• 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

sangha said:
No one said you said "the article mentioned DOMA" What was pointed out that it was *you* who mentioned DOMA and you expressed the opinion that DOMA had something to do with the decision.

Now you're running away from it and tossing out straw men in a futile attempt to distract from what you said.
Click to expand...
Running from what? I said what I believe bro. As you pointed out a few posts later. I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.
Further, I believe DOMA has effect on other cases involving marriage. Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set? If I were a judge and saw that section 3 of DOMA had been struck down, I would take that as setting the precedent that no gov't entity can restrict who gets married to who. I BELIEVE that this held weight in this particular case. Now, instead of your standard "well that's just stupid/a strawman/dumb" counterpoint, lets hear why you think I'm wrong.
 
paddymcdougall said:
re the whole discussion of "did DOMA affect this?" remember - the judge explicitly said it's still illegal to marry more than one person (at a time); this decision was about legalizaing co-habitation, about which DOMA had nothing to say.
Click to expand...
Understood. Just trying to move the argument forward.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Maquiscat, I agree the FLDS gives a bad name to polygamy.

I have no problem with fully informed consenting adults being in some form of a polyamorous relationship. If they are adult enough to handle it, to do powers of attorney and contracts to ensure everyone is taken care of and that splits are dealt with - no prob, go for it.

I don't know how many are actually practicing polyamourous relationships outside of FLDS and other religious, generally misogynist, sects. If you have the numbers for that, I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...

Start with groups like Loving More and The Polyamory Society. You might be better than me with searches and are able to find some raw statistics. If you already have kinks, you can also look up the large number of poly groups on Fetlife. (For some people poly is a kink! LOL) Now I will note that there seems to be some reluctance among at least some of the poly community to use the work polygamy, either because of the link to the FLDS or because of the lack of real legal standing. But most of us will talk about our poly families. And if you're talking about families usually you're talking marriage of some sort.

Oh I think Our America had also done a show on poly. You should be able to get some clips from there was well.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Running from what? I said what I believe bro. As you pointed out a few posts later. I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.
Click to expand...

Your post is full of crap. Absolutely no one said anything about the article referencing DOMA. In fact, numerous people pointed out that the article had *nothing* to do with DOMA (or marriage)

Further, I believe DOMA has effect on other cases involving marriage. Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set?
Click to expand...

Now your post is hypocritical. You complain about others reading something into your OP (even though no one did that) and now you're imagining that I something about precedent.

I didn't


If I were a judge and saw that section 3 of DOMA had been struck down, I would take that as setting the precedent that no gov't entity can restrict who gets married to who. I BELIEVE that this held weight in this particular case. Now, instead of your standard "well that's just stupid/a strawman/dumb" counterpoint, lets hear why you think I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You can say that but you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. So let's review:

1) You say some people in this thread have mistakenly claimed that the article in your OP references DOMA - you have no evidence to support this

2) You say that I said something about precedence - you have no evidence to support this

3) You say that DOMA somehow affected this judge's opinion about whether the govt can restrict who can get married - you have no evidence to support this

So in answer to "lets hear why you think I'm wrong" I say "you have no evidence to support what you say"
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
Understood. Just trying to move the argument forward.
Click to expand...

By not providing any support for your argument other than the above?

do you really think not posting any support for your argument is the best way to move your argument "forward"?
 
maquiscat said:
Start with groups like Loving More and The Polyamory Society. You might be better than me with searches and are able to find some raw statistics. If you already have kinks, you can also look up the large number of poly groups on Fetlife. (For some people poly is a kink! LOL) Now I will note that there seems to be some reluctance among at least some of the poly community to use the work polygamy, either because of the link to the FLDS or because of the lack of real legal standing. But most of us will talk about our poly families. And if you're talking about families usually you're talking marriage of some sort.

Oh I think Our America had also done a show on poly. You should be able to get some clips from there was well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links! I don't think it's a kink at all, personally. It's not something I'm into because I think my upbringing would make it hard for me to handle it; yet I can certainly appreciate it can be a lot healthier than a two person relationship where you are dependent on just one other person for all your fulfillment. But I think I'm too old to change. But I like reading up on it, so appreciate the links.

(Totally off-topic, the many variations of hermaphrodites also fascinate me, even though I'm not one. Humans are so variable!)
 
sangha said:
Your post is full of crap. Absolutely no one said anything about the article referencing DOMA. In fact, numerous people pointed out that the article had *nothing* to do with DOMA (or marriage)
Click to expand...
That's what I just said! The exact post you just quoted of me was
I'm merely pointing to the fact that a few people on this thread were mistaken in thinking that the article referenced DOMA in any way.
Click to expand...
. Yes, that's exactly what some people did. They thought the article was supposed to have some sort of DOMA reference when it didn't. I never said it did in the OP but some misinterpreted it as me saying it did. Get it now (probably not)?


sangha said:
Now your post is hypocritical. You complain about others reading something into your OP (even though no one did that) and now you're imagining that I something about precedent.
I didn't
Click to expand...
I didn't say you did. Do you know what punctuation in the English language is? Read the question again.
Your claim is that our justice system DOESN'T consider precedents that have been set?
Click to expand...





sangha said:
1) You say some people in this thread have mistakenly claimed that the article in your OP references DOMA - you have no evidence to support this
Click to expand...
In the context you state? No, I don't. But in the context I'm speaking of? Yes, there's pages of it. I even apologized to one user for misleading him into thinking there was a reference to DOMA in the article. I believe it was TacticalEvilDan
sangha said:
2) You say that I said something about precedence - you have no evidence to support this
Click to expand...
Nope, sure didn't. Apparently you don't know what a "?" means.
sangha said:
3) You say that DOMA somehow affected this judge's opinion about whether the govt can restrict who can get married - you have no evidence to support this
Click to expand...
I said I thought it did. I didn't say it definitively did. No one can know what went through the judges mind in this case.


Just as I thought. Instead of debate the topic, you decide to attack whether evidence exists to support something I said I believe. This is why I stopped responding to you a long time ago. Now, I remember why.
I don't need evidence to support this. It's a friggin theory that makes sense TO ME due to the fact that our justice system is a system that depends heavily upon precedent. I believe a precedent has been set that the gov't should not dictate who can and can't be married by the repeal of section 3 of DOMA as well as many states decisions to legalize SSM. If you disagree, then disagree. Instead of doing that, you will continue your diversion tactics. I will now be reinstating my self-imposed ban of responding to anything you post. It's a waste of the calories I burn while typing.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
That's what I just said! The exact post you just quoted of me was . Yes, that's exactly what some people did. They thought the article was supposed to have some sort of DOMA reference when it didn't. I never said it did in the OP but some misinterpreted it as me saying it did. Get it now (probably not)?
Click to expand...

I get it but what you're saying is not true. No one claimed you said the article referenced DOMA.


I didn't say you did. Do you know what punctuation in the English language is? Read the question again.
Click to expand...

Your post is full of crap. You can pretend all you want that your question was "innocent" but the fact remains I said nothing about precedent. Your asking if I said something about precedent when it's clear that I said nothing about precedent is dishonest and intentionally deceiving.




In the context you state? No, I don't. But in the context I'm speaking of? Yes, there's pages of it. I even apologized to one user for misleading him into thinking there was a reference to DOMA in the article. I believe it was TacticalEvilDan
Click to expand...

No, TED did not claim you said the article references DOMA. TED took issue with the fact that *you* (not the article) referenced DOMA when the article had nothing to do with DOMA.

Nope, sure didn't. Apparently you don't know what a "?" means.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't realize that phrasing a statement in the form of a question is one of the oldest tricks in debate and transparently dishonest. You actually think you're fooling someone by pretending your question was sincere


I said I thought it did. I didn't say it definitively did. No one can know what went through the judges mind in this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, you think it did even though you have absolutely no evidence that it did.



Just as I thought. Instead of debate the topic, you decide to attack whether evidence exists to support something I said I believe. This is why I stopped responding to you a long time ago. Now, I remember why.
I don't need evidence to support this. It's a friggin theory that makes sense TO ME due to the fact that our justice system is a system that depends heavily upon precedent. I believe a precedent has been set that the gov't should not dictate who can and can't be married by the repeal of section 3 of DOMA as well as many states decisions to legalize SSM. If you disagree, then disagree. Instead of doing that, you will continue your diversion tactics. I will now be reinstating my self-imposed ban of responding to anything you post. It's a waste of the calories I burn while typing.
Click to expand...

Yes, you don't need evidence. You can believe anything you want based solely on your desire for it to be true. But complaining when people point out your complete lack of any factual basis to support your belief is nothing but whining. For all your blather about wanting to "discuss" this, the bottom line is that you have nothing to say except "I believe this"

PS - the courts decision in DOMA specifically says that states can dictate who can and can't marry so long as that decision fulfills certain conditions.
 
sangha said:
No, TED did not claim you said the article references DOMA. TED took issue with the fact that *you* (not the article) referenced DOMA when the article had nothing to do with DOMA.
Click to expand...
TacticalEvilDan said:
I am confused. The article you posted didn't mention DOMA once. In fact, the judge's ruling cited the First Amendment, rather than the absence of DOMA. A First Amendment argument would've trumped even DOMA. So the people who "predicted this exact situation would happen as a result" are full of ****.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the deduction I would make from the above post as well. :roll:
sangha said:
Apparently, you don't realize that phrasing a statement in the form of a question is one of the oldest tricks in debate and transparently dishonest. You actually think you're fooling someone by pretending your question was sincere
Click to expand...
Apparently you like to assume things and you still didn't answer the question. I actually expected you to answer it. If I was making a statement, I would've made a statement. I wasn't. I was asking a question. I believe you don't want to answer the question because you know that our justice system is based on precedent and that would support my claim.
sangha said:
Yes, you don't need evidence. You can believe anything you want based solely on your desire for it to be true. But complaining when people point out your complete lack of any factual basis to support your belief is nothing but whining. For all your blather about wanting to "discuss" this, the bottom line is that you have nothing to say except "I believe this"
Click to expand...
I believe it because I know how the justice system works. I would assume you do as well, even though you don't want to admit precedent is a major factor in rulings. A precedent being set by the Supreme Court holds weight in every level of the justice system. A precedent has been set that a court shouldn't decide who can and can't be married. That would hold weight in this decision IMO.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Don't talk about me, talk to me. What exactly is your major maladjustment with what I said?
Click to expand...
Lol, chill out there internet tough guy. Read the exchanges between Sangha and I and you will see. I don't have any issue with anything you said.:peace
 
MarineTpartier said:
Lol, chill out there internet tough guy. Read the exchanges between Sangha and I and you will see. I don't have any issue with anything you said.:peace
Click to expand...

Tough guy? Seriously? I'm remembering now why I left this discussion to begin with. How about you clearly and succinctly annunciate what you think I was saying in that quote?
 
MarineTpartier said:
Yeah, that's the deduction I would make from the above post as well. :roll:
Click to expand...

Deduction? IOW, TED did not say that you said the article mentioned DOMA.

Apparently, you have to make stuff up so you can deny discussing what you did say, while claiming that you want to talk about it.


Apparently you like to assume things and you still didn't answer the question. I actually expected you to answer it. If I was making a statement, I would've made a statement. I wasn't. I was asking a question. I believe you don't want to answer the question because you know that our justice system is based on precedent and that would support my claim.
Click to expand...

More denial on your part.

I believe it because I know how the justice system works. I would assume you do as well, even though you don't want to admit precedent is a major factor in rulings. A precedent being set by the Supreme Court holds weight in every level of the justice system. A precedent has been set that a court shouldn't decide who can and can't be married. That would hold weight in this decision IMO.
Click to expand...

I guess you'll never explain why DOMA would cause a judge to think that the govt can't limit who can get married when DOMA explicitly states that the govt can limit who can get married (under certain specific conditions)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Don't talk about me, talk to me. What exactly is your major maladjustment with what I said?
Click to expand...

TacticalEvilDan said:
Tough guy? Seriously? I'm remembering now why I left this discussion to begin with. How about you clearly and succinctly annunciate what you think I was saying in that quote?
Click to expand...


He's trying to argue that you accused him of saying the article mentioned DOMA even though you did not say that. All you did, as many others have done, is point out that the article made no mention of DOMA and you tried to get him to explain why *he* (not the article) is linking DOMA to this judge's decision

The ironic thing is, for all his blather about how he wants to provoke discussion, he refuses to discuss why he thinks DOMA has anything to do with this.
 
I hate to interrupt such a riveting discussion, really - but is the discussion being advanced by two people arguing whether or not someone said or didn't say that the article referred to DOMA?

Or has the thread been killed by this disgression?

Just some questions. Continue on.
 
paddymcdougall said:
I hate to interrupt such a riveting discussion, really - but is the discussion being advanced by two people arguing whether or not someone said or didn't say that the article referred to DOMA?

Or has the thread been killed by this disgression?

Just some questions. Continue on.
Click to expand...

What thread? It raised the subject of DOMA using an article that had nothing to do with DOMA. The discussion was doomed before it began.
 
I think we should definitely have a legal battle over polygamy. There's plenty of legal arguments that it's an unjust infringement to prohibit it, but there are definitely issues over its use, given the precedent of pushing underage girls into coercive marriages. But that, of course, is how the polygamy argument differs from the SSM one. The underlying problem with polygamy is its use in undermining consent.

I don't honestly see a problem with three people (that is, consenting adults) entering into a marriage in principle. There are definitely complex legal issues that would need to be sorted out (suppose the two other spouses want to make different decisions as medical proxy, how would that be arbitrated?), but that's just details. Also, what would be the upper limit. 50 is certainly too many for a single marriage. These are details that would need to be sorted out. But we should have this discussion and sort them out, rather than cite them as barriers. But more than anything else, we would need to ensure that consent is being protected. Girls not really having a say in their marriages to older men is a serious concern with not only the Mormon traditions of polygamy, but with a lot of fundamentalist religious movements without polygamy, too. Protecting consent is something that we have to take much more seriously and would need to be top priority when dealing with polygamy.
 
Paschendale said:
I think we should definitely have a legal battle over polygamy. There's plenty of legal arguments that it's an unjust infringement to prohibit it, but there are definitely issues over its use, given the precedent of pushing underage girls into coercive marriages. But that, of course, is how the polygamy argument differs from the SSM one. The underlying problem with polygamy is its use in undermining consent.

I don't honestly see a problem with three people (that is, consenting adults) entering into a marriage in principle. There are definitely complex legal issues that would need to be sorted out (suppose the two other spouses want to make different decisions as medical proxy, how would that be arbitrated?), but that's just details. Also, what would be the upper limit. 50 is certainly too many for a single marriage. These are details that would need to be sorted out. But we should have this discussion and sort them out, rather than cite them as barriers. But more than anything else, we would need to ensure that consent is being protected. Girls not really having a say in their marriages to older men is a serious concern with not only the Mormon traditions of polygamy, but with a lot of fundamentalist religious movements without polygamy, too. Protecting consent is something that we have to take much more seriously and would need to be top priority when dealing with polygamy.
Click to expand...

Rather than a marriage license, we'd need to establish something like a marital corporation. The terms of the marriage -- entry into, exit from, rights and privileges -- would be clearly spelled out by the corporate bylaws. After that, a judge or other arbiter's only involvement would be findings of fact within the scope of the bylaws. The corporation would enjoy whatever rights and incur whatever responsibilities would normally come with a marriage license.

Problem solved. :D
 
Paschendale said:
But more than anything else, we would need to ensure that consent is being protected. Girls not really having a say in their marriages to older men is a serious concern with not only the Mormon traditions of polygamy, but with a lot of fundamentalist religious movements without polygamy, too. Protecting consent is something that we have to take much more seriously and would need to be top priority when dealing with polygamy.
Click to expand...

How are underage girls (or boys) protected from non-consensual marriage now? How would that differ if polygamy were legalized?
 
Lursa said:
How are underage girls (or boys) protected from non-consensual marriage now? How would that differ if polygamy were legalized?
Click to expand...

I somehow missed that portion of the post. If I had caught it (rather than focusing on what interested me, the legal complexities), I would've asked the same question.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
What thread? It raised the subject of DOMA using an article that had nothing to do with DOMA. The discussion was doomed before it began.
Click to expand...

paddymcdougall said:
good point!
Click to expand...

sangha said:
And the final nail was when the OP refused to discuss how DOMA affected the judges decision beyond "It affected the judge's decision"
Click to expand...
Yep, you guys are right. A thread that has 35 pages of posts (minus a couple for retarded discussions with Sangha) is a failure.:roll:
Seems to me that it was a topic that people wanted to debate over. I already acknowledged to TED many pages ago that I probably botched the OP. Finally, the intent of the thread was met ie viewing polygamy through a lens that no longer has DOMA in the purview.

Sangha, you continue to claim that DOMA still restricts some marriages. Please post a reference to that because I can't find it. Section 3 was struck down. The only thing left in that bill is that states don't have to recognize gay married couples from other states. Also, you still avoid the friggin question I've asked you twice of if our justice system depends heavily on precedents to rule on current cases. You continue to avoid this because you know the answer and it supports my view. That's why debate with you is like slamming my head against a wall. You rail against Tea Party types who never compromise or admit fault and yet you continually do the same. Make your mind up.

TED, I wasn't attempting to say anything about your views other than showing Sangha that I misled you in to thinking the article contained a reference to DOMA. That's it. So get your panties out of a bunch. I wouldn't have apologized to you if I had an issue with you.
 
The verdict in DOMA wasn't about what kind of marriages to recognize. It was removing the barriers to getting federal benefits for marriages that were recognized as valid by the states.

This decision was about allowing cohabitation. Again, nothing to do with marriage - the judge specifically said that marrying more than one person was still bigamy.

Whether or not the cohabitants are having sex with each other or not - should not be the business of the courts (until issues over kids result or property disputes or whatever bring people into court, which may or may not happen)

So can we all agree to drop DOMA as part of this discussion? any chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom