• 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

It has nothing to do with what I say or want. It is society that has advanced I was merely stating a fact for you. Equality of the sexes is mainstream in most modern societies.
Ah...so SOCIETY gets to determine what is right or wrong? Wait...I thought the Supreme Court just declared that to be NOT the case (much to your great joy)?
 
that isn't what was posted or what I responded to.

Well let's look at what was posted (Bold used to replace italics of original post since quoted material becomes all italics):
Restrictions on marriage might very well disappear, but the benefits offered aren't going to (disappear).

And yes I added the word in parentheses to further highlight the quote.

Your response, which quoted the exact same quote above:
that is discrimination I thought you hated discrimination.

restrictions on marriage may disappear but benefits are not going to disappear. Where is the discrimination in that?

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

Not in that quote they didn't. If they did elsewhere, then you should have quoted that post instead.

The rest of your post #97 has nothing to do with Deuce's Post #8
 
And.... we need to get away from this idea that everyone else should be forced to comply with societal "Norms"
Who is being 'forced to comply' with societal norms? Ive never suggested people should 'comply' with societal norms. Quite the opposite.
 
Abraham, David, Solomon... all men of God in the Old Testament but note, they normally did not have more than a few.

Seriously? you used the word "few" with Solomom? 700 seems to me to be more than a few. Sorry the incongruence just smacked me in the face.
 
Seriously? you used the word "few" with Solomom? 700 seems to me to be more than a few. Sorry the incongruence just smacked me in the face.

They don't name all 700 in the bible... and to be fair some were concubines and not wives.
 
The historic term and definition of marriage has been forever destroyed. It is now just a meaningless arbitrary word at the top of a piece of paper, .......add as many names of different sexes, ages and species to the 'marriage' license you freakin want.
 
The historic term and definition of marriage has been forever destroyed. It is now just a meaningless arbitrary word at the top of a piece of paper, .......add as many names of different sexes, ages and species to the 'marriage' license you freakin want.

It has a legal meaning in the courts.
It has a spiritual meaning if it has been consecrated by religion.
And it has a personal meaning for the individuals who consider themselves married.

Nothing has changed in a heterosexual marriage. It is what it has always been.
 
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.

Wow! way to try to conflate incest with polygamy. Sadly you are most mistaken as tho who is calling for polygamy. The poly community consists of people of most religions and even atheists. Most includes the various pagan religions as well. We are liberals and libertarians as well as conservatives. Go to post #93 where I give you links to three seperate groups dealing with polyamory and polygamy.

Three consenting adults in a relationship...why do we care?

Hey we have a real live example right here....We're currently at 4 and I'm dating a third woman.

A wild free for all 'self identify your marriage' environment. OK.

Now. The hard part. What about the financial impact to the state and the electorate of being married or not being married? What of the financial difference to the state? (mind you I'm just asking questions, I don't know specifically).

We might have to revisit what benefits spouses receive from the various governments.

And I am saying that despite their ruling, welfare benefits from the state is not a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people.

Ones right should not be subject to the convenience of the government.

And, considering that Bigamy laws were around BEFORE all of these welfare programs.... that argument shouldn't hold water anyways.

Bigamy could still be on the books along side polygamy. If polygamy is treated as a single marriage, then bigamy, having two separate marriages at the same time could still be illegal.

What is not allowing polygamy bigotry against? You realizing having multiple wives is not a sexual orientation that you are born with.

Spouses, not wives. If you want to stick with the one man multiple wives stereotype at least call it by the correct name, polygyny. polygamy can be any combination of genders, such as my unit which consists of 2 husbands and 2 wives

Um, it states "wife", not, "wives". C'mon man.

Here's something from the OT.

17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

Not many but a few. Define a few. Define excessive. Since God didn't call out Solomon, I'm guessing 300 wives and an additional 400 concubines is neither many nor excessive.

No, I think marriage is being redefined. And that it's been redefined, it's open to other possibilities. You don't polygamy has a sexual orientation?

Of course it has been redefined. It has constantly been redefined across the centuries and millennium. Including being redefined into 1 man 1 woman.

God says what He means, and means what He says. It's clear that polygamy is not a part of God's perfect plan as early as Genesis. You know, the beginning?

You mean like incest was part of that plan? After all how else did Adam and Eve's kids find someone to have kids of their own with if not each other. Oh yeah and Noah's children and grandchildren. It's unclear whether he had anymore children after the flood, but the grandkids had to mate with each other. First cousins.

If a man has more than one wife, wouldn't he be sexually attracted to all of them?

Not necessarily. First off marriages of the past were typically arranged and love was not a factor. Even today, there are marriages of convenience. Prior to recent event, it was not unheard of for a gay male couple to each marry a lesbian couple for the legal benefits and such. While sexual attractiveness would certainly be present in a vast majority of marriages, poly or mono, but it is not a requirement.
 
Then it is settled....

You do not favor freedom of the individual.... but Freedom of the "Mob" to impose their standards upon all, even those who do not agree, up to and including denying them equal protection under the law, as long as the majority says so.

Naa. Don't be projecting like that, it doesn't suit you.

I favor a reasonable and self-restraining society, with no need for a mob.
 
The historic term and definition of marriage has been forever destroyed. It is now just a meaningless arbitrary word at the top of a piece of paper, .......add as many names of different sexes, ages and species to the 'marriage' license you freakin want.

Sounds good to me!
 
Naa. Don't be projecting like that, it doesn't suit you.

I favor a reasonable and self-restraining society, with no need for a mob.

What is a "restrained society" to YOU, is an oppressive society based upon the desires of the mob to those whose lifestyle is not worthy of legal recognition to you.
 
Meh. People are born gay, people are not born as polygamists.
 
And so... I ask again..... rights and liberties of the individual are contingent upon the convenience of the government?????

Sort of

The priviliges and benefits of marriage are legally justified by the societal benefits of marriage. It could be argued that plural marriages do not confer those societal benefits and so the state has no legal basis for providing benefits to them.
 
Sort of

The priviliges and benefits of marriage are legally justified by the societal benefits of marriage. It could be argued that plural marriages do not confer those societal benefits and so the state has no legal basis for providing benefits to them.

And so the children of a man who has those children with multiple women who all desire to live together in harmony.... does that not fit in with...

Kennedy's decision said:
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life.
 
What is a "restrained society" to YOU, is an oppressive society based upon the desires of the mob to those whose lifestyle is not worthy of legal recognition to you.

Self-restraint, there's a commonly used definition.
self-re·straint
noun
noun: self-restraint
restraint imposed by oneself on one's own actions; self-control.
synonyms:self-control, restraint, self-discipline, self-possession, self-command, willpower, moderation, temperance, abstemiousness, abstention "please exercise some self-restraint and don't start screaming when he gets here"

https://www.google.com/search?q=def...&oe=utf-8&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&gws_rd=ssl
 
The historic term and definition of marriage has been forever destroyed. It is now just a meaningless arbitrary word at the top of a piece of paper, .......add as many names of different sexes, ages and species to the 'marriage' license you freakin want.

Sounds good to me!

Dobt!!

When I responded, I failed to see the word "species"

Again, for the thousanth time.....

If you can't recognize that an animal has no ability to consent to a marriage contract.... and that a marriage contract requires consenting adults of legal age and sound mind.... then you are a moron.

You, and others like you, do yourselves a disservice by constantly bringing animals, objects, and children into this debate.
 
No. How do the children inherit? By date when fathered, or by order of birth per mother? or a combination? The guy is trying it on.

Gay is not a choice.
 
And so the children of a man who has those children with multiple women who all desire to live together in harmony.... does that not fit in with...

Provviding legal protection for a married man with children to go and have more children with another woman could be seen as weakening the security and stability of the first family.
 
No. How do the children inherit? By date when fathered, or by order of birth per mother? or a combination? The guy is trying it on.

Gay is not a choice.

All of those issues you mentioned are questions the court handles on a case by case basis even in monogamous relationships. Besides, it is my understanding that first borns do not inherently receive more inheritance based on their time of birth under U.S. Law anyways... you can prove me wrong with some reading, I am willing to accept if I am incorrect.

What do you mean by "The Guy is trying it on" ??
 
Provviding legal protection for a married man with children to go and have more children with another woman could be seen as weakening the security and stability of the first family.

Only if it is not consented to by the wife who carried the first child.

You don't seem to understand that there are people out there who WANT to live this way. You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.

Yes, that has occurred, but because it has occurred in some cases, does not mean it occurs in all cases. This should not be the basis to deny this legal recognition to polygamous unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom