• 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?

  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    Votes: 23 26.4%

  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    Votes: 18 20.7%

  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    Votes: 31 35.6%

  • My cat’s name is Mittens.

    Votes: 10 11.5%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Redress said:
To simplify it way down: is 2 the same thing as more than 2? If the answer is no, then they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

In the context of this argument, two and more than two are the same since both are completely arbitrary. The reason that traditional marriage infers a quantity of two is because it is based on the dissimilarity of the genders, therefore, the qualitative infers the quantitative. If you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, as SSM does, then you also alter the quantitative. Since SSM marriage is based on similarity, rather than dissimilarity, then the inferred quantity is entirely arbitrary. Polygamy is not a slippery slope argument. It is logically inferred.
 
csense said:
In the context of this argument, two and more than two are the same since both are completely arbitrary. The reason that traditional marriage infers a quantity of two is because it is based on the dissimilarity of the genders, therefore, the qualitative infers the quantitative. If you alter the qualitative aspect of marriage, as SSM does, then you also alter the quantitative. Since SSM marriage is based on similarity, rather than dissimilarity, then the inferred quantity is entirely arbitrary. Polygamy is not a slippery slope argument. It is logically inferred.
Click to expand...

Bull****. The reason mixed sex marriage is two is irrelevant. Likewise same sex marriage. The fact that polygamy is not between just two people makes it different. All 3 types of marriage are dissimilar and need to be examined separately. It is very much a slippery slope argument since it is a different legal and moral and logical argument from SSM and from mixed sex marriage.
 
Redress said:
Except it is not fuzzy logic, unless you think two different things should be considered the same.
Click to expand...
True. That's why marriage should be heterosexual only, because that and homosexuality are two different things.
 
Last edited:
Superfly said:
Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want.
Click to expand...
You'll get your wish soon enough. I suspect it won't be too long before marriage will become more commonplace than dating.
 
ChrisL said:
Of course. Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to marry multiple partners if they want? All of you are just thinking of situations such as have occurred within the extremist Mormon community and you are applying it to ALL polygamist marriages.
Click to expand...
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.

The thing is, you're assuming those in polygamist marriages are 1. consenting, and 2. adults. They frequently are neither, and before you say "then that's illegal" understand that the Lakota and Suix Nations are actual sovereign nations within the US with their own set of laws, courts and law-enforcement structure. State LEOs can only enter tribal land under very limited conditions and routine enforcement of civil law isn't it. Short of a Federal warrant, a State LEO has to be actively cashing a murderer or similar, and even then still has to stop the pursuit when ordered by the tribal police. Sanctioning polygamy typically results in families selling young daughters in pre-arranged marriages.

Opposition to polygamy has nothing to do with consenting adults.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Bull****. The reason mixed sex marriage is two is irrelevant
Click to expand...

I see. Since you can't refute what I said, it has now become irrelevant. Typical Liberal.




It is very much a slippery slope argument since it is a different legal and moral and logical argument from SSM and from mixed sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Your moral argument has no basis since Polygamy introduces no new element that isn't already contained within SSM and traditional marriage. The same is true for your legal argument. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple mothers and multiple fathers. Polygamy adds no new element.

As for your logical argument...well, you have no logical argument.
 
Jerry said:
Here in SD we see it in Native American communities, too. Their tribes have always practiced polygamy. It's died down a lot since we blue-eyed devils "stole their land", but I'll look for stats later this evening.

The thing is, you're assuming those in polygamist marriages are 1. consenting, and 2. adults. They frequently are neither, and before you say "then that's illegal" understand that the Lakota and Suix Nations are actual sovereign nations within the US with their own set of laws, courts and law-enforcement structure. State LEOs can only enter tribal land under very limited conditions and routine enforcement of civil law isn't it. Short of a Federal warrant, a State LEO has to be actively cashing a murderer or similar, and even then still has to stop the pursuit when ordered by the tribal police. Sanctioning polygamy typically results in families selling young daughters in pre-arranged marriages.

Opposition to polygamy has nothing to do with consenting adults.
Click to expand...

We dont really want religious liberty here. They should live how we tell them to.
 
I think the problem is that those who try to compare restrictions based on sex/gender to restrictions based on numbers in a relationship fail to realize that it is not about what the argument is for why people should be allowed to marry, but rather what the state's argument is for what state interest is being furthered in those specific restrictions. They are different, no matter what you want to deny. No lawyer would ever argue that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender are because of religious beliefs or tradition or even because of a slippery slope alone. Those may be tangential arguments used, but the main argument will be about what the main state interest is being furthered by the restriction. In the case of restrictions based on sex/gender, it is being argued that this furthers the state interest of procreation. It is a shallow argument at best. Those arguments for why restrictions are in place on number of spouses are very different, and include many different reasons (most of which have been brought up here). It may come when the SCOTUS decides those interests are not good enough, but it will still be a battle based on those specific interests and whether or not the Court feels that those are valid interests of the state and for maintaining those restrictions.
 
Dooble said:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Click to expand...

In short, no. The legal institution of marriage is a contract of two individuals, in that contract various responsibilities and benefits are shared between the two individuals. To allow more than two individuals to enter the same contract would be damningly complex.

On the other hand, I do think that polygamy should probably be decriminalized in the sense that if a guy wants to have marriage ceremony in his church and add multiple wives, or vice versa, and say that they all are married in the eyes of their god, then I see no problem with that. That has nothing to do with legal recognition because the civil marriage contract is a two person tango.
 
Dooble said:
True. That's why marriage should be heterosexual only, because that and homosexuality are two different things.
Click to expand...

Well that is just stupid. Not every one fears everything which is different. Sometimes different is good.
 
csense said:
I see. Since you can't refute what I said, it has now become irrelevant. Typical Liberal.
Click to expand...

That's right, my being a liberal made you post irrelevant crap. Typical conservative, blaming others for his emotional responses.

Your moral argument has no basis since Polygamy introduces no new element that isn't already contained within SSM and traditional marriage. The same is true for your legal argument. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple mothers and multiple fathers. Polygamy adds no new element.

As for your logical argument...well, you have no logical argument.
Click to expand...

Wow, so you think 2 is the same as more than 2. Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Your inability to actually refute anything I have said in this thread speaks volumes for your logic...
 
ChrisL said:
Of course. Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to marry multiple partners if they want? All of you are just thinking of situations such as have occurred within the extremist Mormon community…
Click to expand...

Please stop referring to these freaks as “Mormons”. They are not Mormons, and referring to them in that manner is offensive to genuine Mormons who have nothing to do with them.

Polygamist Sects Are Not
 
Redress said:
That's right, my being a liberal made you post irrelevant crap.
Click to expand...
I thought mods were given a different Award when they stepped down from the active mod team.

Oh, sorry about posting irrelevant crap, you being a liberal forced me to do that ;)
 
Jerry said:
I thought mods were given a different Award when they stepped down from the active mod team.

Oh, sorry about posting irrelevant crap, you being a liberal forced me to do that ;)
Click to expand...

You are lucky I was not drinking anything when I read your post. I would have been pissed at you.

Guess I better contact Hugh about the award...
 
mpg said:
Please elaborate. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Look at tax code alone.

If you are married to two women, can you claim them both as a dependent? Can all three of you file "jointly"? If one of those two women is married to a second man, can both husbands claim her as a dependant? Which claims her income, if there is any? If she has a child with the second man, but the child spends significantly more time with the household of the first man, can the first man claim the child as a dependant? What about if the second man is married to a completely seperate woman as well and they have a kid. The wife the two men share is now the "mother" of another woman's child, who and how can that child be claimed for tax purposes?

I have no issue with polygamy on a private level being legal. I don't believe that it's a benefit to society or government to legalize the notion in terms of the LEGAL term and benefits that come with it, nor do I find a compelling Equal Protection Clause argument for it in the same way there is for Same-Sex Marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Look at tax code alone.

If you are married to two women, can you claim them both as a dependent?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Zyphlin said:
Can all three of you file "jointly"?
Click to expand...
Married-joint or married-separate, as appropriate for their situation.

Zyphlin said:
If one of those two women is married to a second man, can both husbands claim her as a dependent? Which claims her income, if there is any? If she has a child with the second man, but the child spends significantly more time with the household of the first man, can the first man claim the child as a dependant? What about if the second man is married to a completely seperate woman as well and they have a kid. The wife the two men share is now the "mother" of another woman's child, who and how can that child be claimed for tax purposes?
Click to expand...
That's communal marriage. No one is supporting communal marriage. People are supporting polygyny and polyandry, where a man or woman takes multiple wives/husbands, and there is no marriage between the wives/husbands.

Children of these polygamist marriages would legally 'belong' to their bio parents, with the other members of the marriage having some level of step-parent authority, which is itself very limited.
 
Last edited:
csense said:
I see. Since you can't refute what I said, it has now become irrelevant. Typical Liberal.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Typical conservative to not see that.

Now, you want to dispense with the stupid hackery and actually debate?

Your moral argument has no basis since Polygamy introduces no new element that isn't already contained within SSM and traditional marriage. The same is true for your legal argument. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, multiple mothers and multiple fathers. Polygamy adds no new element.
Click to expand...

Of course it adds a new element. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. Major dissimilarity.

As for your logical argument...well, you have no logical argument.
Click to expand...

And since you have not presented a logical argument, I suspect you would have a hard time telling the difference.
 
Communal marriage can be a form of polygamy, so saying it's communal marriage on it's own is not really a counter.

However, upon realization, the issue I stated in the longer portion of it is one not born of polygamy but of the notion of allowing multiple marriages. If an individual can only enter into one "marriage" at any given time, regardless of how many people are involved, then those problems do reduce.
 
PeteEU said:
I think the critical part here is "Sane"... if a guy wants to marry 50 women... then you cant say he is sane.. :)
Click to expand...
It doesnt have to be'50'. Hel...TWO is insanity. What do you get when you marry 2 women? TWO WOMEN!
 
Redress said:
Well that is just stupid. Not every one fears everything which is different. Sometimes different is good.
Click to expand...
then polygamy is perfectly acceptable and should be legal.
 
Zyphlin said:
Communal marriage can be a form of polygamy, so saying it's communal marriage on it's own is not really a counter.
Click to expand...
Right, but on other threads, especially gun threads, people get all pissed when I stick to exact names of things.

I didn't stick to the exact name of a thing here and it caused confusion about what I was trying to say. Words mean things, words matter, using the correct nomenclature is important. I will go back to being precise on the words I use and await the usual suspects to accuse me of playing semantics.

It's not a clip, it's a magazine; it's not polygamy, it's polygyny and polyandry specifically.
 
Dooble said:
then polygamy is perfectly acceptable and should be legal.
Click to expand...

Why? Your fear of what is different has nothing to do with whether it is good or not.
 
Redress said:
That's right, my being a liberal made you post irrelevant crap. .
Click to expand...

You asked a question with a pending conclusion that is mitigated by the answer. I answered that question, so it's not irrelevant. If you don't like the answer, then don't ask such questions on a public board. You're free to disagree with it and demonstrate why, but to dismiss it as impertinent is bizarre to say the least.



so you think 2 is the same as more than 2.
Click to expand...

As it pertains to this discussion, yes, since both are completely arbitrary with regard to quantifying marriage, as I've demonstrated. If you disagree with that then you need to show that "2" is logically inferred, without invoking traditional marriage, since that has now been redefined. Good luck demonstrating that, because you can't.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant. Typical conservative to not see that.

Now, you want to dispense with the stupid hackery and actually debate?
Click to expand...


You offer up a tautology, and you're calling me stupid.

See my reply to Redress



Of course it adds a new element. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Neither is the term marriage or same sex marriage a sexual orientation. They are simply descriptive terms, nothing more. But if your point is that two men or two women need to have a certain sexual orientation in order to get married, then that would be discrimination, and discrimination is wrong isn't it. likewise, those in a polygamous marriage can have whatever sexual identity they want.

In short, sexual orientation is irrelevant with regard to whether SSM and polygamy are analogous. Unless of course, you plan on having a test for such things before people get married. If so, good luck with that.

And since you have not presented a logical argument...
Click to expand...

So I've been told, yet, no one has refuted any of my arguments. You and others simply dismiss them offhand. You are, of course, free to do so, but it doesn't speak very well of your integrity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom