• 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
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.

Well thanks for that and you make a good point, but what I was going for is that the more taboo you make something out to be, the more appealing it gets...Humans just love raunchy, taboo stuff I guess. :lol:

If it were accepted, common practice in the states, this conversation would be boring because we'd be discussing something as dull as consensual sex between a man and woman in the missionary position. Duuuulllll.

Over 1000 Societies are either ok with polygamy or practice it regularly. It's about an even split. It's more normal than one would think.
 
Incest should be legal if gay marriage and polygamy are ever to be legal. Why not?
 
Incest should be legal if gay marriage and polygamy are ever to be legal. Why not?

Please support it with evidence. Draw some viable parallels between them and we'll talk. Try and keep it scientific but if all you have are opinions and beliefs, please note them. Thanks.
 
Well thanks for that and you make a good point, but what I was going for is that the more taboo you make something out to be, the more appealing it gets...Humans just love raunchy, taboo stuff I guess. :lol:

If it were accepted, common practice in the states, this conversation would be boring because we'd be discussing something as dull as consensual sex between a man and woman in the missionary position. Duuuulllll.

Well, for one thing, taboo is enticing for some short-term fun... not for a lifestyle choice.

Also, the fact that it is taboo means that it is not widely done, and the fact that it is accepted means that it is widely done, so whether or not it is "appealing" or "dull" is irrelevant.

Over 1000 Societies are either ok with polygamy or practice it regularly. It's about an even split. It's more normal than one would think.

Is there even a single developed country where polygamy is legal or practiced regularly? It's normal in the 3rd world, sure, but what about outside of there?
 
Well, for one thing, taboo is enticing for some short-term fun... not for a lifestyle choice.

Also, the fact that it is taboo means that it is not widely done, and the fact that it is accepted means that it is widely done, so whether or not it is "appealing" or "dull" is irrelevant.



Is there even a single developed country where polygamy is legal or practiced regularly? It's normal in the 3rd world, sure, but what about outside of there?

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't mean their society is wrong and certainly doesn't justify it being illegal here.

Like is said earlier, if someone can support their many wives and children, what's a good reason to stop them?
 
I see what you're saying, but it doesn't mean their society is wrong and certainly doesn't justify it being illegal here.

Like is said earlier, if someone can support their many wives and children, what's a good reason to stop them?

I already gave a reason, which is the problem with an equal male:female ratio.

You could also make the moral argument that polygamy is rarely love-based and that marriage should be seen as something that is done out of love.
 
I already gave a reason, which is the problem with an equal male:female ratio.

You could also make the moral argument that polygamy is rarely love-based and that marriage should be seen as something that is done out of love.

That reason makes no sense to me. We're not guaranteed a mate, and we most certainly aren't guaranteed a marriage. And we are nowhere near guaranteed a marriage that will work.
 
I would be concerned with the ramifications of polygamy being socially accepted without being legally recognized.
If it were socially acceptable, it would likely be legal, no?
 
If it were socially acceptable, it would likely be legal, no?

You'd think that, but then the government would break into your house and steal you away in the middle of the night...

:ninja:
 
Incest should be legal if gay marriage and polygamy are ever to be legal. Why not?

Because incestuous relationships are inherently unhealthy. On the other hand, I do think that multiple members of one family should be able to marry one or more members of a separate family-- which given my ideal on how polygamy should legally function would technically be a form of incest.

You could also make the moral argument that polygamy is rarely love-based and that marriage should be seen as something that is done out of love.

Could, but I'd say those arguments are zero-for-two. There's no reason to make the assumption that non-arranged polygamous marriages are not made for love, and once you get outside of FLDS, this is a surprisingly common arrangement.

And then... I think people have a moral obligation to love their spouses. I don't think people should marry for love. The idea of marrying for love is that love is something you experience, something outside of your control, and that your marriage would thus be conditional upon it. I would argue that the feeling of love is something that grows organically out of the habit of behaving lovingly, which is the first and most essential obligation of all family relationships.

If it were socially acceptable, it would likely be legal, no?

Cannabis laws and copyrights would suggest otherwise.
 
Cannabis laws and copyrights would suggest otherwise.

Cannabis legalization has yet to gain the support of the majority of the public (though it's getting close), and while nobody follows certain copyright laws, there hasn't really been any kind of workable solution presented.
 
Cannabis legalization has yet to gain the support of the majority of the public (though it's getting close), and while nobody follows certain copyright laws, there hasn't really been any kind of workable solution presented.

There is a "workable" solution, and that is charge outrageous fines to copyright violators. lol.

as for Cannabis, if it hadn't been for years of negative (slanderous) campaigning by the moral minority and gov't lackeys (much like vilification of alcohol during prohibition) cannabis would be perceived the same, if not better, as cigarettes.
 
Pot, tobacco, alchol, drugs, polygamy, promiscuity, etc....are all potentially harmful.
If a person wants to engage in practices that MAY make others financially liable, then the person should get a license that allows him/her to participate in those practices but ON HIS OWN DIME. The licenses would clearly spell out certain restrictions. You would not be able to buy harmful substances without an ID/punchcard, so they can keep track of how much you abuse yourself.
Polygamous families would be restricted as to receiving social services.
Drinkers, smokers, druggies, the promiscuous, etc. would have give up the "right" to medical care for diseases related to their lifestyle.
Now, all we need is a new governmental agency to enforce all that...:2razz:
 
Pot, tobacco, alchol, drugs, polygamy, promiscuity, etc....are all potentially harmful.
If a person wants to engage in practices that MAY make others financially liable, then the person should get a license that allows him/her to participate in those practices but ON HIS OWN DIME. The licenses would clearly spell out certain restrictions. You would not be able to buy harmful substances without an ID/punchcard, so they can keep track of how much you abuse yourself.
Polygamous families would be restricted as to receiving social services.
Drinkers, smokers, druggies, the promiscuous, etc. would have give up the "right" to medical care for diseases related to their lifestyle.
Now, all we need is a new governmental agency to enforce all that...:2razz:

BWAHAHAHA! Are you suggesting Common Sense??? In America??

OH GOD! You're delusional.


:lol:
 
BWAHAHAHA! Are you suggesting Common Sense??? In America??

OH GOD! You're delusional.


:lol:
Gots to have a dream, man. FantasyLand isn't just a place for Disney characters....
 
As anyone familiar with the gay marriage threads knows, polygamy is often brought up to test the logical consistency of a given argument and identify what, if anything, would justify keeping polygamy illegal in a world where consenting adults can enter in any contract they wish.

I personally have never possessed nor read a strong argument against polygamy, and I become confused when some pro-gm folks would not also support polygamy, as such individuals can never articulate their reasons.

This thread does not need to involve gay marriage at all. I actually believe we could have a better discussion if gay marriage were included as little as passable.

I invite anyone with strong objections or support of polygamy to make their arguments known.

  • Do you think legalized polygamy in society would affect you in any way? If so, in what way and to what degree?
  • Do you think polygamy could help lower the divorce, juvenile crime or runaway rates; or improve academic performance?
  • If you can argue the polygamy brings increased economic security, how would polygamy affect the abortion rate?
Those are just a few questions to get your thoughts moving, please feel free to make any argument you wish.

On the surface - I truly don't care.

But when I start to think of the trickle-down effects it would have, I consider it a can of worms best left shelved. Not that it's wrong - but that it would lead to many other smaller issues.

Is it worth the headache? No.
 
That reason makes no sense to me. We're not guaranteed a mate, and we most certainly aren't guaranteed a marriage. And we are nowhere near guaranteed a marriage that will work.

Just because we aren't "guaranteed" marriage doesn't mean we should define it in such a way that will inevitably create a large surplus of unmarried males.



You keep asking me for a good reason to keep it illegal, but what I don't get is, what reason is there for making it legal?
 
Just because we aren't "guaranteed" marriage doesn't mean we should define it in such a way that will inevitably create a large surplus of unmarried males.

Maybe it will make men work harder.



You keep asking me for a good reason to keep it illegal, but what I don't get is, what reason is there for making it legal?

American Citizens are believed to be entitled to:
checkmark.gif
Life
checkmark.gif
[/IMG]Liberty
checkmark.gif
Pursuit of Property/Happiness

so long as one:
Pay taxes
does not interfere in anyone else's:
(See above
checkmark.gif
)
 
Maybe it will make men work harder.

Hard work doesn't always get you a wife, and plenty of bums still get married.


American Citizens are believed to be entitled to:
checkmark.gif
Life
checkmark.gif
[/IMG]Liberty
checkmark.gif
Pursuit of Property/Happiness

so long as one:
Pay taxes
does not interfere in anyone else's:
(See above
checkmark.gif
)

That's way more general than specific. I don't believe that laws should be changed unless there's a clear reason why it would be beneficial to do so; adherence to a blanket ideology like libertarianism is not a valid reason in itself.
 
On the surface - I truly don't care.

But when I start to think of the trickle-down effects it would have, I consider it a can of worms best left shelved. Not that it's wrong - but that it would lead to many other smaller issues.

Is it worth the headache? No.


You've summed up how I feel about gay marriage.
 
Hard work doesn't always get you a wife, and plenty of bums still get married.

Life isn't fair, **** happens. Good for them.


That's way more general than specific. I don't believe that laws should be changed unless there's a clear reason why it would be beneficial to do so; adherence to a blanket ideology like libertarianism is not a valid reason in itself.


It was important enough to be put into the Declaration of Independence...sooo...If you can think of any more of an American document that would suggest otherwise, let me hear it.
 
Life isn't fair, **** happens. Good for them.

Well, it would be one thing if the drawback was balanced out with some benefit... but nobody's really argued about any benefits for legalized polygamy, they've only argued that "people should be able to do it".



It was important enough to be put into the Declaration of Independence...sooo...If you can think of any more of an American document that would suggest otherwise, let me hear it.

For one thing, I highly doubt Thomas Jefferson wanted polygamy to be legalized... I won't take that line of defense though because I can't prove it.


"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are extremely vague and as I already said, more general than specific; the only people who argue that the terms advocate a libertarian position are, well, libertarians. Even if you were to use libertarian assumption that "liberty" and the "pusuit of happiness" mean getting to do whatever the hell you want if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, you could argue that legalized polygamy does infringe on the rights of many people by creating the imbalance which I mentioned.


I don't use those assumptions though. I simply think that change for change's sake is irresponsible and could lead to unintended consequences, so if a law is to be reversed, there should be some clear benefit to reversing it. So far I have yet to hear about any benefits to reversing polygamy laws.
 
Last edited:
Well, it would be one thing if the drawback was balanced out with some benefit... but nobody's really argued about any benefits for legalized polygamy, they've only argued that "people should be able to do it".





For one thing, I highly doubt Thomas Jefferson wanted polygamy to be legalized... I won't take that line of defense though because I can't prove it.


"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are extremely vague and as I already said, more general than specific; the only people who argue that the terms advocate a libertarian position are, well, libertarians. Even if you were to use libertarian assumption that "liberty" and the "pusuit of happiness" mean getting to do whatever the hell you want if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, you could argue that legalized polygamy does infringe on the rights of many people by creating the imbalance which I mentioned.


I don't use those assumptions though. I simply think that change for change's sake is irresponsible and could lead to unintended consequences, so if a law is to be reversed, there should be some clear benefit to reversing it. So far I have yet to hear about any benefits to reversing polygamy laws.


How can you honestly argue a male to female ratio being a good reason to not have polygamy...That might be considered if EVERYONE was getting married...but...I just don't see its relevance. That's just adding more useless **** to the list of things we're "entitled" to or things that "ought to be fair".

Life. Isn't. Fair.


And I don't see why all these things people want legalized can't even be given a chance, all we do is speculate, one way or the other. We'll never know until we try.


also, Thomas Jefferson knocked up a slave girl. How's that for monogamy?
 
How can you honestly argue a male to female ratio being a good reason to not have polygamy...That might be considered if EVERYONE was getting married...but...I just don't see its relevance. That's just adding more useless **** to the list of things we're "entitled" to or things that "ought to be fair".

Life. Isn't. Fair.

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.

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

And I don't see why all these things people want legalized can't even be given a chance, all we do is speculate, one way or the other. We'll never know until we try.

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.

also, Thomas Jefferson knocked up a slave girl. How's that for monogamy?

He didn't marry her, so....
 
Back
Top Bottom