• 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 guess you should get divorced then! :mrgreen:

No, we knew the ramifications before marriage, but some women are just funny when it comes right down to it... :mrgreen:
 
No, we knew the ramifications before marriage, but some women are just funny when it comes right down to it... :mrgreen:

Well I vote I don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my business, because that is truly how I feel. I don't care if the government recognizes marriage or not, and I don't care who gets married or who decides not to.
 
Well I vote I don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my business, because that is truly how I feel. I don't care if the government recognizes marriage or not, and I don't care who gets married or who decides not to.

And as long as the State is not involved, we're totally in agreement...
 
Yes, I am against the State bestowing benefits (or penalties) for personal activities in which it has no compelling interest...

How exactly does one go about defining a "compelling government interest"? I tried looking into it myself but there doesn't appear to be any sort of definitive answer to it nor even a principle behind it.
 
How exactly does one go about defining a "compelling government interest"? I tried looking into it myself but there doesn't appear to be any sort of definitive answer to it.

That is an interesting question. Why would the State be involved otherwise?
 
That is an interesting question. Why would the State be involved otherwise?

Well, the state kind of has to be involved. How else will you make sure that someone isn't marrying a minor or something like that? We need to have marriage licenses at least.
 
Well, the state kind of has to be involved. How else will you make sure that someone isn't marrying a minor or something like that? We need to have marriage licenses at least.

Contract law.
 
Contract law.

Isn't that essentially what a marriage license is? It's just specific to marriage. At least that's what I always thought of a marriage license.
 
Well, the state kind of has to be involved. How else will you make sure that someone isn't marrying a minor or something like that? We need to have marriage licenses at least.

The State already regulates deviant/immoral behavior through common law. Protection of minors would fall under that. You do not need the State sanctioning of marriage to protect children.
 
The State already regulates deviant/immoral behavior through common law. Protection of minors would fall under that. You do not need the State sanctioning of marriage to protect children.

How would they even know if people didn't have to have marriage licenses. Who would require proof of age and make sure it's legit?
 
How would they even know if people didn't have to have marriage licenses. Who would require proof of age and make sure it's legit?

How do we currently handle pedophiles? Come on...

Oh, if the State were not involved with licensing how consenting adults live and then bestowing benefits, why would anyone care?
 
How do we currently handle pedophiles? Come on...

Oh, if the State were not involved with licensing how consenting adults live and then bestowing benefits, why would anyone care?

We can only handle them when we KNOW about them. That is the problem with what you are proposing.

Personally, I'm not even married. I couldn't care less about the benefits. I DO, however, think that licensing is an important measure.
 
We can only handle them when we KNOW about them. That is the problem with what you are proposing.

Chris, we have laws against abusing children. We do not need a State issued license to regulate the behavior of nor bestow benefits to the activities of consenting adults living or sexual arrangements...
 
Chris, we have laws against abusing children. We do not need a State issued license to regulate the behavior of nor bestow benefits to the activities of consenting adults living or sexual arrangements...

Well I disagree. I think marriage licenses are important to make sure people are not marrying children. That is one step for prevention of such things before the act actually occurs.
 
Well I disagree. I think marriage licenses are important to make sure people are not marrying children. That is one step for prevention of such things before the act actually occurs.

Is there a portion of consenting ADULTS with which you're in disagreement? There are already regular, societal laws protecting minors from abuse...
 
Is there a portion of consenting ADULTS with which you're in disagreement? There are already regular, societal laws protecting minors from abuse...

The requirement of a marriage license can prevent a person from marrying a minor. What is your issue with that and what is difficult to understand about that?
 
The requirement of a marriage license can prevent a person from marrying a minor. What is your issue with that and what is difficult to understand about that?

Can a minor legally provide consent? Is a minor a consenting Adult? The answer to both is NO...
 
Can a minor legally provide consent? Is a minor a consenting Adult? The answer to both is NO...

Yes but if there is no requirement for a license then any adult could marry a minor and there is nothing to prevent them from doing that unless someone turns them in.

Are you saying you don't believe that would happen?
 
Yes but if there is no requirement for a license then any adult could marry a minor and there is nothing to prevent them from doing that unless someone turns them in.

Are you saying you don't believe that would happen?

Chris, you're being a bit obtuse IMV. How many times does it have to be stated that minors cannot legally provide consent? Now, if you would like to go after the parents or guardians who might attempt to enter into an arrangement on a child's behalf, the we can talk about the consequences they should face...
 
Isn't that essentially what a marriage license is? It's just specific to marriage. At least that's what I always thought of a marriage license.

They can't enter into a contract nor can they provide consent, so why would a marriage license be needed?
 
They can't enter into a contract nor can they provide consent, so why would a marriage license be needed?

Because a lot of predatory adults would do it anyway. If they have to apply for a license and things like that, it makes it more difficult for them to marry a minor. You have to provide identification to get a marriage license, so that makes it a hurdle. I imagine it's easier to lie on a regular old contract.
 
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.

In a sense you both are wrong in that you are looking at Native/Indigenous American tribes as all identical in not only practices, but even the existence of laws, the involvement or lack of by US federal authorities etc. State and county police and courts have very limited jurisdiction over actual tribal lands and tribal councils have even less authority. Depending upon where, how isolated or not, determines the level of interest of Federal authorities. Generally is it very low and it well understood that raping a Native American woman on tribal lands, particularly in the Western and Central states essentially never will be prosecuted.

In the most remote rural regions, there essentially is no law and order of any kind - nor is any really possible in realistic terms. It doesn't matter the crime. No cops. No courts. No government presence. No tribal authority either. It also depends how civilized the particular tribal location is and how much it has or hasn't integrated in part with the rest of the area American culture.

All Caucasian people need to remember is that unless it is some very public touristy area on a major state highway well traveled and where many other white people will be - and ideally not on reservation land - stay off of any reservation land and any and all backroads that might lead into or near reservation land in the Southwest and Western Central USA. You'd be much safer driving around alone in Mexico, Columbia or - in some areas - Somolia. The Hollywood portrayals and academic perceptions about such tribal lands and people are very inaccurate.


Discussing Native Americans and tribal/reservation lands as generically similar is as accurate as to consider all countries of the world as basically similar.

However, I don't really see Native American tribes' practices as being relevant to the topic either really.
 
Okay. What is the correct terminology for these groups then?

To be honest, I don't really have a good answer. I don't know if there is a valid term that covers individual members of these other groups. But they are not Mormons.

Mormons are members of the church that is formally called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. The term “Mormon”*does not cover those who are not members of, or otherwise closely associate with this church. To use the term to describe these other groups, many of which are involved in illegal and immoral activities that Mormons oppose, is to imply that Mormons endorse and engage in these activities.
 
I said "extremist" Mormons. Please stop misrepresenting what I stated.

They are not Mormons, “extremist” or otherwise.

Please stop slandering Mormons by using a term that only properly covers us, to refer to freaks who engage in activity that Mormons regard as immoral. Your abuse if this term is offensive and slanderous to Mormons.




Never heard of Warren Jeffs, leader of a polygamist Mormon church in Utah? Yes, the Latter Day Saints are a branch of the Mormon religion.

No, it is not.

Warren Jeffs is not a Mormon, and neither are his followers. There is only one Mormon church, and Warren Jeffs and his organization have nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I don't really have a good answer. I don't know if there is a valid term that covers individual members of these other groups. But they are not Mormons.

Mormons are members of the church that is formally called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. The term “Mormon”*does not cover those who are not members of, or otherwise closely associate with this church. To use the term to describe these other groups, many of which are involved in illegal and immoral activities that Mormons oppose, is to imply that Mormons endorse and engage in these activities.

I respectfully disagree Bob. Your statement is refuted by the example of the large number of "Lutheran" sects, many of whom are breakaway for one or another difference of opinion about Biblical interpretations.

The "sect" of Mormonism that still believes in polygamy adheres to just about all the other tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints. In all other respects, they are still Mormon.
 
Back
Top Bottom