• 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 .
maquiscat said:
Sterile people cannot create their own families. Not together. Not naturally. Not even with another non-sterile person.
Click to expand...
This doesn't help CC's original point, but thanks for the straw man. ;)
 
Dooble said:
Says ChrisL.
Click to expand...

:slapme: If people would just mind their own business, it wouldn't have to bother them at all. Worry about yourself and YOUR marriage instead of what other people are doing. Why can't people marry who they want to marry without other people sticking their big nosy faces into their business?
 
maquiscat said:
Being a group discussion, the FLDS have already been brought up. I said groups like them noting that they are not the only groups that fit the criteria you are describing.
Click to expand...

:shrug: sure. I was speaking to polygamous societies at large, not FLDS in particular.

I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as a polygamous society at least in the context of the laws of the US (which is where most of this seems to be centered. Allowing legal recognition of polygamy would not turn our society into a polygamous one. We would still be a mostly monogamous society. As far as history goes, I'd like to see any studies on older societies where polygamy produced large populations of young men without access to women. Now I can understand that as a concern for more modern societies as our male mortality rate is way lower then when our tech and medical knowledge didn't allow the life saving and extending that occurs today. Also in today's society, as opposed to the past, we are less patriarchal and as a result, we have same sex pairings as well as larger numbers of individuals who never marry, or wait till their older. Throw in there the fact that multiple marriages (not polygamy) is rather a norm in today's society, availability on the long term scale is not going to be that much of an issue. Add on top of that, that modern US practice (on a non-legal basis) is shifting to highly mixed groupings (multiple males and females) any strain on the inaccessibility of one gender to another would be minimal at best.
Click to expand...

Multiple marriages are indeed becoming a norm in today's society - and they stand as perfect examples to what both myself and CC have posited with regards to stable rearing environments for children. The human wreckage of our liberalization of marriage is a generation of neglected or otherwise poorly raised children, now finding themselves less adequate to the task of forming stable bonds and raising children well.

Competition for favor and resources occurs in monogamous families as well. If a couple have several children, competition would high. Adding additional adults actually provides the children with more resources.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. If dad works and you have two stay at home moms, resources are reduced per family member, not increased. However, what happens then is usually competition between the wives for favor for the children (when they are younger, when they are older the children themselves compete), which is why polygamous societies have often found it useful to codify such things. And competition between two packs within the same family is very qualitatively different than Jimmy and Susie arguing over where to go for dinner, or which child is the favorite.
 
ChrisL said:
:slapme: If people would just mind their own business, it wouldn't have to bother them at all. Worry about yourself and YOUR marriage instead of what other people are doing. Why can't people marry who they want to marry without other people sticking their big nosy faces into their business?
Click to expand...

No one is sticking into anyone else's marriages. What is getting stuck into is the actions of the state, in particular the state as it handles the practice of issuing marriage licenses. What people do is and remains their own business.
 
ChrisL said:
:slapme: If people would just mind their own business, it wouldn't have to bother them at all. Worry about yourself and YOUR marriage instead of what other people are doing. Why can't people marry who they want to marry without other people sticking their big nosy faces into their business?
Click to expand...
Because marriage is an integral part of human life. It's depicted everywhere. The question is, do we introduce homosexual lifestyles into areas such as mainstream advertising or our public school systems? Where does it end, ChrisL? How far will human rights activists go to ensure homosexuals get fair access to every facet of our lives? I can tell you right now that it won't stop at marriage.

You see nothing wrong with gay marriage. I see it as a spiritual disaster. You want excessive tolerance & permissiveness. I want personal discipline and accountability. There's no such thing as coexistence when one side is dictating the rules. That has become very clear .... especially in this country.
 
Dooble said:
You see nothing wrong with gay marriage. I see it as a spiritual disaster. You want excessive tolerance & permissiveness. I want personal discipline and accountability. There's no such thing as coexistence when one side is dictating the rules. That has become very clear .... especially in this country.
Click to expand...

I want to see how far our churches will go to accept them...
 
Dooble said:
Because marriage is an integral part of human life. It's depicted everywhere. The question is, do we introduce homosexual lifestyles into areas such as mainstream advertising or our public school systems? Where does it end, ChrisL? How far will human rights activists go to ensure homosexuals get fair access to every facet of our lives? I can tell you right now that it won't stop at marriage.

You see nothing wrong with gay marriage. I see it as a spiritual disaster. You want excessive tolerance & permissiveness. I want personal discipline and accountability. There's no such thing as coexistence when one side is dictating the rules. That has become very clear .... especially in this country.
Click to expand...

Explain how it would be a spiritual disaster or affect anyone else at ALL if gay people or polygamists get married.

Do you think it's contagious or something? If you're worried about your children then teach them what you think is important that they know. Then, hopefully, they make the decisions that are right for themselves.
 
Dooble said:
Because marriage is an integral part of human life. It's depicted everywhere. The question is, do we introduce homosexual lifestyles into areas such as mainstream advertising or our public school systems? Where does it end, ChrisL? How far will human rights activists go to ensure homosexuals get fair access to every facet of our lives? I can tell you right now that it won't stop at marriage.

You see nothing wrong with gay marriage. I see it as a spiritual disaster. You want excessive tolerance & permissiveness. I want personal discipline and accountability. There's no such thing as coexistence when one side is dictating the rules. That has become very clear .... especially in this country.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Denying homosexuals marriage rights will not end homosexuality.
 
ChrisL said:
I'll tell you what, if you want to quote me, then quote JUST me. I refuse to sift through all of your BS just to reply to one of your long and boring posts for one stupid little question.
Click to expand...

I will post as I will post. It is up to you if you wish to take the time to read and respond. The points are there for all to read and to respond to if they want.

Dooble said:
Conclusion: Gay parenting through surrogacy or adoption = further confusion for children.
Click to expand...

Conclusion: Straight parenting through surrogacy or adoption = further confusion for children.

Dooble said:
This doesn't help CC's original point, but thanks for the straw man. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh no thank you. After all it was yours I dismantled.

Dooble said:
Gay marriage is catastrophic from the Christian perspective, but do these people care? Of course not. Usually it's just the middle finger, but other times it gets worse:

Gay Activists Threaten Violence - Research - Chalcedon

Yeah, these shepherds of enlightenment are harmless....
Click to expand...

Yep as harmless as Christian activists blowing up aborting clinics. And last I checked this is the United States where freedom of religion rules and gay marriage is not catastrophic from the perspective of some of the other religions of this country.

cpwill said:
:shrug: sure. I was speaking to polygamous societies at large, not FLDS in particular.
Click to expand...

As was I. FLDS do however, tend to be the first group most think of in this country when polygamy comes up. Thus using their name to reference the particular types of polygamists I was referring to.



Multiple marriages are indeed becoming a norm in today's society - and they stand as perfect examples to what both myself and CC have posited with regards to stable rearing environments for children. The human wreckage of our liberalization of marriage is a generation of neglected or otherwise poorly raised children, now finding themselves less adequate to the task of forming stable bonds and raising children well.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you mean becoming a norm on a social aspect vice a legal one?

Not necessarily true. If dad works and you have two stay at home moms, resources are reduced per family member, not increased. However, what happens then is usually competition between the wives for favor for the children (when they are younger, when they are older the children themselves compete), which is why polygamous societies have often found it useful to codify such things. And competition between two packs within the same family is very qualitatively different than Jimmy and Susie arguing over where to go for dinner, or which child is the favorite.
Click to expand...

Wait how is having two stay at home mom's less resources per family member than one? When one mom is busy the other can take up the slack. Beyond that how is one additional adult any more of a resource drain than an additional child? And how the hell do you codify "favor"? Beyond that I would like to see some studies that did not include groups like the FLDS to support this. None of this jives with anything I've experienced as part of the poly community.
 
Lakryte said:
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Denying homosexuals marriage rights will not end homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
 
Dooble said:
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's rather arguable even by SSM supporters.
 
Dooble said:
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
Click to expand...

the integrity of marriage is factually in ZERO danger, this strawman argument always fails
 
AGENT J said:
the integrity of marriage is factually in ZERO danger, this strawman argument always fails
Click to expand...

Again I'd have to say that statement is quite arguable regardless of what side of the SSM/polygamy debates you are on. When you look at the state of straight marriage today...But that is a point that has nothing to do with marriage rights.
 
Dooble said:
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
Click to expand...

No it does nothing to the "integrity of marriage" in any way. The integrity of marriage is intact for everyone who knows what marriage is truly about, individual couples wanting to be together and make a commitment to each other for whatever purposes they deem appropriate. Legal marriage recognizes them legally as spouses, which is a legal family relationship.
 
Dooble said:
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
Click to expand...
1. I didn't say homosexuality is racial, I said homosexuality is not a lifestyle. And that is true.
2. Allowing homosexuals to marry will have absolutely no effect on traditional marriages and will not effect their integrity one bit. And if you are worried about the integrity of marriage, I suggest you focus on heterosexual relationships that have been making a mockery of marriage for decades, not relationships between homosexuals in loving and committed long term relationships.
3. Your response is a complete change from your original argument, so I will just have to assume you admit your first argument was false.
 
maquiscat said:
Again I'd have to say that statement is quite arguable regardless of what side of the SSM/polygamy debates you are on. When you look at the state of straight marriage today...But that is a point that has nothing to do with marriage rights.
Click to expand...

its not arguable at all to anybody honest and objective.

the integrity of marriage is up to the people in a marriage, period.

my marriage has integrity based on what me and my spouse do and believe about our marriage. Other marriages have ZERO impact on our marriage and cant do anything to its integrity.

thats way the integrity of marriage is factually in ZERO danger and that strawman argument always fails
 
Dooble said:
Homosexuality is not racial. Denying homosexuals marriage rights WILL preserve the integrity of marriage, which is all that really matters.
Click to expand...

That integrity is long gone with an over 50% divorce rate.
 
Geoist said:
That integrity is long gone with an over 50% divorce rate.
Click to expand...
That integrity never left with those who matter. Polluting marriage with homosexuality is not the answer.
 
Dooble said:
That integrity never left with those who matter. Polluting marriage with homosexuality is not the answer.
Click to expand...

How does it affect your marriage in any way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom