• 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!

Polygamy: Why not?

Would You Support Polygamy

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 41.3%
  • No

    Votes: 23 30.7%
  • Undecided but open to either side.

    Votes: 3 4.0%
  • I couldn't care less either way.

    Votes: 18 24.0%

  • Total voters
    75
Because marriage, no matter to who or how many, can still fail and be just as detrimental.

How does increasing marriage lower this irrelevant figure? You need to look at the reasons why they dont work; usually as a result of lack of dedication or faithfullness. Your just contradicting yourself.

and having step-mothers, step-fathers, and ex-step-parents isn't detrimental? All of these things can have negative effects, what does it matter if there is a functional family? The Nuclear family model doesn't always work.

It is detrimental but why should the government legalize Polygamy and just exasperate this problem? This "well its screwed anyway so screwing it more wont matter" logic isnt getting you anywhere. This disucussion shouldnt even be had until gays can have the chance of getting married, let alone discussion of giving more marriage to straights.


And he's any more likely to be more dedicated when he's stuck with one person? Once again, divorce rate and the amount of relationship breakups says otherwise.

Absolutely, yes, he is.


My point is, we're not the one who drew colonial lines perpendicular to tribal nations, thus causing massive infighting and creating all the distress and poverty in Africa; and regardless, Africa has nothing to do with polygamy.

Exactly, its just as irrelevant as your need to lower a superficial figure. And dont start with European colonialism, you as a single nation have so far outdone us in the art of war mongering.


Saying "the endless squabbles of testosterone fuelled American dudes
" isn't a generalization?

I just pointed out you made a generalization also while pointing out mine. Its also a far better, accurate generalization then your minority view of not caring abour dedicated relationships to a loved ONE, and the natural feelings of protecting, caring and usually jelously that comes with it.


Just because you love and care for someone doesn't necessarily mean you want to be stuck with them forever. In fact, that's why a lot of marriages DON'T work out.

If you feel you dont want to be "stuck" with them forever, dont get married in the first place.

The people spend too much time with each other, and lo and behold, they go and find someone else because they become fed up with that person. While some people can make marriages last with one person, we are NOT monogamous creatures.

Then divorce, how is Polygamy a cure to any of this? This is a decision of the indivisual to make. It doesnt give him a right to seek the hand of other women as if they are objects. And if it makes you comfortable for your wife to also be with another man, well, your definetly in the minority my friend.
 
Last edited:
Are you capable of seeing other points of view, or do you just come here to make your point known and then nitpick at everyone with a different opinion from yours? I've noticed this attitude in quite a few of your responses...just wondering.

This attitude has been used because of your offensive remarks. Dont play the innocent game with me. An eye for an eye, i guess.
 
Well, either way, I can't debate with you. No offense, it's just how you are, and I'm not going to waste anyone's time dancing around the same issues while you continue to just re-state your opinion. If you want to go example for example, and statistic for statistic, let's do it.


Here is my final statement: Polygamy is no worse or better than monogamy and should only be subject to the same standards and criticisms as monogamy in terms of criminal activity. i.e. Abuse, neglect, violence, etc.

When you bring me some cold, hard facts that dispute the fact that polygamy is 'bad' or 'immoral' or whatever you want to call it, then we'll talk. For now, enjoy your opinion and I'll enjoy mine.
 
Here is my final statement: Polygamy is no worse or better than monogamy and should only be subject to the same standards and criticisms as monogamy in terms of criminal activity. i.e. Abuse, neglect, violence, etc.

Ive said already its only natural for a man or woman dedicated to more than one marriage or family lead to the break down of communication and leave that child severly neglected and confused. Common sense requires reference?

When you bring me some cold, hard facts that dispute the fact that polygamy is 'bad' or 'immoral' or whatever you want to call it, then we'll talk. For now, enjoy your opinion and I'll enjoy mine.

I have. I am making valid points based on current scenarious even, of children subjected to the neglect of divorced parents which only replicates itself in Polygamous relationships where the husband has a duty to more than one family or wife and is usually around less than he should be.


Well, either way, I can't debate with you. No offense, it's just how you are, and I'm not going to waste anyone's time dancing around the same issues while you continue to just re-state your opinion. If you want to go example for example, and statistic for statistic, let's do it.

In that case, lets go.
 
Last edited:
The main issue that I have with polygamy is that many children are forced into marriages. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults I don't have any issue with it.

In answer to some of the other points in the OP, the argument that gay marriage and polygamy go hand in hand is flawed. It is most likely that they would not receive the same scrutiny under an equal protection analysis. Polygamy would likely be analyzed under the first tier (standard scrutiny - requiring a "legitimate" state interest to justify any limitation placed upon it). Gay marriage, while probably not likely to receive the highest tier (Strict Scrutiny - requiring a "compelling" governmental interest), it likely would receive the intermediate level requiring the government to establish an "important" state interest in order to justify any limitation placed upon it.
 
Last edited:
Ive said already its only natural for a man or woman dedicated to more than one marriage or family cause the break down of communication and leave that child severly neglected and confused. Common sense requires reference?

Dedicated to more than one marriage or family? Please expand on this because I don't think this is common sense so much as your opinion on the matter.

I have. I am making valid points based on current scenarious even, of children subjected to the neglect of divorced parents which only replicates itself in Polygamous relationships where the husband has a duty to more than one family or wife.

Is there a love-o-meter? Can you tell when someone is overexerting their love for someone? The neglect of divorced parents replicates itself in polygamous relationships? :lol: wow...you're seriously just stating your opinion here. They are all ONE family, and MULTIPLE mothers. Judge the individual Family not what you THINK polygamy does to families.


In that case, lets go.

Let's.

"About 78% of human societies are polygynous, in which some men marry more than one wife."

Reference:
Murdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Atlas.

"Only 22% of societies are strictly monogamous. No modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands (not counting extramarital sex, and a poor region of India and Tibet where women marry brothers because the work of several men is needed to provide resources to raise a family). Only 3% of mammal species in general are monogamous, although at least 15% of primate species are."

Reference:
Insel, T.R., Winslow, J.T., Wang, X., Young, L.J. "Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and the Neuroendocrine Basis of Pair Bond Formation," in Vasopressin and Oxytocin: Molecular, Cellular, and Clinical Advances, (Plenum, 1998, ISBN 0-306-45928-0), p. 217.

(I stand corrected about polyandrous women)

"Men, on average, are better off in a monogamous society. All men have equal opportunities for a wife and family. It's ironic that men, whose sexuality is more polygynous than women's sexuality, are the beneficiaries of monogamy."

The above quotes and references were taken from: Monogamy and Polygamy

Monogamy is working REAL well.
Divorce Rate : Divorce Rate In America
Marriage and divorce rates: EU comparison, 2001: Social Trends 33


Here's one regarding Polygamy and Same-Sex marriage, but this quote is somewhat relative:

...their favorite arguments against same-sex marriage are useless against polygamy. “It changes the very definition of marriage!” (No: marriage historically has been polygamous more often than monogamous.) “The Bible condemns it!” (Really? Ever heard of King Solomon?) “It’s not open to procreation!” (Watch “Big Love” and get back to me.)

If there’s a good argument against polygamy, it’s likely to be a fairly complex public-policy argument having to do with marriage patterns, sexism, economics, and the like. Such arguments are as available to gay-marriage advocates as to gay-marriage opponents. So when gay-rights opponents ask me to explain why polygamy is wrong, I say to them, “You first.”

Retrieved from:
Good Response To Polygamy Argument Creative Destruction


You're up, if you find helpful opinion pieces that also have some factual background, add those as well.
 
The main issue that I have with polygamy is that many children are forced into marriages. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults I don't have any issue with it.

In answer to some of the other points in the OP, the argument that gay marriage and polygamy go hand in hand is flawed. It is most likely that they would not receive the same scrutiny under an equal protection analysis. Polygamy would likely be analyzed under the first tier (standard scrutiny - requiring a "legitimate" state interest to justify any limitation placed upon it). Gay marriage, while probably not likely to receive the highest tier (Strict Scrutiny - requiring a "compelling" governmental interest), it likely would receive the intermediate level requiring the government to establish an "important" state interest in order to justify any limitation placed upon it.

lol, one of my references in my latest reply to Kaya talks about this.
 
Dedicated to more than one marriage or family? Please expand on this because I don't think this is common sense so much as your opinion on the matter.

If the parents have responsibilities to its other families and husbands/wives, that leads inevitably to a breakdown in communication with the current family and the childrens immediate parents. Also, the impact on a child with an unstable household and lack of presence as far as parents goes are very negative.

Is there a love-o-meter? Can you tell when someone is overexerting their love for someone? The neglect of divorced parents replicates itself in polygamous relationships? :lol: wow...you're seriously just stating your opinion here. They are all ONE family, and MULTIPLE mothers. Judge the individual Family not what you THINK polygamy does to families.

In that case can you give me any examples of success Polygamous relationships? And Polygamous relationships are not always ONE family with multiple mothers. When i visited the Middle East, there where men moving constantly from home to home, while the mother stayed and looked after the child.


Let's.

"About 78% of human societies are polygynous, in which some men marry more than one wife."

Reference:
Murdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Atlas.

"Only 22% of societies are strictly monogamous. No modern societies are polyandrous, in which one woman marries several husbands (not counting extramarital sex, and a poor region of India and Tibet where women marry brothers because the work of several men is needed to provide resources to raise a family). Only 3% of mammal species in general are monogamous, although at least 15% of primate species are."

Reference:
Insel, T.R., Winslow, J.T., Wang, X., Young, L.J. "Oxytocin, Vasopressin, and the Neuroendocrine Basis of Pair Bond Formation," in Vasopressin and Oxytocin: Molecular, Cellular, and Clinical Advances, (Plenum, 1998, ISBN 0-306-45928-0), p. 217.

(I stand corrected about polyandrous women)

What does this proove, that because most nations allow it its therefore just? I also did not doubt that women can commit to polyandrous relationships.

"Men, on average, are better off in a monogamous society. All men have equal opportunities for a wife and family. It's ironic that men, whose sexuality is more polygynous than women's sexuality, are the beneficiaries of monogamy."

The above quotes and references were taken from: Monogamy and Polygamy

What does this proove?


And, 4 in 10 children in the US are born into an unmarried family? Can you proove that marriage ups the chances?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ls2xBA&usg=AFQjCNESYqvtUW0UJTUxjZAV53RMpsWAdg

[/QUOTE]

And? I believe the big populations of polyandrous nations are due to their developing status and their needs for large families to sustain their farms due to national reliance on the agricultural sector. Infact in the biggest populated nations, Polyandrous relationships are illegal.

Here's one regarding Polygamy and Same-Sex marriage, but this quote is somewhat relative:

...their favorite arguments against same-sex marriage are useless against polygamy. “It changes the very definition of marriage!” (No: marriage historically has been polygamous more often than monogamous.) “The Bible condemns it!” (Really? Ever heard of King Solomon?) “It’s not open to procreation!” (Watch “Big Love” and get back to me.)

If there’s a good argument against polygamy, it’s likely to be a fairly complex public-policy argument having to do with marriage patterns, sexism, economics, and the like. Such arguments are as available to gay-marriage advocates as to gay-marriage opponents. So when gay-rights opponents ask me to explain why polygamy is wrong, I say to them, “You first.”

Retrieved from:
Good Response To Polygamy Argument Creative Destruction

My argument wasnt that this debate goes hand in hand with gay marriage. But the fact that this issue shouldnt be discussed until such rights are expanded to the gay community rather than expanding them to straights who already have them.

Counter to your links claim that Polyandrous relationships are common:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Polyandry#Polyandrous_societies
 
Last edited:
5 kids can come from one vagina as easily as 1 kid can come from 5 different ones.

More importantly, it is easier for a man to support five wives in one house than it is to support five ex-wives in five houses, almost completely regardless of the number of children involved. Every sensible complaint against polygamy that I have seen goes double for the widely accepted practice of serial monogamy.

What difference does it make what the damn divorce rate is?

You were just saying not too long ago that the government has a duty to uphold the moral values of society. Tell me, aside from the active abuse and neglect of children, what is more detrimental to the moral welfare of society than adultery and divorce?

Relationships are bound to trust and faithfullness, something which is lacking in polygamy.

Funny. There has been more trust and more faith in my open relationships than in my closed ones. Jealousy is an ugly emotion that leads to suspicion and secrecy and erodes the trust and the confidence that are necessary in a lasting relationship. Even in a strictly monogamous relationship, jealousy must be closely guarded against.
 
If the parents have responsibilities to its other families and husbands/wives, that leads inevitably to a breakdown in communication with the current family and the childrens immediate parents. Also, the impact on a child with an unstable household and lack of presence as far as parents goes are very negative.



In that case can you give me any examples of success Polygamous relationships? And Polygamous relationships are not always ONE family with multiple mothers. When i visited the Middle East, there where men moving constantly from home to home, while the mother stayed and looked after the child.




What does this proove, that because most nations allow it its therefore just? I also did not doubt that women can commit to polyandrous relationships.



What does this proove?



And, 4 in 10 children in the US are born into an unmarried family? Can you proove that marriage ups the chances?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ls2xBA&usg=AFQjCNESYqvtUW0UJTUxjZAV53RMpsWAdg


And? I believe the big populations of polyandrous nations are due to their developing status and their needs for large families to sustain their farms due to national reliance on the agricultural sector. Infact in the biggest populated nations, Polyandrous relationships are illegal.



My argument wasnt that this debate goes hand in hand with gay marriage. But the fact that this issue shouldnt be discussed until such rights are expanded to the gay community rather than expanding them to straights who already have them.



That's it. I'm done with you. You missed the point of almost everything I had to offer, and not ONLY did you not present any information yourself, you simply just gave me an opinionated rebuttal, par for the course. Also, the last quote, if you had READ what I typed, I said it was about gay marriage and polygamy but the quote itself was relevant. Not to meantion, I said I stand corrected on Polyandrous relationships, MEANING: I said Women can do polygamy too, and the link said that it was rare. You just argue to argue.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, when Christopher Columbas came to the new world he wrote about the natives. The males all had one wife and were happy with having one wife while the king had several and he was happy too. If a man is rich he can keep as many women as he wants so long as he treats each one equal and with respect and so long as the other women are find with it. I don't think its necessary but some might be interested in it good for them. I, however, am not so I will stick with one women:2wave:
 
You were just saying not too long ago that the government has a duty to uphold the moral values of society. Tell me, aside from the active abuse and neglect of children, what is more detrimental to the moral welfare of society than adultery and divorce?

Your right i did say that, but i havent seen any evidence to suggest Polyandrous relationships lower divorce rates, not that it creates a stable enviournment for a child anyway and thus do any good. :shrug:


Funny. There has been more trust and more faith in my open relationships than in my closed ones. Jealousy is an ugly emotion that leads to suspicion and secrecy and erodes the trust and the confidence that are necessary in a lasting relationship. Even in a strictly monogamous relationship, jealousy must be closely guarded against.

What do you mean open relationships?

And jelously for a loved one is something that cannot always be helped. Does it come as a weird phenomenon to you if i was to tell you that some men can get jelous when his/her wife gets too friendly or comfortable with another man? In many instances, to most people that is, it seems pretty reasonable.

That's it. I'm done with you. You missed the point of almost everything I had to offer, and not ONLY did you not present any information yourself, you simply just gave me an opinionated rebuttal, par for the course. Also, the last quote, if you had READ what I typed, I said it was about gay marriage and polygamy but the quote itself was relevant. Not to meantion, I said I stand corrected on Polyandrous relationships, MEANING: I said Women can do polygamy too, and the link said that it was rare. You just argue to argue.

:confused:

I gave you an argument, i provided you with one link and my own opinions which you claim not to be mine. Its not like i was the one to result to ad hom so far, right?
 
Aside from the LDS controversy, I see no reason to ban this. People ban things that they don't understand. If you are against polygamy, then simply don't engage in that kind of relationship. Don't remove the choice for others.

I am against banning this practice. While I myself would not have a polygamous relationship, others doing it has no relevance to my life. A friend has done this in the past with success and I got along well with all of her partners. They loved each other equally and relinquished all jealousies.

Monogamy is corrosive to those who are not naturally inclined to it, and the same goes for those monogamous relationships formed. The one-size-fits-all idea about monogamy in our society is what is causing high divorce rates and adultery. People feel pressured to fit the model and so their adulterous behavior goes on in secret. If people would face the fact that many of us have a tendency towards multiple partners then there would be greater dialogue in our partnerships, disease rates would drop, and people's wishes could be fulfilled with more openness.

However, American society still can't wrap its mind around gay marriage. Polygamy will require another 50 years to evolve healthily in social consciousness. It was only 60 years ago that monogamous marriage under the traditional stay-at-home wife and bread-winner husband model was the pressured norm. We can't expect things to change too rapidly.
 
Your right i did say that, but i havent seen any evidence to suggest Polyandrous relationships lower divorce rates, not that it creates a stable enviournment for a child anyway and thus do any good. :shrug:




What do you mean open relationships?

And jelously for a loved one is something that cannot always be helped. Does it come as a weird phenomenon to you if i was to tell you that some men can get jelous when his/her wife gets too friendly or comfortable with another man? In many instances, to most people that is, it seems pretty reasonable.



:confused:

I gave you an argument, i provided you with one link and my own opinions which you claim not to be mine. Its not like i was the one to result to ad hom so far, right?

1. Polyandrous appears in one quote and now you're discussing it as if I was talking about it? Why? I didn't make any claims to it except that I was wrong about it in an earlier post.

2. You offered me one link, Is that whole page your argument? Is 60% of children being born in wedlock supposed to be the core to your rebuttal?
 
1. Polyandrous appears in one quote and now you're discussing it as if I was talking about it? Why? I didn't make any claims to it except that I was wrong about it in an earlier post.

I believe my responses where relevant to the areas quotes.

2. You offered me one link, Is that whole page your argument? Is 60% of children being born in wedlock supposed to be the core to your rebuttal?

Nope, its just a point that shows divorce and less marriage isnt the wheels behind Western population decline, and that Polyandrous relationships which for some reason brings about less divorce and therefore more children is not the solution for a greater population increase.
 
Last edited:
I believe my responses where relevant to the areas quotes.

Can you tell me how so, using quotes from our conversations and keeping any new opinions out?

Nope, its just a point that shows divorce and less marriage isnt the wheels behind Western population decline, and that Polyandrous relationships which for some reason brings about less divorce and therefore more children is not the solution for a greater population increase.

Ok, well just giving me a newspaper article doesn't do anything for me. I can interpret that data to have almost no bearing on this debate. It simply talks about the pregnancy rate of people in and out of wedlock. What does that prove or disprove about monogamy again? Please, no new opinions, there's plenty of information on the table right now.
 
It would be too complicated if you mean "legal benefits for multiple spouses" (having more than one partner at a time is already legal, obviously).
 
Sure, marry whoever following these rules.

Jack marries Betty.

Say Jack wants to marry Constance.

(Polygamy means literally "more than one wife". More than one husband is "polyandry".)

The marriage can't occur unless Betty consents.

Jack's already entered into a contract with Betty, and his marriage to another will affect the terms of the original contract and therefore she must agree to any alterations to that contract.

Also there's a huge practical issue of both property dispensation in divorce, and upon death of one of the spouses, and the matter of child custody and child support. Which are merely legal matters the morons we have in the legislature nimbly avoid by refusing to make polygamy/polyandry legal.

There is nothing immoral about multiple marriages, provided the parties are all consenting adults.

Because polygamy is currently illegal, only the flakes and wierdos do it.
 
It would be too complicated if you mean "legal benefits for multiple spouses" (having more than one partner at a time is already legal, obviously).

Freedom shouldn't be restricted just because the legislators currently in session are too damn stupid to figure it out.

Get smarter legislators.
 
Freedom shouldn't be restricted just because the legislators currently in session are too damn stupid to figure it out.

Get smarter legislators.
Having multiple partners is already totally legal. "Legal polygamy" would just be legal marriage benefits awarded to each spouse (which would just add to the overcomplicated BS that is govt-sponsored "legal marriage")
 
Having multiple partners is already totally legal. "Legal polygamy" would just be legal marriage benefits awarded to each spouse (which would just add to the overcomplicated BS that is govt-sponsored "legal marriage")

What benefits available would be made worse with the addition of more spouseses...spices...speeses? Spousi? Ahhh **** it.


Though I can see where the tax breaks for Head of Household would really pay off...
 
Then they wouldnt be able to get married under civil unions
Correct.
or in Church since Polygamy is a sin....unless they convert to Islam,
I'm not sure they'd want to be married by a church that looks down on such a choice. Maybe they'd start their own church. Makes no difference to me.
a lack of state recognition is pointless and may aswell be illegal for stated reasons.
"Illegal" usually means that the state punishes you for making that choice. I believe that's the case now, so there is a big difference.

I'm advocating that the government take a neutral stance with regard to polygamy.
 
As long as the male/female ratio continues to stay so close to 1:1- and there's no reason for it to stop now- polygamy should not be legalized.
 
As long as the male/female ratio continues to stay so close to 1:1- and there's no reason for it to stop now- polygamy should not be legalized.

What about the percentage of males who are not ever going to be married? Women don't give every guy an equal chance.
 
What about the percentage of males who are not ever going to be married? Women don't give every guy an equal chance.

Well my point was kind of that that percentage would go up if polygamy was legalized....
 
Back
Top Bottom