• 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!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

CriticalThought said:
Please provide evidence to support this notion. Any evidence.
Click to expand...

Why would it not? There are so many more independently wealthy women in the world today. Society is no longer treating woman as property as we used to, at least as a whole. Additionally, we already have polyandry families out there not to mention polygamy marriages with mixed genders (more than one of each), so there is no reason to assume they would not come forward as much as the other polygamy families would should it be made legal. If they could do it why would wealthy women not hoard men as the wealthy men were hoarding women?
 
maquiscat said:
Society is no longer treating woman as property as we used to, at least as a whole.
Click to expand...

And its destroying the planet quite frankly. Truly a shame.
 
CriticalThought said:
Unsupported counter. Look at the number of billionaires and millionaires who are men compared to women.
Click to expand...
Oh no! The 0.0001% of Americans that are billionaires are going to take all the women!!
 

Hmmm... trying to figure out if you're more of a bigot, a racist, or just a hater.
 
Taylor said:
Would your children? Would your grandchildren?

Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues
Click to expand...

Depending upon the conditions and assuming my wives and husband are no longer around, yes I might. Of course your post is based upon a presumption of sex and fails to recognize that legal marriage has no requirement of sex and can be obtained for the legal benefits only. And indeed there are many legal benefits that come from the spouse legal relationship as opposed to the family legal relationship. And to answer your unasked question, no I would not have sex with my children. Marriage and sex are not automatically linked.
 
Heh, I think you misinterpreted my post. I was responding to another poster who claimed that polygamy would be extremely rare, even if legalized, I suggested that acceptance was growing, and that even if he might not consider such an arrangement, there's a chance his children or grandchildren would, should this trend continue to grow.
 

Fine. Once we have as many wealthy women wanting to practice polygamy as wealthy men, we can legalize it.
 
Taylor said:
Oh no! The 0.0001% of Americans that are billionaires are going to take all the women!!
Click to expand...

Weak debate ability when you have to ignore half my post to make an irrelevant argument.
 
CriticalThought said:
Weak debate ability when you have to ignore half my post to make an irrelevant argument.
Click to expand...
Lol, you're the one arguing that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because a bunch of extremely rich guys will marry way too many women.

(BTW, the number of male vs female millionaires is not all that different)
 

That is because we move forward to more enlightened positions, and these tend to work better for EVERYONE. We move forward to morally superior positions. We have not moved backward, thanks to the supreme court.


You have not even proffered an argument an argument why recognition of polygamy is a move forward for society so it does NOT follow than numerous wives should be covered by state and federal benefits, when the systems clearly were not designed to support that type of relationship. The statistics don't work is you radically change the underlying assumptions. So, why do you think they should all be covered when the systems were not designed to do that?

maquiscat said:
So why should I have to pay one cost for a spouse and 9 kids and a different one for 9 spouses?
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious. You will not have children with your 9 children, but in most cases you will have children with your spouse or spouses. Therefore in most cases, a plural marriage would end with many more than nine people in it. That is why if you enter a plural marriage, you should pay a higher "family coverage" health insurance rate. Its the same reason that family coverage costs more than single, or employee + spouse coverage. More people potentially and generally spend more on health care, therefore the premium increases. That is the way insurance works.
 
Taylor said:
Lol, you're the one arguing that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because a bunch of extremely rich guys will marry way too many women.

(BTW, the number of male vs female millionaires is not all that different)
Click to expand...

You assume that wealthy women have an interest in marrying many men. I see little evidence to support it. And really all I need it a rational state interest. A societal imbalance makes that cut easily.
 

That isn't a very good argument. You are arguing that polygamy and SSM are not the same in US law because they aren't the same in Islamic law.... You need to go back to the drawing board with that one.

The point in bringing up polygamy is that the rationale for SSM in the American courts is exactly the same as the argument that will be in the courts for polygamy. By ruling favorably on the broad, lazy argument of the gay marriage movement the SCOTUS has left no argument against any marriage.
 

That is one silly argument. Answer your own question: Why is recognition of SSM a "move forward" for society? What does gay marriage actually offer the society as a whole? The one solid argument in favor of SSM is actually a detriment to society. The ability for a gay couple to qualify for each other's Social Security spousal benefits is the one thing that a normal contractual agreement couldn't accomplish... but that is just an added drain on a program already in dire straights, so it doesn't really benefit society to create more SS beneficiaries.


You missed the point. Insurance charges more per person in a single coverage than in a family plan, especially since most plans cap premiums at 4 family members. 9 individual plans would be far more expensive that a plan for 9 family members.
 

Then how can you explain why no other nation that has adopted SSM has done the same for polygamy? Why would we be the first? It is nothing but sour grapes talking. Don't play us for fools.
 

Why should you or anyone else care if polygamy does become legal? What possible effect does it have on your life? Most people still won't be doing it and the ones that do were living together anyway. Why do we have to jump from one group to another trying to impose our will on them instead of just letting people live as they choose? Got Freedom?


When our citizens have rights and the freedom to live their lives as they choose, society benefits greatly. If we banned Christians (or whatever you identify with) from marrying, would that make America more or less free?
 

My argument is not silly, you just fail to understand the gay marriage issue. Perhaps you would like to state why the supreme court should NOT have made it legal across the land. I will explain why they did make it legal. The characteristic of being gay is possessed by a large percentage of the worlds population and it always has been. Estimates vary from 5 - 10% of the population, both male and female. That would make being gay a normally observed human variation in the population. Normal is not bad. You may not understand it, you may not like it, you don't have to. But we all need to respect these peoples dignity as humans. If you think we were made by god, god doesn't make any junk. From the point of view of the state, marriage is not about romantic love, it is about legal rights and responsibilities; rights that people get to enjoy because they chose to commit to a relationship for life, and responsibilities they must live up to within the marriage and afterward if the marriage does not survive. If being gay in a normal human variation in a substantial part of the population, why should those people be denied the right to marry the person they chose?

The mental health community states that being gay is normal, and we should not try to change the gay person, rather we should change the society so it does not view gay people as wrong or in need of being changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

So, for correct reason, society has changed to recognize that being gay is a normal human variation, and these people should be entitled to all the rights that anyone else is entitled to. The supreme court has ordered the society to change, and that is good.

But we are still in the realm of "one person marrying another person", or two in the marriage. There is no change to SS, because if the people were not gay and married a hetero partner they would pay in to cover that person, they pay into SS anyway, and so their gay partner is already covered, unless you can show that SS presumed a certain percentage of gay people who would not be covered.

I await your reasons why polygamy should be allowed.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
You missed the point. Insurance charges more per person in a single coverage than in a family plan, especially since most plans cap premiums at 4 family members. 9 individual plans would be far more expensive that a plan for 9 family members.
Click to expand...


No, you miss the point. It doesn't make any difference to the discussion whether the cost per person is higher or lower for an individual, its irrelevant. The reason most plans cap premiums at 4 family members is because on average, that is the size of a standard family in the US (Its actually 1.9 children per married couple since 1980, so if they charge for 4 people they can scrape together a few extra dollars to cover those few people with 3 or more kids).


Here is a typical polygamous family with Dad, 4 wives and 17 children (that's a total of 22 people in the family). If all the marriages were legal, I don't think an insurance company is going to want to cover them for the same premium that they cover the typical american family of 4.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives


So, you miss the point. The premium for family coverage can be capped at 4 people simply because that is on average how many people are in the typical american family, per the census data. If that were to swell substantially due to the introduction of polygamy, the health insurance policies would have to be rewritten to cover that with a new family class called "plural" or something, unless you want to pay for their expenses in your rate, and I do not.


In fact the Dad may not be able to afford his plural family period. I posted above that 65% of plural families are on welfare, and there is a reason for that. The father cannot cover all the expenses for his large family without help from the state. That is another argument against polygamy as a viable institution, it is not generally economically viable.
 

I guess I did then, but I do not think I was the only one. It I do agree with you, and would further point out that polygamy and polyamory are already growing trends and that there has been much more of it out there that was not before the public eye, FLDS aside, that people realized. A look at the sites I linked to earlier in this thread (#29 I believe) will show accounts of how people have been doing this for decades. I guess the poly closet is the next one for people to come out of.
 
CriticalThought said:
You assume that wealthy women have an interest in marrying many men. I see little evidence to support it. And really all I need it a rational state interest. A societal imbalance makes that cut easily.
Click to expand...

You assume that wealthy men have an interest in marrying that many women. While I see evidence that many would keep a bunch around for their various "interest", why would they necessarily want to marry them, again FLDS aside.

That aside what about all the women unavailable now because they are lesbian, bi with other women, or just plain asexual? Is that not also creating an imbalance? I also note that you have not addressed the poly families like mine and others where there is a mix of men and women.
 
maquiscat said:
That aside what about all the women unavailable now because they are lesbian, bi with other women, or just plain asexual? Is that not also creating an imbalance?
Click to expand...
Only if you assume that there are far more of them than there are gay men, bi with other men, or just plain asexual. is there any evidence that this is the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…