• 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

spud_meister said:
Has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Click to expand...

In one sense it doesn't. In others, it very much does, because the way gay marriage is coming about -- through the courts on civil rights grounds, rather than through a legislative process -- does, whether anyone likes it or not, open the door for other arrangements. There really isn't any way it couldn't, on the legal and moral grounds argued.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Click to expand...

Haven't you asked various times for marriage to be left to the states? What do you think would happen with such a belief in states like Utah? Poligamy would definitely become legal if states like Utah were left with the problem of defining marriage. Hey! Creating a contract based on two consenting parties being able to join in marriage. How much room for poligamy does that leave?
 
Hatuey said:
Haven't you asked various times for marriage to be left to the states? What do you think would happen with such a belief in states like Utah? Poligamy would definitely become legal if states like Utah were left with the problem of defining marriage. Hey! Creating a contract based on two consenting parties being able to join in marriage. How much room for poligamy does that leave?
Click to expand...

Plenty of room. Simply take out the two, as is done for business partnership contracts. ;)
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, the government should not be in the marriage business in today's society. Lots of lawyers are available to draw up lots of varied contracts to serve the needs of people in any combination of union they choose or desire.
 
Harshaw said:
In one sense it doesn't. In others, it very much does, because the way gay marriage is coming about -- through the courts on civil rights grounds, rather than through a legislative process -- does, whether anyone likes it or not, open the door for other arrangements. There really isn't any way it couldn't, on the legal and moral grounds argued.
Click to expand...

So what ruling on SSM resulted in this ruling? In fact, what argument for SSM resulted in this ruling? In fact, what does this ruling have to do with marriage?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Plenty of room. Simply take out the two, as is done for business partnership contracts. ;)
Click to expand...

Sure, only that doesn't address divorce laws, legal guardianship laws, alimony payments, etc. Here's a scenario: Imagine I'm married to 3 women and they're also married to each other. If 2 of those women decide to divorce me but not each other, do I have to pay them spousal support? Why?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So what ruling on SSM resulted in this ruling? In fact, what argument for SSM resulted in this ruling? In fact, what does this ruling have to do with marriage?
Click to expand...

Your questions are baffling, because they're partially answered in what you're quoting, and asking what the ruling in the story has to do with marriage is . . . well, did you even read the story?

What exactly is your motivation for arguing with me, anyway?
 
Harshaw said:
Your questions are baffling, because they're partially answered in what you're quoting, and asking what the ruling in the story has to do with marriage is . . . well, did you even read the story?

What exactly is your motivation for arguing with me, anyway?
Click to expand...

That your whole slippery slope is built on nothing. I understand not answering the questions, since that would ruin your slippery slope. Running away from them is cowardly, but prudent.
 
Hatuey said:
Sure, only that doesn't address divorce laws, legal guardianship laws, alimony payments, etc. Here's a scenario: Imagine I'm married to 3 women and they're also married to each other. If 2 of those women decide to divorce me but not each other, do I have to pay them spousal support? Why?
Click to expand...

That is an easy scenario to avoid (solve?); keep bigamy illegal - one can be in only one marriage contract at a time.
 
I do not stand against gay marriage. And I could care less if some Morman's, hippies, Hara Krishnas, doomsday preppers, or whatever, want to dance naked around a fire and have multiple wife swapping parties on mushroom juice. Don't care. Do your thang.

But what I do care about is the manipulation of the welfare system and society having to pay for anti-society lifestyles who figured out how to get over on the system.

CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° Blog

How Polygamy Impacts the Welfare System and You and Me - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
CanadaJohn said:
As I've said many times, the government should not be in the marriage business in today's society. Lots of lawyers are available to draw up lots of varied contracts to serve the needs of people in any combination of union they choose or desire.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As long as government insists on poking its nose into the private lives of people, there's going to be debates about what kind of sexual activity should be legal. If divorce lawyers have their way, polygamy will be legal.

Personally, I can't really see what's attractive about polygamy. Getting divorced once has been bad enough.
 
Redress said:
That your whole slippery slope is built on nothing. I understand not answering the questions, since that would ruin your slippery slope. Running away from them is cowardly, but prudent.
Click to expand...

Even more baffling. You missed the part where the questions were answered before you even asked them.

Saying that someone is running away is not the same as them actually running away.

So you tell me -- if marriage is a fundamental right which can't be denied on arbitrary grounds, and people have the freedom to decide whom to love and whom to make families with, and these are fundamental, constitutional rights, on what grounds to you deny polyamory, group marriages, or any other arrangement between consenting adults?

Be specific.
 
rocket88 said:
Exactly. As long as government insists on poking its nose into the private lives of people, there's going to be debates about what kind of sexual activity should be legal. If divorce lawyers have their way, polygamy will be legal.

Personally, I can't really see what's attractive about polygamy. Getting divorced once has been bad enough.
Click to expand...

Right!?!?

I can understand a man pissing on an electric fence or sticking his tongue on a frozen lamp pole ONCE.

But twice, three times, more? That guy is just an idiot.
 
I might be wrong but I thought this was what Utah was all about anyway... Does anyone even leave or visit?
 
Redress said:
That your whole slippery slope is built on nothing. I understand not answering the questions, since that would ruin your slippery slope. Running away from them is cowardly, but prudent.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for Harshaw, but I believe that you'd have to agree that the initial stage in the movement towards the recognition of gay unions and marriage was fighting to get gay sexual activity off the criminal ledgers and accepted in modern society. Without removing the illegality of the act, there could be no move to codify and sanction the coupling. Likewise, removing polygamy from the criminal domain may be the first step in accepting it and then codifying and sanctioning in law polygamous marriages.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Click to expand...

I am confused. The article you posted didn't mention DOMA once. In fact, the judge's ruling cited the First Amendment, rather than the absence of DOMA. A First Amendment argument would've trumped even DOMA. So the people who "predicted this exact situation would happen as a result" are full of ****.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't speak for Harshaw, but I believe that you'd have to agree that the initial stage in the movement towards the recognition of gay unions and marriage was fighting to get gay sexual activity off the criminal ledgers and accepted in modern society. Without removing the illegality of the act, there could be no move to codify and sanction the coupling. Likewise, removing polygamy from the criminal domain may be the first step in accepting it and then codifying and sanctioning in law polygamous marriages.
Click to expand...

It is still illegal to claim more than one wife, right? One marriage certificate? One tax exemption? The loophole is, they can still all live together , united under their their own, (society/government unsanctioned/unrecognized,) version of "marriage,' (aka shack-up,)

People can "shack-up," with as many people as they want, anywhere in America, right?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You make several false assumptions. Adding a number of "spouses" to tax forms is not a huge deal. Business partnership contracts have no limit on the number of, or gender of, the partners yet they handle the voluntary separation (and death) of any partner, joint ownership of assets and most other areas addressed by a marriage contract. The only adjustments required would be to deal with child custody - but that generally requires a separate hearing even with divorce (voluntary termination) in "convetional" marriage contracts. To assert that "classic" polygamy (one male with multiple females) would be the only form polygyny (multiple marriage partners of any gender) allowed or that it must also allow bigamy (being in more than one marriage contract at a time) is also a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to give the impression I thought it was a big deal, nor give the impression that because its such a big deal and so hard that we shouldn't change the law. I simply met that if a state were to allow for recognized polygamy they should write up some laws to govern it so that way a judge doesn't have to stretch other laws into an area they weren't designed to go.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I think traditional polygamy, one man many women, would be the only kind of polygamy or the only kind allowed.

Talk about making assumptions
 
Captain America said:
It is still illegal to claim more than one wife, right? One marriage certificate? One tax exemption? The loophole is, they can still all live together , united under their their own, (society/government unsanctioned/unrecognized,) version of "marriage,' (aka shack-up,)

People can "shack-up," with as many people as they want, anywhere in America, right?
Click to expand...

From the article linked in the OP:

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...

In other words, no, you couldn't "shack-up" with as many people you wanted in Utah under this law.
 
Captain America said:
It is still illegal to claim more than one wife, right? One marriage certificate? One tax exemption? The loophole is, they can still all live together , united under their their own, (society/government unsanctioned/unrecognized,) version of "marriage,' (aka shack-up,)

People can "shack-up," with as many people as they want, anywhere in America, right?
Click to expand...

I simply point out "first steps". Polygamy is a long way from being one of the options on the government "wheel of benefits".
 
CanadaJohn said:
I simply point out "first steps". Polygamy is a long way from being one of the options on the government "wheel of benefits".
Click to expand...

There were no "first steps" here, because none of the legal ground gained by proponents for same-sex marriage set the stage for this decision. It was decided on First Amendment grounds.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I would like to say that while I did not agree with DOMA, many users on this website predicted this exact situation would happen as a result. The gay community is winning victory after victory in the same sex marriage realm. However, every action has a reaction. This, I believe, is a reaction to that. This judge really has no precedent anymore to rule against polygamy. Nor does any other Federal judge really.
Polygamy advocate groups hail judge's ruling in Utah | Fox News
Click to expand...

If adults want to live in multiple marriages, I see no harm with it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
There were no "first steps" here, because none of the legal ground gained by proponents for same-sex marriage set the stage for this decision. It was decided on First Amendment grounds.
Click to expand...

When did I say this had anything to do with same sex marriage, other than as a roadmap for a path to legitimacy?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
There were no "first steps" here, because none of the legal ground gained by proponents for same-sex marriage set the stage for this decision. It was decided on First Amendment grounds.
Click to expand...

Correct. Funny how so many Christians hate the Fisrt Amendment whenever it protects the freedom of religion for non-Christians.
 
CanadaJohn said:
When did I say this had anything to do with same sex marriage, other than as a roadmap for a path to legitimacy?
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is on what grounds same-sex marriage is in any way a legitimate part of this discussion, seeing as how the only legal precedent that mattered was the First Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom