Is polyandry bad?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

In some cultures, there's a tradition of brothers marrying the same woman to simplify inheritance. It actually does solve some problems if you have a pre-capitalist economy where land is the primary form of wealth.

It's obviously not for everyone, though.

And then each of those brothers can only have a limited number of children. Handy in a society where war can decimate the male population.

[Necroghastia]

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

No, no it is not.

Why not?

[Nova Bromelia]

Consent is not the sole determinant of whether or not an act is immoral.

I'd say it is, in the case of unions like these. Of course, "consent" would entail more than just saying "yes", for example, there are examples of cults where one (male) cult leader uses his influence over (female) followers to force himself on them. In which case the act would definitely be immoral, on the part of the cult leader.

In general, in the case of polyandry/polygamy , there might be something to be said for welfare workers to check on on such a family on occasion. But still, I don't like how the practice is outright banned in most (Western) countries.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

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.

Do you have a source? Also were most of the group studied multi-female households? The Economist’s says illegitimate kids have a hard time in school and with the law.

[Imperium Latine]

Polygamy is bad, having multiple partners at the same time is neither healthy nor good for people or society as an whole.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

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

You're saying that the first amendment is fascistic?

Does the first amendment say “government cannot legislate based on its religious beliefs.”
It says government cannot legislate regard an “establishment of religion” I.E. a state religion like the Church of England (what they probably wanted to not imitate) or an Islamic republic like Pakistan.

[Sundiata]

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.

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be an individual and societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

[Celritannia]

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.

Do you have a source? Also were most of the group studied multi-female households? The Economist’s says illegitimate kids have a hard time in school and with the law.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ies-part-1

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... lationship

“Looking at these kids overall, I would say that they are equally – if not more – emotionally healthy than their peers,” Sheff says. “The kids from poly families are pros at establishing new relationships. They’ve been growing up marinated in personal growth and honesty, and exposed to a wide range of ideas. They don’t necessarily think they’ll be polyamorous themselves, particularly since most grow up in an environment designed to foster independent thought.”

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

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.

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be a societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

Doesn’t Catholic Church teaching forbid religious persecution?

[Celritannia]

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.

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be a societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

Secularism is not atheistic.
If a country was atheistic, it would not allow religion, would it?

Do you have any examples of a secular atheistic country?

So you want to force people to obey one religion against their will, denying them rights to freedom?

In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.[4]

[Atheris]

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be a societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

Doesn’t Catholic Church teaching forbid religious persecution?

After the whole inquisition thing, yeah.

[Heloin]

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.

Well it's nice of you to tell me all this, I'll call you next time I need an answer to a question I didn't ask.

Doesn't change the fact Sundiata's comment, a response to Celritannia's comment, implied that the first amendment was fascistic. I don't think that was the point he was trying to make, it's just whatever point he was wanting to make was made extremely poorly.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do you have a source? Also were most of the group studied multi-female households? The Economist’s says illegitimate kids have a hard time in school and with the law.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ies-part-1

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... lationship

“Looking at these kids overall, I would say that they are equally – if not more – emotionally healthy than their peers,” Sheff says. “The kids from poly families are pros at establishing new relationships. They’ve been growing up marinated in personal growth and honesty, and exposed to a wide range of ideas. They don’t necessarily think they’ll be polyamorous themselves, particularly since most grow up in an environment designed to foster independent thought.”

Did those studies control for polyandry in particular versus polygyny?

[Sundiata]

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be a societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

Doesn’t Catholic Church teaching forbid religious persecution?

Yes, but it doesn't teach that non-Catholics are entirely correct.

[Celritannia]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ies-part-1

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... lationship

Did those studies control for polyandry in particular versus polygyny?

No, just polyamory as a whole.
But I do not think that matters, since it is discussing multiple partners.

[Bienenhalde]

Secularism is atheistic in the sense that it overlooks and trivializes religious concerns by contrasting them with the state. A secular country can be an atheistic fascist state.

Religion must be a societal affair. There should not be many religions, especially in the West.

Secularism is not atheistic.
If a country was atheistic, it would not allow religion, would it?

Do you have any examples of a secular atheistic country?

So you want to force people to obey one religion against their will, denying them rights to freedom?

But supposing a country allows people to worship in private, but coerces them into acting against their religious values in public or forbids them from participation in government, can you really say that those people are truly being allowed to fully practice their religion?

[Atheris]

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.

The First Amendment doesn't, but Article 6 does.

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[Necroghastia]

Polygamy is bad, having multiple partners at the same time is neither healthy nor good for people or society as an whole.

What's not healthy about it?

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Doesn’t Catholic Church teaching forbid religious persecution?

Yes, but it doesn't teach that non-Catholics are entirely correct.

Ok. I would prefer to live in a Catholic state than I would to live in Sweden. Easier to find a non-trashy girlfriend. Not all Swedish girls are like that though someone I know has a Swedish girlfriend who is quite nice.

[Celritannia]

Secularism is not atheistic.
If a country was atheistic, it would not allow religion, would it?

Do you have any examples of a secular atheistic country?

So you want to force people to obey one religion against their will, denying them rights to freedom?

But supposing a country allows people to worship in private, but coerces them into acting against their religious values in public or forbids them from participation in government, can you really say that those people are truly being allowed to fully practice their religion?

People can practice their religion, as long as religion and politics remains separate. After all, politicians have to deal with a wide range of people, so you cannot just pander to those of a similar religion.

[Bienenhalde]

The First Amendment, which only applies to the United States anyway, does not prescribe the separation of Church and state.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States."

If anything, trying to enforce absolute separation of church and state by banning non-atheists from public office would be a violation of the religious test clause.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

To each their own. As long as there’s no abuse or coercion involved, I’m fine with both polyandry and polyamory. To me it’s perfectly fine if women have more than one partner (married to too) and if men do too. Just as I’m perfectly ok if only one portion of the arrangement abstains. How you conduct your marital and sexual life is none of my business.

[Bienenhalde]

But supposing a country allows people to worship in private, but coerces them into acting against their religious values in public or forbids them from participation in government, can you really say that those people are truly being allowed to fully practice their religion?

People can practice their religion, as long as religion and politics remains separate. After all, politicians have to deal with a wide range of people, so you cannot just pander to those of a similar religion.

Who said anything about pandering to a particular religious community? I just think politicians should try to do what is morally right, and many people understand morality on the basis of their religious faith.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

The First Amendment, which only applies to the United States anyway, does not prescribe the separation of Church and state.

The First Amendment doesn't, but Article 6 does.

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It only says about religion being a requirement to hold public office (which it should not be). It doesn’t say about the basis elected political officials make their policy decisions on.

[Kernen]

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.

Dicta. The legally operative aspect of that case is long overshadowed by modern statutory interpretation.