The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

using the SCOTUS logic, a marriage with multiple people should be allowed everywhere

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 77057
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




only people who are for gay marriage should take this.

they say gays should be allowed to marry, cause others are allowed to marry. equal protection and liberty clause of the constitution. if we allow that, why shoujldn't it be allowed for a marriage with multiple people?
after all, humans according to their body types are polygamous, with a bend towards limited partners, granted. this would be the most natural state of marriage, even moreso between on woman and one man, and obviusly more natural than gays.


Tsk, tsk people like you sir...Okay I accept this and best of luck.

I am a gay man. Being that it as it may, the whole "GRAINS" of marriage is" NOT" a man and woman who love each other very much
to live together and make a baby. If your a Christian extremist you may argue to differ, however its quite comical because I'm
guessing you had no idea. Actually same sex couples have already been "Married" and living with each other for years in secrecy. Just now they can get it on paper. The LGBT has been fighting for this for years, facing DEATH, IMPRISONMENT,DISCRIMINATION,ABANDONMENT even SUICIDE. And yet people still can't let them do what they want.
Let me tell you friend at the end of the day there going to live there lives weather you except it or not. As for the multiple partners you just out counted your self "humans according to their body types are polygamous, with a bend towards limited partners, granted." According to there body types so how could this be natural for everyone? Unless your of a different countries religion preferably third-world-ish or poverty stricken. To me and many others that seems of a way of whoring around for lack of a better word. And that my friend I think is worse then LGBT marriage

Debate Round No. 1


con is using his own perspective of what is natural and unnatural. to him multiple partners is "whoring around". yet, other people might view gay marriage as unnatural. why is con the arbiter of right and wrong? nature is the best indicator, and that shows that humans are slightly polygamous. a test is the width of the shouldars of the ape, and humans are on the slightly polygamous side.
a gay man is withholding rights to others, who'da thunk it?


Clever trying to slaughter my name, But Dairy did I ever say that Gay Marriage was natural? I don't recall Perhaps by biblical terms it is unnatural, However seen both our some of our animal cousins ,and in us. The act of love is usually between two people who love each other. Having multiple partners seems like being somewhat of a "Sluttish "thing and I mean that in a way that you have many partners you have sex with not in the offensive way same for "whore". when you share a love between many partners that can also be unfair in many terms of the other partners. And, I'm nor a(n) "Arbiter" for whats natural. And yes humans are polygamous I have researched it. Nor am I withholding rights. I have an opinion Dairy.
But Multiple partners would just seem...not as official to me. Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. It just doesn't seem hmmm let me think (Because seems you get offended easily) ...fair to everyone in the marriage.
Debate Round No. 2


con contineus to deride polygamy as slutty. im sure many have choice words for gay acts. con eveen admits polygamy is natural, so why does he deny them a marriage? he says love is usually between two people. that's the norm, sure. but if it was mroe acceptable, it wouldn't be as much the norm. besides, regardless of if it's natjural or teh norm, it's about treating everyione the same, marriage for all according to their own standards. why stop at gay marriage?


Natural to some people poly(For Short) Is. Like I said it wouldn't be fair to everyone in the marriage if your inlove with 3 people somewhere along the lines there will be some sort of biyus opinion where someone feels untreated fairly or less loved by the others.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rayze 1 year ago
Existentia, polygamy is indeed bad for human society.

Polygamy will deprive individual men of the right to marriage and will reduce the institution of marriage to something akin to trophy hunting.

Polygamy deprives individual men the right to marriage, because when 1 man marries 2 or more women, then another 2 or more men are deprived of the right to marriage per gender ratios. In addition polygamy also reduces the status of women into mere trophies and undue the work of women who fought for their rights to vote and continue to fight for their right to equal pay and choose their health.

In addition the harsh realities of polygamy were revealed back in 2011 when Fundamentalist church of jesus christ of latter day saints leader Warren Jeffs was found guilty of sexually assaulting 2 girls ages 12 and 15 under the pretext of taking them as polygamous wives. The FLDS misdeeds also include child abuse, underage marriage, and the forced separation of men under the guise of religion. (

Therefore the unfortunate truth of the matter is polygamy is bad.
Posted by Existentia 1 year ago
Is polygamy bad?
(The Bible says one man one woman... etc.)
The Bible condoned two daughters having sex with their dad. The Bible ain't an argument.
Should we not all be allowed to marry whoever we want? Either partner should be able to marry as many people as they like. Why not?

Besides, the institution of marriage was homophobic - limiting being a husband or wife to gender. Now it is open to any gender to marry any gender. It's not talking about multiple people. I'd question whether your idea of SCOTUS's logic actually works the way you think it does. I'd doubt it. Strongly doubt it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rayze 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and con lack a cohesive argument with con opting to use his/her personal experience and opinion, while pro relies solely on his/her opinion. Despite the lack of outside sources to back up their assertions, con did have more spelling and grammar errors in comparison to pro, so con will be awarded the spelling and grammar point. conduct is tied as both debaters let their conduct slip during the debate. convincing arguments are also tied as both failed to argue their points effectively opting to use pathos while ignoring ethos and logos. sources is also tied as they both lacked sources to back up their claims.