• 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!

Should other types of marriage be legalized

The government's duty, in this regard, is to place its support behind what is in the best interest of the nation. Marriage endorsement is about families and providing family support, so the question comes down to if these other marriages are in the best interest of families or not.

I have not seen much evidence that polygamist marriages are better than marriages between two individuals, in terms of raising children. Incest would never work because it causes harmful genetic illnesses.

The problem comes in how we are defining families, in terms of what the government's protection interests. If it is only about children, then those who cannot have children should not be getting married. But we have long since established that a couple alone are a family. So while there may be a legitimate reason to ban consanguineous couples from producing offspring, that does automatically equate to a reason to prohibit a legal marriage. Do note that many incest laws do not cover only consanguinity. Most would prevent sex and/or marriage between couples related only by law.
 
The problem comes in how we are defining families, in terms of what the government's protection interests. If it is only about children, then those who cannot have children should not be getting married. But we have long since established that a couple alone are a family. So while there may be a legitimate reason to ban consanguineous couples from producing offspring, that does automatically equate to a reason to prohibit a legal marriage. Do note that many incest laws do not cover only consanguinity. Most would prevent sex and/or marriage between couples related only by law.

Incest laws should cover those situations where there is a high potential for undue influence on the relationship (raised together from young age, although how young the age that establishes a "family" aversion cuts off hasn't been established, although it seems to be prior to teen years so long as they are close in age) and possibly 1st tier blood relations (parents/children, siblings), but at least give genetic counseling to these individuals (there is a 40% chance of a genetic defect in children born to siblings or parent/children, which is very high compared to normal risk, which is only 2%). The problem is that these relations are hard to establish without getting a court involved, but still should be given consideration.

Polygamy is all a matter of fixing the huge amount and probability of potential legal and financial issues that can come up. Most of them could be dealt with by setting up an agreement before the marriage (each marriage, if spouses are added later). Some of them would require changes to our laws and policies which should be looked into prior to simply doing away with any restrictions. It's not an impossible task, just one no one seems to want to put effort and/or support into.
 
Polygamy has never been legal in the United States. It was practiced by the LDS Church until 1890 in the Utah Territory. Utah didn't become a state until 1896. In 1873, Brigham Young's wife Ann Eliza Webb sued for divorce. She could not be granted a divorce because polygamous marriage was not recognized in the United States. This put the court in the tenuous position that they could recognize the marriage and then grant her a divorce or they could continue to not recognize plural marriage. In 1890 the profit of the LDS Church issued a decree denouncing plural marriage and Utah went on to become a state in 1896.

If you are going to debate please don't insult us by using Yahoo Answers for your credible source. It is not. You will not be able to show any source that shows polygamy to be legal in the US. Since you are claiming that it was legal in the US, you should be able to show that. Is there an old statute that you can quote? Maybe you can find the law where it became illegal. You won't be able to do so because plural marriage NEVER been recognized as a marriage in the US.


Not so. I will try to find some specific dates later, but according to this article, many state laws arose in the 19th century. Now, in order for the law to come about, it had to not be there in the first place, and for it to be a state law, they had to first be a state. If the law didn't exist to make the practice illegal (remember licensing didn't occur until relatively recently) then the practice was not illegal. It may have been socially shunned, but not illegal. You would need to show that laws were instituted by ALL states upon becoming a state or a federal prohibition made upon ratification of the Constitution for polygamy to never have been legal in the US.
 
Here's the issue you have. Polygamy is not legally recognized in the US, but it is not illegal. You can personally marry in private ceremonies or rites as many people as will have you, but you can only legally claim one as your spouse on any legal forms.

That is funny. Nice spin. Polygamy has never been legal in the US. That is my position. Government issue marriage licenses. It has never been legal in the US to issue a marriage license in any state to someone who is already married. Therefore, there have never been any legal polygamous marriages in the US. If you want to play juvenile word games, go ahead. You can't change the fact that polygamous marriage have NEVER been legal in this country.
 
Not so. I will try to find some specific dates later, but according to this article, many state laws arose in the 19th century. Now, in order for the law to come about, it had to not be there in the first place, and for it to be a state law, they had to first be a state. If the law didn't exist to make the practice illegal (remember licensing didn't occur until relatively recently) then the practice was not illegal. It may have been socially shunned, but not illegal. You would need to show that laws were instituted by ALL states upon becoming a state or a federal prohibition made upon ratification of the Constitution for polygamy to never have been legal in the US.

Great. Then you should have no problem finding a state or federal law that said that it was legal to issue a marriage license to someone who was already married. Sign into your law books and produce it. You can't because it never happened. It has never been legal to marry more than one person in the US. You have yet to produce one source that shows polygamy having ever been legal in this country. Not one.

Utah became a state in 1896. The LDS Church specifically forbade polygamous marriage in 1890. One of Brigham Young's wives sought to divorce him and get some big time alimony. To grant her the divorce the federal courts would have had to acknowledge the marriage. A judge initially attempted to do so. The Attorney General of the US intervened. Her divorce suit was subsequently put aside because she was not legally married to him because he was still married to another. Did polygamous marriage happen? Yes, they happened in the Utah Territory prior to 1890. Were they legal marriages? No. The US refused to accept or recognize them as such.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware that we don't extend the same privileges we grant fellow humans to animals. Case in point, we don't require a cow's consent to slaughter it for food.

Thus, we exploit animals for our well-being in so far as we spare them unnecessary suffering and cruelty. Which takes us back to the original argument. Since society can deploy vets to ensure animal welfare, it should regulate bestiality, unless you're a bigoted transspiecephobe who makes it his business to tell people who they can and can't love. Tell me maquiscat, are you a bigot?

I will let you form your own opinion. I will say that should we ever discover human intelligence (or greater) beings, that may or may not have the shape of animals, then that intelligence, and the ability to consent, would make sexual relations permissible. Not necessarily possible, but that's another matter.

I will note an error in your logic, or a best a natural extension. If by regulating and monitoring animals to ensure well being with sexual intercourse with human adults, then by logical extension we can also extend that same principle to children. Since society can deploy pediatricians to ensure child welfare, it should regulate pedophila, unless you're a bigoted pedophobe who makes it his business to tell people who they can and can't love. Tell me gaztopian, are you a bigot?
 
Here's the issue you have. Polygamy is not legally recognized in the US, but it is not illegal. You can personally marry in private ceremonies or rites as many people as will have you, but you can only legally claim one as your spouse on any legal forms.

I think that this has been one of the major confusion point regardless of what type of marriage we are talking about. If we confuse the legal marriage with the social/religious marriage we can simultaneously and correctly declare any given marriage as both legal and illegal at a given point in history. By your point, incest marriage is not illegal, just not legally recognized.
 
Marriage makes someone another's legal family member. Only other humans can legally become another person's kin. If animals were allowed to be recognized as spouses, then they would also have to be allowed to be recognized as children.
We already have people trying to claim their pets on their taxes as dependents. That would make them very happy.
 
That is funny. Nice spin. Polygamy has never been legal in the US. That is my position. Government issue marriage licenses. It has never been legal in the US to issue a marriage license in any state to someone who is already married. Therefore, there have never been any legal polygamous marriages in the US. If you want to play juvenile word games, go ahead. You can't change the fact that polygamous marriage have NEVER been legal in this country.

Your logic has a serious flaw. Marriage licenses weren't issued until the late 19th century, when states began to try and prevent interracial marriages. Therefore prior to that there weren't licenses to issue.
 
Great. Then you should have no problem finding a state or federal law that said that it was legal to issue a marriage license to someone who was already married. Sign into your law books and produce it. You can't because it never happened. It has never been legal to marry more than one person in the US. You have yet to produce one source that shows polygamy having ever been legal in this country. Not one.

Utah became a state in 1896. The LDS Church specifically forbade polygamous marriage in 1890. One of Brigham Young's wives sought to divorce him and get some big time alimony. To grant her the divorce the federal courts would have had to acknowledge the marriage. A judge initially attempted to do so. The Attorney General of the US intervened. Her divorce suit was subsequently put aside because she was not legally married to him because he was still married to another. Did polygamous marriage happen? Yes, they happened in the Utah Territory prior to 1890. Were they legal marriages? No. The US refused to accept or recognize them as such.
Dude your logic just gets worse. Something does have to have a law to be legal, it gets a law to become illegal. If there is no law against something then it is legal.
 
That is funny. Nice spin. Polygamy has never been legal in the US. That is my position. Government issue marriage licenses. It has never been legal in the US to issue a marriage license in any state to someone who is already married. Therefore, there have never been any legal polygamous marriages in the US. If you want to play juvenile word games, go ahead. You can't change the fact that polygamous marriage have NEVER been legal in this country.

It is not against US law, just state laws. But like same sex marriage, it might not have been specifically prohibited (until relatively recently or at least since the beginning of each states' statehood, with the exception of states coming in around Utah time frame of entry) by even laws in every state, simply not allowed by local practice. What many fail to understand is that not all things forbidden by states were actually forbidden explicitly by state law. It was more a common law thing, unwritten laws that were simply followed. We find this in laws pertaining to same sex couples getting married (most prohibitions on this came into being relatively recently, eventhough same sex couples weren't legally recognized as married to more recently) and even bathroom laws (most areas do not have any laws that say a person must use a specific restroom matching their gender/sex).
 
We already have people trying to claim their pets on their taxes as dependents. That would make them very happy.

And if caught, they get into trouble. That would definitely cause problems and I doubt very many would legitimately agree it should be done considering someone could simply breed or buy themselves multiple "children" using the barest definition. Could someone claim their roaches as their children?
 
I think that this has been one of the major confusion point regardless of what type of marriage we are talking about. If we confuse the legal marriage with the social/religious marriage we can simultaneously and correctly declare any given marriage as both legal and illegal at a given point in history. By your point, incest marriage is not illegal, just not legally recognized.

Actually, in most places, incest marriage (of most types) would be illegal since it is against the law to have a sexual/intimate relationship with someone who is your close relative (incest) so incest marriage would be illegal by default in most such cases. You can have sex with, develop intimate relationships with, have children with multiple people you are in a polygamous relationship with without any legal consequences so long as you never get legally recognized as married to more than one of those adults. You can't do those things in most states (an exception being Rhode Island I know but that not sure of the scope of their marriage laws, although I think they allow marriages of close kin relatives). In fact, most states restrict incest marriage based on laws against incest, if you can't have sex with the person due to close relation, you can't marry them (not sure if it is true in all states with such laws, just pretty sure its true in most).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States
 
Actually, in most places, incest marriage (of most types) would be illegal since it is against the law to have a sexual/intimate relationship with someone who is your close relative (incest) so incest marriage would be illegal by default in most such cases. You can have sex with, develop intimate relationships with, have children with multiple people you are in a polygamous relationship with without any legal consequences so long as you never get legally recognized as married to more than one of those adults. You can't do those things in most states (an exception being Rhode Island I know but that not sure of the scope of their marriage laws, although I think they allow marriages of close kin relatives). In fact, most states restrict incest marriage based on laws against incest, if you can't have sex with the person due to close relation, you can't marry them (not sure if it is true in all states with such laws, just pretty sure its true in most).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States
So tell me, what law would prevent a consanguineous couple from taking vows in front of, say a Wiccan priestess, and not getting a government issued piece of paper? For the sake of argument, let assume they are not having sex and that it could be proven.
 
So tell me, what law would prevent a consanguineous couple from taking vows in front of, say a Wiccan priestess, and not getting a government issued piece of paper? For the sake of argument, let assume they are not having sex and that it could be proven.

How do you prove they are not having sex, not in an intimate relationship, if they are claiming they are married? Sex covered in most incest laws isn't just vaginal sex, so it would be almost impossible to prove they aren't having sex, aren't doing something that could be covered under the restrictions against incest.
 
How do you prove they are not having sex, not in an intimate relationship, if they are claiming they are married? Sex covered in most incest laws isn't just vaginal sex, so it would be almost impossible to prove they aren't having sex, aren't doing something that could be covered under the restrictions against incest.

Such a relationship could be claimed even if they didn't claim marriage.
 
So tell me, what law would prevent a consanguineous couple from taking vows in front of, say a Wiccan priestess, and not getting a government issued piece of paper? For the sake of argument, let assume they are not having sex and that it could be proven.
AFAIK the ceremony would not be illegal. Such private ceremonies have no legal status whatsoever.

That said, I suspect that if a father marries his daughter in any sort of public way, someone is likely to call the cops, and there will be an investigation.

I.e. seems like a far-fetched example.
 
Such a relationship could be claimed even if they didn't claim marriage.

If you aren't claiming marriage, or other relationship viewed as intimate, then there is no reason that you would be under suspicion as violating a law.

For instance, I have lived with one of my siblings in my household for about 11 years now. This relationship is not viewed as intimate, whether I am married or not. It is like roommates. But if I were to try to marry or claim I was married to one of those siblings or have children with them (a brother), that could be viewed as having an intimate relationship with them, and therefore violating the law in many states so face legal consequences.

In the case of polygamy though, you could claim to be married (personally without claiming on legal paperwork) to all of those in your household (unrelated legally to you) and not face any legal consequences (at least not in most places for a while, nor anywhere now).

If I introduced my brother as "my husband", and people found out that he was my brother and I treated him, introduced him regularly as my husband (and they could prove that others were led to believe I viewed him as my husband, not as some joke), then my brother and I could be brought up on charges. The charges would be based on incest, but can be charged simply for attempting to marry him. On the otherhand, if you were to claim a man living in your household as your husband while you are already married to someone else legally, they can't bring you up on charges of polygamy unless you actually fraudulantly attempted to legally marry that person.
 
Your logic has a serious flaw. Marriage licenses weren't issued until the late 19th century, when states began to try and prevent interracial marriages. Therefore prior to that there weren't licenses to issue.

Okay, I get it. You can't show anywhere that plural marriages have ever been legal in the US. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I understand. If indeed plural marriage were legal and recognized in the US, ever you should be able to show it. You can't.
 
It is not against US law, just state laws. But like same sex marriage, it might not have been specifically prohibited (until relatively recently or at least since the beginning of each states' statehood, with the exception of states coming in around Utah time frame of entry) by even laws in every state, simply not allowed by local practice. What many fail to understand is that not all things forbidden by states were actually forbidden explicitly by state law. It was more a common law thing, unwritten laws that were simply followed. We find this in laws pertaining to same sex couples getting married (most prohibitions on this came into being relatively recently, eventhough same sex couples weren't legally recognized as married to more recently) and even bathroom laws (most areas do not have any laws that say a person must use a specific restroom matching their gender/sex).

Sorry, but you are wrong. Prior to 1896, Utah was a territory. Therefore, its laws were federal. It's courts were federal. The federal courts specifically refused to acknowledge Ann Eliza Webb's marriage to Bringham Young by refusing to grant her a divorce. This was because the federal government did not recognize the marriage. The 47th Congress passed the Edmunds Act of 1882, which was signed into law by Chester A Arthur making polygamy a felony in the US. Hopefully, now that I have provided you with information you can understand and admit that you were wrong. While you posted an articulate message it was inaccurate. Polygamy is indeed against federal law and has been since 1882, which is prior to Utah becoming a state. No where does it state that polygamy was ever legal. They simply made it a federal felony to commit polygamy.

"Every person who has a husband or wife living who, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to sucli person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which, shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract."
 
Sorry, but you are wrong. Prior to 1896, Utah was a territory. Therefore, its laws were federal. It's courts were federal. The federal courts specifically refused to acknowledge Ann Eliza Webb's marriage to Bringham Young by refusing to grant her a divorce. This was because the federal government did not recognize the marriage. The 47th Congress passed the Edmunds Act of 1882, which was signed into law by Chester A Arthur making polygamy a felony in the US. Hopefully, now that I have provided you with information you can understand and admit that you were wrong. While you posted an articulate message it was inaccurate. Polygamy is indeed against federal law and has been since 1882, which is prior to Utah becoming a state. No where does it state that polygamy was ever legal. They simply made it a federal felony to commit polygamy.

You're right I'm wrong about it not being against US law. However, that was still not enacted until 1884. We were a country for over 100 years prior to that. So you would need to show a similar law in existence regarding polygamy/bigamy prior to Edmonds to prove it was never legal.
 
No other types of marriage should be legalized, and gay marriage should be made a crime.
Get the government out of marriage. No special tax deductions, demands of fairness or implications of equality should bother the government.
 
Get the government out of marriage. No special tax deductions, demands of fairness or implications of equality should bother the government.

The government is not going to get out of marriage, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. It can't. It recognizes other legal kinship relationships (via birth certificates and/or legal adoption paperwork), which means they have to have a way to set up legal spousal relationships as well.
 
The government is not going to get out of marriage, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. It can't. It recognizes other legal kinship relationships (via birth certificates and/or legal adoption paperwork), which means they have to have a way to set up legal spousal relationships as well.
Not the same thing. The US acknowledges existing relationships. It just shouldn't oversee them.
 
Not the same thing. The US acknowledges existing relationships. It just shouldn't oversee them.

It isn't "overseeing" them. Just acknowledging them and reducing problems that arise from their breakdowns, something that is going to happen. People make mistakes.
 
Back
Top Bottom