• 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
1) I asked the question first. Be my guest in attempting to respond to it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46268-those-who-support-gay-marriage-2.html#post1057981042

I did. There is not a wealth of statistical evidence--for obvious reasons--but there is both evidence and theory to give credence to the position that poly family structures are innately no worse than traditional marriage.

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.

Not if you reframe his question as being a request to provide proof that poly family structures are in fact harmful to children by leaving them less healthy and able to function than children of traditional married couples. Then his question is exceedingly relevant and deserving of response.

Given that you appear to favor disallowing plural marriages and the range of poly family structures, establishing the foundation for such disallowance, presumably by demonstrating with evidence the harm done, is reasonable, appropriate, and one might even say courteous.

There is plenty of research that shows that married couples are healthier, happier, and the children of married couples function better. Plenty.
Does that research support the status of being a couple or the status of being married? Does any of that research show harm to children from being more than a couple (i.e., poly)?

If there is no demonstrable harm, what civil interest is served by limiting relationship choices to monogamous marriage?
 
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.
1) you asked the question of someone else in some other thread. Therefore, I actually asked you first... in this thread. So you should answer.

2) I'm not asking you to prove a negative like the example you gave. Your assertion is that the government supports a 2 parent marriage based on some data, provide that data and it must certainly show the statistics that I asked. Otherwise it's not much of a study if you just made up a conclusion and put it on paper.

There is plenty of research that shows that married couples are healthier, happier, and the children of married couples function better. Plenty.
Then providing it to back up your claim when challenged would seem prudent and obviously, according to you, easy to find.
 
Last edited:
1) you asked the question of someone else in some other thread. Therefore, I actually asked you first... in this thread. So you should answer.

I asked the question first in this thread...which is what you were responding to. Your move.

2) I'm not asking you to prove a negative like the example you gave. Your assertion is that the government supports a 2 parent marriage based on some data, provide that data and it must certainly show the statistics that I asked. Otherwise it's not much of a study if you just made up a conclusion and put it on paper.

You did not ask for me to prove my position. You asked for me to prove yours. That's your job. Still your move.


Then providing it to back up your claim when challenged would seem prudent and obviously, according to you, easy to find.

Sure. And since you are not stupid, this is information you surely know, as do most people. I will not take your bait.

Still your move.
 
I'm not sure how I missed this post.


Absolutely no information on how it affects the children. Because of this, and because my premise was, "None of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government", your link does neither addresses nor refutes my statement.


This is nothing but an essay, and still offers zero evidence or data. Further, the author makes a non-sequitur extrapolation, using the belief that children would benefit from having an involved extended family to prove his position. No evidence to support this, or my comment, "none of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government."

Still no evidence to contradict my presentation.

And you are one of the last people I would have thought would have taken the position, "It Takes a Village". ;)



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.

Please post any data that refutes my position. I see none.

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.

Here's a comment from Conley, the lead researcher that you might find interesting:

But they just adopted a 2-year-old girl from Kazakhstan, and Conley says their lives are too crazy to think about getting involved with someone else. "Maybe down the road, that'll be something we explore," she says.

Sounds like the consideration of their new child is part of the decision to NOT get involved in a polymorphous relationship. Hmmm...even the lead researcher.

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.

No, there isn't. You didn't present any, so this is an inaccurate conclusion.

My position stands.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46268-those-who-support-gay-marriage-2.html#post1057981042

I did. There is not a wealth of statistical evidence--for obvious reasons--but there is both evidence and theory to give credence to the position that poly family structures are innately no worse than traditional marriage.

No, there isn't. Read my debunking of your "evidence".



Not if you reframe his question as being a request to provide proof that poly family structures are in fact harmful to children by leaving them less healthy and able to function than children of traditional married couples. Then his question is exceedingly relevant and deserving of response.

This is not my position. My position is this, again: "none of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government". I am not saying that they are detrimental. I am saying that there is no evidence that they benefit. If you want to disprove my statement, show me evidence that they are beneficial to any of the things I mentioned. This is consistent with my position on pro-GM. There is evidence that shows that gay marriage is beneficial in the ways that I mentioned.

Given that you appear to favor disallowing plural marriages and the range of poly family structures, establishing the foundation for such disallowance, presumably by demonstrating with evidence the harm done, is reasonable, appropriate, and one might even say courteous.

I am in favor of disallowing plural marriages because I see no evidence that it is beneficial. I have shown, in the other thread, how it is completely different, structurally, from gay marriage, so in order for me to support it, I need to see evidence that it is beneficial. There is plenty to back the pro-GM position; if there wasn't, I wouldn't support it.

It is his job to disprove my position, not to alter my position.


Does that research support the status of being a couple or the status of being married? Does any of that research show harm to children from being more than a couple (i.e., poly)?

The research is generally limited to committed relationships, marriage mostly.

And there is no research on children from plural marriages, as I have said.

If there is no demonstrable harm, what civil interest is served by limiting relationship choices to monogamous marriage?

If there is no demonstrative benefit, what civil interest is served by allowing plural marriage? I am arguing from the standpoint of benefits to the family and children. Until you can show me evidence that plural marriage does this, I reject it.
 
If there is no demonstrative benefit, what civil interest is served by allowing plural marriage? I am arguing from the standpoint of benefits to the family and children. Until you can show me evidence that plural marriage does this, I reject it.
The civil interest is called liberty. If there is no harm, if there is no proven harm, then the default answer ever and always should be freedom to choose.

The question is never what should the government allow, but what must the government be required to disallow.

If people want plural marriage, unless and until it can be shown that plural marriage is decidedly harmful--and this you have not done, nor even attempted to do--it is in the interest of freedom and liberty that people be allowed plural marriage.

Freedom is the pre-eminent civic interest.
 
I asked the question first in this thread...which is what you were responding to. Your move.



You did not ask for me to prove my position. You asked for me to prove yours. That's your job. Still your move.




Sure. And since you are not stupid, this is information you surely know, as do most people. I will not take your bait.

Still your move.

I disagree with all of your "it's your move" since you are making a claim and not backing it up with anything other than your claim. Therefore, since you seem determined to avoid providing evidence for your claim when challenged we should assume that it's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim/ your opinion.
 
No, there isn't. Read my debunking of your "evidence".





This is not my position. My position is this, again: "none of these can show benefits to the family, children, the human condition, or the government". I am not saying that they are detrimental. I am saying that there is no evidence that they benefit. If you want to disprove my statement, show me evidence that they are beneficial to any of the things I mentioned. This is consistent with my position on pro-GM. There is evidence that shows that gay marriage is beneficial in the ways that I mentioned.



I am in favor of disallowing plural marriages because I see no evidence that it is beneficial. I have shown, in the other thread, how it is completely different, structurally, from gay marriage, so in order for me to support it, I need to see evidence that it is beneficial. There is plenty to back the pro-GM position; if there wasn't, I wouldn't support it.

It is his job to disprove my position, not to alter my position.




The research is generally limited to committed relationships, marriage mostly.

And there is no research on children from plural marriages, as I have said.



If there is no demonstrative benefit, what civil interest is served by allowing plural marriage? I am arguing from the standpoint of benefits to the family and children. Until you can show me evidence that plural marriage does this, I reject it.
You may see no evidence that it is beneficial but you also must see no evidence that it is detrimental. Therefore taking a position against something must be either stupidity, which I don't think you are or simply an emotional response. I think you'd agree, that is a dangerous reason to be for or against something that effects others.
 
The civil interest is called liberty. If there is no harm, if there is no proven harm, then the default answer ever and always should be freedom to choose.

And this is where we disagree philosophically. History demonstrates that the welfare of the child and family is key, and without evidence of benefit, the default has been security.

The question is never what should the government allow, but what must the government be required to disallow.

Should doesn't exist. Reality is what the government allows.

If people want plural marriage, unless and until it can be shown that plural marriage is decidedly harmful--and this you have not done, nor even attempted to do--it is in the interest of freedom and liberty that people be allowed plural marriage.

If people want plural marriage, it must be shown to meet the criteria that is beneficial to the family and the children. Your position is principle. Mine is actual application.

Freedom is the pre-eminent civic interest.

Freedom and security is the pre-eminent civic interest. Without the second, we have anarchy.
 
I disagree with all of your "it's your move" since you are making a claim and not backing it up with anything other than your claim. Therefore, since you seem determined to avoid providing evidence for your claim when challenged we should assume that it's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim/ your opinion.

Disagree all you want. You initiated this by responding to this statement of mine, which you posted in this thread: "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."

I asked first. If you have no evidence of your position, just say so and we can move on.
 
You may see no evidence that it is beneficial but you also must see no evidence that it is detrimental. Therefore taking a position against something must be either stupidity, which I don't think you are or simply an emotional response. I think you'd agree, that is a dangerous reason to be for or against something that effects others.

Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
 
Do you also support polygamy, polyandry, open marriages, and other non-traditional family structures?

It's a question of values.

In certain societies, polygamy/andry are OK

I support all the things you mentioned, the only condition being that the 2 adults are consentings.

As for kids, it's OK too: I don't see why gays would be less good at educating children than heterosexuals. I know many heterosexuals who would be much less good at it (alcoholics, drug consumers...) and who are not prevented from educating their kids.

That's why I support gay marriage & adoption of kids by gays
 
Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.

Do you see more benefits in heterosexual marriage?
 
Freedom and security is the pre-eminent civic interest. Without the second, we have anarchy.
This is where you're wrong. There is no inherent civic interest in security. Society does not protect because there may be harm, but because there is specific and articulable reason to believe there will be harm, or that there has been harm done.

With security as a default, we have repression, oppression, totalitarianism, tyranny....take your pick.

Freedom is the default. Security is applicable only when there is clear demonstrable harm.

Your whole position boils down to that an alternative family structure must be shown to be beneficial to children. Simply put, this is the wrong position to take.

It is wrong because it demands of plural marriage advocates they show their way not merely to be adequate to the demands of raising children, but in fact superior to monogamous marriage; such argument derives directly from the requirement you would impose of plural marriage that it demonstrate a distinct demonstrable benefit to children.

In order for such benefit to be demonstrated, it would necessarily have to be a benefit not obtainable within a family structure defined by monogamous marriage. Further, if such a benefit were to be had at the expense of a distinct demonstrable benefit of monogamous marriage, that benefit would need to be of sufficient worth to outweigh the loss of the other, else the exchange of benefits would be argued as being the equivalent of harm. If that benefit stands alone and not in exchange for a benefit of monogamous marriage, it necessarily follows that such benefit is in addition to those supplied by monogamous marriage.

Thus, per your standard, for plural marriage to be permissible, it must yield either superior benefits to monogamous marriage or additional benefits to monogamous marriage. Per your standard, if plural marriage cannot be shown to offer such superior or additional benefits, it must be disallowed.

In no other aspect of family life is this requirement imposed, not as operation of law nor as operation of actual practice. For example, in the Texas Family Code, Chapter 161, §001, the law sets the following threshold for the termination of parent-child relationships:
Sec. 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that the parent has:

(A) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent and expressed an intent not to return;

(B) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the adequate support of the child, and remained away for a period of at least three months;

(C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;

(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;

(F) failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition;

(G) abandoned the child without identifying the child or furnishing means of identification, and the child's identity cannot be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence;

(H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;

(I) contumaciously refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchapter D, Chapter 261;

(J) been the major cause of:

(i) the failure of the child to be enrolled in school as required by the Education Code; or

(ii) the child's absence from the child's home without the consent of the parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without the intent to return;

(K) executed before or after the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter;

(L) been convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation of one of the following Penal Code sections:

(i) Section 19.02 (murder);

(ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);

(iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);

(iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);

(v) Section 22.01 (assault);

(vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);

(vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);

(viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);

(ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);

(x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);

(xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);

(xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child);

(xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography); and

(xiv) Section 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of young child or children);

(M) had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state;

(N) constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months, and:

(i) the department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;

(ii) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and

(iii) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment;

(O) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;

(P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and:

(i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or

(ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance;

(Q) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's:

(i) conviction of an offense; and

(ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition;

(R) been the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than a controlled substance legally obtained by prescription, as defined by Section 261.001;

(S) voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302 without expressing an intent to return for the child; or

(T) been convicted of the murder of the other parent of the child under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code, or under a law of another state, federal law, the law of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code; and

(2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
All the criteria ennumerated require intentional, willful, and demonstrably harmful conduct of the parent. Further, for temporary removal, Chapter 262 §101 sets the standard of an "immediate danger":
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;

Similar standards are set for emergency removal of a child without a court order (Chapter 262 §104):
Sec. 262.104. TAKING POSSESSION OF A CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. (a) If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services, a law enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only:

(1) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

(2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;

(3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;

(4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse; or

(5) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child.

Contrary to your assertions, the "default" position regarding a child's welfare is not "safety", but rather demonstrable danger. Absent immediate and demonstrable harm, the "default" is for society to let parents raise their children as they will. Extending that practice to plural marriage, an opposing argument predicated on the safety and welfare of the child can only succeed if a specific, demonstrable harm can be shown arising from plural marriage.

Thus your challenge is wrong as a matter of practical application, and, as a matter of practical application, the challenge is on you to articulate the demonstrable harms plural marriage would have on children.
 
tbh, I could care less who wants to get married.

Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government... and they should have absolutely no say in it.
 
tbh, I could care less who wants to get married.

Marriage is an institution of the church, not the government... and they should have absolutely no say in it.

People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
 
People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
If marriage is defined solely as a religious sacrament, then, if your religious beliefs do not include that sacrament, it follows that no, you would not be getting married.

But if your religious beliefs do not include the sacrament of marriage, what is it about marriage that you desire it so?
 
Disagree all you want. You initiated this by responding to this statement of mine, which you posted in this thread: "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."

I asked first. If you have no evidence of your position, just say so and we can move on.

Ok, I have no evidence that polygamous marriage rears children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage.

Do you have some evidence that polygamous marriage does not rear children as healthy and able to function as children of hetero- and homosexual marriage?
 
Neither. In the question of marriage, I have no reason to support something that shows no clear benefit.
Do you think 2 parents are better for child rearing than 1 parent?

Do you think 3 parents are better for child rearing than 2 or 1 parent?

Do you think 4 parents are better for child rearing than 3, 2 or 1 parent?
 
People keep saying this, but that means I can't get married because I don't belong to any religion or church.
My wife and I were together for 12 years before we got "married". The only thing that changed thereafter was the view the government took of our union. Oh, and we got a piece of paper from the justice of the peace.

Create a piece of paper on your computer that says "marriage" on it. Print it out and hang it on the wall so you can feel good.
 
But if your religious beliefs do not include the sacrament of marriage, what is it about marriage that you desire it so?
===>
My wife and I were together for 12 years before we got "married". The only thing that changed thereafter was the view the government took of our union. Oh, and we got a piece of paper from the justice of the peace.

Create a piece of paper on your computer that says "marriage" on it. Print it out and hang it on the wall so you can feel good.

That thing. It's not much, but the fact stands that marriage has become more than just a religious institution, as proven by the fact that nonreligious people do it all the time.
 
===>


That thing. It's not much, but the fact stands that marriage has become more than just a religious institution, as proven by the fact that nonreligious people do it all the time.
If instead you were given the option of registering a civil union at the local courthouse, so that your union ("marriage") gained legal stature, would that suffice?

Is it the status of the term "married" or the legal stature for your relationship that is important to you?

(honest questions, btw)
 
If instead you were given the option of registering a civil union at the local courthouse, so that your union ("marriage") gained legal stature, would that suffice?

Is it the status of the term "married" or the legal stature for your relationship that is important to you?

(honest questions, btw)

Well I'm personally a fan of doing things the traditional way, so being married by that term would be preferable. Not that it matters very much.
 
Well I'm personally a fan of doing things the traditional way, so being married by that term would be preferable. Not that it matters very much.
So if marriage were deemed a religious exercise, but civil unions could be registered at the courthouse...is that an acceptable arrangement for you?
 
Back
Top Bottom