• 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?

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I had married my parents before they passed away, I wouldn't have had to go through all that pesky inheritance stuff.
 
CanadaJohn said:
"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's my most popular wife of all?" Brothers Grimm - Snow White
Click to expand...

And the mirror responded...why, you are of course! You had to ask? Nothing beats a smarta** mirror! :lamo:
 
The FLDS comes to mind for many of the reasons polygamist shouldn't marry.

Then again, unless you're one Hell of a patient person. I can't see why anyone would want more than one wife (or husband...or puppy...or sweet transvestite from Transylvania)
 
Last edited:
If we're gonna kick the door open for SSM, I find it hard to see where we could morally and legally deny polygamists or polyamorists equal rights to marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Not with our current marriage laws, in the way we view spouses and what legal rights/benefits/responsibilities/privileges we give spouses. It leads to many complications within our legal system, particularly family/civil law dealing with divorce, spousal rights, distribution of assets, custody of children, etc. There is also an issue of where the limitation is made. If you can marry any infinite number of partners, then what prevents the entire world from being legally married to each other? What prevents someone from marrying 10, 20, 100, 1000 foreigners to get them legal citizenship without getting divorced and how do you prove that the person doesn't love all of those people? Why should society have to pay for INS to investigate all of those marriages, which would be legally required?
Click to expand...

Interesting point about citizen thru marriage.
 
Goshin said:
If we're gonna kick the door open for SSM, I find it hard to see where we could morally and legally deny polygamists or polyamorists equal rights to marriage.
Click to expand...

I find it pretty easy to see.

SSM doesn't actually create new problems..or atleast very few.
 
ARealConservative said:
I find it pretty easy to see.

SSM doesn't actually create new problems..or atleast very few.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the "how do we split things up in a divorce" problem that people have brought up.

Simply solved... require the poly-whatevers to have a prenup detailing who gets property and kids before marrying. Solved.


I keep hearing "we can't discriminate against anyone because of who they fall in love with".... well, why doesn't that apply to poly-whatevers too?
 
Libertas-Mors said:
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

Well, it's going to be the next equal rights struggle whether you like it or not. I wonder what comes after polygamy...
 
mac said:
Well, it's going to be the next equal rights struggle whether you like it or not. I wonder what comes after polygamy...
Click to expand...


Probably pedagogury. :mrgreen:


I'm kidding, I'm not even sure what that is...
 
Goshin said:
Yeah, the "how do we split things up in a divorce" problem that people have brought up.

Simply solved... require the poly-whatevers to have a prenup detailing who gets property and kids before marrying. Solved.
Click to expand...

what about social security issues?

How do employers handle insuring spouses?

I keep hearing "we can't discriminate against anyone because of who they fall in love with".... well, why doesn't that apply to poly-whatevers too?
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on the notion that you can't discriminate against SSM. I think this notion that it is a cut and dried violation of equal rights is a crock, but it does it least have a compelling case. Polygamy doesn't. We absolutely have the power of discriminating against such an activity, just as we can ban incestuous adult relationships.
 
Goshin said:
If we're gonna kick the door open for SSM, I find it hard to see where we could morally and legally deny polygamists or polyamorists equal rights to marriage.
Click to expand...

That and many more reason were given to prevent SSM. Where does it end?
 
WCH said:
That and many more reason were given to prevent SSM. Where does it end?
Click to expand...



I have no idea.


I'm pretty sure the polygamists and polyamorists are going to be lining up their arguments if SSM becomes law-o-the-land, and having set the precedent it is going to be hard to argue against them.

After all, it isn't their fault they fell in love with multiple partners, is it? We cannot define for others who they can fall in love with, or deny them equal access to the institution of marriage, just because they love more than one person. Actually it is probably something they're born with and can't help, and thus denying them their civil rights would be very wrong.
 
Goshin said:
I have no idea.


I'm pretty sure the polygamists and polyamorists are going to be lining up their arguments if SSM becomes law-o-the-land, and having set the precedent it is going to be hard to argue against them.

After all, it isn't their fault they fell in love with multiple partners, is it? We cannot define for others who they can fall in love with, or deny them equal access to the institution of marriage, just because they love more than one person. Actually it is probably something they're born with and can't help, and thus denying them their civil rights would be very wrong.
Click to expand...

the next cliche tag line will be "...no matter who you love...or how many!"
 
lizzie said:
I don't see why not, if all are consenting adults.
Click to expand...
If you are a taxpayer you should think about the financial implications.

Do you want to pay huge benefits to some public employee's 20 husbands and wives?
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
If you are a taxpayer you should think about the financial implications.

Do you want to pay huge benefits to some public employee's 20 husbands and wives?
Click to expand...

Isn't that already included [somewhere] in ObamaCare? ;)
 
Muhammed said:
If you are a taxpayer you should think about the financial implications.

Do you want to pay huge benefits to some public employee's 20 husbands and wives?
Click to expand...

:shrug: The can of worms is already open.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So you're in favor of polygamy provided there's at least four sides in the mix. Understood.
Click to expand...
Actually, that would alleviate the one issue I brought up that is a problem, conflicting decisions between two partners over the third. If there are three people making a decision about the fourth member, there can't be a tie. The vote will be 2-1.
 
Ontologuy said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a "No". If you prefer to treat the English language as your mortal enemy, that's your business.
 
Goshin said:
Yeah, the "how do we split things up in a divorce" problem that people have brought up.

Simply solved... require the poly-whatevers to have a prenup detailing who gets property and kids before marrying. Solved.


I keep hearing "we can't discriminate against anyone because of who they fall in love with".... well, why doesn't that apply to poly-whatevers too?
Click to expand...
It does apply to them. I don't care how many balls and chain you want to wear! :)

But all the "default" positions (inheritance, kids, etc) would need new rulings, or new documentation, or something. There are definite complications above and beyond what any two people would have.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It does apply to them. I don't care how many balls and chain you want to wear! :)

But all the "default" positions (inheritance, kids, etc) would need new rulings, or new documentation, or something. There are definite complications above and beyond what any two people would have.
Click to expand...

Then that's something which will have to be worked out. It's not something which outweighs the fundamental right to marry whom you choose. I mean, "no, sorry, you can't get married because the accounting is too complex" just doesn't cut it.
 
Harshaw said:
Then that's something which will have to be worked out. It's not something which outweighs the fundamental right to marry whom you choose. I mean, "no, sorry, you can't get married because the accounting is too complex" just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Harshaw said:
Then that's something which will have to be worked out. It's not something which outweighs the fundamental right to marry whom you choose. I mean, "no, sorry, you can't get married because the accounting is too complex" just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

There is no fundamental right to marry whom you choose
 
Harshaw said:
Then that's something which will have to be worked out. It's not something which outweighs the fundamental right to marry whom you choose. I mean, "no, sorry, you can't get married because the accounting is too complex" just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

the courts, and hence the law, have sided that we have a right to limit government programs.

the argument over if same sex marriage is protected based on gender is one that the courts might give consideration to.

but under what logic are polygamists going to claim they are a protected class?
 
sangha said:
There is no fundamental right to marry whom you choose
Click to expand...

That is not the way it's going. Who knew you were such a social conservative?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom