Proposal:Polygamy should be treated the same way as gay marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Syzygys

Syzygys

As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
I wish to debate anyone (gay,straight,monkey,alien) on the topic of gay marriage compared to polygamy.

I will be on the polygamist side and arguing that if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists...

Any takers?

P.S.: For extra fun I can throw in close relatives' marriage, as long as it doesn't produce children.

P.S.S.: Mind you, I want to be polygamist not because of religious reasons but because I like pussy, and I want it legally... :)
 
O ... kay

Syzygys said:

Mind you, I want to be polygamist not because of religious reasons but because I like pussy, and I want it legally...
Click to expand...

Well, I was going to take up the proposition, and then I read that line. As I consider it indicative of mental illness, I'm not sure if there's a point to the debate.

But, to the other, I shouldn't let pointlessness stop a discussion at Sciforums. Thus—

I will be on the polygamist side and arguing that if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists...
Click to expand...

—you're on.
 
Not much to work with

Well, it's such a limited proposal, there's not much to spend the words on. Presuming he actually keeps to his proposition, maybe I'll be repeating myself.
 
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, specially when they are long on rhetorics and short on arguments.

Also, I am NOT going to argue that I am a 50 year old wishing to be married to a couple of 14 year old virgins. For most people that is what polygamy is, but they are mistaken when we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.
If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Argue against that.... :p
 
Challenger78 said:
Shite, It's on.
My bet is Syzygys won't have the patience/endurance to match T's massive posts .
Click to expand...

1. Are you saying you are willing to argue the opposite I stated or you are just happy that Tiassa voluntered?

2. You might be right about not having the patience of putting up with bullshit. :)
 
It probably won't be that long; there's not much to work with

Syzygys said:

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, specially when they are long on rhetorics and short on arguments.
Click to expand...

Certainly makes thinking easy, doesn't it?

Also, I am NOT going to argue that I am a 50 year old wishing to be married to a couple of 14 year old virgins. For most people that is what polygamy is, but they are mistaken when we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.
If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Argue against that....
Click to expand...

I await your opening argument, and even admit to some curiosity about whether or not you will restrict it to the point you noted at the outset and reiterated above (boldface portion of quote).

And, for the record, if you manage to stick to your basic proposition, it shouldn't be too long a response. I doubt I'll need to renegotiate the 1,500-word cap.
 
1. I am still waiting to see if there are others interested.

2. I am not sure I need to make the opening statement, since I am in the position, that pretty much EVERY argument for gay marriage alson APPLIES to polygamy (and incestious marriage too).

So Athelwolf or any gay advocate could list his/her arguments and we can go through it why they wouldn't/shouldn't apply to polygamy.

If I throw in the religion argument, polygamy actually makes more sense than gay marriage, unless of course the gay person wishes to marry for religious reasons... :)
 
Interesting method

Syzygys said:

2. I am not sure I need to make the opening statement, since I am in the position, that pretty much EVERY argument for gay marriage APPLIES to polygamy (and incestious marriage too).
Click to expand...

Really? That's all it is? You don't care to make a formal argument?

I mean, you did after all, propose this debate. It might be helpful to your argument if you would at least attempt to detail the point.

So Athelwolf or any gay advocate could list his/her arguments and we can go through it why they wouldn't/shouldn't apply to polygamy.
Click to expand...

Huh?

If I throw in the religion argument, polygamy actually makes more sense than gay marriage, unless of course the gay person wishes to marry for religious reasons...
Click to expand...

That would be a distraction compared to your original proposition. The argument in favor of gay marriage is legalistic, not religious. Religion only enters the gay marriage discussion insofar as it's hard to take religious people who have no care for their own religious doctrine seriously. There's no integrity in demanding that religious rules be applied as law when the religious rules aren't important to the actual religious people who are demanding they be applied in law.
 
Tiassa said:
Really? That's all it is? You don't care to make a formal argument?
Click to expand...

Sure, I could. Right now I am researching the arguments for gay marriage.
When I find one that DOESN'T apply to plygamy, I will post it. Otherwise my arguments for polygamy would be the same as for gay marriage.

The debate is not about polygamy vs. marriage but gay marriage vs. polygamy.

That would be a distraction compared to your original proposition.
Click to expand...

1. I am a very distractive person.
2. I reserve the right to use any and all kind of argument to support my case, even if I personally don't care for it...

If people smoking pot on religious grounds can get an exception from the government why can't polygamists ??
 
Aren't you guys supposed to start making rules right now? And sygfdgudthd, you have to actually make an opening argument in the formal debates section.. Maybe try Law and Order if you have no previous experience??
 
Why would I be making rules if there are no takers? (or the one who voluntered I don't wish to debate?)

Maybe try Logic 101 if you have no previous experience. :)

P.S.: Read the Subforum, I was involved in 80% of the debates in the last 6 months or so....
 
This and that

Betrayer0fHope said:

Aren't you guys supposed to start making rules right now?
Click to expand...

For my part, the standard rules are more than adequate for dealing with the proposition as it stands. If Syz wishes to change the proposition, I'll have to assess the argumentative needs against the rules for that.

• • •​

Syzygys said:

2. I reserve the right to use any and all kind of argument to support my case, even if I personally don't care for it..
Click to expand...

Well, all I would ask is that you stay relevant.
 
OK, since nobody else voluntered, I guess I have to take Tiassa. Let's make sure we are understanding what the issue is (because I have a feeling we might have a missunderstanding here):

I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.

Again, the debate is NOT about why polygamy should be legal or not, but that it should be treated exactly the same as gay marriage.

By polygamy I mean marriage between 3 (edited) or more CONSENTING ADULTS. (so let's cut the children forced to be married crap from the start)

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)
 
Last edited:
Changing the proposition, dodging the obligation?

Syzygys said:

I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.
Click to expand...

Okay, now you've changed the proposition. Time to negotiate the rules. I'm likely throwing out the 1,500 word cap.

Proposition 1 — ... if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists.

Proposition 2 — If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Proposition 3 — I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.​

Notice that the first two are pretty much the same. But it is my understanding, based on your latest post, that you intend to argue the third. Is that correct?

Because as much as you might not like long posts, the revised proposition calls for longer posts. You opened any number of doors with that.

By polygamy I mean marriage between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS.
Click to expand...

That's a new definition of polygamy. I'll call it a typo, instead. Would that be fair?

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)
Click to expand...

Well, it's your proposition originally, whether in the original or revised form. With no detail to respond to, there's nothing for me to post.
 
All 3 propositions are basicly the same and I won't read anything over 500 words.*

Yes it was a typo, I corrected it.

*Rule #1: If you can not be concise, you are most likely illogical. No more than 4-500 words per post.

Rule #2: Anybody who uses footnotes automaticly loses.
 
Let me know when you're up to a real discussion

Syzygys said:

Rule #1: If you can not be concise, you are most likely illogical. No more than 4-500 words per post.

Rule #2: Anybody who uses footnotes automaticly loses.
Click to expand...

Okay, dude, I've been trying to be polite about something, but this is just getting absurd. Two questions:

(1) Why did you propose this debate when you don't seem to want to undertake it?

(2) What the hell are you afraid of?​

Seriously, I'll tell you what: Write whatever opening argument you want, and I'll spend exactly four words in response: "You are absolutely correct."

And then you can be happy and tell all your friends how smart you are.

Will that work for you? Or are you going to get serious at some point?
 
Just waiting for your opening argument...

Also, the challenge was not particulary for you but anyody (debating you wasn't really in my mind), but looks like most people agree with me... String said it best...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top