NationStates

Kernen wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

You know the answer. It's fuck'em, but prettier sounding.

I actually believe Islamic laws against cohabitation etcetera should only apply to Muslims. Catholics, Anglicans etcetera can of course police their own flocks, however.

Atheris wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, you're referring to the civil laws of Ancient Israel.

I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Yes, King Solomon practiced it; King Solomon was wrong.

Deacarsia wrote:

Atheris wrote:I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Solomon at most was given a dispensation due to special circumstances.

Those special circumstances being?

The Church has condemned polygamy since its earliest days. (See De Monogamia by Tertullian, for example)

And the Latter-Day Saints practice it like a doctor practices medicine.

There's no one way to define the word of God. What one church says is good, another might say is bad. God's word is unclear to all but Christ, Abraham, and depending on your religion the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
And what if people, like myself, do not believe in the existence of a God?

Then you're mistaken.

How do you know you are not mistaken with other religions?

Your religion is not the only one, nor should it invade my privacy, or refuse my right to be happy.

If you believe in democracy, you would not support a fascist theocracy and remove the people's right to be happy.

No, it definitely is not. If its with the consent of all individuals, then yes, it's perfectly fine. Cant really see why it isn't.

Sundiata wrote:

Atheris wrote:I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Yes, King Solomon practiced it; King Solomon was wrong.

God approved of David doing it (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV)

"I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms"

Deacarsia wrote:

Atheris wrote:I see. How does polyandry, then, go against the laws of God? Didn't Solomon practice it?

Solomon at most was given a dispensation due to special circumstances.

The Church has condemned polygamy since its earliest days. (See De Monogamia by Tertullian, for example)

And marriage is older than Christianity. In fact, the idea of being partnered with one or a few people via a marriage or whatever it may be is older than every religion.

Please let's refrain from in-depth discussions of polygyny (unless you're making a comparison in each post mentioning it) to avoid a threadjack. I will make a polygyny thread next , Inshallah

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:]
While you're not wrong about that, the state should also follow suit with respect to that moral trend.

Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

You think the US system of government is perfect and beyond criticism? I certainly don't.

Also here's how to make a poll: Go to the bottom of the page that says "poll". Click on it. Then put the options you want and then post it.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

You think the US system of government is perfect and beyond criticism? I certainly don't.

Strawmen will strawman.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Religious morals should not influence political decisions.
See First Amendment for the US.

You think the US system of government is perfect and beyond criticism? I certainly don't.

Of course not.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Kernen wrote:You know the answer. It's fuck'em, but prettier sounding.

I actually believe Islamic laws against cohabitation etcetera should only apply to Muslims. Catholics, Anglicans etcetera can of course police their own flocks, however.

A plus for Islam in the eyes of this atheist.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Please let's refrain from in-depth discussions of polygyny (unless you're making a comparison in each post mentioning it) to avoid a threadjack. I will make a polygyny thread next , Inshallah

Why? The two are functionally indistinguishable from a moral perspective.

Polyandry is awful, nobody needs more then one husband or wife, it needs to be banned.

As with every kind of polygamy if everyone involved is fine with it and they're all consenting adults then sure.

Mordka wrote:Polyandry is awful, nobody needs more then one husband or wife, it needs to be banned.

Having had multiple partners in relationships in the past, gonna disagree on this one. It's lovely having all your relationship needs fulfilled without needing to compromise.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, King Solomon practiced it; King Solomon was wrong.

God approved of David doing it (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV)

"I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms"

God did not approve of David having many wives, that is simply an example of David reaping the material virtues of Saul on the basis of his past conduct, not an endorsement of polyamory.

Celritannia wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Anything other than monogamy is immoral and anti-social.

States should not extend legal recognition to polygamous relationships, regardless of gender ratio, and society should reject such arrangements as acceptable ways of living.

It's only immoral if you are religious,

You don't necessarily have to believe in revealed religion to find polygamy immoral.

but it is not anti-social.

It is absolutely anti-social to allow a small number of people to monopolise potential partners. Polygamy is a selfish practice.

People should be able to determine themselves what is acceptable, not the state.

Good to know that you're fine with rape, murder, burglary and selling drugs to small children. After all, it's not the place of the state to decide what is acceptable.

Who I choose to be with is not up to any government.

Legally speaking, no, it isn't; but society can and should exert pressure on those who engage in relationships that defy established norms. That's how moral and socially responsible behaviour is enforced in functional societies. Society cannot function if norms are no longer socially enforced.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, yes they should.

The Founding Fathers were wrong, not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless.

And have a theocratic fascist state to deny happiness to people?

If religious people making political decisions informed by their religious ethics necessarily leads to a theocratic fascist state, then irreligious people making political decisions based on their secular ethics must necessarily lead to a secular fascist state, no?

Political decisions are fundamentally ethical decisions most of the time. Genuinely religious people are guided by the teachings of their religion when it comes to making ethical decisions, so you cannot prevent politics being influenced by religious morals unless you disenfranchise anyone who holds a religious belief.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Anything other than monogamy is immoral and anti-social.

States should not extend legal recognition to polygamous relationships, regardless of gender ratio, and society should reject such arrangements as acceptable ways of living.

But isn't it pro-social in a society where there are many more women than men (E.G. Russia especially Chechnya)?

Such situations are highly aberrant. Usually human populations are somewhere around 50% male, 50% female.

Necroghastia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:To God.

What are your god's reasons and why should people consider them valid?

1. I am checking about the reasons with an expert.

2. People should consider them valid because of the duty to obey the Supreme Being (whether called Allah, YHWH or any other name). Also almost all societies forbade polyandry should the prohibition seems to be beneficial for humans.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, yes they should.

The Founding Fathers were wrong, not completely wrong, but wrong nonetheless.

And have a theocratic fascist state to deny happiness to people?

And have an atheistic fascist state to deny happiness to people?

Kernen wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:I actually believe Islamic laws against cohabitation etcetera should only apply to Muslims. Catholics, Anglicans etcetera can of course police their own flocks, however.

A plus for Islam in the eyes of this atheist.

Thank you

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:What are your god's reasons and why should people consider them valid?

1. I am checking about the reasons with an expert.

2. People should consider them valid because of the duty to obey the Supreme Being (whether called Allah, YHWH or any other name). Also almost all societies forbade polyandry should the prohibition seems to be beneficial for humans.

Societies also historically engaged in some form of slavery. This is a poor metric.

Kernen wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Please let's refrain from in-depth discussions of polygyny (unless you're making a comparison in each post mentioning it) to avoid a threadjack. I will make a polygyny thread next , Inshallah

Why? The two are functionally indistinguishable from a moral perspective.

I explicitly said you can make a comparison, which you just did that's ok. I just don't want to discuss polygyny in it's own right because that's not what the thread is called and because to some people they are different. I'm accommodating everyone.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Kernen wrote:Why? The two are functionally indistinguishable from a moral perspective.

I explicitly said you can make a comparison, which you just did that's ok. I just don't want to discuss polygyny in it's own right because that's not what the thread is called and because to some people they are different. I'm accommodating everyone.

You're going to have an identical discussion, but OK.