• 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!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.
 
Whether you intended to or not, you just put forth a major correlation/causation fallacy. Polygamy is practiced in many countries where is it not legal, just without the legal paperwork thus making no conflict between the poly family and the government. In some places there were other laws that tried to cover that bypass, such as Utah's cohabitation laws, which were finally shot down.

You also have another major logic fail. We weren't the first country to allow interracial marriage. We weren't the first country to allow SSM. But we were fighting for those rights when other countries made them legal. Thus the fight goes on and whether the US is first or not remains to be seen. But the goal is not to be first with polygamy, but to get it passed.

Fallacy or not, I hope you realize that most of the posters on this board are talking about polygamy not because they endorse it but because they don't like the ruling on SSM and are trying to us polygamy as a "slippery slope" argument against SSM. Polygamy has a very bad name here as the practice been abused by pedophiles in very well publicized cases and they are attempting to equate those with gays and SSM. Don't fall into their trap and start believing that crap. We are no closer to making polygamy legal than before the ruling. The custom of marriage being between 2 people that love each other is likely to remain for a very long time.
 
Now that legal marriage is unequivocally a fundamental right, it would seem he no more needs to offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt it, then he needs to offer a coherent argument as to why the country should allow him free speech. The burden of proof is now squarely on government to provide a compelling interest as to why it will not allow polygamists to exercise their fundamental rights.

You are wrong. Marriage was expanded from one man and one woman, to any two human beings. That is all. This was done, as I have shown in this thread, because gay people naturally occur within the human population, across both sexes and in all societies throughout time. They are citizens and should be entitled to the right of one person to marry another person.

We did NOT expand the law beyond that, sorry.

You are also wrong in that it was NEVER the govt. responsibility to explain why it previously so fit to deny marriage to gays, rather gays had to sue the govt. and go to court and PROVE that they had an overridding interest in having access to marriage rights and responsibilities, and they successfully did that over the last 4 decades, in legal case after case.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for rightly admitting that polygamy does not work economically the way the systems are currently designed.

I really don't think that there are many who would not admit to it. Oh there will always be some, but by and far, the poly community simply knows better.

Polygamy is a choice. It is learned behavior, taught in certain sects and those are the only places that it exists. Therefore there is no moral obligation to accommodate it, unless you can demonstrate one.

Show me the study on this. Much like a homosexual can enter into a heterosexual marriage and engage in heterosexual sex while still being homosexual, behavior and attraction are separate things. How learned is it? I am not Mormon or any other religious faith that teaches polygamy. Or of any non religious group that teaches such. Yet from an early age, I have always wanted to have multiple mates. Now much like young gays in my day, we were just overwhelmed with the concept of straight 2 person marriage and anything else was wrong and immoral. So I didn't realize back then all I know now, much as many gay kids didn't understand what they were feeling.

I have also known people who have tried poly (marriage or otherwise) and found that it is not for them. I've met others who could go either way. So I have to really wonder if for some it is not learned but a part of who they are.

But remember this, the Mormon Faith long ago outlawed polygamy, so there is NO institutional support for polygamy in the US:

Define institutional support. Because Loving More might disagree with you.


So if the Mormons moved forward to monogamy long ago, what is the moral imperative to justify the learned behavior of polygamy? We have a set of laws, live within them.
The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?
 
Define institutional support. Because Loving More might disagree with you.
Loving more looks like a nice little club, not an institution. An institution would have a great many members, not just a few.

maquiscat said:
The concept that is was a move forward is a subjective one. And no I would not classify it as a move backwards either. It was simply a change in how things were done, when looked at objectively. We had a set of laws against interracial marriage, SSM, for slavery, Jim Crow laws. Obviously live with them was not an acceptable argument, so why should it be so here?

These moves forward were moral imperatives. Interracial marriage hurt nobody, and no other laws had to be changed, nor any benefit plans nor family law. It fit within all other existing frameworks. Slavery is such a simple case of immorality I won't discuss it. Jim Crow laws were designed to discriminate against minorities, and eliminating them required absolutely no other changes in the legal system, everything worked as is. For all of these changes, the impact was very broad based in the nation, affecting millions of people, and putting them in effect required no other changes in the law or benefit systems.

You are asking us to make a change that would require many changes in many areas of the existing system, to benefit a few people. That is not the way the laws work in this country. The criteria for the changes you cite are:
1. Moral imperative
2. Affects many people
3. Does not require broad changes in the rest of the legal or benefit system.

You have not provided reasoning for any of that.
 
History shows otherwise. You are being far from realistic about it. I provided a rationale for why polygamy should not be legalised, and it is a legitimate one, so if you want to legalize polygamy then that is irrelevant to the facts. I am not going to try to convince people that polygamy should not be legalised, only dismiss the baseless notion that it is the same as same-sex marriage.


What amazes me about all of this is how we have been hearing all the stupid slippery slope arguments coming from the homophobes for years about gay marriage paving the way for polygamy, incest, child abuse, bestiality and who knows what only to have posters arrive making damn well sure to confirm their fears.

You would almost think it was by design.
 
It's one data point, in an area without a lot of data. Do you dispute that Mr. Brown's family has 22 people? I only used the show to demonstrate ONE thing, the SIZE of their family and if it is correct, then the show fulfills that specific mission PERFECTLY.

Exactly! It's one data point. Yet you called it "typical". A single data point can be normal or it can be a outlier. Normal in the statistical sense.

Do you have reliable statistics to show how many polygamist families there are in the US, and what their average family size is. I notice you are not providing ANY data, while criticizing mine. I await your authoritative data.

Mind you I suck at locating actual studies online. There have numerous media ventures that are looking at other than the FLDS for what polygamy is. I have seen a couple of documentaries on TV dealing with polygamy that showed women who had two husbands as well as men who two wives. Sadly I was not at home and did not catch what channel they were on. It also doesn't help that polygamy and polyamory are becoming as synonymous in the general language as polygamy and polygyny are, thus further muddying the waters. That said I found these:
What Do Polys Want? Results of the 2012 Loving More Polyamory Survey
http://polytical.org/2012/09/uk-poly-email-list-demographic-survey-results/
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Ut...cs?formkey=dHBpbjVlc011MlhPYjRUSERVTEw5UXc6MA
Polygamy Survey Statistics and Results


I don't have to shown anything, until you offer a coherent argument why the country should adopt plural marriage, when even the moron faith has outlawed the practice.
You made a very specific claim that allowing polygamy would significantly increase the average size of the american household. Back up your claim.

Show me. You have no proof. And anyhow, where else would there be a large representation of polygamist families in the US, outside of the FLDS? It seems this is EXACTLY the sample you want to see.
It is exactly the sample I want to see and we are out there. We don't all live in communities like the FLDS do. I live in a typical small city in MD just south of DE. It is a conservative area (despite MD being mostly liberal). So it's not like we announce our family to the whole city. We do have alt lifestyle friends of various ilk with whom we can be open with. I personally know another poly unit up near Baltimore. If you look at the links I provided in post #29, you can see that those of us who are not FLDS are all across the country. And very few of us believe in the abuse the FLDS of the Jeffery's ilk do. Hell there are even some independent FLDS who denounce what those in the compounds do. I honestly want to see such studies and if I knew who to talk to and could get the money I'd start one.
 
Fallacy or not, I hope you realize that most of the posters on this board are talking about polygamy not because they endorse it but because they don't like the ruling on SSM and are trying to us polygamy as a "slippery slope" argument against SSM. Polygamy has a very bad name here as the practice been abused by pedophiles in very well publicized cases and they are attempting to equate those with gays and SSM. Don't fall into their trap and start believing that crap. We are no closer to making polygamy legal than before the ruling. The custom of marriage being between 2 people that love each other is likely to remain for a very long time.
Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.
 
What amazes me about all of this is how we have been hearing all the stupid slippery slope arguments coming from the homophobes for years about gay marriage paving the way for polygamy, incest, child abuse, bestiality and who knows what only to have posters arrive making damn well sure to confirm their fears.

You would almost think it was by design.

First of all let's back up. Remember that interracial marriage also paved the way for SSM and all the others. Let's not forget our history. But the argument is flawed because these are not sequential event, where one is required before the others can be made legal. We could have managed to achieve SSM before interracial. Then we would have had white men suing to marry black men. Or poly could have won out first, and then we'd be suing to allow for other races within a poly group. If poly was first then SSM, would have rapidly fallen into place faster than interracial being first.

