• 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 .
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.

No I don't, and you are wrong.
 
No I don't, and you are wrong.

I'm wrong on what? That people used to argue that being attracted to one's own gender was considered a sickness? Try again, it was in the DSM at one point as a mental illness. Go back and look at some of the protest against interracial marriage. It was called "sick, "perverted", "against nature" and so much more.
 
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.

No they're not. The arguments are very much different for why the legal restrictions in the laws further a state interest and what state interest is being furthered.

No rational person would argue that allowing two people of the same sex or of two different races to marry would cause legitimate legal issues or would change legally how marriage/spousal recognition operated. No rational person would try to argue legitimately that same sex restrictions or different race restrictions are in place to protect women and children from abuse that is seen in the most prevalent instances of polygamy. These are the legal reasons being argued for why there are restrictions on how many people are allowed to enter into a marriage/be considered spouses. These do match the legal reasons argued for why either race or sex/gender were/are restrictions on marriage. Race was argued as being about the children and the fact that the children of mixed race couples faced problems due to their mixed race and same sex restrictions are being legally argued as a procreation is the reason for marriage.
 
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.
The argument against interracial marriage was to preserve racial purity and prevent a mongrel breed. Where do you see that argument applied against SSM or polygamy?
 
I'm wrong on what? That people used to argue that being attracted to one's own gender was considered a sickness? Try again, it was in the DSM at one point as a mental illness. Go back and look at some of the protest against interracial marriage. It was called "sick, "perverted", "against nature" and so much more.

The bottom line is that being sexually attracted to one's own blood relatives should be a CLUE that you should seek psychiatric help.
 
No they're not. The arguments are very much different for why the legal restrictions in the laws further a state interest and what state interest is being furthered.

No rational person would argue that allowing two people of the same sex or of two different races to marry would cause legitimate legal issues or would change legally how marriage/spousal recognition operated. No rational person would try to argue legitimately that same sex restrictions or different race restrictions are in place to protect women and children from abuse that is seen in the most prevalent instances of polygamy. These are the legal reasons being argued for why there are restrictions on how many people are allowed to enter into a marriage/be considered spouses. These do match the legal reasons argued for why either race or sex/gender were/are restrictions on marriage. Race was argued as being about the children and the fact that the children of mixed race couples faced problems due to their mixed race and same sex restrictions are being legally argued as a procreation is the reason for marriage.

I'm going to disagree with your word selection. Airplane accidents are not the most prevalent form of travel accident, yet they get the most attention. Likewise, the actions of these mormon wanna-bes in Utah and Arizona and such end up the most viewed forms of polygamy. But there are so many of us in the real world who are responsible polygamists (even if they are not legally recognized marriages), practicing polygyny and polyandry or even a combination of both. Tying their actions to the rest of the poly community is like saying that NAMBLA is representative of gay men (which sadly some do). Or we could go in the opposite direction and note how even in monogamous relationships women and children were regularly abused, and still are for that matter. There are still people we haven't reached as for as getting them to understand that such abuse is not acceptable. But such abuse is not an inherent feature of polygamy, any more than it is/was an inherent feature of monogamy. Or boil it all down; correlation is not causation.

Abuse is abuse and I am in no way trying to down play it. But abuse happens in all kinds of currently accepted domestic arrangements, from living together, to monogamous marriage to divorced to single parent. Polygamous marriages is/would be no different in that aspect, but likewise it is true that all the successful traits would occur as well.


The argument against interracial marriage was to preserve racial purity and prevent a mongrel breed. Where do you see that argument applied against SSM or polygamy?

Do note that I said for the most part. Each issues does indeed have some arguments unique to itself. However, when the most common arguments that I hear/heard are "sick", "perverted", "not natural", "mental illness" and so on, and they keep cropping up regardless of issue....you do the math. Interracial is probably about the only true "choice", but still to be able to choose to engage or not engage in interracial marriage, SSM or polygamy are all running on the same basis, the right to form familial and legal bond with whomever one wishes (that is a consenting adult) and all should be equally allowed. It comes down to two key words. Consenting adults. No other qualifiers needed. Now as to whether or not marriage should even be a legal institution is a different argument. What the benefits of a legal marriage should be is also a different argument. But if the legal marriage exists, then it needs to be available to all in whatever combination (keeping in mind the consenting adult part).

The bottom line is that being sexually attracted to one's own blood relatives should be a CLUE that you should seek psychiatric help.

We're not going there so as to not thread jack. I kept up arguments so far because the same arguments you were putting out were the ones also used against interracial marriage, SSM and polygamy and I used them to point out that these are invalid arguments. If they are invalid for one they are invalid for them all and for the same reasons.
 
Incest usually occurs in abusive households where child molestation is occurring, unlike "gay" sex or "interracial" sex. Most cases of incest are between father and daughter, so it's easy to see how a father could "groom" his daughter into marrying him and making it a legal thing if incest were ever to be legal. Incest and being attracted to your family members is a sign of mental illness.

Gay sex and interracial sex have ALWAYS happened and have not always been socially unacceptable in all cultures. The same cannot be said of incest, which is taboo for a good reason. Anyone who can't understand that should speak to a shrink ASAP.
 
Should Plural Marriage be legalized too?

if polygamist want to fight for a new right to be married id support it 100% as long as it follows the contractual standards.

sound mind consenting adults :shrug:

however this has no legal parallels to equal rights for gays
 
Gay sex and interracial sex have ALWAYS happened and have not always been socially unacceptable in all cultures. The same cannot be said of incest, which is taboo for a good reason. Anyone who can't understand that should speak to a shrink ASAP.

this is just untrue. there have been many cultures in the past where incest was socially acceptable and even promoted.
 
this is just untrue. there have been many cultures in the past where incest was socially acceptable and even promoted.

BS. Name some with links. I have work, but I'm going to be checking back.

So basically, you are supportive of incest, is what you're saying?
 
BS. Name some with links. I have work, but I'm going to be checking back.

So basically, you are supportive of incest, is what you're saying?

not really supportive..just don't see that it is any of our business if two adults who happen to be related want to bump uglies.
 
not really supportive..just don't see that it is any of our business if two adults who happen to be related want to bump uglies.

What about those links? Hmmm?
 
What about those links? Hmmm?

Do People Have a Natural Attraction To Incest?

Posted on January 30, 2012by Alethea


Dr. Susan Forward is said to be a principle authority on sexual abuse and incest. She and Craig Buck propose in their book, Betrayal of Innocence, that the aversion to speaking about, or hearing of incest, comes from a natural attraction to it.

In biological terms it would be a logical reaction for people who live in the same home, share in activities, and who are tied together by emotions… to also be sexually attracted to each other.

This can be true in many cases.

Forward and Buck write, “Incestuous desires are in us all, though we engage a variety of unconscious mechanisms to deny them.” 1

I am not certain if I agree with the authors here, but it is possible.

In many cultures, and in third world countries, incest is openly practiced. 2 In early historical times and in pre-literate groups, maternal incest and pederasty were common. Have humans really changed that much? We have amended and created laws in order to protect children, but this has not stopped people from committing the acts. In America, incest is almost always hidden behind the facade of a “good” family and most likely happening just as much as it is in other cultures. The only difference in America, is that it is a well kept secret within the family.

Do People Have a Natural Attraction To Incest? | Evil Sits at the Dinner Table
 
This states NOTHING about it being acceptable at ANY time in history. And did YOU read this link? Good Lord, it explains how closely incest and child sexual abuse are linked.

Also, the author is full of nonsense psychobabble, saying that incest is something that we all want? :lol: You CAN'T be serious, can you?

apparently you've never heard of the Westermarck effect. and history is full of examples of cultures where incest was practiced to keep bloodlines "pure".
 
apparently you've never heard of the Westermarck effect. and history is full of examples of cultures where incest was practiced to keep bloodlines "pure".

No I haven't, so post a link please.

Yes, only royal families did this, and this was usually between cousins only, and it led to birth defects and other such issues after generations of these practices, and that's just one reason why it's not done anymore. The people involved in such marriages normally didn't have a choice in the matter either. It's not like they were sexually attracted to one another; that was just what was expected of them. BIG difference there.

It is an unhealthy practice. THAT is the reason why it's disgusting to people. People are disgusted by things for a reason. There was also a recent study done where there were findings that the "smell" of relatives seems to be a turn off to "normal" people. Because incest is NOT natural. It's not natural to be attracted to your son, daughter, mother, father, etc.
 
It is an unhealthy practice. THAT is the reason why it's disgusting to people. People are disgusted by things for a reason. .

the same thing can be said about anal sex. :shrug:
 
the same thing can be said about anal sex. :shrug:

No it cannot. That is completely different than having sex with your sister or your father. Plenty of people are turned on by anal sex and anuses. :lol:
 

Because polygamy is sexist and wrong and incest is the cause of genetic defects in offspring and child abuse.
We have decided to include gays in our standards for marriage because it is the right thing to do. It does not mean we have abandoned all standards.
 
Last edited:
No it cannot. That is completely different than having sex with your sister or your father.

wrong again.

Unprotected anal sex poses well known health hazards for men, but new research suggests that the practice is a significant health issue for women as well. More than 100,000 New York City women engage in anal intercourse each year, according to a new report from the Health Department, and many are not taking the steps needed to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Anal membranes are easily damaged during sex, facilitating the spread of infection. Past studies suggest that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk than vaginal exposure

Health Department Highlights Health Risks of Unprotected Anal Sex among Heterosexual Women in New York City

anal sex is just as "unhealthy" as incest.
 
Back
Top Bottom