• 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 polygamists have the right to marry?

Libertas-Mors said:
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

Polygamy sounds like an awful idea to me, but part of liberty means the freedom to make crappy life choices.
 
Cardinal said:
Polygamy sounds like an awful idea to me, but part of liberty means the freedom to make crappy life choices.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Not my cup of tea but so long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of another it shouldn't be prohibited.
 
iguanaman said:
Enlighten me then. Where are these other polygamists? If it isn't a religious cult thing I have no problem but aren't polygamist usually bible thumpers? You do have to admit those cults have given polygamy a bad name.
Click to expand...

SInce pologamy isnt legal they dont exactly advertise LOL
not to mention you are making up a strawman.

By default if polygamy was granted everybody said it has to follow the law

that means consenting adults who are not immediately related

so, the law by default would prevent the things you fear or at least make them punisble by law just like they are now.

Nothing would change



Yes those criminals have given polygamy a bad name as i already pointed out in post 39

arent child molesting priest usually bible bumpers? lol
havent their been gay child molester?

do you judge prists and gays as a group based on those criminals too?
 
Libertas-Mors said:
Precisely. Not my cup of tea but so long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of another it shouldn't be prohibited.
Click to expand...

some people have a very hard time doing what you do and i find it sad.

My morals and views are for ME
my god is for ME

in this country it is not to be forced on others and all the decisions i make that would effect all of my fellow citizens should NEVER be based on religion/morals alone, thats hypocritical and illogical.

because this is the rub of it, for all of those people that feel they should push their morals what happens when their morals are not the majority???? i bet their tune changes real fast.

Im thank my god i live in the type of country i do.

i applaud you.
 
AGENT J said:
SInce pologamy isnt legal they dont exactly advertise LOL
not to mention you are making up a strawman.

By default if polygamy was granted everybody said it has to follow the law

that means consenting adults who are not immediately related

so, the law by default would prevent the things you fear or at least make them punisble by law just like they are now.

Nothing would change



Yes those criminals have given polygamy a bad name as i already pointed out in post 39

arent child molesting priest usually bible bumpers? lol
havent their been gay child molester?

do you judge prists and gays as a group based on those criminals too?
Click to expand...

I am always suspicious of anything to do with religion. It is used as an excuse for a multitude of sins. So yes, too many Priests are not what the claim and too many religious sects are not either. I would be suspicious of any religion based polygamist sect because of that.
Do polygamist always have multiple wives or can women have multiple husbands too? I'm sure a really good looking woman could land 6 men easily.
 
iguanaman said:
I am always suspicious of anything to do with religion. It is used as an excuse for a multitude of sins. So yes, too many Priests are not what the claim and too many religious sects are not either. I would be suspicious of any religion based polygamist sect because of that.
Do polygamist always have multiple wives or can women have multiple husbands too? I'm sure a really good looking woman could land 6 men easily.
Click to expand...

through out the world as i understand it there are many forms of the family

not sure but i wouldnt even be surprised if there are all female or male polygamist, homosexuals. BUT that i dont know of.

suspension is fine just take each thing case by case
 
Libertas-Mors said:
The problem with these type of 'statistical arguments' is that they can be used against positions that you probably hold like gay marriage. Discriminating against an entire group of people based on statistics or even worse historical examples gets you into all kinds of ugly contradictions.
Click to expand...

Why would it be counter to my position on gay marriage?
 
Ikari said:
I say no. There has been no large scale, or even moderately scaled, polygamous society that hasn't revolved around sexism, control, subjugation, and repression. If it could ever prove itself restrained to the rights and liberties of the individual, it can be considered.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's when it's culturally enforced. We do no such thing.

There are a minority of people who work best in polyamorous relationships, just like there's a minority who are gay, and a minority who "swing" with their spouse, and a minority who are into BDSM, and a minority who do all kinds of other things. If you look at it closely enough, you realize almost everyone is part of some relationship model minority.

And people do best when they are in relationships that suit them. There is no reason polyamorous people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
 
Libertas-Mors said:
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't. Our current marriage laws aren't written to deal with a marriage involving more than 2 people. Changing them would require quite a bit of work (i.e. money), and I don't think that effort is worth it, since very few people would take advantage of multiple marriage even if it was legal.

What I think is a better idea is to allow polyamorous relationships to get together with a lawyer and draw up a legal contract dictating the terms of their marriage, which could include anything that a marriage includes today (custody of children, joint ownership of property, next of kin benefits, etc.) and then legally recognize those contracts. There might need to be a few laws passed for things like requiring businesses to recognize them for the purposes of being on each others' insurance, but for the most part, it would put the burden of time, effort, and money on the few people who want the benefits and not on the rest of us.
 
Keeping in mind that not all polygamists are associated with the Warren Jeffs clan, if you can afford to have multiple wives you can marry. It isn't my cup of tea, but I don't have a problem with it.

I worked with a guy from Egypt who was married to 3 wives. He said in Egypt you can have as many wives as you wish, but you have to have lots of money. If you buy one wife a gift, you have to buy the rest of your wives the same type of gift. That's not the same as polygamy, but very similar.
 
If Gay marriage is legal, then there should not be any limitations on who, how many, what species, etc.... can get married. If marriage means nothing (as proven by the legalization of gay marriage), then why not?
 
lizzie said:
As far as I know, Mormons don't coerce anyone into polygamous relationships. I know a fair number of Mormons, all of them in monogamous marriages, but of the polygamous marriage practicioners that I've seen, they don't appear to be coerced or urged in any manner.
Click to expand...
Certain sects in certain parts of the country place heavy coercion on the practice. Be that as it is, I still agree with your statement that it's fine as long as consenting adults are involved. I'd like to eliminate (as much as possible) the coercion in those few sects, though.
 
radcen said:
Certain sects in certain parts of the country place heavy coercion on the practice. Be that as it is, I still agree with your statement that it's fine as long as consenting adults are involved. I'd like to eliminate (as much as possible) the coercion in those few sects, though.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
 
They shouldn't be barred from living together or being married in a private sense if they don't voilate other laws (such as if one is not consenting or can't consent). The government has no compelling interest to undergo the massive amount of changes to the legal system to account for all the complications that are inherent when adding a third..or more...individual the equation.

Libertas-Mors said:
Why? Should the state recognize gay marriages? Is the right to marry for consenting adults not universal?
Click to expand...

Because there's a clear middle teir classification being discriminated against in the case of same sex marriage. Men are given a privledge under the law that Women are not given, and vise versa. This requires a high level of reasoning by the government why discriminating against individuals looking to marry the same sex.

Polygamists don't fit into any particular protected group under the EPC and especially not under a middle or top teir category like gender or race. As such, the burden on the government is significantly lower to justify its discrimination under the law. When you pair that with the significantly greater issues in terms of the impact on the law that comes along with polygamy comparitive to same sex marriage it makes for an easy case of justifying the governments discrimination against such a marriage.

Or do you foolishly believe everyone that thinks same sex marriage should be legalized just focus or argue baesd on the emotional twattle that people who love each other should have the right to get government perks?
 
So long as all members are of the consenting age and have given their consent, yes, yes, yes.
 
iguanaman said:
Do you have a fondness for 13 year old girls? That is what polygamy is about.
Click to expand...

Wow. Blanket statement completely flooded by ignorance much?

That's exactly like saying being a catholic priest should be against the law because all catholic priests are pedophiles.
 
Dragonfly said:
Wow. Blanket statement completely flooded by ignorance much?

That's exactly like saying being a catholic priest should be against the law because all catholic priests are pedophiles.
Click to expand...

Or that being black should have legal discriminations because all blacks are criminals. The generalities verge on the brink of absurdity from Iguana.
 
Zyphlin said:
They shouldn't be barred from living together or being married in a private sense if they don't voilate other laws (such as if one is not consenting or can't consent). The government has no compelling interest to undergo the massive amount of changes to the legal system to account for all the complications that are inherent when adding a third..or more...individual the equation.



Because there's a clear middle teir classification being discriminated against in the case of same sex marriage. Men are given a privledge under the law that Women are not given, and vise versa. This requires a high level of reasoning by the government why discriminating against individuals looking to marry the same sex.

Polygamists don't fit into any particular protected group under the EPC and especially not under a middle or top teir category like gender or race. As such, the burden on the government is significantly lower to justify its discrimination under the law. When you pair that with the significantly greater issues in terms of the impact on the law that comes along with polygamy comparitive to same sex marriage it makes for an easy case of justifying the governments discrimination against such a marriage.

Or do you foolishly believe everyone that thinks same sex marriage should be legalized just focus or argue baesd on the emotional twattle that people who love each other should have the right to get government perks?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the 'burden' of the government is. The question is whether polygamists should be able to get married and you have offered nothing compelling of substantive either way.
 
Libertas-Mors said:
I say yes. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...
Should cat-owners be allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

According to the foundational appeal to definitive propriety in any such question, the answer is, obviously, no.

Likewise, since marriage is what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- again with respect to definitive propriety, the question itself is ludicrously stupid, and the answer is again, obviously, no.

Polygamists can have their own-named civil union domestic partnership, legally recognized by government and private enterprise, calling it polmarriage or whatever, but they can't call it marriage, because that civil union domestic partnership is already pre-defined for over 12,000 years and legally pre-named as being what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

It never ceases to amaze me how pre-conceived ideology, left, right, or libertarianly schizoid, can so greatly dumb down its sufferer to the degree that the obvious is rendered nebulous to them. :roll:
 
Libertas-Mors said:
It doesn't matter what the 'burden' of the government is. The question is whether polygamists should be able to get married and you have offered nothing compelling of substantive either way.
Click to expand...

So you get to decide what criteria people use to decide for themselves the answer to the question?

My first criteria when it comes to the LAW is whether or not the LAW is constitutional in nature. The marriage laws as they current sit are an unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of gender in my mind, so I don't agree with them. I see no constitutional issue what so ever when it comes to discriminating against polygamists.

My next criteria would be is it a worth while, necessary, useful law that falls within some general scope of the Government. In terms of polygamy, I don't view it as exceedingly needed nor worth while in terms of the multitude of legal issues that it interjects into things.

I don't see any compelling reason to change the legal code significantly to allow for polygamy to be recognized under the law. "They're consenting adults" is not a compelling reason as we don't have the government officially recognizing MANY things consenting adults can do together. "But yo'ure letting the gays do it!" is not a compelling reason, because there's an actual strong constitutional reasoning behind allowing for that in my mind...one that is simply not present when it comes to polygamy.

No, polygamists shouldn't be able to get married in a sense that is legally recognized and incentivized by the Government.
 
Ontologuy said:
It never ceases to amaze me how pre-conceived ideology, left, right, or libertarianly schizoid, can so greatly dumb down its sufferer to the degree that the obvious is rendered nebulous to them. :roll:
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how those most prone to disparaging the intelligence of other show nothing of the stuff, themselves.

Dressing up poorly written bigotry with words gleaned from a thesaurus does not a compelling argument make.
 
Ontologuy said:
Should cat-owners be allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

According to the foundational appeal to definitive propriety in any such question, the answer is, obviously, no.

Likewise, since marriage is what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- again with respect to definitive propriety, the question itself is ludicrously stupid, and the answer is again, obviously, no.

Polygamists can have their own-named civil union domestic partnership, legally recognized by government and private enterprise, calling it polmarriage or whatever, but they can't call it marriage, because that civil union domestic partnership is already pre-defined for over 12,000 years and legally pre-named as being what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

It never ceases to amaze me how pre-conceived ideology, left, right, or libertarianly schizoid, can so greatly dumb down its sufferer to the degree that the obvious is rendered nebulous to them. :roll:
Click to expand...

The word 'marriage' itself in a secular country is not important to me. A civil union would be just fine as far as I am concerned. Although, I don't see how it preserves the sanctity of marriage from your POV provided that (read IF) the SC allows for gay marriage.
 
As to the differences between gay marriage and polygamy, the differences should be obvious. Sexual orientation is hard wired, while polygamy is an entirely societal construct. As Ikari pointed out, such a traditional construct is based upon subjugation and repression, and so acts to limit rights rather than further them.

As to the inane arguments about marrying other species, these do not address the matter of consent, so obviously so that anybody suggesting this is any sort of logical outgrown from allowing gay marriage deserves nothing but complete ridicule.
 
Most overused... and misused... word in topics like this: "obvious".

If anything were literally obvious, there wouldn't be any debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom