polygamous marriage should be allowed, if gay marriage or civil unions are allowed
Debate Rounds (3)
sure maybe whatever.
but it's at least as natural, or at 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
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)
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.
The big issue that separates gay marriage from polygamy is the legal issue involved. The state will sanction a single marriage between two consenting adults and those adults are then recognized as married by the state and gets certain legal benefits. Polygamy would throw this system into disarray. Allowing people to marry more than one person would set up a situation where multiple people are getting multiple marriage benefits and that is something the state won't touch. It would also allow for people to game the system and marry multiple people in order to secure certain benefits.
Gay marriage does nothing to the current system. Two people still get married and receive the same, unchanged benefits. To allow polygamy, you would have to redesign the entire marriage system as seen by the state to accommodate such a massive change.
"if we allow one thing, we should allow more"
This is the crux of my opponent's argument and it holds no real merit. Just because we allow one thing doesn't mean we need to allow more. If we say, legalize marijuana, does that mean that suddenly all illegal drugs should be legalized based on sheer principal alone? No. Just because the state allows gay marriage doesn't mean it should allow polygamy and animal marriage or anything at all. Gay marriage is being considered because of, mainly, a large social movement pushing the issue. This is acceptable in a democratic society, to have the people start a movement for change within the government. However, this does not mean that every relative issue has to be addressed and even allowed because of such a thing.
Just saying, "Allowing A means we must allow B, C and D as well" based on the premise that animals mate with more than one person is ridiculous. In fact, we are the only known species on Earth to practice marriage so comparing marriage rights to animals makes no sense to begin with.
My opponent has made no good reasons for polygamy or any sort of credible connection between polygamy and gay marriage beyond the extreme slippery slope ideal and a completely useless connection to animals.
In conclusion, polygamy should stay illegal independent from any ruling on gay marriage. They are separate issues. Relatable issues cannot be lumped together because you feel as if they are somehow connected.
why doesn't the argument hold, that if we allow gay marriage we should allow multiple marriages? the same reasons you use against multiple marriages could be used against gay marriage.
i will grant, perhaps there's no massive movement for polygamous marriage... so for that reason it's not that big of a deal if we left it alone. but we shou.dn't be basing these things based just one sheer public will, at least if we're approaching it from the idea of "doing the right thing".
social movements aside... 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.
when i point to the natural order... you simply say it's ridicoulous without really saying why, an unreasoned assertion.
you do point out that we're the only species to practice marriage... but that doeasn't mean it has to be one person to one person. in fact, 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.
if we are willing to forgo tradition and allow gay marriage... why not just reexamine marriage altogher?
you 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.
as the guy in the comment section said... there's no reason this argument can't be made, and i'd argue, made with just as much if not more merit than gay marriage.
ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.