Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Polygamy

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If all the parties consent, why should the law care about it?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:12:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

Because most of the people cannot explain the reason anyone would be okay with marrying a person already committed to another. So they deduce that s/he was pressurized by the society, or by the parents. Thus demonising the person getting the fair end of the deal.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:19:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because it seems very likely that polygamous relationships would largely consist of small numbers of men courting large numbers of women, which would mean a lot of straight men would never be able to find spouses.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:12:18 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

Because most of the people cannot explain the reason anyone would be okay with marrying a person already committed to another. So they deduce that s/he was pressurized by the society, or by the parents. Thus demonising the person getting the fair end of the deal.

People are committed to lots of things in their life. There is no rule that says that you should be committed to only one thing at a time.

If you have a child, it's a full time commitment. How dare they have another child then?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:21:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:19:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because it seems very likely that polygamous relationships would largely consist of small numbers of men courting large numbers of women, which would mean a lot of straight men would never be able to find spouses.

Why assume polygamy goes only one way?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:23:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
One man with multiple wives is a traditional male fantasy, male sexuality is not socially acceptable being seen as base and predatory. Such an arrangement also implies that the women are inferior to the men, indeed due to 'normal' female psychology the only way in which such marriages will work are generally in societies in which women are regarded as property or at least in relationships in which the woman is very submissive.

A women with multiple husands... well that generally damages the sexual pride of most men. Also as I understand it this is not quite an attractive idea for most women. Whereas men tend to like the idea of being polyamorous, women then to prefer the idea of being (serial) monogamists.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:26:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:21:15 AM, Indophile wrote:
Why assume polygamy goes only one way?

Perhaps it no longer would - it merely has overwhelmingly historically. Given that social attitudes have changed, I might be in favour of social experimentation to that effect, although I suspect that the result would still be an imbalance such as I have described.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:33:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:26:32 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:21:15 AM, Indophile wrote:
Why assume polygamy goes only one way?

Perhaps it no longer would - it merely has overwhelmingly historically. Given that social attitudes have changed, I might be in favour of social experimentation to that effect, although I suspect that the result would still be an imbalance such as I have described.

I read somewhere that barring human interferences in the way of foeticide, abortion, etc. the number of girl children will always be greater than the number of boy children. Also, women tend to live longer than men.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, in a society, there will always be more women than men.

So, either marriage as a concept has to be done away with, or polygamy has to be introduced.

Of course, if "commitment" issues are not given too much importance, the present way, where most of the people tend to have sex with many people (although not simultaneously) is fine.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:33:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

There isn't ... in societies where it is the norm.
So the question becomes: Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy where polygamy isn't the norm? The answer: ethnocentrism and naive realism.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:41:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:33:09 AM, Indophile wrote:
I read somewhere that barring human interferences in the way of foeticide, abortion, etc. the number of girl children will always be greater than the number of boy children. Also, women tend to live longer than men.

I'd like a source for the first claim. The second is true, but it seems to me that while that would lead to more very old women than men in society, it wouldn't lead to more women of the age when they are likely to start a relationship.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, in a society, there will always be more women than men.

Very old women, perhaps.

So, either marriage as a concept has to be done away with, or polygamy has to be introduced.

I...what?

Of course, if "commitment" issues are not given too much importance, the present way, where most of the people tend to have sex with many people (although not simultaneously) is fine.

I guess that would solve a lot of problems. I imagine it raises further problems with the availability of stable families to raise children though.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:41:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:33:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

There isn't ... in societies where it is the norm.
Well, this is not strictly speaking true. I'd hazard a guess that a significant percentage of people sleep around in the US.

But it still is frowned upon.

So the question becomes: Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy where polygamy isn't the norm? The answer: ethnocentrism and naive realism.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:53:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:41:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:33:09 AM, Indophile wrote:
I read somewhere that barring human interferences in the way of foeticide, abortion, etc. the number of girl children will always be greater than the number of boy children. Also, women tend to live longer than men.

I'd like a source for the first claim. The second is true, but it seems to me that while that would lead to more very old women than men in society, it wouldn't lead to more women of the age when they are likely to start a relationship.

I found this map in Wiki (don't know how valid a source Wiki is).
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, all the "developed" countries have more females. I'm making an assumption that developed countries don't care which child they have and let things take a natural course. I maybe wrong though.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, in a society, there will always be more women than men.

Very old women, perhaps.

So, either marriage as a concept has to be done away with, or polygamy has to be introduced.

I...what?
What I meant was, marriage is given a lot of importance. Due to this, and an unavailability of males, a female might have no chance of getting married.

Of course, if "commitment" issues are not given too much importance, the present way, where most of the people tend to have sex with many people (although not simultaneously) is fine.

I guess that would solve a lot of problems. I imagine it raises further problems with the availability of stable families to raise children though.
So you concur that marriage as an institution is needed to raise children?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What about societies in which children are raised communally?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:01:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
What about societies in which children are raised communally?

Sounds like a very bad idea!

Will need some serious brainwashing for women to accept this. "Suffer" through 9 months of pain, and in the end, raise someone else's children.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:41:57 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:33:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

There isn't ... in societies where it is the norm.
Well, this is not strictly speaking true. I'd hazard a guess that a significant percentage of people sleep around in the US.

But it still is frowned upon.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. It's not the norm in the US, hence the social stigma. That doesn't mean everyone disagrees or have problems with it, just that society in general does.


So the question becomes: Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy where polygamy isn't the norm? The answer: ethnocentrism and naive realism.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:18:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:20:21 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:12:18 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

Because most of the people cannot explain the reason anyone would be okay with marrying a person already committed to another. So they deduce that s/he was pressurized by the society, or by the parents. Thus demonising the person getting the fair end of the deal.

People are committed to lots of things in their life. There is no rule that says that you should be committed to only one thing at a time.

Usually, in a relationship, people do not like their partners playing around. Not because the partner cannot please both of them at the same time, but because they feel cheated. These people form a large portion of the society, and hence they judge.

If you have a child, it's a full time commitment. How dare they have another child then?

This is not a really good analogy, the child is dependent on the parents, at least in the younger ages. And you want them to be independent enough to live in the big bad world, learn sharing, and whatnot. The expectations from a spouse are different from that from a child.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:22:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:18:03 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:20:21 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:12:18 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:50 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:05:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
The state and the concept of marriage should be divorced. So in short yes!

Or...let me put it this way. Why is there a social stigma attached to polygamy?

Because most of the people cannot explain the reason anyone would be okay with marrying a person already committed to another. So they deduce that s/he was pressurized by the society, or by the parents. Thus demonising the person getting the fair end of the deal.

People are committed to lots of things in their life. There is no rule that says that you should be committed to only one thing at a time.

Usually, in a relationship, people do not like their partners playing around. Not because the partner cannot please both of them at the same time, but because they feel cheated. These people form a large portion of the society, and hence they judge.

This demonstrates my point of ethnocentrism. "Usually" here is context-dependent. You can find just about any arrangement if you expand your search to other cultures. There is a culture in Asia where all the brothers of a family will marry to the same woman. Not universally, but that is the desired arrangement.


If you have a child, it's a full time commitment. How dare they have another child then?

This is not a really good analogy, the child is dependent on the parents, at least in the younger ages. And you want them to be independent enough to live in the big bad world, learn sharing, and whatnot. The expectations from a spouse are different from that from a child.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:54:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know I am repeating myself, but it still seems relevant!

One man with multiple wives is a traditional male fantasy, male sexuality is not socially acceptable being seen as base and predatory. Such an arrangement also implies that the women are inferior to the men, indeed due to 'normal' female psychology the only way in which such marriages will work are generally in societies in which women are regarded as property or at least in relationships in which the woman is very submissive.

A women with multiple husands... well that generally damages the sexual pride of most men. Also as I understand it this is not quite an attractive idea for most women. Whereas men tend to like the idea of being polyamorous, women tend to prefer the idea of being (serial) monogamists.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:04:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:02:06 AM, Indophile wrote:
If all the parties consent, why should the law care about it?

Because if one man can marry several woman, what's to stop one man from marrying another man?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:12:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 1:04:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:02:06 AM, Indophile wrote:
If all the parties consent, why should the law care about it?

Because if one man can marry several woman, what's to stop one man from marrying another man?

