• 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:
Well the government may not recognize their marriages but from this day forward in the state of Utah they will no longer face jail time for practicing having multiple wives who will produce them many offspring that will have their father's name on their birth certificates.
Click to expand...

In other words, like every other state in the union where polyamory is perfectly legal. Since they're not wives. Next thing you know they'll be marrying their hamsters!

Mr.Nick said:
Good, you understand that you love government - depend on government...
Click to expand...

Okay. :roll:
 
Redress said:
Gotta read past the headline dude. The ruling was about cohabitation laws, not marriage.
Click to expand...
Just as the initial SSM laws were about sodomy, not marriage directly.
 
Jerry said:
Just as the initial SSM laws were about sodomy, not marriage directly.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. The initial SSM laws were about marriage. The original sodomy laws were about sodomy. Sodomy is not just a same-sex activity.
 
Kobie said:
No they weren't. The initial SSM laws were about marriage. The original sodomy laws were about sodomy. Sodomy is not just a same-sex activity.
Click to expand...
The pro-gay movment had to first tackle sodomy laws before moving on anything else. Likewise the pro-polygamy movement has to move on cohabitation before anything else. Next will be insurance, adoption, housing and job discrimination, just like SSM went. When there is sound legal foundations for those agenda items then the fight for polygamy will begin at the federal level, just as with SSM.

All arguments in support for SSM also support polygamy. There is no argument unique to SSM, or polygamy, for that matter. To allow one is to allow them all.
 
Father sells his 13-tear-old daughter to have a concubine family, not requiring marriage..
As if it just began now .
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Um. Yeah. Back atcha. :lol:
Click to expand...

Take your failure government and shove it.... Go love you some Nancy Pelosi bucks while you pretend you hate it but argue for it.

Go vote for progressive ideas while you trade your liberty for security...
 
Jerry said:
The pro-gay movment had to first tackle sodomy laws before moving on anything else. Likewise the pro-polygamy movement has to move on cohabitation before anything else. Next will be insurance, adoption, housing and job discrimination, just like SSM went. When there is sound legal foundations for those agenda items then the fight for polygamy will begin at the federal level, just as with SSM.

All arguments in support for SSM also support polygamy. There is no argument unique to SSM, or polygamy, for that matter. To allow one is to allow them all.
Click to expand...

You're right and I wish them the best of luck.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Why do you care if some wacky people in Utah want to marry each other? How does that even remotely effect your life?

Liberty much?
Click to expand...
Where did I say I care bro? I just posted the friggin story to stir debate on a website called........(drumroll).......Debate Politics
 
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...
Again, as Im stating to other users, I never expressed an opinion in the OP. Most of you are jumping to a conclusion because you think you know what I believe about this. I simply posted a story to stir debate and stated that I've seen others post about the "slippery slope" SSM would create for polygamy.
 
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...
I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...
Many on this website, in the past, have stated that repealing DOMA would begin a process towards legal polygamy. I was simply stirring the debate.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
Click to expand...

Which actually brings you right back to Redress's question, which is, how do you know that the ruling happened as a result of SSM? How do you know that the ruling wouldn't have happened anyway?
 
Cardinal said:
Which actually brings you right back to Redress's question, which is, how do you know that the ruling happened as a result of SSM? How do you know that the ruling wouldn't have happened anyway?
Click to expand...
Dude, did you read my previous post? Where did I say that I believed that? I said OTHERS did. I have seen multiple users on this site state that the repeal of DOMA would lead down this road. I was simply stirring the debate.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Take your failure government and shove it.... Go love you some Nancy Pelosi bucks while you pretend you hate it but argue for it.

Go vote for progressive ideas while you trade your liberty for security...
Click to expand...

Hey, this is great, I don't even have to talk to you anymore because you're going to invent my side of the conversation out of whole cloth.

Keep up the good work! :thumbs:
 
MarineTpartier said:
Many on this website, in the past, have stated that repealing DOMA would begin a process towards legal polygamy. I was simply stirring the debate.
Click to expand...

Why would you stir the debate over DOMA with an article that didn't even mention DOMA about a court decision that also had nothing to do with DOMA?
 
vesper said:
Before they get done redefining marriage, it will be legal between a brother and a sister, father and daughter, a mother and son, gay men/women, straight men/women will be allowed multiple spouses and the consent laws will get lowered. And who knows maybe a man who loves his sheep or the woman who loves her cat. You keep hearing more and more people willing their money to their animals.
Click to expand...

If you say so. :roll:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why would you stir the debate over DOMA with an article that didn't even mention DOMA about a court decision that also had nothing to do with DOMA?
Click to expand...
I DIDN'T STIR DEBATE OVER DOMA, AS EVIDENCED BY THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD. I STIRRED DEBATE OVER POLYGAMY AND THE ASSUMPTION SOME USERS MADE ON THIS WEBSITE THAT THE REPEAL OF DOMA WOULD LEAD TO LEGAL POLYGAMY.

That's the point man. Some believe DOMA and polygamy have nothing to do with each other. However, many on this website believe that they do. My intention was to stir debate over that topic, which I succeeded in doing. At no point did I state MY opinion in the OP. This website doesn't require that you pick a side man. You should know that, you've been here longer than I have.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
Click to expand...

Which is yet to happen in any country with fully legal same-sex marriage.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Many on this website, in the past, have stated that repealing DOMA would begin a process towards legal polygamy. I was simply stirring the debate.
Click to expand...

What next? You going to post a story about the price of tea in China so you can stir the debate about gun control?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I DIDN'T STIR DEBATE OVER DOMA, AS EVIDENCED BY THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD. I STIRRED DEBATE OVER POLYGAMY AND THE ASSUMPTION SOME USERS MADE ON THIS WEBSITE THAT THE REPEAL OF DOMA WOULD LEAD TO LEGAL POLYGAMY.

That's the point man. Some believe DOMA and polygamy have nothing to do with each other. However, many on this website believe that they do. My intention was to stir debate over that topic, which I succeeded in doing. At no point did I state MY opinion in the OP. This website doesn't require that you pick a side man. You should know that, you've been here longer than I have.
Click to expand...

At no point you stated your opinion in the OP?

And I quote...

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.
Click to expand...

You were arguing that DOMA being struck down directly led to this judge's ruling.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I DIDN'T STIR DEBATE OVER DOMA, AS EVIDENCED BY THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD. I STIRRED DEBATE OVER POLYGAMY AND THE ASSUMPTION SOME USERS MADE ON THIS WEBSITE THAT THE REPEAL OF DOMA WOULD LEAD TO LEGAL POLYGAMY.

That's the point man. Some believe DOMA and polygamy have nothing to do with each other. However, many on this website believe that they do. My intention was to stir debate over that topic, which I succeeded in doing. At no point did I state MY opinion in the OP. This website doesn't require that you pick a side man. You should know that, you've been here longer than I have.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said it before I got a chance. Aside from that, shouting doesn't make you any more convincing. :)
 
MarineTpartier said:
Again, as Im stating to other users, I never expressed an opinion in the OP. Most of you are jumping to a conclusion because you think you know what I believe about this. I simply posted a story to stir debate and stated that I've seen others post about the "slippery slope" SSM would create for polygamy.
Click to expand...

And I explained to you that your position on SSM (leave it up to the states) would also create a slippery slope for polygamy in the case of states like Utah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom