• 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!

For those who support gay marriage

What types of alternative lifestyles do you also support?

  • Polygamy (One man several wives)

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • Polyandry (One wife several husbands)

    Votes: 18 58.1%
  • Polyamory (One or more men, one or more women)

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • Open Marriage

    Votes: 19 61.3%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 11 35.5%

  • Total voters
    31

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
 
People can do whatever they want. In terms of what the state chooses to recognize as a domestic partnership/marriage/whatever they want to call it, I support two consenting adults.
 
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Polygamy?
Polygamy has quite the tradition behind it.
 
I support gay rights, but I have a really biased opinion when it comes to this.

I said none of the above. I would only support "two consenting adults," as someone above me had posted.

To me, having more than one spouse seems unfair, unfair to the spouses. It seems uneven and wrong actually. I know what I say sounds arbitrary, but unfortunately that's just how I feel. I wish I didn't feel that way.

Nonetheless, a very good poll though, because it brings up a good point.



.
 
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?

I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.

The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...

If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.

This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.
 
Last edited:
I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.

The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...

If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.

This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.

Since everyone on the planet would not become gay, your argument has zero merit and is nothing but a ridiculous straw man.

Further, please show us some peer reviewed research that demonstrates that homosexuality is a physical/mental defect. And please refrain from both the silly naturalistic fallacy of the biological nature of reproduction or the whether or not gays can procreate. These are both loser positions/arguments that I can easily destroy, and I'd rather see if you've got something substantial to discuss rather than tired, old, foolish arguments.

Oh, and the "common sense" argument is pretty laughable, too...just in case you thought of using that one.

So, peer reviewed research that shows that homosexuality is a physical/mental defect. I'll wait.
 
If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.

So what? Is legalizing gay marriage going to make everyone on the planet suddenly become gay?

creativedreams said:
This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.

So if that's the case, should everyone with ANY "physical/mental defect" be banned from getting married? If not, what's so special about THIS "physical/mental defect"? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Whoever voted Polygamy or Polyamory is a downright pimp.
 
I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.

The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...

If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.

This alone is enough to show that being gay is a physical/mental defect and not to be promoted in the courts or schools but studied to better understand this flaw in human nature for the reproductively challenged.

I know, I know...you believe that if you show tolerance, much less sympathy, for gay people, we will suspect that YOU are gay. Don't worry, we would never suspect that.
 
I don't support someone having to get a marriage license to get married.

I could personally care less if two or more people wanted to be together in such a way.

I agree. Marriage should be a religious sacrament, not a legal contract.

Which is why I tend to oppose government recognition of gay marriage; to me, it's the wrong argument over the wrong issue--it should not be about rights of or discrimination against homosexuals, but rather about government interference in the lives of consenting adults, and the argument should be that government has neither the right nor the duty to regulate personal relationships.

Rather than legalize gay marriage, eliminate marriage licenses entirely.
 
.

Rather than legalize gay marriage, eliminate marriage licenses entirely.

Would you support nixing all the benefits from being married as well? Thats the reason I support gay marriage so they can get the same legal benefits regular married couples do. In addition what do you mean by open marriage? Are you referring to swingers?
 
I'm curious why the OP poses the question of polygamy to gay marriage supporters. Since polygamy seems to be primarily a heterosexual practice, it seems that question would better be posed to supporters of traditional male/female marriage.

But I'm funny that way.

;)
 
I do not support any of the above for the reasons that I cited in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057980894-post179.html

None of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government.


Love unlimited: The polyamorists - life - 07 July 2006 - New Scientist

What evidence there is shows that poly couples stay together as long as monogamous ones - and, apparently, for good reasons. In a study published last December in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality (vol 8), Cook analysed the relationships of seven couples who had been married for more than 10 years, and who had had additional partners for at least seven of those years. She found that most of the couples reported "love" or "connection" as important reasons for staying together. This contrasts with monogamous couples, Cook notes, who often list external factors such as religion or family as major reasons for remaining committed.

The Future of The Family and The Fate of Our Children, by Dr. Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D.

Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D. attended Barnard College, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California at Berkeley in 1975 and received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Washington in 1981. She is a leading edge healer, writer, and teacher. In 1984, she founded the Sacred Space Institute (formerly IntiNet Resource Center and The Abundant Love Institute), a national organization dedicated to reintegrating sexuality into spirituality and health care and expanding the boundaries of the family.

Dr. Anapol is the author of Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits (1997), cofounder of Loving More Magazine, and producer of the video, Pelvic Heart Integration. Dr. Anapol has worked with groups, partners, and individuals who are exploring conscious relationships and sexual healing for over two decades, leads workshops nationwide, and is an inspiring and illuminating speaker. She is available for individual coaching, phone counseling, seminars, and public speaking engagements.

There is not a wealth of statistical evidence or case studies about these family structures, but such evidence and theory as does exist at the very least these family structures are no less able to provide a healthy environment for raising children and sustaining families.

It's Better with Three

The anecdotal evidence supporting the viability of poly structures is at the very least sufficiently intriguing that Terri Conley, associate professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, began a study last year into poly families.

At the very least, it is fair to say that there is some evidence these family structures have the potential to be healthy environments for sustaining families and raising children.
 
Would you support nixing all the benefits from being married as well? Thats the reason I support gay marriage so they can get the same legal benefits regular married couples do.
I don't see how government regulating marriage through marriage licenses either provides benefits nor how ending that regulation would end those benefits.

For people who wanted to dot every i and cross every t in the legal aspects of their relationships, let them register their relationships in the same fashion that some contracts are registered at the local courthouse.

There are alternatives. Government regulation is not the only answer.
 
I'm curious why the OP poses the question of polygamy to gay marriage supporters. Since polygamy seems to be primarily a heterosexual practice, it seems that question would better be posed to supporters of traditional male/female marriage.

But I'm funny that way.

;)
A fair question. I posed it that way because I wanted to see how gay marriage supporters viewed the rights of consenting adults more broadly--i.e., are gay marriage supporters strictly advocating a right/privilege for homosexuals, or are they willing to take a broader view of the issue.

It hardly seems productive to ask the question of people who advocate for exclusively heterosexual monogamous marriage.
 
Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

That said, I don't give a hoot who gets married, to how many people, or of which genders as long as they are all consenting adults.
 
A fair question. I posed it that way because I wanted to see how gay marriage supporters viewed the rights of consenting adults more broadly--i.e., are gay marriage supporters strictly advocating a right/privilege for homosexuals, or are they willing to take a broader view of the issue.

It hardly seems productive to ask the question of people who advocate for exclusively heterosexual monogamous marriage.

Fair response. But I've seen this mingling and blurring of relationships used in the gay marriage debate many times before.

The purpose, in some instances, is to force the conclusion that allowing gay marriage would open the 'Pandora's box' for all sorts of other non-traditional marriages.

A common example is to attempt to place those supporting gay marriage into a box about incest. Well, gay marriage no more opens the box to incest than does heterosexual marriage. A gay man is no more likely to marry his brother than a straight man is likely to marry his sister.

..
 
The purpose, in some instances, is to force the conclusion that allowing gay marriage would open the 'Pandora's box' for all sorts of other non-traditional marriages.
My response to that would be "so what if it did?"

I am opposed to government being in the role of sanctioning marriages of any kind. Marriage should be religious sacrament, period. Government-issued marriage licenses are, to my mind, a violation of the First Amendment, and the resolution is for government to stop issuing marriage licenses.

Thus, while I am opposed to legalizing gay marriage on that admittedly technical basis, at the same time I am in favor of removing legal impediments to any relationship choices made between consenting adults.
 
I am opposed to government being in the role of sanctioning marriages of any kind. Marriage should be religious sacrament, period.

If that's truly your position, then why didn't you create a poll asking whether marriage should be sanctioned by the government or rendered to a strictly religious sacrament? And why limit it to those who favor gay marriage?

Your response here is completely inconsistent with the thread you created.

:doh
 
If that's truly your position, then why didn't you create a poll asking whether marriage should be sanctioned by the government or rendered to a strictly religious sacrament? And why limit it to those who favor gay marriage?

Your response here is completely inconsistent with the thread you created.

:doh
Not inconsistent at all. I wanted to add a different dimension to the gay marriage debate. I specifically avoided declaring a position up front in the hopes of stimulating discussion.

Hopefully, I have succeeded at least somewhat.
 
It is not my place to support or not support any type of marriage outside my own.

It ain't no body's business IMO.
 
I don't think there should be anything legal about relationships unless children are involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom