• 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!

the right to marry whoever

which are Constitutional rights?


  • Total voters
    51
Marriage by itself means nothing and does nothing for anyone. Sex exists for procreation, but is many times done for pleasure. The pleasure exists so people actually involve themselves in the activity. If it didn't have any aspect about that was pleasurable then more than likely there wouldn't be enough children to maintain the species.

How do you know what I get or don't get from marriage?
 
Laws are constrained by practical and political realities. Barring incest is something easy to do politically, barring couple with genetic diseases, for example, from having kids would not be easy politically. Instituting some sort of system of testing for genetic factors that cause birth defects would not be easy practically, but knowing who is related how is easy practically. So, that's where the law landed.

There are many things put into law that was not easy to do politically or practically. Ending slavery, pops to the top of my mind, not to mention interracial marriage. I am not equating these things in any manner save the political and practical ease by which they were put into law. If any state were truly worried about genetic factors, they would not be limiting their concerns to blood relations only. The genetic issues is merely a spin to cover their moral taboo.



I'm reading it as follows:

The relationships referred to herein include blood relationships of either: (i) the whole or (ii) half blood without regard to: (i) legitimacy, (ii) relationship of parent and child by adoption, (iii) relationship of stepparent and stepchild, and (iv) relationship of stepgrandparent and stepgrandchild

The commas, are important in that law, assuming that you did a copy paste and not typed it out yourself. After the word include the commas separate out the individual criteria. You'll notice there is no commas between blood relations and whole and half. That is all one criteria. The other criteria are devoted to non blood related status. Some states go even further than Kentucky does.
 
as of right now, only SSM is a "constitutional right".

progressives had polygamy banned a long time ago.. and I don't see anyone making a fuss over stopping the government from violating that right.. no special flags, no movement, no polymarriage warriors on the prowl hunting down errant disbelievers..... so it will probably remain banned for the foreseeable future.
... cuz' government knows best how people should live their lives.

Actually it was conservatives that had polygamy banned. As to what modern polys are fighting for, we know that to regain our ability to be legally recognized as poly groups there needs to be many changes within the entirety of the law. SSM was simple legally speaking. You simply did not worry about gender. All laws should be as such. But polygamy laws would have to deal with multiple spouses and there is no such easy fix legally. The poly community sees this and is working on getting changes to the law structure that would later allow making polygamy legal easier, from a structural point of view. One of the things we are working on is the cohabitation laws, for example.
 
Because of how rare polygamy is in the first place within the developed world, I'm not sure what we have to look at to determine whether or not they tend to be consensual. But given the countries that do have legal polygamy, you can understand my concerns that at least in these countries, not everyone in a polygamous union is living a happy married life and is treated with respect.

Oh believe me the poly community has quite the issue with many of the Mideast Muslims and the FLDS out west. They cast such a bad light on the rest of us and they are the only ones the media talk about. And while Cody and his wives are not the best example, we are starting to be shown out there in a more positive light. But many of us have to be "in the closet" about it, because of the FLDS and others. The sad truth is that these people who are abusive in their poly, would be abusive if they were monogamous as well. Abuse is an issue of personality not numbers in a relationship.

See my response to maquiscat. If a polygamous union is fully consensual, I don't have a problem with legal recognition of it, but is there even a legitimate movement pushing for such a thing?

not directly as I noted before. We need to get many other laws changed first.
 
That would have to be ironed out, but it could be and shouldn't be used as an excuse to not allow it.

Inertia my friend. Legally speaking, and by that I mean the structure of the law, there is a lot more to reverse and correct that there ever was for interracial or same sex marriages.
 
Just as an aside, the more accurate term is "polyamorous" unless you you mean to refer only to situations where there is one guy and many women. "Polyamorous" includes polygamous, but also polyandrous (one woman, multiple men) and whatever other combinations. Presumably any change in the law would apply to all polyamorous relationships, not just polygamous ones.

Polyamorous relationships are certainly less common than same sex relationships, so the pressure to recognize them is proportionally less, but certainly people in those relationships are just as passionate about getting the right to marry. I think most liberals and libertarians who have spent much time thinking it through are supportive of giving them that right.

And you, my friend, just demonstrated the common error most people make when it comes to poly. Polygamy simply refers to multiple spouses within a single marriage. Polygyny refers to one man many wives, while polyandry refers to one wife many husbands.

Polygamous and polyamory are new terms that were coined to reflect the growing number of relationships that while committed, even if only for a relatively short term, are not marriages. An example would be where I currently have two wives and a husband, but am also dating a third woman. The third woman is not part of the polygamy but is part of the polyamory. Also do not confuse having multiple sex partners with polyamory. Polyamory is about the relationship and in some cases occur without sex being involved.
 
Traditionally, it was to check for STDs. In those days, you were not supposed to have sex until you get married, so testing before marriage was supposedly equivalent to getting tested before you have sex with somebody without protection for the first time, which kind of makes sense. But, I think it also had some darker functions, like outing women for not being virgins before the guy signs on the dotted line or preventing somebody who cheats on their spouse and gets an STD from claiming that they must have had it all along.

It was for both - to check for STDs and to also check for compatibility, genetically.

Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease. You will not be tested for HIV, but in some states, the person who tests you will provide you with information about HIV and AIDS. In most states, blood tests can be waived for people over 50 and for other reasons, including pregnancy or sterility.
 
How do you know what I get or don't get from marriage?

Granted that this is my interpretation, but I think that was his point. There is no universal result of marriage, save that the people involved are, well, married. Some marry for love, other power or property. Some marry for fear or an illusion of security.
 
There are many things put into law that was not easy to do politically or practically. Ending slavery, pops to the top of my mind, not to mention interracial marriage. I am not equating these things in any manner save the political and practical ease by which they were put into law. If any state were truly worried about genetic factors, they would not be limiting their concerns to blood relations only. The genetic issues is merely a spin to cover their moral taboo.

I mean, sure, they sometimes do hard things. They calculate out what is to be gained and weigh it against the political or practical cost. Obviously, something like legalizing sex between same gender siblings would have a very high political cost and almost no actual benefit, so they don't do it.

The way you're thinking about this isn't quite right. You're thinking of it like if their objective is X, they would do everything that would be ideal for X. That would maybe be true if they were dictators, but in a democracy, it is more like they pick an objective then work towards that objective in fits and starts when opportunities present themselves. Showing that they didn't go all the way to X does not suggest that X isn't their objective.

The commas, are important in that law, assuming that you did a copy paste and not typed it out yourself. After the word include the commas separate out the individual criteria. You'll notice there is no commas between blood relations and whole and half. That is all one criteria. The other criteria are devoted to non blood related status. Some states go even further than Kentucky does.

Depends how you read it. The comma separated list could either be the list of things that are included, or, it could be the list of "without regard for" things, like how I marked it up.
 
It was for both - to check for STDs and to also check for compatibility, genetically.

No, not historically. They didn't have any kind of genetic tests when they started doing it I don't think.
 
And you, my friend, just demonstrated the common error most people make when it comes to poly. Polygamy simply refers to multiple spouses within a single marriage. Polygyny refers to one man many wives, while polyandry refers to one wife many husbands.

Polygamous and polyamory are new terms that were coined to reflect the growing number of relationships that while committed, even if only for a relatively short term, are not marriages. An example would be where I currently have two wives and a husband, but am also dating a third woman. The third woman is not part of the polygamy but is part of the polyamory. Also do not confuse having multiple sex partners with polyamory. Polyamory is about the relationship and in some cases occur without sex being involved.

Hey, look at that, you're right. Learn something every day...
 
marriage is the union of 2 people IMHO and I think it is unconstitutional to ban marriages of 2 men or 2 women. Polygamy is not a right, it has never been legally approved by the US goverment, not allowing polygamy does not discriminate against someone IMHO.
 
How do you know what I get or don't get from marriage?

I don't, but beyond legal benefits there is no guarantee on what people get out of marriage nor anything that gives some sort of clue on what it is for. It's really just something people do to make themselves feel better while serving no real purpose or function to speak of.
 
marriage is the union of 2 people IMHO and I think it is unconstitutional to ban marriages of 2 men or 2 women. Polygamy is not a right, it has never been legally approved by the US goverment, not allowing polygamy does not discriminate against someone IMHO.

We used to always consider marriage the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Now it's 1 whatever and 1 whatever. Why can't it now be 1 or more whatever and 1 or more whatever. If it is peoples right to "marry" whomever they wish, why can't the whomever be multiple?
 
marriage is the union of 2 people IMHO and I think it is unconstitutional to ban marriages of 2 men or 2 women. Polygamy is not a right, it has never been legally approved by the US government, not allowing polygamy does not discriminate against someone IMHO.

Why is polygamy wrong? So many marriages end because one or the other is having sex outside the marriage. A large percentage of marriages exist even though the spouses are having relations with others. Since this is the case in so marriages why does humanity insist on only two in a marriage. Three would be good even four. If the spouses are "cheating" anyway why not include the partners into the relationship and save the marriage. So I ask why is polygamy wrong? If it is wrong because you say so it does not hold water. There needs to be a better reason than that. Is it because polygamy runs against the myths you were taught? Is it that you think it is disgusting? Why is it wrong?
 
Somehow I don't think the animals are worry about pleasure, especially those that don't use intercourse for procreation. Many things about our bodies are multi purpose. Our mouths are used for both talking and eating and even breathing at times, among other uses. Likewise, sex, a function of our bodies, can be used for both procreation and pleasure. Both can happen at the same time or separately. There are homosexual individuals who engage in physical intercourse purely for the purpose of procreation, and receive no pleasure from the act. Procreation can only be done with certain components, and quite frankly, intercourse is no longer a required component. Sex for pleasure can be accomplished with any number of of bodily components, in a variety of combinations.

Quite frankly we have had this talk before when talking about anal sex and I see no reason to change my view towards it. It's obvious from the functions of the body that sexual organs exist with functionalities in mind and that sex is motivated by pleasure and urges. There is zero evidence to suggest that a vagina, penis, testiles, ovaries or the uterus would exist without procreation. It is frankly absurd to suggest gays are doing anything worthwhile or intended.
 
Why is polygamy wrong? So many marriages end because one or the other is having sex outside the marriage. A large percentage of marriages exist even though the spouses are having relations with others. Since this is the case in so marriages why does humanity insist on only two in a marriage. Three would be good even four. If the spouses are "cheating" anyway why not include the partners into the relationship and save the marriage. So I ask why is polygamy wrong? If it is wrong because you say so it does not hold water. There needs to be a better reason than that. Is it because polygamy runs against the myths you were taught? Is it that you think it is disgusting? Why is it wrong?

If it is considered cheating by those involved in the relationship then the decision to not be an open relationship(I think that is right term for it) has already been made and adding more people to the relationship would not work.
 
marriage is the union of 2 people IMHO and I think it is unconstitutional to ban marriages of 2 men or 2 women. Polygamy is not a right, it has never been legally approved by the US goverment, not allowing polygamy does not discriminate against someone IMHO.

The relevant argument legally, whether it is a due process issue or an equal protection issue, is whether the state has a good reason to ban polygamy. If it doesn't have a legitimate reason at all, then it can't ban it no matter how the court interprets it. If it has a really weak reason, then there is some more wiggle room in the analysis. But I don't even see how a state has a legitimate reason in doing it.
 
If it is considered cheating by those involved in the relationship then the decision to not be an open relationship(I think that is right term for it) has already been made and adding more people to the relationship would not work.

It is called "cheating" or "marital infidelity" because we have all been schooled with the same myth that marriage is made for two. The myth is IMO humans are not monogamous. If this were true the occurrences of infidelity would be far lower. We were taught marriage was for two 1 man and 1 woman we find this is wrong. It can be 2 women or 2 men. The mythology of marriage is already deflated. The next myth is the number of participants. Why only two? Why not five. The number is arbitrary. All people do not marry. All people do not enter into same sex marriages. All people would not enter into polygamous relationships or marriages. These are options which certainly can fit the dynamic of marriage. As we grow and break through the myths we have been taught we can and will expand. If all of the participants are of the age of consent what difference does the number make. Marriages are already at around the 50% divorce rate. I have a relationship of more than women this works fine for all of us. So who is to say what works and what doesn't. It is up to the individual what they can handle. If the person is jealous and sees marriage as the ownership relationship it can be then polygamy would not work. But if marriage is freeing as it should be polygamy will work just fine.
 
It is called "cheating" or "marital infidelity" because we have all been schooled with the same myth that marriage is made for two. The myth is IMO humans are not monogamous. If this were true the occurrences of infidelity would be far lower. We were taught marriage was for two 1 man and 1 woman we find this is wrong. It can be 2 women or 2 men. The mythology of marriage is already deflated. The next myth is the number of participants. Why only two? Why not five. The number is arbitrary. All people do not marry. All people do not enter into same sex marriages. All people would not enter into polygamous relationships or marriages. These are options which certainly can fit the dynamic of marriage. As we grow and break through the myths we have been taught we can and will expand. If all of the participants are of the age of consent what difference does the number make. Marriages are already at around the 50% divorce rate. I have a relationship of more than women this works fine for all of us. So who is to say what works and what doesn't. It is up to the individual what they can handle. If the person is jealous and sees marriage as the ownership relationship it can be then polygamy would not work. But if marriage is freeing as it should be polygamy will work just fine.

It's called cheating because the individual is breaching the trust of the person they are committed to. You can form an open realtionship if you want and in those cases it's different, but when you commit to someone and sleep with someone else it's cheating. Relationships can be all sorts of things and one of those is committing and sticking to one person.
 
It's called cheating because the individual is breaching the trust of the person they are committed to. You can form an open realtionship if you want and in those cases it's different, but when you commit to someone and sleep with someone else it's cheating. Relationships can be all sorts of things and one of those is committing and sticking to one person.

Yes this is true if one limits their view on marriage. I did cover this by mentioning all the different ways marriage can be. It is cheating because we have been taught or they they tried to brainwash us into believing we can only love one other person at a time. But according to the phrase what what people think you are correct. The problem is, it limits the view of humans and love. You call it breaching a trust. I call it limiting humanity and the ownership clause only creates sneaking and cheating.
 
Yes this is true if one limits their view on marriage. I did cover this by mentioning all the different ways marriage can be. It is cheating because we have been taught or they they tried to brainwash us into believing we can only love one other person at a time. But according to the phrase what what people think you are correct. The problem is, it limits the view of humans and love. You call it breaching a trust. I call it limiting humanity and the ownership clause only creates sneaking and cheating.
Why can't it simply be a preference? Why does it have to be denigrated to "brainwashing"?

It should be noted that even in open and/or poly relationships, issues resulting from jealousy are not uncommon.
 
I voted neither. For me as a Christian marriage is a sacrament that can only be performed by the church. My government has no say in my religious beliefs and sacraments. The government can no more marry me than baptize me. They can pass laws and through physical force take away and restrict my rights but they do not grant them. If you have to get permission from someone it is not a right but a privilege granted by whoever owns you.
 
I voted neither. For me as a Christian marriage is a sacrament that can only be performed by the church. My government has no say in my religious beliefs and sacraments. The government can no more marry me than baptize me. They can pass laws and through physical force take away and restrict my rights but they do not grant them. If you have to get permission from someone it is not a right but a privilege granted by whoever owns you.

The word marriage has multiple meanings that even extend into non-living objects. For example an invention that is both visually pleasing and highly functional might be described as the marriage of art and science. Ultimately marriage is the joining of two or more items, be they people or objects. Context plays an important role in this use. The term as used by the government has nothing to do with therm as use by various religions, which in and of themselves vary from religion to religion. One can be married before their deity and not recognized by the state. Likewise, one can obtain the legal status of marriage from the state and not be recognized by the church/religion/deity. So at the basic level, yes the government can marry you, and hell even baptize you, but that doesn't make what the state does the religious equivalent. The problems comes when religious people want to try to make the religious the same as the secular.
 
Back
Top Bottom