If this wasn’t posted by a right winger farming anti lgbt sentiment I’d probably cringe at the school being excited to parade the kid around for being accepting of lgbt people.
I hope Islam gets slept by JDM so I can laugh at people like this guy.
People don’t want to talk about this, but lesbianism is common in polygamy.
I would like to know more, as people don’t want to talk about it.
Not in a Muslim household it ain’t.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more common than you expect, which is basically none. I sure the women talk about stuff they don’t want their husband to know, and they could be pretty close. Throw in some stress and people start fucking. It’d stay a secret, so I don’t know that we’d know how common it is, but (as a straight man) if I was in a polygamous marriage with one woman but a bunch of men, is seek companionship with the other men in some form at least.
Is the main objection to polygamy that having multiple sex partners is immoral or that the whole arrangement is subjugation of women (because usually it’s multiple wives not husbands), or some other reason?
A bit of both. The Greeks and Romans had a cultural taboo against polygamy which Christianity inherited, which means that Christians have historically been opposed to polygamy (which was not the case in Pre-christian northern Europe) on moral grounds. There is also the issue that historically polygamy has been associated with patriarchal societies in which men are allowed or expected to have multiple wives, but women are not allowed to do the same. Additionally, it is also culturally associated with treating women as property of the husband. Personally I don’t have any issue with polygamy if everyone is free to do whatever but the way most cultures practice it, it’s unfair to women. Then again, that could also he said of “traditional” marriage in a lot of monogamous scenarios too.
“one to cook and one to clean” is one of the “joke-y” sayings I heard
Having been on some readings I had not picked up in a second recently, two to poison and be each other’s alibi is what went thru my head first lol.
Nothing else to do with the thread. Just the first thought that went thru my head- any rat bastard that lives that shit deserves to be poisoned by both.
Probably depends on who you ask. I’m polyamorous and I think in almost all cases where someone says polygamy and not polyamory they’re engaging in an immoral power dynamic. My experience being poly though I’d say most people take offense to the multiple partners thing and polygamy is just what they’re familiar with as a concept
It’s not the multiple partners that are a problem in my opinion (You do you. Polyamory is not for me, but no hate), it’s the many-to-one relationships. Even in cases where an immoral power dynamic doesn’t exist, you’re still setting up for societal shenanigans if it’s consistently many women to men, or vice versa, which seems prudent to avoid.
That being said, monogamy in a legal sense has probably only persisted so long because involving more than 2 people would be a massive headache for the courts lol
Probably only works in countries where one “partner” has more rights than others.
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
Excuse me? If you want one find her yourself.
I answered your question of if my objection was about the subjugation of women, and I pointed out how subjugating women is the problem.
deleted by creator
That’s not the point.
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don’t also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
I generally agree with you, but I’ve heard reasonable arguments like
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don’t think they’re equivalent discussions.
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren’t equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. “Patriarchy is bad” says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is “bad” isn’t it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren’t compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it’s lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us “comfortable” undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why “modern marriages” should exist at all. “Taxes” is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
Ok let’s just focus on the sciencier one for a second. Say someone doesn’t like incest because it’s bad for the gene pool. Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
That isn’t a slippery slope to eugenics. Inbreeding depression is real, but eugenics is discredited as unscientific. We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing. And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
You’re going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.
We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
Says who? We’ve only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China’s CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.
You’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing.
No I’m saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.
And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
Don’t dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.
Depends on whose objecting. This arrangement pretty much only works at scale with a combination of religious brainwashing, inequality between and amongst the genders, and a healthy dose of male mortality especially from war.
Inequality among a gender: For instance if bob and Sam both make 70k 5 women aren’t all marrying one or the other in most instances.
Inequality between the genders: Given a complex life path beyond follow in husband’s shadow no matter what or become a parish the chance of instability with more people increases with each member added.
So the first obvious person to object to broad enactment of this idea ought to be women raised to buy into this when it’s not their best option.
Next is society for such groups brainwashing kids.
Then there is the downside of the enabling inequality. Anyone not on the top end of the financial spectrum ought to object to that.
Women ought to object to the idea that they ought to share.
Men not in the top 5-20% ought to object to competing for the remaining women not attached to high status males. Note this is what incels say they are mad about now but there is so much to unpack re their broken brains and it’s just not at this juncture real.
Society should be mad at the very large number of unattached men who normally cause trouble.
Some such societies deal with this by trading women like Pokemon cards and driving off excess men. This doesn’t work without wars to kill them off or somewhere to drive them to.
Basically everyone but a smallish minority of men would be worse off which is why this is non existent in modern functioning society.
There little net effect on society with a small incidence of polygomy just like with lead in the water.
I think in western culture it might be a bit of both, and also a bit of xenophobia - it’s different, so it must be bad. I’d be interested in knowing more too. Very good question.
Mormons used to (some still do) practice polygamy and we had just as much, if not more of a problem with their practices as we do with “foreigners”.
From my perspective as another polyamorous person, I think polygamy is kinda fucked up, at least in the ways it manifests today. It’s an inequitable power dynamic that relies on the exploitation of women. I’m all about subversion and defiance of hierarchies. Polygamy reinforces those hierarchies
Just to be clear, I see polygamy as bad only because of the women oppression aspect. But the world is a big place and history is long, so I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point there was some system that allowed for polygamy without oppressing women. Mentioning mormons - don’t you think they can be seen as another weird different group - and therefore be also object of xenophobia? Notice I intentionally didn’t use the word racism, what I mean is just the sentiment that people doing things differently than my group must be deadly wrong.
Yeah, there’s some aspect of “they’re different so they’re bad” in LDS history (not without reason, the church did and justified many fucked up things), but the modern polygamous Mormon splinter groups are kinda overlooked for the most part. They’re pretty embedded in a lot of smaller towns and cities across southern Utah and northern Arizona (there may be more, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the topic), and they get very little national attention.
Contrast that with stuff like this tweet that just so happens to play to a lot conservative notions about how “backwards” Islam is.
based and hallalpilled
This guy is pledging allegiance to two different cryptocurrency projects that are pretty much natural enemies and it’s confusing
Most cryptobros don’t give a shit about the moral or ethical implications of what crypto they invest in, what they represent, etc. They just want line go up. No different than investors who invest in diverse ranges of companies. Hedge funds will invest in fossil fuel giants right alongside ecotech startups. The only thing that matters is return.
Hooray for non-tribalism?
I think it’s just a slight step up above greater fool theory. The only difference is that they’re better charlatans by pretending to participate in either tribe, still enforcing the tribal culture.
“Most” is doing some heavy lifting. There are for example some Ethereum “maximalists” who are extremely tribal.
It’s because he registered his handle when Ripple was still a thing, and has since pivoted to Ethereum.
This is why you don’t make a brand your identity, and never listen to people who do. He already had a username and didn’t want it associated with his crypto dealings.
i think polygamy is ok if it’s K₃ romantic
“You keep your wives in cupboard.”
lmao, is this a series
Two wives?
That must be unbearable.
Wife bad
