EPTPagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
M0KAS
Austria38 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:11 Deleuze wrote: If this woman is mother to a UK child she will not be forced to leave. On top of that the whole case is hugely hypocritical: if she was from the UK what would they do? Would they order her to break up with the dude? Put her in jail? Or a fine? Since when does the justice looks into people's bedroom? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:13 Wegandi wrote: The Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Seperation of State and Contract! Marriage like anything else should / is a contractual agreement between consenting parties. If people want to live in a polygamous house that is their right. If they want a monogamous relationship that is their right. The only intervention from the Government is the upholding of contractual agreements. Not sure why so many people care what others do either to themselves, or in their own households. Can anyone give a coherent reason for why the Government should be dictating to its supposedly 'free' citizens whom they can marry, and in what numbers they can, and for what reasons? Just another power to be abused, and one more infringement upon contractual rights and civil society. Marriage is a civil contract, and the "government" has obviously its word to say like in any contract. There are legal contrracts and illegal contracts. And the only one to say that it's a bad thing are libertarians, but they don't make any sense anyway and live in a theoretical world where everything except the evil government is pink and happy. Plus it's not the government at all we are talking about, but the Justice. Society puts itself rules, and yeah, we don't live in the goddamn jungle so we are not "free", whatever that even means. Problem is not about marriage, because if I understand she was not married with the dude. And then, it's about her relationships / sexual life, and that's not anybody's business anymore. | ||
|
gibb
Sweden288 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Marriage is a civil contract, and the "government" has obviously its word to say. Plus it's not the government at all, but the Justice. Problem is not about marriage, because if I understand she was not married with the dude. And then, it's about her relationships / sexual life, and that's not anybody's business anymore. Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. It has nothing to do with the State / Government. Not sure why the Government should have the power to dictate who you are allowed / not allowed to have as PoA, Shared-Bank Accounts, Next of Kin, Visitation rights, etc. etc. These are all contractual rights eminating from the liberties and rights of the individual. Marriage was vested into the State for discriminatory and racist purposes in the first place. Government has no place, nor role in Marriage whatsoever. It is an institution that should be free and displaced from State-control. It's a giant social engineering rouse. Use tax incentives to alter the behavior of the individuals in society to either have more, or less babies, to buy, sell, trade certain items and products from certain companies, etc. etc. I do not even understand your second sentence. What the hell is 'the Justice'? | ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
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. derp insert religious troll here User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:23 Wegandi wrote: Marriage is a contract between consenting parties. It has nothing to do with the State / Government. Not sure why the Government should have the power to dictate who you are allowed / not allowed to have as PoA, Shared-Bank Accounts, Next of Kin, Visitation rights, etc. etc. These are all contractual rights eminating from the liberties and rights of the individual. Marriage was vested into the State for discriminatory and racist purposes in the first place. Government has no place, nor role in Marriage whatsoever. It is an institution that should be free and displaced from State-control. It's a giant social engineering rouse. Use tax incentives to alter the behavior of the individuals in society to either have more, or less babies, to buy, sell, trade certain items and products from certain companies, etc. etc. I do not even understand your second sentence. What the hell is 'the Justice'? Marriage exist since thousand of years. What the fuck does it have to do with discrimination imposed from the State. The modern State was invented few hundred years ago, and we talk about something that has existed for basically ever. Mariage is a social institution, despite your paranoid anti-static mantra that sounds like bad Ayn Rand. If you want to "marry freely", then you just make an agreement with your lover and that's about it. From the moment we talk about marriage, it has to do with the law, with the State and your legal status in society. That's what marriage is about. If you are unhappy that people can't do "whatever they want" because that goes against "freedom", then let's all go back to trees and forget about society. And if you don't want to take a legal engagement, then don't marry and live with your lover happy. Geez... Justice = institution that keep society together by punishing people who don't respect the law independent from both legislative and executive powers. Law = what puts society by giving it rules. Is not voted by the government but by the senate / parliament Government = people who rule a country and gives political orientation. In other words the executive. If you kill someone it's not the government that puts you in jail, but the Justice that is independent from the executive. | ||
|
unteqair
United States308 Posts
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. Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't. In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking. Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote: Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't. In our modern societies, we try to diminish conflict, and polygamy law does this. Over time, though, this is naturally integrated into our value system, and it becomes common sense and ethical that polygamy should be illegal. It is what we are raised thinking. Actually, a cool role reversals of choosiness is in the sea horse. In this case, the male seahorse is more choosy, because he is the one who has to invest the time in to caring for the offspring. What a facepalm. You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate? Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can? | ||
|
unteqair
United States308 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: What a facepalm. You think my girlfriend chose me because I will be there when she needs to spend more calories for carrying a baby than I need to ejaculate? Plus are you aware that if you want to have 75433 girlfriends you can? You are missing the point; that's not what I said. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote: You are missing the point; that's not what I said. I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché. The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies? Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it? | ||
Falling
Canada11561 Posts
Yeah, I read about this kind of thing in my anthropology book. Females are naturally far far more choosy than men when it comes to picking mates because they have to make a much larger investment in offspring than males. Males need only spend a few calories to ejaculate, while females have to deal with not only the time of pregnancy, but raising the child. Before our modern societies were established, it was natural for a few men who had the means and power to care for women to have many women, and to very successfully spread their genes while other men didn't. Yeah I've read that before. And I think it's just a bs explanation to try and apply their evolutionary behaviourist model by explaining every possible behaviour. There is a similar explanation out there on how rape must be beneficial somehow because it's a trait that survived. But such motivations move to the subconscious to explain behaviour (my genes made me do it) is behaviorism at its worst and pseudo-science at that. (If it is sub-conscious, how do we we know? It really starts sounding like Freud sans-the sexual repression.) As to polygamy- I'm actually surprised my province (British Columbia) was able to uphold our law against polygamy. Simply because it is very difficult to prove why polygamy is immoral outside of religious reasons. Is it a transcendant, absolute institution or one defined by humans? If there is no God that defines marriage, then what is marriage really? A social contract that has been developed over the ages. If it is defined by humans, it can changed by humans to mean whatever humans want. The only angle I can really see is the tendency towards underage marriage and marriage against a persons will, and issues of power disparity between the man and his wives which was the problem in Bountiful. But are those issues inherent in polygamy or simply these cult organizations that uses polygamy.? I quite expect the laws against polygamy to be challenged and eventually won in the courts. I think our courts argued that the Western tradition of marriage was historically two people, but I expect that particular argument to be countered. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44126 Posts
A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society. | ||
|
unteqair
United States308 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: I say we are not mices and maybe we chose our partner for other reason than the calories we take to ejaculate. The explanation that women are "far more choosy" or go to wealthy or powerful men because..., is just a pseudo scientific justification for a sexist cliché. The historical explanation seems so oversimplified that it leaves me speechless. Do you realize that monogamy is just an option among many, and that there are all forms of sexual norms in different societies? Can't you just accept that it's our cultural, social and religious inheritage because we are in a judeo christian society, and that this is it? I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything. Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established. And yes, it is going to be simplified. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd. A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society. I agree completely. Same could be said about gay marriage that is still forbidden in most countries (I know it isn't in the UK, which is by far more tolerant on these questions than most western countries). Notice however that polygamy is supposed to be married with two people while in this story, one of the women was not married. As much as I agree that marriage is a ridiculously narrow and repressive institution, I would add that in this case it's much worse since it has to do with justice screwing up with people's sexual behavior for pseudo moral reasons. And that's really unacceptable. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd. A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society. They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships. If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8114 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote: I agree that we aren't mice. And again, you are missing the point. I can see that it would have helped your understanding if I didn't use the word calories. The point is that the male risked nothing in the old environment and that females risked everything. Today, things are different. Women can take care of themselves as well as men, there are more resources readily available, there are larger societal values, and we are all so easily connected which causes judgement by others and societal pressures to be swift. If you mean to say much of it doesn't apply to today, then you are right. But imagine yourself as a woman trying to make it before civilization was established. And yes, it is going to be simplified. Ok, and? You are justifying something that is specific to judeo-christian civilization by an anthropological "natural" explanation. That doesn't make sense. There are societies with absolutely all kind of sexual / relational structures. How do you explain that if you try to justify monogamy, monoandry and people's behavior through this kind of reasoning? | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:11 KwarK wrote: Laws against polygamy are absurd. A man can have a wife and form a loving affair with a girlfriend behind his back and the law doesn't care that he's betraying her trust. However if the man is open and honest with the women in his life and they form a mutually satisfactory relationship then it's illegal. It doesn't make any sense at all. A marriage is just a contract that people make to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law and of society. I think there is really no reason to attach so many laws to something like marriage. It's simply a tradition and a cultural thing, laws should concern everyone regardless of the way they live. So kicking someone of the country for being not being married to someone is pretty absurd reason, especially if you can only be married to one person in the eyes of the law. I wish governing bodies concerned themselves more with freedom. On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: They're not absurd. Laws against polygamy is to avoid hassle and issues. Property rights, health care, etc. all depend on monogamous relationships. If polygamy is a huge fucking hassle, a lot of issues come up and create problems for both the family and the law. Laws of property ownership, inheritance, parental rights, marital property are all things that make polygamy much, much harder to maintain and cut/slice when dealing with these issues. If that logic was acceptable then people would still be in labor camps and world leaders would take a poop on enviromental issues and human rights because changing them would be too much work. I agree it would be a hassle but sooner or later someone needs to take care of that. Along with property rights, health care, inheritance and what else you got. Current systems should never be viewed as final and complete. There are million things wrong in the current laws. In my opinion in most western nations the laws are way too protective on the cost of individual freedom and amplifies inequality in a number of ways. | ||
| ||
