• 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

What does this have to do with the subject of co-habitation and / or marriage?

Absolutely nothing, however people asked questions on my OP so I elaborated and you're questioning one of my elaborations.

Or I'm merely justifying the "slippery slope" - whatever floats your boat.
 
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

Yeah, as I have said for many years, I have nothing against gay unions, the problem is that the easy road taken by the gay lobby has really trashed the marriage laws as argued. Their methods are applicable to any number of other forms of marriage I do disagree with.
 
So then why did you a) post it in this thread, and b) post it in response to the first post of this thread?

Seriously?

Someone asked me a question on my original post and I answered it...

Apparently the "slippery slope" comment/joke went over your head.
 
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 ...


The 2/3rds of legal entities (17) with Same-sex Civil Marriage have done it through the legislature or through direct voter ballot approval.



>>>>
 
The 2/3rds of legal entities (17) with Same-sex Civil Marriage have done it through the legislature or through direct voter ballot approval.



>>>>

Yes, you are correct. Most of that has been in the last year.
 
I get why you answered a variety of questions. I'm asking why you posted your very first post to this thread, since you just admitted that it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. This post right here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hail-judge-ruling-utah-11.html#post1062669873

I didn't admit my OP has nothing to do with the topic, I said that the post you were referring to was a response to another individual, in which created a different path...

Why do you even care anyways.

You want to debate this issue or talk about posts that weren't directed at you and that confuse you?
 
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

Looks like we now have another group that can sue a baker because his moral conscience won't allow him to produce a wedding cake depicting the groom's many brides. :) I don't believe polygamy is recognized if a woman decides to take on more than one husband at a time. That will surely have to change for that would be a clear cut case of sex discrimination.
 
No you wouldn't because polygamy could not be governed by the same laws as marriage between two individuals, its a simple matter of treating a marriage between a man and a woman the same as one between two men for all legal concerns. But I think it would be better served if new laws came out since at least 3 people are now involved instead of just two. You would need new laws, not rewritten laws.

Also, whats wrong with rewriting the law?

To ensure equal protection and application of the laws, we'd either have to rewrite the laws and make new ones altogether that would account for marriages ranging from 2 to however many. Basically the laws would have to reflect the concept that the size of the marriage, in the legal sense, was variable, and the rules would be on how one enters and leave the union, as well as precedence on decision making. We have been so far removed from polygamy that as a whole we no longer concept how to make such laws work. Had we never gotten rid of the practice then as freedoms were recognized (women's and civil rights among others) and refined, these changes would have been reflected in the polygamy area as well.
 
No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage. Fun fact: married couples don't even have to have sex with each other!

yeah... tell me about it...

did I say that?
 
In every state I know of withholding of sex from a spouse is grounds for a divorce.


But if you are in a marriage and you don't have sex, the marriage isn't dissolved unless one or both of the participants want it dissolved.

You can be in jail, a lifetime sentence, and get married. Not much conjugal bliss there.
 
No, that's not how it's going down. It's about discriminating against homosexuality.

Or getting access to benefits that only traditionally married couples receive. AT this point in American history the leadership may as well begin marrying their horses.
 
Looks like we now have another group that can sue a baker because his moral conscience won't allow him to produce a wedding cake depicting the groom's many brides. :) I don't believe polygamy is recognized if a woman decides to take on more than one husband at a time. That will surely have to change for that would be a clear cut case of sex discrimination.

Bakers will just have to prepare larger wedding cakes.
 
I don't believe polygamy is recognized if a woman decides to take on more than one husband at a time. That will surely have to change for that would be a clear cut case of sex discrimination.

You may be confusing polygamy with polyamory. If group marriages are ever legalized in this country, they would, of course, have to include all combos of men, women, and those who identify as adrogynous.

As I said before, I have no problems with consenting adults (I'd prefer at least of age 25) being in polyamorous situations, assuming they are mature enough to protect themselves with power of attorney, child custody agreements, etc...BUT - it's a lot harder to change our laws to include multiple partner marriages than it is to change the marriage definition from "man and woman" to "two people", which is why I personally have no desire to pursue that battle.

What happens to work health benefits? to social security benefits? pensions? etc.

I personally have no desire to fight the battle to get polyamorous relationships recognized; I think there are too few of them to worry about it; but if others want to I cheer them on.

BUT BUT BUT - any kind of relationship that involves marrying young girls to old men, driving off young men, not educating girls/women, having the "extra" spouses and children get welfare - THAT I am totally opposed to. (yes, people fall on hard times and need welfare; but if you are marrying multiple people and promising to support them - you should be able to do so). How we balance it all out legally will be very tough. But as I said before (apologize for repetition) maybe if we bring this relationships into the sun, at least we can be sure kids are educated appropriately as to their options.

I think it's the Mennonites (I could be wrong) who send their young adults out into the non-Mennonite world for a period of time, so they can see which world they prefer. I wish the fracking fundamentalist polygamists would do the same.
 
You mean the voters, right? :lol:

I was thinking more of Caligula where anything seemed to be accepted, though much of it may be myth.

I suppose my larger point was that perhaps we shouldn't even bother with laws regarding marriage and just let everyone live with whom they want, marry whom they want and marry as often as they want. Divorce would be unnecessary as it would all be unrecorded anyway. We could just trust on the goodness and decency of people to do the right thing if there are any children conceived during any relationships.
 
That's not the point. Anyone can declare themselves married and who's to say they're not? The cohabitation was a means to enforce a restriction on that.

The law deals with legal marriage, not people saying they are married. I can say I'm married all day long, that means exactly 0 when it comes to being legally married.
 
Or getting access to benefits that only traditionally married couples receive. AT this point in American history the leadership may as well begin marrying their horses.
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.
 
I was thinking more of Caligula where anything seemed to be accepted, though much of it may be myth.

I suppose my larger point was that perhaps we shouldn't even bother with laws regarding marriage and just let everyone live with whom they want, marry whom they want and marry as often as they want. Divorce would be unnecessary as it would all be unrecorded anyway. We could just trust on the goodness and decency of people to do the right thing if there are any children conceived during any relationships.

See, that's the other extreme. The best way is usually somewhere in the middle.
 
The law deals with legal marriage, not people saying they are married. I can say I'm married all day long, that means exactly 0 when it comes to being legally married.

You've missed the point.
 
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.

Um. According to what article?
 
You've missed the point.

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.
 
You may be confusing polygamy with polyamory. If group marriages are ever legalized in this country, they would, of course, have to include all combos of men, women, and those who identify as adrogynous.

As I said before, I have no problems with consenting adults (I'd prefer at least of age 25) being in polyamorous situations, assuming they are mature enough to protect themselves with power of attorney, child custody agreements, etc...BUT - it's a lot harder to change our laws to include multiple partner marriages than it is to change the marriage definition from "man and woman" to "two people", which is why I personally have no desire to pursue that battle.

What happens to work health benefits? to social security benefits? pensions? etc.

I personally have no desire to fight the battle to get polyamorous relationships recognized; I think there are too few of them to worry about it; but if others want to I cheer them on.

BUT BUT BUT - any kind of relationship that involves marrying young girls to old men, driving off young men, not educating girls/women, having the "extra" spouses and children get welfare - THAT I am totally opposed to. (yes, people fall on hard times and need welfare; but if you are marrying multiple people and promising to support them - you should be able to do so). How we balance it all out legally will be very tough. But as I said before (apologize for repetition) maybe if we bring this relationships into the sun, at least we can be sure kids are educated appropriately as to their options.

I think it's the Mennonites (I could be wrong) who send their young adults out into the non-Mennonite world for a period of time, so they can see which world they prefer. I wish the fracking fundamentalist polygamists would do the same.

I don't know about Mennonites but I do believe it is the practice of the Amish, they are a sub-group of the Mennonites.
 
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.

Now THAT'S the slippery slope argument.

What's stopping it is informed consent.
 
Back
Top Bottom