In defence of Polygamy
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
If they are consenting adults, then I don't see a problem with it.
Just as we give our young children different rules at different stages of their development, so religion has played an important part in the social and moral development of human civilisation. From a purely sociological point of view I think this is undeniable even for atheists.
This is one area where dogmatism has to some extent had a macro stabilising influence on human society, and to some extend continues to do so in lesser developed areas, however, it has arguably had it's day in modern western civilisation.
Seen from a pragmatic morally relativistic stance these social rules and norms can be beneficial at first but there comes a tipping point (or rather more of an extended grey area) where their positive influences no longer out-weigh the negative consequences of holding on to them.
In general I think we are approaching a stage in human social development where conservatism it's self will no longer be seen as an acceptable / alternative political or ideological position, but rather as a morally deficient system which must be superseded by progressivism if we are to continue to grow and thrive as a species.
Unfortunately this means that there are troubled times ahead as more morally objective and advanced ideologies clash and conflict with deeply embedded old conservativistic norms.
Generally, polygamy is one MAN with multiple wives. Rarely the other way around. It's generally practiced in societies that are very misogynist. It is also generally a part of strong class separation, where those with money and power have multiple wives. So, while I see nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, it's practice is usually tainted and indicative of some form of social injustice.
Polygamy is by definition one husband with multiple wives. The reverse situation is polyandry.
I don't think I could handle either situation myself, but I have no objection in principle, provided that only consenting adults are involved. No crime is involved unless one person tries to register multiple legal marriages at the same time. However, there would be no legal protection for the property rights of the individuals concerned in the event of a breakup
From an atheist position? I don't see how this relates... has sod all to do with atheism.
But from a personal stand point? I couldn't care, provided all parties are consenting I don't see a problem.
From a moral point of view I would say I don't like the sound of it, it's not something I would engage in and if I had a daughter who was being lured into that kind of relationship, strong words would be had with the gentleman in question..... with a sledgehammer. :)
Polygamy and polyamory play in different leagues. Before you jump into conclussions for egalitarian reasons (I used to think the same way), I urged you to read or listen to Andrea M. Emmett, a psychologist/journalist who spent several years in Uttah studying bible-based polygamy and she wrote an awarded book with interviews of women ex-members, called "God's brothel".
She concluded that in fact polygamy is a cover for pedophilia, rape, incest, orgies, sexual slavery and violence.
"She concluded that in fact polygamy is a cover for pedophilia, rape, incest, orgies, sexual slavery and violence."
I think I will agree with that conclusion, but mostly when it is institutional and when one gender or individual is dominant.
I remember this thread from more than two years ago. I go away for awhile and when I come back, BANG! here it is again.
I wonder why that is?
Hi, CM Allen. There were four 2017 posts before mine. I felt like writting about it, since no-one had added a reliable source to prove the dark side of this...
Sorry if this has upset you.
Yes, I was just talking about biblical-based poligamy.
(edited 'cause of grammar mistakes)
Oh no, it doesn't upset me. In fact I find it quite amusing that a thread about polygamy would reappear after 2 years like that. And I am glad you posted that source, it offers a sobering perspective.
Ah, okok. You're welcome!
I've been involved in polyamery for a number of years. It's no one else's business but mine, my partner and my boyfriend. It's not advertised to anyone. I've not brought it into my family life in any way. I'm not harming anyone. I don't see the problem. I know many that are polyamerous.
I believe in people being free to do as they please so I don't think the government or anyone should interfere with polygamous relationships or anything.
But at the same time polygamy is considered to destabilise societies and is linked to war, terrorism and is condemned by the UN human rights committee as it is linked to human rights violations. So I think a society holding polygamy a little bit taboo and the state not recognising polygamy by legalising marriage is probably best.
I'm an atheist and I am 100% against polygamy nor do I believe the nonsense written in the original post.
"Atheists who hold strong perspectives against polygamy are like the atheists who argue in favor of there being a spirit or free-will behind every person, they are atheists who, whilst not believing in god or religion, still cling to a religiously motivated morality."
This is ridiculous. I have no religious beliefs. I was born atheist and have remained so for my entire life, currently 37 years old. I am against polygamy for reasons based on biology, society, history and reason.
I am against polygamy because it is bad for society and leads to violence, suffering, death, rape and possibly war. As human beings we have a natural drive to procreate and have offspring just all life forms. Take a look at countries where males are preferred to females and female babies are killed or aborted before they are born because they are not male. Say India. There are places in India where there are 40 males to 1 female ratios. These are also places where you find lots of rape, gang rapes, etc.
Many of these men have no possibly way to ever pass on their genes / procreate or even just have sex. Their drive to do so does not go away, it's there constantly nagging at them in their subconscious. For many of these guys the only way they will ever be able to have sex is if they rape someone or kill the partner of that female to increase that males chances of hooking up.
In places like China you have prostitutes shipped in and major human trafficking problems, again, because of the male to female ratio being so off balance.
To the other questions asked, no , I am not against gay marriage or anything else. There is no reason to be. There is great reason to be against polygamy though and it has nothing to do whatsoever with any worthless religion or fairy tale characters from their ignorant "holy" books.
What mature consenting adults do regarding their sexual functioning or preference is no one else's business.
Imo the best model of civilization involves a monogamous hetero couple where the male goes out to earn an income and the mother nurtures and raises the children.
Generic leftists typically disagree because muh gender and identity politics.
Sounds like Unilineal evolution.
"Sounds like Unilineal evolution."
And here's its bastard child:
How does your mind make the jump from mum dad & kids of average middle class nuclear family to eugenics.
Leftists are just overflowing mindless meme cliché generators that can't actually compose a rational thought of your own.
These days it's become impossible to tell the difference between an actual living breathing leftists and a leftist spam bot.
Another post and you would have got to the gassing of Jews somehow ...that already. happened in the Polish March thread lmao.
Re: "How does your mind make the jump from mum dad & kids of average middle class nuclear family to eugenics."
Exactly the same way Nyar made the jump from belief in the mummy the homemaker/daddy the breadwinner thing to unilineal evolution. Didn't you read the link he gave you? Eugenics grew out of unilineal evolution, which itself grew out of a misunderstanding of what Darwin meant by survival of the fittest. FFS, mate! It's simple history- not a leftist plot!
Re: "Another post and you would have got to the gassing of Jews somehow ...that already. happened in the Polish March thread lmao."
Are you denying the rise of the far right in Poland? Again, it's simple fact- not a leftist plot. I gave you lots of evidence.
Re: "Leftists are just overflowing mindless meme cliché generators that can't actually compose a rational thought of your own.
These days it's become impossible to tell the difference between an actual living breathing leftists and a leftist spam."
I'm getting a little tired of the endless ad homs, mate. I wouldn't mind if you actually engaged with my arguments and the data I present, but noooo! You're patently incapable of it. The bulk of your posts are " The left bad this!." and "The left bad that!" with nothing to evidence your shit or even signify you have a fucking clue what the left even is. What's the matter, lad? Did a little leftist girl knock you back?
I thought we discussed your use of sweeping generalisation as rhetoric to create negative stereotypes?
Do you have any evidence that the left is any less diverse than the right in politics? How would you feel if someone described right wingers as avericious fascists?
"@sheldon How would you feel if someone described right wingers as avericious fascists?"
Already happened on this board multiple times, how do I feel about, bored like I'm talking to a leftist spam bot.
Yet you continue to use such disingenuous and generic pejoratives yourself, as if such rhetoric is compelling?
If someone uses unsound argument or reasoning it can be frustrating, but the answer is to challenge it with sound arguments and reasoning, not match their dishonest rhetoric post for post. Or even worse adopt the practise in every discussion.
Re: "Generic leftists"
You must have missed the "mindless meme cliché generators that can't actually compose a rational thought of your own. These days it's become impossible to tell the difference between an actual living breathing leftists and a leftist spam." ad hom directed at me, Sheldon. I don't think the lad's "generic" is quite as "generic" as he claims. I think it's quite specific and I think it's called trolling:
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.
Let's face if we're talking about polygamy then we're talking about Mormons. Polygamy has caused widespread sexual abuse of minors in the Mormon religion.
I recommend you read Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of violent Faith. Polygamy as practised in Mormonism is far from consenting adults.
Some post mentioned polygamy mostly means males with multiple wives, paraphrasing.
That's a reflection of female inherent nature where women are willing to share the "fittest" male type deal, no different to chimps really.
Could you link the research evidencing that claim about women? Only I'm dubious, as it just sounds like something misogynistic men make up to justify their chauvinism. Nothing about polygamy in Mormonism involves the "fittest" males being shared. Most of the evidence suggests it involves deeply pernicious behaviours like paedophilia and incest, and a complete dehumanising of women and girls who treated as little more than chattel as fat balding middle aged men use them with no regard for their well being.
Again read Under The Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer for a real insight into the horror of modern day polygamy, and the lives of young girls and women it ruins.
Which claim specifically, and please also explain why said claim sounds misogynistic and chauvinistic.
Can't respond unless I know what you are talking about specifically.
You only made one claim in the post I responded to?
"female inherent nature where women are willing to share the "fittest" male "
"explain why said claim sounds misogynistic and chauvinistic."
That's self evident. It's misogynistic to claim that women are any more ok sharing a man, than multiple men might be sharing a single woman. Again read the book, do some research, polygamy is a filthy dehumanising practise that ruins the lives of women and girls. It's the very definition of inequality before you even start to examine the vile pernicious behaviours that it engenders in societies that victimise women and girls with polygamy.
Fact is less men have children than women but more men have more children than women.
That means most of us come from fewer fathers than mothers, I'm sure you can do the math.
Polyandry is common across species including bees. Domestic animals and farm animals are more advanced then humans in that so few males are responsible for most of the babies it leads to disastrous genetic bottle necks. I have worked a bit in animal production.
Not sure how you get misogyny out of all that but hey, that's leftist thinking...everything is a male plot.
You can find your own citations if you are genuinely interested.