so that they draw up contracts, power of attorney, wills, etc to protect themselves). I have HUGE problems with traditional fundamentalist polygamists who marry young girls to old men, who chase out their young men so there are more girls for the old men, who don't educate their women and girls, and who have the extra wives live off of govt subsidies.

But maybe if they can be brought "into the light" their kids would learn there are other ways to live, and wouldn't live this life unless they freely chose it as adults. And maybe we could stop the underage marriages.
 
OOOO!!! finally a law I could go for!!!

Re this case -

I'm not sure how the govt can dictate who lives in a house together, so the judge's decision makes sense. Glad he kept the part about the marriage license though - that more than one is bigamy.

It's a very tough issue. I have no problems with polyamory among consenting adults who are well aware of their legal rights - and also the lack of them (so that they draw up contracts, power of attorney, wills, etc to protect themselves). I have HUGE problems with traditional fundamentalist polygamists who marry young girls to old men, who chase out their young men so there are more girls for the old men, who don't educate their women and girls, and who have the extra wives live off of govt subsidies.

But maybe if they can be brought "into the light" their kids would learn there are other ways to live, and wouldn't live this life unless they freely chose it as adults. And maybe we could stop the underage marriages.

My feelings, exactly.

My sneaking suspicion is that any law opened up to serve the former would be end up being little more than a vehicle for facilitating the latter. The last thing we need is to be more like Yemen.
 
It really isn't my fault if you fail to communicate what SSM has to do with an issue that did not involve SSM in any way.

Read my post again, if you're interested - if you understand my position, there's no problem - if you don't understand my position, you never will. No need to belabour the issue.
 
Read my post again, if you're interested - if you understand my position, there's no problem - if you don't understand my position, you never will. No need to belabour the issue.

No thanks, I'm not interested in reviewing your failure to communicate.
 
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News

:mad: Clearly this Judge is a Slippery-Slope Homophobe, to think that Precedent matters in Rule of Law. :mad:
 
Right!?!?

I can understand a man pissing on an electric fence or sticking his tongue on a frozen lamp pole ONCE.

But twice, three times, more? That guy is just an idiot.

I think Rays father, Everybody Loves Raymond, said it best.

One woman, one problem

Two women, two problems.

Seriously though, I have always wondered where the money comes from to support these multiple familes with a lot of kids.

What kind of job does the father have to have to support 10 kids or more?
 
It is still illegal to claim more than one wife, right? One marriage certificate? One tax exemption? The loophole is, they can still all live together , united under their their own, (society/government unsanctioned/unrecognized,) version of "marriage,' (aka shack-up,)

People can "shack-up," with as many people as they want, anywhere in America, right?

I believe that is called a commune.
 
From the article linked in the OP:



In other words, no, you couldn't "shack-up" with as many people you wanted in Utah under this law.

What did college students do in Utah?
 
Beats the tar out of me, I've never lived in Utah so I don't know how the state enforced its own law.

All I had ever heard about Utah was about Mormons and how religious it was.

The first time I drove into Utah and saw the beehive on the side of the Highway Patrol cars, I thought it was weird.

Since when did a beehive become a religious symbol.
 
Sorry, I don't know any other languages and I thought I described my position pretty clearly in English.

I have a question for you:
Let's assume that your premise is accurate.
So what?
 
That your whole slippery slope is built on nothing. I understand not answering the questions, since that would ruin your slippery slope. Running away from them is cowardly, but prudent.

Even more baffling. You missed the part where the questions were answered before you even asked them.

Saying that someone is running away is not the same as them actually running away.

So you tell me -- if marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied on arbitrary grounds, and people have the freedom to decide whom to love and whom to make families with, and these are fundamental, constitutional rights, on what grounds to you deny polyamory, group marriages, or any other arrangement between consenting adults?

Be specific.

Well hell's bells, Redress, I thought you wanted to play.
 
Back
Top Bottom