• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 .

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
 

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
75,541
Reaction score
55,247
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since the topic of legalized polygamy has always been hopelessly muddled with the topic of gay marriage, I've never actually seen a clean set of arguments for and against it. To be honest I'd be very happy if this were to be such a thread.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
3,581
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
--------------


Most of my knowledge of polygamy comes from the highly publicized prosecutions of cultists.
These cases all seem to involve religion-based brainwashing and old farts marrying underage girls.
Totally unacceptable.
Otherwise, if no coercion is involved, I guess PM is okay with me.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No one should name their cat mittens. It's lazy, and if I can be so blunt, stupid.

As for the topic, who really cares?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wrote this back in 2009:

First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
20,317
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I don't see why not.

While it is not something that most adherents of Christian faiths support, it is not at all unusual in a number of faiths around the world. It is acceptable (under certain conditions) in Islam. It was in the Mainstream of the Mormon faith until a "prophet" bowed to outside pressure, creating the schism where a minority still practice it.

It is acceptable in the Hindu religion (although India passed a law against it in 1955). Even certain segments of the Jewish population still practice it (it is not forbidden in the Torah, which contains several examples of it occurring in biblical times).

It seems to me if all participants agree and can support each other financially in the process, why not let them marry?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The right to marriage includes the ability to marry as many people as you want. There is no reason the state should be able to restrict the rights of people.
 

csense

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
354
Reaction score
171
Location
NE Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If marriage is defined as the union of similar genders, and dissimilar genders, then what logical basis can there be to deny a marriage based upon both.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This issue is appealing and makes sense to me up to a point when one man is allowed to marry more women. But if women want equal treatment and want to be married to more men also then it becomes chaotic.

Basically who is having it with whom!? I know DNA may solve the puzzle of "Who's kid is this anyway that I have to take care of!" Still having the issue applied in women just as equally is really confusing to me.
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Unlike “gay marriage”, plural marriage meets the definition and the purpose of genuine marriage; as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family, in which to raise any children which may be the product of that union. It is certainly hypocritical of anyone to want to force society to accept the vile mockery of “gay marriage”, while opposing plural marriage.

Plural marriage, though not quite in keeping with modern accepted conventions, is a way to form a genuine family; while “gay marriage” serves no purpose other than to degrade and attack the family as the basis of society, and to undermine society a a whole.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unlike “gay marriage”, plural marriage meets the definition and the purpose of genuine marriage; as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family, in which to raise any children which may be the product of that union. It is certainly hypocritical of anyone to want to force society to accept the vile mockery of “gay marriage”, while opposing plural marriage.

Plural marriage, though not quite in keeping with modern accepted conventions, is a way to form a genuine family; while “gay marriage” serves no purpose other than to degrade and attack the family as the basis of society, and to undermine society a a whole.
Since marriage is not about creating a family but raising a family, your entire post is inaccurate and irrelevant.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,161
Reaction score
21,555
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Unlike “gay marriage”, plural marriage meets the definition and the purpose of genuine marriage; as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family, in which to raise any children which may be the product of that union. It is certainly hypocritical of anyone to want to force society to accept the vile mockery of “gay marriage”, while opposing plural marriage.
Surely then it's just as hypocritical for people who support only heterosexual marriage to be against polygamy?
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,153
Location
RVA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Yes and no.

I'm against institutional polygamy, because it's really no different from slavery. Women who grow up in those situations are never given any choice, and they are intentionally inhibited from attaining self-sufficiency, in order to prevent them from leaving.

But people who are in consensual polyamorous relationships of any gender combination? Yes, they should be allowed to marry.

It is not the government's business to decide whose consensual relationship is or isn't moral. Particularly when it recognizes drunk people getting hitched in Vegas. The idea that the government has anything to "protect" in the institution of marriage is laughable.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Unlike “gay marriage”, plural marriage meets the definition and the purpose of genuine marriage; as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family, in which to raise any children which may be the product of that union. It is certainly hypocritical of anyone to want to force society to accept the vile mockery of “gay marriage”, while opposing plural marriage.

Plural marriage, though not quite in keeping with modern accepted conventions, is a way to form a genuine family; while “gay marriage” serves no purpose other than to degrade and attack the family as the basis of society, and to undermine society a a whole.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who think when two men you don't even know are married it somehow affects your own marriage?
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Let me guess, you're one of those people who think when two men you don't even know are married it somehow affects your own marriage?
No.

It is not possible for two men to be married. By definition, marriage has always been, is, and will always be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis of every stable human society that ever has or ever will exist.

My concern is over the severe damage that will unavoidably be done to our society, and to everyone in it, if we are forced to accept a sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Our society can only be as stable as its foundation. If we make our foundation out of garbage, then that is what our society will become.
 
Last edited:

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No.

It is not possible for two men to be married. By definition, marriage has always been, is, and will always be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis of every stable human society that ever has or ever will exist.
No.

Gay marriage has been allowed before and marriage is not something that is set in stone to some sort of standard.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No.

It is not possible for two men to be married. By definition, marriage has always been, is, and will always be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis of every stable human society that ever has or ever will exist.

My concern is over the severe damage that will unavoidably be done to our society, and to everyone in it, if we are forced to accept a sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Our society can only be as stable as its foundation. If we make our foundation out of garbage, then that is what our society will become.
By who's definition? Don't tell me you're so naive to think that there's only one way of viewing marriage in world? Don't tell me for example that you think a rapist and his victim constitutes a "marriage"



Deuteronomy 22: 28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Sure its a man and woman, but is that marriage to you?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No.

It is not possible for two men to be married. By definition, marriage has always been, is, and will always be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis of every stable human society that ever has or ever will exist.

My concern is over the severe damage that will unavoidably be done to our society, and to everyone in it, if we are forced to accept a sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Our society can only be as stable as its foundation. If we make our foundation out of garbage, then that is what our society will become.
This is something you have never been able to successfully prove, and when your position on this is shown to be idiotic, you just repeat the same old inaccurate garbage without substantiating anything. It's a real bad way to debate, but if that's what you can do... unless you'd like to try to prove your position, just once.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,374
Reaction score
27,502
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No.

It is not possible for two men to be married. By definition, marriage has always been, is, and will always be a union between a man and a woman. It is the basis of every stable human society that ever has or ever will exist.

My concern is over the severe damage that will unavoidably be done to our society, and to everyone in it, if we are forced to accept a sick, vulgar mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Our society can only be as stable as its foundation. If we make our foundation out of garbage, then that is what our society will become.
Son, have you ever read the bible? This couldn't be more false.

Wrote this back in 2009:
I guess this is where we differ. I don't think marriage was designed to benefit the state. It's for the individuals involved.

There's no rational reason to not allow polygamists to marry. It's not like they can't live together and raise a family regardless, so why not let them exercise their relationship the way they choose?

Giving them the marriage title or not won't change their actions in raising their kids or "effecting society", but it will go far into giving them a sense of equality.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom