Marriage is arguably a civil right

Help Syz out: He needs someone he thinks he can beat in a debate

Syzygys said:

Anybody who is interested, I have a proposal for arguing for the EXACT SAME nature of polygamy and gay marriage in the Formal Debat forums, you are welcomed to participate...
Click to expand...

So ... are there any other takers for Syz's proposal? He seems unwilling to debate me:

• "Well, we have the slight problem that I have Tiassa on Ignore, but just for the sake of the debate I might make an exception in this thread, although I do NOT read long posts ...." (#2148104/7)

• "Why would I be making rules if there are no takers? (or the one who voluntered I don't wish to debate?)" (#2148336/14)

• "OK, since nobody else voluntered, I guess I have to take Tiassa." (#2148553/16)​

And despite that last, he refuses to settle on a proposition and present his argument. (He's offered three general propositions, two of which are effectively similar, and the third somewhat vague an expansion.) Specifically, he is unwilling to present his opening argument:

"So, since I don't really have any masterstatement to make, I say it is Tiassa, who should start with an opening argument stating why polygamy and gay marriage should be treated differently...

I guess, the title of the debate could be:

Why polygamy and gay marriage are different (thus Tiassa making the positive statement, need for opening argument)" (#2148553/16)

• "Just waiting for your opening argument..." (#2148862/20)​

And despite his grudging resolution in #2148553/16 to move forward, he reiterates his unwillingness to engage:

• "Also, the challenge was not particulary for you but anyody (debating you wasn't really in my mind)" (#2148862/20)​

So, yeah. Anyone else care to accommodate him? I mean, why discommode him so? Athelwulf? Perhaps he thinks he's got a better chance against you (see #2148185/10). I don't know, but whatever the problem is, it seems that now that he has a taker, he's running from his own proposition.

Anyone? Anyone?
 
The problems of contemporary polygamy advocacy

Syzygys said:

That is debatable, according to some people.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but various opinions on various proposed marital arrangements rely on various arguments. Do you actually know what those are?

In the meantime, many polygamy advocates seem to be operating on pure fantasy. One might wonder how divorce will work. What of community property? Should an abused spouse get the house in the divorce, or be required to move out? Should the house be sold? How should the proceeds be divided? Should the remaining spouses be considered one unit, and thus the proceeds divided into two shares, or should each spouse receive an individual share?

It's not that such problems are impossible to work out. Rather, polygamy advocates don't seem particularly interested in the details.
 
Tiassa said:
...lots of questions...
Click to expand...

Hey, nobody said it is going to be EASY! Going to the Moon wasn't easy, and we still have done it. The complexity of it is NOT a good argument against the institution itself...(after all we could outlaw marriage itself, thus simplifying the problem of divorce) :)

By the way the debate is on....
 
Syzygys said:
Anybody who is interested, I have a proposal for arguing for the EXACT SAME nature of polygamy and gay marriage in the Formal Debat forums, you are welcomed to participate...
Click to expand...

There's not a significant difference between gay marriage & straight marriage either. The main difference is 1 is not yet properly recognized & respected by government, employers, insurance, hospitals, police, etc.
Marriage is & always has been people joining together. Government & religion got involved to have more control over people.
 
Your point being? Oh, never mind.

Syzygys said:

The complexity of it is NOT a good argument against the institution itself...
Click to expand...

Correct. Still, though, people would probably be more receptive to the advocacy if the advocates gave the appearance of having a clue. Seriously, American polygamy advocates don't seem to be taking themselves seriously. Why should anyone else?

(after all we could outlaw marriage itself, thus simplifying the problem of divorce)
Click to expand...

Outlaw? Don't you think that's just a bit harsh? I would accept a termination of state recognition of marriage, but I wouldn't go so far as to outlaw the practice.

By the way the debate is on....
Click to expand...

I'll get to it. At some point.
 
Tiassa said:
Correct. Still, though, people would probably be more receptive to the advocacy if the advocates gave the appearance of having a clue. Seriously, American polygamy advocates don't seem to be taking themselves seriously. Why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

Personally I don't care either way, the debate is just a mental challenge for me and pointing out the obvious.

The advocates also don't always have to have a clue, see: executing people with mental disabilities...

Society will change. 20-30 years ago gay marriage was a big no-no, today we see on TV Hugh Heffner living with 4 girls* of his granddaughter's age.(and they are idolized) Polygamy could be an accepted institution in 2 decades...

*what is either polygamy basicly or glorified prostitution :)
 
Last edited:
(chortle!)

Syzygys said:

Personally I don't care either way, the debate is just a mental challenge for me and pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

Well, don't hurt yourself.

Polygamy could be an accepted institution in 2 decades...
Click to expand...

And life will go on.

Keep trying, though.
 
Polygamy as gay marriage?

Here's an interesting question, and no, I don't know the answer to it:

In a polygamous marriage, are all the spouses married to one another? Or are they just married to a single spouse?​

That is, if I have five wives, are they all married to each other, or just to me? And if one of my wives marries another husband, am I married to him?
 
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There's not a significant difference between gay marriage & straight marriage either. ”

Syzygys said:
Well, I guess having children naturally can be one.
Click to expand...

There's something wrong with straight marriages that don't produce children naturally or don't have children at all???
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Marriage is joining together. Regardless of law, religion or bigotry.
Click to expand...

Its nice you feel that way, but your feelings don't have and bearing in the society at large.

Marriage is a contract and its made, ajudicated and broken by the state. In a few states it can be made by the individuals (common law), but even then it is still ajudicated and broken only by the state.
 
JDawg said:
Aside from the tax benefits...really, what's the difference?
Click to expand...


There are a number of legal rights dealing with inheritance, privileged witness status in court, de facto power of attorney in certain situations, visitation rights, etc. I think those who are into that sort of thing have them enumerated and there’s some forty or so core issues, depending on how you count them.
 
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
There's nothing to debate. Adults should be able to marry who they want. ”
swarm said:
You'ld sure expect a free country to be setup that way.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the USA is not a free country.

swarm said:
Its nice you feel that way, but your feelings don't have and bearing in the society at large.

Marriage is a contract and its made, ajudicated and broken by the state. In a few states it can be made by the individuals (common law), but even then it is still ajudicated and broken only by the state.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of how I feel. It's fact.
The issue actually isn't marriage itself but the legalities & whether people respect all marriages as they do some.
Marriage is a personal contract between people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top