Pagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 11

On December 19 2011 15:37 Euronyme wrote:


Because women typically follow the money...

It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.

Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.

On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:

There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.

On December 19 2011 00:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote:


It certainly isn't stopping cults from destroying children.
And religious organizations should have no say on people who don't belong in their cult.

That's like Apple suing you for violating user rights for services you haven't used.



So marriage is just a system to force women act against their nature?
LOL
But well I guess if prostitution was legalized 80% of men wouldn't even give shit about a stable sex partner.


But that would be just guessing, also you are making theories about things we have very little experience of in the modern western world. In the societies where polygamy is normal marriage is rarely invoked by the women?

On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?

Pathetic.

On December 20 2011 06:41 Euronyme wrote:


Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races.
Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women.
I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.

There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.

I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'

Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.

On December 20 2011 02:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:


On the other hand, the people asking "why" seem to be coming from a very young-adult male perspective on the issue of human sexuality, so naturally the idea of multiple partners not only seems very attractive but also very doable. Not exactly a representative cross-section of society, or a good place to look for measured, reasoned analysis of relationships.



"What if they can't get a wife" is a potentially serious sociological concern for places like China and the Middle East where millions of young men have no prospect for married life because there's no damn wimmins around.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/It_is_socially_destabilizing_when_some_men_have_no_women_to_marry

On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?

Pathetic.

On December 20 2011 06:41 Euronyme wrote:


Call it a personal observation. Calling out a difference between the sexes is a lot less frowned upon than prejudism against races.
Women and men are different. From my experience for instance sex and appearance is generally more important for men, while money and prestige is more important for women.
I'm not saying this applies to everyone, or even a majority, but it's a fairly clear pattern.

There are cultural differences between different areas. I've got a friend from the south center part of Sweden, and they're half jokingly famous for being ungenerous, and he actually brought up that people around there were a lot more keen on keeping their money for themselves than in other aprts - because people around those parts grew up in a farmer society where there was a lot of hard times, and where keeping track of your money and not spend anything unnecessarely was of utmost importance.

I guess you would label that as a self hating racist.... -_-'

Judging a person you've never met with these things would be prejudism and racism. Notising a cultural pattern is not.

On December 20 2011 07:03 HardMacro wrote:


Calm your hormones man, he even made sure to write women "typically" follow the money, which is very reasonable. In fact, what he wrote is true to EVERYONE on earth because we ALL (typically) follow the money.

Keep in touch with reality man.

On December 20 2011 07:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
His point is that women specifically go for rich partners. Otherwise the comment loses all relevance to the topic since men would also marry rich women and that's pretty much even, and polygamy / andry is fine.

On December 20 2011 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Why is this kind of comment acceptable? Replace the word women by Jews and you get an insta temp ban. Is sexism supposed to be better than racism?

Pathetic.

On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:


Two reasons.

1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders.
valid reason

2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage.
non-valid reason

On December 20 2011 07:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Well, I haven't noticed that women were going to rich guys, and I know plenty of men who married rich women and for whom it has been part of the choice. Your "pattern" is as relevant as people who say that Jews are naturally greedy and dishonest or black people violent and stupid.

Greed is common to all humanity. Saying that women go for money and rich people rather that men they love is plain sexist, period.

On December 20 2011 08:10 CptCutter wrote:


laws should be tailored around right or wrong, not because of some religion.

i still think the first is enough for a ban against it as long as religion is around.

I am only half-joking. Polygamy could be useful in certain situations, e.g. if a population bottleneck occurs. Then it would be better for every woman to have 3 men and vice versa. (from a genetical perspective)

On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:


Two reasons.

1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders.
2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage.

On December 20 2011 08:13 Euronyme wrote:


I respect your opinion, even though it's wrong.
Every heard the term gold digger? What about prostitute? What do you think's most common - young men marrying old and rich women, or young women marrying old and rich men? Men and women have different perspectives and goals when it comes to choosing a partner. That's a fact. Arguing that women are like jews isn't going to help you.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12112283