|
Funny thing is that there is no law stopping you from living with multiple girlfriends and having children with them. Have fun living in that kind of condition though. I don't see the big deal in this if both sides are consensual, I mean we don't even look down on homosexuality anymore, so why not have polygamy if it's totally consensual? Hell even some arranged monogamous marriages cant be argued to be against human right if it's totally decided by the parents with the children not agreeing to it, even after they reach adulthood. Their obviously should be a limit of course, the days of hundreds of women existing solely for one rich guy shouldn't exactly be encouraged, especially if they don't have the same rights and status as that of the first wife. That's the complicated part, not having drama and conflict between all the wives. Obviously that is almost impossible, hence my "have fun living that kind of condition" quip.
|
Canada11266 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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.
Nope. Still pseudo-science. And one that give justification for viewing modern male infidelity as simply acting to their nature and modern female infidelity as acting against their nature. (Prowess vs Slut) How can you prove this theory and how does it help us understand anything further about the past then what we already know? Many cultures had polygamous relationships- and our genes made us do it. It's not like you can actually prove it because it's all subconscious and very Feudian as far as scientific rigorous explanations go. Can't prove it nor disprove it.
|
On December 19 2011 03:20 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
|
On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve.
Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
|
On December 19 2011 03:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.)
It makes sense for these people to try to explain it, though. Don't just disregard their research. Genes interacting with environment explains a lot, and if they didn't attempt to explain any of it at all, then they would get nowhere. They don't ever just get down to the level of "my genes made me do it." That's not interesting. It's the looking for the benefits of behavior that makes it interesting.
|
On December 19 2011 03:20 bubblegumbo wrote:
Funny thing is that there is no law stopping you from living with multiple girlfriends and having children with them. Have fun living in that kind of condition though. I don't see the big deal in this if both sides are consensual, I mean we don't even look down on homosexuality anymore, so why not have polygamy if it's totally consensual? Hell even some arranged monogamous marriages cant be argued to be against human right if it's totally decided by the parents with the children not agreeing to it, even after they reach adulthood. Their obviously should be a limit of course, the days of hundreds of women existing solely for one rich guy shouldn't exactly be encouraged, especially if they don't have the same rights and status as that of the first wife. That's the complicated part, not having drama and conflict between all the wives. Obviously that is almost impossible, hence my "have fun living that kind of condition" quip.
Arranged marriages are legitimate because 1. the children prefer it, 2. its tradition to the culture and 3. it maintains a good partnership between lineages of both families and helps keeps the lineage going while in addition, securing their children in a healthy marriage.
|
On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem...
Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion.
Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol).
If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
|
On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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. 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?
I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
|
On December 19 2011 03:28 unteqair wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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. 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? I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
It's the other way around, men are more choosy than women rofl
|
On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem... Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion. Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol). If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way.
I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad.
|
On December 19 2011 03:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem... Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion. Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol). If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage. Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way. I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad.
Marriage still has a large signification outside of Western societies. Western societies are indivudalists and so they think individually, hence why marriage has less of an effect or validity.
In the East, marriage is still sacred and very important. So you have to think a lot more openly about the different cultures and their societies they are within. Divorce is still very shameful and frowned upon in many countries as well.
|
On December 19 2011 03:28 unteqair wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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. 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? I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that.
I just don't think you can explain women or men behavior with pseudo scientific theories. Women and men behavior is if anything a social construction. Women in Spain behave very differently and chose their lover in a different way than in Sweden. Saying that women are like that because of pregnancy and bla bla bla seems to me a way to write sexist clichés. in the stone of doubtful science.
|
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.
So long as women have a free choice, this is not going to happen. I think polygamy could easily be legalised once women rights are the same as those of men, provided women can also have more men. I'm pretty sure most people will still prefer monogamy due to the jealousy aspect 
|
On December 19 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem... Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion. Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol). If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage. Oh my position is that what matters is what is socially acceptable. Again, marriage is a narrow institution that in my opinion doesn't structure anymore people's relationship the way it used to do. It's just not that important anymore and a lot of people live unmarried and have a family life this way. I think the fact that people have the right to live their sexuality and love life almost the way they want as long as they don't hurt anybody, which is absolutely unique in history, is an incredible victory for everybody who believes in freedom. UK's repressive reaction brings us 40 years back. That's very sad. Marriage still has a large signification outside of Western societies. Western societies are indivudalists and so they think individually, hence why marriage has less of an effect or validity. In the East, marriage is still sacred and very important. So you have to think a lot more openly about the different cultures and their societies they are within. Divorce is still very shameful and frowned upon in many countries as well.
Yeah, but we are talking about the UK, and maybe about western world, I think?
Of course it's different elsewhere, there is no universals for these kind of things.
|
On December 19 2011 03:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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. Nope. Still pseudo-science. And one that give justification for viewing modern male infidelity as simply acting to their nature and modern female infidelity as acting against their nature. (Prowess vs Slut) How can you prove this theory and how does it help us understand anything further about the past then what we already know? Many cultures had polygamous relationships- and our genes made us do it. It's not like you can actually prove it because it's all subconscious and very Feudian as far as scientific rigorous explanations go. Can't prove it nor disprove it.
It doesn't matter whether you, Falling, denote it as a pseudo-science or not. Yes, there are too many variables to ever possibly know every cause. People are more likely to figure the secrets to the universe than to figure this stuff out. But I don't see how you can say it doesn't help give at least a better basic understanding.
And everyone at every given second is acting to their nature. That doesn't mean we should lower the laws. Acting with or against laws is part of our nature as well. There is no point to blame an action on nature and let someone off the hook, but it is better to understand why things happen and then change laws to provide incentives and disincentives for things to be the way envisioned.
|
On December 19 2011 03:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:28 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:13 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 03:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:42 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 02:35 unteqair wrote:On December 19 2011 00:24 doubled wrote:On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal 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. 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. 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. 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? I don't know what you think I am trying to justify or argue to you. What do you disagree with? That women are naturally more choosy than men? We don't need to argue that. I just don't think you can explain women or men behavior with pseudo scientific theories. Women and men behavior is if anything a social construction. Women in Spain behave very differently and chose their lover in a different way than in Sweden. Saying that women are like that because of pregnancy and bla bla bla seems to me a way to write sexist clichés. in the stone of doubtful science.
Yes, it is greatly a social construction and there is a lot of variance in behavior. We have a great deal of plasticity, and society molds us.
I'll give it to you that social science has its flaws, but I don't think it is very useful to call it pseudo science.
Edit: Just because you cannot very formally prove something does not make it useless or a pseudo-science. These theories have undergone criticism.
|
United States41961 Posts
On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem... Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion. Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol). If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage.
If a people want to formalise the relationships between them and give it legal standing then why not. That's exactly what a marriage is. Saying "you can just common law" it is the exact same shit people told homosexuals when they wanted to get married. Let's take a hypothetical example of a polygamist soldier who'd like to marry two women who know about each other and would like to partake in this marriage, they're in a happy healthy relationship together. The soldier dies and because they've not been allowed to marry the army doesn't pay any support to his girlfriends etc because their relationship has no legal identity. Marriage is a contract that people use to define their relationships, it should be as flexible as the relationships it can define. People can have marriages with pre-nups, marriages where the wife's property becomes the man's, marriages where the parties retain separate financial identities and anywhere in between. It's simply an overarching term for the formal recognition and identification of a relationship. There's no such thing as common law marriage because the point of marriage is that it's not common law.
|
On December 19 2011 03:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:27 Torte de Lini wrote:On December 19 2011 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 19 2011 03:17 Torte de Lini wrote: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. Yes, but societies evolve, people's behavior evolve, moral evolve and law evolve. Since sexual behavior is not strictly ruled anymore by judeo-christian moral as it was only 60 years ago, it would be logical that institution such as marriage evolve too. That has been the case with homosexuality. 60 years ago being gay would grant you prison in the UK, now they can marry. And it does change the structure of society, but that's not a problem... Yes, societies change, that doesn't mean that leniency goes along with it. Just because the christian faith has less power and a role in today's society doesn't mean that polygamy should be a proposition to be legal. Too many issues and nobody wants to open that can of worms for a minority opinion. Homosexuality and polygamy aren't the same at all and the comparison or association people are making between the two is a bit sickening (lol). If you want to be a polygamist, don't get married, form a common-law marriage. If a people want to formalise the relationships between them and give it legal standing then why not. That's exactly what a marriage is. Saying "you can just common law" it is the exact same shit people told homosexuals when they wanted to get married. Let's take a hypothetical example of a polygamist soldier who'd like to marry two women who know about each other and would like to partake in this marriage, they're in a happy healthy relationship together. The soldier dies and because they've not been allowed to marry the army doesn't pay any support to his girlfriends etc because their relationship has no legal identity. Marriage is a contract that people use to define their relationships, it should be as flexible as the relationships it can define. People can have marriages with pre-nups, marriages where the wife's property becomes the man's, marriages where the parties retain separate financial identities and anywhere in between. It's simply an overarching term for the formal recognition and identification of a relationship. There's no such thing as common law marriage because the point of marriage is that it's not common law.
Except homosexuals' marriage has zero repercussions on the law or bring up any issues. It's the same excuse, but one has a valid reasoning while the other doesn't (prohibiting homosexuals from marrying violates their charter of rights in Canada, thus why they are allowed to get married here).
Point being, a religion standpoint to prevent someone from getting married because it destroys the sacred unity of the symbolized marriage isn't a valid reason. Objectively saying that we can't allow polygamy because it would arise issues of the laws I listed previously is a lot more valid because it isn't a personal reason, but a societal one. If polygamy is allowed, then that creates a precedence for a lot of relationships ("I was married to my wife, but I love my mistress and spent an equal amount of time with her" is an example, though weak).
I'm all up for Prenuptional agreements for polygamy though health care still is an issue though, no?
|
Ok, a few things. First, the guy with the scientific explanation as to why females (particularly female mammals) are more "choosy" than males, is correct. He just didn't explain it that well. In short, eggs and the resulting pregnancy are a much larger resource investment than just sperm from a male. Is this something women are consciously aware of? Of course not. But it definitely is a factor (instinctive, if you want to use that word) regarding male/female human behavior. It is the same reason men are attracted to large breasted/assed women. There isn't a conscious reason men like it, but they do (women with these characteristics are more likely to bear healthy children). This is an oversimplification, but you get the point. Is this the ONLY factor regarding attraction? Of course not, and you can even find people who are attracted to the opposite. There are tons of cultural and personal factors that influence "attraction," and I don't think anyone can claim to know and understand all of them.
Second, marriage as a social practice, at least in the west, is there just as much to protect women as men. The idea that "1% of the men would have 50% of the women" or anything like that is, frankly, sort of dumb. I study ancient Roman history on a graduate level. A few things about ancient Rome: 1. It was incredibly patriarchal, 2. It isn't influenced by "christian values" 3. Men are viewed as superior to woman, literally, and were the ones in charge of laws and most societal customs. So why did ancient Romans have marriage very similar to "christian" marriage(1 man, 1 woman)? Well, there are a lot of reasons, frankly too many to list here. But a key one to keep in mind is that men have daughters. While this might seem trivial, when you look deeper there is a big reason for men to want marriage as an institution to protect their daughters. In Roman society, the head male of the family was responsible for the welfare of everyone else, particularly the women. Therefore, men are financially responsible for their daughters, until they marry them off, at which point the daughter's husband is now financially responsible for her. Fathers don't want their daughters in deadbeat families, obviously, but they also don't want to be responsible for their daughters all their life. Marriage as an institution ensures that their daughters are treated fairly (the husband cannot spread his wealth around several women, he must take care of just her), and that they can marry them off into financially responsible relationships. While it was expected that men would "tomcat around," to actually support another women that wasn't your wife was seen as a cultural taboo, and was one of one of the few reasons a woman could actually divorce her husband (through legal action of a male in her family).
There are a lot of other reasons marriage as 1 man, 1 woman has existed in the west, before Christianity, and I'd like to talk about more of them, but this is already tl;dr.
|
On December 19 2011 03:22 Torte de Lini wrote:
No, Marriage has an economic and sociologist effect as well. The only thing cultural about marriage is 1. its roles, 2. its institutional direction and 3. its intentions.
It has some effects but it shouldn't really have.
You should ask the governing bodies to concern themselves with equal rights, to be within a society and its benefits, you have to sacrifice some individual rights.
But they should ideally aim to keep as many individual rights as possible.
In my experience most laws and actions proposed pass that question compeletely in almost any country.
Something like marriage shouldn't gain people any more benefits than blood relations.
This case has nothing little to do with inheritance so it better be left out but that is one of the main points of it I have problems with.
To clear this, the only obligation and connection ( inheritance and duty - vice ) two humans should have in the eyes of law is that of a guardian and a minor. Unless one or both are in a special position where different laws should apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
