• 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 .
That integrity never left with those who matter. Polluting marriage with homosexuality is not the answer.
And the integrity of those marriages will not be "polluted" or harmed in any way. Promulgating the fear that same-sex marriage will somehow destroy heterosexual marriage is nonsensical homophobic propaganda.
 
In theory I have no problem with any group of individuals freely entering into a marriage contract. The problem is that this is an area where abuse could become rife both in terms of defrauding federal and state governments with volumnous plural marriages that are aimed solely at gaining benefits (how would the military deal with BAH and other benefits for example) and on what basis could you deny peoples right to marry once you make it legal? Then of course you have the fact that polygamy is largely the domain of extreme religious communities like the FLDS, Islamic fundamentalists, and even some Sephardi Jewish groups. The history of abuse, pressured marriage, etc is enough to warrant concern about how this process could be regulated.

Legalizing polygamy is filled with practical problems that marriage between single individuals is not. That doesn't mean it should be banned on its face, but it requires lengthier study of its consequences.
 
In theory I have no problem with any group of individuals freely entering into a marriage contract. The problem is that this is an area where abuse could become rife both in terms of defrauding federal and state governments with volumnous plural marriages that are aimed solely at gaining benefits (how would the military deal with BAH and other benefits for example) and on what basis could you deny peoples right to marry once you make it legal? Then of course you have the fact that polygamy is largely the domain of extreme religious communities like the FLDS, Islamic fundamentalists, and even some Sephardi Jewish groups. The history of abuse, pressured marriage, etc is enough to warrant concern about how this process could be regulated.

Legalizing polygamy is filled with practical problems that marriage between single individuals is not. That doesn't mean it should be banned on its face, but it requires lengthier study of its consequences.

I agree with the part in bold. That might be a problem. As far as the religious fanatics and abuse and such things, what makes a person who is marrying multiple people more apt to abuse than one who just marries one person?
 
I agree with the part in bold. That might be a problem. As far as the religious fanatics and abuse and such things, what makes a person who is marrying multiple people more apt to abuse than one who just marries one person?

Sorry I should have been more clear. What I meant is that forbidding plural marriages has been a useful tool in keeping a clamp on these organizations and a pretext for rescuing women and girls forced into these marriages. The tendency towards polygamy is also obviously highest in these groups.
 
Sorry I should have been more clear. What I meant is that forbidding plural marriages has been a useful tool in keeping a clamp on these organizations and a pretext for rescuing women and girls forced into these marriages. The tendency towards polygamy is also obviously highest in these groups.

It's what age of consent is supposed to be for. Unfortunately, age of consent is set MUCH too young in many states with parental consent, and sadly some parents will marry off their young daughters, especially the religious fanatic types. That is a problem I also see. There are a few problems with it, but I wonder if those problems could be worked out with some simple measures or precautions. That's why, earlier in this thread, I was saying that marriage licenses ARE important.
 
its not arguable at all to anybody honest and objective.

the integrity of marriage is up to the people in a marriage, period.

my marriage has integrity based on what me and my spouse do and believe about our marriage. Other marriages have ZERO impact on our marriage and cant do anything to its integrity.

thats way the integrity of marriage is factually in ZERO danger and that strawman argument always fails

This probably comes down to a semantic/interpretation issue. Since we're talking about marriage in a general sense, then yes right now I have to worry about the integrity of marriage as a whole in this country. Naturally, that still allows for individual marriages to remain intact, and I agree that one's marriage does not affect anyone else's marriage, save by however that other person imagines it to.

In theory I have no problem with any group of individuals freely entering into a marriage contract. The problem is that this is an area where abuse could become rife both in terms of defrauding federal and state governments with volumnous plural marriages that are aimed solely at gaining benefits (how would the military deal with BAH and other benefits for example) and on what basis could you deny peoples right to marry once you make it legal? Then of course you have the fact that polygamy is largely the domain of extreme religious communities like the FLDS, Islamic fundamentalists, and even some Sephardi Jewish groups. The history of abuse, pressured marriage, etc is enough to warrant concern about how this process could be regulated.

Legalizing polygamy is filled with practical problems that marriage between single individuals is not. That doesn't mean it should be banned on its face, but it requires lengthier study of its consequences.

Let me correct this to "...is largely seen through the domain of extreme religious communities..." as there are many of us out here living effectively polygamous marriages, sans the legal recognitions and benefits, without all the problems that the extremist religious groups suffer from.


Most of the community that I am aware of understands the logistical issues that would need to be dealt with prior to any actual instigation of polygamy. While it was legal at on time in our history, we didn't have all the other legal issues that are now tie
 
This probably comes down to a semantic/interpretation issue. Since we're talking about marriage in a general sense, then yes right now I have to worry about the integrity of marriage as a whole in this country. Naturally, that still allows for individual marriages to remain intact, and I agree that one's marriage does not affect anyone else's marriage, save by however that other person imagines it to.

then that would be your problem, the integrity of marriage is factually not in jeopardy on bit :shrug:
if you are worried about it thats your issue to deal with but its meaningless to reality.

Granting equal rights does nothign to the itegrity of marriage.
if you disagree by all means give me examples that factually put it at risk.
 
then that would be your problem, the integrity of marriage is factually not in jeopardy on bit :shrug:
if you are worried about it thats [sic] your issue to deal with but its meaningless to reality.

Granting equal rights does nothign [sic] to the itegrity [sic] of marriage.
if you disagree by all means give me examples that factually put it at risk.

You're wrong. The integrity of marriage has been in grave jeopardy for a generation or more, starting with the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. The massively-increased rates of divorce and of bastardy since that time are the direct manifestation of the integrity of marriage having been severely undermined. And this was long before anyone started throwing out the idea of “same sex marriage”, which is the biggest and most blatant attack yet against the integrity of marriage.

When we have about half of all marriages failing in divorce, and roughly a third to a half of all children being born out of wedlock (with these rates being even worse among certain significant minority groups—up to 60% to 75% illegitimacy among blacks); how blind must one be to think that the integrity of marriage is not in danger, or that society itself is not in danger as a result?
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. The integrity of marriage has been in grave jeopardy for a generation or more, starting with the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. The massively-increased rates of divorce and of bastardy since that time are the direct manifestation of the integrity of marriage having been severely undermined. And this was long before anyone started throwing out the idea of “same sex marriage”, which is the biggest and most blatant attack yet against the integrity of marriage.

When we have about half of all marriages failing in divorce, and roughly a third to a half of all children being born out of wedlock (with these rates being even worse among certain significant minority groups—up to 60% to 75% illegitimacy among blacks); how blind must one be to think that the integrity of marriage is not in danger, or that society itself is not in danger as a result?

So in your opinion a good benchmark for how stable a society is marriage

Okay

:lamo
 
1.)You're wrong.
2.) The integrity of marriage has been in grave jeopardy for a generation or more, starting with the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. The massively-increased rates of divorce and of bastardy since that time are the direct manifestation of the integrity of marriage having been severely undermined.
3.) And this was long before anyone started throwing out the idea of “same sex marriage”, which is the biggest and most blatant attack yet against the integrity of marriage.
4.) When we have about half of all marriages failing in divorce
5.) and roughly a third to a half of all children being born out of wedlock (with these rates being even worse among certain significant minority groups—up to 60% to 75% illegitimacy among blacks);
6.) how blind must one be to think that the integrity of marriage is not in danger, or that society itself is not in danger as a result?

1.) nope and as usual you have ZERO facts to back up your claim. You are welcome to have that opinion but thats all it is, an opinion backed up by zero logic and zero facts.
2.) not factually meaningful to the integrity of marriage
3.) not factually meaningful to the integrity of marriage
4.) not factually meaningful to the integrity of marriage
5.) not factually meaningful to the integrity of marriage
6.) not blind, just educated enough to know the difference between reality and fantasy and facts and opinion. You have stated zero things that factually harm the integrity or marriage.

ley me know when you have something that FACTUALLY harms the integrity and not just your meaningless opinion.

now with that said you are free to have your unsupported opinion but trying to push it as fact will fail and nobody honest and objective will buy it.

Marriage is in ZERO danger.
 
then that would be your problem, the integrity of marriage is factually not in jeopardy on bit :shrug:
if you are worried about it thats your issue to deal with but its meaningless to reality.

Granting equal rights does nothign to the itegrity of marriage.
if you disagree by all means give me examples that factually put it at risk.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. The decline in the integrity of marriage has nothing to do with any kind of rights to marriage being recognized. Nor is the decay due to any thing per se' that Bob Blaylock asserts, although I do agree with some of the symptoms that he points out. We could have had SSM and interracial marriage along with no legal consequences for sex outside of marriage over 100 years ago and it's doubtful that we'd have these marriage issues before today. As I see it most of these problems stem from the instant gratification syndrome that today's younger people have, and for that matter many of the older ones seem to be developing it too. When people jump into marriage with just a few short month of knowing each other , yet alone dating, marriages are bound to fail.

I also think that you may be defining "the integrity of marriage" as something different from the rest of us. Are you denying that divorce rate is very high, or that children are being born out of wedlock in larger numbers?
 
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. The decline in the integrity of marriage has nothing to do with any kind of rights to marriage being recognized. Nor is the decay due to any thing per se' that Bob Blaylock asserts, although I do agree with some of the symptoms that he points out. We could have had SSM and interracial marriage along with no legal consequences for sex outside of marriage over 100 years ago and it's doubtful that we'd have these marriage issues before today. As I see it most of these problems stem from the instant gratification syndrome that today's younger people have, and for that matter many of the older ones seem to be developing it too. When people jump into marriage with just a few short month of knowing each other , yet alone dating, marriages are bound to fail.

I also think that you may be defining "the integrity of marriage" as something different from the rest of us. Are you denying that divorce rate is very high, or that children are being born out of wedlock in larger numbers?

I understand you fine, the point is none of it FACTUALLY means anything and im guessing by you not listing things that factually impact you agree or realize you cant.

and your statement further proves my point, you say you think my definition is different from yours, well you just hit the nail on the head. There is NO definition, its made up, its subjective and it is personal to each person. SO like you already admitted others marriages dont effect yours, so the integrity is factually in ZERO danger.

Yes divorce rate is high, so what, what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing
Yes children are born out of wedlock what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing

what if divorce was super low and people stayed together in BAD or ABUSIVE or FAILED marriages but kept it together legally?
what if most kids werent born out of wedlock but find themselves in the marriages described above?

again both meaningless to the integrity of marriage and both subjective.

The integrity is in ZERO jeopardy.

AGain though if you have things you think factually put it in danger please list them.
 
I understand you fine, the point is none of it FACTUALLY means anything and im guessing by you not listing things that factually impact you agree or realize you cant.

and your statement further proves my point, you say you think my definition is different from yours, well you just hit the nail on the head. There is NO definition, its made up, its subjective and it is personal to each person. SO like you already admitted others marriages dont effect yours, so the integrity is factually in ZERO danger.

Given this then you can't say that it's factually not in jeopardy. In addition you seem to keep focusing on the individual marriage vice the institution as a whole. We can say that the educational system is failing while still pointing out individual schools that are highly successful.

Yes divorce rate is high, so what, what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing
Yes children are born out of wedlock what does that factually do to the integrity of marriage? nothing

what if divorce was super low and people stayed together in BAD or ABUSIVE or FAILED marriages but kept it together legally?
what if most kids werent born out of wedlock but find themselves in the marriages described above?

With the exception of the last statement I'd include all of those as detrimental to the integrity of any given marriage. And when the trend of such events becomes large enough the institution as a whole is in trouble.

again both meaningless to the integrity of marriage and both subjective.

The integrity is in ZERO jeopardy.

AGain though if you have things you think factually put it in danger please list them.

Aside from the fact that anything that people put out you are dismissing, we have given you those facts, such as divorce rates. But given your subjective opinion that divorce rates are irrelevant, the conclusion must be that there is no integrity to be or not be in jeopardy.
 
How does it affect your marriage in any way?
I don't see how there could be any direct negative effects on my wife and me. If anything, it would make our marriage stronger, only because we are both committed to fighting sin.

But on a broader scale, I did find this site on a quick search. If you have the time, perhaps some of you more hard core gay activists could role up your sleeves and try to dismantle it. ;)

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-top-ten-harms-of-same-sex-marriage
 
1.)Given this then you can't say that it's factually not in jeopardy.
2.) In addition you seem to keep focusing on the individual marriage vice the institution as a whole. We can say that the educational system is failing while still pointing out individual schools that are highly successful.
3.) With the exception of the last statement I'd include all of those as detrimental to the integrity of any given marriage. And when the trend of such events becomes large enough the institution as a whole is in trouble.
4.) Aside from the fact that anything that people put out you are dismissing, we have given you those facts, such as divorce rates.
5.) But given your subjective opinion that divorce rates are irrelevant,
6.) the conclusion must be that there is no integrity to be or not be in jeopardy.

1.) yes i can because those are the facts
2.) what is the "institution" of marriage? factually describe it for me. AGain thats totally made up and subjective.
your example has no barring.
3.) you are free to have that OPINION but thats all it is and thats my point
4.) no you havent given any FACTS that marriage integrity is in trouble.
divorce rate is 50+% that is a fact, its not a fact that its an impact to the integrity of marriage. HUGE difference.
5.) Yes it is a opinion VERY good because there is no facts on this matter, no you are learning
6.) in general the integrity is in the legal contract and personally its in what people choose, thats it
 
I don't see how there could be any direct negative effects on my wife and me. If anything, it would make our marriage stronger, only because we are both committed to fighting sin.

But on a broader scale, I did find this site on a quick search. If you have the time, perhaps some of you more hard core gay activists could role up your sleeves and try to dismantle it. ;)

Family Research Council

I'm certainly not a "hardcore" activist. I just don't think it's a big deal.

I don't like the article you linked me to. There are no references to any of the data provided. I live in MA and I never heard of some of the things claimed in the article. There are PLENTY of things that are MUCH more concerning, expensive and wasteful, especially concerning the government and taxes.

We are supposed to be the land of the free. When we say that certain people cannot be married because certain religious groups don't like it, don't agree with it, are disgusted by it, or whatever, that doesn't sound very much like freedom to me.
 
I'm certainly not a "hardcore" activist. I just don't think it's a big deal.

I don't like the article you linked me to. There are no references to any of the data provided. I live in MA and I never heard of some of the things claimed in the article. There are PLENTY of things that are MUCH more concerning, expensive and wasteful, especially concerning the government and taxes.

We are supposed to be the land of the free. When we say that certain people cannot be married because certain religious groups don't like it, don't agree with it, are disgusted by it, or whatever, that doesn't sound very much like freedom to me.

I think you're putting too much blame on religious groups. I think you should equally blame people like me that aren't coming from a religious angle at all. Homosexual marriage simply makes no sense, which is why it's never been part of our social landscape in this country and, for that matter, hasn't been part of the social landscape of any country in modern history. It's not just because "religious groups" think it's icky or sinful. It's because marriage is a biological pairing. We're trying to change that and make marriage something else and maybe those in favor of that will succeed, but forming a couple sanctioned by the state to form a biological family unit was the purpose of marriage (despite countless SSM asvocates shrieking that it's really all about other things, instead). When people are ready to accept that marriage is no longer what it's always been and that this, something that most of us considered the most unchanging thing in our society, has changed, then the legislation will follow. I guess it will follow for polygamy in the same path because I think that will be inevitable, too. We're moving into an age where we feel that there shouldn't be any restrictions on such things as adult relationships, so eventually, anything will go. How it will work out, who knows? We should probably try to get a handle on that first, though, because these things, once changed, are rarely able to be rescinded peacefully.
 
I think you're putting too much blame on religious groups. I think you should equally blame people like me that aren't coming from a religious angle at all. Homosexual marriage simply makes no sense, which is why it's never been part of our social landscape in this country and, for that matter, hasn't been part of the social landscape of any country in modern history. It's not just because "religious groups" think it's icky or sinful. It's because marriage is a biological pairing. We're trying to change that and make marriage something else and maybe those in favor of that will succeed, but forming a couple sanctioned by the state to form a biological family unit was the purpose of marriage (despite countless SSM asvocates shrieking that it's really all about other things, instead). When people are ready to accept that marriage is no longer what it's always been and that this, something that most of us considered the most unchanging thing in our society, has changed, then the legislation will follow. I guess it will follow for polygamy in the same path because I think that will be inevitable, too. We're moving into an age where we feel that there shouldn't be any restrictions on such things as adult relationships, so eventually, anything will go. How it will work out, who knows? We should probably try to get a handle on that first, though, because these things, once changed, are rarely able to be rescinded peacefully.

I don't think it's "anything goes." It is the joining of people who love each other or want a union for another reason. It's really nobody's business as to the WHY or the WHO someone else is marrying.
 
I don't think it's "anything goes." It is the joining of people who love each other or want a union for another reason. It's really nobody's business as to the WHY or the WHO someone else is marrying.

I said that's where we are heading. It's not anything goes right now, but that's what we're all actually fighting over. Some want to push it that way and some don't. The same rationale you give for gay marriage, applies to polygamists or any other relationship model anyone wants to come up with..... Now should people be able to enter into any permutation of a relationship they wish? Sure. Must the state be forced to sanction it? No.

What was strange with your remark, however, was that you think it's not about "anything goes" and yet your reasoning for marriage equates to "anything goes"..... People who love each other or want a union for other reasons. <---- that's "anything goes".

Now, if I'm misreading you and you actually do support anything goes to the point of polygamy and beyond, then I won't quibble about inconsistencies in your position. In fact, you're just one of the people that are willing to be honest about the fact that you don't really care whether polygamy becomes legal in this country. Most are keeping that opinion to themselves for fear it might hinder the advance of homosexual marriage that paves the way to further plasticity of marriage.
 
I said that's where we are heading. It's not anything goes right now, but that's what we're all actually fighting over. Some want to push it that way and some don't. The same rationale you give for gay marriage, applies to polygamists or any other relationship model anyone wants to come up with..... Now should people be able to enter into any permutation of a relationship they wish? Sure. Must the state be forced to sanction it? No.

I don't care whether or not the state provides benefits to any married couple or multiple married people. My issue is with those people who want to prevent people from marrying who they want on the basis of their religious beliefs or myths or paranoia.

What was strange with your remark, however, was that you think it's not about "anything goes" and yet your reasoning for marriage equates to "anything goes"..... People who love each other or want a union for other reasons. <---- that's "anything goes".

I believe any adults of consenting age should be able to be married if they so wish. So no, it isn't "anything" goes.
 
I don't care whether or not the state provides benefits to any married couple or multiple married people. My issue is with those people who want to prevent people from marrying who they want on the basis of their religious beliefs or myths or paranoia.



I believe any adults of consenting age should be able to be married if they so wish. So no, it isn't "anything" goes.

Actually it IS "anything goes" even if you exclude the impossible (which is a consensual relationship between people who can't legally consent, i.e. minors). I've argued before that there are a lot of people like you that don't want any limitations at all to the types of relationships that the state must be forced to draw up contracts for, license and sanction. And the homosexual marriage advocates keep trying to argue that people like you don't exist.

Well, here's their living proof; someone who admits it.
 
Actually it IS "anything goes" even if you exclude the impossible (which is a consensual relationship between people who can't legally consent, i.e. minors). I've argued before that there are a lot of people like you that don't want any limitations at all to the types of relationships that the state must be forced to draw up contracts for, license and sanction. And the homosexual marriage advocates keep trying to argue that people like you don't exist.

Well, here's their living proof; someone who admits it.

It isn't, it DOES leave out anyone who cannot legally consent, also that would include animals or any inanimate objects, which is what some of the anti-freedom to pursue happiness extremists claim will happen. Ridiculous. I want for consenting adults to be able to marry who they want for whatever reasons they want. That SHOULD be a right, to pursue your OWN ideas of happiness, not someone else's.
 
It isn't, it DOES leave out anyone who cannot legally consent, also that would include animals or any inanimate objects, which is what some of the anti-freedom to pursue happiness extremists claim will happen. Ridiculous. I want for consenting adults to be able to marry who they want for whatever reasons they want. That SHOULD be a right, to pursue your OWN ideas of happiness, not someone else's.

Where you drive off the road into the ditch is in assuming that it is your right to have the state sanction your relationship. You have a right to be with whomever you wish, love whomever you wish, have sex with whomever you wish (all with consent being a given). You don't have a right, however, to make the state jump through whatever hoops you wish them to jump through in order to sanction as "marriage" whatever sort of relationship you dreamed up and entered.
 
Where you drive off the road into the ditch is in assuming that it is your right to have the state sanction your relationship. You have a right to be with whomever you wish, love whomever you wish, have sex with whomever you wish (all with consent being a given). You don't have a right, however, to make the state jump through whatever hoops you wish them to jump through in order to sanction as "marriage" whatever sort of relationship you dreamed up and entered.

Relationships are not "dreamed up." They actually exist. It is NOT the state sanctioning anything. It is the state minding it's own business and NOT telling certain groups of people that they are not allowed to marry, all because of some extremist utopian dream world that never really existed anyway except for in their own minds.
 
Relationships are not "dreamed up." They actually exist. It is NOT the state sanctioning anything. It is the state minding it's own business and NOT telling certain groups of people that they are not allowed to marry, all because of some extremist utopian dream world that never really existed anyway except for in their own minds.

You don't get it, do you, Chris? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. Marriage requires permission and sanction of the state. You may chose to live, love, screw whomever you wish with consensual framework all as a right, but you cannot claim as a right something the state must afford to you. It seems these days we get all too happy bastardizing the use, meaning and concept of "rights" and this is a clear example of that. The state must define marriage. It must adjudicate marriage and divorce. It must define tax codes. It must define all the laws of this legal and binding contract. There is no natural "right" to marriage. Sanctioned marriage is a state institution and you don't have any natural "right" to a state institution. You may argue that you have a natural right to be treated like anyone else and go with that angle to argue that whatever relationship you may be in should be deemed as marriage, but to argue that you have a natural right to a state sanction makes no sense unless we dispense with the real meaning of rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom