• 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!

Why not polygamy?

Polygamy: The Next Marriage Rights Frontier - YouTube

A lot of people are claiming that if we allow gay marriage then polygamy will be next. Well, why not? If a man wants to marry a man, and that is legal, then why can't a man marry two women? I realize that our laws are based largely on Roman law, which incidentally was set up for inheritance purposes and recognized that men would be able to have slave girls and boys at their disposal. When the Catholic Church came along they adopted these laws into doctrine despite the prophets of the Bible having been polygamists. Even Martin Luther later noted that the Bible has no condemnation of polygamy.

So why not allow it? There seems a lot more women out there who would like to settle down and have some kids than there are men available that anyone would want to reproduce with.

Shucks.....I heard over the grapevine that all five of Romney's sons have a different mom. They are Mormons you know.

Things could get complicated if the TN Republicans have their way. Here in the south some of the guys want to marry sheep. All the Democrats wanted to do was let every citizen have the same opportunity. What else is new??
 
Last edited:
I don't support any state sanctioned marriage that isn't configured as one man and one woman.
I figured as much. Of course, you really have no legitimate reason for your position, but you're welcome to believe what you wish.

At the end of the day, supporting gay marriage does not mean one has to support pedophilia, even if pedophilia is recognized as a sexual orientation.
 
I figured as much. Of course, you really have no legitimate reason for your position, but you're welcome to believe what you wish.

The feeling on that is mutual. :)
 
Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a sign of being a womanizing jackass.

(Why womanizer?)

I've yet to see a polygamous system where there are more men for one woman, except in pr0n videos, which is not really a relationship thing.

So yeah.

Homosexually is a sexual orientation. being a polygamous womanizer isn't. It's just a sign of a flawed upbringing.
 
Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a sign of being a womanizing jackass.

(Why womanizer?)

I've yet to see a polygamous system where there are more men for one woman, except in pr0n videos, which is not really a relationship thing.

So yeah.

Homosexually is a sexual orientation. being a polygamous womanizer isn't. It's just a sign of a flawed upbringing.

Sexual "orientation" is merely what you want to have sex with. The state need not accommodate everyone's sexual preferences, whether it's one person of the opposite sex, many people of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, many of the same sex, children, etc. etc.
 
Sexual "orientation" is merely what you want to have sex with. The state need not accommodate everyone's sexual preferences, whether it's one person of the opposite sex, many people of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, many of the same sex, children, etc. etc.

I agree.
the country and the people shouldn't tolerate all sexual orientations or sexual desires.

So we shouldn't encourage bestiality or pedophilia. So for the purpose of not going into the absurd, lets limit ourselves to the 2 sexual orientations that should be tolerated: straight and gay.

But polygamy is not a sexual orientiation.

Do you want a polygamous relationship with people of the other sex? that makes you a straight man/woman who wants to have sex with multiple partners in a relationship.

Do you want a polygamous relationship with people of the same sex? That makes you a homosexual man/woman etc.

There is no polygamous sexual orientation. it's still just straight/gay.
 
There is no polygamous sexual orientation. it's still just straight/gay.

It's still just "biologically functional" and "anything else". Polygamy makes more sense for marriage than homosexuality does. At least a polygamous marriage can still be "marriage" since it includes at least one of each sex and forms a biologically correct family unit.
 
I would have to agree with you. I'm not saying I would want to participate in polygamy but if someone wants two wives I don't see the problem if both wives can agree.

Marriage equality should mean anyone can marry anyone and anything they choose. Thats why its so wrong
 
It's still just "biologically functional" and "anything else". Polygamy makes more sense for marriage than homosexuality does. At least a polygamous marriage can still be "marriage" since it includes at least one of each sex and forms a biologically correct family unit.

Absolutely not.

Polygamy is just legislated adultery. I don't know about you, but I think it's harder to explain to a child that he has 3 mommies and 1 pappy rather than just 2 pappy's.

Also, most of the scientific data shows that children raised by proper homosexual couples suffer no traumas because of that fact. So children raised by good gay parents will end up just as well balanced as children raised by good straight parents. So it's the quality of the parenting that does the trick, not the gender of the parents.
However, most scientific data shows that children raised in polygamous circles tend to develop with unhealthy perceptions regarding one gender or another. So traumas that would otherwise not exist, exist in a polygamous union for the children.

And again, I've yet to see a polygamous system where it becomes acceptable for one woman to have multiple male partners. It's just for one male to have multiple women partners. Most notably we can count islam and mormonism. Sexist, backwards, pathetic ideologies.
 
Absolutely not.

Polygamy is just legislated adultery. I don't know about you, but I think it's harder to explain to a child that he has 3 mommies and 1 pappy rather than just 2 pappy's.

Also, most of the scientific data shows that children raised by proper homosexual couples suffer no traumas because of that fact. So children raised by good gay parents will end up just as well balanced as children raised by good straight parents. So it's the quality of the parenting that does the trick, not the gender of the parents.
However, most scientific data shows that children raised in polygamous circles tend to develop with unhealthy perceptions regarding one gender or another. So traumas that would otherwise not exist, exist in a polygamous union for the children.

And again, I've yet to see a polygamous system where it becomes acceptable for one woman to have multiple male partners. It's just for one male to have multiple women partners. Most notably we can count islam and mormonism. Sexist, backwards, pathetic ideologies.

Polygamy goes either way. Polyandry and polygyny are specific about the 1 to many relationship by gender. As to how "well balanced" children raised by homosexual couples are, the bottom line is that there hasn't been enough research to draw any definitive conclusions. Not all the "studies" on homosexual parenting conclude that homosexual parents and normal parents are "same/same". Family Research Council I know that's going to result in an ad hominem against the source, but it is what it is.
 
and would like to add that Pedophilia, Bestiality, and other abnormal sexual orientations are all listed as mental defects but not Homosexuality

I would like to add that sex with a child or animal is rape, since children and animals cannot consent.

We kicked that door open when we decides that marriage would be what "you" wanted it to be, you being those who felt the tradition that races shouldn't intermingle.

At least be honest and admit your Pandora's box flippancy is purely hypocritically based on the notion and ego that YOUR view is good and anything more than that means it "opens the door" for everything else

Thank you. This "opening the door" nonsense is getting really old. Homosexuality isn't some flood gate that keeps out all the evils. There's no "redefining" going on. There's a group with a legitimate legal argument about why their different treatment is unconstitutional and wrong. That's it. It doesn't lead to anything else. There is no Pandora's Box.
 
Not admitting that there's anything hypocritical about what I said, because there isn't.

Sure there is, in that you're suggesting specifically that same sex marriage is going to magically be the thing that opens pandora's box and that such a box would stay closed if we'd just leave it as it is. Which ignores that "many of the same arguments used to advance SSM" (and to oppose it) were used in terms of bi-racial marriage. So either that box is ALREADY open based on the CURRENT marriage situation and you're just harping on SSM because you were fine with it being opened before OR you're just ignoring the fact thta the box was already opened and yo'ure just harping on SSM.

SSM is not going to "lead" to those other things by your logic because either:

1) SSM is just riding the wave started by bi-racial marriage

OR

2) Earlier changes to what marriage is couldn't possibly start a wave of things, but for some reason SSM can.
 
Give it some time. Homosexuality was listed as a mental defect until enough politically correct votes (of psychiatrist) conspired and said it wasn't.

And all sorts of fun things were listed as evidence someone was a "witch" until people realized facts and logic enough to think otherwise. Funny, it's only the change that occured that you DISLIKE and DISAGREE with that was magically a great conspiracy to push people to be immoral. :roll:
 
I would like to add that sex with a child or animal is rape, since children and animals cannot consent.



Thank you. This "opening the door" nonsense is getting really old. Homosexuality isn't some flood gate that keeps out all the evils. There's no "redefining" going on. There's a group with a legitimate legal argument about why their different treatment is unconstitutional and wrong. That's it. It doesn't lead to anything else. There is no Pandora's Box.

As individuals, they are treated no differently at all. They know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If they don't want that, it's not the state's problem to have to fix for them. Nor is it the state's duty to reform marriage for the sake of people that don't want actual marriage but some "gender-neutral" facsimile of it.
 
Thank you. This "opening the door" nonsense is getting really old. Homosexuality isn't some flood gate that keeps out all the evils. There's no "redefining" going on.

Disagree entirely on the last point there.

There absolutely IS a redfining going on. LEGALLY, the term of marriage would need to be redefined. Societally also, the general connotation and meaning of the word would also be redefined. What it is to be of "Drinking Age" has been redefined for an instance regarding the law and society.

That doesn't inherently mean it's a bad thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with redfining something. But that doesn't change that it absolutely IS a redefinition.

And the Pandora's box type of argument is a legitimate one, but pointing the finger at GAY MARRIAGE isn't. If one is going to make the argument that "changing marriage" will lead to it changing into even more things we find socially reprehensible, then one must point the finger at the first time marriage was majorly changed to allow something that was viewed by many as "socially reprehensible". If you ignore or attempt to excuse the change that allowed for bi-racial marriage in order to focus on same sex marriage, then it shows ones argument isn't actually based on an actual worry of socially reprehensible things being allowed and is firmly based singularly on things YOU PERSONALLY find offensive as being allowed. Which is a rather ****ty argument.
 
Disagree entirely on the last point there.

There absolutely IS a redfining going on. LEGALLY, the term of marriage would need to be redefined. Societally also, the general connotation and meaning of the word would also be redefined. What it is to be of "Drinking Age" has been redefined for an instance regarding the law and society.

That doesn't inherently mean it's a bad thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with redfining something. But that doesn't change that it absolutely IS a redefinition.

And the Pandora's box type of argument is a legitimate one, but pointing the finger at GAY MARRIAGE isn't. If one is going to make the argument that "changing marriage" will lead to it changing into even more things we find socially reprehensible, then one must point the finger at the first time marriage was majorly changed to allow something that was viewed by many as "socially reprehensible". If you ignore or attempt to excuse the change that allowed for bi-racial marriage in order to focus on same sex marriage, then it shows ones argument isn't actually based on an actual worry of socially reprehensible things being allowed and is firmly based singularly on things YOU PERSONALLY find offensive as being allowed. Which is a rather ****ty argument.

I think you are right on almost all points. The only point that is debatable is whether or not the arguments for homosexual marriage will open the door for other redefinitions of marriage and I think the fact of the matter is that it will depend on what the winning arguments for gay marriage are, if it turns out that legal arguments in the Supreme Court accomplishes it. If that's the way it goes down, then any arguments that make the case for homosexual marriage are arguments that can be used for other deviations from the new existing definition. If, on the other hand, society decides to legislate homosexual marriage into existence, there is no floodgate to open. There is only a redefiniton of marriage by "the people", as opposed to a constitutional rights issue that adults who wanted to get married but couldn't because the definition of marriage didn't include whatever model of relationship they desired.
 
Absolutely not.

Polygamy is just legislated adultery. I don't know about you, but I think it's harder to explain to a child that he has 3 mommies and 1 pappy rather than just 2 pappy's.

Also, most of the scientific data shows that children raised by proper homosexual couples suffer no traumas because of that fact. So children raised by good gay parents will end up just as well balanced as children raised by good straight parents. So it's the quality of the parenting that does the trick, not the gender of the parents.
However, most scientific data shows that children raised in polygamous circles tend to develop with unhealthy perceptions regarding one gender or another. So traumas that would otherwise not exist, exist in a polygamous union for the children.

And again, I've yet to see a polygamous system where it becomes acceptable for one woman to have multiple male partners. It's just for one male to have multiple women partners. Most notably we can count islam and mormonism. Sexist, backwards, pathetic ideologies.

If I live with 6 women Im a stud if I marry two of them Im a criminal . Go figure
 
I think you are right on almost all points. The only point that is debatable is whether or not the arguments for homosexual marriage will open the door for other redefinitions of marriage and I think the fact of the matter is that it will depend on what the winning arguments for gay marriage are, if it turns out that legal arguments in the Supreme Court accomplishes it. If that's the way it goes down, then any arguments that make the case for homosexual marriage are arguments that can be used for other deviations from the new existing definition. If, on the other hand, society decides to legislate homosexual marriage into existence, there is no floodgate to open. There is only a redefiniton of marriage by "the people", as opposed to a constitutional rights issue that adults who wanted to get married but couldn't because the definition of marriage didn't include whatever model of relationship they desired.


Actually, a loose interpretation on freedom to associate can be applied to both the SSM debate and any other form of marriage. The question then becomes, how much association does freedom permit?


Tim-
 
I would like to add that sex with a child or animal is rape, since children and animals cannot consent.
.

you do know you can be a pedophile and never commit the act. same as being a homosexual. its not the act that makes you one it is the orientation.

never in the description of a mental disorder does it state it needs to be illegal so you comment is not relevant
 
Last edited:
If I live with 6 women Im a stud if I marry two of them Im a criminal . Go figure

If you live with 6 women you're a debased pervert who has no morals or ethics. Go figure.
 
I think you are right on almost all points.

So you must've read and understood my point...

The only point that is debatable is whether or not the arguments for homosexual marriage will open the door for other redefinitions of marriage and I think the fact of the matter is that it will depend on what the winning arguments for gay marriage are, if it turns out that legal arguments in the Supreme Court accomplishes it.

...AND you apparently didn't.

The "arguments for homosexual marriage", in terms of redefining marriage, are similar to those used for interracial marriage. As such, it's not about "homosexual marriage" is "open[ing] the doors"...it's about INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE having opened the door that allowed Same Sex Marriage. Even in your attempt to seperate the notion of a judicial or legislative foundation for the redefinition, a judicially forced changed would still not be proof that "homosexual marriage" is "opening" any doors. Rather, it's showing that interracial marriage opened the door and same sex marriage is just the latest one to walk THROUGH that door.

If ones issue is with the notion that the "door is opening" in a general sense, then attacking Same Sex Marriage shows dishonesty because that's not what opened the door. If ones issue is with the notion of same sex marriage and not necessarily "redefining marriage", then one continually complaining about redefinition is ALSO not be honest.

If that's the way it goes down, then any arguments that make the case for homosexual marriage are arguments that can be used for other deviations from the new existing definition. If, on the other hand, society decides to legislate homosexual marriage into existence, there is no floodgate to open. There is only a redefiniton of marriage by "the people", as opposed to a constitutional rights issue that adults who wanted to get married but couldn't because the definition of marriage didn't include whatever model of relationship they desired.[/QUOTE]
 
Polygamy goes either way. Polyandry and polygyny are specific about the 1 to many relationship by gender. As to how "well balanced" children raised by homosexual couples are, the bottom line is that there hasn't been enough research to draw any definitive conclusions. Not all the "studies" on homosexual parenting conclude that homosexual parents and normal parents are "same/same". Family Research Council I know that's going to result in an ad hominem against the source, but it is what it is.

The man who founded that institute, Tony perkins, is a born-again christian. A southern baptist. Born again christians' leaders are brainwashed, loony people who don't deserve to be leaders or christians.

That being said, the real source is this:

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study

Taken from your link. Now lets read the conclusion. As to whether this material trumps all, as it is hailed in that link, is debatable. I did say
most of the scientific data shows that children raised by proper homosexual couples suffer no traumas because of that fact.
Not all.

So lets read the conclusion of the real source.

Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number.

This basically says that yes, gays can be good parents if they are good parents. Not all gays are good parents, just as not all normal people are good parents. Being of one sexual orientation doesn't make you a good parent. Being a good parent does. And yes, it emphasizes the fact that gays and gay couples, as well as kids raised by them, have a stigma attached to them.

Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.

And this would support the idea that indeed, gay parents that raise kids will result in those kids being challenged in certain areas of life.

Then again, this is one study. hey look... another one.
http://www.ibtimes.com/children-sam...s-argumentative-australian-study-says-1297205

Children With Same-Sex Parents ‘Healthier, Less Argumentative,’ Australian Study Says

So it's safe to say that while the jury is still out, there is enough data to support gay couples being allowed to adopt children.

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

From the American Academy of Pediatrics
Technical Report
Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian
 
If you live with 6 women you're a debased pervert who has no morals or ethics. Go figure.

I would disagree, actually. I think that real immorality is lying in the context of romance or sex. Having multiple partners is just fine so long as everyone knows about it and agrees to it. Very much to each their own.

This is one of the reasons why I think polygamy might very well enjoy legal protection. But certainly not as a consequence of legally protected SSM. No more than SSM is a consequence of interracial marriage.
 
Slippery slope is a fallacy.
 
If you live with 6 women you're a debased pervert who has no morals or ethics. Go figure.
I feel the same way about homosexuals. Go figure.

But as long as they keep it in their bedrooms i dont care what anyone else does. As long as all parties enjoy themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom