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.
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?