• 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

TacticalEvilDan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yeah well, you don't have to say it to display it.

Hell, I don't even believe you acknowledge it - as most US voting base...
 
CriticalThought said:
What next? You going to post a story about the price of tea in China so you can stir the debate about gun control?
Click to expand...
I may. If you have an issue with that, don't read the friggin thread man.
A lot of users on this site believe that these issues correlate because our gov't is redefining what it believes to be marriage. In the past, it was between a man and woman. Now, a lot of courts are saying they can't tell any citizen who they can and can't marry. This is evidenced by many SSM rulings. The natural progression of our society is going to be to push the bounds of this. Polygamy is most likely that next boundary to push. That brings us to the point of the thread. The topic of debate is whether the repeal of DOMA has any sort of affect on the court's view of polygamy. Not whether the story references it or not. It doesn't need to. I referenced it in the OP to begin the debate. This isn't a debate where citing articles and stats is the way to go like in an economic debate. This is what people believe.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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:
Click to expand...

Also, people think they're way different than they actually are - go look in a ****ing mirror....
 
MarineTpartier said:
Now, a lot of courts are saying they can't tell any citizen who they can and can't marry.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure absolutely no American court has said that.

MarineTpartier said:
The topic of debate is whether the repeal of DOMA has any sort of affect on the court's view of polygamy.
Click to expand...

It might've helped if you opened the topic with an article or court decision about actual polygamy in the post-DOMA America..
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
CriticalThought said it before I got a chance. Aside from that, shouting doesn't make you any more convincing. :)
Click to expand...

Not trying to convince you of anything man. Just showing you that you're missing the entire point of the thread. You're debating the details of DOMA when that isn't the issue. The issue is whether DOMA carries any weight in future rulings on polygamy. If you don't think it does, just say it doesn't and move along. If you do, say it does and move along. It's not that hard of a concept.
 
CriticalThought said:
At no point you stated your opinion in the OP?

And I quote...



You were arguing that DOMA being struck down directly led to this judge's ruling.
Click to expand...

By my opinion, I meant my opinion of polygamy.
 
MarineTpartier said:
This is what people believe.
Click to expand...

I believe you thought the article was evidence that DOMA somehow influenced a judge to rule in favor of polygamy. I believe that once it became clear that the judge's 1st amendment ruling had nothing to do with DOMA you tried to save face by concocting this ruse that the story had nothing to do with the thread even though the title of the thread is "Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah." I believe that the best argument YOU can come up with against polygamy is "well the gays are not allowed to marry." I believe in the future you should read things before you post them and make sure they actually say what you think they say before you try to "stir debate."

That is just what I believe. Good night.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Actually, no, I didn't debate the details of DOMA. I just said that DOMA and this court decision have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Click to expand...
But some believe that it does man. That's the debate. Get it now? Some think that repealing DOMA will lead to legal polygamy. Some don't. Obviously, you believe the latter. Nothing wrong with that. I never said there was anything wrong with that. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
But some believe that it does man. That's the debate. Get it now? Some think that repealing DOMA will lead to legal polygamy. Some don't. Obviously, you believe the latter. Nothing wrong with that. I never said there was anything wrong with that. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Belief doesn't really matter when the facts pretty clearly spelled out what happened. The judge cited the First Amendment and made no reference whatsoever to DOMA. Even if DOMA had still been on the books, the fact that the judge cited the First Amendment meant he would've done so even in the face of DOMA since the Constitution trumps Federal law. Anybody who said it was because DOMA was tossed didn't read the decision.

That's not my opinion -- that's what happened.
 
MarineTpartier said:
But some believe that it does man. That's the debate. Get it now? Some think that repealing DOMA will lead to legal polygamy. Some don't. Obviously, you believe the latter. Nothing wrong with that. I never said there was anything wrong with that. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Maybe instead of trying to speak for the mysterious "some people", you should let them speak for themselves? This is a public forum and nothing is stopping them from sharing their own thoughts: instead we just have you divining what other people "may" think. It rings quite hallow.
 
CriticalThought said:
I believe you thought the article was evidence that DOMA somehow influenced a judge to rule in favor of polygamy. I believe that once it became clear that the judge's 1st amendment ruling had nothing to do with DOMA you tried to save face by concocting this ruse that the story had nothing to do with the thread even though the title of the thread is "Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah." I believe that the best argument YOU can come up with against polygamy is "well the gays are not allowed to marry." I believe in the future you should read things before you post them and make sure they actually say what you think they say before you try to "stir debate."

That is just what I believe. Good night.
Click to expand...
Edit to this response. Tactical Dan pointed out that I wasn't clear on the OP that I hadn't heard users reference DOMA or SSM on this particular case, which I haven't. In the OP, I was referencing past debates I have had with users in reference to their belief that legal SSM would lead to legal polygamy. This article does not correlate the two. I agree. I wasn't clear that it didn't and that I was instead referencing past users debates. My bust on that.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
Maybe instead of trying to speak for the mysterious "some people", you should let them speak for themselves? This is a public forum and nothing is stopping them from sharing their own thoughts: instead we just have you divining what other people "may" think. It rings quite hallow.
Click to expand...
How many threads have you seen on this topic? I haven't seen many. Obviously, by how quickly users began to post on it, it was something some people wanted to debate. I'm not trying to speak for anyone. I simply provided a thread about a topic I believed would attract users to post. Which it did. Mission accomplished in my opinion.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Belief doesn't really matter when the facts pretty clearly spelled out what happened. The judge cited the First Amendment and made no reference whatsoever to DOMA. Even if DOMA had still been on the books, the fact that the judge cited the First Amendment meant he would've done so even in the face of DOMA since the Constitution trumps Federal law. Anybody who said it was because DOMA was tossed didn't read the decision.

That's not my opinion -- that's what happened.
Click to expand...
I gotcha. I wasn't clear on WHEN I heard people say that about DOMA. I have heard that in the past, not in reference to this particular case. I understand what you're saying about this case because you're right, it doesn't reference DOMA. I was attempting, maybe in poor fashion, to stir the debate of legal SSM vs polygamy and if legal SSM would lead to legal polygamy. My bust.
 
Would right-ist posters be showing a different kind of outrage if these polygamists were not white ?
 
MarineTpartier said:
How many threads have you seen on this topic? I haven't seen many. Obviously, by how quickly users began to post on it, it was something some people wanted to debate. I'm not trying to speak for anyone. I simply provided a thread about a topic I believed would attract users to post. Which it did. Mission accomplished in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well here's your original post...

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...
Looks like you tried to link this to something it wasn't connected to. I don't really care to say too much more. I agree with the previous poster who said you're just trying to save face.
 
reinoe said:
Well here's your original post...


Looks like you tried to link this to something it wasn't connected to. I don't really care to say too much more. I agree with the previous poster who said you're just trying to save face.
Click to expand...
Save face? Lol. From what? Yeah, I might have botched the OP a little but it's not like I'm about to go off myself over it.
If you don't like the topic, move along man. Obviously, a lot of people do like the topic and understood that the point of the thread was whether legal SSM may lead to legal polygamy. Whichever side you fall on doesn't matter to me. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. If you think that debating the validity of the OP is more important than debating the topic maybe you should join the moderation staff or something.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Edit to this response. Tactical Dan pointed out that I wasn't clear on the OP that I hadn't heard users reference DOMA or SSM on this particular case, which I haven't. In the OP, I was referencing past debates I have had with users in reference to their belief that legal SSM would lead to legal polygamy. This article does not correlate the two. I agree. I wasn't clear that it didn't and that I was instead referencing past users debates. My bust on that.
Click to expand...

My opinion on this matter...

In 2008 the California Supreme Court distinguished polygamy from the right to same-sex marriage by explaining that polygamy is "inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry." Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

There isn't a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy.
Click to expand...

Eliyahu Federman: Will Gay Marriage Lead to Polygamy, Incest, and Religious Meltdown?

The only reason people bring up polygamy as an argument against same sex marriage is because they already know how bad polygamy can be. Otherwise it would make no sense to bring it up. There is no logical connection between the two.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
I gotcha. I wasn't clear on WHEN I heard people say that about DOMA. I have heard that in the past, not in reference to this particular case. I understand what you're saying about this case because you're right, it doesn't reference DOMA. I was attempting, maybe in poor fashion, to stir the debate of legal SSM vs polygamy and if legal SSM would lead to legal polygamy. My bust.
Click to expand...

Happens to the best of us. :)
 
We already hear whites beat the drums of racism for browns and blacks overpopulating..
As if whites wouldn't be doing the same if Mormons weren't whites..
Good to see you're still ignoring the world as it turns .
 
NIMBY said:
We already hear whites beat the drums of racism for browns and blacks overpopulating..
As if whites wouldn't be doing the same if Mormons weren't whites..
Good to see you're still ignoring the world as it turns .
Click to expand...
Speaking of drums, this is hilarious HOJ.
 
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...

Well because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection clause. In a polygamy relationship the man's multiple wives is not seen as infidelity but if one of the wives were to engage in another relationship that is considered infidelity. Most countries that permit polygamy are governed under Sharia Law.

I do see those advocacy groups for polygamy using the same arguments as those used for Same Sex Marriage, whether it works for them is yet to be seen because in a same sex marriage there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because both partners are equals.

As far as this character Kody and his four wives, they have 18 children among them. Three of the wives are stay at home moms and one works outside the home. He filed this lawsuit because he believes his relationships are legal because he is only legally married to one wife the other three are "spiritual" marriages. Spiritual my arse.
 
Last edited:
One man, one wife, four concubines--a grand total of 18 children--an "unofficial" polygamy family--been going on since Lincoln's decree..
Oldest daughter mothering youngest children until Dad sells her off to another "unofficial" polygamist .
One cannot even think of their own daughter .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom