• 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 .
Polygamy is illegal in the USA

Anyone involved in this will likely end up in prison.

Learn more:wikipedia.org/wiki/polygamy_and_bigamy_laws_in_the_U.S.

It's illegal but they have "workarounds" by only marrying one partner legally and never referring to "sisster-wives" as "wives" in any statement that could be used as evidence. They'd be very happy to argue that they are being discriminated against and prevented from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of bigots wrote marriage laws to keep them from marrying the people that they loved. They're very supportive of this homosexual marriage agenda and are optimistic that the arguments for it will end up striking down what they consider to be the discriminatory laws against polygamy, as well.
 
It's illegal but they have "workarounds" by only marrying one partner legally and never referring to "sisster-wives" as "wives" in any statement that could be used as evidence. They'd be very happy to argue that they are being discriminated against and prevented from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of bigots wrote marriage laws to keep them from marrying the people that they loved. They're very supportive of this homosexual marriage agenda and are optimistic that the arguments for it will end up striking down what they consider to be the discriminatory laws against polygamy, as well.




They will have a very long wait before that ever happens.
 
They will have a very long wait before that ever happens.

True. They have to wait for the homosexuals to win all 50 states first and that's going to take awhile.... then they have to start queuing up their own cases. They're figuring 20 years. Homosexuals are thinking 10.
 
I really have never heard about polygamists protesting about being unable to marry though, at least not widespread or newsworthy.

Probably for the same reasons that you didn't hear about gays protesting about being unable to marry even 30 years ago. Right now gays have more acceptance than polys do.

Polygamy is illegal in the USA

Anyone involved in this will likely end up in prison.

Learn more:wikipedia.org/wiki/polygamy_and_bigamy_laws_in_the_U.S.

Do you not get that the discussion is about a change in the laws? A discussion on what should be, not what is? Right now SSM is legal in some states and illegal in others. Interracial marriage was illegal at one time and now no longer is. If you are going to debate then put up your reasons as to why it should or should not be a part of our legal system. If all you are going to keep noting what is currently illegal in these thread, you'll need to change your ID to Captain Obvious.
 
Polygamy is illegal in the USA

Anyone involved in this will likely end up in prison.

Learn more:wikipedia.org/wiki/polygamy_and_bigamy_laws_in_the_U.S.

BTW this is what your link brings up in it's entirety.

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Polygamy and bigamy laws in the U.S. in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Search for "Polygamy and bigamy laws in the U.S." in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.

Even for a Wikipedia reference (which is not normally good idea) this is sad support for your point
 
Probably for the same reasons that you didn't hear about gays protesting about being unable to marry even 30 years ago. Right now gays have more acceptance than polys do.



Do you not get that the discussion is about a change in the laws? A discussion on what should be, not what is? Right now SSM is legal in some states and illegal in others. Interracial marriage was illegal at one time and now no longer is. If you are going to debate then put up your reasons as to why it should or should not be a part of our legal system. If all you are going to keep noting what is currently illegal in these thread, you'll need to change your ID to Captain Obvious.




Current laws in the USA are not obvious or even known by everyone
 
BTW this is what your link brings up in it's entirety.



Even for a Wikipedia reference (which is not normally good idea) this is sad support for your point




I don't waste time worrying about issues that don't concern me.

Anyone who wants to research this should think about using Google.
 
Current laws in the USA are not obvious or even known by everyone

I'm sure someone somewhere will eventually read this and think to themselves, "Oh my God, if shrubnose hadn't informed me that there wasn't any state where polygamy was legal, I'd have NEVER known that! Why, even after reading through over 500 posts discussing whether homosexual marriage paves the way for polygamy TO BECOME legal, I'd have never known that it wasn't already legal without his help. Holy, hot damn, I am so grateful that he took the time to state the obvious".

And, of course, a "like" for your post will be forthcoming when that person finally reads it.
 
I don't waste time worrying about issues that don't concern me.

Anyone who wants to research this should think about using Google.

You don't waste your time pulling up factual support for your points? So you just throw out random links and say you're right? If this issue doesn't concern you then why are you commenting on it and throwing out links like you had any clue?
 
I'm sure someone somewhere will eventually read this and think to themselves, "Oh my God, if shrubnose hadn't informed me that there wasn't any state where polygamy was legal, I'd have NEVER known that! Why, even after reading through over 500 posts discussing whether homosexual marriage paves the way for polygamy TO BECOME legal, I'd have never known that it wasn't already legal without his help. Holy, hot damn, I am so grateful that he took the time to state the obvious".

And, of course, a "like" for your post will be forthcoming when that person finally reads it.




And I will be eternally grateful for that 'like'.
 
And if they aren't struck down, then you need to be just as satisfied that justice was served.

No I don't. We'll just fight harder to get those laws changed through legislative means and continue to fight through the courts with better arguments. It will not be a 9-0 decision that keeps bans in place. It would be no less than 5-4 keeping them in place without some major issues causing a drastic shift in the makeup of the Court. But even then, as we saw with interracial marriage bans and even sodomy laws, those keep coming up until the laws are struck down. The laws are unconstitutional.

Now, I nor anyone I know will riot or do anything violent against such a decision. It will simply be legal methods to overcome the decision because more freedom is always what we should strive for.
 
Last edited:
This is a debate site. I find it an interesting topic to debate.
Actually, you find it an interesting topic to defend. There's a difference ;)

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.
I posted that link for you to dismantle, ChrisL, not for you to stamp your feet for proof or references. That's what Liberals do. If you don't like that site, then destroy it with facts, or simply ignore it. Either way, it's food for thought; nothing more.

No, I don't want the government involved in people's personal lives or decisions as long as they are not hurting someone else.
Read that article I posted, ChrisL. I mean, really read it this time. You might actually wake up and finally see what's truly going on.
 
Actually, you find it an interesting topic to defend. There's a difference ;)

I posted that link for you to dismantle, ChrisL, not for you to stamp your feet for proof or references. That's what Liberals do. If you don't like that site, then destroy it with facts, or simply ignore it. Either way, it's food for thought; nothing more.

Read that article I posted, ChrisL. I mean, really read it this time. You might actually wake up and finally see what's truly going on.
The fact that you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal is telling of how small-minded your understanding of politics is.
 
The fact that you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal is telling of how small-minded your understanding of politics is.
Perhaps I should save time and refer to them as Communists.
 
Actually, you find it an interesting topic to defend. There's a difference ;)

Are you claiming to know anything at all about me? No you don't. The difference is, your reasons for denying same-sex couples or polygamous families marriage is because you disagree with their lifestyles.

I posted that link for you to dismantle, ChrisL, not for you to stamp your feet for proof or references. That's what Liberals do. If you don't like that site, then destroy it with facts, or simply ignore it. Either way, it's food for thought; nothing more.

Stamp my feet? No sorry, your link is truly sucky.

Read that article I posted, ChrisL. I mean, really read it this time. You might actually wake up and finally see what's truly going on.

I read it, and like I said, there are no references to anything. It's pretty much a blog that is loaded down with opinions, and the accusations they make are not backed with any evidence.
 
Thanks for proving my point. :lol:
Tell me what you know, Lakryte. You're a Californian so tell me how the universe rolls. You people love to do that kind of stuff. ;)
 
Are you claiming to know anything at all about me?
Yes. You're a defender of gay marriage. Prove me wrong.

Stamp my feet? No sorry, your link is truly sucky.
Yet here you are....

I read it, and like I said, there are no references to anything. It's pretty much a blog that is loaded down with opinions, and the accusations they make are not backed with any evidence.
I see. You need hard cold facts, or it doesn't exist.

Tell me something, ChrisL. Does God exist?
 
Yes. You're a defender of gay marriage. Prove me wrong.

I'm defending it here yes. I think gay people should be able to married too.

Yet here you are....

Yes, here I am. What does that have to do with your link?

I see. You need hard cold facts, or it doesn't exist.
Tell me something, ChrisL. Does God exist?

Silly. Debate the topic or not.
 
What about the polygamists!?!

No I don't. We'll just fight harder to get those laws changed through legislative means and continue to fight through the courts with better arguments. It will not be a 9-0 decision that keeps bans in place. It would be no less than 5-4 keeping them in place without some major issues causing a drastic shift in the makeup of the Court. But even then, as we saw with interracial marriage bans and even sodomy laws, those keep coming up until the laws are struck down. The laws are unconstitutional.

Now, I nor anyone I know will riot or do anything violent against such a decision. It will simply be legal methods to overcome the decision because more freedom is always what we should strive for.

I see. You only support the Supreme Court decisions that go your way. Landmark decisions have been 5-4 many times. Better understand that when you roll those dice, it might decide this forever and it may not be the decision you want. That's life.
 
I'm defending it here yes. I think gay people should be able to married too.
It took you several responses to admit that, but thank you for your honesty.

Yes, here I am. What does that have to do with your link?
My link "sucks" but you're still here. Why? I've given you my response, but you're still screaming for facts. Do you ever actually observe your surroundings, ChrisL, or are you 100% dependent on your understanding of facts?

Silly. Debate the topic or not.
Not. I've already given you my response. I don't have time to roll up my sleeves and do the necessary research.
 
It took you several responses to admit that, but thank you for your honesty.

Welcome! :)

My link "sucks" but you're still here. Why? I've given you my response, but you're still screaming for facts. Do you ever actually observe your surroundings, ChrisL, or are you 100% dependent on your understanding of facts?

I'm "screaming" for facts? :lol: What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is a debate site. If you are going to make claims as IF they were facts, then be prepared to back them up with at least something.

Not. I've already given you my response. I don't have time to roll up my sleeves and do the necessary research.

So then you are forfeiting to me? Well alright! :2razz:
 
I'm "screaming" for facts? :lol: What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is a debate site. If you are going to make claims as IF they were facts, then be prepared to back them up with at least something.
I did give you something. And when I come across something else, I'll give you more.

So then you are forfeiting to me? Well alright! :2razz:
I don't forfeit to anyone. You'll get the info you need when I get more time. Relax. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom