• 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!

Should polygamists have the right to marry?

Ontologuy said:
It never ceases to amaze me how pre-conceived ideology, left, right, or libertarianly schizoid, can so greatly dumb down its sufferer to the degree that the obvious is rendered nebulous to them. :roll:

It never ceases to amaze me how those most prone to disparaging the intelligence of other show nothing of the stuff, themselves. Dressing up poorly written bigotry with words gleaned from a thesaurus does not a compelling argument make.
I find it interesting from your projection standpoint what unintentionally baits you, as it reveals your sole M.O. on the revelant topic. :lol:

And, of course, you completely ignored the parts of the winning argument I posted .. for obvious reasons.

You've yet to posit your own detailed perspective on the matter .. likely because you have none.

Instead, you simply issue unprovoked ad hominems, complete with the erroneous "Bigot!", against those posters who present a reasoned cogent winning argument on the topic, criticizing with absolute nothings, simply because those reasoned cogent obviously winning arguments makes your conclusion on the matter a loser.

Again, next time, try to engage in topically relevant discussion sans initiation of personal ad hominems.

Who knows, you might even have a topically relevant point to make .. because so far, you've attempted to make no point at all.
 
So you get to decide what criteria people use to decide for themselves the answer to the question?

My first criteria when it comes to the LAW is whether or not the LAW is constitutional in nature. The marriage laws as they current sit are an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of gender in my mind, so I don't agree with them. I see no constitutional issue what so ever when it comes to discriminating against polygamists.
Right. This is entirely arbitrary. You heave and haw over people that see changing the definition of marriage to include homo marriages as 'bigots' yet you prefer your own specially brewed brand of bigotry against poly marriages. Fascinating.

My next criteria would be is it a worth while, necessary, useful law that falls within some general scope of the Government. In terms of polygamy, I don't view it as exceedingly needed nor worth while in terms of the multitude of legal issues that it interjects into things.
And some people feel exactly the same way about gay marriage....

I don't see any compelling reason to change the legal code significantly to allow for polygamy to be recognized under the law. "They're consenting adults" is not a compelling reason as we don't have the government officially recognizing MANY things consenting adults can do together. "But yo'ure letting the gays do it!" is not a compelling reason, because there's an actual strong constitutional reasoning behind allowing for that in my mind...one that is simply not present when it comes to polygamy.

No, polygamists shouldn't be able to get married in a sense that is legally recognized and incentivized by the Government.
When gay marriage is approved there will be no legal case against civil unions/marriages for those with polyamorous proclivities. Again, you want to change the current legal status of marriage to include homos (your favored group) but not polys based on so far as I can see....nothing but personal preference.
 
Certain sects in certain parts of the country place heavy coercion on the practice. Be that as it is, I still agree with your statement that it's fine as long as consenting adults are involved. I'd like to eliminate (as much as possible) the coercion in those few sects, though.

As I said, I haven't seen evidence of coercion, but even if it is a fact, it remains that consenting adults should have the ability to make that choice. To try and "eliminate" that, would entail government intervention in the private relationships/ choices of individuals, which I wholly oppose. It isn't uncommon to see a woman or man enter a monogamous marriage in which she/he is emotionally manipulated by the spouse, in the general population. I wouldn't expect different relationship dynamics in specific religious groups. Trying to insure that women would not be marginalized in marriage could easily place restrictions on monogamous marriages of some Christian or Muslim couples.
 
Right. This is entirely arbitrary. You heave and haw over people that see changing the definition of marriage to include homo marriages as 'bigots' yet you prefer your own specially brewed brand of bigotry against poly marriages. Fascinating.

WOW stereotype much. Please, find me an instance where I've suggested those that disagree with same sex marriage are "bigots". Please, be my guest.

Here's some shocking information for you based on what yo'uve posted in this thread....people are not robots, and just because they have a particular view does not mean they automatically fit into your prejudiced preconcieved notions of everything they think and say.

Now, as to this part of my argument being arbitrary, that's just definitively false. As in, calling it such highlights you don't know what hte word arbitrary means:

"1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

Basing my views on the Constitution and Constitutional Law is distinctly and clearly basing my views on a SYSTEM...NOT on personal whim. It's the very definition of the opposite of arbitrary.

One instance is lawful in my opinion based no the SYSTEM of governance we have in this country.

One instance is not lawful in my opinion based on the SYSTEM of government we have in this country.

Not based on personal whims. I don't personally or morally have any issue with polygamists so long as everyone is consenting. But

And some people feel exactly the same way about gay marriage....

And they're free to. I however can articulate an argument that would suggest the discrimination is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. In the case of those who say it about gay marriage, they have a higher standard to meet...they need to provide evidence the discrimination servers an IMPORTANT state interest and that the discrimination is SUBSTANTIALLY related to serving that interest.

