Minque's just trying to excuse her own affair

Anyway, I think what these pundits aren't getting is that's all tied to the culture, and the culture is in direct response to the times and to what's necessary for survival. For instance, in Taiwon, women are allowed more than one husband because of land issues, if a famoily has two sons then their land keeps getting divided in half, with their system however oftenly a female marries every male in that household.

I think polygamy plays in chauvinism though, as it takes away from emotional attachment and more into being the big pimp. It also makes it harder for less successful men to find a partner, as they're all part of richer men's partnerships.

I don't really like the way the poll is set up. Do I think it's good or not? Or do I think it should be legal? I don't like it, and I'm much too fond of emotionally attaching myself to one partner, and sharing my life experience with one intimate, to ever practicing polygamy myself, but don't think marriage should be in the state's hands at all, and they shouldn't get any say over who marries who, at what age, or under what circumstances

I am not particularly for or against the situation as I cannot do either, but I definetly lean towards having a single partner as opposed to several. My reasoning for it is more of a health risk and a lack of intimacy.

and I have to agree with Gamer that "modern country" is a strange term to use, and one very ill defined.

This post has been edited by Megil Tel-Zeke: May 13 2006, 12:04 AM

I didn't quite understand this, but I'd just like to say that the legal age for having sex in Norway is 16 years.

Actually I think it's strange to have age limitations for having sex. Reproduction is the true meaning of life for all species, and as long as a female is capable of having children she should be allowed to.

Unfortunately today's society with its prejudices would probably break a 13 year old female trying to raise children. This is probably one of the reasons those age restrictions are in place, but remember that the average age for humans was about 50 only a 100 years ago. In the stone age it was about 20. This meant that humans had to breed children as soon as they could to ensure survival of the human race.

I can of course understand age restrictions for having sex in overpopulated countries. Not that age restrictions for having sex in ANY country is ever respected by its citizens though, so there is no real point in having restrictions anyway, except for spending tax money on pointless beurocratic positions...


Regards,

Olav the Philosopher

Olav is right that humans used to live shorter lives and I think marriages began at the beginning of the teens in the middle ages (sometimes the man was older so he had established a profession and his bride was a teen,)

Pisces also was right about monogamy not being the natural instincts for hunter/gatherer societies, for instance, the men hunted afar from the village together and the women stayed and did the gathering of fruit/vegetables at the village itself. When a man & woman mated and had a child, they would live seperately from the village and the man would stay & protect his little family until the child was 5 or 6 years old, able to follow its mother around - then the man went back to the hunting group and the woman & child went to the village. No more union between them.

But now it's the modern day and the industrial revolution has changed everyone's lives and we have high school & college to go through before marriage in many cases. Establishing a profession is still very important to forming a family. But our natural urges are still set at that teenage time for mating. Since we all will live long lives probably (some of you who are young now reading this may live well beyond 100 years old just due to medical innovations continuing to happen.) So, controlling the instincts toward polygamy, early mating, rushing into marriage with any number of partners, etc. is a wise choice in an age of infinite choices.

If we all followed our instincts then the alpha males would mate as much as possible but they would lose all their wives as soon as their wives meet someone better. So eventually all the women of approximately the same age would be married to me . Hence why polygamy is bad, I simply do not have enough time for all those women Sticking with one is saving me from being attacked by millions of horny women

Well, you could always give to Foster the wives you did not want.

LOLOLOLOL.....!!!

Is that so?
Well, here's an intresting quote:



This is quote from Islam holy book Qur'an. So, as you see Islam DOES alow 4 wives, but only if you are sure you can take care of them, and threat them properly.
That means you will need some good public reputation, and be a little richer than average man. It all depends on your wives needs. It's not the same if you married a girl from wealthy family, and a girl from a poor family.

This however excludes extremly rich and important people such is the Sultan or a Sheikh. It's well known that through Turkey hisory, Sultans had a LOT of concubines. Some of them never even had a chance to see the Sultan . So in these cases, Islam alows more than 4 wives. Otherwise, if you're a normal citizen and you know you can support 4 wives, you can do it no problem.

Yes indeed.
You should do your homework before calling someone ignorant, and especialy if stating something like this. Take no insult in this, you stated this, not me.

EDIT:

*whispers* Shhhhhh! Don't say that! You might envoke the wrath of the Wise Woman, and a mysterius power of her banhammer

This post has been edited by HyPN0: May 13 2006, 12:10 PM

ARRRRGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Unless her first name happens to be Kiera and her surname happens to be Knightley, I'll pass.

I definitely think that HyPNO has a very good point here! Also I hope we can keep this thread as civil as possible, it´s hard when it comes to religion and related topics but I have good faith in you guys.......

Everybody on this forum are civil, that's why I love this place so much. Why would it be any diffrent now? But I do understand your point. When it comes to poiltics and religion, opinions very often conflict.

Oh, and sorry I didn't want to spam, but since we're talking about polygamy, Islam is the best living example, don't you agree?

*Takes out Hammer* (just a normal one!) *points it at DoomedOne*
"It's HAMMER TIME!!!!!" *hits DoomedOne over the head multiple times*

Anyway... Polygamy (w/e) was a good thing back in the good ol' days (6000-5000 BC) but now we have dozens of dieases and other things... that and a court of law... (Ladies can sue for ANYTHING if they have the guy's child)

No one respects a joke made at someone else's expense anymore...

Anyway, yes, the Qu'ran states in one single line at only one specific part that marriage with multiple women is okay if you're having a hard time bearing children with just one, and can support more than one, however, I bet you if the right researcher went at it, the Bible could be made out to say the same thing.

Generally, it's not religion that decides how many wives you can have. Religious laws are based off very practical things, I think it comes down to the environment and what's naturally best for the people as opposed to what their religion states (The Church of Latter Day Saints being a very bad example). Humans seem to me to be more like birds. Birds, I think all birds but I'm not positive, have one partner their entire life, and never switch off. This would be pretty far opposed to the octopus, where the females build shelters and the males act as vagabonds roaming shelter to shelter doing any female ripe for it. But, it's whatever works for the individual species, and humans have lived in many different tribes and lifestyles.

For those of you who have tried to generalize all hunter/gatherer humans into what their habits were, that's not true. Many individual groups or tribes followed those examples, but many followed other ones. The Inuit people had one wife their entire lives, and oftenly marriage was arranged but they never divorced. What's funny, is if a traveller happened to roam by then part of Inuit hospitality is if the traveller was exceedingly lonely the husband might offer his wife for the night.

Virtually every tribe was a ittle different in their practices. The amazons would kidnap men and rape them, then kill them after they got their seed, and kill all the male babies born in their tribe. In most tribes, both the man and the woman were equally valued, even if the man or woman was allowed multiple partners. There are exceptions, such as the Mesai, which practiced removing the woman's lamp post to ensure loyalty to her husband.

Here's my point, there no one way or another way humans should be, and there is no way that's more natual than another way, or more moral than another way. Multiple wives does not automatically mean a patriarchal society. Hence, I with-hold my stance, I don't care, I don't make it my business what people want to marry or how many they want to marry, and I don't think the government should legislate their viewpoints on the subject, any government.

there ya go Doomed! you just made up for all your insults... i mean...
i suppose i can agree with DoomedOne (in his 2nd statement) humans are adaptably creatures, we live by how we want and religon is mainly a scam... oops did i say that out loud?

Yes, you did. And if this turns into a flamewar, guess who'll be blamed?

umm... me? yeah, but... saying more would make it worse wouldn't it?

Yes, you.

Yes, it would.
I strictly recommend editing your post and deleting the offensive statement about religion. I'm not offended myself, but a lot of people who are religius can.

Ill definately agree to Doomedone's point on not being able to put all humans into either group. I like to distance myself from the point that I am supposedly obeying my more......animal instincts.

Well this is true, and I can't understand the strong reactions for this. All religions were founded by the leaders of ancient civilizations. It is a well known way of making the citizens feel like they belong somewhere, and that they should not move to other, more culturally advanced societies. In short: A scam to keep people from moving away - to ensure taxes for the empire - and to ensure that the people would fight for their empire if necessary.

I mean, if there really was a god or several gods, wouldn't it be logical that they showed themselves and that everyone on this planet worshipped those same gods?

Sorry for drifting off-topic, and if I'm banned for this, so be it. But it was just a reaction for the above posts. Like mentioned earlier in this thread I'm having a hard time understanding that people can be religious in this day and age, when we know so much about our own existance, and know so much about the other 'unexplainable' things that have been integrated into religion since the beginning of civilized behaviour.

You won't be banned. Yours and Dark Hunter's posts are both acceptable, since there's no rule against it.
But what I actualy mind is using such hard words like ''scam''.

Just like you, I don't belive in god (or gods). But again I would state ''I think that religion is not valid and not supported by facts'' instead ''it's a scam''. Just saying the same thing In a diffrent way can make a huge diffrence. I was just concerned that this will turn into a flame thread. But now when I think of it, I have full confidence in moderators and admins they know what they're doing.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this. Maybe we can start a new one? Olav, will you do the honor?

Sorry I don't feel competent enough to do that, but I agree with you that scam is a strong word. My apologies if anyone got offended by that. Since English is not my native language I tend to misuse and/or overlook misused English terms. To be honest I'm not really sure about the exact meaning of scam...

But like Hypno says if this is to be discussed further it should be in another thread.