• 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!

Democrats are Anti-Marriage Equality.-Polygaphobia in America

C

Clapton is God

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
89
Reaction score
40
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It wasn't too long ago when Democrats not only opposed same-sex marriage, but opposed inter-racial marriage. You expect it from Republicans, but Democrats continue their bigoty and polygaphobia by opposing freedom of choice in marriage. If three men want to get married together or 5 women, they should have the freedom to do this. Some people have love for more than one person and just because Democrats and Republicans don't like it doesn't mean they should continue to discriminate.

We shouldn't judge people because of who they love. Even when the who is more than one person. Stop the hate and polygaphobia! People were born this way!
 
Agreed. I'd like to hear the argument against polygamy but for gay marriage. Its not a consistent position.
 
Clapton is God said:
It wasn't too long ago when Democrats not only opposed same-sex marriage, but opposed inter-racial marriage. You expect it from Republicans, but Democrats continue their bigoty and polygaphobia by opposing freedom of choice in marriage. If three men want to get married together or 5 women, they should have the freedom to do this. Some people have love for more than one person and just because Democrats and Republicans don't like it doesn't mean they should continue to discriminate.

We shouldn't judge people because of who they love. Even when the who is more than one person. Stop the hate and polygaphobia! People were born this way!
Click to expand...

As an advid supporter of gay marriage, I personally believe Polygamy should in fact be legal, provided it's between consentual adults.

Provided no one is being harmed in the process, what people do with their private lives is none of my goddamn business.
 
Last edited:
TobyOne said:
Agreed. I'd like to hear the argument against polygamy but for gay marriage. Its not a consistent position.
Click to expand...

Totally inconsistent! The hate from these polygaphobes is everywhere.
(I've been trying to get the word polygaphobia to catch on for a while now. lol) Maybe you can use it here and there in conversation every now and again to help with the effort. :)
 
TheGoverness said:
As an advid supporter of gay marriage, I personally believe Polygamy should in fact be legal, provided it's between consentual adults.

Provided no one is being harmed in the process, what people do with their private lives is none of my goddamn business.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I look at most political issues. I can't stand people who think only things they agree with should be legal. "None of my goddamn business" is exactly right!
 
TheGoverness said:
As an advid supporter of gay marriage, I personally believe Polygamy should in fact be legal, provided it's between consentual adults.

Provided no one is being harmed in the process, what people do with their private lives is none of my goddamn business.
Click to expand...

People can with their private lives all they want - privately. Just don't involve the rest of us by running to a government agency to validate your love and for the benefits.
 
TobyOne said:
Agreed. I'd like to hear the argument against polygamy but for gay marriage. Its not a consistent position.
Click to expand...

Which is why the SCOTUS decision is a dumb one. Just like the abotrion decision only protects the "right to privacy" for a doctor to pperscribe a woman an abortion but doesnt apply to let them perscribe medical marijuana. Politicized narrow decisions by the SCOTUS are tearing the country apart.
 
Clapton is God said:
It wasn't too long ago when Democrats not only opposed same-sex marriage, but opposed inter-racial marriage. You expect it from Republicans, but Democrats continue their bigoty and polygaphobia by opposing freedom of choice in marriage. If three men want to get married together or 5 women, they should have the freedom to do this. Some people have love for more than one person and just because Democrats and Republicans don't like it doesn't mean they should continue to discriminate.

We shouldn't judge people because of who they love. Even when the who is more than one person. Stop the hate and polygaphobia! People were born this way!
Click to expand...

TobyOne said:
Agreed. I'd like to hear the argument against polygamy but for gay marriage. Its not a consistent position.
Click to expand...


LMAO this failed bait OP is completely failed even before its gets started but Im going to post anyway because I like the topic and how easily the op will be completely destroyed. :)

Actually a VERY consistent one can be made BUT I actually don't know anybody that supports equal marriage rights and opposes polygamy as long as its consensual. I especially dont know any "democrats" that oppose it.
Im an independent and I cant speak for anybody but me but feel free to show all these democrats that are against it, republicans that are for it.

If people want to fight for the new right of polygamy I support it 100% as long as its fits the current bill of marriage and its consensual. Their only hurdle is the legal issue of it which is EASILY remedy. Take the current marriage contract as a platform and draft additions on top of it to how ever the parties see fit. First wife/husband gets this, second one gets this etc etc. That stuff is the only hurdle, the legality of things but common sense says just let the people involved in the contract decided.

Now will be waiting for that proof I asked for, please provide ONE fact that supports the OP and makes it true . . one! Thanks
:popcorn2:
 
legalimmigrant said:
People can with their private lives all they want - privately. Just don't involve the rest of us by running to a government agency to validate your love and for the benefits.
Click to expand...

Dude, you aren't forced to be involved in anyone else's marriage.

Marriage equality isn't forcing you to be involved with anyone else's marriage, either.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt that anyone is born unable to be content in relationships with less than 5 people at a time. This isn't "marriage equality" either to nearly the degree of banning same sex marriage and you kind of spit in the face of those who fought so hard for those rights, as they were unable to marry *anyone* they loved

Also i find plenty compelling government interest to ban polygamy and so have the courts to this point. In today's society (not ancient tribes or whatever) this could create serious legal, inheritance, and child custody entanglements. Think of how messy and complex divorce is now and how abusive marriages can get when only two people are involved. The potential for manipulation only goes up in my view
 
chromium said:
I seriously doubt that anyone is born unable to be content in relationships with less than 5 people at a time. This isn't "marriage equality" either to nearly the degree of banning same sex marriage and you kind of spit in the face of those who fought so hard for those rights, as they were unable to marry *anyone* they loved

Also i find plenty compelling government interest to ban polygamy and so have the courts to this point. In today's society (not ancient tribes or whatever) this could create serious legal, inheritance, and child custody entanglements. Think of how messy and complex divorce is now and how abusive marriages can get when only two people are involved. The potential for manipulation only goes up in my view
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about to what degree gays were prevented against marrying as compared to polygamists. Those are your words. Advocating freedom of choice isn't spitting on the face of anyone.

If the law can deal with property inheritance with much more than two people involved and business contracts that involve multiple parties, I'm sure they can figure out how to handle a marriage arrangement. Every time someone gets married and divorced or has kids with this person or that person it gets complicated. What about when there is no marriage and multiple kids with multiple partners? Wills and inheritance can already involve many many people.

I don't need "marriage equality". I need marriage freedom, freedom of association, freedom of choice, etc...How about we get rid of the marriage license anyway. Why do we have to ask the government permission about who we can marry anyway? We don't. I don't need 9 ****s in black robes to make that decision for me or anyone else.
If we're free, we don't have to ask permission.

I don't know who people think they are to try and use law to impose their own view of morality on others. People can have whatever point of view they want, but when one group tries to impose it's view on others it doesn't matter if the intent is "good" or "bad". It's force that's not used in self-defense and in my view unjustified.
 
Clapton is God said:
I didn't say anything about to what degree gays were prevented against marrying as compared to polygamists. Those are your words. Advocating freedom of choice isn't spitting on the face of anyone.

If the law can deal with property inheritance with much more than two people involved and business contracts that involve multiple parties, I'm sure they can figure out how to handle a marriage arrangement. Every time someone gets married and divorced or has kids with this person or that person it gets complicated. What about when there is no marriage and multiple kids with multiple partners? Wills and inheritance can already involve many many people.

I don't need "marriage equality". I need marriage freedom, freedom of association, freedom of choice, etc...How about we get rid of the marriage license anyway. Why do we have to ask the government permission about who we can marry anyway? We don't. I don't need 9 ****s in black robes to make that decision for me or anyone else.
If we're free, we don't have to ask permission.

I don't know who people think they are to try and use law to impose their own view of morality on others. People can have whatever point of view they want, but when one group tries to impose it's view on others it doesn't matter if the intent is "good" or "bad". It's force that's not used in self-defense and in my view unjustified.
Click to expand...

This has been proposed so many time here. It's not about permission. You are of course free to get a priest to do whatever. Gay couples and interracial couples had done this before the courts sided with them. It doesn't amount to much except sentiment though, and therefore no justification to waste the democratic party's or the court's time with polygamy if your new gallant position is to hell with the marriage license

But i suspect if you married you would want it. The whole point of a marriage license is the security and rights that government grants the couple for it. That amounts to over 1000 rights which was why the defeat of "DOMA" was so significant. How in the world can you expect married tax breaks or immigration rights or court testimony immunity from a *government* that considers you unmarried? Even foreign governments typically will honor this license, because just about the whole world finds it legally compelling

One of those very complications you mention - "when there is no marriage and multiple kids with multiple partners", well what if they ARE married but the government's court won't recognize it due to the defiance you now call for? That sure seems like a stupid risk
 
Clapton is God said:
It wasn't too long ago when Democrats not only opposed same-sex marriage, but opposed inter-racial marriage. You expect it from Republicans, but Democrats continue their bigoty and polygaphobia by opposing freedom of choice in marriage. If three men want to get married together or 5 women, they should have the freedom to do this. Some people have love for more than one person and just because Democrats and Republicans don't like it doesn't mean they should continue to discriminate.

We shouldn't judge people because of who they love. Even when the who is more than one person. Stop the hate and polygaphobia! People were born this way!
Click to expand...

Actually there's been a ton of us who are somewhere on the progressive scale who've been arguing this for years now.

I'll do you one better. My drum has been just getting rid of government marriage all together and allowing people to designate their legal rights to whomever they please, or divide them among several people.

Government marriage has never been anything but a tool to dictate to others what their family is allowed to look like, often tinged or outrightly bathed in some sort of bigotry, which it enforces by making itself the sole means of accessing your own rights, and making itself the sole arbiter for what qualifies as a family. That's absurd, and ethically wrong. Marriage should be returned to a social (or, if one likes, religious) ceremony only.

So now that we've put your silly assumptions to rest... next question.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
I seriously doubt that anyone is born unable to be content in relationships with less than 5 people at a time. This isn't "marriage equality" either to nearly the degree of banning same sex marriage and you kind of spit in the face of those who fought so hard for those rights, as they were unable to marry *anyone* they loved

Also i find plenty compelling government interest to ban polygamy and so have the courts to this point. In today's society (not ancient tribes or whatever) this could create serious legal, inheritance, and child custody entanglements. Think of how messy and complex divorce is now and how abusive marriages can get when only two people are involved. The potential for manipulation only goes up in my view
Click to expand...

This could be mostly solved by getting rid of government marriage and allowing personal contracts to stand. Part of the reason divorce is so complicated is that legal marriages force so many overrides on people's personal contracts (401k, income, housing, etc), essentially forcing them to unionize even the things they explicitly own individually.

This is mostly a self-created problem. While I'm sure disputes would still exist, they would be far less if marriage didn't basically nullify all of your wishes up to and even after that point. Along with making itself a bottleneck to accessing your family rights, it also makes itself a locked door to doing with them as you please.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
This could be mostly solved by getting rid of government marriage and allowing personal contracts to stand. Part of the reason divorce is so complicated is that legal marriages force so many overrides on people's personal contracts (401k, income, housing, etc), essentially forcing them to unionize even the things they explicitly own individually.

This is mostly a self-created problem. While I'm sure disputes would still exist, they would be far less if marriage didn't basically nullify all of your wishes up to and even after that point. Along with making itself a bottleneck to accessing your family rights, it also makes itself a locked door to doing with them as you please.
Click to expand...

Force would mean that prenups don't exist

Generally the desire is to unionize those things and the hope is to not divorce. Following your plan would not only mean couples would have to give up a huge # of rights here and abroad that only government can manage, but i fail to see why bother with marriage at all. Two people live together in the house one of them bought and keeps ownership of - this is already possible. Two people live together and they keep their 401k separate - already possible. They may as well just be considered roommates
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Government marriage has never been anything but a tool to dictate to others what their family is allowed to look like, often tinged or outrightly bathed in some sort of bigotry, which it enforces by making itself the sole means of accessing your own rights
Click to expand...

That has often been a major purpose of it, but who other than government can deal in immigration rights for example?

Don't mistake "get government out of marriage" as an exclusively progressive aim either. I've heard it more often from the right wing that wanted to undermine the gay marriage movement, since without government forcing it, who in the south for instance would respect these 'personal contracts' of the gay couples? Not even the mail man probably, certainly not kim davis. See, government can just as easily dictate to those who want to uphold their own bigotry as de facto law
 
chromium said:
Force would mean that prenups don't exist

Generally the desire is to unionize those things and the hope is to not divorce. Following your plan would not only mean couples would have to give up a huge # of rights here and abroad that only government can manage, but i fail to see why bother with marriage at all. Two people live together in the house one of them bought and keeps ownership of - this is already possible. Two people live together and they keep their 401k separate - already possible. They may as well just be considered roommates
Click to expand...

Prenups don't overrule everything. There are lots of limitations on what you can use them for.

Actually, most people don't realize some of those things are unionized. The 401k bombshell has shocked quite a number of people I know (and this is potentially a problem even if you remain married).

They wouldn't have to give up anything. They would just have better control over what is actually happening. If you want the standard bundle of exchanges that goes with current government marriage, fine, have at it. But lots of people don't, or don't even know how much it decides for them.

They can do those things, but not while easily having access to designating their own family, medical, and child rights. And there's absolutely no reason the government should be able to limit people in that way.

I think it's rather sad that you think it's just "living as roommates" if people don't want the government to give them the nod on their private romantic relationship and control how they privately handle the mundanities of it. Why do you need the validation and direction of the government to believe in your relationship?
 
chromium said:
That has often been a major purpose of it, but who other than government can deal in immigration rights for example?

Don't mistake "get government out of marriage" as an exclusively progressive aim either. I've heard it more often from the right wing that wanted to undermine the gay marriage movement, since without government forcing it, who in the south for instance would respect these 'personal contracts' of the gay couples? Not even the mail man probably, certainly not kim davis. See, government can just as easily dictate to those who want to uphold their own bigotry as de facto law
Click to expand...

Quite simple. The major issue with spousal immigration is basically whether they intend to function as a unit, because this gives the government some assurance they won't be on the dole and also implies a level of collateral against them doing something illegal, since both people can suffer for it.

If they have some exchange of rights and plan to function as a unit, then they get a visa.

Is that a sure bet? No. But neither is requiring a government license. They're easy to get. Haven't you ever heard of a sham marriage? They're quite common, you know.

In reality, this presents no additional difficulty beyond what we already have. And in reality, it shouldn't make any difference to the government what sort of relation they have as long as they do intend to function as a unit.

As far as the contracts of gay couples, this would solve the problem because no one would have any idea what their relation was. They could be brothers, friends, professional relations... it's none of the government's business, and in my perfect world, they have no right to ask. What matters is that they have a standing contract that has legal recognition and therefore the government must honor.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Prenups don't overrule everything. There are lots of limitations on what you can use them for.

Actually, most people don't realize some of those things are unionized. The 401k bombshell has shocked quite a number of people I know (and this is potentially a problem even if you remain married).

They wouldn't have to give up anything. They would just have better control over what is actually happening. If you want the standard bundle of exchanges that goes with current government marriage, fine, have at it. But lots of people don't, or don't even know how much it decides for them.

They can do those things, but not while easily having access to designating their own family, medical, and child rights. And there's absolutely no reason the government should be able to limit people in that way.

I think it's rather sad that you think it's just "living as roommates" if people don't want the government to give them the nod on their private romantic relationship and control how they privately handle the mundanities of it. Why do you need the validation and direction of the government to believe in your relationship?
Click to expand...

I don't consider government to be validation to believe in anything. I'm only speaking in terms of the practical benefits as i see it. Things are actually more easily handled by the marriage license than to create a contract on everything. Perhaps too easily in certain cases, so that people are not aware what they signed up for. They should really become informed before such a decision though, or if you want to make those things like 401k not unionized, it's more practical to just address that than to undo the entire system and try to contract up everything from scratch....and again i maintain you cannot contract many of those things at all without government intervention. Child custody being one of them certainly
 
chromium said:
I don't consider government to be validation to believe in anything. I'm only speaking in terms of the practical benefits as i see it. Things are actually more easily handled by the marriage license than to create a contract on everything. Perhaps too easily in certain cases, so that people are not aware what they signed up for. They should really become informed before such a decision though, or if you want to make those things like 401k not unionized, it's more practical to just address that than to undo the entire system and try to contract up everything from scratch....and again i maintain you cannot contract many of those things at all without government intervention. Child custody being one of them certainly
Click to expand...

Who says you have to?

If you want to keep the standard marriage bundle around, ok. I don't care. Hand it to people who say, "one standard bundle, please." Whatever.

My issue is that the government allows relatively little flexibility in what that bundle entails, dictates who you're allowed to exchange it with, and cuts off your ability to designate your own rights with anyone they don't think should count.

All valid legal contracts have "government intervention," in the sense of the government being beholden to enact them, or take them to court if for some reason the parties are fighting against that enactment. My proposal does nothing to change that. It just allows people to be the arbiters of how and with whom they have those contracts.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Quite simple. The major issue with spousal immigration is basically whether they intend to function as a unit, because this gives the government some assurance they won't be on the dole and also implies a level of collateral against them doing something illegal, since both people can suffer for it.

If they have some exchange of rights and plan to function as a unit, then they get a visa.

Is that a sure bet? No. But neither is requiring a government license. They're easy to get. Haven't you ever heard of a sham marriage? They're quite common, you know.

In reality, this presents no additional difficulty beyond what we already have. And in reality, it shouldn't make any difference to the government what sort of relation they have as long as they do intend to function as a unit.

As far as the contracts of gay couples, this would solve the problem because no one would have any idea what their relation was. They could be brothers, friends, cousins... it's none of the government's business, and in my perfect world, they have no right to ask. What matters is that they have a standing contract that has legal recognition and therefore the government must honor.
Click to expand...

Why would a court be bound to allow a spouse to not testify against another, if no government involvement? Joint tax return? Foreign governments allowing you both into the country? Yes i know of sham marriage. They're also illegal and sometimes are caught. I heard of one in washington state the other day. A 'personal contract' since the government controls visas, this is what i'm talking about. You don't get to decide "the government shouldn't" and expect favoritism after you declared the government useless in marriage, and your plan does not meet the requirements for an immigrant visa, even as common-law

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. The government must honor? You just said get the government out of marriage! There is no law that would force anyone in or outside government to recognize a private contract saying "We're married" or "we're divorced." A bank doesn't have to allow you a joint account. A court doesn't have to allow inheritance if there's no will. A hospital doesn't have to allow visitation. You'd have to change the laws to enforce all that. It's the very same problems that existed for gay couples before the SCOTUS ruling
 
chromium said:
Why would a court be bound to allow a spouse to not testify against another, if no government involvement? Joint tax return? Foreign governments allowing you both into the country? Yes i know of sham marriage. They're also illegal and sometimes are caught. I heard of one in washington state the other day. A 'personal contract' since the government controls visas, this is what i'm talking about. You don't get to decide "the government shouldn't" and expect favoritism after you declared the government useless in marriage, and your plan does not meet the requirements for an immigrant visa, even as common-law

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. The government must honor? You just said get the government out of marriage! There is no law that would force anyone in or outside government to recognize a private contract saying "We're married" or "we're divorced." A bank doesn't have to allow you a joint account. A court doesn't have to allow inheritance if there's no will. A hospital doesn't have to allow visitation. You'd have to change the laws to enforce all that. It's the very same problems that existed for gay couples before the SCOTUS ruling
Click to expand...

Like I said, I haven't proposed taking away any options. Simply adding more.

My premise is that this restriction on what constitutes a family and making that judgement the decider of whether you have rights is inherently invalid, and in fact breaks a lot of families by refusing to recognize their legitimacy.

The government honors all legally valid contracts of any type. But in most contracts, they don't get to decide you aren't mainstream enough to have one, like they do with marriage.

I wouldn't change any of those laws. I would simply make it easier for one to assign their visitation to whomever they like, or have a joint account with anyone they like. If you don't ever designate anything, well, that's short-sighted. But that has nothing to do with my proposal.

You seem to be simply refusing to understand what I write.
 
TheGoverness said:
Dude, you aren't forced to be involved in anyone else's marriage.

Marriage equality isn't forcing you to be involved with anyone else's marriage, either.
Click to expand...

Dudette, I have a deal for you: I will stay away from your private life and you will stay away from my private checking account I would have to use to pay for your benefits as a taxpayer while you are "married" and, later, when you will be dividing your kitchen utensils when your "marriage" falls apart.

OK? Or is it all about benefits, not "love"?
 
legalimmigrant said:
Dudette, I have a deal for you: I will stay away from your private life and you will stay away from my private checking account I would have to use to pay for your benefits as a taxpayer while you are "married" and, later, when you will be dividing your kitchen utensils when your "marriage" falls apart.

OK? Or is it all about benefits, not "love"?
Click to expand...

It's about being treated equally under the law.
 
Clapton is God said:
I didn't say anything about to what degree gays were prevented against marrying as compared to polygamists. Those are your words. Advocating freedom of choice isn't spitting on the face of anyone.

If the law can deal with property inheritance with much more than two people involved and business contracts that involve multiple parties, I'm sure they can figure out how to handle a marriage arrangement. Every time someone gets married and divorced or has kids with this person or that person it gets complicated. What about when there is no marriage and multiple kids with multiple partners? Wills and inheritance can already involve many many people.

I don't need "marriage equality". I need marriage freedom, freedom of association, freedom of choice, etc...How about we get rid of the marriage license anyway. Why do we have to ask the government permission about who we can marry anyway? We don't. I don't need 9 ****s in black robes to make that decision for me or anyone else.
If we're free, we don't have to ask permission.

I don't know who people think they are to try and use law to impose their own view of morality on others. People can have whatever point of view they want, but when one group tries to impose it's view on others it doesn't matter if the intent is "good" or "bad". It's force that's not used in self-defense and in my view unjustified.
Click to expand...

Do you also advocate getting rid of birth certificates? The main purpose of marriage licenses is to establish a legal relationship between people, primarily the couple getting married, but then secondary the legal family members of those who got married. This is basically the same purpose of birth certificates. The legal extras is just that extra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom