Is Polygamy Wrong?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also I don't see how some people are ok with homosexual marriage buy not polygamous/polygynous/polyandrous marriages.

I am personally uncomfortable with polyandry because I think it degrades and lowers women but wouldn't ban it for consenting non-Muslims.

Agreed, I just put it in there because it falls under the "polygamy" category and gets my point across. I'm in no way advocating for it

[Central Asian Republics]

Compare two cultures where both respect women's rights and then we can draw a valid conclusion.

The main problem with trying to find a polygamous culture that respect women's rights is that nearly all polygamous cultures have a problem with misogyny, it's almost as if taking women for granted by allowing one man to have multiple wives will only foster the view that women are of less value, too many of one thing will only decrease its value as seen in simple economics. The fact that women prefer to marry up in terms of income will guarantee that in a polygamous society, the main beneficiaries will be wealthy, powerful men.

All this talk about "polygamy oppressed women" (which can only work if you're talking about 1 half of polygamy), well the same thing can happen in monogamous marriages. We just to make sure the husband treats the wives justly and everything'll be fine.

That's easier said and done, why haven't Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia attempted to combat their contemptuous treatment of women? Also women do favour wealthier men (as proven by my previous post), therefore most polygamous marriages will logically be between a man and several women.

[First American Empire]

Also I don't see how some people are ok with homosexual marriage buy not polygamous/polygynous/polyandrous marriages.

I am personally uncomfortable with polyandry because I think it degrades and lowers women but wouldn't ban it for consenting non-Muslims.

Why is it specifically polyandry that you think would degrade and lower women? Is it because you think having multiple partners is degrading? Do you think polygyny degrades and lowers men too? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

[Psukhe]

Also I don't see how some people are ok with homosexual marriage buy not polygamous/polygynous/polyandrous marriages.

I am personally uncomfortable with polyandry because I think it degrades and lowers women but wouldn't ban it for consenting non-Muslims.

Surely you've mixed polyandry with polygyny? In any case, why isn't the reverse true? I'm gonna go ahead and assume that it (=polygyny) is assumed to be degrading because classically, women were considered inferior to men and were more akin to property or chattel rather than men in certain societies where such practices took/takes place. This begs the question (if my assumption is true, of course), then, whether polygyny or the attitude towards woman is the problem?

[Genivaria]

Compare two cultures where both respect women's rights and then we can draw a valid conclusion.

The main problem with trying to find a polygamous culture that respect women's rights is that nearly all polygamous cultures have a problem with misogyny, it's almost as if taking women for granted by allowing one man to have multiple wives will only foster the view that women are of less value, too many of one thing will only decrease its value as seen in simple economics. The fact that women prefer to marry up in terms of income will guarantee that in a polygamous society, the main beneficiaries will be wealthy, powerful men.

All this talk about "polygamy oppressed women" (which can only work if you're talking about 1 half of polygamy), well the same thing can happen in monogamous marriages. We just to make sure the husband treats the wives justly and everything'll be fine.

That's easier said and done, why haven't Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia attempted to combat their contemptuous treatment of women? Also women do favour wealthier men (as proven by my previous post), therefore most polygamous marriages will logically be between a man and several women.

There's a fallacy that you're committing here, you're using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives when that's not what is being proposed.
The very nature of polygamy as it's being proposed essentially REQUIRES gender equality.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's easier said and done, why haven't Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia attempted to combat their contemptuous treatment of women?

I'm asking the same question.

Also women do favour wealthier men (as proven by my previous post), therefore most polygamous marriages will logically be between a man and several women.

Interesting.

I am personally uncomfortable with polyandry because I think it degrades and lowers women but wouldn't ban it for consenting non-Muslims.

Surely you've mixed polyandry with polygyny? In any case, why isn't the reverse true? I'm gonna go ahead and assume that it (=polygyny) is assumed to be degrading because classically, women were considered inferior to men and were more akin to property or chattel rather than men in certain societies where such practices took/takes place. This begs the question (if my assumption is true, of course), then, whether polygyny or the attitude towards woman is the problem?

Attitude towards women. Once we sort that out polygyny will behave a better reputation insha-Allah.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

As long as the polygamy is between consenting adults, it is fine.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It creates social instability by reducing the pool of potential spouses.

Polygamy would actually have a larger pool of potential spouses, since many married men and women wouldn't actually be taken out of the pool in the first place. (This is assuming that polygamy is legally available for both sexes.)

As someone else already said, that would only be true if people didn't have preferences, it also wouldn't be true because there is gender imbalance in terms of sexual desirability.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, how would polygamy even function legally?

[Metamen]

"I don't think Polygamy is wrong. It's simply unmanageable. Human beings have a hard enough time managing just one relationship, juggling the demands of multiple relationships is literally asking for a murder case."

-OOC

[United Muscovite Nations]

"I don't think Polygamy is wrong. It's simply unmanageable. Human beings have a hard enough time managing just one relationship, juggling the demands of multiple relationships is literally asking for a murder case."

-OOC

Everything in general is OOC.

[Metamen]

"I don't think Polygamy is wrong. It's simply unmanageable. Human beings have a hard enough time managing just one relationship, juggling the demands of multiple relationships is literally asking for a murder case."

-OOC

Everything in general is OOC.

"I know. But it's a habit of mine to do the whole quotes thing anyway."

-OOC

[Federal Spanish States]

Where is the "depends" option in the poll?

Okay, but, seriously, I don't think it's neither wrong nor right. It just boils down to "depends".

[Azlaake]

What do you mean?????

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Where is the "depends" option in the poll?

Okay, but, seriously, I don't think it's neither wrong nor right. It just boils down to "depends".

^This. I want a "depends" option.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What do you mean?????

Who are you talking to?

[Federal Spanish States]

What do you mean?????

It all boils down to "depends" because there are different perspectives for different religions.

Buddhism does think it's right, but Christianism doesn't. Not only that, but seculars normally think it's wrong in a Christian environment, but probably thinks it's right in a Muslim environment.

It depends on the context, and on the background.

[Central Asian Republics]

you're using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives when that's not what is being proposed.
The very nature of polygamy as it's being proposed essentially REQUIRES gender equality.

No it does not. Polygamy only requires a relationship to contain either more than one wife or more than one husband. I am using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives, and that is simply because due to the tendency for women to marry men above their income (proven by my previous post or two), the natural consequence of polygamy would be that most marriages will involve one man and multiple wives, and this is clearly the case as the higher the income, the more likely men are to be in polygamous marriages (in the Gulf states at least). If you had argued in favour of enforced polygamy, then I wouldn't even be here arguing due to the sheer stupidity of the idea.

I believe it is time for you to explain how polygamy would require gender equality, as you've emphasised so forcibly with that horribly inelegant caps lock.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

POLYGAMY IS WRONG!!!!! Marriage is one man and one woman (or two men or two women) and if a man marries multiple women, he obviously does not love any of them because he is married to multiple and just wants more women!!!!!

Polygamy doesn't just mean a man marrying multiple women. Besides, that is not true. That is just you saying something and trying to say its a fact.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Not necessarily.

If there all adults in consenting happy healthy relationships, then they can go nuts.

Nothing wrong with that.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

you're using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives when that's not what is being proposed.
The very nature of polygamy as it's being proposed essentially REQUIRES gender equality.

No it does not. Polygamy only requires a relationship to contain either more than one wife or more than one husband. I am using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives

Which is literally the wrong word you are using. You're thinking about "polygyny", just use this word instead since its deginition actually fits what you're trying to say.

[The South Falls]

Not necessarily.

If there all adults in consenting happy healthy relationships, then they can go nuts.

Nothing wrong with that.

Only thing is, that's not how it often works. Think moguls versus hippie communes.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Polygamy is wrong. Two caring parents and their kids are the basic structure of any nation or civilization. Polygamy destroys the most basic and necessary structure for civilization, the nuclear family, by allow one person to have multiple partners.

In fact, in history there were societies where there was no monogamy. This was in antiquity, before the emergence of classes and the state (see Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"). But in class societies such was, for example, polygamy in Islamic countries. And in some societies there is a marriage of one woman with several husbands (somewhere in the region of Tibet, it seems).

In Christian countries, monogamy helped to solve the problem of inheritance of property: to accurately determine the heir. This was often accompanied by the infidelity of the husband and the appearance of illegitimate descendants, whose mothers, however, were not married, were condemned by society and could not claim to share property. In addition, monogamy prevented contagious diseases. With the advent of contraceptives and effective medicines, this has become less relevant. And if in the future everyone will receive a large unconditional income (social benefit), and there will be many highly paid professions for women, then the need for financial assistance from her husband will become less relevant. At the same time, urban cafes, laundries, entertainment, household appliances for the kitchen and cleaning, make the family is not very necessary for many men. As a result, a new type of family may emerge: a voluntary subculture with a variable composition, which may include any number of people of either sex. Adults in such a family can be perceived as aunts, uncles, etc. In such a family, there is less authoritarian command: the opinion of all is taken into account, and not the order of the parents. Perhaps there will be families like "mother and children" - a return to matriarchy at a new stage of development.

Family evolves, as does society.

[Central Asian Republics]

No it does not. Polygamy only requires a relationship to contain either more than one wife or more than one husband. I am using the word 'polygamy' as if it only means 1 man and multiple wives

Which is literally the wrong word you are using. You're thinking about "polygyny", just use this word instead since its deginition actually fits what you're trying to say.

Give me one example of a major polygamous civilisation where polygyny is not the most common form of polygamy. You can sit here arguing over semantics, I'm just here explaining why it doesn't work in practice.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Which is literally the wrong word you are using. You're thinking about "polygyny", just use this word instead since its deginition actually fits what you're trying to say.

Give me one example of a major polygamous civilisation where polygyny is not the most common form of polygamy.

Not the point I'm making.

You can sit here arguing over semantics, I'm just here explaining why it doesn't work in practice.

Particularly in terms of debate (but also in regular speech as well), it's important to use accurate words.