• 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
EpicDude86 said:
gender-cleansing
Click to expand...

I saw this and thought "gendercide" and thought I was being clever but apparently it's already a real term:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendercide]Gendercide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Tom Jones said:
danarhea,

You got that right. You know Zappa.

But in reality, yellow snow can be found wherever man or beast finds snow.

Though, you can only find lonely dental floss in Montana.
Click to expand...

True that, but I bet you won't find any baby seals to beat up in Montana. :mrgreen:
 
LOL - Boogilie Woogilie! - I forgot about the baby seals - I guess Zappa was into nature in his own strange way.
 
LOL - I just got through listening to some Zappa - it's been awhile.

It's "Great googly moogly!" - Not Boogilie Woogilie.

Liike I said, it's been awhile.

But I am glad to get the opportunity to revist it.
 
Dav said:
So does anyone see any way around the problem I presented other than mass murder?
Click to expand...


At a guess, Korimyr was probably thinking more along the lines of warfare and duelling to "cull the herd", weed out those with weaker survival traits, and leave those with superior genes to reproduce more often via polygyny.

This was pretty commonplace in earlier societies were polygyny was practiced. Indeed, it is likely that polygyny came into practice because there were not enough surviving young men to go around if marriage was monogamous.
 
Mass murder might lower the male-to-female ratio of a given society-- which is practically essential to maintaining order-- but it doesn't produce beneficial cultural attitudes or encourage stronger individuals to reproduce. It also tends to be implemented along racial lines, potentially removing useful traits from the gene pool.

On the other hand, a society which allows young men to settle disputes with sabers and considers facial scars to be attractive symbols of physical courage will naturally lower the male-to-female ratio by attrition at the same time that it encourages both courtesy and physicality.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Mass murder might lower the male-to-female ratio of a given society-- which is practically essential to maintaining order-- but it doesn't produce beneficial cultural attitudes or encourage stronger individuals to reproduce. It also tends to be implemented along racial lines, potentially removing useful traits from the gene pool.

On the other hand, a society which allows young men to settle disputes with sabers and considers facial scars to be attractive symbols of physical courage will naturally lower the male-to-female ratio by attrition at the same time that it encourages both courtesy and physicality.
Click to expand...


Almost every day I encounter someone who makes me wish duelling were legal. :mrgreen:
 
Most everyones hit on my thoughts in the thread....

I don't have any issue with it in a general sense. If people want to get married to multiple partners in a personal way and their religion or whatever allows it fine.

I don't think legally it should be recognized for more than 2 people together though due to the amazingly huge over haul logistically to our system we'd need to do to make it work, not to mention the issue (though not the slippery slope scope) 1069 brought up of interconnecting webs.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think legally it should be recognized for more than 2 people together though due to the amazingly huge over haul logistically to our system we'd need to do to make it work, not to mention the issue (though not the slippery slope scope) 1069 brought up of interconnecting webs.
Click to expand...

I would be concerned with the ramifications of polygamy being socially accepted without being legally recognized. Not as bad, perhaps, as children being born entirely out of wedlock but it would still encourage people to conceive, bear, and raise children outside the legal framework of marriage.
 
I would rather polygamy be legally recognized and not socially accepted than for it to be socially accepted and not legally recognized, but that's just me.
 
Dav said:
I would rather polygamy be legally recognized and not socially accepted than for it to be socially accepted and not legally recognized, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

If those were the only two available options, then I'd be in your camp as well. Of course, my preference is that it be both legally and socially recognized-- but frankly, it would be a long uphill battle for either.
 
That's why we ought to leave it to the states to decide for themselves. That's the Whig Party position.
 
reefedjib said:
That's why we ought to leave it to the states to decide for themselves. That's the Whig Party position.
Click to expand...

Um... it already is up to the states. So far 0 states have legalized polygamy. Not even Utah.
 
Dav said:
Um... it already is up to the states. So far 0 states have legalized polygamy. Not even Utah.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Utah was blackmailed into prohibiting it. It would be more likely to be legalized in Arizona or Colorado than Utah now, but you could safely bet that the Federal government would slap them down if they tried. It's certainly a more emotionally charged issue than whether the legal blood alcohol limit is .10 or .08, and the Feds resorted to extortion pretty quickly over that one.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
I would be concerned with the ramifications of polygamy being socially accepted without being legally recognized. Not as bad, perhaps, as children being born entirely out of wedlock but it would still encourage people to conceive, bear, and raise children outside the legal framework of marriage.
Click to expand...

Perhaps socially accepted is the wrong way to put it. More not socially disallowed then anything.

IE...

I don't think polygamy should be promoted, highlighted, or made out to be just some equally understandable and perfectly normal alternative family unit. At the same time, I don't think we should be kicking down doors and taking children into protective custody for no other reason than the fact they have 3 mommies or daddies.

its kind of the same way, in part, I view gay coupling. I don't think we should be telling kids its bad, its immoral, its wrong, but we also shouldn't be teaching young kids that its perfectly normal, anyone could feel that way, its no different than a guy and girl together because it frankly IS a minority thing and as such you're far more likely to confuse more kids by doing that then enlighten them.

Social Stigma, to a point, is always going to be there for things that are abnormal and I think polygamoy in this country will almost always be considered abnormal. I just wouldn't want to see laws or actions taken equating abnormal to wrong. That doesn't mean I want to see abnormal to equal correct.
 
Dav said:
Um... it already is up to the states. So far 0 states have legalized polygamy. Not even Utah.
Click to expand...

Well that's good. Maybe some will. Like I have said earlier, I prefer clan marriages and they ought to make that legal as well. I don't see why we should restrict it to 1 man and many women. And making it a civil union is fine with me, if we want to reserve marriage for the 1 man, 1 woman holy matrimony variety.
 
Dav said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Utah's entry into the Union was conditional upon outlawing the practice. This is also about the time that mainstream Latter Day Saints changed policy and the church schismed over it, creating all of the splinter groups they're so eagerly trying to stamp out to this day.

Zyphlin said:
Perhaps socially accepted is the wrong way to put it. More not socially disallowed then anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got you. "It's not okay, but it's no excuse to go plyg-bashing." That's fair.
 
I don't have any problems with legalizing it, to some degree, that might eliminate some of the shadier practices that currently exist in the dark corners where polygamy has been driven underground.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Utah's entry into the Union was conditional upon outlawing the practice. This is also about the time that mainstream Latter Day Saints changed policy and the church schismed over it, creating all of the splinter groups they're so eagerly trying to stamp out to this day.
Click to expand...

That was like 150 years ago. It's been long enough that they could probably manage to legalize it today if they felt strongly about it.


That's the thing about polygamy: nobody feels strongly about it, with the exception of polygamists, and the fact that there's no likely genetic factor in their lifestyle choice as there is with gays makes people feel a lot less motivated to help their cause. Even libertarians, when they comment on the issue, mostly just say "well if it was legal I wouldn't have any problems with that". I seriously doubt that it will ever be legalized in any state in my lifetime.
 
I wonder, let's look at past inconsequential actions, or less severe actions, that were outlawed and what resulted from that outlawing.

Shall we start with the Harrison Act or Prohibition? We can go farther back or forward if you'd like, just trying to remain relatively contemporary and within America.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I wonder, let's look at past inconsequential actions, or less severe actions, that were outlawed and what resulted from that outlawing.

Shall we start with the Harrison Act or Prohibition? We can go farther back or forward if you'd like, just trying to remain relatively contemporary and within America.
Click to expand...

You can't outlaw something that wasn't legal to begin with (which is why I can't stand people who talk about those who want to "ban" gay marriage).


And the comparison with Prohibition is completely invalid for a number of reasons, one of which is that unlike drinking, marriage is something that requires governmental/societal recognition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom