• 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!

Should bigamy be legal

If you are for gay marriage are you pro bigamy too

  • I'm pro gay marriage and pro bigamy too

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • I'm pro gay marriage anti bigamy

    Votes: 5 17.2%

  • Total voters
    29
Why stop there. How about bestiality or object sexuality.

On a side note I'm against polygamy simply because often 1 wife is too many.

Step 1: make a compelling argument in favor of who you think should be able to marry
Step 2: Ensure that there is no compelling argument against allowing that group marry
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit


You still need to do all 4 steps to make your case. SSM advocates have managed to do so.
 
Not at all.

My reasoning for supporting same sex marriage is my personal belief that our marriage laws are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause on the basis of gender discrimination.

I've still yet to be presented with an argument for bigamy that convinces me it'd fall under an Equal Protection Clause protection. I see no way it'd fit into a middle or upper tier category, which would make it the lowest tier at best which is a very low threshold to jump through. Considering the SIZABLE structural change...instead of language change...that would have to occur by allowing those who are married to marry other people and the multitude of new legal issues that would cause, I think the state has a legitimate interest in not moving forward with such.

I need to get to bed soon so not going to look it up, at least not right now, but I believe one of the judges who has ruled for SSM in the last year specifically addressed the gender discrimination under EPC claim and found in to be not compelling. Most judges have simply not looked at that aspect.
 
I don't care if we legalize polygamy as long as they don't get more financial/tax benefits (or fewer) than couples. To me, equality in marriage means....equality.

I would say that it should be as scalable as having multiple children. i.e. each person still gets a standard deduction, or personal exemption or whatever.

That is not how bisexuality works. Instead it works similar to someone who is attracted to people of more than one race. Just because a person would be willing to marry someone of any race or either sex doesn't mean those people want to marry multiple people at the same time. Those who want to be in a group marriage are generally polyamorous.

To add to that, even being in a polygamous marriage, with both multiple husbands and multiple wives, it doesn't automatically make any given spouse bi-sexual. While many people cannot concept it, it is possible for one to romantically love another without being sexually attracted to them.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.

This concept of women as property was pretty universal among both monogamous and polygamous socities. Additionally, you are viewing only polygyny as opposed to polygamy, the latter holding no concept to limits on one of the spouse's gender.

2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)

Again, this is not isolated or even concentrated among polygamous societies. Arranged marriages were common with young women, even girls by today's standards, going to much older men. They had no means of escape from their monogamous marriage rape either.

3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Higher concentrations of polygyny lead to these problems. Where actual polygamy is allowed, i.e. allowing for both multiple husbands as well as multiple wives, then the issue is much less. Additionally, homosexuality, bisexuality and even asexuality are factors in any imbalance there would be of available mates, assuming only monogamy.


In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.

Do keep in mind that bigamy=/=polygamy automatically. If the law holds a single marriage status between all spouses then it is only polygamy without bigamy. Bigamy is holding multiple marriage status, i.e. the license. Now if the law handles polygamy by allowing multiple license, then yes both occur together.
 
I need to get to bed soon so not going to look it up, at least not right now, but I believe one of the judges who has ruled for SSM in the last year specifically addressed the gender discrimination under EPC claim and found in to be not compelling. Most judges have simply not looked at that aspect.

First, it's my understanding at least one acknowledge it as compelling

Two, my stance on the political reasons I think it's not actively pushed on that reason has long been established. (It's not about marriage, it's about leveraging marriage as a means of elevating the sexual orientation classification itself)

Three, regardless of what the judges opinions are I do feel it compelling. Far more so than the sexual orientation argument.
 
Why stop there. How about bestiality or object sexuality.

On a side note I'm against polygamy simply because often 1 wife is too many.

What is "object sexuality"?

Beastiality isn't remotely comparable to SSM or polygamy for the simple reason that animals cannot give consent.


On the OP:

Consenting adults, liberty, privacy, keep out of other people's bedrooms blah blah blah ad infinitum
 
What is "object sexuality"?

Beastiality isn't remotely comparable to SSM or polygamy for the simple reason that animals cannot give consent.


On the OP:

Consenting adults, liberty, privacy, keep out of other people's bedrooms blah blah blah ad infinitum
People wanting to marry objects like their phone or a car.
 
People wanting to marry objects like their phone or a car.


Seriously? I suppose the "cannot give consent" line works if someone wanted to push the issue but that's just silly.
 
How is that logical? What process did you use to determine that? And why is it limited to only 3 partners and not an open number?

If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.
 
If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.

Good, it shouldn't be an institution. And more liberties is better than a phony institution that only has value, apparently, based on people being excluded.

Don't like it, sorry.
 
Good, it shouldn't be an institution. And more liberties is better than a phony institution that only has value, apparently, based on people being excluded.

Don't like it, sorry.

Thank you for proving my point. Gays don't want to be married, they want to destroy the institution altogether.
 
Thank you for proving my point. Gays don't want to be married, they want to destroy the institution altogether.

You can't destroy something that has long been destroyed.

But yeah we just want to do that to confound straight people, you see every gay person is secretly a boogeyman.

Watch out, we're gonna getcha.

Today marriage, tomorrow the world mwa ha ha ha ha
 
If you think allowing gays to marry and now that ends all issues on marriage you are mistaken. This is just getting started and in 10 years marriage will be a meaningless institution.

Ten years from now, I guarantee marriage will be very much like it is now, a way to establish a legal kinship between two people. The only difference that is likely to be a "major" difference, is that instead of some places only allowing two people of opposite sexes to marry, everywhere in the US, people can marry another of either sex, no matter their own.
 
What is "object sexuality"?

Beastiality isn't remotely comparable to SSM or polygamy for the simple reason that animals cannot give consent.


On the OP:

Consenting adults, liberty, privacy, keep out of other people's bedrooms blah blah blah ad infinitum

It's like telling the people way too smart to fall for it that emperor's New clothes are nothing and he is naked.

No point in talking sense. To them you ate wrong because you disagree. I wouldn't even bother with the conversation.
 
First of all, why not? Should a 16 year old be having sex/married to some old guy mainly because her religion says that's right, mainly due to a bunch of old perverts who simply want many young wives.

But also, some states allow the permission for 14 or 15 year olds as well. Some states waive age of consent laws with marriage.

What on Earth are you babbling about? I have no interest in debating the positives, negatives or whatevers of the Warren Jeffs clan with you or anyone else.

Don't worry about my post to him which had nothing to do with you, and wasn't a debate post.
 
What on Earth are you babbling about? I have no interest in debating the positives, negatives or whatevers of the Warren Jeffs clan with you or anyone else.

Don't worry about my post to him which had nothing to do with you, and wasn't a debate post.

It was a post in a debate thread.

I am talking about what was brought up by you. When it comes to some forms of polygamy that we have seen here in the US, the most common that occurs here in the US (at least up til now, although I believe this will change) is where old men from the FLDS clans marry really young girls, in their mid teens, with permission from their parents. The laws that allow for this, laws that allow parents to give their children permission to marry prior to them being 18 is one of the things that needs to change, especially if we are considering removing the limitation on numbers of spouses a person can have legally.
 
Ten years from now, I guarantee marriage will be very much like it is now, a way to establish a legal kinship between two people. The only difference that is likely to be a "major" difference, is that instead of some places only allowing two people of opposite sexes to marry, everywhere in the US, people can marry another of either sex, no matter their own.

Read post #60. Gays want the institution of marriage destroyed.
 
Not too long ago, people who claimed that bigamy would follow ssm were castigated for conflating the two and accused of "slippery slope" thinking. Now it seems a foregone conclusion. Go figure.
 
Not too long ago, people who claimed that bigamy would follow ssm were castigated for conflating the two and accused of "slippery slope" thinking. Now it seems a foregone conclusion. Go figure.

The slippery slope is a real thing.
 
So a marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land so the logical nest issue is bigamy.If the same sex can be married why not multiple partners? It sees like the term marriage and family are now open ended terms and are being redefined daily so if you are for gay marriage you surly must be for bigamy too I would think. Or are you?
By "bigamy", do you mean "polygamy"? Please specify.
 
So a marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land so the logical nest issue is bigamy.If the same sex can be married why not multiple partners? It sees like the term marriage and family are now open ended terms and are being redefined daily so if you are for gay marriage you surly must be for bigamy too I would think. Or are you?

Yes, have been forever, although I am specific about it: what I support is polyamory.

I don't support the old selling-daughters-to-older-guys form of religious/social polygamy. That has no place in a developed country. But an equal relationship between more than 2 people isn't anyone's business.

The fact that you expected this to be some kind of barn burner question to all of us belies the problem with government-instituted marriage: it's nothing but a way of enforcing narrow-mindedness about other people's personal lives.

Marriage didn't become a government institution in this country until after the Civil War. Why then? So they could ban interracial couples from marrying.

It's founded on bigotry, and that tradition continues, with each group that's excluded from their legal rights having to subject themselves to social intolerance before winning what should have always belonged to them in the first place: the right to conduct their personal lives without disadvantage or loss of rights to their family, simply because the mainstream can't handle the idea of people who aren't like them.
 
Yes, have been forever, although I am specific about it: what I support is polyamory.

I don't support the old selling-daughters-to-older-guys form of religious/social polygamy. That has no place in a developed country. But an equal relationship between more than 2 people isn't anyone's business.

The fact that you expected this to be some kind of barn burner question to all of us belies the problem with government-instituted marriage: it's nothing but a way of enforcing narrow-mindedness about other people's personal lives.

Marriage didn't become a government institution in this country until after the Civil War. Why then? So they could ban interracial couples from marrying.

It's founded on bigotry, and that tradition continues, with each group that's excluded from their legal rights having to subject themselves to social intolerance before winning what should have always belonged to them in the first place: the right to conduct their personal lives without disadvantage or loss of rights to their family, simply because the mainstream can't handle the idea of people who aren't like them.

Now I have heard it all and thank you for proving my point, liberals despise the institution of marriage and slowly but surly want it destroyed.
 
Now I have heard it all and thank you for proving my point, liberals despise the institution of marriage and slowly but surly want it destroyed.

I despise the government owning other people's relationships.

Marriage was outside the government for thousands of years, including the first half of America's existence, and that is where it should go back to.

Hell, you're the one arguing against people being able to participate in marriages, not me.
 
1.)So a marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land so the logical nest issue is bigamy.
2.) If the same sex can be married why not multiple partners?
3.)It sees like the term marriage and family are now open ended terms and are being redefined daily
4.) so if you are for gay marriage you surly must be for bigamy too I would think. Or are you?

1.) why is that the next "logical" step?
2.) those things are not related in legality what so ever
3.) marriage hasnt changed nor has family
4.) again why do you think that since they are related at all

also FYI Bigamy is a crime, do you know what you are asking or even talking about?
 
Back
Top Bottom