• 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?

  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    Votes: 23 26.4%

  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    Votes: 18 20.7%

  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • I don’t care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    Votes: 31 35.6%

  • My cat’s name is Mittens.

    Votes: 10 11.5%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Dooble said:
You sound like one on this issue.
Click to expand...

well this will surely blow your mind then: I also don't see a problem with INCEST marriage, as long as both people are consenting adults. hell....I don't even give a **** if some guy wants to marry his pet goat.
 
OscarB63 said:
I've been accused of being many things in my time on da interwebz, but until now "liberal" has never been one of them
Click to expand...

We have entrance standards tho~
 
Dooble said:
You sound like one on this issue.
Click to expand...

Then you do not understand political ideologies. It is very easy to arrive at his position from a conservative world view. I recommend learning what liberal and conservative ideologies actually are.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah...I've heard you have to fail both the drug and IQ test to be admitted ;)
Click to expand...

Still higher standards that the Tea Party.

And I got in on a family membership. If you are black, Latino or gay, or an immediate family member of one, you get in automatically, as long as you sign onto the homosexual agenda in blood.
 
Redress said:
Still higher standards that the Tea Party.

And I got in on a family membership. If you are black, Latino or gay, or an immediate family member of one, you get in automatically, as long as you sign onto the homosexual agenda in blood.
Click to expand...

so, like "flounder", you're a legacy?

what about Asians? do they get a discount or do they have to pass the test?
 
OscarB63 said:
so, like "flounder", you're a legacy?

what about Asians? do they get a discount or do they have to pass the test?
Click to expand...

I am not as thin as Flounder, but similar concept.

We pay Asians to join. They have the sexiest women.
 
Redress said:
I am not as thin as Flounder, but similar concept.

We pay Asians to join. They have the sexiest women.
Click to expand...

me so horny. me love you long time. 10 dollar, cheap, cheap.
 
Dooble said:
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?
Click to expand...

Only if it can be demonstrated to be compatible with the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
mpg said:
We have parallel problems with traditional marriage and we have courts to sort it out.
Click to expand...

No, these problems are not parallel in any way with traditional marriage because no person is currently allowed to have more than one spouse, which means the question of how many people a person can file jointly with is never an issue.
 
OscarB63 said:
well this will surely blow your mind then: I also don't see a problem with INCEST marriage, as long as both people are consenting adults. hell....I don't even give a **** if some guy wants to marry his pet goat.
Click to expand...

Ewww. That's totally creepy. Way more creepy than polygamy IMO.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Further, my orientation explanation explains the lack of equivalency issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to equate SSM with polygamy but there are certain parallels that can be seen.
From what I said in post #9:

Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
Click to expand...

These are all things that would run counter to the point in polygamy.
Click to expand...

You imply that situations that occur in both monogamous and polygamous families as being only present only in polygamous families. Inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting and rivalries occur in families where the parents are still together as well as divorced. In addition, these things are absent in divorced families as well. It's not the status of the parents, but the combination of the parents.

The point of polygamy is the same as the point of monogamy. To form a family. Whether that family consists of only two adults, or three adults or four, or of any of the above plus some number of children. There are good mono families and there are bad mono families. There are good poly families, and there are bad poly families. And there is no research that shows any higher incidence of harm in poly families, save those where they include other harmful practices, such as the FLDS whackos. They give as much a bad name to polys as NAMBLA gives to gay men

False equivalency as I explained above.
Click to expand...

The equivalency is legit as the issues occur regardless of the marriage status; monogamy, polygamy, or divorced. Any problems you can find within a poly family can be found in mono families and divorced familes and all three types also have examples that do not have those problems.

That is a very different type of need from a sexual orientation. The orientation is whether they are attracted to males or females, NOT how many.
Click to expand...

One's relationship "orientation" is as different from one's sexual orientation as the sexual orientation is from one's sexual identity. None of the three are the same, but still have certain parallels. Simply because one has a male identity while in a female body, does not mean that they will automatically be attracted to females, anymore that one who is attracted to both will seek to live a polygamous lifestyle. Many bi- and pan-sexuals are monogamous. But all three are part of one's self. In other words, one is born, with a given sexual identity (that may conflict with the physical body), a sexual orientation and a relationship "orientation".

CaptainCourtesy said:
And you continue to miss the point. Firstly, the government has a vested interest in sanctioning marriage. There are reasons why that happens... and these reasons are supported by research in regards to heterosexual and homosexual unions. They are NOT in regards to polygamous unions.
Click to expand...

Where is the research that shows that the positives of marriage do not happen at all in a polygamous union? Or that they always occur in a monogamous union? There will be none because those aspects will occur in both and the negative aspects will occur in both.

Secondly, from an equality standpoint, it is argued that it is discriminatory towards homosexuals to not allow gay marriage. This is based on sexual ORIENTATION. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the basis of the discrimination. Whether it's based upon gender, sexual orientation, skin color, or grouping preference, it's still discrimination. The above are all different things, but they have all been a basis for denying a marriage right.

As I explained above, sexual orientation is completely relevant when discussing SSM and polygamy has no connection because it is not an orientation.
Click to expand...

As is race when discussing interracial marriage (once illegal) and one's mono/poly status when discussing polygamy. They are not the same but are all related when it comes to their aspect in marriage.

And for that matter, sexual orientation can be completely irrelevant when it comes to SSM. There are marriages out there that have no sex between the couples. Boston Legal gave a prime example of why two people of the same gender but both straight might want to get married. In the end, and I'm sure you'll agree with me here at least, it's not about anything other than people; no genders, no orientations, no identities, no race, no religions,....just people.

Lakryte said:
No, for the same reason that if one chooses to support interracial marriage it is not logical to include gay marriage in the same discussion.
Click to expand...

But it is logical to note the parallels and how the same arguments are being used against the various specific marriages.

ChrisL said:
I want to make it clear that I am not supportive of polygamy to make some sort of point about SSM. I support both because I think consenting adults SHOULD be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that.
Click to expand...

Except when you don't. To prevent thread jacking I will only say that you have shown yourself to not hold entirely true to this statement in a different thread.

AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not forcing what I would like on anyone. It is others who are attempting to do so, but if you want to open up marriage for interpretation, then let's do it...
Click to expand...

To force something on you is to force you to do it. At what point has there been anyone trying to force you into polygamy? Or is trying to force only polygamy and not monogamy as the available form of marriage. Sorry, allowing something that does not force you to do anything additional, is not forcing it upon you. Removing blue laws (thus allowing businesses to be open on Sundays) at no point forced any business to be open on Sundays.
 
maquiscat said:
Except when you don't. To prevent thread jacking I will only say that you have shown yourself to not hold entirely true to this statement in a different thread.
Click to expand...

What incest marriage? It's a little bit different when people who are relatives are marrying, especially considering the dynamics between family members. THAT has been explained to you multiple times but you refuse to accept it.
 
ChrisL said:
What incest marriage? It's a little bit different when people who are relatives are marrying, especially considering the dynamics between family members. THAT has been explained to you multiple times but you refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...

So then you don't think that consenting adults should be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that. Just those matters that you agree with. So how is that any different from those who would try to limit consenting adult decisions on SSM, interracial marriage or the equivalent sexual relationships?
 
maquiscat said:
So then you don't think that consenting adults should be able to make their own choices regarding personal matters such as marriage and things like that. Just those matters that you agree with. So how is that any different from those who would try to limit consenting adult decisions on SSM, interracial marriage or the equivalent sexual relationships?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, as long as they aren't related.
 
ChrisL said:
Because in those marriages, the people aren't related.
Click to expand...

Because in those marriages, the people aren't the same gender.

Because in those marriages, the people aren't different races.

Sorry that simply isn't an argument, not when you want to claim that you support consenting adults in their decision. Either you do or you don't. Now you can support their right to make consenting decision as adult and still feel that they are wrong or icky or whatever. But when you claim that you support them....except for this, then it's no different from anyone else's exceptions: Racial, sexual orientations, whatever.
 
maquiscat said:
Because in those marriages, the people aren't the same gender.

Because in those marriages, the people aren't different races.

Sorry that simply isn't an argument, not when you want to claim that you support consenting adults in their decision. Either you do or you don't. Now you can support their right to make consenting decision as adult and still feel that they are wrong or icky or whatever. But when you claim that you support them....except for this, then it's no different from anyone else's exceptions: Racial, sexual orientations, whatever.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are related, then no marriage for you!
 
maquiscat said:
But it is logical to note the parallels and how the same arguments are being used against the various specific marriages.
Click to expand...
Logical when advocating for such marriages like polygamy, sure. Logical when discussing same-sex marriage, as was your original claim? No.
 
Lakryte said:
Logical when advocating for such marriages like polygamy, sure. Logical when discussing same-sex marriage, as was your original claim? No.
Click to expand...

No I meant that I agree that interracial marriage, SSM, and polygamy are all different arguments, with difference basis. But the arguments against them are all the same ones for the most part.
 
ChrisL said:
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are related, then no marriage for you!
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are the same gender, then no marriage for you!

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are different races, then no marriage for you!

Way too easy. You use the exact same arguments that were used against SSM and interracial marriage.
 
maquiscat said:
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are the same gender, then no marriage for you!

I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable. If you are different races, then no marriage for you!

Way too easy. You use the exact same arguments that were used against SSM and interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't supposed to be sexually attracted to your relatives. That is a sickness.
 
ChrisL said:
No, you aren't supposed to be sexually attracted to your relatives. That is a sickness.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't supposed to be sexually attracted to your gender. That is a sickness.

No, you aren't supposed to be sexually attracted to other races. That is a sickness.

Remember those arguments? They were used already. Well you might be too young to remember the racial one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom