• 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

Flash Farley said:
I don't care how long you've been here or your claim of honesty. Who you supposedly know has nothing to do with anything. Often people try to persuade others by claiming to know this person or that person, or they've done this or that. This is the internet where the only thing to back up your points are verifiable facts.
Click to expand...

The only thing we can confirm about you is that your stay with us was limited to 31 short posts. And you seem like such a swell fella, too. :roll:

I don't know who Goshin knows, but I travelled extensively to the Middle East in a previous job, and polygamy is practiced there. Most men who are not dirt poor have multiple wives. That you can Google on the internet.
 
Flash Farley said:
I don't care how long you've been here or your claim of honesty. Who you supposedly know has nothing to do with anything. Often people try to persuade others by claiming to know this person or that person, or they've done this or that. This is the internet where the only thing to back up your points are verifiable facts.
Click to expand...

Looks like Flash-in-the-Pan has departed. :lol:
 
Amadeus said:
If conservatives and want join liberals in coming up with a means of preventing polygamy without demonizing gays, and without citing Biblical scripture (which supports polygamy), I'm totally on board.
Click to expand...

You don't like polygamy?
 
Polygamy in biblical times was a cultural tradition, not a religious one. Multiple wives were acceptable culturally as were concubines (mistresses). Abraham, David, Solomon... all men of God in the Old Testament but note, they normally did not have more than a few. The argument for polygamy is this: If God were set against Polygamy he would have provided a law to one of his prophets in the Old Testament to ban it. There are some areas in the bible where God warns against it, but it is not outright banned - so morally and religiously there is no strict rule against it.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17
Deuteronomy 17:17

Polygamy was banned under the Roman laws, which the rest of the Christian world adopted, it spread through Europe and then to the United States and South America. Frankly, more than one wife in the house seems masochistic to me but each to their own.
 
Jerry said:
Well, let's be honest...same sex marriage isn't legit either. Sure there's a fancy piece of paper, but it's not a real union they way Jenner isn't a real woman. It's like installing a wheelchair ramp on your building, the person is still disabled, you're just accommodating them for the sake of everyone getting along. We call Jenner a woman so that "she" can function better within society, but Jenner isn't really a woman. We call gays "married" so they too can function better within society, but they aren't really married, just on paper. The state doesn't have the power to decide legitimacy no matter how badly it wants to pretend.
Click to expand...

All marriages are "just on paper" and simply a matter of the public conscious from a factual sense. Anything beyond that is simply, at best, a matter of faith....and while one persons faith may deem it "only on paper", another's may not. You, nor anyone else, is the arbiter of truth and absolutes in this matter.
 
Amadeus said:
If conservatives and want join liberals in coming up with a means of preventing polygamy without demonizing gays, and without citing Biblical scripture (which supports polygamy), I'm totally on board.
Click to expand...

Scripture does not support polygamy for modern man.

There is now no legal basis for prohibiting polygamy, or any kind of marriage for that matter.
 
Ockham said:
Polygamy in biblical times was a cultural tradition, not a religious one. Multiple wives were acceptable culturally as were concubines (mistresses). Abraham, David, Solomon... all men of God in the Old Testament but note, they normally did not have more than a few. The argument for polygamy is this: If God were set against Polygamy he would have provided a law to one of his prophets in the Old Testament to ban it. There are some areas in the bible where God warns against it, but it is not outright banned - so morally and religiously there is no strict rule against it.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17
Deuteronomy 17:17

Polygamy was banned under the Roman laws, which the rest of the Christian world adopted, it spread through Europe and then to the United States and South America. Frankly, more than one wife in the house seems masochistic to me but each to their own.
Click to expand...
Here's something else to consider, two women in the house don't always get along. It takes a very special set of rules and attitudes of acceptance to make it work. But outside of that, the legality is up to society which appears to be in a mood to accept it.
 
American said:
Here's something else to consider, two women in the house don't always get along.
Click to expand...

I would go a little further and state: Two women in the house most of the time do not get along, especially if they are married to the same man. Hell, even sisters are at each others throats and I should know, I had 3 older sisters in the house when I grew up.
 
countryboy said:
Scripture does not support polygamy for modern man.

There is now no legal basis for prohibiting polygamy, or any kind of marriage for that matter.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a spiritual basis, not legal. Where does the scripture say that previous examples of polygamy (e.g. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.) were explicitly sinful and abhorrent in the eyes of God?
 
ludin said:
that isn't what was posted or what I responded to.

The poster said that sure they can get married but the restrictions on benefits would still be in place.

that is still discrimination. if they have a legal marriage then that would open their 2 or 3 or even 4th wife or husbands
up to the same benefits.

equal protection would then apply to their other marriages as well.

this is where the proponents of gay marriage are going to get themselves in trouble by supporting one type of marriage but not all types of marriage then
well they are just as bigoted and close minded and all the other horrible names that they called people that didn't support gay marriage.

if you believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 women your argument stays consistent even in polygamist marriages.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you believe marriage is between two people your argument still remains consistent.

However though, and again, it's only conservatives arguing for polygamy and incest sister-cousin marriages. Those marriages mostly apply to religious people. Especially sister, cousin, mother, dad, mom marriages.
 
akrunner88 said:
Actually, if you believe marriage is between two people your argument still remains consistent.

However though, and again, it's only conservatives arguing for polygamy and incest sister-cousin marriages. Those marriages mostly apply to religious people. Especially sister, cousin, mother, dad, mom marriages.
Click to expand...

strawmans are strawmans.

if you support alternative marriages and are against polygamy then you are being hypocritical in your position.
alternative marriages are anything outside of 1 man and 1 women.

I don't see to many conservatives arguing for polygamy or incest marriages.
umm no they don't apply to religious people your information is highly flawed.
 
Ockham said:
I would go a little further and state: Two women in the house most of the time do not get along, especially if they are married to the same man. Hell, even sisters are at each others throats and I should know, I had 3 older sisters in the house when I grew up.
Click to expand...

Biblically, a man was required to provide each wife a house or a lifestyle equivalent to another wife. It was not an arrangement for the poor man. It was expensive, and probably more a sign of wealth.
 
Ockham said:
Polygamy in biblical times was a cultural tradition, not a religious one. Multiple wives were acceptable culturally as were concubines (mistresses). Abraham, David, Solomon... all men of God in the Old Testament but note, they normally did not have more than a few. The argument for polygamy is this: If God were set against Polygamy he would have provided a law to one of his prophets in the Old Testament to ban it. There are some areas in the bible where God warns against it, but it is not outright banned - so morally and religiously there is no strict rule against it.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17
Deuteronomy 17:17

Polygamy was banned under the Roman laws, which the rest of the Christian world adopted, it spread through Europe and then to the United States and South America. Frankly, more than one wife in the house seems masochistic to me but each to their own.
Click to expand...

It is clear that God intended marriage to be between one man, and one woman. I mean, two chapters into the Bible, but also throughout.

Genesis 2:24 English Standard Version (ESV)

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
 
ludin said:
strawmans are strawmans.

if you support alternative marriages and are against polygamy then you are being hypocritical in your position.
alternative marriages are anything outside of 1 man and 1 women.

I don't see to many conservatives arguing for polygamy or incest marriages.
umm no they don't apply to religious people your information is highly flawed.
Click to expand...

It's conservatives that take part in incrstuous relationships with their own families. It's conservatives in polygamous arrangements that want to legitimize it as a marriage.

Two men or two women marrying is no longer an alternative marriage. It is just simply marriage. So no hypocrisy taking place.
 
American said:
Here's something else to consider, two women in the house don't always get along. It takes a very special set of rules and attitudes of acceptance to make it work. But outside of that, the legality is up to society which appears to be in a mood to accept it.
Click to expand...

In the Middle East they go by this rule, seems to work well for them. :shrug:

the-beatings-will-continue-until-the-morale-improves.jpg
 
Deuce said:
Serious question:

Who cares if three people are married, and why?
Click to expand...

The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Just so you know about polygamy though....

There is no reason to limit it to three

Typically polygamous societies favor the wealthy. Imagine a society in which Donald Trump is married to 5000 models and Miss America contestants, while lower-income young men typically go unmarried. That is how it would go down.
Click to expand...

You do realize that telling a woman she can't marry a certain man and must save herself for another man who she may not want to marry is both Orwellian and sexist. Shall we go back to arranged marriages while we're at it?
 
akrunner88 said:
Actually, if you believe marriage is between two people your argument still remains consistent.

However though, and again, it's only conservatives arguing for polygamy and incest sister-cousin marriages. Those marriages mostly apply to religious people. Especially sister, cousin, mother, dad, mom marriages.
Click to expand...

That's retarded. What conservatives are arguing for your liberal stereotypes of conservatives?
 
akrunner88 said:
It's conservatives that take part in incrstuous relationships with their own families. It's conservatives in polygamous arrangements that want to legitimize it as a marriage.

Two men or two women marrying is no longer an alternative marriage. It is just simply marriage. So no hypocrisy taking place.
Click to expand...

you have no idea what you are talking about this doesn't even make any sense.
 
Moot said:
Does North Carolina have a large Gay population?
Click to expand...

Don't know....

And it is irrelevant..... as the Rights and Liberties of the people are important whether their numbers are large, or small.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Despite one obscure polygamous couple in Montana asking for recognition, polygamy is not nearly as popular for same-sex marriage, and there is no large push for it, so I don't see anything coming of it.
Click to expand...

So then....You too are for Mob Rule then?

The people are subject to whatever rights given to them by the majority....... The rights and liberties of the people are not to be protected from the prejudices of the majority against the minority?
 
countryboy said:
It is clear that God intended marriage to be between one man, and one woman. I mean, two chapters into the Bible, but also throughout.

Genesis 2:24 English Standard Version (ESV)

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not - which wife? The interpretation of one man and one woman was created by the Romans as I already stated after Christ's crucifixion.
 
PerfectStorm said:
You do know about social secutity spousal benefits, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes... and welfare from the state is not a reason to limit the freedoms of the people...
 
MrT said:
The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.
Click to expand...

Looks like your hunting around for an excuse to prohibit polygamy. I don't think the Left has a leg to stand on anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom