• 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 understand you fine, the point is none of it FACTUALLY means anything and im guessing by you not listing things that factually impact you agree or realize you cant.

and your statement further proves my point, you say you think my definition is different from yours, well you just hit the nail on the head. There is NO definition, its made up, its subjective and it is personal to each person. SO like you already admitted others marriages dont effect yours, so the integrity is factually in ZERO danger.

Yes divorce rate is high, so what, what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing
Yes children are born out of wedlock what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing

what if divorce was super low and people stayed together in BAD or ABUSIVE or FAILED marriages but kept it together legally?
what if most kids werent born out of wedlock but find themselves in the marriages described above?

again both meaningless to the integrity of marriage and both subjective.

The integrity is in ZERO jeopardy.

AGain though if you have things you think factually put it in danger please list them.


If you do not think that high divorce rates, high rates of bastardy, and high rates of marital and family abuse do not indicate a serious problem with the integrity of marriage as an institution, then it is difficult to imagine what evidence you would ever accept as indicative of this threat. Certainly, divorce itself is, by definition, a failure in the integrity of marriage, whether we are talking about an individual marriage ending in this way, or about marriage as an institution in a society where roughly half of marriages end this way.
 
1.)If you do not think that high divorce rates, high rates of bastardy, and high rates of marital and family abuse do not indicate a serious problem with the integrity of marriage as an institution, then it is difficult to imagine what evidence you would ever accept as indicative of this threat.
2.) Certainly, divorce itself is, by definition, a failure in the integrity of marriage,
3.) whether we are talking about an individual marriage ending in this way, or about marriage as an institution in a society where roughly half of marriages end this way.

1.) what i think is irrelevant im asking you to provide FACTS that it integrity is in danger, you opinion on the subject just like mine is meaningless. SO again can you provide any facts?
2.) no its not a impact to the integrity, especially not by definition. Why would divorce FACTUALLY be a threat to the integrity?
3.) individually or as an institution this has no impact to the integrity. An equal subjective opinion based argument could be made that it improves the integrity too.

Let me know when you can factually prove the integrity of marriage is at risk, especial by equal rights.
 
1.) what i think is irrelevant im asking you to provide FACTS that it integrity is in danger, you opinion on the subject just like mine is meaningless. SO again can you provide any facts?

I have provided the facts. You deny them and twist them, and play silly games with definitions, in order to deny what is obvious.

What evidence would it take to convince you to admit that the integrity of marriage is, and has long been, significantly undermined? I do not believe there is any evidence that would lead you to admit this.

I'm reminded of a C.S. Lewis quote, in which he said that a man can no more diminish the glory of God by denying His existence, than a lunatic can put out the Sun by scribbling the word “darkness” on the walls of his cell.

You seem to be the sort of person who could stare at the Sun until you were blind, and continue to deny that it exists.
 
1.)I have provided the facts. You deny them and twist them, and play silly games with definitions, in order to deny what is obvious.

2.) What evidence would it take to convince you to admit that the integrity of marriage is, and has long been, significantly undermined?

3.) I do not believe there is any evidence that would lead you to admit this.

4.) I'm reminded of a C.S. Lewis quote, in which he said that a man can no more diminish the glory of God by denying His existence, than a lunatic can put out the Sun by scribbling the word “darkness” on the walls of his cell.

5.) You seem to be the sort of person who could stare at the Sun until you were blind, and continue to deny that it exists.

1.) no you have not provided any facts what so ever as to the threat or marriage integrity.
you provided a fact that divorce rate is 50+% that is a fact, but its not a fact that this affect marriage integrity.

2.) i alreadt told you i need FACTS not your opinion.

sorry HUGE difference and being .

im not denying anything you can try to sell that lie if you like but it will fail every time and nobody honest will buy it.

3.) you may be right because unless there are facts out their (which you have provided ZERO) i would never admit it because i dont make stuff up or believe opinions to be fact.

4.) GOd as nothign to do with legal marriage

5.) ahhhhh failed insults and deflections, typical maneuver of somebody that has thier opinion defeated and has no logical or factual path to take.
the sun does factually exist unlike this threat to the integrity of marriage you speak of. You are free to believe in fantasy all you want but the people who are honest and objective need facts. Let me know when you have any that show the integrity of legal marriage is in jeopardy.
 
That integrity never left with those who matter. Polluting marriage with homosexuality is not the answer.

If that 'integrity' never left even with a 50% divorce rate then why would it leave now? Marriage contracts ought to be treated like other private contracts. It should be a matter of consent, not a matter of govt approval.
 
You don't get it, do you, Chris? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. Marriage requires permission and sanction of the state. You may chose to live, love, screw whomever you wish with consensual framework all as a right, but you cannot claim as a right something the state must afford to you. It seems these days we get all too happy bastardizing the use, meaning and concept of "rights" and this is a clear example of that. The state must define marriage. It must adjudicate marriage and divorce. It must define tax codes. It must define all the laws of this legal and binding contract. There is no natural "right" to marriage. Sanctioned marriage is a state institution and you don't have any natural "right" to a state institution. You may argue that you have a natural right to be treated like anyone else and go with that angle to argue that whatever relationship you may be in should be deemed as marriage, but to argue that you have a natural right to a state sanction makes no sense unless we dispense with the real meaning of rights.

None of this is any good reason to deny people the opportunity to be married if that is what they desire.
 
None of this is any good reason to deny people the opportunity to be married if that is what they desire.

What if the state stopped issuing sanctioned marriages to anyone? Would they still have the right to make the state issue them a sanctioned marriage? The "right" you say people cannot be denied is actually an action by the state; not a right. You seem to feel that anyone who wants the state to sanction whatever sort of relationship they desire has some right to make the state do it. Now if marriage was something people did for themselves, they'd absolutely have every RIGHT to do it. You just don't have a right to make other people do something for you.... like issue you a marriage license and/or sanction your relationship.... and/or give you money.... and/or mow your lawn.... and/or anything that takes the action of someone else in your behalf.
 
What if the state stopped issuing sanctioned marriages to anyone? Would they still have the right to make the state issue them a sanctioned marriage? The "right" you say people cannot be denied is actually an action by the state; not a right. You seem to feel that anyone who wants the state to sanction whatever sort of relationship they desire has some right to make the state do it. Now if marriage was something people did for themselves, they'd absolutely have every RIGHT to do it. You just don't have a right to make other people do something for you.... like issue you a marriage license and/or sanction your relationship.... and/or give you money.... and/or mow your lawn.... and/or anything that takes the action of someone else in your behalf.

What are you talking about? It's simply issuing a marriage license. People cannot get married without one, so instead of (as you say) the state sanctioning a marriage, right now it is more as if the state is telling certain groups that they CANNOT marry. And I already specified that it wouldn't be any sort of relationship one desired. Should I put it in all caps? I said that only consenting adults should be able to marry. That means people that are of or over the legal age of consent to marry.

However, it should also be noted that I think the age of consent should be 18 across the board. That would prevent a lot of harm to young people, which I happen to think is the cause of the high divorce rate - people marrying too young, not really knowing each other well enough and just jumping into it.

A few things would have to be altered, but I'm quite sure it's not as big a deal as you are making it sound.
 
What if the state stopped issuing sanctioned marriages to anyone? Would they still have the right to make the state issue them a sanctioned marriage? The "right" you say people cannot be denied is actually an action by the state; not a right. You seem to feel that anyone who wants the state to sanction whatever sort of relationship they desire has some right to make the state do it. Now if marriage was something people did for themselves, they'd absolutely have every RIGHT to do it. You just don't have a right to make other people do something for you.... like issue you a marriage license and/or sanction your relationship.... and/or give you money.... and/or mow your lawn.... and/or anything that takes the action of someone else in your behalf.

Then the state would have to stop recognizing any familial relationship or they would face a huge increase in civil suits over property and other problems.

But as long as the state does issue marriage licenses, then it must do so in accordance with the US Constitution, which states that states must treat people equally under laws. The SCOTUS uses scrutiny to determine how this operates and has consistently said that, within certain levels of scrutiny, the state must show at least a minimum of a rational state interest being furthered when anybody can show that they are being treated differently by laws.
 
What are you talking about? It's simply issuing a marriage license. People cannot get married without one, so instead of (as you say) the state sanctioning a marriage, right now it is more as if the state is telling certain groups that they CANNOT marry.

You still don't get it. The state doesn't HAVE to license anyone. If you want your argument to make any sense at all, you need to frame it properly because it's not that the state has to license anyone that wants licensed. The state could wash it's hands of marriage and then what's your argument? Marriage isn't a right. I think if you want to argue sensibly on the "rights" issue, you need to argue rights based on equal treatment under the law, which I still think is a losing argument but at least it makes some sense.

However, I do get that your position on this is that any adults should be able to call anything they want marriage as long as everyone involve consents - and that the state should license it and adjudicate it and/or any divorce and child custody issues that might arise from it. And that you believe this should extend to polygamy.

And you have a right to that belief. In fact, you are evidence of an argument I was making on another thread that polygamy is absolutely next up because a lot of people feel just as you do that there should be no restrictions at all on marriage save legal age.
 
Then the state would have to stop recognizing any familial relationship or they would face a huge increase in civil suits over property and other problems.

But as long as the state does issue marriage licenses, then it must do so in accordance with the US Constitution, which states that states must treat people equally under laws. The SCOTUS uses scrutiny to determine how this operates and has consistently said that, within certain levels of scrutiny, the state must show at least a minimum of a rational state interest being furthered when anybody can show that they are being treated differently by laws.

At least yours is the right argument; going for the equal protection under the law angle. I don't find it actually fits but at least it is an arguable position.
 
You still don't get it. The state doesn't HAVE to license anyone. If you want your argument to make any sense at all, you need to frame it properly because it's not that the state has to license anyone that wants licensed. The state could wash it's hands of marriage and then what's your argument? Marriage isn't a right. I think if you want to argue sensibly on the "rights" issue, you need to argue rights based on equal treatment under the law, which I still think is a losing argument but at least it makes some sense.

However, I do get that your position on this is that any adults should be able to call anything they want marriage as long as everyone involve consents - and that the state should license it and adjudicate it and/or any divorce and child custody issues that might arise from it. And that you believe this should extend to polygamy.

And you have a right to that belief. In fact, you are evidence of an argument I was making on another thread that polygamy is absolutely next up because a lot of people feel just as you do that there should be no restrictions at all on marriage save legal age.

That IS what I'm arguing. That the state is pointing to certain groups and telling them that they cannot be married, while at the same heterosexual couples are the only group which gets this privilege.

No, not just legal age, consent would be required. Stop misrepresenting my arguments.
 
At least yours is the right argument; going for the equal protection under the law angle. I don't find it actually fits but at least it is an arguable position.

Of course it fits. Explain how it doesn't please.
 
That IS what I'm arguing. That the state is pointing to certain groups and telling them that they cannot be married, while at the same heterosexual couples are the only group which gets this privilege.

No, not just legal age, consent would be required. Stop misrepresenting my arguments.

My error.... consent and legal age being the only restrictions you think should be in place.

Suffice to say I disagree (and did not mean to misrepresent your argument at all).

My argument is that the state created the legal framework of marriage for a specific relationship model and for specific reasons and is not compelled by law to provide the same framework for any relationship by any group of people any more than you can demand the state consider you a nonprofit corporation just because you think the benefits of that are groovy.
 
Of course it fits. Explain how it doesn't please.

I did explain it. If you don't get it by now, I have to accept that you're just not going to get it for whatever the reason may be.
 
My error.... consent and legal age being the only restrictions you think should be in place.

Suffice to say I disagree (and did not mean to misrepresent your argument at all).

My argument is that the state created the legal framework of marriage for a specific relationship model and for specific reasons and is not compelled by law to provide the same framework for any relationship by any group of people any more than you can demand the state consider you a nonprofit corporation just because you think the benefits of that are groovy.

Groovy? Lol, okay. Anyways, to the point, what ARE those "specific reasons." I don't remember you mentioning any specific reasons, just denials that it is not treating different people in an unequal manner, yet never really being specific as to how this is not clearly discriminating against certain people.

IMO, it should not be up to the state to define the framework for other people's lives and happiness.
 
Still looking for that explanation and all I see is a bunch of posts explaining how the state is in control over who people marry. Let me guess, it is because of reproduction? Give me a break. :roll: That is SO lame.
 
Groovy? Lol, okay. Anyways, to the point, what ARE those "specific reasons." I don't remember you mentioning any specific reasons, just denials that it is not treating different people in an unequal manner, yet never really being specific as to how this is not clearly discriminating against certain people.

IMO, it should not be up to the state to define the framework for other people's lives and happiness.

Read through my arguments again if you really care. I'm not actually busting your balls on this at all. I think you're entitled to believe whatever you want and am glad you are honest enough to state your full position. It shows an intellectual honesty that more people should possess.
 
Read through my arguments again if you really care. I'm not actually busting your balls on this at all. I think you're entitled to believe whatever you want and am glad you are honest enough to state your full position. It shows an intellectual honesty that more people should possess.

Well thanks, but I'm looking for a legitimate reason why the government should not issue marriage licenses to any grouping of consenting adults if they wish. I think it is clearly discriminatory.

Besides, if you think about, a person who is living in a polygamous situation but not in a legal sense, who does end up having a child or children, can easily beat the system and collect benefits off the state for their child/children and NOT have to name a father. However, if they are married in a legal sense, that is another story entirely. At least there is a person held responsible in such situations.
 
Well thanks, but I'm looking for a legitimate reason why the government should not issue marriage licenses to any grouping of consenting adults if they wish. I think it is clearly discriminatory.

I've said it before and I'll try to say it again in a way that might be more clear to you. It is not your right to have the government license anything you do. The government doesn't have to issue you a vendor's license, a fishing license, a driver's license, a doctor's license or any other license. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the state in ALL those categories because licenses aren't some automatic individual right and state sanctioned marriage is a license.

Argue equal rights and that it's wrong that two homosexuals can't get a marriage license when two heterosexuals can. Or that three women and a man can't when two heterosexuals can.... you can argue equal protection under the law, but you can't logically argue that states must issue licenses to anyone who wants licenses. The state absolutely gets to lay it's own restrictions around them.

The whole issue of entitlements and benefits due to strategies of being married or not being married are a whole different can of worms.
 
I've said it before and I'll try to say it again in a way that might be more clear to you. It is not your right to have the government license anything you do. The government doesn't have to issue you a vendor's license, a fishing license, a driver's license, a doctor's license or any other license. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the state in ALL those categories because licenses aren't some automatic individual right and state sanctioned marriage is a license.

Argue equal rights and that it's wrong that two homosexuals can't get a marriage license when two heterosexuals can. Or that three women and a man can't when two heterosexuals can.... you can argue equal protection under the law, but you can't logically argue that states must issue licenses to anyone who wants licenses. The state absolutely gets to lay it's own restrictions around them.

The whole issue of entitlements and benefits due to strategies of being married or not being married are a whole different can of worms.

And how many times do I have to tell you that IS what I am arguing. That the states not issuing marriage licenses to certain groups of people is discrimination.

The state does not get to deny a license when it's clearly discriminatory against a specific group or groups of people. They are treating certain groups of people as unequal to others based on? I'm still waiting for that answer AFTER reading your posts.
 
At least yours is the right argument; going for the equal protection under the law angle. I don't find it actually fits but at least it is an arguable position.

It fits because your belief on what you believe marriage should be or comes from has nothing to do with how the laws of marriage now operate, if it ever did. Marriage now operates gender neutral. In the past, gender was a consideration in marriage because the genders were treated differently legally. Now, we aren't. Now marriage is gender neutral.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

It fits because your belief on what you believe marriage should be or comes from has nothing to do with how the laws of marriage now operate, if it ever did. Marriage now operates gender neutral. In the past, gender was a consideration in marriage because the genders were treated differently legally. Now, we aren't. Now marriage is gender neutral.

Maybe in your state. Not in my state and most of the rest of the USA and the world. But yes, some places have gone off the deep end and redefined marriage to be some plastic civil agreement between two adults.
 
Maybe in your state. Not in my state and most of the rest of the USA and the world. But yes, some places have gone off the deep end and redefined marriage to be some plastic civil agreement between two adults.

In all states. It doesn't matter where a person lives, the laws of marriage are gender neutral in how they operate. You think differently, then show me a specific marriage law (related to some benefit, responsibility (particularly this one), privilege, or operation of marriage) that treats the genders differently. And that difference must be something that would affect same sex couples significantly when it comes to marriage. (For instance, I know of a supposed law that requires a wife to approve of a husband getting a vasectomy but does not have the same requirement for a husband to approve of a wife getting a tubal ligation. This law I consider wrong and if actually existing and ever enforced, it should be challenged as a constitutional rights violation. However, this really wouldn't apply or have any legitimate effect on same sex couples.)
 
What about the polygamists!?!

One man plus one woman is gender specific and that's the law in most states.
 
Back
Top Bottom