• 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

Marriage sets up a legal relationships. Why would people who already have a legal relationship with each other need to set up a different legal relationship with each other?

Let me guess, gay people can simple marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to be married so it is not discrimination? I remember when only republicans used that argument.
 
Let me guess, gay people can simple marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to be married so it is not discrimination? I remember when only republicans used that argument.

Seriously? How in the hell did you get that from what I said?

Plus, just to be clear, I don't actually completely oppose incestuous marriage in the first place. I'm saying that it isn't automatically granted from this decision. You are bypassing some very important things involved in the legal process here, including the actual arguments for and against laws, which require more than just a previous SCOTUS decision. Even previous SCOTUS decisions can be modified by new cases.
 
Plus, just to be clear, I don't actually completely oppose incestuous marriage in the first place.

But how does it affect you? Remember when democrats used to say this, as if they actually believed in it? Now they say vague bigoted things like "I don't actually completely oppose incestuous marriage." They used to be for equality, now they want to deny what they used to call a human right to related couples.
 
But how does it affect you? Remember when democrats used to say this, as if they actually believed in it? Now they say vague bigoted things like "I don't actually completely oppose incestuous marriage." They used to be for equality, now they want to deny what they used to call a human right to related couples.

The message concerned actual legal arguments for and against, the fact that men and women are treated the same in marriage, and that a same sex married couple is easily comparable to an opposite sex married couple as having no additional complications between the two.

Stop with the rhetoric. You don't really want incest, I'm willing to bet. This is a rant. I've been saying that bans on cousins and further out getting married is the next fight, that they should win for quite some time. And I have no real issue with siblings or parent/child marriages except I can see the legitimate state interests they can claim for those arguments. They might not be legitimate to the court. Fine with me. It doesn't harm me at all. I would hope that those who are groomed to such things are found out before such marriages become legal, but they are a small part of the population anyway.
 
The message concerned actual legal arguments for and against, the fact that men and women are treated the same in marriage, and that a same sex married couple is easily comparable to an opposite sex married couple as having no additional complications between the two.

It is a right, unless you are related to your partner?
 
It is a right, unless you are related to your partner?

Nothing is a right until it is a ruled as such. Whether they should have that right or not, depends on much more than just this ruling, like you are trying to claim.
 
Can you tell me why polygamists shouldn't have the right to marry?

From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
 
I don't think marriage should require advanced mathematics. :)


It would require math on the level of what my 6 year old could compute on his fingers. Hardly, advanced.


Tim-
 
But it did. The argument is for any two people, that clearly includes incest couples.

No, it didn't. Those weren't within the arguments being made.

By your logic, it applies to two people of any age. Then an adult could marry a child, a baby even. Because within your logic, any two people, not just those who could not consent or were outside of age limits. That is why your logic fails. Those were not under review. This only applies to those laws, bans being argued, not other laws/bans not being considered then. That is how the SCOTUS decisions work.
 
Contracts are not contracts without consent.

Marriage is a legal relationship establishment, not a contract per se. 15/16 year olds can get married in some states, under certain circumstances without even parental permission, yet are not legally able to sign a contract in other things.

"Delware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Oklahoma: Allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent."

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State
 
Not long. It was just another example of the "mob rule" mentality which some people use, when it is convenient for them. When they are on the other side of the debate... the minority.... that is when the rights and liberties of the individual suddenly seem to matter.

That is an adequate description of your argument, yes.
 
From a value judgement perspective, it excludes some people from marriage. Wealthier men can horde wives at the cost to less prvileged men creating a societal imbalance. At least same-sex marriage was largely inclusive since gays and lesbians were not particularly likely to form lasting marriages with opposite sex individuals.
With the way things are going, I think there will be plenty of wealthy women happy to snatch up the cuter ones. Just look at who's graduating college and getting advanced degrees these days, and who in the younger generation is having a harder time finding a job. ;)
 
It is a contract. Contracts require consent.

Again, then why are the laws different per state when it comes to age of marriage? Heck, in Nebraska, you have to be 19 to get married. Why can't 18 year olds get married if it is just a contract?
 
What business of yours is it to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from legal recognition of their union/marriage????

I am pointing out to you that your argument for mob rule against polygamy is invalid based on SCOTUS ruling.
 
Again, then why are the laws different per state when it comes to age of marriage?

Because states can regulate contracts?....?
 
Nothing is a right until it is a ruled as such. Whether they should have that right or not, depends on much more than just this ruling, like you are trying to claim.

Of course that is not true. The Supreme Court has made clear that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments existed before the Constitution. It does not create those rights, but only guarantees them against undue restriction by government. There are also other rights that the Court has mentioned which are not enumerated in the Constitution, but unquestionably exist independent of it. I don't need a ruling by any G--damned court to have a right to my life, for example, nor does anyone else.
 
There seems to be an implied strict scrutiny standard now, but that doesn't mean any manner of marriage is now required. Your mistake is expanding every argument to absolutes. I can do the same. If we don't allow polygamy, we have to ban heterosexual marriage. Because.

That is precisely the flaw in the SCOTUS ruling backing the lazy argument for gay marriage. By making the state's interest in marriage into an endorsement of "love" you can no longer argue that any loving relationship is out of bounds. Gay marriage activists never bothered to make a unique argument for the value of gay marriage, instead choosing a lazy shortcut which has opened Pandora's box.
 
I've always cared about both. I don't know why you want to apply certain positions to anyone or any side. Who is this mysterious person or group telling you not to care about "other people's marriages or immigration"?

It's amazing that you are able to ask that with a straight face.

Please tell me why you think that particular position is something that is legal rather than the actual legal arguments made for and against things.

One more time in English?
 
Of course that is not true. The Supreme Court has made clear that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments existed before the Constitution. It does not create those rights, but only guarantees them against undue restriction by government. There are also other rights that the Court has mentioned which are not enumerated in the Constitution, but unquestionably exist independent of it. I don't need a ruling by any G--damned court to have a right to my life, for example, nor does anyone else.

No, the rights only existed, were only recognized to exist when we said they did. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to say it. Doesn't matter what others believed/believe.
 
Back
Top Bottom