• 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 .
RabidAlpaca said:
Son, have you ever read the bible? This couldn't be more false.
Click to expand...

I'm not your son.

And where does the Bible describe any marriage that is not between a man and a woman? Where does the bible even suggest that marriage can be anything other than between a man and a woman?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm not your son.

And where does the Bible describe any marriage that is not between a man and a woman? Where does the bible even suggest that marriage can be anything other than between a man and a woman?
Click to expand...
Wiseone posted you a nice little chart in post #21. The bible condones many different types of marriage, to include polygamy. Polygamy has been around for thousands and thousands of years, in many different societies and cultures, such as among the hebrews, the chinese, the greeks, indians, native americans, africans, polynesians, etc.

Marriage has been a LOT of things to a LOT of different people. You don't get to patent it and own the term.

Do you still support the rapist:victim marriage law, or the war bride law? Or have you decided which biblical marriage laws you like to support and which you like to ignore?
 
Wiseone said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stop messing with their WORD man.

It upsets them.
 
The idea with American legal marriage (IMO) is so there is a default position for situations where another decision-maker/legal representative is needed. When someone is incapacitated their spouse can make decisions for them, no paperwork needed. When someone dies intestate their spouse defaults to inherit. There are many situations like this and most of them can't be settled with more than one spouse. So, I actually have no moral issues with polygamy and, if the parties involved file the necessary extra papers required to resolve all these legal issues that have already been settled in common law for married couples, THEN I have no problem with it. But just just leave it open like any other married couple regardless of gender, no. Either require the extra paperwork or add the necessary laws to cover the common laws existing married couples already live under.
 
So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?

Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
 
spud_meister said:
So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?
Click to expand...
IMO ... yes and yes. ;)


spud_meister said:
Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
No. It's too much effort for not enough gain. Changing marriage laws to accommodate multiple marriages would cost a lot of money, and not many people would take advantage.

I'm fine with letting people draft their own 'marriage' contracts among multiple partners, dealing with custody of children, power of attorney, next of kin, disposition of property, etc and recognizing them as legal though.

Can't really vote in the poll because none of the options fit my views. And our cat's name isn't mittens.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...


I see marriage as a legal contractual deal that promotes lots of business for lawyers. I don't see "marriage" as foundation for a family. I think raising responsible adults isn't a talent/gift/predilection that is bequeathed upon people just because they got married. Some people can raise those little adults into full size adults and other people just screw them up by raising "children." They either know what they are doing or don't and it has nothing to do with marriage.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bob, that statement is just not true. That is the mainstream Christian definition, and a recent one at that. Any number of other religions, cultures, and countries believe differently.
 
BTW, I'm addressing my statement above to rhe original subject. Polygamy. I have not done any research into the effects of homosexuaity on world history to form an opinion.
 
jimbo said:
Bob, that statement is just not true. That is the mainstream Christian definition, and a recent one at that. Any number of other religions, cultures, and countries believe differently.
Click to expand...

Muslims are allowed to have up to 4 wives..and here, each wife receives unemployment benefit...(they are not usually allowed to work) and child benefit for each child..

Quite lucrative I would have thought!
 
Dooble said:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Click to expand...

I personally don't care one way or the other. This is mostly just a last ditch slippery slope argument to try to spook people about homosexual marriage anyway.
 
spud_meister said:
So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?

Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
Click to expand...
I don't think the polygamists care, quite frankly. They're not politically charged like the pissed off gay activists; they're just shut-ins, who live in their own world. Sometimes I get the feeling that I care more about their marriage rights than they do.
 
Last edited:
Surtr said:
The legal nightmare it would present, as well as societal standards and customs.
Click to expand...
Sorry, they're consenting adults who demand equal protection. If homosexuals get it, polygamists sure as hell should too.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wiseone posted you a nice little chart in post #21. The bible condones many different types of marriage, to include polygamy. Polygamy has been around for thousands and thousands of years, in many different societies and cultures, such as among the hebrews, the chinese, the greeks, indians, native americans, africans, polynesians, etc.

Marriage has been a LOT of things to a LOT of different people. You don't get to patent it and own the term.

Do you still support the rapist:victim marriage law, or the war bride law? Or have you decided which biblical marriage laws you like to support and which you like to ignore?
Click to expand...

You are, of course, completely dodging the question to which you are purporting to respond.

Every example in the chart rather exaggerated chart posted by Wiseone shows marriage between a man and a woman. Every example of marriage in any of the societies which you've cited is between a man and a woman. Every society of any size that has ever remained stable for any significant period of history was founded on families, built on marriages between a man and a woman. Every society that has deviated from this model has fallen into degradation, collapse, and extinction. Ours will be no exception.
 
spud_meister said:
So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?

Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
Click to expand...

No.

When a man marries two wives, the man is in two separate marriages. Each marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing, has never been, and can never be, as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is, by definition. The two wives are not married to each other; it is nonsense to suggest that they are. Should one of the wives take a second husband, then that would mean that she is in two marriages; again, each marriage is between that woman and a different man, and does not mean that the two men are married to each other.
 
spud_meister said:
So if a man marries two women, are those two women also married? And could one of those women take another husband? Would that mean the fist man is married to the second man?

Polygamy requires same-sex marriage to be legal. But same-sex marriage doesn't require polygamy to be legal.
Click to expand...

This is kinda where the argument gets muddy. Especially when it starts with "a married person should be able to marry other people, too", because it's adding a person into a marriage without the consent of the other person already in the marriage. If two men are married, and then they both marry two women, who are both already married... did both spouses of the two women have full knowledge of all the links in this chain? Did they give consent to each person in the chain to join it? Are they all spouses to each other? What rights do each end of the chain have towards the other end in terms of property, inheritance, or children?

In principal, I see no reason to restrict marriage to pairs. In practice, it strikes me as incredibly muddy and complex. Joining marriages together seems like a terrible way to do it, but allowing a person to only be in one marriage at once, but not limiting that marriage to two people, strikes me as more reasonable.

Either way, it's an entirely different argument than gay marriage, and the attempts by the anti-SSM crowd to link them got old a long time ago.
 
If one could reasonably and realistically navigate the legal complications I see no problem with polygamist marriage as a legal institution.

There are significant issues, though. Divorce, child support, legal rights as it relates to next-of-kin, implied inheritance, etc. Morally, (on the surface) I don't see an issue. What harm is done by 3 consenting adults contractually obligating themselves to one another that isn't done by 2 consenting adults doing the same thing? Sure, we can delve into the Jeff Warrens and cultist polygamy and act as if we can make a blanket generalization, but that's like saying all poor women are bad mothers. It just doesn't compute.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You are, of course, completely dodging the question to which you are purporting to respond.

Every example in the chart rather exaggerated chart posted by Wiseone shows marriage between a man and a woman. Every example of marriage in any of the societies which you've cited is between a man and a woman. Every society of any size that has ever remained stable for any significant period of history was founded on families, built on marriages between a man and a woman. Every society that has deviated from this model has fallen into degradation, collapse, and extinction. Ours will be no exception.
Click to expand...

1) The topic is actually polygamy, which you don't support, though your bible does. You said marriage has always been between A man and A woman, and I showed this to be completely and entirely false.

2) You're saying the hebrews, the chinese, the greeks, indians, native americans, africans, and polynesians have fallen into degradation, collapse, and extinction? And this was all because they didn't listen to your opinion about what a marriage is? ....Really?

Bob Blaylock said:
There is no such thing, has never been, and can never be, as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
Considering there are plenty of legal, gay married couples in the US and the world, I would say you were caught again making things up.

You, Bob Blaylock, do not get to patent the term marriage, and you didn't invent it. Why would you think you own that term?
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
1) The topic is actually polygamy, which you don't support, though your bible does. You said marriage has always been between A man and A woman, and I showed this to be completely and entirely false.
Click to expand...

Except that you didn't. You've not shown any valid example of a marriage that was not between a man and a woman. Even in polygamous marriages, each marriage is between a man and a woman. The only difference between that and monogamy is that in a polygamous situation, some people are in more than one marriage at a time; but each marriage is still between a man and a woman. That is the essential, defining characteristic of marriage.

I'm not really solidly opposed to polygamy. I'm a fourth-generation Mormon, and I have at least one known ancestor who practiced it during the time in which my religion upheld this practice. My great-great grandfather, Edwin Rushton (famous as the source of the alleged ”White Horse Prophecy”) had four or five wives. As you point out, polygamy is supported by biblical and historical precedents. And unlike “gay marriage” it both meets the essential definition of marriage, and fulfills the purpose of marriage; while “gay marriage” does not meet this definition, and can only undermine and degrade the purpose of genuine marriage.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Except that you didn't. You've not shown any valid example of a marriage that was not between a man and a woman. Even in polygamous marriages, each marriage is between a man and a woman. The only difference between that and monogamy is that in a polygamous situation, some people are in more than one marriage at a time; but each marriage is still between a man and a woman. That is the essential, defining characteristic of marriage.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. A polygamous marriage is between a man and women. (plural) Or a woman and men (plural) or women and men (plural). A marriage between a man and a woman (singular) is not polygamy, because it does not match the definition, at all.

They go over the distinction between plural and singular at a rather early age. Were you perhaps sick that day?

I think what you're trying, but failing, to say, is even in polygamy, the relationship is heterosexual. Which confuses me because the topic of the OP is POLYGAMY. Keep your gay hating out of it for just one thread, please.
 
Surtr said:
The legal nightmare it would present, as well as societal standards and customs.
Click to expand...
Those shouldn't considerations when deciding to dictate that people can't do what they want.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, you are wrong. A polygamous marriage is between a man and women. (plural) Or a woman and men (plural) or women and men (plural). A marriage between a man and a woman (singular) is not polygamy, because it does not match the definition, at all.

They go over the distinction between plural and singular at a rather early age. Were you perhaps sick that day?
Click to expand...

A plural marriage is not one marriage with more than two participants. In fact, “a plural marriage” really isn't even grammatically correct. It's plural marriages. More than one marriage.

My great-great grandfather did not have one marriage which included him and his four or five wives. He had four or five marriages, which each joined him to a separate wife. Each of these marriages was between one man, and one woman; it was the same man in each marriage, but a different woman.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom