• 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!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.

No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?
 
I don't follow - why must the initial passage of the law take into account the financial benefits of other married couples in order for the law to be upheld or struck down today? There have been additional State interests enacted (or at least not enumerated at the time) since the anti-polygamy law was enacted. Repeal of the law must take into account the alleged legitimate State interests which exist today.

The same reasoning applies to anti-gay marriage laws like DOMA. Those laws, when reviewed, took into account current State interests and, more importantly for those cases, current research into the field relevant towards addressing the alleged State interests.

Because for whatever the ORIGINAL reason to ban polygamy was..... that prevented polygamists from being considered when the later financial benefits were developed for married couples.

So, if the original reason to ban polygamy was discriminatory in nature..... then they suffered from discrimination both in not being able to marry at the time, AND not being considered when policy was adopted for financial benefits for married persons....
 
There already was equal protection. With all due respect, I am really not interested in your militant attitude towards those who disagree with you.

No, there wasn't. A woman could not marry a woman, but a man could marry a woman. That is not equal protection.
 
It is forcing people conscientiously objecting people to participate in financing ssm.

Conscientious objectors have always had to pay for government services they disagree with. Religiously based pacifism is the largest example of this I can think of.

So then....You too are for Mob Rule then?

The people are subject to whatever rights given to them by the majority....... The rights and liberties of the people are not to be protected from the prejudices of the majority against the minority?

The principle here is not mob rule. Marriage is one of the areas where I'm rather apathetic to be quite honest. If there was a push for legalized polyamorous marriage, I'd probably be for it. If there was a push for getting the government out of marriage and issuing everyone a civil union, I'd probably be for it. But those issues themselves are on the fringe of society so much to the extent that these reforms won't have much of an impact on, well, anything, except that a large number of people will be upset about it. I view 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance the same way. Theoretically it should be removed, but it's not worth wasting time on and will unnecessarily upset the majority. Don't get me wrong, there are cases where I hold very unpopular opinions and support actions that might be considered unpopular, but that is on issues that have extensive real life consequences.
 
Last edited:
One wife at a time. Are you really basing marriage on the use of a plural versus no plural? We already know polygamy was common in Israel and the surrounding region .... Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only.

God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?
 
God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?

Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only......
 
God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?

Sorry, but no.


God speaks, man misinterprets.

The Bible has been used to excuse cults that have sex with children, human sacrifice, and all manner of deeds. It has been misinterpreted by entire churches and in my view an entire era, the dark ages.

It is the single best selling book every year, it has been studied more than all other books and laws combined, is the basis of both western justice systems, British and Napoleonic, and the best resource known to man in the studies of anthropology.

And, it is the single most disputed book in the history of the known universe. There are at least 25 ideological pathways, with sub pathways and merged pathways. Each passage has been studied and analyzed again and again, and there is almost NO base agreement. Even when most books are written are defined as "it is believed to have been..." and is most presumed to be the work of saint...." and that's the "new" testament.

So, the Bible is NOT law. What is written, the words, are not directions from God, but His follower's cultural understanding of him at that time, reflected in poetry, song, story telling etc.

So we cannot say the Bible says this, as there is no consensus. For instance, the dark ages interpretation of Jonah is all about the "fish" and being "swallowed"...when there never was a fish according to new schools of thought. When you place the origin of the story in what was happening at the time, wandering in the desert, what could be more scary than a 'monster' from the deep of a people many of whom have never seen a large body of water. Beacuse as yo9u read the story, it is not about a whale or a fish, it is about a man who tries not to do the will of God, goes to extremes to avoid it, and ends up there anyway..and a miracle results.

So no, the Bible settles nothing, but does what it was intended to do, but begin medications on what the stories are telling us. It is not an end, but The beginning.
 
No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?

What sexual orientation would that be?

If a man has more than one wife, wouldn't he be sexually attracted to all of them?

Oh, and The Bible clearly supports polygamy:

Exodus 21: 10

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

You have to be able to feed them both, of course.

And, whether he loves all of his wives or not, the first born is the first born:



15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

but nowhere does it limit a man to only one wife.
 
God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?

And that is irrelevant..... As we are a nation of peoples of ALL religions. People in the USA should not be subject to laws fashioned to tailor our lifestyles to a particular religion's tenements.
 
What sexual orientation would that be?

If a man has more than one wife, wouldn't he be sexually attracted to all of them?

Oh, and The Bible clearly supports polygamy:

Exodus 21: 10



You have to be able to feed them both, of course.

And, whether he loves all of his wives or not, the first born is the first born:





Deuteronomy 21:15-17

but nowhere does it limit a man to only one wife.

Correct - God does limit the number of wives of Israel's Kings, but not the people, nor is there a commandment stating one man one woman for marriage. Historically the Romans instituted monogamy sometime after Christ's crucifixion. Monogamy was a Roman construct adopted by the Roman Church and later Christianity.
 
Sorry, but no.


God speaks, man misinterprets.

The Bible has been used to excuse cults that have sex with children, human sacrifice, and all manner of deeds. It has been misinterpreted by entire churches and in my view an entire era, the dark ages.

It is the single best selling book every year, it has been studied more than all other books and laws combined, is the basis of both western justice systems, British and Napoleonic, and the best resource known to man in the studies of anthropology.

And, it is the single most disputed book in the history of the known universe. There are at least 25 ideological pathways, with sub pathways and merged pathways. Each passage has been studied and analyzed again and again, and there is almost NO base agreement. Even when most books are written are defined as "it is believed to have been..." and is most presumed to be the work of saint...." and that's the "new" testament.

So, the Bible is NOT law. What is written, the words, are not directions from God, but His follower's cultural understanding of him at that time, reflected in poetry, song, story telling etc.

So we cannot say the Bible says this, as there is no consensus. For instance, the dark ages interpretation of Jonah is all about the "fish" and being "swallowed"...when there never was a fish according to new schools of thought. When you place the origin of the story in what was happening at the time, wandering in the desert, what could be more scary than a 'monster' from the deep of a people many of whom have never seen a large body of water. Beacuse as yo9u read the story, it is not about a whale or a fish, it is about a man who tries not to do the will of God, goes to extremes to avoid it, and ends up there anyway..and a miracle results.

So no, the Bible settles nothing, but does what it was intended to do, but begin medications on what the stories are telling us. It is not an end, but The beginning.

YES, man often misinterprets. The Bible is very clear on most subjects and condones none of those practices you mention.

And true, the Bible is not law (though modern jurisprudence is derived directly from it), but freedom of religion is. ;)
 
And that is irrelevant..... As we are a nation of peoples of ALL religions. People in the USA should not be subject to laws fashioned to tailor our lifestyles to a particular religion's tenements.

Uhm, I thought you were done pestering me. :confused:
 
YES, man often misinterprets. The Bible is very clear on most subjects and condones none of those practices you mention.

And true, the Bible is not law (though modern jurisprudence is derived directly from it), but freedom of religion is. ;)

Freedom of religion means that you have a right to believe things, and not be specifically targeted for your beliefs or religion, nor can religion itself be restricted as a whole. But it doesn't give people an excuse to refuse to do their jobs or to break a law that actually legitimately affects someone else just because they have those religious beliefs.
 
Conscientious objectors have always had to pay for government services they disagree with. Religiously based pacifism is the largest example of this I can think of.



The principle here is not mob rule. Marriage is one of the areas where I'm rather apathetic to be quite honest. If there was a push for legalized polyamorous marriage, I'd probably be for it. If there was a push for getting the government out of marriage and issuing everyone a civil union, I'd probably be for it. But those issues themselves are on the fringe of society so much to the extent that these reforms won't have much of an impact on, well, anything, except that a large number of people will be upset about it. I view 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance the same way. Theoretically it should be removed, but it's not worth wasting time on and will unnecessarily upset the majority. Don't get me wrong, there are cases where I hold very unpopular opinions and support actions that might be considered unpopular, but that is on issues that have extensive real life consequences.

I thought about it a lot too. It is elemental to democracy, where minorities are to be protected. I really don't think that the government should be allowed to impede religious practice or free expression but for security reasons and where other solutions are impossible.
 
It doesn't matter.....

What is convenient or cheap for the government should not be a factor in considering what rights and liberties are permitted the people.

Also, the fact that Bigamy laws were in place long before the welfare state we live in today, shows that this was not the reason for creating Bigamy laws in the first place, and thus they should be struck down.

Removing all constraints on the electorate on this, and other, matters isn't going to do the society any good. More likely that it'll implode and fall apart and lose all cohesion.
 
Just more evidence that government should remove itself from the wedding business altogether.

Gays getting married doesn't really mean they're married. I certainly don't recognize it as marriage (like I don't recognize many heterosexual marriages either). It's nowhere near the equivalent of my marriage.

It takes more than a piece of paper. Marriage is about faith and raising children. It's not a "state" matter. That's why this issue hasn't really mattered to me because it changes nothing.

But if the state wants to get involved with the "freedom" nonsense of it all, then anybody should be allowed to marry anyone, or anything, and as many as they please. I mean, marriage is about equality and freedom, right?

This is what happens when you mess with the fabric of our culture.
 
Removing all constraints on the electorate on this, and other, matters isn't going to do the society any good. More likely that it'll implode and fall apart and lose all cohesion.

:agree: Maybe that's the desired end result - lots of chaos to keep us distracted from the real problems facing this country? "Feel good" seems to sell better than stark reality, because reality requires work like fixing infrastructure that is crumbling; what to do about costs rising on food and utilities that overwhelm the poor; constant worry about terrorism conducted by barbarians who have no regard for human life; providing jobs for those who want to work; lawmakers who only serve themselves; and worst of all, spinning lies and corruption as nothing to worry about. :shock:

Out for a while for lunch....
 
Last edited:
YES, man often misinterprets. The Bible is very clear on most subjects and condones none of those practices you mention.

And true, the Bible is not law (though modern jurisprudence is derived directly from it), but freedom of religion is. ;)

Agreed, but the bold is subject to interpretation.

And as pointed out, one or two theology courses relieves one of the notion that anything is cut and dried. As several years, my theological core is that it is a matter of your one on one relationship with the Father through the Son, the living God who speaks to us daily. And in the end, He is the ultimate authority.

If you know Him and how he led his ministry, from the social sins He deliberately committed, the woman at the well, consorting with drunks, lepers and tax collectors and NOT the authorities of the time, I have to ask myself with whom would associate with today? The more I study the more I question whether a clergy was ever intended, and that we all were supposed to be apostles.
 
Agreed, but the bold is subject to interpretation.

And as pointed out, one or two theology courses relieves one of the notion that anything is cut and dried. As several years, my theological core is that it is a matter of your one on one relationship with the Father through the Son, the living God who speaks to us daily. And in the end, He is the ultimate authority.

If you know Him and how he led his ministry, from the social sins He deliberately committed, the woman at the well, consorting with drunks, lepers and tax collectors and NOT the authorities of the time, I have to ask myself with whom would associate with today? The more I study the more I question whether a clergy was ever intended, and that we all were supposed to be apostles.

The bold is really not subject to interpretation. The Bible is clear.

Jesus cannot sin, and therefore never has. The Bible is clear on that point as well. :)
 
No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?

No, polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and the bigotry you cite doesn't exist. Your point is rubbish.
 
The bold is really not subject to interpretation. The Bible is clear.

Jesus cannot sin, and therefore never has. The Bible is clear on that point as well. :)

You are now arguing points not mentioned or implied.

And sorry, but my point is that the Bible is clear on nothing. As I have said it has been "clear" to a lot of horrible crap, from cults to wars, it has been a "clear" message to whoever wants to use it for their own ends.
 
No, polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and the bigotry you cite doesn't exist. Your point is rubbish.

Bigotry exists, because supporters of gay marriage don't want the same equality for others.
 
You are now arguing points not mentioned or implied.

And sorry, but my point is that the Bible is clear on nothing. As I have said it has been "clear" to a lot of horrible crap, from cults to wars, it has been a "clear" message to whoever wants to use it for their own ends.

Agreed, but the bold is subject to interpretation.

And as pointed out, one or two theology courses relieves one of the notion that anything is cut and dried. As several years, my theological core is that it is a matter of your one on one relationship with the Father through the Son, the living God who speaks to us daily. And in the end, He is the ultimate authority.

If you know Him and how he led his ministry, from the social sins He deliberately committed, the woman at the well, consorting with drunks, lepers and tax collectors and NOT the authorities of the time, I have to ask myself with whom would associate with today? The more I study the more I question whether a clergy was ever intended, and that we all were supposed to be apostles.

The bold is what I was referring to. Your points are well taken FAL, I see no reason to beat this one to death. Have a great day my friend, I gotta get to work. :)
 
Bigotry exists, because supporters of gay marriage don't want the same equality for others.

Again, where's the bigotry? Why does the polygamy argument hinge on gays? Why do conservatives suck at making arguments?
 
I thought about it a lot too. It is elemental to democracy, where minorities are to be protected. I really don't think that the government should be allowed to impede religious practice or free expression but for security reasons and where other solutions are impossible.

It is not "elemental" to democracy. It is a key element of a republic. Which is the form of government we have.

Democracy, pure and simple, is "mob rule". In the case of permitting marriages, the "majority" has claimed superiority over the minority for far too long in this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom