• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?

  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    Votes: 23 26.4%

  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    Votes: 18 20.7%

  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    Votes: 31 35.6%

  • My cat’s name is Mittens.

    Votes: 10 11.5%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Dooble said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Long history of child and spousal abuse. The ban on polygamy has little to do with the idea of having multiple spouses, and much more to do with all the abuse closely and strongly correlated with it. Compounds and cults, pre-arranged unions with 10-12 y/o'ds marrying a 30-40 something, etc.

Surtr said:
The legal nightmare it would present...
Click to expand...
Obama'Care is a legal nightmare. Polygamy would only require a couple regulations.

Surtr said:
...as well as societal standards and customs.
Click to expand...
Same as SSM.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. This is a classic bait thread.
 
ernst barkmann said:
today we have people who will sell marriage to foreigners to get into the u.s.

if plural marriages were to take place you would have people selling marriage for........ benefits...IE ..healthcare would be the main one.
Click to expand...

How prevalent is that NOW? Why would it be any more prevalent (as a percentage of the total) if polygamy were legalized? Legalizing gay marriage in various states hasn't led to a significant rise in fraudulent unions to access medical benefits.

Hell, my fiance's company offers domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT any legal union. You merely have to show proof of having lived together for the previous 6 months. And we live in TEXAS.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well no, i am down with a comapny telling you their not going to cover you because you have to many people and trying to load the benefit roster.
Click to expand...

Simple solution: Charge for each additional listed dependent or spouse, just like car insurance does.
 
apdst said:
If gay marriage is legalized, then there's no choice but to legalize plural marriage.
Click to expand...

This is entirely false. Legally it is untrue. Logically it is untrue.
 
Sure, why not. By the time that happens I think people would begin to realize it makes more sense just to have no marriage license at all.
 
What if...? said:
Well we didn't do the obvious thing, which was a bare bones uhc system with for profit upgrades.

Nobody suffers needlessly, those who want more are free to pay for it. Fear of death/suffering is removed from the healthcare price setting system. Hospitals no longer have an excuse to charge twenty dollars for an aspirin.
Click to expand...

well thats not what i was saying, you say people should be free to live their lives, and i agree with that.

however government mandates which compel people to be part of things they chose not to be part of is not freedom.
 
tessaesque said:
How prevalent is that NOW? Why would it be any more prevalent (as a percentage of the total) if polygamy were legalized? Legalizing gay marriage in various states hasn't led to a significant rise in fraudulent unions to access medical benefits.

Hell, my fiance's company offers domestic partnership benefits WITHOUT any legal union. You merely have to show proof of having lived together for the previous 6 months. And we live in TEXAS.
Click to expand...

well that's not were i was going to just stated a fact, if pural marriage ever came law, you would see, people sell marriage for money, so people could obtain things thru that marriage like ...healthcare.

companies are free to give healthcare to anyone they chose, but their are times when government gets into things and say to companies"...you will do this"
 
Dooble said:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Click to expand...



If we're going to legalize SSM, then any objections to Poly-whatever become very threadbare and disingenous.


People cite the complications regarding property and children in the event of divorce... fine, have a contract up front about who gets what in the event of divorce...
 
apdst said:
So much for all that equal rights crap. Eh?
Click to expand...

What are the arguments I have used in the SSM debate, and what are the legal arguments? Answer those questions and you will know why you are wrong.
 
Redress said:
What are the arguments I have used in the SSM debate, and what are the legal arguments? Answer those questions and you will know why you are wrong.
Click to expand...

It's your job to prove me wrong, sister. Now, git after it!
 
apdst said:
It's your job to prove me wrong, sister. Now, git after it!
Click to expand...

I already have. Legally, the state has to show it has a rational(at the least) reason to ban either SSM or polygamy. Since the two types of marriages are significantly different the arguments are different. You fail.
 
Goshin said:
If we're going to legalize SSM, then any objections to Poly-whatever become very threadbare and disingenous.


People cite the complications regarding property and children in the event of divorce... fine, have a contract up front about who gets what in the event of divorce...
Click to expand...

This is ignorant. All evidence suggests that same sex couples raise children just as well as mixed sex couples. This is not the case for polygamy. Hey look, a logical reason to be for one and against another.

Here is a big clue for you: SSM and polygamy are different. Trying to treat them the same would be ****ing retarded.
 
Redress said:
This is ignorant. All evidence suggests that same sex couples raise children just as well as mixed sex couples. This is not the case for polygamy. Hey look, a logical reason to be for one and against another.

Here is a big clue for you: SSM and polygamy are different. Trying to treat them the same would be ****ing retarded.
Click to expand...

All you did was state the case for polygamy is different, anybody can do that then act all indignant when critical minds don't blindly buy into it. You didn't provide logical reasoning or back-up for squat.
 
Redress said:
This is ignorant. All evidence suggests that same sex couples raise children just as well as mixed sex couples. This is not the case for polygamy. Hey look, a logical reason to be for one and against another.

Here is a big clue for you: SSM and polygamy are different. Trying to treat them the same would be ****ing retarded.
Click to expand...


Oddly enough the fact that "traditional" marriage and SSM are different doesn't seem to be significant to you, but you do find it an excuse to be biased against poly's.


:shrug:
 
Goshin said:
Oddly enough the fact that "traditional" marriage and SSM are different doesn't seem to be significant to you, but you do find it an excuse to be biased against poly's.


:shrug:
Click to expand...

It actually is significant, nor have I claimed otherwise. But then again, I am consistent and logical. Also notice that I have not taken a position on polygamy. I simply pointed out one way in which it is different from SSM, which relates to arguments that would be used in court.
 
radcen said:
All you did was state the case for polygamy is different, anybody can do that then act all indignant when critical minds don't blindly buy into it. You didn't provide logical reasoning or back-up for squat.
Click to expand...



It's probably in part because many people associate Poly exclusively with certain specific sects of Mormon Fundamentalists, and because the setup is theoretically patriarchial and religious, that offends their leftist thinking processes.


However, Poly's can be polygamous, polyanderous, polyamorous, line-marriage, group-marriage... hell I'm a Southern Baptist IN the South and even I know a polyamorous "group marriage family".... they happen to be neo-pagan of some sort...

Ah well, prejudice rears its ugly head even among the pro-SSM crowd for some reason.... :roll:
 
radcen said:
All you did was state the case for polygamy is different, anybody can do that then act all indignant when critical minds don't blindly buy into it. You didn't provide logical reasoning or back-up for squat.
Click to expand...

No, I stated a reason why they are different. There are many differences.
 
Goshin said:
It's probably in part because many people associate Poly exclusively with certain specific sects of Mormon Fundamentalists, and because the setup is theoretically patriarchial and religious, that offends their leftist thinking processes.


However, Poly's can be polygamous, polyanderous, polyamorous, line-marriage, group-marriage... hell I'm a Southern Baptist IN the South and even I know a polyamorous "group marriage family".... they happen to be neo-pagan of some sort...

Ah well, prejudice rears its ugly head even among the pro-SSM crowd for some reason.... :roll:
Click to expand...
I believe this is the case. When most people hear the word "polygamy" that's what immediately jumps into their minds.


Redress said:
No, I stated a reason why they are different. There are many differences.
Click to expand...
"Differences" could be positive just as well as negative. To which are you referring?
 
Goshin said:
It's probably in part because many people associate Poly exclusively with certain specific sects of Mormon Fundamentalists, and because the setup is theoretically patriarchial and religious, that offends their leftist thinking processes.


However, Poly's can be polygamous, polyanderous, polyamorous, line-marriage, group-marriage... hell I'm a Southern Baptist IN the South and even I know a polyamorous "group marriage family".... they happen to be neo-pagan of some sort...

Ah well, prejudice rears its ugly head even among the pro-SSM crowd for some reason.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Or it could be we actually know what we are talking about. Stating that steak and beans are both foods, and both good sources of protein does not mean that steak and beans are both the same thing.
 
Redress said:
This is ignorant. All evidence suggests that same sex couples raise children just as well as mixed sex couples. This is not the case for polygamy. Hey look, a logical reason to be for one and against another.

Here is a big clue for you: SSM and polygamy are different. Trying to treat them the same would be ****ing retarded.
Click to expand...
Can polygamous parents be good parents? If yes, then what's your point?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Or it could be we actually know what we are talking about. Stating that steak and beans are both foods, and both good sources of protein does not mean that steak and beans are both the same thing.
Click to expand...


Or it could be that you're prejudiced against poly's for reasons similar to why others are prejudiced against SSM... you don't like it, you think it is bad for the children, you think it is bad for society, etc.

Why is that your call to make, for others choices in life?


:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom