polygamous marriage should be legal if gay marriage is

Author: linate ,

Posts

Total: 23
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
most indicators say we are slightly polygamous in our natural state anyway, so why do we discriminate against multiple partner marriages, if we are willing to allow for gay marriage? i actually support gay marriage, but id say we shouldn't limit ourselves. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Marriage is a legal union. I think if all parties agree there should be as many allowed as they want. 
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
Sure thing, let's spawn a generation of tens of millions of military-age men who can't find a mate because all the women are being hogged by a few rich guys. I'm sure that won't come with any sort of violent or genocidal backlash.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I think it should be a state's issue on whether or not to legalize polygamy.  Then we can see the effects of it to the United States.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,941
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Swagnarok
There’s nothing from stopping that happening now.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @Swagnarok
Someone hates women.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
--> @Polytheist-Witch
Showing concern for the wellbeing of men does not equate to hatred of women. Wanting to prevent social unrest does not equate to hatred of women.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
--> @Ramshutu
That in theory a group of women might be able to congregate together to enter into a permanent polyamorous relationship with a rich man, without legal sanction or prohibition, has not yet manifested itself into reality. But for the government to provide such legal sanction to such an arrangement, combined with the thousands upon thousands of media pundits who you and I both know would flock in an instant to show their support for the men and women who were a party to this, would have the effect of making this exponentially more common within a few short years.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @Swagnarok
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. 

Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
--> @Polytheist-Witch
Wanting millions of men to not have to spend their whole adult lives alone and then die alone is sexist...how, exactly?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,221
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Swagnarok
lol, why do you want to force men to pair up with substandard spouses?
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
--> @Greyparrot
Substandard? You believe that only substandard women would choose to be part of a rich man's harem?
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,941
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Swagnarok
That in theory a group of women might be able to congregate together to enter into a permanent polyamorous relationship with a rich man, without legal sanction or prohibition, has not yet manifested itself into reality.
But for the government to provide such legal sanction to such an arrangement, combined with the thousands upon thousands of media pundits who you and I both know would flock in an instant to show their support for the men and women who were a party to this, would have the effect of making this exponentially more common within a few short years.
So right now, billionaires can entice women into long term or even permanent polygamous relationships that are not legally sanctioned by the government. 

If the attraction and benefits of being in a non-legally recognizes polygamous relationship with a billionaire is not sufficiently compelling to make people want to do it with anyone other than Hue Hefner - I can see no benefit or compelling reason why government recognition would tip the balance.

Unless you can give me a good reason why a women would say  “I’m not going into a polygamous relationship with this billionaire” today, but would tomorrow I’d it was legally recognized. I see no basis for your claim.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,221
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @Swagnarok
A man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Swagnarok
Yes
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
--> @Swagnarok
let's spawn a generation of tens of millions of military-age men who can't find a mate because all the women are being hogged by a few rich guys. I'm sure that won't come with any sort of violent or genocidal backlash.

It's they're fault that they're poor. It's time for them to take responsibility. It's not hopeless. Perhaps they can have some happiness as servants. In the mean time I'll continue impregnating the females of my harem, living like a sultan in my mansion. It's good to be king.

triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 425
1
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
1
2
6
This is the slippery slope we feared. All marriages that aren't between a man and woman, only, all else excluded, are a disgusting perversion and slippery slope that will lead to things such as polygammy. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
divorces are messy enough, imagine adding more people to the mess lol

this should have been fixed long ago, when you get married it should be clear if you get divorced this is how it's going to go and everyone must agree before entering into the contract, then the number of people isn't relevant.  this would be a nightmare for the different types of insurances and probably some other things I can't think of atm.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @Swagnarok
Yes. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
My biggest concern is child custody issues. But I think this is a long way off. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Polytheist-Witch
that's a great point, though I've seen men interviewed who have like 14 kids by several different women and no job, but yeah if one of the non biological parents is the main care taker of the child, that would get very messy.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,859
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @linate
King Solomon apparently had 700 wives and 300 concubines. [LINK]

While it seems that monogamy was the norm in Judaism even in biblical times, I don't think that there was any kind of prohibition against polygamy until Rabbeinu Gershom (1000 CE). Consider this: Jewish law makes it difficult to for a man to meet the obligations to provide for more than one family. [LINK]
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,514
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Exactly. Three women raising say 10 kids collectively should have guardianship of all 10.