• 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 see why it's a big deal other than it is the government who is ultimately defining a marriage. I'd say remove marriage from law, contract civil unions between consenting people, and let "marriage" be handled by whoever is doing the marrying. As long as it remains between consenting persons I couldn't care less
 
Quote me on that.... Because I don't recall having ever said it.

How long ago was this exactly??

"Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics."
 
Only when that lowered personal restraint violates ANOTHER person's rights. If it does not violate another person's rights, then society is not "worse off".
And that is the result of freedom. I enjoy freedom... do you? Is freedom okay as long as it follows along with only YOUR traditions?



As I recall history, the Roman Empire fell around the same time Roman Catholicism came around.....

I think that's a case of coincidence rather than causation. Had not the Romans continued their devolvement into their hedonistic society, out sourced their military to the operation of those from conquered lands, who knows, they may still be around.
 
No - you see, buildings don't have constitutional rights, people do - which explains the presence of crosses and stars dangling from chains around the necks of government employees inside government buildings and on the court house lawn.
I don't have a problem with that....unless it interferes with their government job and they use their religious symbols to discriminate and harass other people.


Thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the "FIRE THEM!" mobs wielding torches and pitchforks that would see those rights stripped away...
And thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the self righteous imposing their religious beliefs on the public at taxpayer expense.
 
I suppose extra husbands might mean the trash get's taken out more quickly.
 
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.
Do you realize how you just shut yourself down? You say no one is an arbitrer of truth while you act like an arbiter of truth.

Anyway I never claimed to decide these things, I just call it like it is. When I say the sky is blue that doesn't mean it's blue because I said so. Please take your pathetic dismissal tactics elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
So... because issues may arise out of it.....is that enough reason to deny it?

If that were true....we would have never expanded west...... "uncharted territory" and all that.....

You have a point there.

Of course, we're a long way from having plural marriage the law of the land, but there really is no reason not to, once the details are ironed out of course.


Interestingly enough, a lot of those who made their way west were Mormons, who left what was then the US over persecution, which was based largely on plural marriage.
 
Um, now you kinda do. Kennedy said the marriage is fundamental to a persons dignity and therefore marriage is a right. Can you have that with no partner?

So... then when is the state going to force the unmarried to wed against their will?

I was referring to the fact that if someone cannot find a partner because polygamy has created a shortage of available women, oh god-damned well.

Did you even read the chain of posts I was commenting to before throwing this comment in there?
 
I don't see why it's a big deal other than it is the government who is ultimately defining a marriage. I'd say remove marriage from law, contract civil unions between consenting people, and let "marriage" be handled by whoever is doing the marrying. As long as it remains between consenting persons I couldn't care less

So are you too concerned about the term "marriage"??? Bless your heart.

In my religion, marriage is defined by a life union between consenting persons.

Therefore, everyone else shall continue to call it marriage.
 
"Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics."

Who gives a ****.
 
So then you support the rights of District, Superior, Appellate, and Supreme court judges to base their decision of law on their religious beliefs?
I can't imagine how that would arise, but if they were unable to perform their job, I suppose that person could recuse himself or herself from the case.

People less level-headed and far more emotional no doubt believe that it is unconstitutional to recuse oneself and would demand that the judge be removed from office for not doing their job and not serving "all the people."
 
So are you too concerned about the term "marriage"??? Bless your heart.

In my religion, marriage is defined by a life union between consenting persons.

Therefore, everyone else shall continue to call it marriage.

Not necessarily. I personally see marriage as a religious institution and therefore has no place in government
 
Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.

Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.

Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.
Its funny that you ridicule other forms of relationship but think a relationship involving two people of the same gender in a coupled relationship is 'normal'. :shrug:
 
I am no homophobe, as I support same sex marriage fully.

I also support polygamy..

Can you provide a reason why polygamy should be unlawful?

There is no legal precedent for multiple partners and it too often is an excuse to raise prey for pedophiles. A man with 2 wives that want a divorce would lose everything too. They each would get half his assets leaving him nothing. How would you like that?
 
I think that's a case of coincidence rather than causation. Had not the Romans continued their devolvement into their hedonistic society, out sourced their military to the operation of those from conquered lands, who knows, they may still be around.