NOOOO!!!!!

*Falls to knees. Fists raised to the dark sky as rain cascades down onto a stark scene of urban desolation.*

WHY GOD WHY!!! How could we... *sobs*... we didn't know... we didn't know...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 1:12:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2011 1:04:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:02:06 AM, Indophile wrote:
If all the parties consent, why should the law care about it?

Because if one man can marry several woman, what's to stop one man from marrying another man?

NOOOO!!!!!

*Falls to knees. Fists raised to the dark sky as rain cascades down onto a stark scene of urban desolation.*

WHY GOD WHY!!! How could we... *sobs*... we didn't know... we didn't know...

What's stopping a man from marrying a .... A - goat? Huh?

See? That's why you need intelligent people like us, to show you the light.

Homosexuality is a terrible terrible sin. And polygamy is wrong because it will lead to gayness. Bet you didn't see that, Mr. smartypants.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:53:46 AM, Indophile wrote
As you can see, all the "developed" countries have more females.
What I meant was, marriage is given a lot of importance. Due to this, and an unavailability of males, a female might have no chance of getting married.

If this is the case, and if allowing polygamy would have a balancing effect on relationships then my case dissolves entirely. Not sure how we'd work out the statistics on that though.

So you concur that marriage as an institution is needed to raise children?

I'm not sure if I would put it as strongly as 'needed' - I think some form of civil partnership is beneficial as far at it encourages stability for the purposes of raising children. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with single parents or open couples raising children either.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 2:43:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:54:30 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I know I am repeating myself, but it still seems relevant!

One man with multiple wives is a traditional male fantasy, male sexuality is not socially acceptable being seen as base and predatory. Such an arrangement also implies that the women are inferior to the men, indeed due to 'normal' female psychology the only way in which such marriages will work are generally in societies in which women are regarded as property or at least in relationships in which the woman is very submissive.

I'd think the traditional male fantasy was limited to having sex with many women, not marrying them.

Marrying them would involve responsibility and such, but just limiting it to sex is the ultimate fantasy, right? Especially with women who have many other men trying to "get" them.

A women with multiple husands... well that generally damages the sexual pride of most men. Also as I understand it this is not quite an attractive idea for most women. Whereas men tend to like the idea of being polyamorous, women tend to prefer the idea of being (serial) monogamists.

If this is true, then polygamy of 1 M to many W, should be pretty easy to introduce?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 2:43:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
A women with multiple husands... well that generally damages the sexual pride of most men. Also as I understand it this is not quite an attractive idea for most women. Whereas men tend to like the idea of being polyamorous, women tend to prefer the idea of being (serial) monogamists.

If this is true, then polygamy of 1 M to many W, should be pretty easy to introduce?
Sure, but the problem is that most people cannot treat their wives in same just manners, or actually do not try to do so.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 4:45:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:02:06 AM, Indophile wrote:
If all the parties consent, why should the law care about it?:

Well, I don't think it works out as well as the polygamists would like you to believe, BUT to answer you more appropriately, I don't think the law should be concerned unless there is a statutory rape situation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:05:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Polygamy results in the exponential increase in familial size. It almost always leads to incest, which is also illegal for genetic reasons.

This is why only small, isolated communities practice polygamy, whether we're talking about nomads, royalty, or religious communities--because they are acting as the foundation to a new colony of people, for all intents and purposes. In essence, if they die out, then what they represent no longer exists (in that area).

Moreover, households containing so many people are extremely expensive and are not conducive to our current economy, in which each household must support itself.

In an empire and similar nationalistic constructs, polygamy is counterproductive, because it reduces control over the population, increases susceptibility to disease, reduces genetic variation, and deviates from the traditional familial construct. Thus, rendering it illegal is only practical. Making an exception for small isolated groups also makes sense.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 5:09:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh, yeah:

http://www.childbrides.org...

And, support for what others are saying:

"Today, 'polygamy' almost exclusively takes the form of one husband with multiple wives...The problem with polygamy is primarily that it is a structurally inegalitarian practice in both theory and fact."

-- Brooks, Thom, The Problem with Polygamy (January 22, 2009). Philosophical Topics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 109-122, 2009.