Should Polygamy be illegal?

[Democratic Hawk]

Absolutely

[David S]

Polygamists need their head examined.

Two nagging wives??

Let it be legal, albeit stupid.

LOL gotta agree with that.

[Ebowed]

So you oppose the right of old, infertile people to marry?

Should straight couples that get married and fail to produce children have their marriage license revoked?

As I mentioned before, there are multiple tenets of marriages, the most important being man/woman and reproduction, gay marriage meets neither while old-inferitle couples do.

So your definition of the necessary characteristics of a marriage is completely arbitrary and changes depending on which argument you're trying to rebut.

The institution of marriage has evolved and progressed over time.  Your "tenets" would be laughable to the 14th century father who has chosen a spouse for his daughter -- who had no input, didn't even consent to the marriage -- or to the 1920 Klansmen who would tell you with a straight face that a black man cannot marry a white woman because their children will be gorillas.

[Frodo]

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

[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?

[Hatman 🍁]

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?

[DownWithTheLeft]

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)"

[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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[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?

[DownWithTheLeft]

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?

[/quote]
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.

[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....

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[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".

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[Ebowed]

You think people choose to be gay, and thus, hated by a large segment of society?

[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.

[Bacon King]

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.

[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.

[Hatman 🍁]

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)"

Often  those who tend to be opposed to gay rights tend to be closeted gays. Of course, I don't have to tell you that.

[Alcon]

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.

Why can't the goal to marriage be raising children, something a gay marriage could achieve?  We have enough people in this country as it is.

And why is marriage for procreation?  Explain.  Give a logical reason for this.  Why can't it just be for two people who love each other, like it is now?

[Ebowed]

Why can't the goal to marriage be raising children, something a gay marriage could achieve?

If gay people raise adopted children, those kids will become gay!!!

Instead of letting gay people adopt, let's continue to increase the rate of abortions.

[John Dibble]

I'm fine with it being legal if all parties involved consent. Nobody should be forced into it. If a man wants a second wife, his first wife must give her consent to it and the second one should be clued in as well. If either of them say no it's a no go. Same for any other type of multiple-partner relationship.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

I wasted my time typing slower and reading over what I wrote, while that would be nothing short of a waste of time.  As long as my message is understood which in most cases it is.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

Why can't the goal to marriage be raising children, something a gay marriage could achieve?  We have enough people in this country as it is.

And why is marriage for procreation?  Explain.  Give a logical reason for this.  Why can't it just be for two people who love each other, like it is now?

I think a lot of the gay marriage debate is trying to mingle in all different emotions and feelings people have the issue, it isn't a clear cut issue that can decided using numbers and fancy equations.  It is an issue that someone usually feels one way or the other because a set of beliefs they have.  The "slippery slope" argument I had before was certainly valid, but my biggest objection to gay marriage is a personal belief that God intends for marriage to be between a man and a woman.  You can say "God shouldn't shape beliefs", but my belief is shaped on that and it is reprehensible for someone to tell me I shouldn't be able to believe that and fight that as much as my heart desires.  There is no reason I cannot object to something for the simple reason I find it morally reprehensible, if you would like to discuss civil unions I have much more mixed feelings on that.  However, the institution of marriage should no way be extended to gay people.