Pedophilia and beastility are a fallacy argument because the whole basis of marriage is the ability to consent.

Incest marriage (as opposed to sex) has it's chance because in the legal system, sex is not a requirement of marriage.
 
Wow that line sounds like we're trying to eliminate monogamy. I would hope that monogamy would remain for a very long time. And yes there are many other groups, such as NAMBLA who want to ride on any coattails they can, be it SSM or poly, to obtain their objective. Just like the gays had to fight to disassociate themselves with the pedophile, because quite honestly there are gay pedophiles, so will polys have to fight that same thing, because quite honestly there are polys who are also pedophiles.

I guess I mispoke. I meant to say the custom of marriage EXCLUSIVELY being between 2 adults that love each other will remain for a very long time. You have a long road ahead before you change that convention if EVER. There are too many obstacles in the path of polygamy for it to become accepted like SSM. Don't forget that being accepted is what you need before there is even a chance at legality.

jbjslwzc8eatod6wmovh_a.png


2mtb4bi9wuinds3fihiwoq.png
 
Last edited:
It is exactly the sample I want to see and we are out there. We don't all live in communities like the FLDS do. I live in a typical small city in MD just south of DE. It is a conservative area (despite MD being mostly liberal). So it's not like we announce our family to the whole city. We do have alt lifestyle friends of various ilk with whom we can be open with. I personally know another poly unit up near Baltimore. If you look at the links I provided in post #29, you can see that those of us who are not FLDS are all across the country. And very few of us believe in the abuse the FLDS of the Jeffery's ilk do. Hell there are even some independent FLDS who denounce what those in the compounds do. I honestly want to see such studies and if I knew who to talk to and could get the money I'd start one.

I respect your right to live your life as you see fit, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also need to respect the law of the land. You say you have felt this way for a long time, but in the situation of gays, the field of psychiatry noted the widespread nature, its natural psychological root for those gays, and stated we should not try to "convert" the gay but rather society needed to change. I don't find any such support for your position. When it comes to laws, they exist to set boundaries, and in many cases regulate legal boundaries. I just don't see the parallel to the situation of gays. You can live however you chose, you just don't get access to all the benefits that marriage confers, nor the legal protections. That is the way gay couples did it in the past.
 
I respect your right to live your life as you see fit, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You also need to respect the law of the land. You say you have felt this way for a long time, but in the situation of gays, the field of psychiatry noted the widespread nature, its natural psychological root for those gays, and stated we should not try to "convert" the gay but rather society needed to change. I don't find any such support for your position. When it comes to laws, they exist to set boundaries, and in many cases regulate legal boundaries. I just don't see the parallel to the situation of gays. You can live however you chose, you just don't get access to all the benefits that marriage confers, nor the legal protections. That is the way gay couples did it in the past.
How wide spread homosexuality was, was skewed for quite a while as people hid their orientation. Much like people hid their love and attraction for those outside their skin color. And a preference for a skin color is certainly more of a choice than orientation. It's only recently, relatively speaking that people have been coming out more regularly and at younger ages. So I fully expect more and more polys going public in much the same way the homosexuality did. And much in the same ways that gays have been fighting for progress so will we. Interracial, same sex and poly marriages are not the same but they have many of the same arguments against them, and they have progressed in society in much the same patterns.
 
It *sounds* good, if you're the one, but yeah...

Once again the false presumption that there will be one gender that is alone. In my marriage there are two of each
 
Once again the false presumption that there will be one gender that is alone. In my marriage there are two of each
Then that would not have been an exception to the general rule and not fallen under my statement, correct? Correct.

:roll:
 
Then how can you explain why no other nation that has adopted SSM has done the same for polygamy? Why would we be the first? It is nothing but sour grapes talking. Don't play us for fools.

Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.
 
Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.

Why wasn't that true in any of the other countries? Stop dodging the question. The SC did not declare open season on all forms of marriage. That is a ridiculous assumption.
 
Last edited:
Why should you or anyone else care if polygamy does become legal? What possible effect does it have on your life? Most people still won't be doing it and the ones that do were living together anyway. Why do we have to jump from one group to another trying to impose our will on them instead of just letting people live as they choose? Got Freedom?

I have no problem so long as the federal government gets out of the marriage business all together. If the government isn't interested in defining the term then it has no business subsidizing it.

When our citizens have rights and the freedom to live their lives as they choose, society benefits greatly. If we banned Christians (or whatever you identify with) from marrying, would that make America more or less free?

That is a touchy-feely answer with no concrete foundation in reality. People have the right to live as they want, the government doesn't have to recognize their choices for them to live their lives.

If the government defined marriage as being between two men it wouldn't change my life in the least, but then I don't live my life seeking approval from the government.

It's funny how gay marriage and abortion are really the only facets of modern society where the Left seems at all interested in making a case for "freedom", though. Everywhere else the left is about eliminating freedoms.
 
Because of the legal argument used to legalize SSM. You don't have to legalize polygamy based on the US justification for SSM, the SCOTUS decision stripped away any solid definition of the word marriage.

You are wrong. Here are excerpts from Kennedy's opinion:

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

...

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.
What’s in the same-sex marriage ruling - The Washington Post

Marriage is as marriage was, two people, except that now both people can be of the same sex. The supreme court did NOT strip away any solid definition of marriage, only the old one that you like. The bible is not the legal ying and yang of this country. It is the constitution and the governing bodies.
 
Why wasn't that true in any of the other countries? Stop dodging the question.

You do realize that other countries have different laws than the US yes? Tell me how other countries outlaw polygamy and then show me how that correlates with US law and whether their solution fits with US law. If they avoid polygamy by defining marriage in anyway that excludes polygamists then their law is incompatible with the SCOTUS ruling.
 
My argument is not silly, you just fail to understand the gay marriage issue. Perhaps you would like to state why the supreme court should NOT have made it legal across the land. I will explain why they did make it legal. The characteristic of being gay is possessed by a large percentage of the worlds population and it always has been. Estimates vary from 5 - 10% of the population, both male and female. That would make being gay a normally observed human variation in the population. Normal is not bad. You may not understand it, you may not like it, you don't have to. But we all need to respect these peoples dignity as humans. If you think we were made by god, god doesn't make any junk. From the point of view of the state, marriage is not about romantic love, it is about legal rights and responsibilities; rights that people get to enjoy because they chose to commit to a relationship for life, and responsibilities they must live up to within the marriage and afterward if the marriage does not survive. If being gay in a normal human variation in a substantial part of the population, why should those people be denied the right to marry the person they chose?

The mental health community states that being gay is normal, and we should not try to change the gay person, rather we should change the society so it does not view gay people as wrong or in need of being changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

First, nice straw man.

Second, even larger majority of Americans are born unable to qualify for the Olympics in any even -- that too is normal -- that does not mean that we need to change the standards for Olympic qualifying, even if that means that the average American can't enjoy the lifestyle of an American Olympian.


So, for correct reason, society has changed to recognize that being gay is a normal human variation, and these people should be entitled to all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. The supreme court has ordered the society to change, and that is good.

Until the SCOTUS decision marriage wasn't a "right". This is one of those cases where the SCOTUS got it wrong. They states and the citizens of those states should have the right to define terms in their own laws. The SCOTUS ruling issued a blanket authorization without a definition of the term "marriage", and outlawed the ability of the state to define the term. "Marriage" has no real definition at this point and the ruling makes it illegal to attempt to define it since doing so will, by process, be denying marriages to people.

But we are still in the realm of "one person marrying another person", or two in the marriage. There is no change to SS, because if the people were not gay and married a hetero partner they would pay in to cover that person, they pay into SS anyway, and so their gay partner is already covered, unless you can show that SS presumed a certain percentage of gay people who would not be covered.

So if gay marriage was outlawed it wouldn't effect the amount of money that a gay couple could expect to get from Social Security?

I await your reasons why polygamy should be allowed.

Because the argument in favor of polygamy would use precisely the same argument as gay marriage. Since the argument is exactly the same then the new SCOTUS marriage ruling should be applied equally.
 
Back
Top Bottom