EPTPagan wins human rights polygamy case - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
| ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:54 Lebzetu wrote: Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will. If that was me, I'd handle it like a mature adult. I wanted one thing, she didn't want it and hid what she wanted, therefore she is untrustworthy and I can move on. it's not about selfishness, coldness or anything like that. It's about understanding that there's a fundamental difference of belief and desire that will never allow the relationship to work. You might love some people to death, but you cant always stay friends or lovers with them if they insist on doing things destructive to the relationship. | ||
|
Flipside
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:03 Humanfails wrote: I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women. It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on. On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it? As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please. With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways. 1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into. 2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women. 3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:15 frogrubdown wrote: With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways. 1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into. 2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women. 3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it. Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc. There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc. Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them. Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks. If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this. | ||
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Germany171 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. This is an immature and erroneous approach to state and law. It is true, the state does and, in fact, should stay away from the bedroom, as it is never the business of the state to intervene in the personal - sexual - affairs of people. It is, however, obliged by law to protect and uphold the contract entered upon by its citizens, even those of personal nature such as marriage. Now to the items you raised. An affair concurrent with a marriage is, as a matter of fact, a violation of the aforementioned contract (marriage) and as long as any party (depending on the legal requirements stipulated by the country) pursues legal action, the state has no choice but decide on the matter. And it has to do this whether the affair is a secret or is done with the legal partners knowledge and consent. What you miss here Kwark is the dynamics of citizenship and state. Remember, the state does not force anyone to marry. a man or woman can have a hundred boyfriends or girlfriends simultaneously and the state wouldn't even as much as bother to notice. But once people enter into a state-sanctioned contract, these dynamics change drastically. This is more for practical reasons than anything else. First and foremost is to synchronize the rights practiced by the citizen in consonant with the other laws of the land - property ownership, child support, etc., not to mention that sorry affair of official documentation. For sure there are gray areas, but the state, as it should, operates on a rule of majority rather than exemption. In short, if you do not intend to play by the rules, don't play the game. You are free to fornicate with as many consenting woman as you want, even simultaneously, if you did not bind yourself and another person AND the state to a contract that you swore to respect and obey. | ||
|
Nancial
197 Posts
what doesnt hurt anybody physically against his will should be legal  | ||
|
Xcobidoo
Sweden1871 Posts
On December 19 2011 00:29 Avius wrote: I never thought about it this way, but this makes absolute sense. Women are naturally drawn to men of power, so basically every normal guy would be left to hang. I'm not for or against polygamy actually, because I don't care how people choose to live their lives if it has no effect on mine anyway, but from this PoV it seems like it makes sense that polygamy has been declared illegal. Not sure if this is the actual reason as to why it is illegal. As for the case described in the OP, I'm not quite sure. I'm neither in Law nor Philosophical Arts but for me personally, being one dumb grunt in billions, I don't really care what those pagans do. It could trigger a "why them and not us" attitude from other people, but I can't comment on that. And tbh, when I read the title I just saw the Pagan and thought "WOW ULTIMA 8: PAGAN". Such a good game. Oh we're not making generalizations here at all. All women are NATURALLY drawn to power? No, some women are. Just as some men are drawn to powerful women. Please don't make shit up. As to the real topic, it just seems weird in a country like the UK, your religion does not excuse illegal behaviour/illegal actions, period. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:27 Xcobidoo wrote: Oh we're not making generalizations here at all. All women are NATURALLY drawn to power? No, some women are. Just as some men are drawn to powerful women. Please don't make shit up. As to the real topic, it just seems weird in a country like the UK, your religion does not excuse illegal behaviour/illegal actions, period. he said it wrong. all women are naturally drawn to money and success. All men are too, in one way or another. How do we know? When was the last supermodel who married a homeless person? | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:20 Humanfails wrote: Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc. There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc. Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them. Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks. If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this. In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:23 Nancial wrote: why is it illegal, retarded laws. what doesnt hurt anybody physically against his will should be legal Nah, I'm pretty glad that polygamy is illegal. I really hope it stays illegal. There is nothing good that can come out of polygamy, and there is a lot of bad. One man with the ability to have multiple wives means that one man can radically influence a huge number of people in an incredibly bad way. For example, in a polygamist marriage with five wives it would not be impossible for one man to be the father of 50+ children and to teach all 50+ of those children to become a Conservative or Liberal or Capitalist or Communist. It also causes issues with men becoming single as many more men would end up single if polygamy was legalized. As a currently single man I will say that it's hard enough to find a girl that I'd want to spend my life with. It'd be even harder if powerful men could have multiple spouses. Polygamy is bad for democracy and bad for society. | ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
On December 19 2011 00:29 Avius wrote: I never thought about it this way, but this makes absolute sense. Women are naturally drawn to men of power, so basically every normal guy would be left to hang. I'm not for or against polygamy actually, because I don't care how people choose to live their lives if it has no effect on mine anyway, but from this PoV it seems like it makes sense that polygamy has been declared illegal. Not sure if this is the actual reason as to why it is illegal. As for the case described in the OP, I'm not quite sure. I'm neither in Law nor Philosophical Arts but for me personally, being one dumb grunt in billions, I don't really care what those pagans do. It could trigger a "why them and not us" attitude from other people, but I can't comment on that. And tbh, when I read the title I just saw the Pagan and thought "WOW ULTIMA 8: PAGAN". Such a good game. More like human beings crave stability... I mean, poor women would see it as a great exchange: Food and shelter for sex... without the chance you're arrested or given a disease. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 19 2011 02:02 MrStorkie wrote: I believe it's Vietnam that is one of the bigger exporter of wives. Yeah, especially to South Korea. Korea has a pretty decent-sized rural immigrant population of Vietnamese women brought by Korean farmers, who due to their work and location being rabidly counter to today's South Korean [pop] culture, are essentially incapable of finding women, since pretty much no women there want to live in the countryside. Not too much fun and materialism out there in the country :S. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:32 Humanfails wrote: he said it wrong. all women are naturally drawn to money and success. All men are too, in one way or another. How do we know? When was the last supermodel who married a homeless person? I suppose I don't understand your point though. People, (of both genders) are attracted to what is deemed socially prestigious, be it Wealth, Age, Looks, Profession, etc. That's not news to anyone as far as I'm aware. What bearing does this have on polygamy and the discussion though? | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
Seriously, like one guy said, do most of you really KNOW any women that aren't your mothers? Seriously. Most women I know, whether in a relationship with me or someone else, are pretty jealous. They don't fancy the idea of their man being with another woman, regardless of what they might "pay" in order to do it. Sure, that isn't all women, or PEOPLE, to be more accurate. Just like most guys in this thread don't want their wife/gf/etc. with someone else, neither do most women. Are there exceptions to this? Of course, but in my experience, they are in the minority. Even if every women turned into the hypothetical woman in this thread, which they surely wouldn't, why would two women want to be with a guy that makes $150,000/year and spreads that money and, more importantly, his attention between two women, when they can each be with one that makes $50,000/year and spends all their attention on just them? Even in the ridiculous scenario of "women just want men with money(which is SO far from true)," it STILL doesn't hold up. | ||
|
Release
United States4397 Posts
On December 19 2011 08:54 Lebzetu wrote: Still. If you are dating some girl of your dreams and she is cheating with someone else behind your back, wouldn't you find yourself betraid? Acts like that are sick in my opinion. Disagree with my opinion if you want, but I stand firm thinking that its not right. If somehow you have your partners consent to sleep with others (god knows how) then by all means go for it. But secret intercourse is just sad. This is an opinion post, disagree with it if you will. The problem with your post is not your opinion, but the use of "right." It's too subjective to describe an ambiguous topic. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:35 frogrubdown wrote: In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general. I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses) Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y. You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality? On December 19 2011 09:53 Release wrote: The problem with your post is not your opinion, but the use of "right." It's too subjective to describe an ambiguous topic. More or less. Whats right for or to her isn't necessarily what's right for or to you. If you believed it was right for or to you, you wouldn't give a shit. And then it'd probably make her feel dis-empowered and weak because people usually cheat as a power struggle as much as anything else. Cheaters tend to have an insatiable need to validate themselves, even if they are completely capable and powerful in real life, via influence or money. It's called narcissism. Anyway, If it's not right for or to you, in your own mind, you dump them and find someone who either will fully disclose what they want to do outside of the relationship so that you're on the same page and can accept or reject them to start, or they have values which are similar to your own so that you don't get cheated on. Its why when I was in London and was approached by some students and asked to mark down the most important virtue and place it on a world map, I placed truth on it. IF people were honest with themselves and others, things would get done a lot faster and be a lot less headache. Truth is the closest to maturity people can get. | ||
|
kellymilkies
Singapore1393 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:37 overt wrote: Nah, I'm pretty glad that polygamy is illegal. I really hope it stays illegal. There is nothing good that can come out of polygamy, and there is a lot of bad. One man with the ability to have multiple wives means that one man can radically influence a huge number of people in an incredibly bad way. For example, in a polygamist marriage with five wives it would not be impossible for one man to be the father of 50+ children and to teach all 50+ of those children to become a Conservative or Liberal or Capitalist or Communist. It also causes issues with men becoming single as many more men would end up single if polygamy was legalized. As a currently single man I will say that it's hard enough to find a girl that I'd want to spend my life with. It'd be even harder if powerful men could have multiple spouses. Polygamy is bad for democracy and bad for society. I like what you say here overt. I've had plenty of discussions about monogamy and polygamy. I do accept people who are polygamous. I have a friend who's parents are polygamous. 1 dad, 3 mom, yeah. But it should not be considered the norm nor be extra encouraged at our generation. If society or evolution of civilization do continue to that stage then it should take over the natural course of the world. Natural course of the world could be, one of the most logical example I can think of right now: if a one certain sex (male or female) gets a disease that is uncurable and ONLY affects their gender people, then naturally you will have to have a society where you mate to support the world population. But this will probably not be happening over a short period of time, it will be over years, or even hundreds of years to develop, because I doubt a disease SO noticeable or bearable would not be attacked or discovered until it takes too long to find a cure for it. Example, on current medical possibilities and science, it is possible to cure The Plague in a really quick period of time thus "containing and eliminating the disease" completely. So I guess by naturally, I mean a millennium or two. Think about if there are more women than man now in the world, but definitely not 1:2. So if a man has 5 wives, that makes them unavailable to cater to other men if they are already committed in a polygamous family (suggested if this becomes the norm many many years from now.). Then the world's population will tilt really unevenly and badly until, possibly, women becomes a 10:1 ration after 5 generations or some sort of thing like that. That means they will get less and less till it eventually becomes next to impossible to have a mate because a certain gender/sex will become endangered and like all things endangered in this earth, they usually end up extinct. Which means human race will eventually die out. Or maybe they find out immortality by then. (?) This is also suggesting that polygamous family = 1 man 5 women. However, I am sure there will be cases where 1 woman + 5 men. So I guess the biggest problem would be how tilted will the ratio in men:women become if this becomes a "norm" which means it will be a "fashion statement" for civilization for a while which means for 2 - 3 generations after based on human evolution on inter-sex relationship, usually a 1 man to #x number of women is more possible. (Some areas in the world already see this as "wealth" or "power" like rural chinese areas, or muslims(their religion allows multiple wives, afaik, 4) or people with religions already open to polygamy.) Would society be able to evolved out of the 1man:#x woman state? Again, all this evolving is assuming that I may or may not high be right now and just saying whatever I have been thinking deeply about for most of the time in my life, (yes, I believe in parallel universes, the big bang and that they are species more advanced than us who knows our existence but think of us as insignificant right now which is why they have no interest in contacting us... yet...) kelly. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:43 HardlyNever wrote: This thread has turned into foreveralone.txt. Seriously, like one guy said, do most of you really KNOW any women that aren't your mothers? Seriously. Most women I know, whether in a relationship with me or someone else, are pretty jealous. They don't fancy the idea of their man being with another woman, regardless of what they might "pay" in order to do it. Sure, that isn't all women, or PEOPLE, to be more accurate. Just like most guys in this thread don't want their wife/gf/etc. with someone else, neither do most women. Are there exceptions to this? Of course, but in my experience, they are in the minority. Even if every women turned into the hypothetical woman in this thread, which they surely wouldn't, why would two women want to be with a guy that makes $150,000/year and spreads that money and, more importantly, his attention between two women, when they can each be with one that makes $50,000/year and spends all their attention on just them? Even in the ridiculous scenario of "women just want men with money(which is SO far from true)," it STILL doesn't hold up. The fact is polygamy favors women. Not men. I don't want the Western world to go back to polygamy. I'm happy with a society of monogamy. As a man I have no reason to want polygamy to become legal. Also the social norms of how modern relationships work come from centuries of western society being monogamous. edit: And for what it's worth, I wouldn't like get mad at or judge people who chose to be polygamists. I just don't want the state encouraging it. | ||
|
eyya
10 Posts
On December 19 2011 09:56 Humanfails wrote: I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses) Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y. You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality? Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life. Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS. The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring. The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible... There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime  | ||
| ||
