• 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 .
One man plus one woman is gender specific and that's the law in most states.

That is a restriction, it is not how laws operate/function. In order to meet the "state interest" requirement of maintaining challenged restrictions, the state has to show a relevant state interest in it related to the way the laws involved actually function.
 
It is not your right to have the government license anything you do. The government doesn't have to issue you a vendor's license, a fishing license, a driver's license, a doctor's license or any other license. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the state in ALL those categories because licenses aren't some automatic individual right and state sanctioned marriage is a license.

But likewise no state can deny you these licenses based on certain criteria. You cannot be deny the license based upon age (except for being an adult in most cases), gender, religion, or race.
 
But likewise no state can deny you these licenses based on certain criteria. You cannot be deny the license based upon age (except for being an adult in most cases), gender, religion, or race.

That is correct. It goes to the point I've made before. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman, having decided to enter into marriage together could be able to legally wed in every state of the Union regardless of their gender, religion, race or even the fact that both wore shirts to the Clerk of Court's office proclaiming gay pride.
 
That is a restriction, it is not how laws operate/function. In order to meet the "state interest" requirement of maintaining challenged restrictions, the state has to show a relevant state interest in it related to the way the laws involved actually function.

You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.
 
You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.

I think you have that backwards. I believe that polygamy was a way of life for many people until more recent times. Personally, I would not want to be involved in a polygamous relationship, but for those that would, as long as everything is legal, I don't see how anyone could object to it except for perhaps on a religious basis, which doesn't really count because you can't legislate morality.
 
I'm certainly not a "hardcore" activist. I just don't think it's a big deal.
I see. That must explain why you're in multiple debates about gay rights. I guess it's just a passing interest, huh?

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.
'Data' is difficult to come by these days. When the country has been going through a violent shove towards the Left, often times, all we have is our own observations to rely on. You can live in MA and still miss a lot of things.

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.
We are supposed to enjoy liberty under the law, and the law can't please everyone, ChrisL. Do we want to live in a nation of extremely loose laws (lawlessness in some cases), or do we want to tighten things up with sound morals and personal discipline? you seem to prefer the former
 
I see. That must explain why you're in multiple debates about gay rights. I guess it's just a passing interest, huh?

This is a debate site. I find it an interesting topic to debate. Posting on a debate website about a particular issue certainly wouldn't qualify someone as a "hardcore" activist. It's not like I join protests, donate money or really participate in any other way for the cause.

'Data' is difficult to come by these days. When the country has been going through a violent shove towards the Left, often times, all we have is our own observations to rely on. You can live in MA and still miss a lot of things.

No, it is simply that there are accusations made on that particular link with absolutely nothing to back them up. No links to articles. It was simply a poor choice as far as a link.

We are supposed to enjoy liberty under the law, and the law can't please everyone, ChrisL. Do we want to live in a nation of extremely loose laws (lawlessness in some cases), or do we want to tighten things up with sound morals and personal discipline? you seem to prefer the former

No, I don't want the government involved in people's personal lives or decisions as long as they are not hurting someone else.
 
You think of it as a "restriction". The state simply thinks of it as "marriage". One man and one woman isn't a restriction it's the definition of what a marriage is. It's not one man or one woman or two men or two women or three men and five women. It is one man and one woman joining together to form a single legal entity. It is opposites joined, not the same doubled. It's not a restriction - it is the nature of marriage. There may be other relationship models but they aren't marriage. Not in 37 states and not in most of the world. And until very recently throughout the span of modern history, NOT ANYWHERE.

Wrong. Some people think of it as "marriage". The state knows that this is simply a restriction which is why the state doesn't argue circular logic, like you are doing. It is like arguing that because the state defined marriage as "between people of the same race" that the definition of marriage is "a union of people of the same race". Circular logic.

Not allowing a woman to marry a woman because she is a woman is a restriction. A restriction that the state cannot legitimately show furthers any state interest.
 
Wrong. Some people think of it as "marriage". The state knows that this is simply a restriction which is why the state doesn't argue circular logic, like you are doing. It is like arguing that because the state defined marriage as "between people of the same race" that the definition of marriage is "a union of people of the same race". Circular logic.

That is incorrect. What marriage is.... is what it is. Since we defined it, there is no circular logic in telling you it is exactly what we defined it to be. YOU may want a different definition but YOU don't dictate that definition. You could call marriage a union between a dog and a cat and it still would be the union of one man and one woman since that's what THE STATE defines it to be and because it's the state definition that counts. Why that's the state definition is something you may quibble about but we're dispensing with the assertion that it is circular logic to say that marriage is what the state defines it to be.
 
That is incorrect. What marriage is.... is what it is. Since we defined it, there is no circular logic in telling you it is exactly what we defined it to be. YOU may want a different definition but YOU don't dictate that definition. You could call marriage a union between a dog and a cat and it still would be the union of one man and one woman since that's what THE STATE defines it to be and because it's the state definition that counts. Why that's the state definition is something you may quibble about but we're dispensing with the assertion that it is circular logic to say that marriage is what the state defines it to be.

You have already been shown to be incorrect on this. Marriage is not a set thing based on the genders of those involved. Just because this is what you are used to, doesn't make it true. It is already defined as between two people, regardless of their sexes. It is only your personal definition that is at odds with this. Legally though a personal definition has no place. Legally marriage is defined in how it functions, not who is allowed to enter into the relationship.

This is why those state definitions, when challenged, are not holding up in court.
 
You have already been shown to be incorrect on this. Marriage is not a set thing based on the genders of those involved. Just because this is what you are used to, doesn't make it true. It is already defined as between two people, regardless of their sexes. It is only your personal definition that is at odds with this. Legally though a personal definition has no place. Legally marriage is defined in how it functions, not who is allowed to enter into the relationship.

This is why those state definitions, when challenged, are not holding up in court.

It is a creation of the state, so it is whatever the state defines it to be. Argue that indisputable fact to your hearts content, but it's an exercise in futility. Sanctioned marriage is a set of laws and it is, therefore, whatever those laws say it is and no matter how much you want it to be something different, it's silly to argue that it's anything different from what it actually is in black-letter law.
 
I believe that the government should out of marriage ENTIRELY.
 
It is a creation of the state, so it is whatever the state defines it to be. Argue that indisputable fact to your hearts content, but it's an exercise in futility. Sanctioned marriage is a set of laws and it is, therefore, whatever those laws say it is and no matter how much you want it to be something different, it's silly to argue that it's anything different from what it actually is in black-letter law.

No. The responsibilities, rights, and benefits are creations of the state, not marriage itself. Marriage itself was created by and has been changed many times by society.

And since "sanctioned" marriage is a set of laws, it is those laws, not the restrictions on who is covered by those laws, that determine how it is defined.
 
I believe that the government should out of marriage ENTIRELY.

Which would cause major problems within our courts, particularly civil courts. Unless the government got out of recognizing all family relations at all. Which would mean no more legal adoptions, no more birth certificates, at least not with identifying information on it, and no more family recognition whatsoever.

The argument "the government should get out of marriage" is not a well thought through argument. The government recognizes legal family. And that should include spouses. I understand that libertarians believe the government should be involved in very little, but the government has a valid place in recognizing who is legal family in order to settle disputes that would be horrendous without some government intervention.
 
Because I said so... lol (sorry)... If people want it then they should have it, if people don't want it, then they shouldn't have it.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

No. The responsibilities, rights, and benefits are creations of the state, not marriage itself. Marriage itself was created by and has been changed many times by society.

And since "sanctioned" marriage is a set of laws, it is those laws, not the restrictions on who is covered by those laws, that determine how it is defined.

Society is the state. We, the people. The state defines marriage. Deny it a thousand times and it won't be any less true for the denials.
 
Society is the state. We, the people. The state defines marriage. Deny it a thousand times and it won't be any less true for the denials.

The state's definition of marriage is in how it functions, not in who is allowed to enter into marriage.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

The state's definition of marriage is in how it functions, not in who is allowed to enter into marriage.

It functions as a union between a man and a woman.
 
It functions as a union between a man and a woman.

No it doesn't. You want to say then, then support it using the laws of marriage that involve the responsibilities and rights/benefits of spouses. I guarantee you can't because not only do some states and now the federal government recognize legally married same sex couples, but they also recognize those who legally changed their sex after they were married.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

No it doesn't. You want to say then, then support it using the laws of marriage that involve the responsibilities and rights/benefits of spouses. I guarantee you can't because not only do some states and now the federal government recognize legally married same sex couples, but they also recognize those who legally changed their sex after they were married.

You can jam a square peg in a round hole if you have a big enough hammer but it doesn't mean the peg was really round and it's bad for both the peg and the hole.
 
You can jam a square peg in a round hole of you have a big enough hammer but it doesn't mean the peg was round and it's bad for both the peg and the hole.

You can use all the idioms and phrases and failed analogies you want, but your argument is still not based in logic, nor have you yet to address what I have been arguing. Where do any marriage laws function in such a way that two people of the same sex cannot legitimately fulfill the responsibilities proscribed by those laws, to either each other or the government? A restriction on entering into marriage is not a law that deals with how marriage legally functions.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

You can use all the idioms and phrases and failed analogies you want, but your argument is still not based in logic, nor have you yet to address what I have been arguing. Where do any marriage laws function in such a way that two people of the same sex cannot legitimately fulfill the responsibilities proscribed by those laws, to either each other or the government? A restriction on entering into marriage is not a law that deals with how marriage legally functions.

Marriage is what the state defines it to be and the union between a man and a woman isn't an exclusion of either man or woman but but a reasonable definition of what actually constitutes marriage and rather sane requirement that it takes BOTH to be a marriage.
 
Marriage is what the state defines it to be and the union between a man and a woman isn't an exclusion of either man or woman but but a reasonable definition of what actually constitutes marriage and rather sane requirement that it takes BOTH to be a marriage.

Marriage is defined in how it functions, otherwise other restrictions on marriage could not have been struck down based on your argument.

It does not take both a man and a woman to function in a legal marriage. That has been proven time and again within our laws, even in states that do not allow same sex couples to marry. Because people legally change their sex and that change does not change their marital status within the law, despite them being treated legally as the opposite sex of their birth and the same sex as their spouse. (The only exception to this is Tennessee, which, last I checked, is the only state that does not allow a person to change the legal sex/gender on their birth certificate at all.) Beyond this, hermaphrodites can get married no matter what their true gender is or what they have been living as or if they are both genders legitimately.
 
Back
Top Bottom