|
On December 19 2011 03:55 HardlyNever wrote:
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 would cut him slack and not be so mean. I think it is safe to say he was only exaggerating.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
It's funny to see people who probably strongly believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection to so easily dismiss theories of human behavior based on biology and evolution. It's a highly anti-intellectual way of looking at things.
I truly believe that being able to actively betray our instincts is what helps make us human than mere beasts. But let's not kid ourselves and think we got this far by ignoring our instincts before we were technologically advanced / intelligent enough to do so. If a female choosing her mate more selectively led to a higher success of raising a child to adulthood, then it's reasonable to say that natural selection should make that trait one of the instincts / factors that women naturally find "attractive" in men. Over millions of years, the ones who didn't would not multiply as rapidly or die off all together, while the ones with the correct selective criteria would see more success (in the most simplistic terms). To brush it off as "omg you think my gf chose me because of that?!?!" is just an absolute non-sense way of looking at it and reminds me of a high school classroom philosophy discussion.
I'm not saying it's anywhere near 100% fact or certain, but the arguments given against it here for the most part have been pretty poor. And there's no reason to take offense to the proposition that it may be true, because like I said, humans are more than just mere instincts. But instincts do in fact contribute to our preferences -- they just do not always dominate them.
|
On December 19 2011 03:57 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +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.Show nested quote +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.
You should explain your points instead of relying on me to reject or disagree and explain why.
I'll bold which ones because to be honest, some of this is a bit short-sighted.
|
It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote:
It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society.
No, it's not really clear at all.
|
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.
And that doesn't happen because having mistresses is illegal, right..?
On December 19 2011 04:15 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote:
It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society. No, it's not really clear at all.
Would you extrapolate as to why it's legal for me to have a mistress, but not formally recognise her as a partner equal to my wife?
Or, alternatively, why the sanctity of the bond between people who marry for money needs to be protected, in preference to one that's between three consenting adults who love eachother?
Is there any particular reason for why I can have multiple girlfriends at the same time, yet not marry more then one of them?
Or why the law doesn't stop me from marrying off my teenage daughter to a creepy cult leader (As long as it's just me who's doing so)?
|
On December 19 2011 04:01 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 03:57 HwangjaeTerran wrote: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.
How can individual freedom be a bad thing? I don't know how to explain it any better.
Freedom gets the stick for every unrealistic fear the countries leaders ( including the big corporations) have or to protect the government. Freedom of speech has been under the radar a lot lately.
I don't know maybe my views are a bit too utopian but I don't think I could stand living thinking people around me are complete retards and need the big brother 24/7
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.
You should explain your points instead of relying on me to reject or disagree and explain why.
I'll bold which ones because to be honest, some of this is a bit short-sighted.
People should benefit from performing a rite that only holds meaning to some? Writing a name on paper with someone else shouldn't result in you getting special service or special laws protecting you or most of their belongings when they die by default.
I think whenever people get something more than other people leads directly into more inequality.
Not much work is put into being married or related to someone.
I guess those are pretty radical ideas, I forgive you.
I'm not against giving gifts to people but there should be heavy limitations, especially post mortem when the "gifts" are generally considerable.
|
good.
if ppl can hold on to more than 1 woman than damn son you did good.
the only ppl againstt polygamy are the same people holding back our entire civilization
|
this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
|
On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote:
this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom.
Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
On December 19 2011 04:15 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 04:08 liberal wrote:
It's clear there isn't really a legitimate argument against making polygamy legal. Even if there was a legitimate argument, it should typically be disregarded on the principle that punishing two or more adults for making a consensual transaction is generally immoral and more conducive to an authoritarian state than to a free society. No, it's not really clear at all.
You can feel free to elaborate at any time as well. Five pages without a legitimate argument, seems pretty clear to me...
|
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.
What makes you think you know the true nature of marriage and they don't? lol
|
I thought female choose male that they think will have gene that will benefit for their offspring is common sense. It was written in like hundreds of papers or something.
|
On December 19 2011 04:45 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote:
this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom. Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way."
pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft).
but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't.
Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females.
10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own.
now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men.
but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?.
|
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it.
|
On December 19 2011 05:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 04:45 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote:
this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom. Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way." pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft). but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't. Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females. 10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own. now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men. but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?.
So let me make sure I understood this...
Your argument is that polygamy should remain illegal, because women should be forced to choose less desirable partners, otherwise some men won't have partners and will attack those who do.
Sorry, but it sounds like you are living in a fantasy world. It would be much more honest to just say "this is what society taught me, and anything different is for baboons and monkeys."
|
On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it.
So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here?
|
I seriously doubt the large majority of women would want to live in a polygamous relationship even if it was legal. Some of you make it seem this is some secret desire every woman have...
|
I don't like how muslim people are bringing their values to Europe.
|
On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here?
Yes.
Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa.
|
On December 19 2011 05:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:29 xM(Z wrote:On December 19 2011 04:45 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 04:42 xM(Z wrote:
this thread is the perfect example of how people use reason to go back to stoneage and call it evolution and/or execising ones god given freedom. Calling something "stone age" isn't actually an argument against polygamy. Try actually explaining why you think polygamy is bad, if you have any reason at all other than "tradition or society told me it's supposed to be this way." pragmatism mostly. there are way to many variables but basically polygamy is always bad for males and always better for females (asuming they don't get the shaft). but what you're doing here is use the social construct that developed/evolved from marriage and think it'll hold up if you make changes to it. well it won't. Ex: 100 people, 50% males 50% females. 10 men, being the most rich/pretty/strong/intelligent/blablabla, get all the females. those other 40 males will basically have no purpose in their lifes since they can't/won't reproduce let allone make families of their own. now, not only those men will not be able to further their gene pool but will also be required to work for the other 10man so they'll be able to upkeep their women. but why would they do what?. well they won't. they'll form batchelor groups and seek ways to end the reign of those 10men. but hey!, since we're all monkeys here, why couldn't we be more like baboons, right?. So let me make sure I understood this... Your argument is that polygamy should remain illegal, because women should be forced to choose less desirable partners, otherwise some men won't have partners and will attack those who do. Sorry, but it sounds like you are living in a fantasy world. It would be much more honest to just say "this is what society taught me, and anything different is for baboons and monkeys."
well maybe not illegal but should not be accomodated for. i am vastly a mysogyn(?) so i figured the women won't really make a choise there. they'll just follow the other females, go with the visual impact or follow the money.
my example was out of touch with the realities of today (i implied it imo), but you is the one living in a fantasy world if you think that everything that happened 'till now as far as the 'social evolution' goes is wrong/bad and needs a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
