• 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!

Polygamy: Why not?

Would You Support Polygamy

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 41.3%
  • No

    Votes: 23 30.7%
  • Undecided but open to either side.

    Votes: 3 4.0%
  • I couldn't care less either way.

    Votes: 18 24.0%

  • Total voters
    75
Nobody is saying that anyone should be "entitled" to marriage, I just happen to think that a high unmarried male:female ratio would be a bad thing for society in general, and you don't seem to disagree.

I don't care one way or another, but if someone wants to do something that doesn't infringe upon anyone else (and there's no evidence that it will) then let them. We can only learn from mistakes if we make them. Also, If we were a more open society to our non-monogamy, I think we'd ALL be happier. I mean just look at the stigma placed on people who cheat, and yet, people do it all the time and in the end it really doesn't hurt society.

It might be justified if legalized polygamy actually had benefits, but nobody's really argued that it does.

Something has to be good for us or benefit us to be legal?

The "you never know until you try" argument could be used for criminalization too, and I don't buy it. If we're going to change our legal code, there should be an actual reason why doing so would be a good thing.

Well we're talking about polygamy, now. So tell me why not. You can't tell me why not just as much as I can't tell you why so.

He didn't marry her, so....

Doesn't matter. He failed at monogamy.
 
He didn't marry her, so....

See this? This is my problem. Homosexuals are ruining the sanctity of marriage. Plygs would ruin the sanctity of marriage if we let them. Marriage is holy in the eyes of God and thus must be applied according to God's law.

But ****ing the babysitter or your secretary? Having children out of wedlock, or divorcing and remarrying and "raising" your children through Christmas cards? That's all A-OK and if you say otherwise, you're a totalitarian and a prude and even social conservatives will try to tell you to mind your own business.

How is all of this moral degeneracy more acceptable than gays and Muslims having the number and type of spouses allowed to them by their faiths? It is sickening.
 
Something has to be good for us or benefit us to be legal?

Here is the main problem, and why we will probably never agree on such issues as this one.

In my view, the law should not be changed in any way- legalization, criminalization, etc.- unless there is a reason why doing so would be beneficial on the whole.

In your view, which is the libertarian view, the current legal code is of no importance, and all that matters is that everything that does not directly violate the rights of others is legal.



I don't think we can ever come to an agreement here because our assumptions of what laws are don't match. I'm not even sure either of us is wrong or right, we just have different perspectives.
 
See this? This is my problem. Homosexuals are ruining the sanctity of marriage. Plygs would ruin the sanctity of marriage if we let them. Marriage is holy in the eyes of God and thus must be applied according to God's law.

But ****ing the babysitter or your secretary? Having children out of wedlock, or divorcing and remarrying and "raising" your children through Christmas cards? That's all A-OK and if you say otherwise, you're a totalitarian and a prude and even social conservatives will try to tell you to mind your own business.

How is all of this moral degeneracy more acceptable than gays and Muslims having the number and type of spouses allowed to them by their faiths? It is sickening.

Couldn't agree with you more, but people who don't believe the same thing you believe, in a Nation where Church and State are separate, are entitled to their happiness and beliefs, within reason of course.
 
Here is the main problem, and why we will probably never agree on such issues as this one.

In my view, the law should not be changed in any way- legalization, criminalization, etc.- unless there is a reason why doing so would be beneficial on the whole.

In your view, which is the libertarian view, the current legal code is of no importance, and all that matters is that everything that does not directly violate the rights of others is legal.

I don't think we can ever come to an agreement here because our assumptions of what laws are don't match. I'm not even sure either of us is wrong or right, we just have different perspectives.

If it doesn't hurt anyone, then who's to say any different? the Destruction of the Sanctity of Marriage, the destruction of society, the breakdown of moral fiber, all of this aside, this is America, and the same reason that people can believe these things can destroy all those things is the same reason people can believe they won't.
 
tax laws regarding marriage would need to be revised, for instance.

I think most of the rights we provide married people should be removed. The few that make sense can be given without any special government recognition of marriage. Tax for example. Why should a couple that have 2 children and lived together for 10 years pay a different tax than a couple that have 2 children and lived together for 10 years? Because one's married and one isn't. That makes no sense. In fact, by not being married, you often end up with the result where one parent can claim the children and obtain the earned income credit, where as if they were married the couple could not qualify due to too much income. So I feel that the example of tax laws is one area where the special rights allowed married couples should be removed. Everyone should be treated the same in the tax system.

So I don't see a need for the government to recognize polygamy in the same way I don't see a need for the government to recognize marriage. Which I suppose puts polygamy on the same level as marriage. I have to admit, there is a certain appeal to a polygamous relationship. I've been single most of my life, by choice. Because on the few incidents I haven't been single I've found that women are far too needy and time consuming. I'm not willing to give all my time to someone else. But if I only had to dedicate myself 25% of the time that would be easier to do.
 
See this? This is my problem. Homosexuals are ruining the sanctity of marriage. Plygs would ruin the sanctity of marriage if we let them. Marriage is holy in the eyes of God and thus must be applied according to God's law.

But ****ing the babysitter or your secretary? Having children out of wedlock, or divorcing and remarrying and "raising" your children through Christmas cards? That's all A-OK and if you say otherwise, you're a totalitarian and a prude and even social conservatives will try to tell you to mind your own business.

How is all of this moral degeneracy more acceptable than gays and Muslims having the number and type of spouses allowed to them by their faiths? It is sickening.

I agree with you to a point. Divorce laws were liberalized in the 50's and 60's for the most part. Prior to that there was both powerful legal and social injunction against divorce in all but the most extreme cases, and the divorce rate was very low.

There was also societal support for marriage. It was indeed seen as a sacred institution, and those who became known for violating that institution were ostracised. If your hubby is a no-good drunk who comes home and beats you all the time...you call your three brothers, and THEY meet him at the door one night and beat the living crap out of HIM...and tell him if he doesn't straighten up, they'll be back as often as needed.
This doesn't generally happen anymore.

All my life I've heard preachers railing against adultery and divorce...while at the same time I've seen adultery and divorce normalized and glorified in the mass media and becoming ever more commonplace among the people.

Do away with no-fault divorce? Return to censoring TV for "moral wholesomness"? Back to "Father knows best" and "Leave it to Beaver"?
 
wel in theory if a threesome of people wanna get married and be together im fine with that.However historically polygamy has just been shown as a way of men in small out of society groups taking advantage of vulnerable women.
 
However historically polygamy has just been shown as a way of men in small out of society groups taking advantage of vulnerable women.

Proof?

Even in our society, serial polygamy is as acceptable as monogamy is. Not to mention over 1000 societies have one form of polygamy or another. I'll find the report, it's around here somewhere...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you will. Because you're only going to have enough examples to cover the incredibly small fraction of polygamists that abuse their relationships.

But go ahead, try and vilify it.

Ok so show me these peaceful polygamous relationships you talk of?
 
The reason this is brought up in the Gay Marriage threads is obvious as is the poll. If you break down the core of Marriage, you invite such to occur. The refrain of "There is no connection between the two, you're just being a hyper partisan" ring hollow in the face of the truth, and that simple truth is that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Hell Obama's got Czar's in the WH that are pushing for such.

I think it's a terrible thing to watch, society corroding like this.
 
Ok so show me these peaceful polygamous relationships you talk of?

I don't know any personally, it is after all illegal in America. I guess you could, ask some Hindu polygamists. They practice it sometimes and it doesn't seem to get ugly. Other than wackjob extremists, I doubt you could provide me any examples of polygamy being harmful. Just because you can't pull 4 wives, doesn't mean you should be jealous man.
 
Do away with no-fault divorce? Return to censoring TV for "moral wholesomness"? Back to "Father knows best" and "Leave it to Beaver"?

I think doing away with no-fault divorce would be a good first step, along with a period of trial separation and mandatory marital counseling for those divorces whose grounds do not involve criminal activity. Domestic violence is already a criminal offense; reinstating adultery as an offense (for spouse and homewrecker) with prosecution at the wronged parties' discretion, unless there is authorization signed by all spouses, would be a good second step. I believe that it is the concept of "no-fault" in the legal system that has led to the perception of "no scandal" in the social system.

There's no need to censor the television. Make divorce suck again, and television will portray it accordingly.
 
Last edited:
The reason this is brought up in the Gay Marriage threads is obvious as is the poll. If you break down the core of Marriage, you invite such to occur. The refrain of "There is no connection between the two, you're just being a hyper partisan" ring hollow in the face of the truth, and that simple truth is that allowing gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Hell Obama's got Czar's in the WH that are pushing for such.

I think it's a terrible thing to watch, society corroding like this.

Society corrodes whenever we allow for discrimination to flourish on a massive scale.

Polygamy, and gay marriage is not up to you to decide what people do with their lives. Gays can't help it and some men or women would be very happy with more than one partner that is legally recognized. And just because you legalize it does not mean it will flourish.
 
I don't have a problem with polygamy, however, I can see some problems with a normal marriage license including polygamy. I figure though that there could be some sort of supplemental marriage license to cover polygamists.

I do think that a couple of ground rules for such unions would be necessary. Such as, all parties involved would have to be of age and in total agreement in taking all other parties involved as their partners. A partial divorce could get a little messy and weird, especially if there are more than three people involved and/or children. Child custody and visitation rights would definitely have to be handled case by case.
 
Back
Top Bottom