Killfile wrote:Ok - first off, the diminished role of women in many highly conservative Muslim cultures doesn't mean that polygamous marriage causes that. Black people were treated like crap in the United States from until about 1970 -- does that mean that capitalism as an institution is racist?
I never said that, I even stated that's not the reason. But what I meant was that since muslim woman have such a little role, that speaking out against polygamy would be of no use. If you can't publicly debate something that affects your life in a daily basis means you have no control of it, thus lack some freedom.
And I'm trying to think of polygamy in our current world, not the past. I perfectly understand the reason of early marriage. It made sense back then. But like I said, the present is a far different world than was the past. the reasons of early marriage, polygamy are not really needed anymore. Or at least in american culture, and non-third world countries.
grimStar wrote:
But what I meant was that since muslim woman have such a little role, that speaking out against polygamy would be of no use.
I think that you're WAY overgeneralizing the influence of Muslim women (there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world...approximately half are women...they aren't all as repressed as you make them sound). But even if you were right, would not the cause of the repression be the culture in question rather than the marriage system? Are you arguing that Muslim women in non-polygamous marriages are less repressed than those in polygamous ones?
grimStar wrote:And I'm trying to think of polygamy in our current world, not the past. I perfectly understand the reason of early marriage. It made sense back then. But like I said, the present is a far different world than was the past. the reasons of early marriage, polygamy are not really needed anymore. Or at least in american culture, and non-third world countries.
There is no third world. The classification is both outdated and imperialist. The term you're looking for is most likely "developing" but it's best to think of the issue in terms of kinship cultures rather development.
Why do you continue to equate early marriage with polygamy? And why do you think that there is an unavoidable connection between homosexual marriage and polygamy? Finally, are you exclusing polyandry purposefully? I'm still not getting your point.
lol....third world..developing ...same thing in my eye, just different words. Same thing with polyandry...I'm just to lazy to type it all.
I'm talking about muslim women in middle eastern countries. not the world. It would be stupid for me to generalize. I'm just to lazy to type too much and be explicit with every detail.
I do not equate early marriage with polygamy. Only connection I make with homosexual marriage and polygamy is dealing with morality. If you say it's morally wrong for 2 consenting adults to marry, you cannot really say it's morally wrong that multiple consenting adults cannot marry. Because the only difference is the number. That's is all.
Perhaps I need to add on to the sticky "new users" thread with a glossary of political terminology. "Third World" is a cold war term - and without a Second World, it doesn't really fit anymore. That said, I get lazy and use it too from time to time.
Ok - so let me see if I follow you here.
You're not equating polygamy to early marriage at all - and you're not arguing that women in a polygamous marriage are in any way weaker... just that at the moment, countries that allow polygamy tend to have weaker roles for women.
You're not addressing polyandry because, well, you don't really care enough about it too. I'd guess you think the polygamy argument covers both sides - which is very forward thinking of you in a (rather odd) way.
The crux of all you've said thus far is this. Allowing homosexual marriage opens the door to all other forms of marriage which are not between one man and one woman. You provide an example for this argument with polygamy/polyandry -- arguing that there is no moral distinction between these unions and same sex unions. No judgment of the morality of these unions is stated or implied, you're just making the slippery slope argument.
If I'm wrong about any of this, please say so - as I'm trying to triangulate exactly what it is you mean.
Assuming I've understood you correctly - our discussion can continue.
For the record, I'm with you on the "polygamy would suck" argument - just not for moral reasons.
Killfile wrote:"Third World" is a cold war term - and without a Second World, it doesn't really fit anymore. That said, I get lazy and use it too from time to time.
Okay...so it's a pet peeve of mine. I'll attempt to not be a pest about it.
Killfile wrote:For the record, I'm with you on the "polygamy would suck" argument - just not for moral reasons.
Killfile wrote:
The crux of all you've said thus far is this. Allowing homosexual marriage opens the door to all other forms of marriage which are not between one man and one woman. You provide an example for this argument with polygamy/polyandry -- arguing that there is no moral distinction between these unions and same sex unions. No judgment of the morality of these unions is stated or implied, you're just making the slippery slope argument.
Exactly, but I don't think it opens to many doors. The only one I can think of deals with polygamy/polyandry.
Just for clarification I am for same sex marriages. I do live in San Fran, and I see no difference between the love of a heterosexual couple and same sex couples. But I am somewhat against polygamy, not because it's between consenting adults. But because I personally think over generations it CAN(but not always) diminish the role of a partner. I just felt that it's possible that this would be the argument because when I was thinking and using the moral argument for same sex marriage, I then realized the same argument can be used for polygamy.
I'm a big believer that ALL marriages should for the most part be as equal as possible. Even though that was not the case in the past, I feel it is necessary for equality for all people in this day and age. But since I have not lived around polygamy and not too familiar I can't entirely say if it does diminish roles or not.
First of all, I don't feel have much time in looking up a list of things that seem to have been designed. Rather I will just name one thing (I think that will suffice) that is a strong indicator of design, but doesn't deal with evolution exactly. I remember learning about one equation that I think, Kepler came up with that describes how far each orbit of a planet is away from each other. Amazingly, the equation worked out perfectly in determining the orbits. Now, don't tell me this whole universe was merely an accident that started from a Big Bang explosion. Thats bullshit. The equation i believe is Tsquared = Rcubed (the last part I am not sure).
As for the idea that the argument against homosexuality can't be made against heterosexual couples who can't have kids, well the thing is historically, and logically, you can have kids. I mean, even if they can't have kids for themselves. Other couples are able to do so in the male-female arrangement. Whereas, for homosexual couples, i dont know of any that are able to have kids just by having sex. this is why the argument can't be brought against heterosexual couples who can't have kids.
Ok, so maybe my dog example was unsatisfactory. But someone (Grimstar i think) did bring up a good point with polygamy/polyandry. How about that? Seeing that both male and females can have multiple marriage partners, I think that would then be ok if homosexual marriage is allowed. I mean, by now with the feminist movement and the civil rights movement, I think we are considerate and not ignorant anymore, so if we allow polygamy it should be fine then that multiple partners marry especially there shouldnt be as much misogyny or sexism as when it was common historically. Plus the partners can find out how they treat men and women through dating.
Ok i just found the equation. It's called the harmonic law and is p2 (goldfish like sign) a3 (2 and 3 are squared and cubed respectively). The length of the orbit increases with orbit speed decreasing has a relationship with the amount of time it takes to make a revolution around the sun. This ratio is the same for all of the planets.
