Pagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 2

On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote:
I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.

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.

On December 19 2011 00:44 flowSthead wrote:


That's a bold claim. Do you have proof for that?

On December 19 2011 01:08 doubled wrote:


Here are some research article on the subject, you can get them via ProQuest if you have a subscription (usually via your university):

• Koch, John; Kickasola, Joseph N, Polygamy: A matter for public law or private policy - Best article I found on the subject by far.
  
• Loughead, Lisa, The perception of polygamy in early modern England - Goes over the causes briefly, and also explains the causes for it being illegal in current society.
  

Some free articles on the matter, these are informal though.

• Paul H. Rubin, Democracy, dictatorship, and polygamy - Succinct explanation
  
• Two Sides of Polygamy - Ligthly touches on the subject under the history header.
  

Disclaimer: Only skimmed the articles, better than wiki though.


Edit2: Tried to find something on how China is pretty much fucked as they have 100~ million men left over who won't be able to find women to marry, and why this is a huge problem for society (hordes sexually frustrated men... you only need to start up COD to find out what that is like) but seems not much has been written about it yet.

On December 19 2011 01:20 flowSthead wrote:

Cool, thanks for the articles. It is an interesting idea, although it doesn't seem to imply that the idea is to let everyone have a chance (the poor single farmer) but rather that it becomes difficult to repress the violence of the young. Those without tend to violence against those with and thus polygamy would seem to encourage this type of violence. I wonder how that would relate to our more modern world since physical strength and wealth of food are no longer as important as they were in ancient societies.

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 01:26 Haemonculus wrote:
Do keep in mind though in this discussion that the women in question are you know, people, and not simply a commodity with which to placate otherwise violent youth.

On December 19 2011 01:31 thezanursic wrote:

Lol evolution shouldn't allow everybody to get a mate. Legalize polygamy!!!

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 00:24 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 01:42 flowSthead wrote:


I don't think the implication was that women were a commodity. Rather, the argument goes that people naturally form hierarchical societies, whether they male or female dominated, and that those in the top have a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. If you are a member of the secondary gender (commonly women, although sometimes men), you will want to associate yourself with those in power for your own benefit or for the benefit of your family.

The youth will generally be more likely to upheave the status quo, and they are likely to desire a change if they see their own rise as difficult to attain, which in a classic power structure is always going to be difficult.

On December 19 2011 01:23 doubled wrote:



Well as I said, we'll find out in a few years with China (or Thailand or wherever they will import their wives from).