And that’s why some people object to polygamy. Others object because of the multiple sex partners. I could imagine people even thinking of it as some kind of tax dodge, or socialism, or reasons I couldn’t fathom.
You do think that women should be able to marry more than one person? So above story wouldn’t be a problem for you if one of the women had a husband and a wife?
From my personal experience a lot of muslim women do not consent to their husband havinv more than one wife (in Islam the woman has to consent), so it’s something that happens only when the women agree to it.
It’s a complicated question to answer. Consent can’t be given under duress, and the rate of abuse in polygamous marriages is astoundingly high. If there was some magical way that the state could verify that everyone is consenting with a true option to say no without their life being ruined, that would be great. However having the state decide who can marry would go really poorly at some point. As a result, I think we’re left with the western status quo where we throw the baby out with the bath water and ban the whole thing. It’s kinda like how some people can be responsible handgun owners but others are murderers and the potential downsides are great enough that nobody gets the privilege. Same for selling cocaine.
Oh, I agree, but in those instances there might also be the possibility of women being forced to mary (even as first/only wife).
And Islam is already very explicit with the consent of the woman being required, just like western laws do that (and yet it can still happen)
But you bringing up handguns, I think we should always consider benefit and risks, and the risks of everybody owning handguns do definitely exceed the risks of some people having multiple wifes (as in risks for society, as well as risks for personal safety)
Sure, but that’s universal. Most of the Islamic theocratic have this problem, and it’s a point of general focus… but Islam is their excuse, not a functional cause. It’s not like Mormons did it any better.
Somehow I doubt your sincerity. Most people who bring up women’s rights when it comes to Muslims only bring up women’s rights when Muslims are involved. Like conservatives who would happily defund every women’s sports programs but use women’s sports as a cudgel to hurt trans people.
It’s really transparent and disingenuous, and you give off those same vibes.
Based on one comment? You’re pulling that out of your ass because confronting your own inconsistencies makes you uncomfortable. Feel free to stalk my comment history of you want.
Also way to tell on yourself that you don’t respect women’s rights.
Consent under duress or desperation is not consent. That’s why I’m pointing out that if the polygamy only ever goes one way, there is an obvious power imbalance that prevents consent from being possible.
You’re making a sweeping general statement.
Polygamy is just Polyamory taken to vows.
There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way, but not polygamy itself.
There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way
That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it’s done in an unethical way.
but not polygamy itself.
That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there’s no issue.
The same can apply to polyandry, or what is said to be polyandry but based on one or multiple people involved ultimately being coerced. Come to think of it, all the people i knew who prided themselves in polyandry had relationships that seemed rather toxic to me.
There is no moral superiority of relationship forms. Whether the relationships are consensual, respectful and just always is individual to the people involved.
You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Then, according to that logic, not a single person who believes in a mainstream/typical religion is consenting to it, because many families and communities will shun you if you leave their religion. That is a social construct and may or may not happen depending on many factors.
Are you specifically talking about the concept of apostasy in Islam and how it’s supposedly punishable by death?
Then, according to that logic, not a single person who believes in a mainstream/typical religion is consenting to it, because many families and communities will shun you if you leave their religion.
Yep! It’s truly horrific, isn’t it? If there is an omnipotent god, why do the teachings need to be spread by force an violence by humans? That doesn’t seem very omnipotent to me…
You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Then almost no one consents to their religion worldwide at all, barring a relative handful who leave the dominant faith in their community and are essentially disconnected solo practitioners of whatever, because joining or marrying into a different religious community is essentially just choosing a different group with the power to shun you for leaving their faith in turn.
Find me just one example of a Muslim woman with two husbands.
That wasn’t the ask though? They were asking about polygamy in general…
It’s an easy one-sentence way to point out the inherent subjugation of women.
And that’s why some people object to polygamy. Others object because of the multiple sex partners. I could imagine people even thinking of it as some kind of tax dodge, or socialism, or reasons I couldn’t fathom.
Yet it muddies the water with Islamophobia.
Call me whatever you want, I believe women should have equal rights.
You do think that women should be able to marry more than one person? So above story wouldn’t be a problem for you if one of the women had a husband and a wife?
From my personal experience a lot of muslim women do not consent to their husband havinv more than one wife (in Islam the woman has to consent), so it’s something that happens only when the women agree to it.
It’s a complicated question to answer. Consent can’t be given under duress, and the rate of abuse in polygamous marriages is astoundingly high. If there was some magical way that the state could verify that everyone is consenting with a true option to say no without their life being ruined, that would be great. However having the state decide who can marry would go really poorly at some point. As a result, I think we’re left with the western status quo where we throw the baby out with the bath water and ban the whole thing. It’s kinda like how some people can be responsible handgun owners but others are murderers and the potential downsides are great enough that nobody gets the privilege. Same for selling cocaine.
Oh, I agree, but in those instances there might also be the possibility of women being forced to mary (even as first/only wife).
And Islam is already very explicit with the consent of the woman being required, just like western laws do that (and yet it can still happen)
But you bringing up handguns, I think we should always consider benefit and risks, and the risks of everybody owning handguns do definitely exceed the risks of some people having multiple wifes (as in risks for society, as well as risks for personal safety)
Sure, but that’s universal. Most of the Islamic theocratic have this problem, and it’s a point of general focus… but Islam is their excuse, not a functional cause. It’s not like Mormons did it any better.
Agreed. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Do you agree? Really? Cause your intimation seems to be that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100% doesn’t believe women should have equal rights.
You could expound on your point a bit more, but it’d probably take more than one sentence. Please try.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re asking of me. Women having equal rights is a binary thing, they either do or don’t.
Somehow I doubt your sincerity. Most people who bring up women’s rights when it comes to Muslims only bring up women’s rights when Muslims are involved. Like conservatives who would happily defund every women’s sports programs but use women’s sports as a cudgel to hurt trans people.
It’s really transparent and disingenuous, and you give off those same vibes.
Based on one comment? You’re pulling that out of your ass because confronting your own inconsistencies makes you uncomfortable. Feel free to stalk my comment history of you want.
Also way to tell on yourself that you don’t respect women’s rights.
If everyone involved consents, should that be anyone else’s business?
Consent under duress or desperation is not consent. That’s why I’m pointing out that if the polygamy only ever goes one way, there is an obvious power imbalance that prevents consent from being possible.
You’re making a sweeping general statement. Polygamy is just Polyamory taken to vows. There is a problem with a lot of the people that practice polygamy in an unethical way, but not polygamy itself.
That is what the person you responded to said. There is a problem with the cultural of polygamy here because it’s done in an unethical way.
That is also what the person you replied to said. They clarified specifically that if both genders are free to practice polygamy in the same way there’s no issue.
And that can be judged from the outside?
The same can apply to polyandry, or what is said to be polyandry but based on one or multiple people involved ultimately being coerced. Come to think of it, all the people i knew who prided themselves in polyandry had relationships that seemed rather toxic to me.
There is no moral superiority of relationship forms. Whether the relationships are consensual, respectful and just always is individual to the people involved.
Are you arguing that all polygamous Muslim marriages are happening under duress?
If so, that’s a sweeping generalisation and a false statement. The polygamy being one-way doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not consensual.
Then why can’t people consent in the other direction?
Because the parties involved embrace a religion that prohibits it, and they willingly consent to that restriction by extension.
Again, consent under duress is not consent. You can’t consent to a religion if leaving it causes you to be shunned by your family and community.
Then, according to that logic, not a single person who believes in a mainstream/typical religion is consenting to it, because many families and communities will shun you if you leave their religion. That is a social construct and may or may not happen depending on many factors.
Are you specifically talking about the concept of apostasy in Islam and how it’s supposedly punishable by death?
Yep! It’s truly horrific, isn’t it? If there is an omnipotent god, why do the teachings need to be spread by force an violence by humans? That doesn’t seem very omnipotent to me…
Then almost no one consents to their religion worldwide at all, barring a relative handful who leave the dominant faith in their community and are essentially disconnected solo practitioners of whatever, because joining or marrying into a different religious community is essentially just choosing a different group with the power to shun you for leaving their faith in turn.
Pretty abusive, isn’t it?
Excuse me? If you want one find her yourself.
I answered your question of if my objection was about the subjugation of women, and I pointed out how subjugating women is the problem.
deleted by creator
That’s not the point.