Is it immoral to marry more than one person and why? (at same time)

Posted by: xhammy

Because homosexual marriage has become acceptable, I decided to use the exact same arguments on other things if they fit in the same way.

Vote
34 Total Votes
1

Who are we to judge? Doesn't hurt anyone and they are in love so why not?

1. Hurts nobody else 2. They are in love 3. What if its normal to want to do this 4. Other species mate with multiple people
25 votes
9 comments
2

Eeeeeeeeeeeeew yes its wrong

I just hate the idea its wrong! Maybe I am OK with other modifications to old marriage but this is where we cross the line.
9 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T08:46:49.8972126-05:00
I feel like your pretty much cheating on your other spouse. I would certainly never do it, its weird.
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T08:47:03.3601852-05:00
But, It should be legal though.
TBR says2015-05-08T09:06:24.6858738-05:00
The issue is about consent. If the relationship is consensual, then yes, they can be married.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T09:13:21.7285236-05:00
Bias poll.
TBR says2015-05-08T09:15:15.0068307-05:00
Biased as it is Mathgeekjoe, what say you?
Reeseroni says2015-05-08T09:17:32.2964328-05:00
In a growing secular society, religious morals have been pushed out of the way and us humans are pushing the boundaries in sooo many ways. We really should draw the line somewhere. Marriage used to be between two people so they could have children (not that they couldn't outside of marriage) morally, and now it can be between two dudes. Whats next, bestiality? C'mon, how are you gonna explain how that's ok?
TBR says2015-05-08T09:19:16.5837698-05:00
@Reeseroni - Again, for the I don't know how many times I have to say, it is about consent. Your dog can not consent.
xhammy says2015-05-08T09:19:22.9486514-05:00
@mathgeekjoe A poll is never biased unless it forces an opinion or answer, for example "YES or NO, your alive" because it expresses the other opinion and states a reasonable argument for each seeking only to know others opinion there is no bias.
yahuaa says2015-05-08T09:23:54.5325332-05:00
@Reeseroni If you'd like to draw a line anywhere mate, draw it at child marriages, arranged marriages, and shotgun weddings. (Last one will just require a drug test to make sure people aren't tipsy or drugged, so their decision to wed is a rational one.)
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T09:24:06.3262844-05:00
Eeeeeeeeeeeeew yes its wrong. Also the description did not follow the answer.
TBR says2015-05-08T09:26:57.2988697-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Still, answer in comments without the bias problem
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T09:30:08.3601258-05:00
@TBR, "Again, for the I don't know how many times I have to say, it is about consent. Your dog can not consent." What if people want to change the definition of marriage again? What is to prevent them from making the definition just love? A dog can love the owner, the owner can love the dog, why shouldn't they get married?
TBR says2015-05-08T09:35:26.8745392-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Happy to answer after you answer my (and the polls) question.
retrogamer176 says2015-05-08T09:44:22.4518774-05:00
@mathgeekjoe your bible seems to have no problem with polygamy.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T09:46:34.7260700-05:00
@TBR, I did vote on the poll, I find the marring two people at the same time immoral.
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T09:50:32.3362176-05:00
I agree with him, but it should be legal because the government has no right to dictate what others do. It shouldn't be encouraged however.
Varrack says2015-05-08T09:50:54.0823246-05:00
Lol I've made those arguments again and again MGJ but people are so darn stubborn.
TBR says2015-05-08T09:52:35.5777976-05:00
OK MGJ. Here is the thing about dogs (turtles etc.). They can not consent. I love my dog very much. She is beautiful caring, loving. She has my best interests at hears and will be with me until she dies. If I were to die first, she would sit at my corpse howling. She and I communicate as well as a dog and a human can. That does not mean she consents to marry me, or has any concept of what marriage is. Marriage is a human construct.
TBR says2015-05-08T09:53:44.9830874-05:00
Further, the love of my dogs life lives back in Santa Barbra CA. He is busy with a family of his own who he loves, cares for will never leave, and can not marry my friend Chris.
retrogamer176 says2015-05-08T10:00:34.0983324-05:00
What's with the bestiality and pedophilia argument? If you really think that allowing polygamy and homosexuality will lead to pedophilia and bestiality, than there is something wrong with you. Polygamy and homosexuality is the result of consenting adults. Animals and children can't consent, which is why bestiality and pedophilia is wrong. How hard is that to understand?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:04:58.3033196-05:00
"They can not consent." (I am going to pretend I am liberal from the future), but really matters about marriage is love. Why should a dog and a human not be allowed to marry each other if they both love each other?
TBR says2015-05-08T10:07:15.4758782-05:00
Retrogamer176 - Its about trying to get people to respond viscerally. They respond to same sex marriage negatively on a visceral level. The attempt is to sway opinion based on that same feeling.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:08:37.7669332-05:00
The definition of marriage require consent is just as outdated as the requirement of marriage being between a man and a women or between two people. It should be change to love.
TBR says2015-05-08T10:09:07.3293122-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Pretend all you like. That would be rape. A human can consent, a dog can not.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:10:07.1619172-05:00
But if the dog willing have sex with the human? I thought you said dogs can't consent?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:14:34.6959794-05:00
There has been cases where the human let the dog have sex with them, the human did nothing to the dog, but the dog did things to the human.
TBR says2015-05-08T10:14:54.2920820-05:00
If you are trying to envision some distant future where dog telepathic links have been established, and a dog says "I do" in front of witnesses - be they Grandma Tricky the lab or uncle Murray from Jersey, so be it.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:15:43.2623882-05:00
"There has been cases where the human let the dog have sex with them, the human did nothing to the dog, but the dog did things to the human." This has happened in recent events.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:15:57.2808978-05:00
I remember seeing a news article on it.
TBR says2015-05-08T10:20:11.4052155-05:00
Do you have a dog MGJ? Go ask it if it would like to marry you. Not only do they not have the ability to tell me, "yes my love, I do", but they also have no concept of that. It is a human construct. While that construct gives special rights (to humans), it must be available to all (humans).
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:26:31.9369753-05:00
(again pretending to be a liberal from the future, I am surprised I haven't lost my lunch yet) But the dog loves the owner and has a willing sexual relationship with them. Why should the definition of marriage require the dog to be able to say "I do" when the dog is clearly willing to the relationship.
TBR says2015-05-08T10:27:52.7073864-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - You can pretend all day long, but I have answered both. Consent is the requirement.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:34:45.0596303-05:00
(still pretending to be a future liberal) The definition needs changed, it is just as outdated as the definition that marriage was between a man and a women, or that it is only between two people. Why shouldn't the definition be change?
TBR says2015-05-08T10:36:18.1452761-05:00
You are asking me to answer for some distant future liberal. As unfair as that is, I have (look above). Ask a new question.
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:40:25.4117604-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: Animals do not have theoretical reasoning, only practical reasoning. One needs to be able to use both before being allowed to give consent. That means that an animal cannot give INFORMED consent. Uninformed consent (when not able or giving an opportunity to become informed), through almost every legal form of consent, is not actually consent.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:40:39.2815161-05:00
But the dog and the human love each other. Why does the definition of marriage have to require the dog to be able to say "I do"?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:42:00.2243921-05:00
@SNP1 so mentally challenged people can't be married?
yahuaa says2015-05-08T10:42:25.5936428-05:00
Consent from the people themselves is actually more recent, no? Had to ask the father for the daughters hand in marriage before. Consent is not outdated. It's a pillar of a good lasting relationship.
yahuaa says2015-05-08T10:43:12.0732350-05:00
Were they mentally challenge before they wedded or was it after?
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:44:21.9700277-05:00
Are you too stupid to understand that a dog cannot (literally cannot) understand consent? Cannot be informed of what is being consented to? Unless you want to be pro-rape, informed consent is a necessary factor in relationships. IF, hypothetically speaking, there was a species that was of close (to us) level of intellect that could understand consent and be informed of it, and the relationship was consented upon by both parties (informed), then I would not oppose it. Thing is, there is no species like that.
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:45:08.5880233-05:00
" so mentally challenged people can't be married?" If they cannot give informed consent, then no.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:45:19.2128958-05:00
@Yahuaa, I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pretending to be someone from the future who thinks that not allowing a dog and a human marry each other when they love each other is discrimination.
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:45:38.4189884-05:00
If they were married before becoming mentally challenged, then their marriage would be safe.
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:46:33.4672006-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: If you are trying to pretend to be someone from the future, you are doing it horribly by using arguments that have been shown to be flawed for YEARS.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:47:34.5627839-05:00
There have been cases where the human let the dog have sex with them, the human did nothing to the dog, but the dog did things to the human.
yahuaa says2015-05-08T10:48:02.4140819-05:00
Then the argument is pointless, mate. Consent is needed for a relationship to flourish. Be it with the many or but the few.
SNP1 says2015-05-08T10:49:48.3943260-05:00
"There have been cases where the human let the dog have sex with them, the human did nothing to the dog, but the dog did things to the human." So what? The animal is running off of instinct and cannot understand its actions. There is still no informed consent. Honestly, have you never even looked up the refutations to the arguments you are using? I haven't had to deal with these arguments in YEARS.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:50:36.3952183-05:00
If a dog has sex with a human without the human giving consent. Is the dog raping the human, is the human raping the dog, or both?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T10:58:58.3131811-05:00
"If you are trying to pretend to be someone from the future, you are doing it horribly by using arguments that have been shown to be flawed for YEARS." Well I am guessing you also heard the one that asked whether humans and robots should be allowed to marry. So since you probably already have an argument stored for that, I would like to hear it. Should humans and robots be allowed to marry?
TBR says2015-05-08T11:04:41.5971124-05:00
Describe this robot for me Mathgeekjoe.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:15:55.9490095-05:00
TBR, unfortunately you are already disqualified for needing to receive that answer. " While that construct gives special rights (to humans), it must be available to all (humans)." But the other two haven't put the requirement on being homosapien, so they are going to need my description of the robot.
TBR says2015-05-08T11:18:08.0635213-05:00
Not at all. When and should the rights be extended to robots. If we are talking an Adrienne Barbeaubot, yup. http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Twiggs120/BARBEAUBOT.png
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:19:12.9135527-05:00
@TBR, remember, that link is blocked on my chrome book.
TBR says2015-05-08T11:20:03.7546045-05:00
It is a cyborg really. Captain Murphy's brain, as stupid as he is, can give proper consent.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:21:11.6778753-05:00
Cyborg is still technically a human. Well if it is a cyborg human that is. Cyborg cockroaches aren't human.
TBR says2015-05-08T11:22:09.9486091-05:00
OK, here. http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/5/4869/239291-4869-gyghd-a.jpg I have no idea why you support a filter than blocks you from Innocent Barbeaubots
TBR says2015-05-08T11:24:55.8134632-05:00
OK, so describe the robot in question. We seem to agree that Barbeaubot marriage is acceptable. She is a intersex (hermaphrodite) so that's cool too, right?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:38:47.2186077-05:00
The robot while not human, is programmed to give response similar to if it was human. If you say an insult that is within its database to it, it is programmed that when it receives that input it tells it facial motors to look like a frown. Basically it is programmed to do what would look like human emotions according to the action. Basically it is all input-output.
TBR says2015-05-08T11:41:07.0777841-05:00
That robot is a slave to its programming. No.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:48:11.5774717-05:00
Well all robots are is an input produces an output.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:48:51.8043587-05:00
@TBR, but the robot that had the programming would have been able to give consent to marriage? Would it not be allowed to marry.
TBR says2015-05-08T11:50:49.4922675-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - You are reading from a DB of responses. The DB is created and can be modified by another. No. This is not as hard as you want to make it.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T11:52:13.6820853-05:00
"You are reading from a DB of responses." What is a DB?
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-05-08T12:01:23.6715979-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe: Database
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-08T12:04:31.3732043-05:00
By database you mean this comment section or what?
TBR says2015-05-08T12:07:53.3208136-05:00
MGJ. You described the robot responding to programming, and rote responses from a database. These "answer" were crafted by another (external) and can be modified by another (external). Slave to programming.
SNP1 says2015-05-09T12:19:47.7275777-05:00
"So since you probably already have an argument stored for that, I would like to hear it. Should humans and robots be allowed to marry?" Does the robot have a sentience and will of its own? Is its desires dependent upon its own artificial intelligence that has created the desire or was the desire part of the initial programming? Your question does not provide enough information about the robot to get close to it being an answerable question.
Espera says2015-05-09T15:05:19.7088173-05:00
This poll is bias as hell - the first poll has reason with more or less weight, but the second one is written like troll bait. And really there should be three options - yes, no, depends - because not all poly relationships are equal, but allowing a measure of legality allows for the expansion of said legality to include situations that are harmful.
Stefy says2015-05-09T15:09:28.7666216-05:00
Reeseroni: People who want to get married don't have to account for everyone else that may want to get married after they want to get married. If its consensual its fine. Who cares? By the way marriage traditionally was between more than two people and then society later evolved to a monogamous relationship, and then to a monogamous relationship where the woman wasn't property. And the beastiality thing is was different because animals cannot consent. Polyamourists and gays can consent.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-05-11T11:55:16.0788980-05:00
Such biased answers in this poll..... I'm not going to take part in it above, just because it's consensual doesn't make it morally right, it just means that it's not rape. However, it is cheating, and you aren't dedicating your time to one person. That's kind of the point of love, there would be extreme jealousy, and you could never fully settle down. Whether that is polygamy or polyamory. Besides-- those people would have to be very careful, safe, etc. It's not the smartest idea nor is it romantic in any way. It's not harming me or anyone not taking part in it, but it shouldn't become a more popular thing, because it takes away the idea of being in love, and seeing one person unlike anything else in the world. It could get confusing, they'd have to meet and that's just strange, you are meeting someone who is in a relationship with the person you're in a relationship with. If that wouldn't cause jealousy, you're a super human!
retrogamer176 says2015-05-11T13:21:56.9222462-05:00
@thegreatdebator That's your opinion. My opinion, is stay out of their business.
Hero_Liberator says2015-05-12T21:27:04.4688346-05:00
I think it's completely moral. I am presuming that all parties are aware of each other to some degree and consenting of course though. Marriage is a legal contract, so I treat it just like that. You can't cheat on someone cause you guys are okay with that type of relationship. I really don't see why so many people on here think it is like that. If two people agree to be monogamous, then do that; that's cheating. As far as the whole kid thing goes...I actually think it creates a better more nurturing environment compared to a pair trying to take care of a kid. Now days both parents typically need to work to make ends meet, yet the cost of daycare alone makes it worth having one parent staying home. I can't think of a single couple that hasn't needed help from family members or friends to help take care of a kid. I don't think it's weird or wrong to have an interest in multiple partners. I have multiple friends and each one of them I do different things with and help meet those different interests. I can see why one might not be content with having just one partner. I wouldn't be content with just one friend. As far as STDs and other stigma, people in pollyamorus relationships are more open about their sexual encounters and get tested more frequently than people who self identify as monogamous.[1] Human sexuality is very fluid and not even close to the nuclear family everyone has been lead to believe. I'd be more than excited to debate somebody about this actually :D wasn't expecting it to get this long Source: [1] http://m.livescience.com/27129-polyamory-good-relationships.html

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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