I think the women in those circumstances would be “forced” into subservient roles whether they practiced polygamy or not.
Nonsense. Polygamy can be very abusive and oppressive; it isn’t always, but it’s silly to pretend that it never works that way. And there’s no evidence at all of same sex marriage being “bad and negative”, except empty assertions like your own.
OK, fine; I then hereby declare that polygamy leads to the oppression of women, sexual abuse, and Satanism; while same sex marriage leads to peace, love, and the spontaneous materialization of kittens wherever the same sex couple walk. By your own “logic” you should take what I just said seriously.
Having an orphan “[COLOR=“Navy”]**” stuck on the end of a quote.
Yup, which is why I disagree with the court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the criminilization of polygamy in BC (where thar be fundie Mormons doin’ what fundie Mormons do). 2011 BCSC 1588 Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada
(from reply #89):
Anyone with a two-digit IQ ought to be able to handle this problem
without breaking a sweat.
I have no problem with the fact that your argument is based on your opinions. It’s a moral issue and that basically comes down to a matter of opinions.
But this is a forum for debates not just posting your views. By posting here, you implicitly agreed to engage in a debate of your views. Some of us have responded to what you wrote but you seem to no interest in engaging in a dialogue.
Is you post a form of witnessing? If so, we have a different forum for that.
I thought that was what Great Debates was for.
You’re right. I though witnessing threads had been moved to another forum but I see I was wrong. So I guess the OP is in the correct forum.
We really do need a special forum for witnessing. One with no rules.
… and no participants except those witnessing?
Remove the silly language rules from the BBQ Pit, and there you have it. People use it for “witnessing” all the time.
Incidentally, I’ll just clarify this claim (although I don’t agree with most of the other claims). Israel wasn’t a democracy but it was arepublic with the Mosaic Law functioning as a sort of Constitution until the monarchy got established. Quite a few religious Libertarians consider it a model of both a Godly society and a libertarian or constitutional republic.
No, polygamy for men only greatly reduces the stature of women in society. Gender inequality is its basis. Its greatly affects women, large majority of whom are economically dependent on their husbands in India currently.
What made you think I ever left? BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!
Okay, I’m not really him. But I had you scared, didn’t I?
If polygamy works differently in every marriage, how could you possibly know with any real level of certainty that it would work well in the majority, or enough for it to be considered more than a fringe practice?
The central concept or an idea’s intention have very little to do with how it actually works in practice and affects the world.
But those single men do want to have sex with women, and if there’s not a substantial surplus of women, that entails having sex with a married woman, which is almost as universally disapproved of.
If polygamy led to a society where women were treated as property without any actual harm done to them physically, where does that fit in? Is mental harm sufficient grounds for outlawing it? Because it creates demonstrable psychological damage:
“Findings reveal differences between women in polygamous and monogamous marriages. Women in polygamous marriages showed significantly higher psychological distress, and higher levels of somatisation, phobia and other psychological problems. They also had significantly more problems in family functioning, marital relationships and life satisfaction.”
What is your evidence for this assertion?
Where is your evidence that polygamy reduces substance abuse and suicide? How do you know that the women involved are truly choosing to engage in polygamy of their own free will, and not out of a sense of social obligation and familial pressure, or fear of being ostracized as an antisocial, amoral spinster?
I readily accept your assertion that divorce rates are lower, but not for the reasons you want me to - I posit that it’s because A) They aren’t legally married, and you cannot have an legal divorce without a legal marriage, and B) They are under pressure by (largely fundamentalist Christian / Mormon) societies which vehemently oppose divorce as a violation of God’s laws and ordination at best, and being tantamount to adultery and social ostracism of the woman at worst.
This isn’t even getting into the mechanics which tend to present themselves eventually which the husband is usually unaware of, such as competition amongst the wives for primacy. If a woman refuses to sleep with her husband for whatever reason, discounting the possibility of spousal rape, she is still punished through ostracism for not “fulfilling her end of the bargain” so to speak; for not performing her duties as a wife.
If you post again in this thread FounderChurch, please address all my points. And please provide evidence in the form of peer-reviewed studies from reputable scientific journals as I did when I refuted your point about polygamy not “causing harm”.
(Sorry for the double post, but, couldn’t help myself)
You are absolutely wrong here. This is a forum for productive debate. You are doing nothing productive by hand waving about “facts” you refuse to back up, and saying it’s our obligation to prove your point for you. That is, at the very least, not how this subforum works, and at most not how any of these forums save perhaps the BBQ pit operate.
If you start a thread here in Great Debates, you are expected to offer a reason for that thread and earnestly defend your points, or you’ll be written off as a troll just trying to rile people up. If you are, you’re on track - if however you actually believe what you say, you have the obligation in this forum to defend it.
Naah - Israelite Judges weren’t elected, they were appointed (sometimes nepotistically e.g. Samuel’s sons) => not a Republic in any meaningful sense of the word (even if you’re a complete Bible historicist, which I’m not).
Can’t I be both? Why do I have to choose?
Is it just me, or do I smell colonial socks?
Aside from that, my husband and I are still wondering what “male wives” are.
If anyone misses the writings of the OP, you can visit his web sites.
Saint Sara! Hilarious!