Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Polygamy: people haven't learned anything

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You can't support gay marriage and oppose polygamy; both derive their justification from the same principle - that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted. Marriage, then, as it concerns the government, is only a consolidation of individuals into one social unit. If, for regulatory reasons, the government chooses to recognize only associations of 2 that would be fine, but to say that polygamy is illegal because it's immoral makes me fear for the progress our society has claimed to achieve.

If people are opposing polygamy only because they aren't "okay with it," then surely they support gay marriage because they are okay with it. And they're okay with it because its become a popular stance among young people, and young people easily conform. This means that people actually haven't reached any kind of ideological maturity, and they haven't learned anything.

And this is only slightly tangential, but I think the same problem exists with respect to racism. People don't actually understand what's fundamentally wrong with discriminatory policy, just so long as no one outrightly utters the 'n' word. It's as if oppressed minorities crusade until popular opinion shifts, but people only learn to stop discriminating in XYZ manner and never understand that the argument being made is against discrimination as a principle - discrimination in totum.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 8:04:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the reason is "they're not okay with it", then yes, they are fools.
However, there is a valid reason for not having polygamy - probate.

Now, incest on the other hand, there is no reason I can fathom that allows for gays but not relatives. That is hypocritical to me.
My work here is, finally, done.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?
Nolite Timere
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:25:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 8:04:30 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If the reason is "they're not okay with it", then yes, they are fools.
However, there is a valid reason for not having polygamy - probate.

Fair enough, but like I said, legal and regulatory reasons make sense. Ethical reasons don't.

Now, incest on the other hand, there is no reason I can fathom that allows for gays but not relatives. That is hypocritical to me.

A law against incestuous marriage would be equally irrational. As disgusting as it is, I don't see where any outside party derives the power to stop it. And in any case, if the purpose of the marriage is strictly for financial purposes, then there really isn't a problem,... in fact, it isn't really marriage as we conceive of it.

So ultimately, I think we need to define the social union of individuals before the law in a term with less extrajudicial baggage than "marriage." All it really is is a contract between people and the government that the individuals involved be socially and financially united.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:27:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

I don't see it in terms of romance as much a legal association. What comes personally with that legal association is up to the parties involved and is of no concern to the government. Any person or group of people should be able to form that association if they so choose.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:28:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A valid reason for supporting polygamy and opposing gay marriage would be that they want to have as many children as they can and they can't do that in a gay marriage.

lol my grandpa had 4 wives. Every now and then I'd meet a family member and still not understand how we're related. They would be like my 4th grandma's nephew's grandchild's cousin or something.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:39:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 4:44:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
You can't support gay marriage and oppose polygamy; both derive their justification from the same principle - that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted. Marriage, then, as it concerns the government, is only a consolidation of individuals into one social unit. If, for regulatory reasons, the government chooses to recognize only associations of 2 that would be fine, but to say that polygamy is illegal because it's immoral makes me fear for the progress our society has claimed to achieve.

If people are opposing polygamy only because they aren't "okay with it," then surely they support gay marriage because they are okay with it. And they're okay with it because its become a popular stance among young people, and young people easily conform. This means that people actually haven't reached any kind of ideological maturity, and they haven't learned anything.


I don't really know what my stance is on this, but couldn't this argument be made? :

Marriage is the legally binding recognition of permanent love. This can exist between homosexuals undeniably, regardless of what you think of its morality. Regardless of the morality of polygamy, the kind of permanent love that is a qualifier for marriage cannot exist between one and multiple others.

This is also consistent with the prevention of children marrying; the necessary bond can't exist.

And this is only slightly tangential, but I think the same problem exists with respect to racism. People don't actually understand what's fundamentally wrong with discriminatory policy, just so long as no one outrightly utters the 'n' word. It's as if oppressed minorities crusade until popular opinion shifts, but people only learn to stop discriminating in XYZ manner and never understand that the argument being made is against discrimination as a principle - discrimination in totum.

This seems pretty true.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:27:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

I don't see it in terms of romance as much a legal association. What comes personally with that legal association is up to the parties involved and is of no concern to the government. Any person or group of people should be able to form that association if they so choose.

So marriage is just a legal association with a person(s) that can consent to the association?
Nolite Timere
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:45:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:27:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

I don't see it in terms of romance as much a legal association. What comes personally with that legal association is up to the parties involved and is of no concern to the government. Any person or group of people should be able to form that association if they so choose.

So marriage is just a legal association with a person(s) that can consent to the association?

As far as the government is concerned, yes,...right?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:42:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:47:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:45:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:27:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

I don't see it in terms of romance as much a legal association. What comes personally with that legal association is up to the parties involved and is of no concern to the government. Any person or group of people should be able to form that association if they so choose.

So marriage is just a legal association with a person(s) that can consent to the association?

As far as the government is concerned, yes,...right?

Well I disagree since I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in essentially private matters. What reason does the government have to even bother recognizing relationships that have no relation to the public good?
Nolite Timere
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:48:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 10:42:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:47:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:45:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:27:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

I don't see it in terms of romance as much a legal association. What comes personally with that legal association is up to the parties involved and is of no concern to the government. Any person or group of people should be able to form that association if they so choose.

So marriage is just a legal association with a person(s) that can consent to the association?

As far as the government is concerned, yes,...right?

Well I disagree since I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in essentially private matters. What reason does the government have to even bother recognizing relationships that have no relation to the public good?

Well the government isn't recognizing a romantic relationship. It's recognizing a social union that makes organization, bureaucratization, census, taxes etc. all a lot easier, and then the couple benefits because then the government addresses both of them and their children as a unit when collecting taxes or administrating health insurance, for example. All parties benefit from the recognition of marriage. So why not?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's not necessarily true. In a polygamist family, the children would not necessarily get consistent attention from the same people. It would be too anonymous, IMO. Of course, they were be free to do this anyway, but state-recongition would only promote it.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 3:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 4:44:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
You can't support gay marriage and oppose polygamy; both derive their justification from the same principle - that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted. Marriage, then, as it concerns the government, is only a consolidation of individuals into one social unit. If, for regulatory reasons, the government chooses to recognize only associations of 2 that would be fine, but to say that polygamy is illegal because it's immoral makes me fear for the progress our society has claimed to achieve.

If people are opposing polygamy only because they aren't "okay with it," then surely they support gay marriage because they are okay with it. And they're okay with it because its become a popular stance among young people, and young people easily conform. This means that people actually haven't reached any kind of ideological maturity, and they haven't learned anything.

I think an argument against polygamy that would be hard to contradict is that it is too antiquated to remain compatible with our current social system.

Whereas in the past, marriages were largely arranged in a heavy-handed patriarchy, our current social climate has it that most marriages are due to mutual desire in a society that promotes gender equality. Polygamy flies in the face of both situations. In terms of choosing a mate, it almost guarantees that some form of adultery resulted in all husbands or wives subsequent to the first. Moreover, it results in familial problems and can potentially increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases:

"Interviews conducted with some of the Logoli Tribe in Kenya suggested they feared polygynous marriages because of what they have witnessed in the lives of other women who are currently in such relationships. The observed experiences of some of the women in polygynous unions tend to be characterized by frequent jealousy, conflicts, competition, tensions, and psychological stresses. Some of the husbands fail to share love and other resources equally; and envy and hatred, and sometimes violent physical confrontations become the order of the day among co-wives and their children. This discourages women from entering a polygynous marriage.[13]"

"a higher prevalence of infectious disease is associated with polygyny."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The same familial issues seem to arise in polyandry:

"Indeed, anthropologists have found that in both polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) and polygyny (one husband, multiple wives), sexual jealousy often functions as a stressor in families around the world."

http://www.theatlantic.com...

One way or another, it's difficult to defend egalitarianism in a society that promotes polygamy. What it does instead, is result in households in which one or the other gender is held superior.

This makes polygamy completely distinct and separate from homosexual marriage, which is literally a marriage directly comparable to a "traditional" heterosexual marriage, with every aspect shared except natural child-bearing, which is not a current requirement for marriage.

And this is only slightly tangential, but I think the same problem exists with respect to racism. People don't actually understand what's fundamentally wrong with discriminatory policy, just so long as no one outrightly utters the 'n' word. It's as if oppressed minorities crusade until popular opinion shifts, but people only learn to stop discriminating in XYZ manner and never understand that the argument being made is against discrimination as a principle - discrimination in totum.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 5:31:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 4:44:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
You can't support gay marriage and oppose polygamy; both derive their justification from the same principle - that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted. Marriage, then, as it concerns the government, is only a consolidation of individuals into one social unit. If, for regulatory reasons, the government chooses to recognize only associations of 2 that would be fine, but to say that polygamy is illegal because it's immoral makes me fear for the progress our society has claimed to achieve.

If people are opposing polygamy only because they aren't "okay with it," then surely they support gay marriage because they are okay with it. And they're okay with it because its become a popular stance among young people, and young people easily conform. This means that people actually haven't reached any kind of ideological maturity, and they haven't learned anything.

And this is only slightly tangential, but I think the same problem exists with respect to racism. People don't actually understand what's fundamentally wrong with discriminatory policy, just so long as no one outrightly utters the 'n' word. It's as if oppressed minorities crusade until popular opinion shifts, but people only learn to stop discriminating in XYZ manner and never understand that the argument being made is against discrimination as a principle - discrimination in totum.

I had a debate recently that advocated polygamy under the logic of the Parable of the Long Spoons. Unfortunately my opponent mistook polygamy to mean only a man taking multiple wives (it's actually a gender neutral term), and so the debate went on a needlessly sexist tangent.

IMHO both polygamy and homosexuality, at a certain point, is "wrong". For polygamy, as I argued it in the debate, the unrestricted and potentially unlimited siring of children will lead to a Malthusian catastrophe. For homosexuality, it's the fallacy of composition - what may work for one homosexual couple, if applied to an entire society (i.e. if all of society engaged in monogamous homosexual unions), would cause the extinction of that society within one generation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 5:33:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.

I think survivor benefits can simply be spread amongst all the married people...so in a polygamous society, if one died, several spouses would be eligible to receive survivor benefits. This would be congruous with the fact that these spouses would all be sharing the responsibility for their various offspring. This assumes that all of these married people would be living in the same house, or at least sharing expenses, responsibilities, and what not.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:34:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Gay marriage should be legal because people want it."

Hey, I've justified Gay marriage without justifying polygamy! Isn't it amazing how strange and wacky conclusions we can derive when we don't assume we know the arguments of the other person ;)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:05:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just an opinion here. That is related to this post. Well, I just wanted to say that if human rights like marriage and stuff, that's been taken away since the time people created marriages.

Because it's only fair gays can marry like normal couples right? Then so should polygamy. The thing is one day, when the consequences happen, it's the government that everyone's going to blame for legalizing these things. Hasn't anyone stopped and thought 'if I was the government would I risk legalising gay marriage and then be forced to legalise other things like polygamy and beastiality? And what about the consequences? Can I risk this country's future by agreeing to every single protest people make??

It's not so easy for governments who are responsible for all of your bottoms to just legalise things and break previous rules. It's going to take more than just protests to get these guys to give up and legalise these things.

They have to be convinced that there is absolutely no risk in legalising these things.

I support all of it though, but I understand the dilemmas governments are going through.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:11:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Polygamy offers more financial security and stability. Essentially I think any argument that connects sexual attraction to financial gains leads to allowing polygamy and prostitution.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:42:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 5:33:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.

I think survivor benefits can simply be spread amongst all the married people...so in a polygamous society, if one died, several spouses would be eligible to receive survivor benefits. This would be congruous with the fact that these spouses would all be sharing the responsibility for their various offspring. This assumes that all of these married people would be living in the same house, or at least sharing expenses, responsibilities, and what not.

And if there's estrangement between different spouses? Might work for survivor benefits, but not child custody.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:45:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 8:34:10 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
"Gay marriage should be legal because people want it."

Hey, I've justified Gay marriage without justifying polygamy! Isn't it amazing how strange and wacky conclusions we can derive when we don't assume we know the arguments of the other person ;)

lol, this is amazingly profound. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:47:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:42:53 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 5:33:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.

I think survivor benefits can simply be spread amongst all the married people...so in a polygamous society, if one died, several spouses would be eligible to receive survivor benefits. This would be congruous with the fact that these spouses would all be sharing the responsibility for their various offspring. This assumes that all of these married people would be living in the same house, or at least sharing expenses, responsibilities, and what not.

And if there's estrangement between different spouses? Might work for survivor benefits, but not child custody.

Well, our current conception of child custody generally involves only two parents...but what if the grandparents got custody, yes? That would be a case of joint custody.

If your point is about how some spouses may want a child and not others, I'm sure a court could determine such. It's more work, yes, and all of the spouses will have to make statements and such, but it still gets the job done.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:49:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:47:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:42:53 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 5:33:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.

I think survivor benefits can simply be spread amongst all the married people...so in a polygamous society, if one died, several spouses would be eligible to receive survivor benefits. This would be congruous with the fact that these spouses would all be sharing the responsibility for their various offspring. This assumes that all of these married people would be living in the same house, or at least sharing expenses, responsibilities, and what not.

And if there's estrangement between different spouses? Might work for survivor benefits, but not child custody.

Well, our current conception of child custody generally involves only two parents...but what if the grandparents got custody, yes? That would be a case of joint custody.

If your point is about how some spouses may want a child and not others, I'm sure a court could determine such. It's more work, yes, and all of the spouses will have to make statements and such, but it still gets the job done.

It's always been my impression that there is still preferred custody--in the absence of significant factors distinguishing competence, the surviving parent would get custody.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:54:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 9:49:49 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:47:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/21/2014 9:42:53 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/21/2014 5:33:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:58:38 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Honestly I don't care about poly or open relationships (heck, were I in a relationship I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of confining either myself or my partner). However, there is the matter of paperwork to keep in mind... and when it comes to survivor's benefits, or custody of children, it makes sense to have only two people sign, so that if one dies the other two can't bicker about who has custody or who gets the survivor's benefits.

I think survivor benefits can simply be spread amongst all the married people...so in a polygamous society, if one died, several spouses would be eligible to receive survivor benefits. This would be congruous with the fact that these spouses would all be sharing the responsibility for their various offspring. This assumes that all of these married people would be living in the same house, or at least sharing expenses, responsibilities, and what not.

And if there's estrangement between different spouses? Might work for survivor benefits, but not child custody.

Well, our current conception of child custody generally involves only two parents...but what if the grandparents got custody, yes? That would be a case of joint custody.

If your point is about how some spouses may want a child and not others, I'm sure a court could determine such. It's more work, yes, and all of the spouses will have to make statements and such, but it still gets the job done.

It's always been my impression that there is still preferred custody--in the absence of significant factors distinguishing competence, the surviving parent would get custody.

This is why I made the point about there being modern instances of joint custody. We're used to thinking about custody as "if not one, then the other"...but there are instances of joint custody involving other parties besides the birth parents, and I would imagine in a polygamous society, there would be many instances of such, as the children would have many step-fathers and -mothers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think you're right about making polygamy illegal in the sense of criminalizing people living together and claiming to be married, but in terms of legally recognizing polygamy, I think Bluesteel had some really salient points in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:46:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

Umm, they can. I don't recall the state testing my romance levels prior to accepting my marriage. Two people can get married purely for tax reasons (so long as they pass the other requirements) with no romance or love what-so-ever...yay government!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,389
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:54:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 4:44:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
You can't support gay marriage and oppose polygamy; both derive their justification from the same principle - that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted. Marriage, then, as it concerns the government, is only a consolidation of individuals into one social unit. If, for regulatory reasons, the government chooses to recognize only associations of 2 that would be fine, but to say that polygamy is illegal because it's immoral makes me fear for the progress our society has claimed to achieve.

If people are opposing polygamy only because they aren't "okay with it," then surely they support gay marriage because they are okay with it. And they're okay with it because its become a popular stance among young people, and young people easily conform. This means that people actually haven't reached any kind of ideological maturity, and they haven't learned anything.

And this is only slightly tangential, but I think the same problem exists with respect to racism. People don't actually understand what's fundamentally wrong with discriminatory policy, just so long as no one outrightly utters the 'n' word. It's as if oppressed minorities crusade until popular opinion shifts, but people only learn to stop discriminating in XYZ manner and never understand that the argument being made is against discrimination as a principle - discrimination in totum.

Being for gay marriage only requires that one believe that people can marry one other person without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity, meaning that they have a right to not only be limited to the opposite gender when considering a spouse. Notice that "spouse" is singular, not plural. Your principle "that the free association of consenting adults cannot be justifiably restricted" is over and above what's required to support gay marriage and gay rights, generally. It's consistent with the notion that people ought not be restricted only to the opposite sex when considering a potential spouse, but the principle isn't necessarily implied by support for gay marriage. I know this sounds pedantic, but it's a necessity v. sufficiency issue that really can't be ignored.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:54:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 10:46:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:08:35 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Hell, at that point why are only romantic relationships getting recognition?

I'm sure there are companions who live together who would surely benefit from the benefits of marriage. Why can't they get married?

Umm, they can. I don't recall the state testing my romance levels prior to accepting my marriage. Two people can get married purely for tax reasons (so long as they pass the other requirements) with no romance or love what-so-ever...yay government!

I don't get it. At this point why does the concept of marriage exist? Shouldn't civil unions just exist?
Nolite Timere
Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 5:43:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What I don't understand is, if polygamy is illegal, then why is adultery no ta criminal offence?
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"