Jump to content

Why do people oppose polygamy?


Mighty Curelom

Recommended Posts

Hi CI... :unsure:

QUOTE 

You do know that the state would never get away with allowing men to have multiple partners and not women right?     

I know no such thing. Can you provide a legal analysis of why you think this might be so? And simply citing to the Equal Protection clause won't cut it. The is a rational distinction that can be drawn between a single man/multiple females model and the single woman/multiple males model.

QUOTE 

I respectfully disagree.

I'm shocked.

OK... just a little FYI... outside the LDS church, the vast majority of Americans do not think it is right for women to be denied rights and priviledges given to men. <_< The whole "women must obey their husbands" thing is seen as pretty archaic to most of our country. Trust me, it would NEVER happen! cool.gif

Next point.... if men only had to provide for one child and participated with five other men in the finances of a home etc etc there would be much more resources for families and children.... with more resources there is better health care, better education, less welfare, less crime, healthier children, etc. etc. etc.

In terms of domestic violence.... (this is actually my field), I know of no research that suggests that heterosexual men living together (roommates) have higher incidents of DV... well actually we wouldn't consider it DV but that is not the point.. The reality is that for the vast majority of cases, men do not physically abuse women with other men present, so the incidents of abuse would go down.

And CI... I agree the universe doesn't care... Source is a neutral observer!!!

But we can learn amazing things by being in harmony with the energy of which we are a part...

:P

~dancer~

Link to comment
OK... just a little FYI... outside the LDS church, the vast majority of Americans do not think it is right for women to be denied rights and priviledges given to men.  The whole "women must obey their husbands" thing is seen as pretty archaic to most of our country. Trust me, it would NEVER happen!

Okay....FYI....being inside or outside of the LDS Church is irrelevant. I asked you for a legal analysis that supports you assertion, not a personal opinion. Laws which discriminate based on gender are given only a mid-tier level of scrutiny. IMO, the laws I've described above, would easily meet that level. My analysis is totally independent of my status as a member of the Church.

In terms of domestic violence.... (this is actually my field), I know of no research that suggests that heterosexual men living together (roommates) have higher incidents of DV

In your scenario they aren't living as "roommates" rather they are co-husbands competing for the affections of one woman. If you can't see the potentiality for violence in that situation then I can't help you.

The reality is that for the vast majority of cases, men do not physically abuse women with other men present, so the incidents of abuse would go down.

And as I noted, and you conveniently ignored, my concern for DV wasn't against the woman, it was male on male. The effect of violence on the child occurs irrespective of who is being abused. Moreover, the presence of so many males in the home substantially increased the chances of sexual abuse to all the children in the home.

But we can learn amazing things by being in harmony with the energy of which we are a part...

Some where I hear crystals tinkling snd someone is chanting.

C.I.

Link to comment

CI...

I'm trying to have a lighthearted discussion and you seem to be getting fairly nasty... Maybe I'm reading you incorrectly.

I'm not an attorney so sorry that I can't give you a legal analysis of a potential series of make believe laws... <_<

Who knows maybe you are right... Maybe the country will embrace some laws that limit the rights of women in this way... I suppose we will just have to wait and see who is right huh?

And as I noted, and you conveniently ignored, my concern for DV wasn't against the woman, it was male on male. The effect of violence on the child occurs irrespective of who is being abused. Moreover, the presence of so many males in the home substantially increased the chances of sexual abuse to all the children in the home.

IMO, men rooming together does not constitute domestic violence... they are unrelated males.... I don't know of anything to support your idea that males living together have a high rate of abuse among themselves... Of course it will be detrimental for children to witness violence but as I said I don't see why this is an issue... And the chance of sexual abuse will not increase because each child will have a biological father in the home... if anything this would protect a child not make her/him more vulnerable... If men willingly decided to enter in this form of relationship I just don't see why the issue of "men competeing for a woman" would be an issue...

But I don't think any form of multiple legal partnerships are ever going to exist... and I think it is a VERY good thing.

I think I'll just leave it at that and wish you well,

:P

~dancer~

Link to comment

I'd just like to add that even though I believe opposition to polygamy is based on cultural bias, I don't think we should underestimate the value of societal mores.

Since cultural values are subject to a system of natural selection, the trend for societal mores is a continual process of progress and refinement. Unsuccessful mores (that is, cultural values which don't sufficiently benefit society enough to remain part of that society) will be filtered out through a process of trial and error, while the successful behaviors/values will be retained and passed on. This is one of the reasons why modern society values marriage so much

Link to comment
You do know that the state would never get away with allowing men to have multiple partners and not women right?  :P  <_<

Wouldn't that depend on the merits of what is best for the society in which men and women both vote? Many of both your and CI argument *seem* slanted towards your positions . . but shouldn't society do a better study of what works and what doesn't to establish what the state has an interest in? Or should we just continue to argue amongst ourselves at a large cost for no substantial benefit (as seems to be the case in the world today)?

A few ways society might benefit... (I'm basing this on the idea that a woman would have just as many children but each father would have less.. IOW a woman might have five children from five fathers rather than one father with five children)

In this case each man would also have only 1/5th of the responsibility and would therefore be incented to reduce productivity . . not a benefit for society.

Also, given that men and women are born in relatively even proportions, it is probable that some women would be incented to focus more on self and no longer have children . . resulting in another drop in future productivity.

There would be virtually NO need for any form of welfare system.
Link to comment
Of course that's your point. However, you've demonstrated in this and other threads that you have a profound misunderstanding (or at least a shallow understanding) of the finer points of evolution. You might want to read up on it. I suggest Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

Ahhh the condiscension gene kicks on in MC.

MC - just because one disagrees with an point does not mean one does not understand the issue. The problem with some of the "theories" about evolution being the sole source of man's morality is that it lacks proof! It makes a nice story, and I do agree with some of the POV presented, but it is a very difficult beast to prove. Known human history does not go back far enough for us to gage -from an evolutionary frame - the correlation between morality and evolution in man.

Some of the arguments are even circular. Morality is a result of evolution. We know this because man has morals. Man has morals because they evolved. I realize this is simplified from the argument presented but I did not want to go over your head (condiscension can work both ways :P ).

So before you critique me on my lack of understanding, please tell me what proof you are using to show that all morals are a product of evolution. Remember to use data and not just an author's opinion and keep it within known evoltionary time frames. Thanks

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...