• 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

An example of lack of restraint?

So because polygamous couples are not LIKE YOU they lack "restraint"????

Isn't "restraint" a subjective term?

Is it your goal to subject others to live by terms YOU see fit for them to live.. when it has no bearing on YOUR rights?
 
Only if it is not consented to by the wife who carried the first child.

If the two families are going to live in separate households, and the man is the "breadwinner", then his resources will be split.

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.

What people want is of no import and it has nothing to do with any man's authority

The govt discriminates against single people by providing benefits to married people. In order to be legally justified, such discrimination must be based on a societal benefit. The govt can't just decide that it likes married people more so it will give them benefits and priviliges.

A two person marriage does provide a number of societal benefits. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of plural marriages. If it can be shown that the govt has a legitimate interest in encouraging plural marriages (by conferring benefits to them) them I'd be all for doing so. So far, I have yet to see it.
 
If the two families are going to live in separate households, and the man is the "breadwinner", then his resources will be split.
And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.

So, not a justification for denying equal legal recognition to polygamists.



What people want is of no import and it has nothing to do with any man's authority

The govt discriminates against single people by providing benefits to married people. In order to be legally justified, such discrimination must be based on a societal benefit. The govt can't just decide that it likes married people more so it will give them benefits and priviliges.

A two person marriage does provide a number of societal benefits. I am unconvinced that the same can be said of plural marriages. If it can be shown that the govt has a legitimate interest in encouraging plural marriages (by conferring benefits to them) them I'd be all for doing so. So far, I have yet to see it.

I see where you are going... and I believe you are going there out of an assumption that polygamists are just marrying for the sake of benefits and are not going to co-habitate. (I base this off of your alluding to the societal benefits of 2 person marriage and your previous post).

Polygamists are co-habitating as I type this. Also, many people marry and then do not end up co-habitating, hell people in the military marry other people in the military at different bases just so they can both benefit from the.. well... BENEFITS, that being a married person in the military brings.

And yet....

This is not a reason to deny legal recognition to 2 person couples.... and it shouldn't be used to deny legal recognition to polygamy either.
 
So then, you are saying that the government has more of a right than the individual to discriminate against someone based upon "eww icky gheys!!"
Sorry, I don't follow. I don't see how this relates to what I've said.
 
People have a right to be treated equally under the law. If a business chooses to be open to the public we have entered a legal discussion.
This isn't relevant to the point that was being made. The constitution may protect a right to be treated equally under the law, it does not protect a right to be treated equally under the roof of a private business.

It does, however, give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
 
And that already happens with men who have children outside of wedlock.... or have children in extramarital affairs.

So, not a justification for denying equal legal recognition to polygamists.

There is no need to justify denying polygamists equal legal recognition. Polygamists need a justification for providing them with the benefits legal recognition provides.





I see where you are going... and I believe you are going there out of an assumption that polygamists are just marrying for the sake of benefits and are not going to co-habitate. (I base this off of your alluding to the societal benefits of 2 person marriage and your previous post).

No, it has nothing to do with why polygamists are marrying (or want to marry). It has to do with the effects of allowing it. If doing so benefits society, I'm all for it. If not, then I'm not for it.

Polygamists are co-habitating as I type this. Also, many people marry and then do not end up co-habitating, hell people in the military marry other people in the military at different bases just so they can both benefit from the.. well... BENEFITS, that being a married person in the military brings.

And yet....

This is not a reason to deny legal recognition to 2 person couples.... and it shouldn't be used to deny legal recognition to polygamy either.

Yes, people co-habitate without being married and people who are married don't always co-habitate. However, it's clear that marriage (of two people) has many societal benefits and co-habitation is just one of many. Even if they don't co-habitate, there are the benefits of stability and commitment for the children. Marriage also unites extended families which leads to greater social cohesion. So therefore, the govt has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples

The question is not "How can the govt deny legal recognition to plural marriages?" The question is "How can the govt justify providing benefits for plural marriages?" The only legitimate answer to that question is "because plural marriages create societal benefits". Until it is shown that plural marriages do benefit society (and there's a lot of anthropological research showing that it harms society) I can not support it.
 
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.
Including those of you that blindly worship antidiscrimination to such an extent that you would gladly trample any civil liberties that dare to defy that god.
 
Last edited:
I guess you are just desperate, or perhaps that is the best you can do!

Not necessarily. There is no law that requires a marriage to be consummated. They could simply want the legal benefits.

You seem to be stuck in the idea that its an institution of a man exerting his authority over helpless women.

Oh wait! that has occurred in Monogamous marriages as well.

And no I am not saying that you, Caine, are making this argument. Yours was just the best post to show the lack of grounding for the argument.

The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.

Really? So then a business can have only two partners? or a conversation only two participants? No. The quality of something doesn't automatically diminish because there are more than two whatevers within it. This is not to say that every individual is capable of that equal partnership among all of the spouses, or that doing so isn't more work than a monogamous marriage. But there is nothing to indicate that polygamy automatically doesn't work, especially since it is already working for many and has worked in the past.

How can you have an equal partnership with polygamy? That is the crux of a modern marriage. Polygamy is going backwards.

Because you are making a false assumption that "partnership" can only be two. Polygamy is neither going forward not backwards.

It is none the less true. Polygamy stems from a time when women were subjugated and treated as inferior. We have advanced from that primitive behavior and I see no reason to go back to it.

Dude, Monogamous marriage stems from that same time and those same conditions. Non-argument.
 
There is no need to justify denying polygamists equal legal recognition. Polygamists need a justification for providing them with the benefits legal recognition provides.







No, it has nothing to do with why polygamists are marrying (or want to marry). It has to do with the effects of allowing it. If doing so benefits society, I'm all for it. If not, then I'm not for it.



Yes, people co-habitate without being married and people who are married don't always co-habitate. However, it's clear that marriage (of two people) has many societal benefits and co-habitation is just one of many. Even if they don't co-habitate, there are the benefits of stability and commitment for the children. Marriage also unites extended families which leads to greater social cohesion. So therefore, the govt has a legitimate interest in providing benefits to married couples

The question is not "How can the govt deny legal recognition to plural marriages?" The question is "How can the govt justify providing benefits for plural marriages?" The only legitimate answer to that question is "because plural marriages create societal benefits". Until it is shown that plural marriages do benefit society (and there's a lot of anthropological research showing that it harms society) I can not support it.

They provide all of the same benefits to society as monogamous heterosexual and homosexual marriages do........ so I am confused on how you can claim that it has to be shown.

Tell you what, since I am apparently ignorant to this vast bit of knowledge that is obviously known to you regarding the benefits of monogamous homosexual and heterosexual relationships to society.... provide me a list of these benefits and we can see which of these same benefits apply to polygamous relationships as well.

In light of the recent USSC decision, which didn't seem to focus very much on the BENEFITS of homosexual marriage as it seemed to focus on the equal protection of them, I am confused on how polygamy must somehow prove itself when homosexual marriage didn't.
 
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.

Hey, you spend the next 50 years campaigning for your right to have three wives, including your sister, and get the law changed, and change majority opinion, and get it ruled constitutional, and fight discrimination, go ahead. Knock yourself out, but don't try to hang onto the coat-tails of LGBT people's struggles, martyrdom and victories.
 
So because polygamous couples are not LIKE YOU they lack "restraint"????

Isn't "restraint" a subjective term?

Is it your goal to subject others to live by terms YOU see fit for them to live.. when it has no bearing on YOUR rights?

I've got better things to do than to continue to answer and re-answer your questions, as well as put up with your interrogation style 'discussion'.

Good bye.
 
Including those of you that blindly worship antidiscrimination to such an extent that you would gladly trample any civil liberties that dare to defy that god.
If a government employee wants to practice their belief and do gods work during work hours, then let god pay his/her salary instead of the tax payers.

Nobody would be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if the government employee just minds their own business and does the job they are paid to do. The government doesn't get to decide who gets married to whom, anymore. So therefore, neither does the government employee.
 
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.

Good evening, Caine. :2wave:

:agree: We seem to follow Roman law, which meant the first-born inherited the bulk of the estate, including titles. English nobility still follows that law, which is why we read that so-and-so is third or fifth or whatever in line for the throne. The King of Siam had many wives, as an example, but the firstborn of his legal first wife inherited the throne. The rest were provided for, of course, but only one was the ruler of the country, and they were trained from early childhood to assume that role. In this Country, the rules are not so formal, but I would assume the offspring of the first legal wife takes precedence over later born children of any of any of the wives he may have in a polygamous marriage.
 
Last edited:
Nobody would be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if the government employee just minds their own business and does the job they are paid to do.
Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.

But, since they've all got a right to be there, we may as well follow the law and accommodate those with sincere beliefs the best we can while making sure the office provides all services required of it.
 
Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.

But, since they've all got a right to be there, we may as well follow the law and accommodate those with sincere beliefs the best we can while making sure the office provides all services required of it.

There's an idea. How about all the heterosexuals who are distressed by this ruling simply stay home and refuse to get married ever. That would show them.
 
You're kidding, right? Are you saying that you couldn't place equal percentages to any combination of people?

Tim-

I don't think marriage should require advanced mathematics. :)
 
Again... you aren't supporting any reason to deny Freedom to a group of people who CHOOSE to live in this manner.

Again I don't support institutions that subjugate or demean individuals whether that want to demeaned or not. It's barbaric.
 
How do you know that?

You have no evidence either way...

I am gay. I know what choices I did and did not make. My sexual orientation is not one of them.

There is evidence. People just choose to ignore it or disregard it because they have already made up their minds about it.
 
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.

Sounds like an argument for incest marriage.
 
If they are all consenting adults, there should be no way you or I or anyone is able to stop it.
 
Nor would anybody be discriminated against or their civil liberties lost if gay couples simply stayed home and stopped asking for stuff.
That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?

But, since they've all got a right to be there, we may as well follow the law and accommodate those with sincere beliefs the best we can while making sure the office provides all services required of it.
I suspect the vast majority of people in this country are perfectly capable of separating their religious belief from their job. So I see no reason why the government should accommodate those few government employees that can't. Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.
 
That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?

I suspect the vast majority of people in this country are perfectly capable of separating their religious belief from their job. So I see no reason why the government should accommodate those few government employees that can't. Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.
Not to mention Christians have been violating their own religious tenements for decades before, without a blink of an eye.

Remarriage after divorce to a different woman is a sin.
 
Not to mention Christians have been violating their own religious tenements for decades before, without a blink of an eye.

Remarriage after divorce to a different woman is a sin.

It is only a sin for the spouse that broke vows to cause the divorce.

I'm just reading through this thread and almost laughing at what is being called progress. This country is getting so effed up, it's unrecognizable.

It would be funnier if it didn't foreshadow the inevitable undoing of our union. I'm glad I'm too old to have to really watch it unravel.
 
That's a rather bigoted comment, don't you think?
Yes, rather. But it's only there to make light of the one you made.

Using religion to discriminate and oppress another group people is not a government protected right for anyone.
That's true whether it's the religious person being oppressive or it's the religious person being oppressed. That's why we have an establishment clause and a free exercise clause.
 
Why not just see where this goes? The people who are arguing hardest for it are social conservatives who do not want it but are angry with same-sex couples having the right. Are they going to make all the arguments for those who want polygamy until it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy?

The polygamists are inspired by the dissent to the ruling, that should tell you something. Justice Roberts makes it seem like there is no discussion or debate to be had on polygamy since same-sex couples were recognized to have the right to marry and his rhetoric sets this stage. If history will blame anyone for polygamy becoming legal, it will be him because he refused to acknowledge that there are significant differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy and that set the precedent for similarly simplistic thinking for other courts and political leaders.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom