Fundie Mormons going the way of the Branch Dravidians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My reasoning is that polygamy is essentially a type of relationship that reinforces unfair, sexist exploitation of women.

That's the way they all have to be, because some have been that way

Just because you can't imagine equality and intimacy in polygamous relationships doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Kuciwalker]

A better argument is that polygamous relationships are almost invariably sexist and result in the exploitation of women. Just as separate but equal facilities were invariably unequal.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

My reasoning is that polygamy is essentially a type of relationship that reinforces unfair, sexist exploitation of women.

That's the way they all have to be, because some have been that way

Just because you can't imagine equality and intimacy in polygamous relationships doesn't mean they don't exist.

I should have qualified my post for those who are so dense as to presume that I must be saying that it's an absolute truth that every single polygamous relationship, in all of human history, have always been, without exception, based on inequality and exploitation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A better argument is that polygamous relationships are almost invariably sexist and result in the exploitation of women. Just as separate but equal facilities were invariably unequal.

ok

[MrFun]

If polygamy really can allow for equality between genders, then why is it almost always a custom among different cultures where polygamy has, or still does function, that it's always the husband who can have multiple wives. But ZOMFG!!!! heaven forbid if a custom should ever arise that a wife would be allowed to have multiple husbands.

If there is to be equality in polygamous relationships, have the same rules or customs apply to both genders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
I should have qualified my post for those who are so dense as to presume that I must be saying that it's an absolute truth that every single polygamous relationship, in all of human history, have always been, without exception, based on inequality and exploitation.

Banning a practice because some people have abused it is fairly close to asserting an absolute truth.

But ZOMFG!!!! heaven forbid if a custom should ever arise that a wife would be allowed to have multiple husbands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

[q=Wikipedia]Polyandry has occurred in Tibet (see Polyandry in Tibet), Zanskar, Nepal, India (Zanskar, Ladakh, Toda of South India, Nairs of Kerala, the Nymba and Pahari of North India), and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of China (especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern Brazil). In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law.[/q]

[MrFun]

Ok, thanks for the info on polyandry, Imran. Now my question would be how common is polyandry compared to polygamy in Western countries?

Here in United States for example, for the small minority of Americans who pratice polygamy or polyandry, I would like to know if polygamy is more common than polyandry due to the history of sexism in Western culture and in particular, in history of United States.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Banning a practice because some people have abused it is fairly close to asserting an absolute truth.

It's banning a practice because in the overwhelming majority of cases it has been abused.

[TCO]

We should also outlaw all bottom-top relationships.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Banning a practice because some people have abused it is fairly close to asserting an absolute truth.

I would like to add my two cents in addition to Kuci's response to this.

There were a small minority of American slaveowners who benevolently treated their slaves. Maybe Americans should never have abolished slavery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Polygamy is more common in Western countries for one reason. Inheritance goes through the male line. Hence, you have to know who the father is.

There were a small minority of American slaveowners who benevolently treated their slaves. Maybe Americans should never have abolished slavery.

First you have to prove those slaves consented to being in slavery. Good luck with that .

It's banning a practice because in the overwhelming majority of cases it has been abused.

How have polygamous relationships abused women any more than monogamous relationships have? Should we ban marriage entirely because in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout history marriage has led to abuse of the woman who was the man's "property"?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Polygamy is more common in Western countries for one reason. Inheritance goes through the male line. Hence, you have to know who the father is.

There were a small minority of American slaveowners who benevolently treated their slaves. Maybe Americans should never have abolished slavery.

First you have to prove those slaves consented to being in slavery. Good luck with that .

It's banning a practice because in the overwhelming majority of cases it has been abused.

How have polygamous relationships abused women any more than monogamous relationships have? Should we ban marriage entirely because in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout history marriage has led to abuse of the woman who was the man's "property"?

1) Then some could argue that inheritance laws are essentially sexist.

2) Ok, so slaves never consented to such brutal, inhumane subordination. But the sexist nature of most polygamous relationships is still unjust, even given the superficial consent of women.

3) Like I said earlier, monogamous, heterosexual relationships offer more reasonable means to create relationships based on equality and true intimacy than polygamous relationships.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the sexist nature of most polygamous relationships is still unjust, even given the superficial consent of women.

Ah 'superficial consent' of women . Good to know that you know best. Hell, isn't that the argument the government used in banning sodomy? They know best! And they knew that homosexual relationships wasn't what people really wanted.

I'm disappointed. Marriage rights for YOUR group, but for no one else.

Interestingly enough similar arguments are used for prostitution, but Nevada has it legalized and you don't see this 'so called' subjugation in the brothels over there, do you? Yet the ignorance continues!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How have polygamous relationships abused women any more than monogamous relationships have? Should we ban marriage entirely because in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout history marriage has led to abuse of the woman who was the man's "property"?

Modern monogamous relationships are far more equitable than modern polygamous relationships.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Interestingly enough similar arguments are used for prostitution, but Nevada has it legalized and you don't see this 'so called' subjugation in the brothels over there, do you? Yet the ignorance continues!

Nevada has legalized and regulated prostitution, as an economic activity. It'd be far more difficult to regulate polygamous marriages...