If they want to make that argument they're free to, I have no issue with that. I may have issue with the argument itself as I've yet to see someone put forward a reasonable one that actually reaches such a standard imho...but have no issues with a person simply making the argument.

When gay marriage is approved there will be no legal case against civil unions/marriages for those with polyamorous proclivities.

Sure there will be. The law is not written in such a way to allow for someone to be joined with another person multiple times, and all sorts of legal code is not written with the notion that it would have to define which spouse has what rights. Your statement doesn't just make sense, it's just plainly false.

Again, you want to change the current legal status of marriage to include homos (your favored group) but not polys based on so far as I can see....nothing but personal preference.

If you want to have an ignorant and erroneous opinion on views and statements I’ve never made and you’ve simply created in your head based on your prejudice towards anyone that holds a particular view, I can’t really stop you.

If you care to comment on what I have actually said then I’d be happy to give a response to that. Otherwise, you’ll have to hope that strawman you just built up can learn how to talk or else it’s going to be a really one sided conversation.
 
The government is allowed to and does limit how many people can be named as a person's legal medical adviser in the event of incapacitation. Marriage does this automatically with the many other things that legal marriage does, the many other legal documents that marriage takes the place of. That limit is one person can be named for each. Allowing more than one person to be legally named another person's spouse means that we would have to change this legal part of marriage, since legally a person is not allowed to have more than one person named as their medical "liaison". This is but one major change needed if opening up marriage to more than two people.

And the only thing required by the government is a reason legitimately related to the limitation in order to limit something under the lowest tier of scrutiny, where numbers of people within a marriage would fall. The above reason alone would be a legitimate reason, but there are many more (some of which I mentioned in my first post on this thread) that apply to the having greater than 2 people in a legal marriage that apply in no way to same sex marriage. There is no legitimate reason related to limiting marriage by the genders of the people, particularly not at the level of intermediate scrutiny.
 
The word 'marriage' itself in a secular country is not important to me.
But your implied dualism is simply false, an erroneous construction.

Marriage, which is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, began a little before the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago, and is a global human endeavor that predates religion, the Bible, Christianity, every religion, and the oath of marriage is taken both in and out of religion, worldwide today, between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Your "secular country" implication, attempting the inapplicable association of marriage with religion, is simply erroneous with respect to fact.

Thus your implication that marriage is a religious institution, an erroneous implication, is meaningless.


A civil union would be just fine as far as I am concerned.
A domestic partnership civil union is exactly what marriage -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- is in the government's eyes.

Domestic partnership civil unions can be more than one type, marriage simply being one type. Gays in romance can have homarriage, polygamists in romance can have polmarriage, all can be specifically and similarly defined domestic partnership civil unions, with, of course, different names to intelligently differentiate, just like cat-owners have cat shows and dog-owners have dog shows, to keep within the intelligent application of accurate naming according to definitive propriety.

There will be some who will argue against polygamy, and that will be a battle, I suppose, though I have no "dog" in that fight.

My beef is in doing stupid things and then legally compelling society and citizens to respect such stupidity, like ludicrously associating marriage with gays and polygamists and the like, as that's simply a violation of definitive propriety, and such stupidity dumbs down subsequent generations and creates societal regression as opposed to progression.


Although, I don't see how it preserves the sanctity of marriage from your POV provided that (read IF) the SC allows for gay marriage.
A SCOTUS pre-conceived ideological mistake of allowing SS couples an association with marriage, not requiring a separately named domestic partnership civil union for them, would simply be a mistake, an egregious violation of definitive propriety, complete politically motivated.

It will still be a mistake, even if it's the SCOTUS making it .. and, it can be reversed in time, but in the meantime it would just be a step back, as in "two steps forward, one step back", the typical way our species progresses.

Again, your use of the word "sanctity" in describing marriage is to imply a religious connection, which I've pointed out is an erroneous assumption on your part.

Marrage is a time-honored human institution, predating religion, the oath of which is performed outside of religion as well as adopted by religion for religion's control sake, and thus religion is meaningless in the matter.
 
As to the differences between gay marriage and polygamy, the differences should be obvious.
They should, perhaps, but too often what some say are "obvious differences" are simply not, but merely personal constructs, and the obvious topical difference -- the foundational definitive propriety reality that marriage is between a man and a woman as huband and wife -- is completely ignored.

I wonder why ...


Sexual orientation is hard wired,
Yes .. but that's neither here nor there with respect to what marriage is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

If it's not "a man and a woman", it isn't marrage, and that's the sole, definitive propriety, winning argument in the matter that excludes polygamists, as well as gays, from marriage.


while polygamy is an entirely societal construct.
Polygamy is an aspect of human history .. but so is homarriage and marriage.

They are all domestic partnership civil unions, as we contemporarily refer to them -- that's what they've always been.

So there's no differentiation argument referencing the similar "sociatal construct" that would reasonably exclude polygamists from having their own domestic partnership civil union .. though it would be a legal-wording nightmare to define.


As Ikari pointed out, such a traditional construct is based upon subjugation and repression,
Absolutely ludicrous! :lol:

To imply that the definitive propriety reality that marriage is between a man and a woman as husband wife is a "societal construct" that is traditionaly based upon "subjugation and repression" (of gays and others) is the height of extremist thinking. :roll:

That you would align with similar Ikari so extremistly victimish likely has some sad personal underpinnings.

Regardless, it's simply false, and a ridiculous notion that no one in the vast overwhelming non-extremist majority takes seriously.

So far, you have no rational cogent argument.


As to the inane arguments about marrying other species, these do not address the matter of consent, so obviously so that anybody suggesting this is any sort of logical outgrown from allowing gay marriage deserves nothing but complete ridicule.
Though consent is a requirement for some, it is not the foundational argument that separates human-animal "relations" from human-human ones, as global humanity has engaged in pre-arranged marriages for thousands of years, and that means, obviously and famously, that these relationships often had one or more partners who were not giving their consent, but merely acquiesced to the marriage, sometimes under threat of the penalty of death if they refused.

No, there is but one foundational reasoned cogent winning argument that excludes human-animal "couples" as well as SS couples and 3-or-more-humans from association with the word "marriage": because, with respect to the foundational appeal to definitive propriety, marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman as husband and wfe.

It really is just that simple.

Nevertheless, it's about nice time to see an attempt from you at formulating a reasoned cogent argument.

Maybe, with a little practice, next time you'll have better success.
 
That you would align with similar Ikari so extremistly victimish likely has some sad personal underpinnings.

.

Have you ever considered the many merits of a remedial writing course?
 
Have you ever considered the many merits of a remedial writing course?
Not only do you rile against an absolutely non-existent nothing, but, given the chance to have a topically relevant detailed discussion of the particulars of the issue, you defer in lieu of your typical M.O.: initiation of personal ad hominems sans topically relevant content.

:lol:

Why am I not surprised!
 
Marriage, in today's society, is no longer an "institution", an instrumental foundation of society. It is nothing more than a legal contract acknowledged, rewarded, and protected by government for no discernible reason.

Therefore, government should not be in the business of marriage any longer and if it is, it no longer has any basis for discrimination and must leave the contractural decision making up to the adults involved. If I, as a man, wish to enter into a contractural arrangement with any other person, the government should not and, if the law continues to move, may not stand in the way of that contract.

As long as each and every partner in a polygamous relationship enter into such a contract freely, openly, and knowingly, it must now be protected as any other "marriage" contract moving forward.

However, if one partner in a "marriage" is not aware of additional "marriage" partners his/her partner has contracted with, then the first contract must prevail over any other contract unless, again, all parties to the contract reach agreement.
 
Marriage, in today's society, is no longer an "institution", an instrumental foundation of society. It is nothing more than a legal contract acknowledged, rewarded, and protected by government for no discernible reason.

Therefore, government should not be in the business of marriage any longer and if it is, it no longer has any basis for discrimination and must leave the contractural decision making up to the adults involved. If I, as a man, wish to enter into a contractural arrangement with any other person, the government should not and, if the law continues to move, may not stand in the way of that contract.

As long as each and every partner in a polygamous relationship enter into such a contract freely, openly, and knowingly, it must now be protected as any other "marriage" contract moving forward.

However, if one partner in a "marriage" is not aware of additional "marriage" partners his/her partner has contracted with, then the first contract must prevail over any other contract unless, again, all parties to the contract reach agreement.
Each of these domestic partnership civil union contracts must have a unique separate name, as do all such contracts, including those that are topically germane.

For a man and woman as husband and wife, the contract is called "marriage".

For SS couples, the contract is more rightly called "homarriage".

For polygamy partners, the contract is more rightly call polmarriage.

However, with polmarriage, that's gotta be one hell of a specific to each unique combination contract, frequently revised, and thus there is no good standard to be utilized like there is with a permanent and exclusive two-partner relationship like marriage and homarriage ..

.. Unless, of course, the polmarriage contract creates an exclusion for additional partners at that time, then it may be more workable, but the fact that such a partnership could have any number of participants at its inception makes for a challenge for government to adminstrate with regard to all the usual applicable particulars for which government assisted materials/societal management is historically involved.
 
I don't see why not, if all are consenting adults.
Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?

I'd tend to agree with you on an individual freedom level but there are a lot of legal complications that arise when you add a third party into the mix.
 
Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?

I'd tend to agree with you on an individual freedom level but there are a lot of legal complications that arise when you add a third party into the mix.

How about squares? :)

I am rather confident that such specific issues could be hammered out in a contract when you go in to get your marriage license.
 
Because a triangle is the most unstable thing in human affairs, whether they are politics, international diplomacy, or the living room. On the practical side, though, if there are two wives and the husband becomes incapacitated then who makes the medical decisions for him? If both agree then everything is great but what if they don't? Also, is the third spouse responsible for children from the other two?

I'd tend to agree with you on an individual freedom level but there are a lot of legal complications that arise when you add a third party into the mix.
But now you're getting into "protecting people from themselves" territory. Not saying these concerns don't exist, but is it the government's responsibility to do something about it?
 
How about squares? :)

I am rather confident that such specific issues could be hammered out in a contract when you go in to get your marriage license.

I was going to say that the Pyramids, perhaps the most famous of triangles every established by humans have survived centuries - who's to say polygamous marriages wouldn't be equally as strong.

Once government eliminates the institutional concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman to accommodate same sex marriage, it has no basis in logic or law to discriminate against any other union any two or more people wish to enter into.
 
Consenting adults ought to be free to form the relationships they want to form.

This, of course, WILL be in issue in the not-too-distant future, especially if SSM is instituted judicially on the basis of civil rights.

It will be quite interesting indeed to see who opposes it, and why.
 
I think this discussion is a bit too one-sided, focusing on individual liberty, without regards to the effects on society as a whole. Govts role is not merely to protect the rights of individuals. It is also to maintain the social order and promote the general welfare

The raising of children to be productive citizens is of critical importance to both the maintenance of the social order, and the promotion of the general welfare. There is overwhelming support (both popular and sociological) for the idea that children benefit from a stable home with two parents. IMO, it is not enough to say that children can do as well in homes with more than 2 parents; there needs to be good reason to believe that having the govt protect and promote polyamorous relationships is superior to the current situation in order to justify having the govt do so.
 
How about squares? :)

I am rather confident that such specific issues could be hammered out in a contract when you go in to get your marriage license.
I understand that - but the same could be said, now, of all marriages, couldn't it? Then why do we even bother? As I've argued in the SSM thread, marriage is mostly a matter of the convenience of a default position. There are a few exceptions:

1. A spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other spouse. That can be simply settled to apply to all parties involved. I note it for inclusion.

2. Children. There are only two parents. I am not familiar enough with these laws to know how or even if more than two adults can be held ultimately and legally accountable for children.

3. Tax laws - and it's probably the stickiest of the bunch.

But now you're getting into "protecting people from themselves" territory. Not saying these concerns don't exist, but is it the government's responsibility to do something about it?
It's the issues I noted above that are the problem. The triangle was an example because it would no doubt be the most common and create some issues all by itself - for example, conflicting decisions by two for the third. Yes, it's the government's responsibility because they hold the legal keys. Those legal issues need to be addressed. SSM doesn't have those problems because it's only two people just like we legally recognized, now, so there's no substantial legal difference.

I noted in my additional paragraph/sentence that I agreed from a personal freedom standpoint. I don't care what people do in their private lives.
 
Last edited:
I was going to say that the Pyramids, perhaps the most famous of triangles every established by humans have survived centuries - who's to say polygamous marriages wouldn't be equally as strong.
The bases of the pyramids are all square, not triangular.
 
That's true. I don't disagree with that.

You mean something like the following:

Many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be
This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her and soon they too were wed

This made my dad my son-in-law and really changed my life
For now my daughter was my mother, 'cause she was my father's wife
And to complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he were my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grownup daughter, who was of course my step-mother

Father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son
My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue
Because although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
'Cause now I have become the strangest 'case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa

I'm my own grandpa, I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny, I know but it really is so
I'm my own grandpa
 
I think this discussion is a bit too one-sided, focusing on individual liberty, without regards to the effects on society as a whole. Govts role is not merely to protect the rights of individuals. It is also to maintain the social order and promote the general welfare

The raising of children to be productive citizens is of critical importance to both the maintenance of the social order, and the promotion of the general welfare. There is overwhelming support (both popular and sociological) for the idea that children benefit from a stable home with two parents. IMO, it is not enough to say that children can do as well in homes with more than 2 parents; there needs to be good reason to believe that having the govt protect and promote polyamorous relationships is superior to the current situation in order to justify having the govt do so.

And these are exactly the kinds of contortions I'm looking forward to seeing.
 
So you're in favor of polygamy provided there's at least four sides in the mix. Understood.

Does that mean that only squares can join? Doesn't sound like a good selling point, so how do they get new recruits? :shock:
 
Does that mean that only squares can join? Doesn't sound like a good selling point, so how do they get new recruits? :shock:

You're sounding a little too interested there, Lady P. Does your husband know what's going on here??
 
You're sounding a little too interested there, Lady P. Does your husband know what's going on here??

LOL! Just ask one little innocent question... :lamo: "Knowledge is power." Francis Bacon
 
Back
Top Bottom