Should Polygamy be illegal?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Have to re-organize society quite a bit if you want to make Polygamy legal.. never mind 'mainstream'. Ernest pretty much summed it up already. Polygamy and Group Marriage should be legal, Bigamy certaintly not.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the largest problem with the act of polygamy usually the ages of those wives the man is taking?

What about Polyandry in that case?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yes -any 'marriage' (whether it be polygamy, bigamy, or whatever) conducted outside the confines of a monogamous relationship should be illegal if it isn't already. 

Once again, why?

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

Way to avoid Debate.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.

A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

Way to avoid Debate.

I was having a debate, then Earl broke out the "you must be gay card" to which the only response is "no I"m not", which would be followed by an Earl reponse of "yes you are", to be followed by many responses either in the negative or affirmative discussing my sexual orientation, which is not a debate worth having.  If Earl would have given a legit response, as usual, I would have responded to it.

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

A slippery slope like giving women the vote?

No doubt "most people" did not want women to have the vote, at least respectable people they just don't think about that sort of thing.

Anyway wouldn't Polygamy be a rather slippery summit than a slope, all we would back to is a more ancient (in Western Europe\Anglosphere) form of relationships. But as you said "You must be living in the past".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?

Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

A slippery slope like giving women the vote?

No doubt "most people" did not want women to have the vote, at least respectable people they just don't think about that sort of thing.

Anyway wouldn't Polygamy be a rather slippery summit than a slope, all we would back to is a more ancient (in Western Europe\Anglosphere) form of relationships. But as you said "You must be living in the past".

Some things are necessary for a society to progress.  I believe all people should never be discriminated against for something they can control (women, minority, etc.), however, having a gay marraige does not fall under this realm.  People are all about pushing the boundaries, and the boundaries are being pushed way to far in my opinion.  I do not ask you to subscribe to my opinion, however, that is what it is.

I assume you mean Can't control, in which I would undoubtably classify sexual feelings in there. So gays are being discriminated against. But this thread isn't about gays it's about Polygamy.. the boundaries of society are hardly fixed things, nor does Society progress in a straight line (that's actually a traditional arguement of clueless pseudo-leftist liberals) it does not seem harmful to society if, say, 2 women and 2 men decide to marry each other and raise children. Actually it would probably be beneficial to society from the point of view of rearing children, etc.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

DWTL, I was going to respond to your inane excuse for logic, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you type like an eight year old.

It's better for him in the long-term.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?

I would say that would be the definition in post 4th or 5th century Europe, and excluding concubines and other extra-marital relationships, before that in Roman law as well. In "the West" there was no concept of gay marriage, for instance, but I assume some pagan groups in un-Romanized areas practiced something different from monogamous marriages. Traditional, in an American sense, means derived from English and wider European traditions, and in that case could mean absolutely nothing other than 1 Man + 1 Woman. Of course Christianity has a major influence and to my knowledge nothing other than one man + one woman has ever been a norm in Christianity. Chinese or Indian traditions, to use as examples, are not ones that carry over in the U.S., in law at least.

I wouldn't consider marriage in and of itself social engineering, because its a contract for the benefit of the people involved, not an attempt to force a particular society to change it's attitudes. A government imposing marriage in the traditional "western" sense on a group of people whose traditional culture it conflicts with would be social engineering. Marriage in and of itself arises in nearly every culture to fit and exemplify that culture's norms, that's why some cultures practiced polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, etc etc.

In any case, the government shouldn't be imposing a traditional or non-taditional form of marriage to the exclusion of others, simply because they don't have the moral authority to do so. What gives Barbara Boxer and Tom Coburn the right to tell people how, when, or whom to get married as long as they are consenting adults? They may have the power, but certainly not the authority.

Which is of course one of the major reasons in favour of Gay Marriage - tax Benefits, etc. I agree with you on the rest of your post - Though Medieval traditions were far more liberal than ours, especially regarding Divorce and Polygamy - neither was santionced by the church but alot of the Church's power then was political rather than a true moral guardian (and no Medieval pope could possibly lecture on morality without being a hypocrite...)