• 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 ?

  • yes ,because it is a matter of freedom and it must be legalized

    Votes: 27 39.7%

  • it must be legalized for only men

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • it must be legalized for both men and women

    Votes: 14 20.6%

  • no ,it is a kind of perversion and it has nothing to do with freedom

    Votes: 7 10.3%

  • it is just a marginality which may harm society

    Votes: 4 5.9%

  • it was a tradition in many ancient cultures and defending it doesnt seem so liberalal

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • being against it is a bigotry and l defend polygamy as an enlightened person

    Votes: 4 5.9%

  • it is better than monogamy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • l dont care

    Votes: 16 23.5%

  • others

    Votes: 12 17.6%
  • Total voters
    68
Rainman05 said:
There are hardly further arguments to be made. These however are the sufficiently valid enough to not let this go ahead. History and human nature validate this claim and hence, it is the correct one.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with human nature, you said it yourself, they can still do EVERYTHING with each other as if they were married, you're just against them having the actual title of being married. That is the ONLY difference. You believe the state should have a monopoly on marriage, and should divy out who can and can not be married.

There's nothing you can do to stop a group of people from living together, ****ing each other, and having kids together. So good thing you're there to make sure they don't call it a marriage.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It has nothing to do with human nature, you said it yourself, they can still do EVERYTHING with each other as if they were married, you're just against them having the actual title of being married. That is the ONLY difference. You believe the state should have a monopoly on marriage, and should divy out who can and can not be married.

There's nothing you can do to stop a group of people from living together, ****ing each other, and having kids together. So good thing you're there to make sure they don't call it a marriage.
Click to expand...

Because there is a difference between depravity and an institution. marriage is an institution. Not a religious one per se, but a state one since we live in a secular society. You don't permit marriage to be a depraved institution for the same reason that you don't like it when politicians are corrupt assholes.

If people want to live and love each other in a gangbang house, fine by me. They are free to do so. There is no law preventing a man or a woman to be a complete slut. But that doesn't mean that we need to validate that behavior by adopting it into our civic lifestyle as a society.
And if you are to put it to a referendum in any civilized country, I will bet you that the vote will overwhelmingly go against polygamy.

And yes, it has something to do with human nature. If it were in human nature for people to be polygamous, we would have adopted that as a desirable thing and marriage would be that. But since it is recognized that such behavior is pretty much an aberration, a deformity from the standard, we don't permit it.

Again. Having person liberty and being free from prosecution to be a bad husband or a bad wife, to cheat and to do adultery, does not mean that we need to reward such behavior or validate it in our society.
 
Rainman05 said:
Because there is a difference between depravity and an institution. marriage is an institution. Not a religious one per se, but a state one since we live in a secular society. You don't permit marriage to be a depraved institution for the same reason that you don't like it when politicians are corrupt assholes.

If people want to live and love each other in a gangbang house, fine by me. They are free to do so. There is no law preventing a man or a woman to be a complete slut. But that doesn't mean that we need to validate that behavior by adopting it into our civic lifestyle as a society.
And if you are to put it to a referendum in any civilized country, I will bet you that the vote will overwhelmingly go against polygamy.

And yes, it has something to do with human nature. If it were in human nature for people to be polygamous, we would have adopted that as a desirable thing and marriage would be that. But since it is recognized that such behavior is pretty much an aberration, a deformity from the standard, we don't permit it.

Again. Having person liberty and being free from prosecution to be a bad husband or a bad wife, to cheat and to do adultery, does not mean that we need to reward such behavior or validate it in our society.
Click to expand...

Bahaha, at least you've made it clear that it actually didn't have anything to do with protecting children. The only way you would've been able to remain consistent with that is if you made the actual acts illegal.

It turns out to be exactly as I said, you're only concerned with protecting the title of marriage, that is all.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Bahaha, at least you've made it clear that it actually didn't have anything to do with protecting children. The only way you would've been able to remain consistent with that is if you made the actual acts illegal.

It turns out to be exactly as I said, you're only concerned with protecting the title of marriage, that is all.
Click to expand...

Dude. I didn't feel the need to protect the role of marriage in concern to children because it is self-evident. Pointing that out in every single comment would mean that I don't trust your memory.

Now. This being said, the quality of the parents in any family is more important than the kind of family. This is why there have been gay marriage studies in regards to homosexual couples raising children, and it turned out that being raised by a decent homosexual couple doesn't screw the kid on any psychological level. In other words, if the parents are good, it doesn't matter if they are a normal couple or a gay couple.

That being said. It is preferable for children to be raised by a normal couple because that way they have both a female and a male influence in their life. And it is pretty much no risk of society falling apart if homosexual couples adopt children who have been deserted by irresponsible parents. It is a much better outlook than a state orphanage or whatever.

That being said... polygamy doesn't fall in the same area as gay marriage unless you make it polygamous gay marriage. But lets talk a straight polygamy thing. So a child raised there will mostly have 1 father and multiple moms and step moms. There may be really no risk to the child as he grows up if the people are decent people and raise the kid well. However, pure math tells us that the more variables you put in an equation, the more chances there is for risk and the more chances you have to get things messed up. So does this present a greater risk to the child? Perhaps. It also depends on the environment the child grows in. And since the only place where you find polygamy acceptable and enforced is in islamic countries and mormon families, then the child is raised in an environment that promotes this. so it will seem "normal" to him. So lets look at the results of polygamy in islamic societies. What did you get? Well, the result of polygamy seems to be an intollerant, anti-women society in many countries in the islamic world. This is the result of polygamy, among other factors. Do you want that in the West? I don't.
 
Rainman05 said:
Dude. I didn't feel the need to protect the role of marriage in concern to children because it is self-evident. Pointing that out in every single comment would mean that I don't trust your memory.

Now. This being said, the quality of the parents in any family is more important than the kind of family. This is why there have been gay marriage studies in regards to homosexual couples raising children, and it turned out that being raised by a decent homosexual couple doesn't screw the kid on any psychological level. In other words, if the parents are good, it doesn't matter if they are a normal couple or a gay couple.

That being said. It is preferable for children to be raised by a normal couple because that way they have both a female and a male influence in their life. And it is pretty much no risk of society falling apart if homosexual couples adopt children who have been deserted by irresponsible parents. It is a much better outlook than a state orphanage or whatever.

That being said... polygamy doesn't fall in the same area as gay marriage unless you make it polygamous gay marriage. But lets talk a straight polygamy thing. So a child raised there will mostly have 1 father and multiple moms and step moms. There may be really no risk to the child as he grows up if the people are decent people and raise the kid well. However, pure math tells us that the more variables you put in an equation, the more chances there is for risk and the more chances you have to get things messed up. So does this present a greater risk to the child? Perhaps. It also depends on the environment the child grows in. And since the only place where you find polygamy acceptable and enforced is in islamic countries and mormon families, then the child is raised in an environment that promotes this. so it will seem "normal" to him. So lets look at the results of polygamy in islamic societies. What did you get? Well, the result of polygamy seems to be an intollerant, anti-women society in many countries in the islamic world. This is the result of polygamy, among other factors. Do you want that in the West? I don't.
Click to expand...

Polygamy goes both ways, homie. There could be 5 fathers and one mother. The reason you don't see much polygamy is because it's only legal in Utah, and even there under only certain circumstances. 99+% of people won't do it just because it's legal, so why do you care what some random group of people you've never met do? Your argument is essentially that by adding more variables we're increasing the kid's risk of being abused, which is ridiculous. A kid with 4 parents is more likely to get the attention he or she deserves vs having 1 or no parents. Besides, nothing you've suggested would even remotely prevent such a scenario, just that the parents wouldn't be legally married, but in every other practical aspect were married.

That's all it comes down to for you, you see a social construct that you don't like, and you want to use government force to enforce your views. This isn't a new tactic, the radical christians here in the US do this all the time. They do it with gay marriage, drugs, alcohol consumption on sundays, prostitution laws, etc. etc. If you're really against it, then don't marry a bunch of people.

Having the government monopolize marriage, then divy it out to only people they want to is not only ridiculous, but extremely overstepping of their boundries. I'd like to know what part of the US constitution granted the federal government the power to control and define all marriage.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Polygamy goes both ways, homie. There could be 5 fathers and one mother. The reason you don't see much polygamy is because it's only legal in Utah, and even there under only certain circumstances. 99+% of people won't do it just because it's legal, so why do you care what some random group of people you've never met do? Your argument is essentially that by adding more variables we're increasing the kid's risk of being abused, which is ridiculous. A kid with 4 parents is more likely to get the attention he or she deserves vs having 1 or no parents. Besides, nothing you've suggested would even remotely prevent such a scenario, just that the parents wouldn't be legally married, but in every other practical aspect were married.

That's all it comes down to for you, you see a social construct that you don't like, and you want to use government force to enforce your views. This isn't a new tactic, the radical christians here in the US do this all the time. They do it with gay marriage, drugs, alcohol consumption on sundays, prostitution laws, etc. etc. If you're really against it, then don't marry a bunch of people.

Having the government monopolize marriage, then divy it out to only people they want to is not only ridiculous, but extremely overstepping of their boundries. I'd like to know what part of the US constitution granted the federal government the power to control and define all marriage.
Click to expand...

The government already monopolized marriage. It is not a freely willy sort of thing. it is a state responsability. It is why we have statistics to see how many people got married and how many kids we have. It is why in many countries, marriage comes with certain state benefits like reduced taxes for a certain period and especially benefits to the children produced from that marriage. Like in Russia now, women get a state benefits for having more children because they are dealing with a population crisis there too and are dealing with it in the correct manner.

Marriage was a religious thing but not anymore. That part is optional. If one wants to become a muslim and indulge in polygamy, fine. I don't care. But don't have those people come around and demand that such behavior be rewarded with the same state benefits as the normal kind of marriage which is known to be a beneficial one for society,as a whole. The normal marriage is the foundation of our society and it will always be for obvious and logical reasons.

And yes, while it is true that there is no way of stopping people to be involved and live with multiple partners in the same house, and give into depravity, that is not the point. The point is not to reward this behavior and consider it on the same level with monogamy because it is clearly the inferior option, proven by society and history.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I don't support traditional polygamy (essentially, selling a bunch of women to a man as his house slaves and baby factories). However, from the options you gave, I don't think that's what you mean.

I think what you mean is polyamory. Polyamory is an equal and consensual relationship between 3 or more partners of any combination of genders. And yes, I fully support legalizing marriage for polyamorous partners.
Click to expand...

hi smoke .)

l think l am bigot and backward because l cant tolerate such things
 
Medusa said:
l would like to know your points of view on polygamic marriages which include more than two spouses .
Click to expand...

It is the way of the future, multiple people living together sharing expenses, child rearing, ect . With a divorce rate above 50% it's time to look at other ways to keep people together. Humans are competitive by nature multiple partners would increase competition among those involved keepiinng those involved more aware of the needs of the other people involved. Lets face it men are more inclined to do gender specific activities and women are inclined to do gender specific activities. The long and the short of it is that it is nobodies business what consenting adults do.
 
EarlzP said:
It is the way of the future, multiple people living together sharing expenses, child rearing, ect . With a divorce rate above 50% it's time to look at other ways to keep people together. Humans are competitive by nature multiple partners would increase competition among those involved keepiinng those involved more aware of the needs of the other people involved. Lets face it men are more inclined to do gender specific activities and women are inclined to do gender specific activities. The long and the short of it is that it is nobodies business what consenting adults do.
Click to expand...

l really dont want such a future , the current situation of the world is already terrible :lol: many men tend to have lots of women at the same time and if it is legalized , it means it will also be normalized and it will be the men who will benefit from this " freedom "
 
I hesitated and then didn't select the first option because of the word must. There is an implication there of "right now" similar to SSM that I can't agree with. Right now, there only real obstacle to SSM is getting the law to recognize it. Otherwise the rules in place now fully cover such a marriage. Multi-spouse marriage on the other hand has a whole lot a added dynamics that need to be looked at before trying to bring in into our legal system. This would be the first time that multi-spouse marriage would be part of a legal system like the US. It would NOT be the first time it has been part of societies and in fact, sans the legal part, does occur right now in the US and many other countries.
 
Medusa said:
l really dont want such a future , the current situation of the world is already terrible :lol: many men tend to have lots of women at the same time and if it is legalized , it means it will also be normalized and it will be the men who will benefit from this " freedom "
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore the concept of women having many men at the same time? That is a common error mono's have when dealing with us poly's.
 
maquiscat said:
Why do you ignore the concept of women having many men at the same time? That is a common error mono's have when dealing with us poly's.
Click to expand...

the rate of polygamic women is lower than men's

thats why it is usually the men who have much more cheating tendencies.
 
What if...? said:
Yes, but imagine if you had more than one wife to sleep with and your wife had more than one husband to fuss at about the trash?
Click to expand...

That's the optimistic take. The realistic take is that all of my wives would have other men to sleep with, thus relagating me to universal trash duties.

You might not able to be everything to any person all the time, but it's surprisingly easy to be one thing for many people all the time.
 
Of course polygamy should be legal , everybody know every 14 year old girl just dreams about having sex with a man older than her father.
 
Rainman05 said:
Because there is a difference between depravity and an institution. marriage is an institution. Not a religious one per se, but a state one since we live in a secular society. You don't permit marriage to be a depraved institution for the same reason that you don't like it when politicians are corrupt assholes.

If people want to live and love each other in a gangbang house, fine by me. They are free to do so. There is no law preventing a man or a woman to be a complete slut. But that doesn't mean that we need to validate that behavior by adopting it into our civic lifestyle as a society.
And if you are to put it to a referendum in any civilized country, I will bet you that the vote will overwhelmingly go against polygamy.

And yes, it has something to do with human nature. If it were in human nature for people to be polygamous, we would have adopted that as a desirable thing and marriage would be that. But since it is recognized that such behavior is pretty much an aberration, a deformity from the standard, we don't permit it.

Again. Having person liberty and being free from prosecution to be a bad husband or a bad wife, to cheat and to do adultery, does not mean that we need to reward such behavior or validate it in our society.
Click to expand...
yes like incest
during our evolutionary process we developed social norms which prevented us from getting harmed both emotionally and biologically and helped us accomodate the society in which we had to live together
 
lizzie said:
Really- imagine four women telling you to take out the garbage, to cut the lawn, and asking you to pick up eggs and milk on the way home from work. :lol: What a nightmare. :lol:
Click to expand...
Having more women in the house MAY increase the odds of getting home cooked meals....cleaner house....more sex....etc.
I don't see the value of having more men in the house. We tend to "let the other guy take care of it", meaning none of them will take out the trash.
 
Crosscheck said:
Of course polygamy should be legal , everybody know every 14 year old girl just dreams about having sex with a man older than her father.
Click to expand...

is this a joke ?
 
Medusa said:
yes like incest
during our evolutionary process we developed social norms which prevented us from getting harmed both emotionally and biologically and helped us accomodate the society in which we had to live together
Click to expand...

I would say the desire for incest is decreased by children living together from an early age that desensitizes sexual attraction. If this doesn't occur than sexual attraction for your siblings will be normal as it would between anyone else. Anyway, I would agree that it is an evolved process of the species to improve the survival of the species.
 
Medusa said:
is this a joke ?
Click to expand...

yes, meant to be a joke. I think most older men with little bellies would disgust young teen girls. But rarely will you find a polygamist marry someone is own age.
Of course he doesn't want a wife with a body the same age as his. It just seems that for some reason is heart falls in love with that young 17 yr old teen.
 
Crosscheck said:
yes, meant to be a joke. I think most older men with little bellies would disgust young teen girls. But rarely will you find a polygamist marry someone is own age.
Of course he doesn't want a wife with a body the same age as his. It just seems that for some reason is heart falls in love with that young 17 yr old teen.
Click to expand...

yes older men prefer younger ones but that is not love if he is married to more than one wife

a heart belongs to only one person .but l think l am being bigot again :lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
That's the optimistic take. The realistic take is that all of my wives would have other men to sleep with, thus relagating me to universal trash duties.

You might not able to be everything to any person all the time, but it's surprisingly easy to be one thing for many people all the time.
Click to expand...

The realistic pessimism of that post was like poetry to my ears
 
disneydude said:
As long as all parties are consenting adults then why should the government be involved?
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why the government needs to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.

Unions should simply be a contract between two or more individuals regarding chiefly, but among other things, joint property ownership. All the government need do is enforce a contract agreed upon by mutually willing participants.

I see no reason why such a contract could not be created between individuals in a wide variety of circumstances; in fact, why does sexuality even need to enter into the equation? Why couldn't a non-sexual pairing, say like, two heterosexual folks of the same gender for example, just agree to the contract in question? They certainly wouldn't want to call it a marriage, they wouldn't wear rings, but they'd have joint property among other things. Granted, by cultural norms it would be an oddity, and people would assume certain (incorrect) things, but in terms of the government having an interest in preventing that contract from existing, or refusing to enforce it? That's preposterous to me.

The notion of government ALLOWING you to make this contract is what needs to end.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Agreed, which is why the government needs to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.

Unions should simply be a contract between two or more individuals regarding chiefly, but among other things, joint property ownership. All the government need do is enforce a contract agreed upon by mutually willing participants.

I see no reason why such a contract could not be created between individuals in a wide variety of circumstances; in fact, why does sexuality even need to enter into the equation? Why couldn't a non-sexual pairing, say like, two heterosexual folks of the same gender for example, just agree to the contract in question? They certainly wouldn't want to call it a marriage, they wouldn't wear rings, but they'd have joint property among other things. Granted, by cultural norms it would be an oddity, and people would assume certain (incorrect) things, but in terms of the government having an interest in preventing that contract from existing, or refusing to enforce it? That's preposterous to me.

The notion of government ALLOWING you to make this contract is what needs to end.
Click to expand...

like abortion ??
 
Medusa said:
like abortion ??
Click to expand...

Yes, the practice of abortion also needs to end.

Good job going waaaay off topic on your own thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom