• 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!

Should polygamists have the right to marry?

ARealConservative said:
so by cases, you really mean the one case that is currently under review.
Click to expand...

Can you ****ing read? I don't think you can. How many times did I say "all of them"? ALL. OF. THEM.

State AND Federal. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Yes, this exchange is QUITE pathetic, entirely by your doing.

and considering I said the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't:

ARealConservative said:
the courts, and hence the law, have sided that we have a right to limit government programs.

the argument over if same sex marriage is protected based on gender is one that the courts might give consideration to.

but under what logic are polygamists going to claim they are a protected class?
Click to expand...

You tried to backpedal to it later, but guess what? I'm still right, because the federal cases do exactly what I said.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's no wonder you're having so much trouble following the very simple things I said.
 
Harshaw said:
Can you ****ing read? I don't think you can. How many times did I say "all of them"? ALL. OF. THEM.

State AND Federal. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Yes, this exchange is QUITE pathetic, entirely by your doing.

No, you didn't:

You tried to backpedal to it later, but guess what? I'm still right, because the federal cases do exactly what I said.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's no wonder you're having so much trouble following the very simple things I said.
Click to expand...
Are you having communications problems, again?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Are you having communications problems, again?
Click to expand...

Communication requires someone who can understand what's being communicated. That was sorely lacking here.
 
Harshaw said:
Can you ****ing read? I don't think you can. How many times did I say "all of them"? ALL. OF. THEM.

State AND Federal. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Yes, this exchange is QUITE pathetic, entirely by your doing.
Click to expand...

Can you? My entire exchange was exclusively about the direction the federal government was going to take on this issue. I can accept that you are too much of a moron to catch it the first time, but I just re-explained it and you are still pretending something else.
 
Can anyone imagine how complicated the married filing jointly could get?
 
longview said:
Can anyone imagine how complicated the married filing jointly could get?
Click to expand...

if the purpose of social security is to protect against poverty at old age, how does the program currently designed today going to fulfill such need for polygamists?

And how do we calculate expected costs?
 
ARealConservative said:
Can you? My entire exchange was exclusively about the direction the federal government was going to take on this issue. I can accept that you are too much of a moron to catch it the first time, but I just re-explained it and you are still pretending something else.
Click to expand...

Oh, good lord.

How do you not get it?

It doesn't matter if it's state or federal. All of the cases were decided on the same basis. All of them. All. Of. Them.

This stupidity started when you kept asking me "which cases," and somehow "all of them" is far, far beyond your grasp.

I don't know why.
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, good lord.

How do you not get it?
Click to expand...

nobody can be this dense. some people just don't have the capacity to admit they misunderstood what was being asked.

go back and re-read. I foolishly tried to have a civil exchange thinking you might of been aware of some federal cases I was not aware of

me wasting my time said:
I am not sure which decision you are speaking of.

the issue at the federal level of what level of scrutiny must be met in regards to SSM has not been resolved. Silence from the courts means the lowest level is currently the defacto law..or at least that is my understanding
Click to expand...

once i finally got you to elaborate on "all of them". I learned all of them included state decisions.
 
ARealConservative said:
nobody can be this dense. some people just don't have the capacity to admit they misunderstood what was being asked.

go back and re-read. I foolishly tried to have a civil exchange thinking you might of been aware of some federal cases I was not aware of



once i finally got you to elaborate on "all of them". I learned all of them included state decisions.
Click to expand...

Dude.

You said this:

the argument over if same sex marriage is protected based on gender is one that the courts might give consideration to.
Click to expand...

I said all of the cases were decided on a DIFFERENT basis, and not one was decided on this basis.

You asked "which ones?"

I said, "all of them."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You, by the way, are the one who introduced the hostility.
 
159 posts, and no poll yet?
 
ignore on. Apologies for the rest for allowing this hijack to continue so long.

anyway. I'm not sure if the current makeup of SCOTUS will do it, but I imagine it is inevitable that at some point a 5-4 decision will come down that SSM is a protected class based on gender.

but for now, I just don't see it happening.

And i never see polygamy being treated the same way. Society will have to overwhelmingly support it because the courts aren't going to swoop in and bestow such rights for them as I predict SSM eventually gets.
 
ARealConservative said:
ignore on. Apologies for the rest for allowing this hijack to continue so long.
Click to expand...

OK, now THAT'S truly "pathetic."

And this is the problem, and what you apparently just don't want to hear, for whatever reason:

ARealConservative said:
anyway. I'm not sure if the current makeup of SCOTUS will do it, but I imagine it is inevitable that at some point a 5-4 decision will come down that SSM is a protected class based on gender.
Click to expand...

Not one case has been decided on this basis. Not a single one. In fact, in Perry, which was just heard, the federal court specifically declined to decide it on that basis.

So, there is no reason at all to think this is "inevitable." The jurisprudence thus far is unanimously against it.

But, for some reason, you just don't want to hear it. So, indeed, ignore me if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
ignore on. Apologies for the rest for allowing this hijack to continue so long.

anyway. I'm not sure if the current makeup of SCOTUS will do it, but I imagine it is inevitable that at some point a 5-4 decision will come down that SSM is a protected class based on gender.

but for now, I just don't see it happening.

And i never see polygamy being treated the same way. Society will have to overwhelmingly support it because the courts aren't going to swoop in and bestow such rights for them as I predict SSM eventually gets.
Click to expand...

what about the equal protection clause in the 14th amendement that gays always cite. why can't they cite that to or any group defined by their sexual preference.
 
Navy Pride said:
what about the equal protection clause in the 14th amendement that gays always cite. why can't they cite that to or any group defined by their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

What "protected group" would polygamists fall under?
 
Navy Pride said:
what about the equal protection clause in the 14th amendement that gays always cite. why can't they cite that to or any group defined by their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

They can cite that, then the state presents its argument for why having limitations on how many people are allowed to enter into a marriage furthers a state interest directly related to the limitation, number of people in a marriage, itself.

The state is not able to show how limiting marriage by sex/gender furthers any legitimate state interest that is directly related to the limitation, sex/gender of those involved, itself. The most they have come up with is about children, and yet the problem with this argument is that it does not pertain to all opposite sex couples equally and there is no legal requirement in any US marriage laws that a couple must be able to or even want to procreate, we allow divorce for those who have children and we have children born outside of marriage all the time.
 
Its useless trying to explain equal protection analysis to NP. I've tried. I've even sent him very basic links and he either refuses to learn or pretends to not understand.
 
Navy Pride said:
what about the equal protection clause in the 14th amendement that gays always cite. why can't they cite that to or any group defined by their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I think homosexuals will eventually win on that one, but they haven't yet. When they do, it will because of gender equality, which is protected. triangular (or more nested) relationships don't belong to a protected class like gender or race do.

the courts are always slow to adapt. As i understand it, courts initially backed racial marriage bans because they claimed it didn't harm one race, it harmed all races. Seems stupid to people today, but deeply seeded bias is slow to change.
 
longview said:
Can anyone imagine how complicated the married filing jointly could get?
Click to expand...
The stickiest part of the issue, as I noted earlier. That whole tax area would have to be revisited.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The stickiest part of the issue, as I noted earlier. That whole tax area would have to be revisited.
Click to expand...

We would also have to work out a limit, otherwise what is to stop someone from marrying 12, 20, 50, or 100 foreigners for money to get them citizenship? We have reports every few years of another ring of people who setup these arrangements now, particularly with military personnel, having deals set up where they marry a foreigner, pretend to be in love for say 5 years, then divorce. It costs taxpayer money to investigate these but they are done after the marriage, not before. So, sure maybe we catch them, but it still would be a huge expense to investigate them all. And we would have to investigate each foreigner. Plus, how would that work? Would it be a group marriage and the whole thing voided, or multiple marriages?

Plus, what about military benefits? Should every spouse be allowed dependent status? Do we pay for bigger military houses for someone who wants 2 wives and 2 husbands and as many children as the grouping can get? Does family medical insurance cover the whole clan?
 
roguenuke said:
We would also have to work out a limit, otherwise what is to stop someone from marrying 12, 20, 50, or 100 foreigners for money to get them citizenship? We have reports every few years of another ring of people who setup these arrangements now, particularly with military personnel, having deals set up where they marry a foreigner, pretend to be in love for say 5 years, then divorce. It costs taxpayer money to investigate these but they are done after the marriage, not before. So, sure maybe we catch them, but it still would be a huge expense to investigate them all. And we would have to investigate each foreigner. Plus, how would that work? Would it be a group marriage and the whole thing voided, or multiple marriages?

Plus, what about military benefits? Should every spouse be allowed dependent status? Do we pay for bigger military houses for someone who wants 2 wives and 2 husbands and as many children as the grouping can get? Does family medical insurance cover the whole clan?
Click to expand...

Which brings up the viable alternative: Stay single and barhop every night.........................
 
Libertas-Mors said:
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

l see lots of reasons why they shouldnt .....

the concept of freedom shouldnt be that simple and limitless.
 
Bonzai said:
Which brings up the viable alternative: Stay single and barhop every night.........................
Click to expand...

We're not talking about problems for the people involved in the marriages. We are talking about problems for government/society due to people who want to be involved in multiple spouse marriages for reasons of love, religion, power, tradition, money, or other reasons. Limiting everyone to one spouse may cause some issues with people marrying others to get them citizenship or military/government benefits (marriage fraud), but it is a reasonably dealt with problem, worth marriage itself and how it has been shown to benefit society, no matter the race/gender/religion combination of those who are married. Without a limit at all or even with having just more than a few spouses married to each other, the benefits awarded to spouses can easily outweigh any benefit the government/society may see from such marriages/relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom