• 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
And again you forget the most crucial, fundamental part of our consent argument. The fact that it must be between adults.

You owe me a trucksize box of Advil, btw. My head is killing me from hitting it against the wall.

I hear you, and I am OUT. It's just not worth it.
 
NO they can't. The laws about age of consent do NOT need to be changed. Again, for the UMPTEENTH time, no one is talking about marrying CHILDREN who are not of legal age.

We are talking about ADULTS making an informed decision about the type of relationship that they want to have with another which is really none of your business.


WHAT is your point? Yes, 17 is a legal of age of consent in many states for sex AND marriage. So WHAT is your point?
.............
 
Yes I can be VERY aggressive when I believe someone is a liar.

you mustnt while we are talking about a very sensitive issue.this is not about politics or the countries
 
Last edited:
other, of course....beats having to read all those confusing/conflicting/controlling options.....lol....
"Freedom is NOT and cannot be, 100%
The sensitivity of individuals and society must be considered.
In a perfect world - maybe....yes...legal polygamy....but this will always depend on society....their wants and needs....and this must be respected.
 
I am not clear on the question. "Legalized" as in "punishment abolished", or as in "accepted for government registry"?

As I understand, in Turkey polygamy is banned and carries a prison term. Polygamists are even prohibited from entering the country. Am I correct?

In the USA, there are laws against polygamy (treating it as a misdemeanor, not felony), but they are almost never enforced - unless something else is involved, like child abuse.

Now, if we are talking about punishment - yes, polygamy ought to be legalized - because how consenting adults arrange their relationships is none of the government's business.

As for multiple-member marriages being recognized and registered by the State, I have no problem with it in theory, but in practice it would be a can of worms - imagine the complexity of property and custody disputes in divorce proceedings, for example!
 
I am not clear on the question. "Legalized" as in "punishment abolished", or as in "accepted for government registry"?

As I understand, in Turkey polygamy is banned and carries a prison term. Polygamists are even prohibited from entering the country. Am I correct?

In the USA, there are laws against polygamy (treating it as a misdemeanor, not felony), but they are almost never enforced - unless something else is involved, like child abuse.

Now, if we are talking about punishment - yes, polygamy ought to be legalized - because how consenting adults arrange their relationships is none of the government's business.

As for multiple-member marriages being recognized and registered by the State, I have no problem with it in theory, but in practice it would be a can of worms - imagine the complexity of property and custody disputes in divorce proceedings, for example!

if it is proven someone made a religious wedlock in the presence of an imam except his first civil marriage and if he is stupid enough to claim he has two wifes , he may be prosecuted for attempting to change the secular rules .

but especially in southern part ,many men are polygamic and they live together with more than 3 4 wifes illegally
 
In theory, I don't have a problem with it.

But inevitably what happens is that this is generally only practiced in very small, insular societies. Eventually, basically everybody in these places are related to each other. This is why they also allow first cousins to marry, and arranged marriages. Picture living in a town with 100 people, and basically every marriageable person of the opposite sex is your cousin. And you're expected to marry 3 of them...
 
l didnt claim such a thing

I'm just saying, virginity is not so important. Avoiding abuse is the point of child consent law. This is why we have a '1-2 years of age difference' clause. Sexual exploration at an age too young to be worrying about such (when not capable of actually sustaining the results) is not criminally damaging like statutory rape.

read all of my responses to tactical

Can you think and type that, and believe it would happen? Really?
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying, virginity is not so important. Avoiding abuse is the point of child consent law. This is why we have a '1-2 years of age difference' clause. Sexual exploration at an age to young to be worrying about such is not criminally damaging like statutory rape.



Can you think and type that and think it would happen? Really?

did l say it was important
 
It seems to be a "point" that you're trying to make.

no ,l was trying to point many teeanagers have enough physical maturity to have sex and they do

l think l am not wrong................
 
we are talking about a marginal kind marriage
............

and according to arcana ,anybody can be killed if he is consent :confused:

l am pointing out there isnt such a freedom ...

l wasnt referring to euthanasia ,..............:confused:

Euthanasia IS being killed with consent. You can't say that one does not have the freedom/right to be killed by another if he gives consent, and then say that euthanasia is allowable. That's like saying you can't have any kind of canine, but you are allowed to have a dog.

What have people been saying over and over and over again? They have been saying that polygamist would have to FOLLOW THE LAW.

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.

Okay. So we went from polygamous marriage, which is ideally about love and all that good stuff, to depression, murder and cannibals. Who's not being honest anymore here? :) You're comparing things that are so not in the same ballpark, it's getting ridiculous-

As much as I hate to say it, they are comparable in the context given because we are talking about actions/whatever, that should be allowed by consenting adult individuals as long as no harm is imposed upon any non-consenting or non-adult individual.

why not ?

if a 14 years old girl can have sex with his 14 years old boyfriend because they are consent ?

taht girl has the right to choose whom to have sex with,according to your arguments......

incest is disgusting ?

?

where is their freedom ?

if they are consent....

You keep ignoring the AGE of consent argument. When we keep saying that the choice needs to be available for consenting ADULTS, and you bring up children, then you are being dishonest at worst or using a red herring argument at best.

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

If you can't see it Chris, then you are more optimistic than most of the poly community. Most of us realize that these legal hurdle are present.

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.

Neither I nor, I'm sure, MD disagrees with you per se', except to note that even your suggestion has to be codified into law.

why is a person who is 20 convicted from pedohilia because he had sex with a girl 17 ?

do you think it is normal ?

The argument for what the age of consent should be is a separate issue from poly marriages. In the course of world history the age of consent has been as young as 11. But age of consent is irrelevant to the issue of poly marriages, because we are discussing marriages between 2 or more individuals above the age of consent. Do not move the goal posts that we are not even heading for.

,dont be funny ,change the laws as you want to change it for polygamy
they seem to be consent enough to have sex with everybody and give birth !!

You know, and I don't mean this in any negative manner, but I think there are key point from both sides here that are getting lost in translation.

yes ,if teh problem is being consent .........

according yo your marginal logics

dont worry about legality

a child (! ) must have the right to have sex with a person over 18 ( 20 ,22 )

they must have teh same freedom as polygamic adults!!

I think I just figured it out! Medusa, are you automatically equating polygamy as being an adult male with underage females? If such is the case then you are sorely mistaken. Just like the legal act of sex in general is illegal with an underage individual, so would the conceptually legal act of poly marriages be illegal if it involved any underage individuals

Keep lying about what you said. Lying seems to be what you do best -- that and comparisons that make no sense.

Ok Dan chill a bit. While I would credit Medusa with confusion or even improper premises, she has at no point shown herself to be lying. That is to say, she has done nothing that exhibits that she is telling an untruth, knowing what the truth is and intentionally intending to deceive.

no ,l am just hittin many of you with your own " consent" arguments

But the arguments are misapplied. You're basically telling us something can't be blue because it's round. The two have nothing to do with each other.

NO they can't. The laws about age of consent do NOT need to be changed. Again, for the UMPTEENTH time, no one is talking about marrying CHILDREN who are not of legal age.

We are talking about ADULTS making an informed decision about the type of relationship that they want to have with another which is really none of your business.

As much as I hate pitching for the other side of the argument...

Yes the laws CAN change. Would they? Most likely not, but Medusa seems to be under the impression that they will, or if I am correct about the assumption of polygamy she has that I mentioned above should, at least as far as if you allow this one act by perverts (as she is seeing poly) then you need to allow the other acts of perverts (pedophilia, at least at the teenage level).

Secondly, since we are talking about the legal impact of poly marriage, it is indeed to a point the business of anyone potentially affected by changes in the law. It's not our business of whom they decide to marry or even if they decide to marry, but changing the laws on how many can enter into a single marriage contract can impact the rest of us.

dont pretend to misunderstand me.

Many of us are probably misunderstanding you. You keep using consent as a noun when it is a verb. 17 year old girls are not consent, they either or giving or withdrawing consent or they are below, at or above the age of consent. As I said earlier, I think the translation issue is causing misunderstandings i both directions.

In theory, I don't have a problem with it.

But inevitably what happens is that this is generally only practiced in very small, insular societies. Eventually, basically everybody in these places are related to each other. This is why they also allow first cousins to marry, and arranged marriages. Picture living in a town with 100 people, and basically every marriageable person of the opposite sex is your cousin. And you're expected to marry 3 of them...

WOW. You are late to the game on that aspect. The poly community is quite spread out across this country and around the world. The vast majority of us are NOT like the Mormon sects out Utah/Arizona way. We don't believe in children being part of the marriage, although they are part of the family just like in mono marriages. We don't believe in interbreeding. And there are plenty enough of us out there, that we really don't need to. If you go to Fetlife, and look up poly as an interest, there are over 1,000 people alone there. And that's just the tip of the iceberg because many of us list poly in our relationship status or just in our profile wording and never add it to our interest list, because we don't see poly as a fetish, but as a lifestyle. And that is just the tip of an even larger iceberg because it's just a small percentage of polys who bother being part of Fetlife.

As for the expected to marry 3 of them statement, you are applying an Islamic practice/tenant, again an extreme minority among all polys, to the rest of us. First off, as polys we don't expect any given number within a given marriage group. A vast majority of us tend to stick to triads or v's. Group families as you see on Sister Wives are on the large side.

The problem with the perception of polys is that you get the Islamists and the fundie Mormons who are abusing their women and of course are put front and center into the public eye. Most polys, realizing that we are a minority among the overall population, tend not to advertise our lifestyle. It's similar to mixed race marriages/relationship before the civil rights movement or same gender relationships until relatively recently.
 
Euthanasia IS being killed with consent. You can't say that one does not have the freedom/right to be killed by another if he gives consent, and then say that euthanasia is allowable. That's like saying you can't have any kind of canine, but you are allowed to have a dog.


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.



As much as I hate to say it, they are comparable in the context given because we are talking about actions/whatever, that should be allowed by consenting adult individuals as long as no harm is imposed upon any non-consenting or non-adult individual.



You keep ignoring the AGE of consent argument. When we keep saying that the choice needs to be available for consenting ADULTS, and you bring up children, then you are being dishonest at worst or using a red herring argument at best.



If you can't see it Chris, then you are more optimistic than most of the poly community. Most of us realize that these legal hurdle are present.



Neither I nor, I'm sure, MD disagrees with you per se', except to note that even your suggestion has to be codified into law.



The argument for what the age of consent should be is a separate issue from poly marriages. In the course of world history the age of consent has been as young as 11. But age of consent is irrelevant to the issue of poly marriages, because we are discussing marriages between 2 or more individuals above the age of consent. Do not move the goal posts that we are not even heading for.



You know, and I don't mean this in any negative manner, but I think there are key point from both sides here that are getting lost in translation.



I think I just figured it out! Medusa, are you automatically equating polygamy as being an adult male with underage females? If such is the case then you are sorely mistaken. Just like the legal act of sex in general is illegal with an underage individual, so would the conceptually legal act of poly marriages be illegal if it involved any underage individuals



Ok Dan chill a bit. While I would credit Medusa with confusion or even improper premises, she has at no point shown herself to be lying. That is to say, she has done nothing that exhibits that she is telling an untruth, knowing what the truth is and intentionally intending to deceive.



But the arguments are misapplied. You're basically telling us something can't be blue because it's round. The two have nothing to do with each other.



As much as I hate pitching for the other side of the argument...

Yes the laws CAN change. Would they? Most likely not, but Medusa seems to be under the impression that they will, or if I am correct about the assumption of polygamy she has that I mentioned above should, at least as far as if you allow this one act by perverts (as she is seeing poly) then you need to allow the other acts of perverts (pedophilia, at least at the teenage level).

Secondly, since we are talking about the legal impact of poly marriage, it is indeed to a point the business of anyone potentially affected by changes in the law. It's not our business of whom they decide to marry or even if they decide to marry, but changing the laws on how many can enter into a single marriage contract can impact the rest of us.



Many of us are probably misunderstanding you. You keep using consent as a noun when it is a verb. 17 year old girls are not consent, they either or giving or withdrawing consent or they are below, at or above the age of consent. As I said earlier, I think the translation issue is causing misunderstandings i both directions.



WOW. You are late to the game on that aspect. The poly community is quite spread out across this country and around the world. The vast majority of us are NOT like the Mormon sects out Utah/Arizona way. We don't believe in children being part of the marriage, although they are part of the family just like in mono marriages. We don't believe in interbreeding. And there are plenty enough of us out there, that we really don't need to. If you go to Fetlife, and look up poly as an interest, there are over 1,000 people alone there. And that's just the tip of the iceberg because many of us list poly in our relationship status or just in our profile wording and never add it to our interest list, because we don't see poly as a fetish, but as a lifestyle. And that is just the tip of an even larger iceberg because it's just a small percentage of polys who bother being part of Fetlife.

As for the expected to marry 3 of them statement, you are applying an Islamic practice/tenant, again an extreme minority among all polys, to the rest of us. First off, as polys we don't expect any given number within a given marriage group. A vast majority of us tend to stick to triads or v's. Group families as you see on Sister Wives are on the large side.

The problem with the perception of polys is that you get the Islamists and the fundie Mormons who are abusing their women and of course are put front and center into the public eye. Most polys, realizing that we are a minority among the overall population, tend not to advertise our lifestyle. It's similar to mixed race marriages/relationship before the civil rights movement or same gender relationships until relatively recently.


l can say ,because not everybody can have the right to be consent to be killed! .euthanasia is very different issue .one of my realtives who was cancer patient committed suicide because she couldnt get over the pain she had to suffer during radiotherapy sessions .who can be killed depends on the conditions. and please dont quote lots of posts.l dont have to try to look for your responses..and your marginal ideas have no validity .
 
l can say ,because not everybody can have the right to be consent to be killed! .euthanasia is very different issue .one of my realtives who was cancer patient committed suicide because she couldnt get over the pain she had to suffer during radiotherapy sessions .who can be killed depends on the conditions. and please dont quote lots of posts.l dont have to try to look for your responses..and your marginal ideas have no validity .

My ideals have every bit as much validity as yours do. Most of both of our ideas and ideals are opinion based and thus are equally valid.

You really should take the time to look through the posts and the parts of my longer posts. I've defended you against the accusations of lying. I believe that there is a major difference between being wrong, or misunderstanding or even misspeaking and lying. You've never shown me any indication that you are intentionally trying to mislead people by making untrue statements.

I also posted a couple of ideas as to why you don't seem to be getting other people's points and why we are not getting your points.
 
My ideals have every bit as much validity as yours do. Most of both of our ideas and ideals are opinion based and thus are equally valid.

You really should take the time to look through the posts and the parts of my longer posts. I've defended you against the accusations of lying. I believe that there is a major difference between being wrong, or misunderstanding or even misspeaking and lying. You've never shown me any indication that you are intentionally trying to mislead people by making untrue statements.

I also posted a couple of ideas as to why you don't seem to be getting other people's points and why we are not getting your points.

sorrry ,l must have missed them .l didnt read everything

thx .)

but if a person doesnt want to understand
,he will never understand as you know
as you said ,i wasnt lying .......
 
sorrry ,l must have missed them .l didnt read everything

thx .)

but if a person doesnt want to understand
,he will never understand as you know
as you said ,i wasnt lying .......

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.

but consent is also a noun

consent noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

l hate teaching you your own language .))

l know what you mean ,l wanted to play with words

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