Legality of polygamy

[firedragon]

I know in North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand it's banned for all.

Right. Thus, I asked you the question on your generalisation.

The OP does not address the west or the east. It is not always a great idea to make everything a we against them argument. Why's, epistemes and oughts are better.

Anyway, do you have any studies for the second statement you made about polygamy being horrible for all and that monogamy brings best outcomes? You maybe right, but is that based on a study?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Right. Thus, I asked you the question on your generalisation.

The OP does not address the west or the east. It is not always a great idea to make everything a we against them argument. Why's, epistemes and oughts are better.

Anyway, do you have any studies for the second statement you made about polygamy being horrible for all and that monogamy brings best outcomes? You maybe right, but is that based on a study?

I posted a number of studies and articles. Do you not see them in the post?

 

[firedragon]

I posted a number of studies and articles. Do you not see them in the post?

Tell me honestly. Did you study any of these web links you have given? Any of them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Tell me honestly. Did you study any of these web links you have given? Any of them.

Yes. Have you? I've posted them multiple times in threads on this subject. Don't tell me I wasted my time looking them up once again, if you're not even going to bother looking at them. Why are you turning this around on me? You asked for studies and such and I gave them to you.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Have you? I've posted them multiple times in threads on this subject.

The question I asked you was if your assessment is based on study. I didnt ask for links. I asked your position. So you just have to say "yes". If anyone wants, they can do quick google search "why polygeny is bad" or something and get a lot of links. So providing a list is not what I asked for. I didnt ask "have other people done any studies". Many people have done many studies.

Anyway, you say you studied these linked studies you have given.

Never mind. One of your studies in that list is called the "puzzle of monogamous marriage". They provide a hypothesis. Can you explain how that is tested, and is providing causation?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Valjean]

Marriage types and laws reflect the economics of the culture in question. If a society has greater numbers of women than men, and there are few economic opportunities for women, isn't polygyny reasonable?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The question I asked you was if your assessment is based on study. I didnt ask for links. I asked your position. So you just have to say "yes". If anyone wants, they can do quick google search "why polygeny is bad" or something and get a lot of links. So providing a list is not what I asked for. I didnt ask "have other people done any studies". Many people have done many studies.

Anyway, you say you studied these linked studies you have given.

Never mind. One of your studies in that list is called the "puzzle of monogamous marriage". They provide a hypothesis. Can you explain how that is tested, and is providing causation?

Thanks in advance.

I'm not playing your game. You always do this crap. Take it for it is or leave it. I really don't care. You always ask endless questions, move goalposts and never are satisfied with what people provide, while providing nothing in return. You ask about studies and I link some, but then you claim that that's not what you were asking for. You have some serious communication problems. Give me a break.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not playing your game. You always do this crap. Take it for it is or leave it. I really don't care. You always ask endless questions, move goalposts and never are satisfied with what people provide, while providing nothing in return. You ask about studies and I link some, but then you claim that that's not what you were asking for. You have some serious communication problems. Give me a break.

Thanks for the ad hominem. But you didnt understand what I said.

If you studied that link, you would provide what I asked for. I asked you to provide your insight on the link you provided since you said you studied it. The so called study is speculation, and they claim this is speculation. Because it is inductive, and corresponding, if you understand what that means.

If you are asking me to "provide something", what are you asking me to provide some study about? If I am propagating polygeny I will provide you studies, but I am not propagating anything. I am asking for informed opinion of a current situation in many countries. Thus, there is no need to get so agitated and use ad hominem as your analysis.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Marriage types and laws reflect the economics of the culture in question. If a society has greater numbers of women than men, and there are few economic opportunities for women, isn't polygyny reasonable?

Well, some countries may have more women than men. Maybe even the whole world, in very small percentages. Most polygamists have used statistics to justify polygamy. But I think its not a very valid justification because the numbers are not that great. YET, what you say also has some truth in it.

Lets say polygamy is justified by statistics as you say, is it still fair to give a different legal system to one community and deny it to the rest of the countries communities by LAW?

Hope you understand the question.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have no say in saying "shouldn't" to anything. In all honesty, this is a slippery slope fallacy.

The OP is all about whats going on today, and if its fair, unfair, and based on the conclusion, what is the repercussion or aftermath that one would perceive.

Hope you understand.

The State cannot and will not grant privileges.
Privileges are medieval stuff.

 

[firedragon]

The State cannot and will not grant privileges.
Privileges are medieval stuff.

Of course it does provide privileges. Everywhere.

And why do you consider certain things privileges? What is a privilege for you or some other people because men would like to have a small harem of women on their power trip at home are jealous that other get to do it "legally", does that mean its a privilege for someone else who's worldview is that it is not a privilege, but just normal life?

Do you understand?

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course it does provide privileges. Everywhere.

And why do you consider certain things privileges? What is a privilege for you or some other people because men would like to have a small harem of women on their power trip at home are jealous that other get to do it "legally", does that mean its a privilege for someone else who's worldview is that it is not a privilege, but just normal life?

Do you understand?

Yes, they are privileges. It is unequal treatment.

The State does not concede privileges to anyone. If it does, please give me an example.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In a lot of countries due to an old UN intrusion the country would have a different law for religious minorities. In some countries it goes for even minority races. In places like India the so called "low caste" would get some government benefits the so called "higher caste" would not get. Some of them are a bit jealous. This kind of different systems exist in many countries, in many circumstances.

This particular thread is to explore the morality or the sensibility or what ever angle you would like to look at, the legality of polygamy.

Typically this would be polygeny because we are addressing Islam directly, and it is wide spread, global, and various countries with lets say, "secular laws", like India, England, etc would have a different law for non-muslims where polygamy is illegal, unlike muslims, and that polyandry is out of the question.

I remember reading some stats about India where thought Muslims are given the right to polygamy, non-muslims in India have polygamous marriages far more than muslims. But, the question is, is it fair to give muslims one law, and the rest of the community another law. Some of the Buddhist countries in Asia have been murderously against this law calling it discrimination towards the Buddhist majority. Some Buddhist monks have engaged in creating riots over these kind of things which developed into lynching and killing of several people including a child of 9. That is, ignoring Myanmar. So the bottomline is, the sentiment of discrimination seems to linger in the majority of these countries where the minority muslims are given the right to have polygamous marriages. Some have suggested that this could be a jealousy, but there is no real evidence that every one in a country like England wishes to marry more than one lady. So if there is a jealousy in this counting, it could be with some very rich guy or an underworld don who wishes to have a small harem. And anyway that could be achieved easily with no law needed. So all of these theories seem lame. Is it fair to let the minority Muslims have a different law allowing polygeny or is it their right to have it?

What do you think of this situation? How do you judge this situation?

As usual, this is a woman's dignity issue. Polygamy is associated with mental health problems and a general unhappiness in married life for women. One of the jobs of government is to, as we Americans would say, provide for the common welfare -- which includes women. The laws passed in any country should reflect the dignity with which that society should hold women. Yes, I know this has not been the case historically. But I do believe that things are changing for the better.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, they are privileges. It is unequal treatment.

The State does not concede privileges to anyone. If it does, please give me an example.

Hmm. Privileges of the state. When you say "state" should I presume you mean 'secular states'?

If that is the case, privileges are afforded to the politicians and the state itself. Some states take the privilege of spying on their so called "subjects" though they are the voters. Some states provide privileges to their diplomats, who can go to practically any country, park in a disabled area and no one can touch them, while they just go shopping. Only recently Thomas Jeffersons "black descendants" identified genetically were given their "new privileges" as members of TJ's family circle. He mated with his slave. This is a never ending rabbit hole. In times of proscription for fighting soldiers for their foreign power establishing wars the big shots didnt have to send their sons or themselves to the frontline. Some states would send their drones to kill some targets with innocents in hundreds, but they would not do it, or anyone else to do it. Some states live in foreign land stolen from people, living in dead peoples lands killed by themselves to capture land.

This is a rabbit hole and it will keep going for a long long time. That is why, it should stick to the situation described in the OP.

 

[rational experiences]

Science men's theism thoughts are about human medical biology is first as highest morality.

It knew DNA was humans human owned. Life was paired naturally equally as parents first.

Natural advice. All humans babies since owned the original two first parents.

Humanity hence says we are family first.

Not religious or social law.

Then sex produced imbalanced baby gained life.

No longer was it in fact equally paired.

Which caused problems.

Hence men took a sister into their household depending upon his ability to care for his sister as a daughter by marriage.

So she was once never considered his wife sexual partner nor spouse. He gave her refuge as he lived with marriage with her sister.

It was in fact respectful.

Hence trying to involve an imbalanced society became a community concern. As it was not the babies fault.

If men claim they are allowed several wives then equality says wives should have several husband's.

Yet if society says let all pairing be mutual it owns today more than just sex for family life. As we are no longer truthfully spiritually naturally mutual.

Our life was created to share balanced mutual living caring relationships for happiness. Therefore marriage brokers became a social need to allow compatibility and honest unions to be utmost first.

No false forced marriage was acceptable.

Life changed and we tried to maintain spiritual caring balances. Today most past used reasoning about maintaining balances in life is mis quoted.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hmm. Privileges of the state. When you say "state" should I presume you mean 'secular states'?

If that is the case, privileges are afforded to the politicians and the state itself. Some states take the privilege of spying on their so called "subjects" though they are the voters. Some states provide privileges to their diplomats, who can go to practically any country, park in a disabled area and no one can touch them, while they just go shopping. Only recently Thomas Jeffersons "black descendants" identified genetically were given their "new privileges" as members of TJ's family circle. He mated with his slave. This is a never ending rabbit hole. In times of proscription for fighting soldiers for their foreign power establishing wars the big shots didnt have to send their sons or themselves to the frontline. Some states would send their drones to kill some targets with innocents in hundreds, but they would not do it, or anyone else to do it. Some states live in foreign land stolen from people, living in dead peoples lands killed by themselves to capture land.

This is a rabbit hole and it will keep going for a long long time. That is why, it should stick to the situation described in the OP.

That's the issue.
In secular states there is the separation of religion and state.
So belonging to a specific religion does not imply certain privileges.
For instance, the Catholic Church used to possess lots of privileges. When Rome was taken from the Pope in 1870, the RCC lost all of his political and economic privileges.

Privileges and immunities can be given to parliamentarians or politicians. But these people earned them.
Belonging to a religion does not entitle anybody.

 

[firedragon]

That's the issue.
In secular states there is the separation of religion and state.
So belonging to a specific religion does not imply certain privileges.
For instance, the Catholic Church used to possess lots of privileges. When Rome was taken from the Pope in 1870, the RCC lost all of his political and economic privileges.

Privileges and immunities can be given to parliamentarians or politicians. But these people earned them.
Belonging to a religion does not entitle anybody.

Parliamentarians earned the right to not send their kids to war when others are proscribed?

In my opinion, that is tyranny.

Anyway, that is not the topic.

 

[firedragon]

As usual, this is a woman's dignity issue. Polygamy is associated with mental health problems and a general unhappiness in married life for women. One of the jobs of government is to, as we Americans would say, provide for the common welfare -- which includes women. The laws passed in any country should reflect the dignity with which that society should hold women. Yes, I know this has not been the case historically. But I do believe that things are changing for the better.

When you say "we Americans", it is a bias statement. I would recommend you not to engage in that kind of foundational axioms. Because the so called Americans are despised like a plague in other countries. Not the people, but the murders of the government.

Why not stick to responding to the OP with no biases?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When you say "we Americans", it is a bias statement. I would recommend you not to engage in that kind of foundational axioms. Because the so called Americans are despised like a plague in other countries. Not the people, but the murders of the government.

Why not stick to responding to the OP with no biases?

If someone has hatred in their heart for americans, that is their defect. I make no apology for being an American, or quoting our constitution.

 

[firedragon]

If someone has hatred in their heart for americans, that is their defect. I make no apology for being an American, or quoting our constitution.

I think that's absolutely irrelevant. hatred to some people, love for some other people, irrelevant.