• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Or it could be that you're prejudiced against poly's for reasons similar to why others are prejudiced against SSM... you don't like it, you think it is bad for the children, you think it is bad for society, etc.

Why is that your call to make, for others choices in life?


:shrug:

Ok, let me slow this down for you: I have not taken a position on polygamy in this thread. I really do not care about the issue. I am just pointing out that equating polygamy and SSM is kinda stupid since they are not the same thing. A point you have been going to great pains to avoid.
 
Ok, let me slow this down for you: I have not taken a position on polygamy in this thread. I really do not care about the issue. I am just pointing out that equating polygamy and SSM is kinda stupid since they are not the same thing. A point you have been going to great pains to avoid.


Well, do you support marriage equality for those who wish to willingly enter into poly-whatever marriage, or not?

If not, why do you support marriage equality for SSM but not for Polys?
 
I did not say that.
You're right, and I edited my post, but not fast enough.

Can polygamous parents be good parents? If yes, then what's your point?
 
Well, do you support marriage equality for those who wish to willingly enter into poly-whatever marriage, or not?

I am somewhat indifferent and would have to do far more research than I care to to form a proper opinion.

If not, why do you support marriage equality for SSM but not for Polys?

Let me try this again: they are not the same thing. Maybe you did not notice, but SSM involves 2 people, polygamy more than 2. The effects on those in polygamous relationships and their families is different from those in SSM relationships. The effects on society may be different. Why is this so hard for you?
 
You're right, and I edited my post, but not fast enough.

Can polygamous parents be good parents? If yes, then what's your point?

Can be is very broad. Individuals can be good at just about anything, just as some people can drive 100 mph safely. That does not mean it is a good idea to raise the speed limit to 100.
 
I am somewhat indifferent and would have to do far more research than I care to to form a proper opinion.



Let me try this again: they are not the same thing. Maybe you did not notice, but SSM involves 2 people, polygamy more than 2. The effects on those in polygamous relationships and their families is different from those in SSM relationships. The effects on society may be different. Why is this so hard for you?


Again, we come back to.... SSM is different from traditional marriage, but you're fine with that.

Poly is different from two-party marriage, and you seem to view that as a problem.

Yet I've heard innumerable arguments by pro-SSM activists saying "you can't help it if you fall in love with someone society says you're not supposed to love", and "marriage isn't only about children, it is about people's happiness", and all the stuff about equal access to a legal institution.... does that not also apply to Poly's, if no why not?
 
Can be is very broad. Individuals can be good at just about anything, just as some people can drive 100 mph safely. That does not mean it is a good idea to raise the speed limit to 100.
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?
 
Again, we come back to.... SSM is different from traditional marriage, but you're fine with that.

Poly is different from two-party marriage, and you seem to view that as a problem.

Yet I've heard innumerable arguments by pro-SSM activists saying "you can't help it if you fall in love with someone society says you're not supposed to love", and "marriage isn't only about children, it is about people's happiness", and all the stuff about equal access to a legal institution.... does that not also apply to Poly's, if no why not?

Sigh, already explained this, but since it hurt your argument, you ignored it and built an already refuted straw man. I have not said SSM and mixed sex marriage are the same, or that arguments for one necessarily are arguments for the other. Making **** up is not a good debate tactic Goshin.

Further, the potential problems with poly is not because it is different. Because they are different, the arguments for and against are different. The problem with your argument is you are assuming that they must be the same, when it is clearly not the case.
 
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?


I'm going to continue my assertion that it is because people associate polygamy with Mormon Fundamentalist splinter sects, and given the hatred certain segements have for both patriarchal setups and religious fundamentalism, they see Poly as evil.

But of course there are many versions of Poly, whether gamy, andery, or amorous or other, and religious or non-religious, but certain minds shut down on the subject because of the association mentioned above...
 
I see your point, but is there something that makes it very difficult for polygamous parents to be good parents?

I really do not know why, nor is it important to my arguments. My argument is simply that polygamy is not SSM. They are not the same and need to be considered on their own merits. Trying to tie the two together is a dishonest argument.
 
Sigh, already explained this, but since it hurt your argument, you ignored it and built an already refuted straw man. I have not said SSM and mixed sex marriage are the same, or that arguments for one necessarily are arguments for the other. Making **** up is not a good debate tactic Goshin.

Further, the potential problems with poly is not because it is different. Because they are different, the arguments for and against are different. The problem with your argument is you are assuming that they must be the same, when it is clearly not the case.


Let's make it simple then.

Sisters Jane and Janet both fell in love with the same man, Jim. They've talked about it and all agree they want to marry as a polygamous family because they all love each other.

Can you justify refusing them equal access to the legal institution of marriage?
 
I already have. Legally, the state has to show it has a rational(at the least) reason to ban either SSM or polygamy. Since the two types of marriages are significantly different the arguments are different. You fail.

They're only circumstantially different. Circumstances aside, they are both covered under equal rights laws to the same degree.
 
Let's make it simple then.

Sisters Jane and Janet both fell in love with the same man, Jim. They've talked about it and all agree they want to marry as a polygamous family because they all love each other.

Can you justify refusing them equal access to the legal institution of marriage?

The issue would be whether the state has a rational basis to refuse them. Since SSM and polygamy are two different things, the basis for a state banning them would have to be different.
 
They're only circumstantially different. Circumstances aside, they are both covered under equal rights laws to the same degree.

Yes, they involve different circumstances. Your point?

Not sure if they would be covered under the 14th in the same way, but if they are, the arguments a state would put forth in a polygamy ban would have to be different than from a SSM ban, since they are not the same thing.
 
well that is a way, but what if the company chooses not too,...do they face the wrath of government?

If the company follows the law, they face nothing. If the law is changed and they ignore it, then yes, they incur the wrath of the government. But companies would have no reason to reject just a coverage system. The enrollee pays the fee, not them.
 
If the company follows the law, they face nothing. If the law is changed and they ignore it, then yes, they incur the wrath of the government. But companies would have no reason to reject just a coverage system. The enrollee pays the fee, not them.

but suppose the company does not want 33 people on one policy of its worker.

i am being told that people should be allowed to live free, have freedom of association with others and marry............well OK.

but freedom of association also applies to people who own companies, and they dont have to create an association with all the extra people plural marriages which might occur.

you cant be for one freedom, and not for another, when both are rights under the constitution....right to association, and a right to property.
 
Obama'Care is a legal nightmare. Polygamy would only require a couple regulations.
UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.


Same as SSM.
Not talking about other people looking from the outside in. No woman is going to share a man with other women. This isn't Pakistan where women just accept that a man is going to have other wives. It's not normal in our culture, and completely unacceptable. Maybe the Obamacare program can have hospitals everywhere dedicate a branch to reattaching polygamist's dicks.
 
UHC is also a bad idea I strongly disagree with. I was speaking mostly of divorce courts. I know people think they'll live happily ever after forever and ever when they get married, but statistics say otherwise. Domestic courts are tied up enough as it is. This would absolutely destroy an already choked up system.



Not talking about other people looking from the outside in. No woman is going to share a man with other women. This isn't Pakistan where women just accept that a man is going to have other wives. It's not normal in our culture, and completely unacceptable. Maybe the Obamacare program can have hospitals everywhere dedicate a branch to reattaching polygamist's dicks.


Um bud, I hate to tell you but there's already a lot more of this going on than you apparently realize; just not on the official level. Not just Mormons either.
 
Ok, let me slow this down for you: I have not taken a position on polygamy in this thread. I really do not care about the issue. I am just pointing out that equating polygamy and SSM is kinda stupid since they are not the same thing. A point you have been going to great pains to avoid.

Indeed they aren't.

Polygamy, while unconventional, is genuine marriage, and it fulfills the purpose of marriage, while “same sex marriage” is not, never was, and never will be genuine marriage, and can only undermine and degrade the purpose of genuine marriage; and can only ever harm the society which embraces it.
 
Last edited:
let me throw something at you and see what you think.

suppose a person could marry 10 people, and say that person had a good job, with health benefits, and in the marriage there are 22 children, this makes 33 people that the insurance company that the person works for woulds have to provide for.
They all have to be covered somehow, right? Why not in this polygamous household?
 
If this is valid, then it is a valid argument against SSM as well.

Going to nip this in the bud once and for all: SSM AND POLYGAMY ARE NOT COMPARABLE. Polygamy is a marital status, it deals with a wide array of issues and responsibilities, you may as well bring up gay marriage, which is equally irrelevant to this particular topic. SSM is nothing more than a sexual fetish. It doesn't expand to the ranges of property ownership, having and raising children, or a mutual partnership in business and household matters. Marriage covers a very broad spectrum of things. SSM is just kink, so enough with this useless comparison. You may as well be comparing a 1986 Camaro to a T-Rex.
 
Um bud, I hate to tell you but there's already a lot more of this going on than you apparently realize; just not on the official level. Not just Mormons either.

People doing it doesn't give it legal legitimacy. How is a court to decide who gets what in the instance that one of the wives files for divorce? Especially when children are involved. It would be a ****ing mess, a mess that nobody needs. If people want to be swingers, or whatever other sick **** people do these days, I have no problem with it as long as they keep it to themselves, but legalizing polygamy opens up a can of worms that need not be opened.
 
That would only make sense if we assume that the six “parents” are producing children at a rate that would otherwise only take two genuine parents to achieve; and this seems like a wildly unrealistic assumption.

More realistic is that the six “parents” in this one “family” would collectively produce a similar number of children similar to that which would be produced by three normal families with two parents each. Each child may have three times as many “parents”, but would also be competing with three times as many “siblings” for the attention of these “parents”.

I consider overpopulation to be an approaching issue, so this argument falls flat.

And as to competition for attention. Nobody is "on" all the time. Not for a kid or a spouse. Other times everybody is extra "on", able to "be there" for the whole clan.

Stress on parents is a known. Many hands make light work.

Two can live as cheaply as one. How cheaply can six or twelve live.

You're just being dismissive here.

Overpopulation is an entirely different, unrelated matter. I see no reason to suppose that the sort of arrangement that you've described would result in fewer total offspring. In fact, it seems obvious to me that the ability to distribute the work more efficiently would tend to encourage such a “family” to produce more offspring than the same parents would produce if they only married in pairs. In the early days of the Mormon settlements in Utah, the practice of plural marriage seems to have helped these settlements to grow their populations significantly more rapidly and efficiently than they otherwise would have.

If you think that reducing the population, or at least slowing the growth thereof, is a desirable goal, then polygamy does not seem to be at all a useful means of accomplishing this goal.
 
Indeed they aren't.

Polygamy, while unconventional, is genuine marriage, and it fulfills the purpose of marriage, while “same sex marriage” is not, never was, and never will be genuine marriage, and can only undermine and degrade the purpose of genuine marriage; and can only ever harm the society which embraces it.

"Legitimate marriage" from a legal standpoint is whatever the law says it is. Currently, SSM is legitimate in more places in the US than polygamy. Which "purpose" of marriage(careful, this is a trick question)?
 
Back
Top Bottom