I see you ignored the "Freedom" part of my argument.....
 
Its funny that you ridicule other forms of relationship but think a relationship involving two people of the same gender in a coupled relationship is 'normal'. :shrug:

Normal marriage is between 2 people that love each other. You find that hard to stomach? The equality of that type of relationship is undeniable and desirable. The modern concept of Marriage as an equal partnership is impossible with polygamy.
 
Last edited:
There is no legal precedent for multiple partners and it too often is an excuse to raise prey for pedophiles. A man with 2 wives that want a divorce would lose everything too. They each would get half his assets leaving him nothing. How would you like that?

Homosexuality was also argued in this manner by bringing up DEYZ PEDOPHILES!!!!!

As far as the man losing his belongings..... if that is the result of his divorce, so be it... that happens today with monogamous relationships... and is not a problem particular to polygamy.
 
Normal marriage is between 2 people that love each other. You find that hard to stomach?

"Normal Marriage" was between 1 man and 1 woman......

I agree that Homosexuals should be allowed legal recognition of their marriages... and I believe polygamy deserves that same recognition.
 
"Normal Marriage" was between 1 man and 1 woman......

I agree that Homosexuals should be allowed legal recognition of their marriages... and I believe polygamy deserves that same recognition.

How can you have an equal partnership with polygamy? That is the crux of a modern marriage. Polygamy is going backwards.
 
Normal marriage is between 2 people that love each other. You find that hard to stomach?
WHy? WHy not three? Why not four? What has CLEARLY been determined is that the definition of 'normal' is fluid and can mean essentially whatever people want it to mean.

I dont have a 'problem' with two people of the same gender being together. I dont care that two consenting adults choose to be together. I accept the courts decisions, in spite fo the fact that it undoes 38 states constitutions and laws. That IS a matter for the courts. That doesnt make it 'right' and it certainly doesnt make it 'normal' (one need look no further than the gay community at large to see the extremes of 'normal'). But I celebrate your right to be gay...even though I cant see it defined in ANY manner as 'normal'.
 
WHy? WHy not three? Why not four? What has CLEARLY been determined is that the definition of 'normal' is fluid and can mean essentially whatever people want it to mean.

I dont have a 'problem' with two people of the same gender being together. I dont care that two consenting adults choose to be together. I accept the courts decisions, in spite fo the fact that it undoes 38 states constitutions and laws. That IS a matter for the courts. That doesnt make it 'right' and it certainly doesnt make it 'normal' (one need look no further than the gay community at large to see the extremes of 'normal'). But I celebrate your right to be gay...even though I cant see it defined in ANY manner as 'normal'.

Being gay is not "normal" if you define that as predominate. It is only experienced by about 2% of the population who find it not only normal but the ONLY way they can be happy and fulfilled.
 
Being gay is not "normal" if you define that as predominate. It is only experienced by about 2% of the population who find it not only normal but the ONLY way they can be happy and fulfilled.
and good for them.
 
WHy? WHy not three? Why not four? What has CLEARLY been determined is that the definition of 'normal' is fluid and can mean essentially whatever people want it to mean.

I dont have a 'problem' with two people of the same gender being together. I dont care that two consenting adults choose to be together. I accept the courts decisions, in spite fo the fact that it undoes 38 states constitutions and laws. That IS a matter for the courts. That doesnt make it 'right' and it certainly doesnt make it 'normal' (one need look no further than the gay community at large to see the extremes of 'normal'). But I celebrate your right to be gay...even though I cant see it defined in ANY manner as 'normal'.

The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
 
The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
How dare you define quality and concept for people that disagree with you! How dare you attempt to impose YOUR definitions of marriage and equality on others! WTF kind of hypocrite are you?
 
I see you ignored the "Freedom" part of my argument.....

Too much of a good thing isn't a good thing.

With ever increasing degrees of freedom come a proportional degree of responsibility exercising that freedom. The latter is severely lacking, yet continued indulgence of the former is demanded. Between the two trends there's an ensuing collision, where everyone in the society and the society itself suffers. These are the crossroads where I believe we've arrived.
 
Back
Top Bottom