• 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?

  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    Votes: 23 26.4%

  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    Votes: 18 20.7%

  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    Votes: 31 35.6%

  • My cat’s name is Mittens.

    Votes: 10 11.5%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
What about the polygamists!?!

You are consistent and persistent and capable of infinite repetition, RN. I'll give you that.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

ChrisL said:
You're arguments make perfectly good sense to me.
Click to expand...

That's quite an endorsement, LOL. if that doesn't get RN trying to figure out what's wrong with her position, nothing will.
 
Papa bull said:
That's quite an endorsement, LOL. if that doesn't get RN trying to figure out what's wrong with her position, nothing will.
Click to expand...

I can't help it if you can't understand her position or mine. Neither are really that complicated.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

ChrisL said:
I can't help it if you can't understand her position or mine. Neither are really that complicated.
Click to expand...

I understand your position. You're right. It is simple.
 
Papa bull said:
I understand your position. You're right. They're very simple.
Click to expand...

This is a clear sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument. :lol: That's okay. Keep on insulting. It just makes you look weak.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

ChrisL said:
This is a clear sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument. :lol: That's okay. Keep on insulting. It just makes you look weak.
Click to expand...

If you want rebuttal go back and retread all the ones you ignored.
 
ChrisL said:
This is a clear sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument. :lol: That's okay. Keep on insulting. It just makes you look weak.
Click to expand...

Given the courts now decide who loses and who wins, I'm not sure there is a societal "side" any longer...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Given the courts now decide who loses and who wins, I'm not sure there is a societal "side" any longer...
Click to expand...

That's true, but if the question was if the state is discriminating against certain groups of people by denying them marriage certificates, that would probably be the court's domain. It really doesn't seem like a voters issue.
 
ChrisL said:
That's true, but if the question was if the state is discriminating against certain groups of people by denying them marriage certificates, that would probably be the court's domain. It really doesn't seem like a voters issue.
Click to expand...

Are those desiring a polygamous lifestyle not being discriminated against given your viewpoint?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Are those desiring a polygamous lifestyle not being discriminated against given your viewpoint?
Click to expand...

I think any consenting adults or adults should be able to be legally married. I can't think of one good reason why they wouldn't be allowed to. Some people keep complaining about the integrity of marriage and how divorce rates are so high, but that has only to do with heterosexual couples because any other kind of marriage is quite rare right now.

I really have never heard about polygamists protesting about being unable to marry though, at least not widespread or newsworthy.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Are those desiring a polygamous lifestyle not being discriminated against given your viewpoint?
Click to expand...

They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
 
roguenuke said:
They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
Click to expand...

As long as marriage licenses are still required, I don't see polygamy being any more of a problem when it comes to age of consent than any other marriage.
 
ChrisL said:
I think any consenting adults or adults should be able to be legally married. I can't think of one good reason why they wouldn't be allowed to. Some people keep complaining about the integrity of marriage and how divorce rates are so high, but that has only to do with heterosexual couples because any other kind of marriage is quite rare right now.

I really have never heard about polygamists protesting about being unable to marry though, at least not widespread or newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors. That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
 
roguenuke said:
They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
Click to expand...

See post #540...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors.
Click to expand...

Well, that's worked out well, huh? Obviously, marriage does not encourage certain behaviors. I cannot see the logic in how you would think a marriage certificate would alter the way someone would normally behave or to encourage them to behave in a certain way.

That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the sort of issue that should be voted upon.

Also, I don't see who would be harmed by allowing others besides heterosexual couples to marry. What's the big deal?
 
ChrisL said:
As long as marriage licenses are still required, I don't see polygamy being any more of a problem when it comes to age of consent than any other marriage.
Click to expand...

Age of consent isn't the problem with multiple spouse restrictions. The state can show a legitimate state interest is being furthered in just the fact that it is a restriction on how many spouses a person can legally claim, therefore it limits the amount of legally recognized "closest relatives" a person has. This prevents a large number of civil lawsuits from coming up. And limiting the number of people allowed in a contract is not something that doesn't happen in other contracts. For example, a contract that is covered by marriage absent a specific one that grants the right to someone other than a person's legal spouse, is the medical power of attorney. A person can only name one person legally as their medical decision maker in case of their incapacitation. And a person may only have one legal medical POA at a time (the most recent one is considered the legal one, just like a will). This prevents two people from fighting over a medical decision for that person. The way the laws are now, any person who is considered a person's legal spouse is that person's legal decision maker. It makes no provisions in the law for multiple spouses because no one is allowed to have more than one spouse legally. This law would have to be changed, at least slightly, to accommodate multiple spouses. And it isn't the only law that would require modifications to accommodate multiple legally recognized spouses. This is a legitimate state interest in maintaining a legal limit on how many spouses a person can have.

Personally, I don't care if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, as long as they provide documentation that the vast majority of legal issues that would arise just from having legal spouses alone were covered in prearranged agreements beforehand. (And I am all for repealing any laws that say a person cannot privately have multiple spouses or live with whoever the heck they want to.) But I do recognize that the state can most likely successfully argue that there is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting the number of spouses any person can have. They have done so several times in the past.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, that's worked out well, huh? Obviously, marriage does not encourage certain behaviors. I cannot see the logic in how you would think a marriage certificate would alter the way someone would normally behave or to encourage them to behave in a certain way.



I don't think this is the sort of issue that should be voted upon.

Also, I don't see who would be harmed by allowing others besides heterosexual couples to marry. What's the big deal?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the way society views the act. If it is considered as a commodity that can be entered into and be released from easily, it does lose its original intentions...
 
roguenuke said:
Age of consent isn't the problem with multiple spouse restrictions. The state can show a legitimate state interest is being furthered in just the fact that it is a restriction on how many spouses a person can legally claim, therefore it limits the amount of legally recognized "closest relatives" a person has. This prevents a large number of civil lawsuits from coming up. And limiting the number of people allowed in a contract is not something that doesn't happen in other contracts. For example, a contract that is covered by marriage absent a specific one that grants the right to someone other than a person's legal spouse, is the medical power of attorney. A person can only name one person legally as their medical decision maker in case of their incapacitation. And a person may only have one legal medical POA at a time (the most recent one is considered the legal one, just like a will). This prevents two people from fighting over a medical decision for that person. The way the laws are now, any person who is considered a person's legal spouse is that person's legal decision maker. It makes no provisions in the law for multiple spouses because no one is allowed to have more than one spouse legally. This law would have to be changed, at least slightly, to accommodate multiple spouses. And it isn't the only law that would require modifications to accommodate multiple legally recognized spouses. This is a legitimate state interest in maintaining a legal limit on how many spouses a person can have.

Personally, I don't care if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, as long as they provide documentation that the vast majority of legal issues that would arise just from having legal spouses alone were covered in prearranged agreements beforehand. (And I am all for repealing any laws that say a person cannot privately have multiple spouses or live with whoever the heck they want to.) But I do recognize that the state can most likely successfully argue that there is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting the number of spouses any person can have. They have done so several times in the past.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Finally an explanation that makes sense to me. I can understand how multiple spouses in relation to things like wills and medical issues, etc., might impact the state. Maybe they would have to choose one spouse as a decision-maker in such instances. I'm sure a lot of those issues could have some simple solutions, but of course I'm not a lawmaker or a lawyer, so I'm not sure.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors. That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
Click to expand...

If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It has to do with the way society views the act. If it is considered as a commodity that can be entered into and be released from easily, it does lose its original intentions...
Click to expand...

And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.
 
roguenuke said:
If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
Click to expand...

just had to quote you because many people seem not to understand these facts

or they just double talk around it and ignore this fact
 
roguenuke said:
If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
Click to expand...

No, the entire point of the 14th was to ensure slavery was destroyed. You seem to miss that point as do many others. The last time I checked the 10th hadn't been overturned by some other amendment to the Constitution. The courts should be deferring to the States in most instances...
 
ChrisL said:
And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.
Click to expand...

It was and will always be about umm hmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom