• 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
Doesn't pass the smell test.

That your nose is not calibrated is not a problem for any one but you. Research is what it is, just because you do not like it, because it challenges what you want to be true, does not make it less valid.
 
That your nose is not calibrated is not a problem for any one but you. Research is what it is, just because you do not like it, because it challenges what you want to be true, does not make it less valid.

Feel free to post links to all these unbiased studies that claim children of homo parents are just as well adjusted as kids of hetro parents.
 
What about bigamy where they do know about each other? Why not multiple marriages. Sure it's illegal now but not to long ago it was illegal for the same sex to marry so the wheels are in motion here. Bigamy is the next battle in the war on marriage.
That wouldn't be bigamy. That would be polygamy.
 
Westbrook Baptist Church, although you now have my apologies as this time around I noticed you sig line. In your case I would have been more accurate to compare the quoted post with people automatically associating your religion with Satan worshipers. You associated polygamists with Warren Jeffs. While indeed he and his are polygamous, they are hardly representative of polygamist as a whole. Certainly no more so than Satanists (either type) are representative of pagans as a whole.

I didn't associate polygamists with Warren Jeffs. No idea where you got that. Another poster was talking about young girls being forced into polygamist marriage, and trying to get off track on this discussion. I think polygamy should be legal and have always said that.

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.
 
I think he is indeed representative of the entire group. Their is a gay agenda and part of that agenda is to dismantle marriage

And you'd be wrong, just as you are not representative of most people who are even against same sex marriage. You seem to be much more extreme in your views against it than the majority of those I have even seen on this board.
 
What about bigamy where they do know about each other? Why not multiple marriages. Sure it's illegal now but not to long ago it was illegal for the same sex to marry so the wheels are in motion here. Bigamy is the next battle in the war on marriage.

As long as the adults involved are capable of consent and do consent, I see no problem with it. Even if it were legal, I doubt even a tiny portion of society would ever enter into multiple marriages anyway.
 
And you'd be wrong, just as you are not representative of most people who are even against same sex marriage. You seem to be much more extreme in your views against it than the majority of those I have even seen on this board.

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

There are plenty of conservatives on here, even a couple who don't support same sex marriage, who do not claim that the gays are trying to destroy marriage. That is an extreme position.
 
There are plenty of conservatives on here, even a couple who don't support same sex marriage, who do not claim that the gays are trying to destroy marriage. That is an extreme position.

Any extreme lobs in here? You didn't call the gay guy that said he was anti marriage extreme now did you. You just said he wasn't representative of all gays. See how this works ?
 
Any extreme lobs in here? You didn't call the gay guy that said he was anti marriage extreme now did you. You just said he wasn't representative of all gays. See how this works ?

His position isn't extreme, just something I don't agree with. There are extreme liberals positions, but I haven't seen too many if any on marriage.
 
His position isn't extreme, just something I don't agree with. There are extreme liberals positions, but I haven't seen too many if any on marriage.

Yet you call me extreme because you disagree with me. As I said only cons are ever labeled extreme .
 
Have you NOT seen the dozens of threads almost exactly like this????

Consenting adults. Let them do as they please. Actions and consequences.

So should we limit discussion of gay marriage to one thread as well then? I think the OP poses an interesting question... every bit as valid as discussing gay marriage IMO.
 
So a marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land so the logical nest issue is bigamy.If the same sex can be married why not multiple partners? It sees like the term marriage and family are now open ended terms and are being redefined daily so if you are for gay marriage you surly must be for bigamy too I would think. Or are you?


Well, I am currently dating 3 women, and if I could marry all 3, I might be inclined to do so. I don't see any problem with it from an ethical standpoint - the only hurdle is legal.

So yes, I am in favor of polygamy.

I think it's natural. If you look throughout human history, one man with many wives is the norm, not the exception.
 
I think all marriages are a waste of time...nothing but a lifetime commitment to mediocrity in most cases, IMO.

The official wedding vows should be:

'Do you promise to love, honor and cherish this person for the rest of your life even though the odds are incredibly high against this person being the best person for you out of the entire population of the planet?'


But, if a sane, consenting adult wants to marry another/several sane, consenting adult(s)...go ahead.
 
It was a post in a debate thread.

I am talking about what was brought up by you. When it comes to some forms of polygamy that we have seen here in the US, the most common that occurs here in the US (at least up til now, although I believe this will change) is where old men from the FLDS clans marry really young girls, in their mid teens, with permission from their parents. The laws that allow for this, laws that allow parents to give their children permission to marry prior to them being 18 is one of the things that needs to change, especially if we are considering removing the limitation on numbers of spouses a person can have legally.

So what's the magical age where women are suddenly old enough to be in an adult relationship?
 
I think all marriages are a waste of time...nothing but a lifetime commitment to mediocrity in most cases, IMO.

The official wedding vows should be:

'Do you promise to love, honor and cherish this person for the rest of your life even though the odds are incredibly high against this person being the best person for you out of the entire population of the planet?'


But, if a sane, consenting adult wants to marry another/several sane, consenting adult(s)...go ahead.

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.
 
1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.>>>>

Post hoc argument. Nonsense.

2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.).>>>>

Again, post hoc.

[*]3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community..>>>>


So? You ever hear of natural selection? It's normal for the genes of weaker males to be excluded from the gene pool. This is basic biology.



So to sum up, your post fails because you don't understand the inherent logic of cause and effect arguments, and because you don't understand that natural selection is a normal biological process that is good for the gene pool of any species, humans included.
 
So a marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land so the logical nest issue is bigamy.If the same sex can be married why not multiple partners? It sees like the term marriage and family are now open ended terms and are being redefined daily so if you are for gay marriage you surly must be for bigamy too I would think. Or are you?

Now that the institution of marriage being between one man and one woman is gone. Hell you should be able to marry your dog for christ sake. Further you should be able to marry a couple of lesbians and a few gays and a straight for a nice big happy family. Marriage now is wide open, it's all about your "Rights"
 
So what's the magical age where women are suddenly old enough to be in an adult relationship?

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.
 
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.

Personal subjective opinion of what you think marriage should be, not what it is, particularly not legal marriage and definitely not personal marriage for most couples.
 
Yet you call me extreme because you disagree with me. As I said only cons are ever labeled extreme .

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

Can't you see how circular your argument is?

You're saying that it should be legal to marry at 18 because the legal age of adulthood is 18.

Well, does the law determine what is right, or does what is right determine what the law should be? I say the latter. But if you're set on defending the former, I could just as easily reply "well, the law clearly states that the legal age of marriage is 15. Therefore, the legal age of adulthood should be switched to 15."

See how that works?
 
Personal subjective opinion of what you think marriage should be, not what it is, particularly not legal marriage and definitely not personal marriage for most couples.

Can anything really be said on the topics of gay marriage or polygamy that is NOT subjective or personal?
 
Can't you see how circular your argument is?

You're saying that it should be legal to marry at 18 because the legal age of adulthood is 18.

Well, does the law determine what is right, or does what is right determine what the law should be? I say the latter. But if you're set on defending the former, I could just as easily reply "well, the law clearly states that the legal age of marriage is 15. Therefore, the legal age of adulthood should be switched to 15."

See how that works?

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.
 
Can anything really be said on the topics of gay marriage or polygamy that is NOT subjective or personal?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom