• 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!

To the anti SSM crowd: Which traditional forms of marriage should be allowed?

Which traditional forms of marriage should be allowed?


  • Total voters
    2
no, a group marriage as i meant it is multiple spouses of both genders in a single open relationship, as opposed to say, 1 husband 5 wives

Correct polygamy. To review:

Polygyny: a state of marriage consisting of one husband with multiple wives.
Polyandry: a state of marriage consisting of one wife with multiple husbands.
Polygamy: a state of marriage consisting of multiple spouses, of which there can be any number or both genders.

All polygyny is polygamy, but not all polygamy is polygyny
All polyandry is polygamy, but not all polygamy is polyandry

Additionally there is polyamory, a recently coined term that refers to holding multiple relationships, at the same time, which may or may not involve marriage. All polygamy is polyamory, but not all polyamory is polygamy

Thus a group marriage is polygamy.
 
This thread makes little sense to me.

Why would anyone be against (SSM) Surface-to-Surface Missiles?

Maybe a pacifist I guess.




Nevermind
 
Last edited:
You do realize that group marriage and polygamy are the same thing right? You are most likely confusing polygamy with polygyny. The latter is the proper term for one man, many wives. Polyandry is the opposite with one woman, many husbands. Polygamy is simply multiple spouses, or simply a group marriage.

I think there could be a slight difference in them though and it is hard to find a way to describe them (which is why I usually say group marriages or having multiple spouses, because group marriages would imply all the people are married to each other, whereas polygamy/having multiple spouses generally just implies that a person has more than one spouse, but doesn't necessarily leave out the case of each spouse having multiple spouses either, without any of the spouses actually being married to each other).
 
Legally speaking, I'm in favor of any marriage that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract. It's too complicated and problematic to extend benefits beyond that well-established system and I don't support altering contract law.

Beyond that, I couldn't care less what people do on their own with their multiple partners or cadavers. :p

I also don't really care when people try to point out some kind of non-existent hypocrisy because people who support SSM won't let polygamists marry. Like I said, I support contract between two consenting adults. *shrug*
 
It's really good that we've changed traditions in marriage. Remember, up until the 70's, it wasn't illegal for a husband to rape his wife. And it wasn't a crime in every state until the 90's. And many states (go on, guess which ones) still make it next to impossible to prosecute spousal rape. It's a pretty good thing that we've changed the traditional definition of marriage so that husbands don't own their wives' bodies.
 
biblemarriage.jpg
All you have really shown with that image is that the relationship of marriage has changed from property to contract even though it still remained traditionally between a man and a woman. :shrug:
 
Another idiotic thread that proves only that many of those on the American left are incredibly poor and ungracious winners. Rather than try to heal wounds and/or lay low and enjoy the decision, this kind of nonsense is posted that only serves to inflame and divide further. No wonder America is such a hotbed of hate at times.

Uhm, the only wounds that needed healing are healed, the wounds of people who didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. The bigots against equal rights have no wounds, just ignorant righteousness. I believe that this thread addresses that ignorance that they/you are so erroneously righteous about.
 
Uhm, the only wounds that needed healing are healed, the wounds of people who didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. The bigots against equal rights have no wounds, just ignorant righteousness. I believe that this thread addresses that ignorance that they/you are so erroneously righteous about.

Thanks for being a perfect example of what I posted.
 
Thanks for being a perfect example of what I posted.

Anyone imagining that heterosexuals who are against SSM have suffered wounds of any kind, imagine them only for the sake of taking on the mantle of victimhood. There's no other valid reason. Allowing blacks and whites to marry didn't diminish same ethnicity marriages or the religions of people against interracial marriage, just as SSM won't.
 
I think there could be a slight difference in them though and it is hard to find a way to describe them (which is why I usually say group marriages or having multiple spouses, because group marriages would imply all the people are married to each other, whereas polygamy/having multiple spouses generally just implies that a person has more than one spouse, but doesn't necessarily leave out the case of each spouse having multiple spouses either, without any of the spouses actually being married to each other).
Let me make up an example to see if I understand what you are saying, and I'm going to using other DP members just for example's sake. I could be married to you, and you are married to DA60 And Chromium. I am not married to either of them. Summerwind is married to DA60, but no one else. Chromium is also married to Agent J and Captain Courtesy, whom are married to each other as well, but not you. You are saying that is polygamy but not a group marriage, correct?
 
Let me make up an example to see if I understand what you are saying, and I'm going to using other DP members just for example's sake. I could be married to you, and you are married to DA60 And Chromium. I am not married to either of them. Summerwind is married to DA60, but no one else. Chromium is also married to Agent J and Captain Courtesy, whom are married to each other as well, but not you. You are saying that is polygamy but not a group marriage, correct?

I see that as polygamy yes. Although I do realize that group marriage is a form of polygamy, I believe the most popular examples of polygamy we see are those where someone has more than one spouse, rather than being involved in an actual group marriage, where everyone has responsibility toward/for everyone else in some way. There is a reason to distinguish between the two types as well because there are actually fewer problems with the group marriage thing than what I see as polygamy but what I am viewing as polygamy is what would happen in reality if we were to simply strike down or repeal marriage laws that restricted number of spouses without some pretty quick changes to the laws in regards to marriage. Since the SCOTUS could not actually make any laws, it is likely that we would simply see people with multiple marriage licenses, rather than a single marriage license with multiple names on it.
 
I see that as polygamy yes. Although I do realize that group marriage is a form of polygamy, I believe the most popular examples of polygamy we see are those where someone has more than one spouse, rather than being involved in an actual group marriage, where everyone has responsibility toward/for everyone else in some way. There is a reason to distinguish between the two types as well because there are actually fewer problems with the group marriage thing than what I see as polygamy but what I am viewing as polygamy is what would happen in reality if we were to simply strike down or repeal marriage laws that restricted number of spouses without some pretty quick changes to the laws in regards to marriage. Since the SCOTUS could not actually make any laws, it is likely that we would simply see people with multiple marriage licenses, rather than a single marriage license with multiple names on it.

Ok so once again to make sure I am understanding you. You are alright with group polygamy, but not with chained polygamy which is what my example was closest to, correct?
 
Ok so once again to make sure I am understanding you. You are alright with group polygamy, but not with chained polygamy which is what my example was closest to, correct?

Actually, I don't really mind either, so long as we ensure that they have as little impact on society, the rights and wellbeing of the spouses and children, and, yes, even our public coffers as we can manage. Group marriages just helps to protect spouses, especially existing spouses, more than simply allowing polygamy does because it ensures that spouses know about each other. While this can be done by simply requiring permission from a current spouse to enter into another marriage, this is harder to enforce effectively, especially across state lines and could lead to a serious debate on privacy individual spouses retain within their marriages, from their spouses, when it comes to legal matters.
 
Anyone imagining that heterosexuals who are against SSM have suffered wounds of any kind, imagine them only for the sake of taking on the mantle of victimhood. There's no other valid reason. Allowing blacks and whites to marry didn't diminish same ethnicity marriages or the religions of people against interracial marriage, just as SSM won't.

Thanks for continuing to be a perfect example of what I posted.
 
Thanks for continuing to be a perfect example of what I posted.

Your welcome, thank YOU for showing that the only time people taking up the mantle of victimhood bothers you is when it's a group you're bigoted against.
 
Your welcome, thank YOU for showing that the only time people taking up the mantle of victimhood bothers you is when it's a group you're bigoted against.

Who am I bigoted against? Point out any statement I've made in this thread or any other thread that's bigoted.

Go on, I'll be sure to correct you when you answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom