Legal Polygamy?

Should somebody be allowed to be married to multiple people at the same time? My brother and I have a disagreement on this so I thought I'd open it up for discussion!

No. One man, and one woman. There is no justification for someone having a polygamous marriage besides their own personal opinion. Whereas the Bible states that it's wrong. Any form of "marriage" other than what is prescribed in the Bible (polygamous, zoophile, pedophile, homosexual) is immoral.

On another note, I personally don't like to get into the gay marriage debate, because the Bible says that homosexuals ought to get the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13). So when somebody says "Do you believe gay people should marry?", they should be executed, forget about "marriage".

admin: What was your disagreement about? What's your stance and what's your brother's stance?

I had a debate about this here! ( http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-190/ )

Krazy: I'll let my brother speak for himself if he wants to since he's on this site.

My view on this is that governments should use social policy where a clear benefit can be justified, and marriage is a form of social policy. Polygamy tends to create gender inequality and long-term family instability. I believe the most prevailing social menace in the society of the future will be mental health, and already the lonely and destitute are most likely to commit crimes. For those in the relationships, the marginal potential for complications arising from the polygamy is a potential source of longer-term stress and other strife.

The only way polygamy can comfortably work in society is if the society is heavily gender-skewed. For example, the Muslim 4 wives thing works very well if you presume 3/4 men will die in war or something that affects only men. I don't accept such rationale is required anytime soon, however.

admin: Oh okay.

There should be no state definition of marriage. The government should never intervene in marriage and make some forms illegal, instead, marriage should be left to the individuals and religions. If someone wants to live together, they should not need to marry. Marriage should be left to the individual and however they want to do it, whether homosexual, heterosexual, polygamy, or anything else.

Bi0Hazard: So you don't believe in civil marriages? Marriage is only a religious ceremony?

Bifurcations: What I am saying is that there should be no marriage unless for religions that recognize marriage as a holy act. So non-religious would live together and have a family without getting married. If your a Christian or belong to any other religion that recognizes marriage, then they can marry through their religion but with no legal recognition of marriage. So, yes, I do not believe in civil marriages and since non-religious or atheists just have an absence of any religious belief, there would be no need for them to get married. I do not exactly know if this would work great or not. I guess it depends if we actually need marriage licenses and a defined marriage, but I don't think we do.

Bi0Hazard: Should I be allowed to marry a 5 year old, in your view?

Bi0Hazard: I think we do in order to ensure safety and equality for each person. For example you say you are totally fine with same-sex marriage but with your policy this would be done on the whim of the religious institution (local ones can differ from the norm). There is also economic and legal reasons to get married, especially in America. Unless you are legally married you cannot "share" (can't think of a better word) health care or see your partner when in the emergency room. Marriage under the eyes of the government is considered more than a religious ceremony thats why they have to mandate for fair and equal rights to access those policies.

admin: According to this idea, then yes, but it is unrealistic as of now anyways and it would still be up to their parent or guardian. Marriage now is fine but I think this just might work better. Does it sound ridiculous?

Bifurcations: Those would be some problems with that idea, and in this view, same-sex marriage would not exist unless if your religion promoted it. You could live a homosexual lifestyle but there would be no need for marriage. It all depend if marriage benefits only the religious or if it also benefits the non-religious.

Just to clarify this idea, there would be no marriage in society. Marriage would only be for those whose religion uses it, but they would get no marriage license. Nobody could marry a five year old unless their religion advocated marriage to minors, and it would still be left to the parent or guardian until the child becomes an adult. So marriage would not exist except for as a religious institution. This would entirely change how we view human life, so instead of getting married, there may be different goals of life for non-religious. I do not necessarily hold this view but I thought that this may be a good idea. I see that it is not convincing though.

I am against same sex marriage and polygamy.

These are some interesting views @DHS15608 but I don't feel I can comment further on this thread the now due to the fact that the discussion crosses over into a debate I m currently involved in. Maybe you should follow the debate if you find this topic interesting.

@cooldudebro is arguing same sex marriage ought to be illegal and I am arguing against it.

Bi0Hazard: Well, you have moral consistency, I'll give you that.

I think people impose these moral standards for a reason. Just like we don't allow marriages to kids because we want to protect them.