• 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 ? [W: 267,434]

must polygamy be legalized ?

  • it is better than monogamy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
That was the wrong argument to use, as it is already against the law to have more than one spouse. The logical step from your response is that polygamist have to follow the law of having only one spouse.

I believe that you meant that any poly marriage would still require all participants to be at or over the age of consent.

That is what I should have said. That's what I meant by "laws."
 
Doesn't mean that you were saying true things either, per se'. If you grew up and all anyone ever told you was the the sky was polka dot pink, and you then tell everyone on DP that the sky is polka dot pink, when we all know it's actually blue, you aren't lying because you are not intentionally telling us a untruth with the intent to deceive. Likewise, stating an opinion based comment isn't lying because there is no one truth to an opinon. And most importantly here, because of the language translation barrier, miswording and different applications of a word in different areas, can lead to a statement that is untrue in one area and not another. "Torch" and "crackers" and even "fag" are words that are completely different between the US and England. IF a Brit and an American are standing together and the Brit says, "I need to go out and drag a fag" the American might accuse him of being a homophobe. The Brit will think the American is lying about him, while the American will think that the Brit is lying in his denial.

If I remember correctly (it's a long thread, I'm not going to go back and look them up) you did some accusing of others lying as well. Maybe they were saying one thing that you took as something else, and while it was untrue by your understanding, it wasn't by theirs?

As to people not wanting to understand, such a label can be applied to you as well. Most of us here are trying to get you to understand that simply because a few whackos are using polygamy as an excuse to have sex with underaged girls or to abuse women, it doesn't mean that that is what the majority of polys do. I can understand that you find 3+spouse families perverted. But I've seen you defend SSM and same gender sex before. Other people find that perverted. You don't, it seems. But trying to compare it to another perversion, or perceived perversion, simply doesn't work. Another person might say, "Well if you are going to allow the perversions of polygamy and polyandry, you should then allow the perversion of same sex marriage!" DO you see how that doesn't make sense to one who doesn't see SSM as a perversion. It's the same here. We don't see poly marriages as perversions. Even many who have argued against it as a legal status, are still saying that in and of itself it's not a perversion, just logistically hard to put into law.



OK you got me on that one. I was referring contextually and I failed to point that out. Hard Cider is on me tonight!

will you keep pointing out my language in almost every post ?

l must say it is disturbing..
 
I don't see why.

The person who wants to leave the marriage of course. It's not so confusing.

I don't see what that has to do with any laws at all.

Biological of course. If it is an adopted child, then those arrangements would probable be worked out during the adoption process.

Of course all spouses would be entitled to the same medical decision rights as any other spouse in any other marriage.

It really doesn't. I don't see it being that big of deal or very expensive at all.

Not everyone is going to agree with your answers to these questions.

Answering the questions at all kind of misses the point I was trying to make though. My point with these questions was to illustrate that there are a lot of ways that our current marriage laws don't account for more than 2 people. And if we wanted them to, someone would have to look through every law regarding marriage that exists throughout the country (which there are lots of) and determine whether those laws need to be changed to account for more than 2 people. That by itself is a lot of work. And then, there would be numerous things that needed changed, and people wouldn't agree on how exactly to change them.

I think you're really underestimating what an undertaking it would be.
 
Not everyone is going to agree with your answers to these questions.

Answering the questions at all kind of misses the point I was trying to make though. My point with these questions was to illustrate that there are a lot of ways that our current marriage laws don't account for more than 2 people. And if we wanted them to, someone would have to look through every law regarding marriage that exists throughout the country (which there are lots of) and determine whether those laws need to be changed to account for more than 2 people. That by itself is a lot of work. And then, there would be numerous things that needed changed, and people wouldn't agree on how exactly to change them.

I think you're really underestimating what an undertaking it would be.

Maybe I am. Now marriage/divorce between consenting adults IS something that could be looked at on a case-to-case basis. That's all I was thinking.
 
Honestly, I think if we allowed poly people to define their own marriage arrangements via contract and then was as a society simply gave legal recognition to those arrangements, a lot of these "difficult" questions would have fairly simple solutions.

I think this would definitely be the best route to take, since it would put most of the effort, time, and money required on the shoulders of the people who actually want the benefits.

Some things can already be done, such as medical power of attorney and wills. Those can be set up among three or more people as easily as two.

Child custody would be a big one, and I actually just read a news article that California has a bill going through the state legislature that would allow children to have more than 2 legal parents in some circumstances.

Doing it that way I'd have no real objections.
 
Maybe I am. Now marriage/divorce between consenting adults IS something that could be looked at on a case-to-case basis. That's all I was thinking.

Like I said, I'm not against the idea of polygamy, and I'd support making it legal if there was a way to do it without major cost and effort. Dan's suggestion is a good start.
 
will you keep pointing out my language in almost every post ?

l must say it is disturbing..

Typos aside, I'm confused, to say the least. I can only think of 3 mentions of language per se' within this thread. Twice in post #420 and once in #425. Two posts! Four times and 3 posts if you want to include this one.

All I am trying to do here is to get you to try to think outside your box of word application and see how we're applying some words differently you you, and/or to get you to show us how you are using some words that are applied different by us. Like my American/British example, when an American says "fag" the Brit think of the object Americans call a cigarette. When a Brit says "fag", the American thinks a derogatory word for homosexual. And that is with two people who supposedly speak the same language. So where might you and I being misreading each others posts by applying definitions that we learned that are different than what the other learned?

I am in no way trying to insult you, or put down your use of the English language. If it has come across as that, then I truly am sorry and apologize. Indeed, the only other thing I've ever said of you before was an editing issue, not a language issue, and I noted that it was a minor thing at that. But if we really are using different definitions for the same word anywhere along the line we could be arguing against each other on a point we might actually be agreeing on. Am I really being terrible to want to clear that kind of misunderstanding up and to also do so in a way that will remove any confusion from others at the same time?
 
Typos aside, I'm confused, to say the least. I can only think of 3 mentions of language per se' within this thread. Twice in post #420 and once in #425. Two posts! Four times and 3 posts if you want to include this one.

All I am trying to do here is to get you to try to think outside your box of word application and see how we're applying some words differently you you, and/or to get you to show us how you are using some words that are applied different by us. Like my American/British example, when an American says "fag" the Brit think of the object Americans call a cigarette. When a Brit says "fag", the American thinks a derogatory word for homosexual. And that is with two people who supposedly speak the same language. So where might you and I being misreading each others posts by applying definitions that we learned that are different than what the other learned?

I am in no way trying to insult you, or put down your use of the English language. If it has come across as that, then I truly am sorry and apologize. Indeed, the only other thing I've ever said of you before was an editing issue, not a language issue, and I noted that it was a minor thing at that. But if we really are using different definitions for the same word anywhere along the line we could be arguing against each other on a point we might actually be agreeing on. Am I really being terrible to want to clear that kind of misunderstanding up and to also do so in a way that will remove any confusion from others at the same time?
it seems you must improve your lang!!



will you keep pointing out my language in almost every post ?

l must say it is disturbing..

you can pm me ! stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut it out now please. There's a topic here, let's stick to it and cease with all personal comments directed at each other. Last warning.
 
I voted "others". Our government should only support, by law, a single partner in marriage. Other partners being involved with a married pair can do so, but without government involvement. This is essentially what we have now, and it is fine with me. Why should we make it more complicated?
 
I voted "others". Our government should only support, by law, a single partner in marriage. Other partners being involved with a married pair can do so, but without government involvement. This is essentially what we have now, and it is fine with me. Why should we make it more complicated?


As a gender, we women are normally sane. We make rational judgements (we are the ones who stop for directions, you know). Why then, do many of us go weakkneed at the sight of the blighter who has everything going for him, including the wedding ring and attendant vows that he has taken with his wife? The Married Man has long been coveted, by more than just his wife… Intelligent, successful and absolutely sensible women have found joy in sneaking around with another woman’s man, living with the guilt, being hidden for an eternity and essentially keeping their lives on hold till the bloke decides to do the decent thing by them. Which incidentally, in most cases, doesn’t ever happen. We shed vast oceans of tears, rant about the injustice of it all, and then quickly reapply our mascara and dive into another affair, with… No prizes for guessing, honey, another married man!"


Cosmopolitan: The lure of the married man



married men lovers cosmopolitan

Google






//
 
Good grief. 45 Pages of this. Polygamy is still practiced in China, just not legally. Many men there have multiple households. I believe the female version of it is called polyandry, and that is practiced in some South American cultures. Occasionally there will be something on one of those educational channels about it. I saw one not too long ago. As to polygamy, it favors the woman. It makes a man responsible for every woman he sleeps with. In our culture a man can victimize as many women as he wants with a wink and a nod from his peers. It is the women who suffer in this sytem. I don't know the rationale for polyandry but this source suggests a couple.

Polyandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Good grief. 45 Pages of this. Polygamy is still practiced in China, just not legally. Many men there have multiple households. I believe the female version of it is called polyandry, and that is practiced in some South American cultures. Occasionally there will be something on one of those educational channels about it. I saw one not too long ago. As to polygamy, it favors the woman. It makes a man responsible for every woman he sleeps with. In our culture a man can victimize as many women as he wants with a wink and a nod from his peers. It is the women who suffer in this sytem. I don't know the rationale for polyandry but this source suggests a couple.

Polyandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word you're groping for is polgyny. Polyandry and polygyny are two different forms of polygamy.
 
I wasn't 'groping for a word.' I used the words I intended to use.

The word you intended to use was wrong. Polygamy doesnt describe the concept you are trying to describe, polgyny does.
 
The word you intended to use was wrong. Polygamy doesnt describe the concept you are trying to describe, polgyny does.

I didn't call it 'polygamy.' Females with multiple husbands is polyandry. I even posted the link so that imbeciles could read it if they were to so choose!
 
I didn't call it 'polygamy.' Females with multiple husbands is polyandry. I even posted the link so that imbeciles could read it if they were to so choose!

Yes and males with multiples wives is called polygyny. You mistakenly referred to polygyny as polygamy. Polygamy encompasses both polyandry and polygyny.

Jesus, there is nothing so tedious as debating the definitions of words with people who are ignorant of their meaning. Just google it!

And you have the nerve to call me an imbecile:lol:
 
Personally I find it repulsive, as I do homosexuality/gay marriage, and incest. I do think homosexuals should have the right to marry, though.

However, since I allow homosexuals to do so, why shouldn't I with polygamists and incestuals? People say a slippery slope's a logical fallacy, but what can one say when one's sliding down it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom