The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,177 times Debate No: 29224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

really, gay marriage doesn't in itself presuppose polygamous marriage. but it does open the question...if we are willing to forgo tradition and allow gay marriage... why not just reexamine marriage altogher?

why keep marriage defined between two loving people? Polygamists just need to say "why only two?" Europe and Canada have massive polygamy campaigns. And, it's well known that mormons had and in some sects still do multiple marriages... and if you look in histoiry, it's not without basis in other places too. so the appeal to merely the way things are usually done doesn't really amount to much either, espeically if we're opening up the question for gay marraige/

the same reasons we allow gay marriage we could use to allow polygamous. some gays want to say nature made them that way, so its' natural.sure maybe whatever.
but it's at least as natural, or even more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state.
they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc... and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either

there's no reason gay marriage should have more recognition and respect than polygamous marriage. in fact, it's far more natural, as i've stated, for there to be multiple relationships ebtween opposite sexes... than gay couples. polygamous marriage should come before gay marriage.

but with the gay marriage coming first in society.... it opens up the question of marriage, it is fair to argue, that to be fair or equitable to those who aren't monogamous we allow it. some call it a slippery slope appeal.... but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage.

i could see allowing gay marriage etc as a token to others... "we allow people to marry one mate, so we extend the one mate rule to others". it's not unreasonable for this to be a basis for restricting marriage to only monogamous couples as an insittution. but, if we're being fully equitable, especially basing things on natural law, if we allow one thing, we should allow more.
(this isn't even getting into ridiculous arguments about mating or marrying animals... that's not a natural state, while polygamy etc is)
soem say we shouldn't change the laws because of its practical effects. we can always adjust the laws to accomodate many people though, even if it does cause more of a ripple than merely two gay people marrying.

i'd also argue that if we can restrict marriage to polygamous couples, we could restrict it to gay couples as well. but my main contention is if we do allow to gays etc, we should to polygamous etc.
tkubok

Con

First, i would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.

Now, I will address some of my opponents arguments before going into some of my own.

but it's at least as natural, or even more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state.
they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc... and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either


The problem with this argument here, is that the examples of "polygamous" animals in nature is:
a) Almost exclusively polygynous, I.e. One male with multiple females, and
b) Has nothing to do with long term relationships, such as those seen in marriage, and everything to do with simply having multiple sex partners.

The problem with A, is that this type of polygamy is extremely limiting in equality and rights of women. With B, clearly the problem here is that this is not only legal in most human societies, it is also counterproductive to the very reason of marriage.

Also, it is spelled "Shoulder", and I am unsure as to why you spelled "polygamous", differently, twice in the same sentence.

but with the gay marriage coming first in society.... it opens up the question of marriage, it is fair to argue, that to be fair or equitable to those who aren't monogamous we allow it. some call it a slippery slope appeal.... but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage.

Please explain how it is more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage.

Do not forget the fact that homosexuality exists in nature as well.(1)

Now, I shall present my own arguments.

1. Polygamy would create a logistical nightmare.

If we allow polygamy, it would create a logistical nightmare for the government to keep track of both the spouses, children, family, etc. Assuming that we allow both Polygyny(A male taking multiple wives) and polyandry(A woman taking multiple husbands), we would have multiple people with multiple wives and husbands. Your wife could have three husbands, and 2 of those husbands are married to 2 other women, and so forth. Marriage provides various benefits that are shared throughout the family, and polygamy would seriously cost the government time and money to both track down, confirm, and provide equal benefits to all wives and husbands.

2. Polygamy produces problems in court.

Consider this scenario. So, your husband is on life support. You want to take him off life support and pull the plug. Three of your fellow wives agree. Your other 2 wives, do not. Clearly, the rights of the wife, will be violated, whichever action is chosen.

The problem is clearly outlined. Where do the individual rights begin, and others end? It's not possible to give equal rights to all partners in a polygamous relationship.

Another problem it produces in court, is during divorce proceedings. If 2 of 4 wives divorce their husband because he was being abusive, the wives suffer, because the husband could not possibly pay for child support for 2 wives, while caring for 2 other wives.

3. Polygamy hurts the marriage.

How is a husband supposed to provide care and attention to their wives, when they have 3 wives? Furthermore, polygamy can also produce jealousy and resentment, not to mention the fact that marriage is built on compromise and partnership, yet, if one wife does not agree, the husband does not need to compromise; he has 2 other wives who will fulfill his needs, doesn"t need to do anything to the other wife, and just has to wait to get her to come around.

I now await my opponents response.

Sources:
1. http://www.news-medical.net...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i argued polygamous marriage is more normal than gay marriage. but i'll take it one step further and say the fact of the matter is it's more normal that traditional opposite marriage itself.

humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage?
con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples.

and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together.
and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it.

in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too.

as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them.
tkubok

Con


humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage?
con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples.


First off, yes, in fact it does reflect the natural state. Birds are highly monogamous(1).

However, even if this was not the case, what my opponent is claiming is purely a naturalistic fallacy(2). What is done in nature, doesn't necessarily mean that we ought to do it in human society.

Secondly, my opponent never actually responded to my argument that this is only jumping around from sex partners. I would like a response to that argument.


and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together.


I never said it was impossible, and my opponent has ignored the probable scenario involving divorces.

If two of your wives divorced you, and you have to pay alimony and child support to both those wives, and you have another wife at home, is it the same as having a single wife divorce you with 4 kids? Clearly not.

and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it.

First off, nothing prevents bill from having more children with his current wife. Mormons are a great example, in which, even when they live a monogamous relationship, they still have dozens of children.

Secondly, with this argument, my opponent has switched the point of marriage not from sex or relationships, but rather, to power. A rich man who can afford more women, would have more wives. A poor man who could not afford more wives, would have less. This demeans and lowers women, bringing back bronze age belief systems regarding how the rich and powerful covet and horde more women.


in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too.


My opponent keeps bringing up nature, but ignores the fact that most instances in nature that practice polygamy are polygynous. In nature, it is the alpha male that hordes most of the females, and females cannot have multiple male partners because a female requires more investment in rearing and producing children.(4)

This also ignores our understanding of current psychology and societies that exist today. Currently, polygyny is the most common with 83% of people practising it worldwide, whereas polyandry is the least common, with only 0.47%(5).


as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them.


If by "Necessarily", my opponent is referring to the fact that we could not uphold the rights and equality of all partners in the relationship, then yes. Is Pro suggesting that equality and rights are simply mere "preferences"?

Also, yes, I would like Pro to address the problem regarding equality and rights that I presented. So please, pro, address them.

Now, I shall add an argument of my own.

Monogamy has shown to reduce social problems over polygamy.

Polygamy has been shown to produce more problems such as crime, due to the fact that there are less women to marry, and therefore more single men, who take more risks since they have no investment in their family. The studies have shown that monogamy reduces rape, murder, robbery and assault(6)(7) as well as a myriad of other social problems.

Lastly, someone in the comments asked for this, so I shall deliver. Here is a source for how polygamy produces unstable relationships due to multiple partnerships.(3)

Sources:
1. http://www.stanford.edu...
2. http://courses.csusm.edu...
3. http://www.jstor.org...
4. http://www.stanford.edu...
5. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
6. http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca...
7. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
tkubok

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round. I have nothing new to add. Please, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
Interesting debate so far. A novel idea that if the objections posed towards gay marriage are defeated then when holds back polygamous marriage. so far I am not sure if i am buying Con's argument. The logistics complaint reminds me of a court case whose name escapes me right now but it was the case that required the court to appoint lawyers to those that cant afford one. the argument was for the ruling not to be retro active because it would clog the court system, the judge sided with justice and made it retro active. So the court has rejected logistics in the past that is your first 2 i would love to see the data on your 3rd point especially light of such shows like "big love" which if i recall is about a polygamist family.(never seen the show don't have cable)
No votes have been placed for this debate.