• 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

Nope. Bigots on the left will try to stop this from happening, but their bigotry will fail. When my sister and I show up looking for a marriage license is when their heads will explode.

I guess you are just desperate, or perhaps that is the best you can do!
 
Bigotry exists, because supporters of gay marriage don't want the same equality for others.

Oh, they don't? I must not have gotten that memo from the pro-SSM rule book you're implying exists. Because I do.

In fact, I think marriage should go back to being purely a social institution, and people should be able to designate the legal rights currently attached to it to whomever they please.
 
Don't know....
Why not, it's your state? My state is probably more conservative than yours and it has a large gay population.

And it is irrelevant..... as the Rights and Liberties of the people are important whether their numbers are large, or small.


You didn't seem to think it was irrelevant when you said there weren't enough magistrates to marry gays in your state....that's why I asked....


Look.... maybe you haven't been to North Carolina.... but pretending that every county has 2-50 Civil Magistrates working on any particular day is a stretch of the imagination.

....Also, pretending that in the rural parts of North Carolina (which is most of it) that there will be a Magistrate who DOESN'T have this "deeply held religious belief" is also quite laughable.
 
Removing all constraints on the electorate on this, and other, matters isn't going to do the society any good. More likely that it'll implode and fall apart and lose all cohesion.

So then, you believe that "Mob rule" should be the way we govern?

So if "the mob" chose to legalize Slavery, this would be acceptable to you? Consequences to the minority be damned?

This is the type of thing you agree to when you believe in "mob rule".
 
Just more evidence that government should remove itself from the wedding business altogether.

Gays getting married doesn't really mean they're married. I certainly don't recognize it as marriage (like I don't recognize many heterosexual marriages either). It's nowhere near the equivalent of my marriage.

It takes more than a piece of paper. Marriage is about faith and raising children. It's not a "state" matter. That's why this issue hasn't really mattered to me because it changes nothing.

But if the state wants to get involved with the "freedom" nonsense of it all, then anybody should be allowed to marry anyone, or anything, and as many as they please. I mean, marriage is about equality and freedom, right?

This is what happens when you mess with the fabric of our culture.

Marriage is a contract.

Legally recognized contracts require those who enter into them to be of legal age and of sound mind.

Thus, this fallacy of marrying any "thing" is nonsensical idiocy.
 
Oh, they don't? I must not have gotten that memo from the pro-SSM rule book you're implying exists. Because I do.

In fact, I think marriage should go back to being purely a social institution, and people should be able to designate the legal rights currently attached to it to whomever they please.

Obviously you didn't get the memo, all I see is gay marriage supporters fighting over the polygamy thing. They need to STFU, because they started it.
 
And yet, nobody with that belief has been able to prove why their belief should be the law of the land, despite the rights and liberties of others who don't share it.

because morality isn't subjective? because there are major issues that arise in polygamist marriages?

but to you who cares morality is subjective defined by nothing but the whims of society like that has ever lasted.
 
Again, where's the bigotry? Why does the polygamy argument hinge on gays? Why do conservatives suck at making arguments?

Why are gays and gay marriage supporters fighting against polygamy being recognized?
 
Obviously you didn't get the memo, all I see is gay marriage supporters fighting over the polygamy thing. They need to STFU, because they started it.

Really? I see quite a few who are supportive of it. Not all, but certainly enough to render your generalization completely false.
 
Why not, it's your state? My state is probably more conservative than yours and it has a large gay population.




You didn't seem to think it was irrelevant when you said there weren't enough magistrates to marry gays in your state....that's why I asked....

Your comparison is apples and oranges.

Access to a government service due to no employees willing to do their job based upon "religious beliefs" (essentially denying someone's access to government services based upon discrimination) is in no way comparable to the numbers of a group that suffer from that discrimination.

Just because they may be few in number, does not justify discriminating against them.
 
Obviously you didn't get the memo, all I see is gay marriage supporters fighting over the polygamy thing. They need to STFU, because they started it.

That is a sad way to look at it.

I Support both Gay Marriage AND Polygamy.
 
Really? I see quite a few who are supportive of it. Not all, but certainly enough to render your generalization completely false.

I didn't say all, but I see enough that need to shut up about it. Polygamists have just as much right as gays.
 
Obviously you didn't get the memo, all I see is gay marriage supporters fighting over the polygamy thing. They need to STFU, because they started it.

Do you think people didn't start wanting to legally have more than one spouse only after same sex marriages came around? Or perhaps that the exact same argument wasn't used when we struck down bans based on race?
 
because morality isn't subjective? because there are major issues that arise in polygamist marriages?

but to you who cares morality is subjective defined by nothing but the whims of society like that has ever lasted.

So then you can explain, without using of scripture or other hogwash, what is inherently immoral about polygamy.

Please, explain these "major issues".
 
It is not "elemental" to democracy. It is a key element of a republic. Which is the form of government we have.

Democracy, pure and simple, is "mob rule". In the case of permitting marriages, the "majority" has claimed superiority over the minority for far too long in this country.

I think I will let that discussion ride for another day.
 
So then you can explain, without using of scripture or other hogwash, what is inherently immoral about polygamy.

Please, explain these "major issues".

I will use scripture and you can't make me not use scripture. if you look in the bible any comparison of marriage is 1 man and 1 women.

however as study after study points out.
The problem with polygamy

all you need to know
almost all studies show that polygamist marriages are not only unhealthy for women but for children and men in general.
 
You need to back that up. Unless you are playing a word game, which I can come up with one possiblity to cover your statement, last I knew the Catholic Church along with many others do not allow polygamy in any form.

I don't need to back up anything. My religion dictates that even if there's no evidence you should just have faith in my comments.
 
I don't need to back up anything. My religion dictates that even if there's no evidence you should just have faith in my comments.

Glad to see in YOUR religion you're GOD. :lamo
 
I don't give a **** if it's sexual orientation or not, it's a marriage choice. And now that we're redefining marriage, what the hell. Chaff with the wheat, baby, chaff with the wheat.

I am completely lost about any argument that is about marriage and includes the words "born with". Nobody is ****ing born married. Irrelevant.

Make polygamy legal.
 
It is not "elemental" to democracy. It is a key element of a republic. Which is the form of government we have.

Democracy, pure and simple, is "mob rule". In the case of permitting marriages, the "majority" has claimed superiority over the minority for far too long in this country.
Exactly - our forefathers created a Constitutional Republic expressly to AVOID the tyranny of pure Democracy!

They were very smart guys!
 
Glad to see in YOUR religion you're GOD. :lamo

That's often how religion works in case you haven't been paying attention. God's words always seem to get twisted into whatever that individual person wants.
 
I am completely lost about any argument that is about marriage and includes the words "born with". Nobody is ****ing born married. Irrelevant.

Make polygamy legal.

I'm not sure about the "born with" phrase.
 
So then, you believe that "Mob rule" should be the way we govern?
No.
So if "the mob" chose to legalize Slavery, this would be acceptable to you? Consequences to the minority be damned?
No.
This is the type of thing you agree to when you believe in "mob rule".
No, not believing in mob rule.

But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.

The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.

Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold and :popcorn:
 
I will use scripture and you can't make me not use scripture. if you look in the bible any comparison of marriage is 1 man and 1 women.

however as study after study points out.
The problem with polygamy

all you need to know
almost all studies show that polygamist marriages are not only unhealthy for women but for children and men in general.

Scripture goes both ways.... as god allowed multiple wives in many places in the bible.

However, as we have religious freedom in the USA, our laws should not be required to be in lock-step with Judea-Christianity only, as that would imply that those not following those belief systems are 2nd class citizens, and it would violate the 1st amendment of the state respecting an establishment of religion (specifically, respecting one over the other).

Now, in as far as your link there.... it amounts to limiting women access to marry who they want to because there will be unwed men. We don't demand perpetually single women and men to marry just for the sake of "society" so we shouldn't limit women to only married men either. Women, and men, should be free to enter into marriage contracts with whomever and how many ever they see fit.

Then there is the "because wives won't get along" argument. The same holds true in monogamous relationships. But that is also on a case by case basis. To claim that this will ALWAYS happen is prejudicial to those who make it work just fine.

Then it pulls data from 19th century households to determine the effects on children. I am sorry to say that society has changed quite a bit since the 19th century.....

If your arguments cannot be applied to ALL cases of polygamy, and have to dig back to the 19th century, then I am afraid they do not hold water.
 
Back
Top Bottom