Should polygamy be legalized?
Scroll to see replies
In an ideal world the gender, sexual orientation or anything else shouldn't matter, even the amount, but obviously this isn't an ideal world.
Do I think it should be legalised myself? I'd probably say yes just to give people a choice, I think something that's so personal shouldn't be the choice of the government, that's not to say they should get rid of all laws but things such as this seem a bit silly, especially considering in some cultures and religions polygamy is a normal occurrence.
I mean, just because something is legalised doesn't mean that people will do it, for example your average Joe walking down the street, hearing that it is now legal, isn't going to want to go marry twelve other women now is he? Or maybe he would, what do I know?
Do I think it should be legalised myself? I'd probably say yes just to give people a choice, I think something that's so personal shouldn't be the choice of the government, that's not to say they should get rid of all laws but things such as this seem a bit silly, especially considering in some cultures and religions polygamy is a normal occurrence.
I mean, just because something is legalised doesn't mean that people will do it, for example your average Joe walking down the street, hearing that it is now legal, isn't going to want to go marry twelve other women now is he? Or maybe he would, what do I know?
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Mate I think you are getting confused.
I'm not supporting being able to enter into many different marriages at once.
I propose only being able to enter into 1 marriage, but with many people involved in the marriage.
So obviously if A marries B, he will need the permission of X and Y.
If A marries C, he will need the permission of E, F and G.
Simplez.
I'm not supporting being able to enter into many different marriages at once.
I propose only being able to enter into 1 marriage, but with many people involved in the marriage.
So obviously if A marries B, he will need the permission of X and Y.
If A marries C, he will need the permission of E, F and G.
Simplez.
But why? Why should people be limited to only one marriage at once? There is no real argument against it, only legal hurdles, no different than polygamy Why should A not be allowed to marry B and C at the same time independent of each other? Surely consenting adults should be able to marry who they want. If B and C say "whatevs" and A marry both of them independently, then what is the real reason prohibiting them?
You can't apply the logic regarding polygamy and suddenly switch it off when it comes to multiple marriages.
Original post by Fango_Jett
But why? Why should people be limited to only one marriage at once? There is no real argument against it, only legal hurdles, no different than polygamy Why should A not be allowed to marry B and C at the same time independent of each other? Surely consenting adults should be able to marry who they want. If B and C say "whatevs" and A marry both of them independently, then what is the real reason prohibiting them?
You can't apply the logic regarding polygamy and suddenly switch it off when it comes to multiple marriages.
You can't apply the logic regarding polygamy and suddenly switch it off when it comes to multiple marriages.
Let's take away the semantics for a moment.
This is what I believe.
If three people all love each other and want to live together as a married group, they should be able to.
If four people all love each other and want to live together as a married group, they should be able to.
Call it what you will, call it polygamy or whatever it doesn't matter to me, just allow these groups to do so.
----------------------------------------------
Now you suggest that a person should be able to marry two different people independently.
I think this is a completely different situation, but for arguments sake, let us say that I agree this is allowed too.
Then this isn't likely to be a problem anyway, because if a married person marries another individual, against the permission of the original spouse, the original spouse can simply divorce.
So ultimately the scenario will end up the same as scenario above where everyone must consent.
The former scenario however is legally more simplistic as there is less divorce paperwork.
(edited 8 years ago)
Leftists can not appose polygamy because the arguments they make about homosexuality also apply to polygamy since it is adults consenting with other adults, so they have no leg to stand on, if they appose this then it just shows what hypocrites they are.
Polygamy actually makes sense as well because it takes into account that there will naturally be more women then men and also that some men have bigger sexual drives where they want more then 1 woman.
Polygamy should be legalised so that those who want more then 1 woman legally can do so.
Polygamy actually makes sense as well because it takes into account that there will naturally be more women then men and also that some men have bigger sexual drives where they want more then 1 woman.
Polygamy should be legalised so that those who want more then 1 woman legally can do so.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by slade p
Leftists can not appose polygamy because the arguments they make about homosexuality also apply to polygamy since it is adults consenting with other adults, so they have no leg to stand on, if they appose this then it just shows what hypocrites they are.
I have never met someone who was born a polygamist, whereas I have of gay people. I guess you missed that key part.
Original post by Fango_Jett
There is?
In an MFF marriage, M gets put in a crippling illness on life support for the rest of his time: F1 wants to turn off life support, F2 doesn't?
Who wins in that situation by current precedent?
In an MFF marriage, M gets put in a crippling illness on life support for the rest of his time: F1 wants to turn off life support, F2 doesn't?
Who wins in that situation by current precedent?
What if a child is on life support and father wants it left on, but mother wants it left off?
Also note it is not uncommon for two people have have joint powers of attorney.
So it seems you are asking lots and lots of questions, but the fact is they are all answerable.
So if you want to understand the legal framework of how polygamy will work, you will have to do a lot of research, but I think this thread shouldn't be about educating people on basic concepts in law, but rather whether polygamy should be allowed or not.
Original post by Fango_Jett
I have never met someone who was born a polygamist, whereas I have of gay people. I guess you missed that key part.
And I have met many gay people who were born straight. Does that mean they shouldn't have the same rights as other gay people?
Perhaps you missed this key part which I mentioned earlier.
Original post by Fango_Jett
I have never met someone who was born a polygamist, whereas I have of gay people. I guess you missed that key part.
But you keep making the mistake of confusing sexuality with marriage.
sexuality is a person's capacity for sexual feelings.
Again, marriage is a personal choice, disregarding arranged marriages.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
And I have met many gay people who were born straight. Does that mean they shouldn't have the same rights as other gay people?
Perhaps you missed this key part which I mentioned earlier.
Perhaps you missed this key part which I mentioned earlier.
Sop putting words into my mouth. I never said that., nor did I imply it.
You cannot choose your sexual attraction, but you can choose the number of people who you create a legal contract with.
Original post by Fango_Jett
I have never met someone who was born a polygamist, whereas I have of gay people. I guess you missed that key part.
No one is born gay, you become gay as you grow up because of particular influences. Also it doesn't matter if you are born polygamist or not, polygamy is not a different type of sexual preference, it is just a man that has more then 1 spouse.
There is no rational argument against polygamy if you say adults can marry who they want if consensual.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
Many families do not wish to be bound to the traditional view of a marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Why should the government stipulate what families are valid and what families aren't?
Do you think it's time that the government no longer made it a crime to have multiple husbands or multiple wives if all individuals involved are in favor?
Why should the government stipulate what families are valid and what families aren't?
Do you think it's time that the government no longer made it a crime to have multiple husbands or multiple wives if all individuals involved are in favor?
With current divorce laws you'd crucify the person with the highest number of partners.
Ita just not practical.
Original post by slade p
No one is born gay, you become gay as you grow up because of particular influences. Also it doesn't matter if you are born polygamist or not, polygamy is not a different type of sexual preference, it is just a man that has more then 1 spouse.
There is no rational argument against polygamy if you say adults can marry who they want if consensual.
There is no rational argument against polygamy if you say adults can marry who they want if consensual.
There is plenty of evidence that your sexuality has a genetic basis, but that is a different topic.
Sexuality is a not something a person can control, but number of people who you can make a legal contract with is something which can be. Allowing legal contracts based solely on personal choice is a warped piece of logic, because there is no limit to what you can do with that.
Marriage is a contract that gives people a more stable home, generating better citizens, in exchange for some social and economic benefits. There are no benefits for polygamous marriage, but plenty of negatives that have been well documented. Gay marriages on the other hand provide no difference in the quality of upbringing, and even excel in some studies.
Original post by Fango_Jett
There is plenty of evidence that your sexuality has a genetic basis, but that is a different topic.
Sexuality is a not something a person can control, but number of people who you can make a legal contract with is something which can be. Allowing legal contracts based solely on personal choice is a warped piece of logic, because there is no limit to what you can do with that.
Marriage is a contract that gives people a more stable home, generating better citizens, in exchange for some social and economic benefits. There are no benefits for polygamous marriage, but plenty of negatives that have been well documented. Gay marriages on the other hand provide no difference in the quality of upbringing, and even excel in some studies.
Sexuality is a not something a person can control, but number of people who you can make a legal contract with is something which can be. Allowing legal contracts based solely on personal choice is a warped piece of logic, because there is no limit to what you can do with that.
Marriage is a contract that gives people a more stable home, generating better citizens, in exchange for some social and economic benefits. There are no benefits for polygamous marriage, but plenty of negatives that have been well documented. Gay marriages on the other hand provide no difference in the quality of upbringing, and even excel in some studies.
This post is flawed in so many ways that I don't have the time to point out all of your errors.
But you are just showing yourself to be an anti-polygamy bigot. One day we will pass these laws and achieve equality for all to marry those they love.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Fango_Jett
Well, I've yet to meet someone born a polygamist, that being the key difference.
It is a personal choice, not something with someone at birth.
It is a personal choice, not something with someone at birth.
But surely you can't help who you fall in love with?
A man falls in love with a man = not a choice,
A man falls in love with two women = a choice?
That is utterly inconsistent. The hypocrisy people have on this issue is laughable.
Original post by Doctor_Einstein
This post is flawed in so many ways that I don't have the time to point out all of your errors.
But you are just showing yourself to be an anti-polygamy bigot. One day we will pass these laws and achieve equality for all to marry those they love.
But you are just showing yourself to be an anti-polygamy bigot. One day we will pass these laws and achieve equality for all to marry those they love.
Go for it. Hopefully the gene pool will not be too limited in a few generation's time.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
But surely you can't help who you fall in love with?
A man falls in love with a man = not a choice,
A man falls in love with two women = a choice?
That is utterly inconsistent. The hypocrisy people have on this issue is laughable.
A man falls in love with a man = not a choice,
A man falls in love with two women = a choice?
That is utterly inconsistent. The hypocrisy people have on this issue is laughable.
There is no law preventing someone from being in love or having sexual relations with 2 or more people, as I'm sure many people do. There is a big difference between being in love and having a legal contract.
If the women are happy with it then why not?
I'm sorry, maybe I'll be one of those 80 year old women whose Grandchildren say 'she's a bit anti-polygamist, but she's a product of her time' but I do NOT GET polygamy!!!
I don't understand why you would choose something so complicated and confusing, or why polygamists try to argue that we are not 'designed' to have only one partner and that we are only monogamous because society makes us so.
If people want to be polygamists then fine, that's their choice. I struggle with their attitude towards those of us who aren't though, and I worry about the effect on children who are brought up in polygamous families.
I realise that if I was saying all of this about mixed race families, or homosexual families, it would be outrageously offensive, but I just do not see polygamy on the same level as those two things. Different races are arbitrary lines we draw ourselves, and homosexuality is a sexuality that we have no choice over. Neither of them means that a child can't grow up in a stable family. But I just cannot get on board with polygamy.
I don't understand why you would choose something so complicated and confusing, or why polygamists try to argue that we are not 'designed' to have only one partner and that we are only monogamous because society makes us so.
If people want to be polygamists then fine, that's their choice. I struggle with their attitude towards those of us who aren't though, and I worry about the effect on children who are brought up in polygamous families.
I realise that if I was saying all of this about mixed race families, or homosexual families, it would be outrageously offensive, but I just do not see polygamy on the same level as those two things. Different races are arbitrary lines we draw ourselves, and homosexuality is a sexuality that we have no choice over. Neither of them means that a child can't grow up in a stable family. But I just cannot get on board with polygamy.
Original post by Fango_Jett
There is no law preventing someone from being in love or having sexual relations with 2 or more people, as I'm sure many people do. There is a big difference between being in love and having a legal contract.
Are you trolling?
You can't possibly be making such an illogical argument. Using your reasoning, why did anyone ever want to legalise gay marriage, given that it wasn't illegal to have a homosexual relationship and homosexual sex?
Original post by MrKmas508
Incest leads to children with cross bodily disfigurements leading to a poor quality of life. This is actually a big issue is some (really not many) Pakistani communities in the Uk who marry their cousins then their children marry their own cousins and so on. Entire families end up suffering from the same disabilities, generally Asians wish intellectual success for their children in school however the children of first cousin marriage are generally severally impaired mentally. 37% of British Pakistani babies parents are the product of a first cousin marriage.
Legalise incest marriage, but make it illegal to have children.
But then what about people who are at a much higher risk of having children with problems? Mothers over 40 (hundreds of times higher chance of down syndrome for example), people with genetic disorders that will pass it onto their children Where do you draw the line?
A marriage doesn't have to result in children. Plenty of ways to make sure you don't have kids.
And that argument doesn't even work for homosexual incestuous relationships. Two brothers who want to **** each other and get married won't have offspring.
Why are you against two consenting adults doing whatever they want with their bodies without harming anyone?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
