• 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?

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?

The court decisions making SSM legal haven't been based on gender discrimination, but on discrimination against homosexuality, which is also not a protected class. "Class" doesn't enter into it. It's about a fundamental individual right.
 
The court decisions making SSM legal haven't been based on gender discrimination, but on discrimination against homosexuality, which is also not a protected class. "Class" doesn't enter into it. It's about a fundamental individual right.

I am not sure which decision you are speaking of.

the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved. Silence from the courts means the lowest level is currently the defacto law..or at least that is my understanding
 
It's the way it is.

Chief Justice Warren says "nice try, sparky."

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Loving v. Virginia

I say again -- who knew you were such a social conservative?
 
I am entirely fine with it, so long as we work out the legal aspects beforehand. We need to have laws in place to cover child support and custody, inheritance, etc. before we start allowing polygamous marriage. Otherwise, we'll just clog the courts and they're bad enough as it is.
 
I don't think we should stop polygamists from saying they are married or living together, but I don't think the state should legally recognize polygamous relationships as a marriage.

Why not? What's wrong with it?
 
Yes, but the spousal benefits required to be provided by employers and the government, such as health benefits or tax breaks, should be limited to the equivalent of what is given to one spouse. Requiring that people be over 18 to marry would eliminate many of the problems of exploitation associated with polygamous marriages. Requiring detailed contracts covering child custody in the case of a separation or divorce may be necessary also.
 
Last edited:
Chief Justice Warren says "nice try, sparky."



Loving v. Virginia

I say again -- who knew you were such a social conservative?

I stand corrected

And as far as my personal life, I've always been very conservative
 
as i stated earlier in the thread i would support polygamy as long as its consenting adults gays being granted equal rights doesnt open the door to polygamy. THe precedence would be totally different since polygamy would be a totally NEW law almost from the ground up.
my guess is that gay marriage will win based on equal rights and discrimination.

Legally polygamy and marriage between two parties is no where near the same nor could it use either of those arguments.
 
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.

Anyone ever married is well aware that there are never only two sides to an issue or a right answer and a wrong answer. In your scenario, I can easily see that the vote would be 1-1-1.
 
Chief Justice Warren says "nice try, sparky."

:shrug: I don't see any particular reason why I should accord him any greater status than (for example) Chief Justice Taney. Amazingly, it is possible for members of government to be wrong.



My argument against polygamy (when that battle comes, which it will shortly after we pass SSM), will be the same as it is now - no. Having already done plenty of damage to the institution of marriage and its' ability to provide stability to our society, we should not do more.
 
Anyone ever married is well aware that there are never only two sides to an issue or a right answer and a wrong answer. In your scenario, I can easily see that the vote would be 1-1-1.
I've been married almost 25 years.
 
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?

In the absence of any legally documented preference, named by the injured party, probably whomever married him first.
As for responsibility for children, it would be pretty logical that a person would be responsible only for those in whose conception he/she was involved.
 
Nope. Tax breaks. I'm against it. Funny how this is on the heels of the gay marriage debate.
 
pathetic exchange.

Dude.

Every single court case which has established SSM in a jurisdiction has been decided on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals, not on gender discrimination.

If that's not clear to you, then there's nothing else I can do to help you.
 
In the absence of any legally documented preference, named by the injured party, probably whomever married him first.
As for responsibility for children, it would be pretty logical that a person would be responsible only for those in whose conception he/she was involved.
That might not be a problem for FFM but what about MMF or MMFF? Things get a little complicated on that score when everyone's playing musical beds - or share only one. I guess the only real option, if required, would be to subject the baby to a DNA test before the birth certificate is submitted and I'm not even sure that's a good idea. If both the biological parents died don't you think the surviving spouse(s) should have a first (default) claim on their custody and continued care?
 
:shrug: I don't see any particular reason why I should accord him any greater status than (for example) Chief Justice Taney. Amazingly, it is possible for members of government to be wrong.

Sure, but that's not what I was saying. He declared that there is no fundamental right to marry, and that it's "the way it is." Under the operative law, no, indeed, it is not.
 
Dude.

Every single court case which has established SSM in a jurisdiction has been decided on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals, not on gender discrimination.

If that's not clear to you, then there's nothing else I can do to help you.


I'll repeat the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved

state decisions are not what I am speaking about

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

Notice, this is forward thinking. I know the courts have not done so yet, I am saying they might in the future.

this entire exchange has been pathetic, and I blame you.
 
I'll repeat the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved

state decisions are not what I am speaking about

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

Notice, this is forward thinking. I know the courts have not done so yet, I am saying they might in the future.

this entire exchange has been pathetic, and I blame you.

I'm sure you do, but you're blaming the wrong person, because you don't have the slightest what you -- or I -- am talking about.

I'm not referring only to state cases. The BIG case, Perry, concerning California's Proposition 8 and recently heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, is a federal case. It was not decided on the basis of gender discrimination, but on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals.

I say again, every single case -- state or federal -- has been decided on that basis. Thus, you are introducing an issue which is not necessary for disposition.

Why this is difficult for you to grasp, only you can say. But it is, most definitely, not my problem.
 
I'm not against the idea but it seems like a pretty clear legal nightmare to me.
 
I'm sure you do, but you're blaming the wrong person, because you don't have the slightest what you -- or I -- am talking about.

I'm not referring only to state cases. The BIG case, Perry, concerning California's Proposition 8 and recently heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, is a federal case. It was not decided on the basis of gender discrimination, but on the basis of discrimination against homosexuals.

I say again, every single case -- state or federal -- has been decided on that basis. Thus, you are introducing an issue which is not necessary for disposition.

Why this is difficult for you to grasp, only you can say. But it is, most definitely, not my problem.

so by cases, you really mean the one case that is currently under review.

and considering I said the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved. is dead on correct, were done.

pathetic exchange.
 
Back
Top Bottom