Is polyandry bad?

[Rusozak]

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

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.

Societies engaged in slavery because the society itself (the enslaving society) benefitted from it, usually at the expense of another society. I'm making the point that this is clearly harmful otherwise intelligent people would not prohibit it in such a cross-cultural way.

[Sundiata]

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

No, no it is not.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

Yes which is why four witness or a public confession is required (hence it is no longer private and becomes punishable).

[Heloin]

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

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

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

[Kernen]

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

Societies engaged in slavery because the society itself (the enslaving society) benefitted from it, usually at the expense of another society. I'm making the point that this is clearly harmful otherwise intelligent people would not prohibit it in such a cross-cultural way.

Much like the slaves did not benefit from slavery, regardless of historical policy, the polygamous do not benefit from a prohibition regardless of historical policy.

Society can, in fact, develop beyond past prohibitions and tolerances.

[Celritannia]

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.

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.

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.

1. Perhaps not, but I don't see any other reasoning outside of religion why it can be immoral.

2. No, it is not. You cannot tell what people can do when it comes to dating. Sure, you can tell them not to marry for now. But you cannot stop them from dating multiple people.
Psychological research also shows the upbringing of children within multiparent families has no difference on their upbringing than with a child in a monogomous relationship.

3. That's a strawman. Those are not the same as consenting adults doing things they wish to do.

4. You mean how society used to say being gay was wrong?

5. No, because secular laws are there to ensure no religion is superior to the other. If I said Atheistic Laws, then you could argue that is being fascist. But since I am stating secular laws and legislation, not based in any religion, or lack thereof, then it cannot be fascist.

But allowing a religion to have supreme authority on day to day life, and refuse people to live their lives how they want, be it being gay, having multiple partner, etc, then it is damaging.

Sundiata in the past has stated he would have people who are LGBTQ+ people either remain celibate for life, or have them marry someone of the opposite sex, forcing them into 2 choices those people would hate and despise.

But when religious people deny something that is ethical, or essential, then it does damage society.

[Sundiata]

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

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

No?

[Rusozak]

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

No, no it is not.

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

Yes which is why four witness or a public confession is required (hence it is no longer private and becomes punishable).

Any of you got any reasons why it's bad that don't boil down to "because an ancient book said so"?

[Kernen]

Hey, whatever consenting human adults do in private is their business.

No, no it is not.

Well getting yourself involved in their private business is likely to get you arrested so it's likely best all around this way.

[Bienenhalde]

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

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

The US isn't an atheist state like Soviet Russia

[Deacarsia]

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

Those special circumstances being?

Here is a good source explaining the Church’s teaching in greater detail: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5065.htm

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).

There logically can be only true religion. If Mohammed were a prophet, then neither Christianity nor Judaism could possibly be true, as they both reject him. If he is not, then Islam cannot be true, as it accepts him. All three reject Joseph Smith, yet Mormonism accepts him, just as only Buddhism accepts Siddhārtha Gautama. These are but one example of many mutually exclusive beliefs.

The Catholic Church claims absolute infallible teaching authority from Christ, meaning that it alone can express the one true meaning of God’s word, making it clear. If any interpretation disagrees with its solemn teaching, then it rejects it as heresy.

[Kernen]

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

The US isn't an atheist state like Soviet Russia

Gotta love that secularist goodness.

[Celritannia]

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

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

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

[Sundiata]

No, no it is not.

Yes which is why four witness or a public confession is required (hence it is no longer private and becomes punishable).

Any of you got any reasons why it's bad that don't boil down to "because an ancient book said so"?

Yes, because I don't arbitrarily subscribe to the edicts of ancient text.

[Bienenhalde]

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

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Some do, and others do not.

[Deacarsia]

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

The First Amendment, which only applies to the United States anyway, does not prescribe the separation of Church and state. Neither does it prohibit the influence of religion in public and civic life.

It merely prohibits the establishment of a national church, like the Anglicans in England, or the restriction of religions, such as the anti-Catholic penal laws. This is abundantly clear if you actually read its text.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Furthermore, the entire idea of “separation of Church and state” originates in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson, not in any document of legal significance.

[Sundiata]

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

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

A secular country is not Catholic. Secular countries warp the definition of marriage with respect to Catholic doctrine. Religion must be an individual and societal affair.

[Deacarsia]

Indeed, the Supreme Court itself explicitly has referred to the United States as a Christian nation. (For example, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 1892)

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, 'Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: 'The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.' And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 'It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, 'In the name of God, amen;' the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's a good thing, it means the rest of us men who are trying to get a woman have less competition to go up against.

[Sundiata]

It's a good thing, it means the rest of us men who are trying to get a woman have less competition to go up against.

Sure, sure.

[Rusozak]

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

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Actually the Soviet Union was pretty hard on LGBTQ+ persecution so it's not just a religious thing, but that's beside the point of the thread.

[Disgraces]

I'm against poligamy but I don't care if a woman has multiple sexual partners simultaneously. I won't deny that I have a certain aversion to it though.

[Celritannia]

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

A secular country is not Catholic. Secular countries warp the definition of marriage with respect to Catholic doctrine. Religion must be an individual and societal affair.

So a secular country cannot be a Atheistic fascist state then, can it?

No, no they do not.

Religion must not be a societal affair, because there are many religions, especially in the West.

[Celritannia]

Is a secular country atheistic?
Do secular countries deny LGBTQ+ people the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Some do, and others do not.

Depends if it is an authoritarian state.