• 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 bigamy be legal

If you are for gay marriage are you pro bigamy too

  • I'm pro gay marriage and pro bigamy too

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • I'm pro gay marriage anti bigamy

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Total voters
    29
18 is the age of majority. You want to change that, then push for it. But right now, that is where it is because it makes sense with it being the age when most are just graduating high school at that age and getting out on their own.

The law is determined in accordance with what most people have decided is right, but it generally should be consistent and logical. There is sound reasoning behind making age of majority about the age that most are done with their primary education.

When only one thing is allowed at that age, while everything else requires a higher age, then you must question why it is so low and figure out if it is based on reason or simply tradition or old time thinking (which for the most part, it is). The trend has lately been raising the age of marriage, which is a good thing.

Why is it a good thing?

And if you want consistency, why not push for the drinking age to be lowered to 18? Or the age to rent a car?
 
Plenty. You haven't said it though. Your entire opinion was not consistent with either the law or the majority's opinion on what marriage is. Most people now days view marriage as a union of two people, regardless of whether they want to or can have kids. The major evidence of this is the fact that almost 20% of couples (40-44) had no kids from any way, bio, adoption, step, or foster in 2010. Even more younger couples are reporting that they are not planning on having children even if they are getting married or planning on it or already married. And the majority have no issue with couples making that choice since it is and absolutely should be their choice.

Legal marriage is mainly for the couple, not children. The children benefit as an extra, but the spouses is what marriage sets up, that legal relationship, not the one with the children, that comes from birth certificates or adoption records.

"Union" is a vague word. What is the difference, other than legal, between a married couple with no children, and a girlfriend/boyfriend couple who cohabitate?
 
Well, I am currently dating 3 women, and if I could marry all 3, I might be inclined to do so...

That would be unfair to someone like me, who had a difficult time finding any mates. Just because you are a super stud, doesn't mean that I should have to be lonely the rest of my life. Not really, but it's a viewpoint.

Which makes me wonder if this discussion is really economic in nature - the study of distribution and scarcity.
 
That would be unfair to someone like me, who had a difficult time finding any mates. Just because you are a super stud, doesn't mean that I should have to be lonely the rest of my life. Not really, but it's a viewpoint.

Which makes me wonder if this discussion is really economic in nature - the study of distribution and scarcity.

Everything is economic!

But in this case, isn't it really the woman's choice who she shacks up with? Think of the woman as the customer, and the men as the suppliers of a product. If a woman would rather marry a man who already has two other wives vs another man with no wives, is it really society's place to stop that from happening, or is it simply her selecting what's best for her?

Competition brings out the best in everyone. What you might see happening, if a large share of males aren't able to marry, is that they apply themselves a lot harder to be more physically fit, better educated, wealthier, etc so that they can compete for a mate. And that competition would benefit everyone.

Right now, a large chunk of America's lower class men are overweight slackers. Take their women away from them and watch that change REALLY QUICKLY.
 
No, I call you extreme because of the absurdity of the argument you tried to make, not because I disagree with you.

Just admit it and grow, you never called a liberal extreme because in your mind no liberal stance is extreme
 
...

Right now, a large chunk of America's lower class men are overweight slackers. Take their women away from them and watch that change REALLY QUICKLY.

Maybe we should have done that - instead of Obamacare!

the first thing that most people do after getting a divorce or breaking up is to join a gym. If I owned a gym or was a personal trainer, I believe I would be trolling the halls of divorce court for customers.
 
"Union" is a vague word. What is the difference, other than legal, between a married couple with no children, and a girlfriend/boyfriend couple who cohabitate?

The legal recognition of them as spouses. That's it but it comes with a lot of both responsibilities and benefits.
 
I am fine with polygamy. Bigamy is different as its when one man is married to 2 or more women that don't know about each other - thus no consent.
That wouldn't be bigamy. That would be polygamy.

No it's not. There are good odds that such might be the case, but that is not what bigamy is. And for that matter the bigamist might be the woman who is married to two or more men. Bigamy is only about whether or not an individual falls under 2 or more different legal marriage recognitions, be they called license or certificates or whatever. Whether or not the spouses of the bigamist are aware of each other is irrelevant to the issue. Polygamy and bigamy may exist together or they may not. Polygamy would apply if all involved are spouses to each other.

Do you have any information to back up that it isn't also the most common form as of now? While I know that there are polyamorous people out there, there simply aren't that many from what I've heard about. While I think most people are pretty good people, polyamory requires people to be more unselfish than the average person tends to be, especially when it comes to love and relationships. In cases of polygamy where it is one man with multiple wives, especially wives that have been taught from basically birth that their place is to marry young, take care of their husband, and have many kids, and that their husband will have other wives, that unselfishness is not needed.

While I think it would be a great thing if those that I described weren't the majority or most common, the pessimistic side of me doubts I am wrong, unless it happened really recently.

Peruse around the various polyamory sites. Remember that most of these polygamous families are not legally recognized, and because of the negativity that the FLDS and others generate, they tend to stay "underground". But more and more are coming out (I wonder what kind of closet we can call this one?). You have the Sister Wives show, which admittedly, they are FLDS, but they seem to me not to be as extremist as the Jeffs group. Mind you I've only seen a few episodes, so I am not as up on them as I could be. There was an Our America episode that focused on polygamous families, including one woman who had two husbands. Sadly you can only get clips from the shows. I don't have cable or I would have made sure I saw the whole thing. I know of one family personally, and my wife and I are looking for a third ourselves.

Now admittedly, polyamorous people are much more common, but I have to wonder if that is more of a symptom of younger people not wanting to marry as much. And some of the polygamist I know from my online chats don't want to call themselves that due to the negativity, but will refer to their various spouses by husband and wife.

I'm also not sure what "my religion" is? I'm not religious. The quote in my signature line was a play on Halloween. I'm not a witch and observe no religion.

You have my apologies on that then. I don't have issues with any religion, especially with a Druid brother and several Wiccan sisters. But please note that without a reference, your sig line does imply that you are a witch.

The word extreme has become a bumper sticker response to anyone who has conservative values. You never hear anyone on the left called extreme.

Bull****! I've heard of plenty of extremest environmentalist, extremist anti-Christians, and many other groups that are "liberal". Quite honestly, it seems any more that if you are conservative or liberal then the other side views you as extreme.

You marry in order to start a family and have kids, IMO. It's saying that you're both consenting to a relationship that will provide the best atmosphere for kids to grow up in.... which is a mom and a dad, a white picket fence, and all that jazz.

Nobody else should even bother getting married... including gays.

Right there is the only important part. Kids may or may not be a part of it.

Actually it has more to do with consistency. 18 or older should be the age of marriage since that is the age when we are legally adults. The very fact that someone needs their parents to sign before that shows most teens aren't really mature enough to be married.

Disagree. You are using a circular argument. 18 is an arbitrary number. Even if 18 is the peak of the maturity bell curve, there are those younger who are as mature and those older who are not. The fact that they need their parents to sign has nothing to do with their maturity and everything to do with the selected age at which we say they are magically no longer required to get the parents signature. I'm not saying that it's not legally convient to use a common point as the legal line. Just that we shouldn't confuse that legal fiction with actual maturity.

No, I call you extreme because of the absurdity of the argument you tried to make, not because I disagree with you.

I've seen you call people you've agreed with their end point extreme due to the absurdity by which they arrived there. Well I'm pretty sure that it was you.

That would be unfair to someone like me, who had a difficult time finding any mates. Just because you are a super stud, doesn't mean that I should have to be lonely the rest of my life. Not really, but it's a viewpoint.

Which makes me wonder if this discussion is really economic in nature - the study of distribution and scarcity.

If you are having difficulty in finding a mate then maybe availability is not the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom