• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,608
Maybe but one-wife-one-man leads to mediocrity as well. It's OK if you're in the 1800s wild west prairie, oh except for the mormons.

What have we got against the mormons?

Also in gaelic times our chiefs had a wife and recognised concubines. I like the sound of that.
I don't think its wrong across time, if you were losing half the men in wars every 20 years it makes perfect sense. the question is it good or bad for a 21st century modern society. the closest we have is our well paid executive who gets married and divorced 3 or 4 times and continues to fund these ex wives and children, but even that's not great as these kids are probably the cry babies turning up in college in the US recently.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,608
Children of poor parents will tend to be less well off than children of rich ones. Is that a reason to ban poor people from marrying, in your view?
all things being equal its a worse alternative to that man having just 1 wife and 2 or 3 kids, so its simply an inferior arrangement as far as the rest of society is concerned
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
I agree that it's a sexist institution as it is normally practiced. It isn't obvious that that is sufficient to make it illegal though.
Because what I was implying is that wants he appears to want is a specific form of polygamy, that being 1 man and several women. It stands to reason that any legal arrangement that excludes females should be illegal, would you not agree?
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,833
I cant imagine the parenting standards would be very high , lets say "worst case" its 4 wives and 8? children, being Muslim the wives will probably be poorly educated and lets face it a university educated woman isn't going to go for this so I just see as an engine for for producing the next generation of backwardly raised kids

Surely bringing them to the first world to be paid for by the kuffar is a clever parenting strategy?

Think of it as a natural process, as the kuffar weaken and are unable to pay the bills they will fall away. It must be the will of allah!

Who cares if the kuffar bill-payers are clever, if they don't also have wisdom?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
94,779
all things being equal its a worse alternative to that man having just 1 wife and 2 or 3 kids, so its simply an inferior arrangement as far as the rest of society is concerned
It seems to me that we shouldn't base laws regarding marriage in terms of the likely outcome of children raised within those marriages.

If such children wouldn't have a sufficiently good upbringing, then we can grant a person the right to marry, but not the right to raise children, as is already the case in certain circumstances.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Here is the basis of the "marriage equality" argument.

Remember that it was the Yes side that insisted the referendum was about "marriage equality" not "same-sex marriage".

The argument is quite clear and stated in over-sized colour font on the campaign website:

What Will A Yes Vote Mean For Ireland? » Get Informed » Marriage Equality - Working for Equal Marriage Rights for Lesbians and Gay Men in Ireland

If you believe gay and lesbian people would benefit from marriage and that society would too then why deny these benefits based on sexuality alone?

Let's try this out for size:

If you believe polygamists would benefit from marriage and that society would too then why deny these benefits based on sexuality alone?
Yeah, you can't argue with that. How about:

If you believe relatives would benefit from marriage and that society would too then why deny these benefits based on sexuality alone?
Seems only fair.

If you believe OS people would benefit from marriage and that society would too then why deny these benefits based on sexuality alone?

Bigotry doesn't end with homophobia.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,677
Fortunately what you describe above has no relation to the actual debates about same-sex marriage that take place in the real world.
It is exactly the debate that happens in the real world. Marriage was between a man and a woman. That has now been changed. So far so good. Now aman can marry another man. Or a woamn marry another woman. Why can't a man marry two women if they all agree?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
94,779
Because what I was implying is that wants he appears to want is a specific form of polygamy, that being 1 man and several women. It stands to reason that any legal arrangement that excludes females should be illegal, would you not agree?
If marriage were to be expanded to allow for more than two partners, it should allow for any combination (and presumably any number, unless there were good reasons to have some kind of limit) of participants, of both sexes.

My objection to expanding marriage in that way is that it isn't obvious to me how you could keep it as an egalitarian institution if you have more than two people. Does every partner need to consent to the introduction of new partners, for example, and must every partner be married to every other partner, and what happens when it comes to divorce and so on.

We would need to design an entirely new setup given that the only examples we do have are deeply inegalitarian and would not provide a suitable basis for law.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
It is exactly the debate that happens in the real world. Marriage was between a man and a woman. That has now been changed. So far so good. Now aman can marry another man. Or a woamn marry another woman. Why can't a man marry two women if they all agree?
Indeed. Merc is having a bigotry overload. He is denying the rights of others because of his bigotry and it is causing a blue screen conflict in his DOS OS.

Being revealed as a bigot must be his ultimate nightmare...
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
If marriage were to be expanded to allow for more than two partners, it should allow for any combination (and presumably any number, unless there were good reasons to have some kind of limit) of participants, of both sexes.

My objection to expanding marriage in that way is that it isn't obvious to me how you could keep it as an egalitarian institution if you have more than two people. Does every partner need to consent to the introduction of new partners, for example, and must every partner be married to every other partner, and what happens when it comes to divorce and so on.

We would need to design an entirely new setup given that the only examples we do have are deeply inegalitarian and would not provide a suitable basis for law.
Yeah, but plenty of traditional marriages are deeply inegalitarian - should we ban all marriages?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
94,779
It is exactly the debate that happens in the real world. Marriage was between a man and a woman. That has now been changed. So far so good. Now aman can marry another man. Or a woamn marry another woman. Why can't a man marry two women if they all agree?
If you think what Trainwreck described bears any resemblance to the arguments offered in favour of marriage equality, then you didn't understand any of those arguments.

We changed marriage in this country when we introduced divorce. Yet nobody thinks that that fact meant we had to introduce gay marriage, just as introducing gay marriage doesn't mean we have to expand marriage beyond two people.

In fact, iirc the wording of the amendment actually limits it to two people.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,677
If marriage were to be expanded to allow for more than two partners, it should allow for any combination (and presumably any number, unless there were good reasons to have some kind of limit) of participants, of both sexes.

My objection to expanding marriage in that way is that it isn't obvious to me how you could keep it as an egalitarian institution if you have more than two people. Does every partner need to consent to the introduction of new partners, for example, and must every partner be married to every other partner, and what happens when it comes to divorce and so on.

We would need to design an entirely new setup given that the only examples we do have are deeply inegalitarian and would not provide a suitable basis for law.
In Islam it is simple. A man can have up to 4 wives. They are married to him and he to them but they are not married to each other. Surely you can't object? The definition of marriage has been changed so why can't it be further changed? Unless you are an Islamophobe? Are you an Islamophobe Merc? Are you crossing to the dark side?
 

Mercurial

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
94,779
Here is the basis of the "marriage equality" argument.

Remember that it was the Yes side that insisted the referendum was about "marriage equality" not "same-sex marriage".

The argument is quite clear and stated in over-sized colour font on the campaign website:

What Will A Yes Vote Mean For Ireland? » Get Informed » Marriage Equality - Working for Equal Marriage Rights for Lesbians and Gay Men in Ireland




Let's try this out for size:



Yeah, you can't argue with that. How about:



Seems only fair.




Bigotry doesn't end with homophobia.
So you're in favour of polygamy then.
 

APettigrew92

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
2,746
Maybe but one-wife-one-man leads to mediocrity as well. It's OK if you're in the 1800s wild west prairie, oh except for the mormons.

What have we got against the mormons?

Also in gaelic times our chiefs had a wife and recognised concubines. I like the sound of that.
Gaelic times? I personally am a big fan of bringing back the Brehon principle of paying a man's family cattle and land in exchange for killing him. Even of women having a larger say in family matters. Our laws weren't all that crazy.

However, having numerous wives leads to some pretty severe inheritance issues. Hell, even The Prophet (pbuh) had a few issues regarding succession. You would assume that maybe that translated into Islam pretty poorly.

Also, the general Islamic scholar opinion is that Muslims must obey the law of their land first while simultaneously not directly contradicting the Qu'ran.

So staying in Straya is fine. Eating pork would not be so much.

Demanding that the Aussies let you import a foreign system of religious governance goes against everything Australian.

This seems to fly out the window. They just had the Mayor of London on putting anti-semetism (from predominantly Muslim Labour members) on a par with "Islamophobia." One is a race of people, the other is a set of beliefs.

Too much tip-towing around the issue. If we went to Saudi Arabia and demanded the right to allow our daughters to walk around unattended or drive their own vehicles, we would be sent packing. Nonsense stuff.
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
If marriage were to be expanded to allow for more than two partners, it should allow for any combination (and presumably any number, unless there were good reasons to have some kind of limit) of participants, of both sexes.

My objection to expanding marriage in that way is that it isn't obvious to me how you could keep it as an egalitarian institution if you have more than two people. Does every partner need to consent to the introduction of new partners, for example, and must every partner be married to every other partner, and what happens when it comes to divorce and so on.

We would need to design an entirely new setup given that the only examples we do have are deeply inegalitarian and would not provide a suitable basis for law.
I'd agree with the above. From a libertarian point of view, I would hold no objections to polygamy, but from a pragmatic point of view, the issues you raise would end up tying both society and the legal system in very convoluted knots. While we can aspire to certain things, sometimes we just need to recognise impracticality when we see it.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,833
...
Demanding that the Aussies let you import a foreign system of religious governance goes against everything Australian. ....

What, like the church of england? That was pretty foreign at one point!

Divine Revelation suggests that the role of Oz in all this was that it had to be prepared by the technical-minded kuffar for a couple of centuries before it was ready to receive the Followers in any number.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
19,608
It seems to me that we shouldn't base laws regarding marriage in terms of the likely outcome of children raised within those marriages.

If such children wouldn't have a sufficiently good upbringing, then we can grant a person the right to marry, but not the right to raise children, as is already the case in certain circumstances.
too many downsides outside of the particular family outcomes, lets say 10% of muslim men go for this, so they marry on average 30% of muslim women, it will create an imbalance that didn't exist prior. on the basis alone of likely increased migration of uneducated third worlders I'd be against it for societal reasons.
 

New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom