The Instigator
asyetundefined
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
JBeukema
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Polygamy!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
JBeukema
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,169 times Debate No: 7727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

asyetundefined

Pro

I intend to defend the view that Polygamy, being the right to marry multiple, consenting, age-appropriate partners of whatever gender should be acceptable.

Unfortunately in modern society polygamy is generally an exclusive right of males and is practiced primarily in third-world or Islamic nations. This anecdotal information regarding polygamy should be understood as being inconsequential towards the true ethical acceptance or non-acceptance of it.
PROPER polygamy, as I intend to promote, is as follows:
-The Right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender.

Furthermore, since this is an ethical concern regarding legal status, social-acceptability plays little role; that is, social-xenophobia towards polygamy is NOT a factor.
thus, since as said this is a primarily ETHICAL question (which has legal implications), and my 'original-position' (viability of polygamy) is stated as being ethically neutral, the burden of proof against polygamy lies with CON. So let CON's contentions be raised!!!
JBeukema

Con

Legally binding marriage contracts are, by definition, a contract between two persons. Therefore, legal recognition of polygamous marriage is impossible. The only option would be for the parties to enter into a legal contract closely resembling marriage in its terms and conditions, and offering similar protections. Many of the legal benefits of marriage- such power of attorney- are inherently a two-party deal. If person X marries both Y and Z, and is then severely injured, does Y or Z have power of attorney, should they disagree? The narrow conditions of standard marital contracts simply do not work if there are more than two parties involved.

There are two possibilities:
-Make severe changes to the nature of the standard marital contract. This would result in a much more complicated process and contract, making it more difficult for individuals to achieve the same ends currently achieved through a marital contract.

-Allow the parties to simply enter a contract offering very similar protections. This better allows the contracts to be tailor-made to suite the needs of the parties in question, without complicating the legal process for those who choose the 'standard' model.

Not only is the latter more logical, is it also far more pragmatic
Debate Round No. 1
asyetundefined

Pro

Thank you for partaking in this debate CON!!! It should be very interesting!

Firstly I would like to point out to CON that the legality of polygamy is NOT in question. It is possible that a nation could make a certain activity legal or illegal, but that would not affect the ethical-viability of it. Thus whether or not Governmental bureaucrats could handle the paperwork involved is inconsequential
- we are dealing with ethical-theory not praxis.
However that is not to say that I don't take note of the concern towards the pragmatics of polygamy:
yes situations of multiple-spouses could lead to certain financial and judicial confusions, however, as stated before these concerns still do not concede any WRONGNESS unto polygamy.

-At this point it seems justifiable to claim that the burden-of-proof against polygamy is still unfulfilled.

In addition, in the COMMENTS it was said that marriage is a religious institution and thus the question of polygamy is up to churches to decide. This view is not only naive in nature, but is also pejorative to any non-religious person and totally erroneous. In traditional Europe the church did indeed hold monopoly upon marriage - but to concede that this means the church should STILL hold monopoly on marriage is absurd. The consequences of such a view would be that all marriages not of Christian origin (ie: secular marriage, gay marriage, marriage in other religions) are not actually marriages but are approximations. This absurd view on marriage is equatable to saying that because we used to stone people to death for blasphemy, all current blasphemers should also be stoned to death. The person who made this ignorant comment was not CON (I imagine CON to be much more respectable than that), however I felt the point needed addressing since it immediately pertained to the argument.

Anyways....
I hope to hear some interesting negations of polygamy from CON!
JBeukema

Con

Well, hell. I though we were debating changing the legal definition to allow polygamy/polyandry/etc as 'marriage' in the current legal sense. You want to debate the ETHICS? of it? We have a problem, then. I am aware of no reasonable argument to deem such relationships morally reprehensible or unethical. If you intend to argue the same- that there is no logical argument in favor on condemning such relationships on ethical grounds, then it seems we are in agreement. An individual may disagree, but they would have a hard time condemning the practice in a logical manner.

My apologies, I misunderstood the subject of this debate and, as I do not disagree with your premise (now that I better understand what you are saying), I am unable to debate against you. Unless you wish to change the subject at hand to the matters I mentioned, there is no debate to be had between us. :/
Debate Round No. 2
asyetundefined

Pro

I apologize CON if you were mislead into this debate -my fail!
Anyways, although this is the Final Round I guess it would be sensible to change the subject to the Legality of
Polygamy.
Thus:

If we both agree that Polygamy -as properly understood- is an ethically viable practice, that is, no wrong is done by it on normal grounds; then in a contemporary democratic society, polygamy's ethicalness should entail some form of legality.

CON seems to object to the legal-acceptability of Polygamy on the following grounds:
(1) Polygamous marriage is potentially confusing in the judicial or legal sense, therefore it should not be recognized as actual marriage,
in addition;
(2) The CURRENT legal situation of marriage does not allow for plural-marriage anyhow:

"Legally binding marriage contracts are, by definition, a contract between two persons. Therefore, legal recognition of polygamous marriage is impossible" [CON].
Thus;
(3) A possible mediation for Polygamy would be to recognize them only as plural-civil-unions, that is, having several of the legal benefits of marriage but not quite actually being marriage itself - an approximation of marriage:

"The only option would be for the parties to enter into a legal contract closely resembling marriage in its terms and conditions, and offering similar protections" [CON]

-Firstly it seems fair for me to say that premises (2) & (3) are all consequences of premise (1), that is, they both rest on the acceptance of (1). Thus the question I am faced with is this:
Is Polygamous marriage to CONFUSING in a judicial or legal sense as to be considered as a regular form of marriage?

It seems intuitive to say that if polygamy is ethically-viable then the fact that some additional bit of scrutiny and paperwork is required to make it work is of a lesser concern and should not discount polygamy as a real form of marriage; after all divorce can be an utterly confusing process but it is legal since it is an ethical nece
JBeukema

Con

Is Polygamous marriage to CONFUSING in a judicial or legal sense as to be considered as a regular form of marriage?

It seems intuitive to say that if polygamy is ethically-viable then the fact that some additional bit of scrutiny and paperwork is required to make it work is of a lesser concern and should not discount polygamy as a real form of marriage; after all divorce can be an utterly confusing process but it is legal since it is an ethical nece
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All we're arguing is semantics, it seems. I dod not intend to argue against plural marriage or legal recognition of unions, but simply to make clear that the 'standard' marital contract fails. I worded that poorly, it seems
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by asyetundefined 4 years ago
asyetundefined
Who vote-bombed this debate? seriously sad...
Posted by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
Panda, I believe I took this argument in error; perhaps you should have challenged TI's premise in proper debate
Posted by asyetundefined 5 years ago
asyetundefined
This is in regards to ethical-viability, not legal status, social acceptance, or religiosity: ie: is it RIGHT to practice polygamy, not whether or not the guy down the street or the fools in the courts or churches care.
Posted by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
Is this in regards to socio-religious or legal recognition of polygamous unions?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
PRO is defending marriage for all genders, meaning he must defend gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institute, therefore, it should be the religions choice to allow homosexual polygamy.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBeukema 5 years ago
JBeukema
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 5 years ago
alto2osu
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Colucci 5 years ago
Colucci
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sedylitz 5 years ago
Sedylitz
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 5 years ago
trendem
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by asyetundefined 5 years ago
asyetundefined
asyetundefinedJBeukemaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70