• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Seeing as how I don't think being married should influence taxes at all, I'd say yes. Marry all the people you want.
 
Definitely where we differ. The legality of marriage is sponsored by the state. If something has no benefit to the state, the state has no reason to sponsor it. Plural marriage is not an orientation nor has it been shown to provide any benefits to the individuals, children, or society. I have no issue with polygamy OUTSIDE of state sponsorship.

Free speech and gun rights are a huge detriment to the state. Without these things, the state could very easily grab more and more power. So because it's a detriment to the state and not a benefit, I guess we should get rid of that stuff too? It's about the people, not the government.

What about parks? Those definitely don't benefit the state, they benefit the people.
 
Free speech and gun rights are a huge detriment to the state. Without these things, the state could very easily grab more and more power. So because it's a detriment to the state and not a benefit, I guess we should get rid of that stuff too? It's about the people, not the government.

Free speech and gun rights certainly benefit the state. Free speech allows the free flowing of information. The more information a society has, the more it is able to use that information to progress. Gun rights also benefit the state. A well-armed populace helps the state survive potential threats.

What about parks? Those definitely don't benefit the state, they benefit the people.

Sure they do. The state has a vested interest in supporting parks. Parks can be positive places for children to be; if children are healthy, society thrives, something that the state certainly has a vested interest in.
 
Free speech and gun rights certainly benefit the state. Free speech allows the free flowing of information. The more information a society has, the more it is able to use that information to progress. Gun rights also benefit the state. A well-armed populace helps the state survive potential threats.



Sure they do. The state has a vested interest in supporting parks. Parks can be positive places for children to be; if children are healthy, society thrives, something that the state certainly has a vested interest in.

So I see you're using the word state to mean "the citizens" and not the term usually associated with it, "the government".

In that case, I don't see why the freedom of a citizen to freely associate or form a contract with another human being isn't in the best interest of society. Should black people be able to vote? It would only really benefit black people, who are a minority. The majority of people wouldn't benefit from it.
 
So I see you're using the word state to mean "the citizens" and not the term usually associated with it, "the government".

In that case, I don't see why the freedom of a citizen to freely associate or form a contract with another human being isn't in the best interest of society. Should black people be able to vote? It would only really benefit black people, who are a minority. The majority of people wouldn't benefit from it.

No, each of the things I mentioned benefits the government in the way I mentioned. A well informed populace benefits the state, as does a well-armed populace, as to healthy children.
 
No, each of the things I mentioned benefits the government in the way I mentioned. A well informed populace benefits the state, as does a well-armed populace, as to healthy children.

Aha, so it's what I originally thought, you're concerned about the government and the bureacrats benefit, not the benefit of the citizens.

Back to the scenario I proposed. What if the current government decided it would be in their best interest to disallow black people voting? Should they do that? Apparently rights are only important if they benefit the government.

The government and the bureacrats are held in check by the constitution. Citizens speaking out against them does not benefit them, it makes their jobs harder.
 
UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.
I don't see how.
 
Aha, so it's what I originally thought, you're concerned about the government and the bureacrats benefit, not the benefit of the citizens.

No, I didn't say that at all. Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.

Back to the scenario I proposed. What if the current government decided it would be in their best interest to disallow black people voting? Should they do that? Apparently rights are only important if they benefit the government.

I do not respond to scenarios that have no basis in reality. Sorry. If you can demonstrate an example of how this could happen in our current system, I'll consider responding to it.

The government and the bureacrats are held in check by the constitution. Citizens speaking out against them does not benefit them, it makes their jobs harder.

Citizens speaking out benefits the government. You seem to be taking the "us vs. them" position, where the people are "us" and the "evil" government is "them". That is inaccurate.
 
Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.
Not if they're true. Check FalacyFiles.com. If one can show that Z necessarily is the logical consequence of A,B,C.....then it's not a fallacy.

The thing is so many people are more interested in venting their emotions then actually proving an argument.
 
Not if they're true. Check FalacyFiles.com. If one can show that Z necessarily is the logical consequence of A,B,C.....then it's not a fallacy.

The thing is so many people are more interested in venting their emotions then actually proving an argument.

Using the argument doesn't prove the fallacy false. Using the argument and demonstrating it's legitimacy (as an argument) would. One cannot use the same argument because of the vast differences between SSM and polygamy.
 
More wives, more cases, more ways to split the property, and more ways to decide custody of the children who are better off in foster homes.
The number of people marrying and divorcing remains the same, so there wouldn't be an increase in any of those.
 
The issue would be whether the state has a rational basis to refuse them. Since SSM and polygamy are two different things, the basis for a state banning them would have to be different.
The only argument that I've seen against SSM is that it's non-traditional. If a person feels that that doesn't matter, it only makes sense to allow other forms of non-traditional marriage if that's the only reason for the opposition. Unless you can show some other reason to oppose polygamy, I don't see why the two issues need to be segregated.
 
The only argument that I've seen against SSM is that it's non-traditional. If a person feels that that doesn't matter, it only makes sense to allow other forms of non-traditional marriage if that's the only reason for the opposition. Unless you can show some other reason to oppose polygamy, I don't see why the two issues need to be segregated.

The reason they are separate issues is because they are not the same issue. To simplify it way down: is 2 the same thing as more than 2? If the answer is no, then they are not the same thing. Just as liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are all political ideologies, you cannot call them all the same idea, so too while SSM, mixed sex marriage and polygamy are all types of marriage, they are not the same as each other.
 
The reason they are separate issues is because they are not the same issue. To simplify it way down: is 2 the same thing as more than 2? If the answer is no, then they are not the same thing. Just as liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism are all political ideologies, you cannot call them all the same idea, so too while SSM, mixed sex marriage and polygamy are all types of marriage, they are not the same as each other.
No one is saying that they're the same issue, but some things are analagous and it's wrong to apply logic selectively.
 
No one is saying that they're the same issue, but some things are analagous and it's wrong to apply logic selectively.

They are not analogous though. They have different personal, social and psychological effects as one very important example.
 
They are not analogous though. They have different personal, social and psychological effects as one very important example.
It's perfectly fine for you to bring that up, but you made it sound like two issues should never be discussed in the same thread.

Please tell us about these personal, social and psychological effects.
 
It's perfectly fine for you to bring that up, but you made it sound like two issues should never be discussed in the same thread.

Please tell us about these personal, social and psychological effects.

I have never stated, claimed, or suggested that they should not be discussed in the same thread. What I have said is that trying to tie one to the other is inaccurate, and the slippery slope "if SSM, the polygamy" is flat out false. CC does a decent job of laying out some of the fundamental differences in post # 9. From a legal standpoint they would be considered separately and decided on potentially quite different grounds(would polygamy even be considered for 14th amendment protection?).
 
Polygamy has been practiced in numerous countries and throughout history (oh...add in the obligatory "without ruining the institution of marriage" argument). Precedence-wise, there is far better foundation for allowing for polygamy than there is gay marriage. Arguing for one and not the other is rather...goofy.
 
Of course. Why shouldn't consenting adults be able to marry multiple partners if they want? All of you are just thinking of situations such as have occurred within the extremist Mormon community and you are applying it to ALL polygamist marriages.

I saw a documentary once about a woman who had two boyfriends and they all lived together and wanted to be married. So it's not always a dirty old man with 6 teenage wives. Of course all of the same laws would apply regarding minors and things like that.

It's funny too that people are SO concerned with that aspect when men ALREADY marry minors. Why would a polygamy situation make one MORE apt to be taken advantage of than just a marriage between two?
 
Sane, consenting adults should be able to do ANYTHING they want to each other.

If a guy wants to marry 50 different women - and they all agree - go ahead.

Just make sure they are all sane adults.


And I do not have a cat - but if I did, I think I would call him/her Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
 
Sane, consenting adults should be able to do ANYTHING they want to each other.

If a guy wants to marry 50 different women - and they all agree - go ahead.

Just make sure they are all sane adults.


And I do not have a cat - but if I did, I think I would call him/her Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.

I think the critical part here is "Sane"... if a guy wants to marry 50 women... then you cant say he is sane.. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom