• 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 .
No, for the same reason that if one chooses to support interracial marriage it is not logical to include gay marriage in the same discussion.

When you begin redefining societal norms, everything becomes fair game. As a Libertarian, why would you think not?
 
I've never actually seen a clean set of arguments for and against it.

Freedom of contract and association. You're welcome. ;)
 
Yes. It was legal for centuries. There is no good reason it should not be legal now.

What the heck, if someone wants to be stupid and have a whole bunch of spouses, who are we to tell them not to? I'd just say "well good luck to you!" :lol:
 
Then, I apologize for jumping in to question your post relating to extreme Mormons. We appear to agree that once the can of worms is opened, everything should be on the table...

I want to make it clear that I am not supportive of polygamy to make some sort of point about SSM. I support both because I think consenting adults SHOULD be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that.
 
I want to make it clear that I am not supportive of polygamy to make some sort of point about SSM. I support both because I think consenting adults SHOULD be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that.

And I support neither but recognize that those determinations are beyond my control. I only bring the issue up when the subject is totally dismissed in the discussion...
 
Since the topic of legalized polygamy has always been hopelessly muddled with the topic of gay marriage, I've never actually seen a clean set of arguments for and against it. To be honest I'd be very happy if this were to be such a thread.
You're gona have to go to the Loft if you're looking for a clean logical argument about anything.
 
And as a libertarian yourself, how could one make a PRO libertarian argument against it?

The libertarian argument for polygamy is that the state should have no place in any marriage.
 
When you begin redefining societal norms, everything becomes fair game. As a Libertarian, why would you think not?
Marriage is a societal norm. The marriage license is simply that -- a government license. And licenses are always arbitrary and by their nature can always be redefined. Everything is fair game with a license--the license itself is what opens a can of worms, not gay marriage in particular.
 
And I support neither but recognize that those determinations are beyond my control. I only bring the issue up when the subject is totally dismissed in the discussion...

I just don't understand why someone would NOT support an adult's decision when it comes to personal matters such as who he or she marries. You said it's not due to religious beliefs, so why?
 
Marriage is a societal norm. The marriage license is simply that -- a government license. And licenses are always arbitrary and by their nature can always be redefined. Everything is fair game with a license--the license itself is what opens a can of worms, not gay marriage in particular.

I agree, but SSM is being used as the church key (you need to be old enough understand) to do so...
 
I just don't understand why someone would NOT support an adult's decision when it comes to personal matters such as who he or she marries. You said it's not due to religious beliefs, so why?

Because the State has seen fit to sanction the act and bestow benefits. If it were simply between individual adults, they can do what they want, and I don't really care...
 
Because the State has seen fit to sanction the act and bestow benefits. If it were simply between individual adults, they can do what they want, and I don't really care...

Aren't YOU married and getting those same benefits? Why do you want to deny them to others?
 
That is absolutely untrue, or at least in my neck of the woods. A few years back, there was an incident in Rhode Island (a neighboring state to me), where a tribal smoke shop was raided and shut down by the RI State Police Department. They arrested several people, and now the tribe is no longer allowed to sell cigarettes without collecting taxes for the state. I am QUITE sure that if child molestation was occurring, the police would also perform a raid where you live. They do not live by their own laws. They are allowed to prosecute and similar things according to their own tribal customs, but they are NOT allowed to break federal and/or state laws.
How many Indian reservations do you have in your state?
 
Aren't YOU married and getting those same benefits? Why do you want to deny them to others?

Yes, I'm married, but not necessarily for the benefits. Our taxes are higher, SS benefits will be limited by the maximum available to married couples, etc..., and any other benefit the government could provide for its sanctimonious sanction, I could obtain through other legal means...
 
I agree, but SSM is being used as the church key (you need to be old enough understand) to do so...
Then you don't agree. The church key (or can opener, as is commonly used) is the license itself, not gay marriage in particular.
 
Then you don't agree. The church key (or can opener, as is commonly used) is the license itself, not gay marriage in particular.

If SSM did not provide access to the license, why do you think anyone would care?
 
If SSM did not provide access to the license, why do you think anyone would care?
Legalizing same sex marriage provides same-sex couples access to the license--of course. I am not following what you are trying to say.
 
Legalizing same sex marriage provides same-sex couples access to the license--of course. I am not following what you are trying to say.

I'm not sure why you jumped in...
 
Yes, I'm married, but not necessarily for the benefits. Our taxes are higher, SS benefits will be limited by the maximum available to married couples, etc..., and any other benefit the government could provide for its sanctimonious sanction, I could obtain through other legal means...

So you still got married. Why did you get married then? You could have just shacked up.

And if someone loves or cares for more than one person and wants to have a married life together with those other consenting adults, I don't see what your issue would be.

Are you saying that you are against government recognized marriages?
 
So you still got married. Why did you get married then? You could have just shacked up.

And if someone loves or cares for more than one person and wants to have a married life together with those other consenting adults, I don't see what your issue would be.

Are you saying that you are against government recognized marriages?

Yes, I am against the State bestowing benefits (or penalties) for personal activities in which it has no compelling interest...
 
Yes, I am against the State bestowing benefits (or penalties) for personal activities in which it has no compelling interest...

I guess you should get divorced then! :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom