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

If gay marriage is fully legalised in the united states, then so should 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,210 times Debate No: 52295
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




If Gay marriage is legalised in all states of America, then so should Polygamy.

I will only focus on Polygamy in this debate and not trail off into bestiality or the marriage of inanimate objects (which I heard has happened in Japan).

Imagine that right now, homosexual marriages were legal and fully allowed in ALL states of America. But that was it, the government decided to change the laws to only that extent. What about people who wish to marry not just one person, but two because he loves them both so much? For example, a man who is in love with a girl who has many things in common with him and at the same time, loves his own childhood friend. He finds that the two get along well together and that they consent to the idea of the three of them in a marriage and living with each other.

He knows he cannot have such a marriage because the laws in America only permit monogamy. One day, he finds out that gay marriage is legalised in all states of America because of several protests and the agreement of the majority of America that gay marriage should be legalised. He thinks that since gays can marry and that is against the status quo, he can go marry his two friends.

Of course since the government went through such trouble rewriting the laws, they do not let him commit polygyny. His mind is confused because he has to choose between the two friends and he breaks the heart of the girl he does not choose to marry. In the end, 'unconditional' love cannot be practiced by the man and in his whole life he is always thinking about the other friend and feels pain and longing in his heart.

My resolution is this: If Gay marriage is fully legalised and allowed in all states of America right now, then Polygamy should also be allowed to be practiced in all states as well.

I will provide further arguments in the next round.


1. Round one is for acceptance. This is so that we have an equal amount of time to post arguments in the next round. I will have to recreate my arguments in the next round in three days and you will have the same time to refute.

2. There is no 'burden of proof'. If we make a claim, we back it up with sources. Otherwise, the victor of this debate depends on how persuasive his or her argument were and other things like conduct, spelling, grammar and sources should be considered. The victor wins by the criterias regardless of whether the resolutions are objectively true.

3. Con agrees to argue that Polygamy should be illegal even if gay marriage was legalised.

4. We should be fair and treat each other kindly. Please imagine that the debate is a real face-to-face meeting somewhere. This counts for our conduct. One of the key aspects of students who receive an IB diploma is that they are Open minded, caring and principled. I will follow these values and I hope that Con will too.

5. Please vote fairly and critically. Even one spelling mistake counts. Weight both arguments and see which is more persuasive, which you agree with, and how well the arguments are backed up.

I wish to grow and expand my awareness on the matter and I invite you and everyone to join the discussion in the comments.

I look forward to an exciting and enjoyable debate!



Thank you for the opportunity to debate this matter.

I will be arguing that simply because homosexuality becomes a law, this does not mean that polygamy should be legalised, because that's a foolish chain of logic to endorse. I think that your analogies also need work, but we'll look into that in the next round.

Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Speakerfrthedead forfeited this round.


My opponent has detailed in the comments that I am not allowed to refute yet. How convenient.
Debate Round No. 2


Well I am not really sure what you would be able to refute since I had not posted any official arguments. But, nevertheless, I still apologise for the delay. Hopefully this debate can end satisfyingly in the next 2 rounds.

Also, thank you for accepting the debate! You have my deepest appreciation and gratitude.

A = Argument
R = Refutation

A1: If Gay marriage is legalised, then why not Polygamy?

I accept the notion that polygamy should remain illegal, but only if the government allows just monogamy. However, same-sex marriage is illegal as well in most states of America and if all of a sudden, it is legalised by the sheer number of votes by the public, then why can't Polygamy be legalised as well? It is not fair to say that same-sex marriage be unbanned, but then suddenly reject the idea of Polgamy that is also banned.

Homosexual marriage goes against the norm or the law but the number of states that are slowly accepting this idea is increasing. And, what if one day, after all states legalise Gay marriage, another new form of protests comes along. A new group of people demanding Polygamy to be allowed. They will see that gay marriage (a banned practice) had been legalised, and then they will think, well why isn't Polygamy legalised? What are some of the reasons the states are against Polygamy? If it for religious reasons, then why is Gay marriage legalised?

So unless there is more reason to ban Polygamy than there is to ban Gay marriage, there seems to be no reason not to legalise it. Therefore, Polygamy should be legalised when the people, or even a tiny fraction of the people, wish to marry more than one spouse.

A2: Gay marriage votes and Polygamy votes

One of the reasons why Homosexual marriage was legalised in some of 16 states of America such as Maine was because of the popular votes by the public. This is according to the Huffington post. (1)

"MAINE - When supporters of same-sex marriage put the issue on the ballot in Maine, it marked the first attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in a popular referendum. It was approved by voters in the November 2012 elections." -

Another state to approve gay marriage by referendum is Maryland, Washington;

" MARYLAND, WASHINGTON STATE - After the state legislatures in Washington and Maryland voted in favor of same-sex marriage, the laws were blocked from taking effect until state voters were given an opportunity to decide the matter in ballot initiatives. The issue went to voters in November 2012 and in both states voters sided with legalizing same-sex marriage. (Reporting by Edith Honan)"

According to a website devoted to critical thinking, Utah was a state that almost allowed gay marriage by vote (by a federal judge) (2);

"Gay marriage became legal in Utah on Dec. 20, 2013 when a federal judge ruled that the state's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional, but on Jan. 6, 2014 the US Supreme Court put a stay on the decision pending the state's appeal."

So we see that it is possible for a state to legalise gay marriage by votes alone. If it is possible to do this and yet goes against previous laws, then it is also possible to legalise Polygamy. Right now, less than 20 states legalise gay marriage according to the Huffington post and source no. 2. This is out of the 50 states that exist. So perhaps Polygamy shouldn't suddenly be allowed as there is still much debate as to whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed. However, when it is fully legalised, accepted and allowed in all 50 states of America, when it becomes the law that says gays can marry, then there is no reason that the Law cannot say that people cannot have multiple relationships and multiple marriages with consent from all parties involved. Therefore, Polygamy (and I capitalise the word for emphasis) should be allowed.

A3: Unfairness or inequality

It is unfair to say that homosexual relationships are accepted, but polygamous relationships are not. The same argument that gay marriage supporters bring up about gays having human rights to marry other gays can be said for a person who wishes to marry multiple people. It is that person's rights to marry whom they wish as long as all parties in the relationship agree to be in marriage relationship. In the Huffington post, it says that Massachusetts was the first state to legalise gay marriage because the state's ban violated the constitutional rights of same sex couples;

" MASSACHUSETTS - In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage after its highest court ruled the state's ban violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples." - (1)

This state has legalised gay marriage because banning gays to marry was unconstitutional. Another state also allowed gays to marry because of their marriage rights;

"CONNECTICUT - In 2008, the state Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and found that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Soon after, the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples." - (1)

If all states of America legalised same-sex marriage because of gays or people having rights to marry however they wish, then how come people don't have rights to have multiple marriages? People shouldn't be banned for marrying how they wish. Why is banning polygamy not as unconstitutional as banning gays to marry? I understand if the ruling of a country was very strict and it completely bans anything other than traditional marriage. However that is not the case in America as more and more states are beginning to allow same-sex marriage and if the whole of America truly allows gay marriage, then it should also allow Polygamy. If Polygamy is allowed, then people who write articles like 'Legalise Polygamy! No. I am not kidding,' can finally rest. - (3)

These are my arguments, thank you for reading them.


(1) -

(2) -

(3) -

*all sources are reliable. The Huffinton post is a well known news company. ProCon provides sources for every article and the website is devoted to critical thinking. The third source is an article written by an individual's own opinion and this author has written many articles. Her name is Jillian Keenan.*


Delinquent forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Speakerfrthedead forfeited this round.


Delinquent forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Teemo 7 years ago
Delinquent, please refrain from insulting debates, and people. I notice you have been insulting many debates recently. Just because they don't fit to your liking does not me they are wrong.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 7 years ago
The reason I asked that con not to refute was because I had not really posted any arguments in round 1. The analogies were used to introduce and help understand the resolution and why I personally am for the resolution. Round 1 was just an acceptance round and the debate begins in the next rounds. I admit that I should have clarified this earlier in round 1. But well, the debate has begun already so I look forward to con's full refutation.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 7 years ago
Please forgive my forfeiture in round 2. I have made my arguments already. Since I have yet to post an argument, please do not refute. I will post my arguments immediately in round 3 when my turn is given. You may post whatever you wish for round 2. Again, I apologise for the forfeiture.
Posted by CaliforniaBoy1 7 years ago
While I am not fond of the idea of multiple individuals "co-habituating" with each other for legal marital purposes, I do believe that polygamy should be legal, and that federal and state governments should leave the business of marriage to private organizations or religious institutions. Heck why does the government restrict people from marrying who they want? With the exception of children and disabled individuals, people should legally be able to marry whatever they want. Be it animals, inanimate objects ,etc. As sick as that might seem, which it is, I believe in a free country like the great United States of America, people should have that right.
Posted by RossM 7 years ago
I find it extremely annoying when people use "Well homosexuals can now marry", as an argument for bestiality, or polygamy, or incest. I think everyone needs to move with the times and realize that homosexuals aren't demons from hell who deserve to be burnt at the stake.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.