• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
I'm trying to help the libs sort through their own fuzzy logic.

Except it is not fuzzy logic, unless you think two different things should be considered the same.
 
People doing it doesn't give it legal legitimacy. How is a court to decide who gets what in the instance that one of the wives files for divorce? Especially when children are involved. It would be a ****ing mess, a mess that nobody needs. If people want to be swingers, or whatever other sick **** people do these days, I have no problem with it as long as they keep it to themselves, but legalizing polygamy opens up a can of worms that need not be opened.


The can is already open. The same arguments used to legitmize SSM can and will be used to legalize polygamy and other things.
 
It's probably in part because many people associate Poly exclusively with certain specific sects of Mormon Fundamentalists, and because the setup is theoretically patriarchial and religious, that offends their leftist thinking processes.

There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist”.

That said, the FLDS certainly do give the concept of plural marriage a bad name.

When we genuine Mormons practiced polygamy (including my aforementioned great-great grandfather), we did so in an orderly way, that did not produce any of the ills that have repeatedly been claimed in this thread would result from the practice.
 
The can is already open. The same arguments used to legitmize SSM can and will be used to legalize polygamy and other things.

The can is open since the law recognizes marriage. The arguments for SSM and polygamy are different since they are different things. Funny how you can't refute that basic fact so you run away from it.
 
There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist”.

That said, the FLDS certainly do give the concept of plural marriage a bad name.

When we genuine Mormons practiced polygamy (including my aforementioned great-great grandfather), we did so in an orderly way, that did not produce any of the ills that have repeatedly been claimed in this thread would result from the practice.


Pardon; no offense was intended... they are commonly referred to in this manner.
 
The can is already open. The same arguments used to legitmize SSM can and will be used to legalize polygamy and other things.

As I said before, the two aren't comparable. SSM is just a sexual fetish, which is clearly mainstream these days. It doesn't have to be legitimized. Polygamy is about marriage to multiple people. It's a long term commitment with heavy responsibilities, most of all children and property.
 
"Legitimate marriage" from a legal standpoint is whatever the law says it is. Currently, SSM is legitimate in more places in the US than polygamy. Which "purpose" of marriage(careful, this is a trick question)?

There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”.

Congress could pass a bill that dictates that two plus two equals ten, and the President could sign that bill into law. It wouldn't change the fact that two plus two unalterably equals four.

Congress could pass a bill that defines a rotifer as a kind of elephant, and the President could sign that into law. A rotifer would still not be an elephant; and it would still remain just as obvious to anyone who examined both creatures that they are not the same.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is, that's what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be. Anything else is not, has never been, and never will be marriage. Only a sick, degraded society would even think of trying to define it otherwise.

Passing a law that tries to define it otherwise does not change what marriage is. Trying to legally define “same sex marriage” as valid is every bit as absurd as trying to legally define two plus two as being equal to ten, or a rotifer as an elephant.
 
today we have people who will sell marriage to foreigners to get into the u.s.

if plural marriages were to take place you would have people selling marriage for........ benefits...IE ..healthcare would be the main one.

Not only that, the sky might also fall!:lamo
 
well that is a way, but what if the company chooses not too,...do they face the wrath of government?

Do companies have to cover all twelve of your kids if your wife is crazy enough to let that happen?
 
I prefer simplicity myself, but this is not, in and of itself, enough of a valid argument to deny otherwise peaceful people being allowed to live their lives as they see fit. Yes, there would be some legal complexities, but they could be addressed.

I'm not sure if the law could even account for all the possibilities in multiple marriages even if we wanted to. Even with the simplest multiple marriage, with 3 people, you can have two different things. You could have person A married to both persons B and C, but B and C not married to each other, or you could have each of the three married to each of the other two. With 4 people, there are a LOT more possible ways to do it. I'm not sure how you would write laws that could take all of that into account. Letting people write their own contracts is a good compromise, since they can write them in whatever manner they want, and it doesn't completely prevent marriage arrangements between more than 2 people, but it's a hell of a lot easier to implement.
 
There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”.

Congress could pass a bill that dictates that two plus two equals ten, and the President could sign that bill into law. It wouldn't change the fact that two plus two unalterably equals four.

Congress could pass a bill that defines a rotifer as a kind of elephant, and the President could sign that into law. A rotifer would still not be an elephant; and it would still remain just as obvious to anyone who examined both creatures that they are not the same.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is, that's what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be. Anything else is not, has never been, and never will be marriage. Only a sick, degraded society would even think of trying to define it otherwise.

Passing a law that tries to define it otherwise does not change what marriage is. Trying to legally define “same sex marriage” as valid is every bit as absurd as trying to legally define two plus two as being equal to ten, or a rotifer as an elephant.

Your random opinions are pretty much irrelevant to anything. US law, state law, reality, they are the important things.
 
Do companies have to cover all twelve of your kids if your wife is crazy enough to let that happen?

currently we have two people per marriage..becuase of law....i myself think government has no place in marriage at all.

however if that law was removed and plural marriages were to take place, does a comapny have to be compel to insure more people if the law is removed.

in my opinion... no, i believe in contract law, like the founders, when you take a job you agree to terms of a contract between the two parties, and no third party can enter that contract unless invited into it both parties, and the contract cannot be canceled/or changes unless both parties agree.

government intervention into a contract is a ....no no!
 
Going to nip this in the bud once and for all: SSM AND POLYGAMY ARE NOT COMPARABLE. Polygamy is a marital status, it deals with a wide array of issues and responsibilities, you may as well bring up gay marriage, which is equally irrelevant to this particular topic. SSM is nothing more than a sexual fetish. It doesn't expand to the ranges of property ownership, having and raising children, or a mutual partnership in business and household matters. Marriage covers a very broad spectrum of things. SSM is just kink, so enough with this useless comparison. You may as well be comparing a 1986 Camaro to a T-Rex.

Which one gets to get married?

The car or the dinosaur?

You don't know ANY gay people, do you?
 
I guess this is where we differ. I don't think marriage was designed to benefit the state. It's for the individuals involved.

There's no rational reason to not allow polygamists to marry. It's not like they can't live together and raise a family regardless, so why not let them exercise their relationship the way they choose?

Giving them the marriage title or not won't change their actions in raising their kids or "effecting society", but it will go far into giving them a sense of equality.

Definitely where we differ. The legality of marriage is sponsored by the state. If something has no benefit to the state, the state has no reason to sponsor it. Plural marriage is not an orientation nor has it been shown to provide any benefits to the individuals, children, or society. I have no issue with polygamy OUTSIDE of state sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?

Since no option in the poll represents my feelings on the matter, I'll state here, no.

In 2009, the Canadian Supreme Court considered whether s. 293 of the law against polygamy that criminalizes it, was constitutional. It was upheld. The government's lawyer in the case, Craig Jones, wrote a book about it, "Cruel Arithmetic". I cannot get a linkable quote from the book, but this is an article covering the main thrust of Jones' argument that, in the end, prevailed and s. 293 was upheld.

In a polygamous society like Bountiful, B.C. — a mysterious, secretive colony populated by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, the breakaway Mormon sect which practises “plural marriage” — this “cruel arithmetic” inevitably manifests itself in two ways. Every time a man takes an additional wife (polyandry, the taking of multiple husbands by a woman, is almost unknown) another man in the community is left with no one to marry. And as the adult females are married off, younger and younger wives are taken. The results: child trafficking, sexual exploitation of minors, and “lost boys,” who are marginalized and even expelled from their homes:
One of Jones’s expert witnesses, Dr. Joe Henrich, forcefully made the case that a “nontrivial” increase in polygamy would result in higher rates of crime and anti-social behaviour from the growing number of unmarried males (this has been the experience in China, where the “one-child” policy has led to an imbalance in the number of males and females).

Lawyer on polygamy case changes his tune | Canadian Lawyer Magazine

2011 BCSC 1588 Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada

I know. This is a Canadian court, but the harms mentioned and cited in the decision are not exclusive to Canada.
 
Last edited:
The can is already open. The same arguments used to legitmize SSM can and will be used to legalize polygamy and other things.

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. As are false equivalencies.
 
Indeed they aren't.

Polygamy, while unconventional, is genuine marriage, and it fulfills the purpose of marriage, while “same sex marriage” is not, never was, and never will be genuine marriage, and can only undermine and degrade the purpose of genuine marriage; and can only ever harm the society which embraces it.

We already know that you don't understand the purpose of marriage; therefore your post is irrelevant.
 
thanks.... i always love your remarks which bare no merit...;)

No problem. Is that your SS guy you've got back as an avatar, or have you decided to pay tribute to American soldiers?
 
No problem. Is that your SS guy you've got back as an avatar, or have you decided to pay tribute to American soldiers?

Looks to me like a generic plastic toy soldier, such as I used to play with when I was a child—a rather impressive feat, given that plastic had not been invented yet when I was that young, and neither had toys nor soldiers. Nor playing, for that matter. But my generation was stubborn. We didn't let the fact that an activity such as playing had not yet been invented stop us from doing so, nor did we let the fact that certain other things had not been invented stop us from playing with those things. And even that was tricky, because stubbornness hadn't been invented yet.

avatar19278_2.gif
 
How prevalent is that NOW? Why would it be any more prevalent (as a percentage of the total) if polygamy were legalized? Legalizing gay marriage in various states hasn't led to a significant rise in fraudulent unions to access medical benefits.

Hell, my fiance's company offers domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT any legal union. You merely have to show proof of having lived together for the previous 6 months. And we live in TEXAS.

It is more prevalent than people think and not just for green cards.

Sham green card marriages easy to arrange in the United States

But it becomes a bigger problem in certain organizations, such as the military and would require a large amount of taxpayer money to deal with, especially if we put no limit on how many marriages a person could get into for money.

We are already looking at major cuts because of how much it costs for dependents. When you add the very real possibility of servicemembers marrying just to get extra benefits per dependent or to get paid by a dependent/their family in order for them to get medical/school benefits for much cheaper by being a military dependent, then it easily could become a huge financial issue with just a few participating in the fraud. We currently have a number of people who have gotten in trouble for being in a fraud marriage in the military.
 
Now, as for the poll, I did lie, but only because there was no other options available to me. I don't actually have a cat at all (can't in my housing), nor I have I ever personally named one "Mittens". The other poll options however were not acceptable to vote on at all though. They did not represent my view.

Marriage in the US is designed legally, functionally around two people. Marriage treats both spouses equally in the marriage. Many of the issues with allowing multiple spouses in marriage have already been mentioned. Marriage takes the place of a person needing several legal contracts to give certain permissions for people to make decisions for another person when they can't, such as a medical power of attorney/decision maker. We limit a person to be able to legally only designate one person as their medical decision maker in such a contract. And they are only allowed to have one such contract as legally enforceable at a time.

There is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting marriage based on number. And that is the onus of each case when applying equal protection, what legitimate state interest is being furthered.
 
Back
Top Bottom