• 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
sazerac said:
I don't think there should be anything legal about relationships unless children are involved.
Click to expand...

So you think relationships should be illegal?:2razz:
 
I support anything that consenting adults do within their own homes/lives. As long as they are keeping it legal and harming nothing? Who frigging cares?!

If people spent as much time trying to figure out how to wipe out world hunger as they do worrying about others peeps biz? This world would be a much better place. :)
 
Kali said:
I support anything that consenting adults do within their own homes/lives. As long as they are keeping it legal and harming nothing? Who frigging cares?!

If people spent as much time trying to figure out how to wipe out world hunger as they do worrying about others peeps biz? This world would be a much better place. :)
Click to expand...

Was that one of your rehersed beauty contest answers?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody has to get a marriage license to get "married", they only have to do so if they want to take advantage of the legal benefits thereof. I agree that anyone who wants to be together can and should be able to do so.
 
I had to vote none of the above, not because I care if anyone wants to be a part of such arrangements, but because we simply do not have the legal case law available or systems in place to deal with the legal mess those arrangements would cause. We already know how to deal with a two-partner system, we can handle property and child custody issues, etc. Once you start to throw more people into the mix, we simply have no means of making those determinations and having divorces to deal with under those circumstances is going to cause a huge mess in the court systems.

Once we can come up with an equitable system for divorce of multiple-partner marriages, fine. Until then, it's simply not practical.
 
celticlord said:
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Click to expand...

These types of relationships are already happening out there in the real world. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. They are definitely not for everyone and if made legal, I don't foresee any increase in their frequency at all.

I absolutely support each and every one of them, just like I support gay marriage or any other relationship between consenting adults, with the possible exception of incestual realtionships.

No one has ever been able to give me one single valid reason why government should forbid any of the above. I do agree with Cephus that the legal system would need to catch up real quick on the matters of child custody, divorce and inheritance to avoid a potential legal nightmare depending on how many people are involved.
 
Marriages between more than two people are never fair- nobody will ever end up treating each spouse equally. Furthermore, they are very mysogynistic in practice, since they are almost always between one man and several wives, which the man usually is dominant over. So no, I support none of the above. Quite frankly, that so many people support all of these slightly disturbs me (not that the DP members represent society as a whole, of course.)

I do support gay marriage, though, simply because I think it's right. Gay people can't help their sexual preferences, it is almost definitely a genetic condition.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
Marriages between more than two people are never fair- nobody will ever end up treating each spouse equally.
Click to expand...

That's why it needs to be legal, so it can be regulated and equality assured.
 
Dav said:
Marriages between more than two people are never fair- nobody will ever end up treating each spouse equally.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you assert that "fair" treatment must be "equal" treatment? If all parties consent and are content within the relationship, how is "unfair"? If a plural marriage is the desire of all parties, how can it be anything but "fair"?

Dav said:
Furthermore, they are very mysogynistic in practice, since they are almost always between one man and several wives, which the man usually is dominant over.
Click to expand...
First, within the United States, plural marriage strictly speaking is not practiced at all; bigamy is a crime in all 50 states.

Second, even if the predominant form is polygamy rather than polyandry, how does that single fact render the practice innately misogynistic?

Dav said:
So no, I support none of the above. Quite frankly, that so many people support all of these slightly disturbs me (not that the DP members represent society as a whole, of course.)
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion on the subject, and I presume you would staunchly advocate your right to such an opinion. Why you feel the need to take offense (be disturbed) that others hold differing opinions eludes me.
 
Cephus said:
Once we can come up with an equitable system for divorce of multiple-partner marriages, fine. Until then, it's simply not practical.
Click to expand...
Case law evolves reactively, not proactively--and necessarily so. Statutory law arises from needs and issues defined through public discourse, including the aforementioned case law.

If these relationship structures are denied legal status, how do you propose deriving the equitable divorce and family law structures to address such concerns?

Equitable treatment of the laws is always a necessity, but securing equitable treatment in statutory law requires prior free exercise of the relevant rights, privileges, and responsibilities.
 
celticlord said:
On what basis do you assert that "fair" treatment must be "equal" treatment? If all parties consent and are content within the relationship, how is "unfair"? If a plural marriage is the desire of all parties, how can it be anything but "fair"?
Click to expand...
Peer pressure. People might feel forced into polygamy by their culture and the friends and family who practice it.
First, within the United States, plural marriage strictly speaking is not practiced at all; bigamy is a crime in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what I'm saying is that I'd like to keep it that way.
Second, even if the predominant form is polygamy rather than polyandry, how does that single fact render the practice innately misogynistic?
Click to expand...
Well, if the man's not marrying for love (which, if there's more than one of them, he probably isn't), there's obviously more he expects from his wives. Then they become like his servants.
You are entitled to your opinion on the subject, and I presume you would staunchly advocate your right to such an opinion. Why you feel the need to take offense (be disturbed) that others hold differing opinions eludes me.
Click to expand...
That really is a good question... it's just a feeling. I can't really help it.

Here's another question: if polygamy were practiced, how would children fit into the equation? Would it be okay for them to have more than 2 parents, or a father that is married to other women besides the child's mother?
 
I support them all, but keep it private, and don't expect govt or employers to give you any additional rights or benefits beyond the first "marriage"....
 
celticlord said:
If these relationship structures are denied legal status, how do you propose deriving the equitable divorce and family law structures to address such concerns?
Click to expand...

The issue is, no one has even been able to suggest how it might happen, there are no good ideas upon which to work and we know, for a fact, that these cases will come up in the extremely near future if we legalized it today.

As I said, I have no problem with any of it, but I don't want to drop a bombshell on the already overburdened court systems without having a clue what we might do in that situation.
 
Dav said:
Peer pressure. People might feel forced into polygamy by their culture and the friends and family who practice it.
Click to expand...
Supposition and backwards reasoning. You are beginning from a conclusion that plural marriage is bad/unfair/unequal and contriving predicates to support the conclusion.


Dav said:
Well, if the man's not marrying for love (which, if there's more than one of them, he probably isn't), there's obviously more he expects from his wives. Then they become like his servants.
Click to expand...
Supposition and backwards reasoning. You are beginning from a conclusion that plural marriage is bad/unfair/unequal and contriving predicates to support the conclusion.

Dav said:
That really is a good question... it's just a feeling. I can't really help it.
Click to expand...
Nor can you avoid the practical consequence of that feeling obliterating the putative logic you offer up in defense of your position. Arguing from "feeling" and backfilling "reason" to support the feeling has a name: prejudice. (Literally, for it is the essence of "pre-judging")

Dav said:
Here's another question: if polygamy were practiced, how would children fit into the equation? Would it be okay for them to have more than 2 parents, or a father that is married to other women besides the child's mother?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be ok. Considering that such is the environment of children of divorced parents today, it is far less of a stretch from current norms than you might imagine.
 
celticlord said:
Supposition and backwards reasoning. You are beginning from a conclusion that plural marriage is bad/unfair/unequal and contriving predicates to support the conclusion.



Supposition and backwards reasoning. You are beginning from a conclusion that plural marriage is bad/unfair/unequal and contriving predicates to support the conclusion.


Nor can you avoid the practical consequence of that feeling obliterating the putative logic you offer up in defense of your position. Arguing from "feeling" and backfilling "reason" to support the feeling has a name: prejudice. (Literally, for it is the essence of "pre-judging")
Click to expand...

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”. - David Hume
Of course, that's a topic for a whole other thread, so I'll stop there.
 
Dav said:
“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”. - David Hume
Of course, that's a topic for a whole other thread, so I'll stop there.
Click to expand...
Especially when you are debating with one who subscribes to Kant and not Hume.;)
 
It’s none of my business what type of relationships consenting adults want to follow. It’s none of the governments business either. I would like to highlight – consenting adults.
 
celticlord said:
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's any of my business. If you want to talk about legal ramifications of same sex marriage. Well we didn't allow Utah into the union without first forbidding polygamy. I think that speaks volumes for precedent.
 
Ikari said:
I don't see how it's any of my business. If you want to talk about legal ramifications of same sex marriage. Well we didn't allow Utah into the union without first forbidding polygamy. I think that speaks volumes for precedent.
Click to expand...

Based on homosexuality, maybe we can expel much of california from the union?:2razz:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage. There is plenty of data on both of those. I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful.
Click to expand...
Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage does not rear children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage.

I do not see why the government should support something unless there is some data showing it is helpful.
Click to expand...
Could you link us to the government document that outlines it's reasons for support of ANY type of marriage. Then explain why the government should be involved in the private life of it's adult citizens.
 
creativedreams said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you type this in a mindless stupor? You don't see the inherent problem with this comment? Let me help you:

If everyone on the planet suddenly chopped off their heads humans would be extinct instantly. The point being that this would never happen and is therefore a ridiculously stupid thing to say. Similarly, everyone on the planet is not going to suddenly become gay. :roll:
 
Slippery Slope said:
you left out "all of the above" That's my vote.
Click to expand...
I thought about that option, but felt that making the poll multiple choice instead would open the way for a broader discussion--e.g., if one wished to make a case for polygamy but not polyandry, or vice versa.
 
I wasn't going to comment on this, but as others have, silence no longer seems prudent...

creativedreams said:
I don't support anything but a normal man and wife marriage.
Click to expand...
That is your right.

creativedreams said:
The state of being gay should be defined like it truely is...
Click to expand...
Given that no one has fully documented and mapped the whole of personality, that definition is decidedly beyond the realm of current human knowledge. Neither you nor anyone else has such a definition to offer up, and any assertion to the contrary is patently false and incorrect.

creativedreams said:
If everyone on the planet suddenly became gay then humans would be extinct in about 100 yrs.
Click to expand...
Tautologous and irrelevant. There is about as much probability of that happening as the whole of Congress joining hands and singing "We are the world."

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.
Click to expand...
I technically agree that specific behaviors of any kind should not be promoted by the courts or the schools as a rule; individual choice is always the preeminent civic virtue.

However, the assertion that homosexuality is either a physical or mental defect is odious, detestable, and has no place in civilized discourse.

Your assertion is wrong. Period. End of Sentence. End of discussion.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Please show some evidence that polygamous marriage does not rear children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

1) I asked the question first. Be my guest in attempting to respond to it.

2) When you can prove a negative, one like "God does not exist", I'll give it a go. Until then, your question is irrelevant.


Could you link us to the government document that outlines it's reasons for support of ANY type of marriage. Then explain why the government should be involved in the private life of it's adult citizens.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of research that shows that married couples are healthier, happier, and the children of married couples function better. Plenty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom