• 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!

Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah

vesper said:
If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman but can now include same sexes and according to this article a man can have more than one wife. Soon it will be changed that a woman can have more than one husband. So since there are no absolutes anymore, a woman and her cat, a man and his horse....what's stopping it? Heck today some people love and put more value on their animals than another human being. There is already a push to loosen incest laws. Marriage is on its way to being anything you want it to be IMO.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it too. I don't know the unintended consequences of any of this but I get the feeling it will be expensive in any number of ways, particularly in a gradually evolving nanny state.
 
Grant said:
That's the way I see it too. I don't know the unintended consequences of any of this but I get the feeling it will be expensive in any number of ways, particularly in a gradually evolving nanny state.
Click to expand...

It's like the two of you are purposefully ignoring the fact that the judge in this case specifically skirted actually addressing the portion of the law that dealt with actual marriage.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Then please explain the point, because the issue from the OP was not about marriage at all. The case is about cohabitation, the marriage laws were upheld. The only thing that changed was the cohabitation law. Anyone can say they are married, but the government only recognizes legal marriage, not people saying they are married. Many people live together and are not legally married, that is not against the law. Now that is not against the law in Utah either.
Click to expand...

Ever since Lee Marvin's 'Palimony' case the line between traditional marriage and cohabitation has become more blurred, and the government did become involved. Now men are concerned about any relationship because of Palimony, retroactive alimony, or anything of that nature. Sex is freely available everywhere so it raises the question among a lot of young men as to why they should get married at all, given the financial risks marriage it often entails.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It's like the two of you are purposefully ignoring the fact that the judge in this case specifically skirted actually addressing the portion of the law that dealt with actual marriage.
Click to expand...

This is idea is not confined to this particular judge or case but the changing mores involved in this decision. I agree that people should live their lives with as much freedom as possible but am also curious as to where it all might lead. I find that more interesting.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Um. According to what article?
Click to expand...
The article that started this thread.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

No longer will you be arrested for practicing polygamy. Polygamy is clearly on the same path that homosexual relations once were. First they dropped the sodomy laws. Then came the legalization of same sex marriages. Currently incest laws are being challenged in some states. What happens when/if they drop them too? How many people realize in France even though it is frowned upon it has been legal for brothers and sisters of the same parent to marry since Napoleon. Lots of countries all over the world are dropping incest laws. Some countries allow marriage others do not allow marriage like Japan but do not find it a crime to engage in incest with consenting adults.
 
Last edited:
vesper;106267051 U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. [/QUOTE said:
No longer will you be arrested for practicing polygamy. Polygamy is clearly on the same path that homosexual relations once were. First they dropped the sodomy laws. Then came the legalization of same sex marriages. Currently incest laws are being challenged in some states. What happens when/if they drop them too? How many people realize in France even though it is frown upon it has been legal for brothers and sisters of the same parent to marry since Napoleon. Lots of countries all over the world are dropping incest laws. Some countries allow marriage others do not allow marriage like Japan but do not find it a crime to engage in incest with consenting adults.
Click to expand...
The law s also being challenged with regard to adults having sex with children though I can't recall the acronym.
 
Grant said:
The laws also being challenged with regard to adults having sex with children though I can't recall the acronym.
Click to expand...

And guess where those challenges are going to go? Nowhere. Because children can't consent.
 
Grant said:
Ever since Lee Marvin's 'Palimony' case the line between traditional marriage and cohabitation has become more blurred, and the government did become involved. Now men are concerned about any relationship because of Palimony, retroactive alimony, or anything of that nature. Sex is freely available everywhere so it raises the question among a lot of young men as to why they should get married at all, given the financial risks marriage it often entails.
Click to expand...

This case was about people who want to live together, they want to be legally married, but that is not possible. This case was about them wanting to legally live together, which was not allowed under Utah law.
 
vesper said:
The article that started this thread.



No longer will you be arrested for practicing polygamy. Polygamy is clearly on the same path that homosexual relations once were. First they dropped the sodomy laws. Then came the legalization of same sex marriages. Currently incest laws are being challenged in some states. What happens when/if they drop them too? How many people realize in France even though it is frowned upon it has been legal for brothers and sisters of the same parent to marry since Napoleon. Lots of countries all over the world are dropping incest laws. Some countries allow marriage others do not allow marriage like Japan but do not find it a crime to engage in incest with consenting adults.
Click to expand...

You have obviously misunderstood the article. The portion you quoted refers to cohabitation, not legal marriage. From that very same article:

Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
And guess where those challenges are going to go? Nowhere. Because children can't consent.
Click to expand...

A child of 13 can have an abortion in this country without the consent of a parent. How much of a stretch is it to see the laws of consent lowered in the case of marriage?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You have obviously misunderstood the article. The portion you quoted refers to cohabitation, not legal marriage. From that very same article:
Click to expand...

I love it when progressives attempt to talk out both sides of their mouth.
 
Kobie said:
And guess where those challenges are going to go? Nowhere. Because children can't consent.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking I suppose they could but the courts would never accept the words of a juvenile. Up to ths point anyway.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You have obviously misunderstood the article. The portion you quoted refers to cohabitation, not legal marriage. From that very same article:
Click to expand...
No Dan I don't think I have misunderstood. What the judge did was ruled that you will no longer face jail time for practicing polygamy. What the judge did was put polygamy on the road to becoming legal just like the judge that legalized sodomy put in motion legalizing same sex marriages.
 
vesper said:
No Dan I don't think I have misunderstood. What the judge did was ruled that you will no longer face jail time for practicing polygamy.
Click to expand...

Wrong again -- the judge ruled that you longer face jail time for cohabitating. You still can't get multiple marriage licenses or a marriage license for more than 2 people.

vesper said:
What the judge did was put polygamy on the road to becoming legal just like the judge that legalized sodomy put in motion legalizing same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how it's legal to cohabit here in New York, and has been for some time, and yet we haven't gone anywhere near the subject of legalizing polygamy, I think you're very badly mistaken.
 
vesper said:
A child of 13 can have an abortion in this country without the consent of a parent. How much of a stretch is it to see the laws of consent lowered in the case of marriage?
Click to expand...

You know how many states do not require parental consent for minors to have an abortion? Five.

And you're totally changing the definition of informed consent to fit your slippery slope argument.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is an easy scenario to avoid (solve?); keep bigamy illegal - one can be in only one marriage contract at a time.
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement. I have no problem with polygamy. It already exists. I should have stated my problem is with bigamy mostly on legal grounds. It would create a legal nightmare to have a 3 way divorce.
 
Hatuey said:
Then we are in agreement. I have no problem with polygamy. It already exists. I should have stated my problem is with bigamy mostly on legal grounds. It would create a legal nightmare to have a 3 way divorce.
Click to expand...

Key word - "divorce" - which implies government involvement.
 
Kobie said:
You know how many states do not require parental consent for minors to have an abortion? Five.

And you're totally changing the definition of informed consent to fit your slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...
No that is incorrect. There are currently 7 states that do not require parental notification and there are another 9 that are currently enjoined. There are two states that have to notify the parents but the parents have no say.

You see there truly is such a thing as a slippery slope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom