Polygamy (Split from Christianity thread)

[Disco08]

I think there is a difference between promoting a species and polygamy though.
You don't have to get married to keep a race going....you just become a philanderer....and have sex with multiple women.
That way you can still promote the species without becoming polygamous.
If you want to commit to one woman then you get married.
It is quite a simple comcept that the majority of society has accepted for centuries now...so let me ask you a question....what has changed in our society that polygamy should now become legal?

More people are willing to live and let live now. That's why we don't see any number or barbaric practices from centuries gone by in today's society.

If a man and more than one women are willing to make the same commitment to eachother as a single couple why should they be denied? No one suffers from the arrangement so what's the problem?

 

[1eyedtiger]

On the first point, if Australia because 90% Islamic, then its "you" who has the choice to leave. This is my point, what the majority want/are/believe in changes. Just 50 years ago Australia considered itself a white Christian society, yet now were are more secular. A country changes, and who knows what we will be in 200 years (although I doubt it will be the same as the country is today, or was 200 years before).

On the second point, of course you get a say, its called an election. If the alco-pop thing annoys enough people, Labour will be booted, just as the Libs were with Work Choices. So under your society does this mean that anyone who disagreed with Work Choices should have left Australia, or now who disagrees with Alcopops should do likewise? Personally I prefer to stay and let my vote say its piece in 2 years time.

On the final point, I'm glad you concede laws do need to change, but why is the Marriage Act immune to this? I'm pretty sure it has been amended over the years (off memory minimums ages were changed to match changes in social views - but I could be confusing this with age of consent), and this is a process that will continue.

I just wanted to ask you T74, If you were born in a country and lived your entire life under certain laws and morals, would you be prepared to fight for your way of life or just pack up and leave if the country you lived in was stupid enough to let those with what you consider to be immoral ways, in, become citizens, vote and use our democratic ways to size control and remove democracy? Other countries have a habit of not giving out citizenship to every Tom, *smile* and Harry (apologies to any Tom, *smile* and Harry's out there.) who happens to come along. Australia is labelled as racist if anything is said or done against foreigners but there are many countries where the only way the gain citizenship is to be born there. This is to preserve their way of life.

Is is racist to preserve your way of life?

Back to the issue of polygamy, how can anyone ask Livers to separate the moral issue from the legal issue when it is the very issue of polygamy being legally recognised? Let's keep things in context here. As far a religious beliefs are concerned, people can do what they like for I care as long as they are not harming others. But to make it legally recognised is an entirely different matter.

Besides, what rights have Muslim women ever had under Islamic law anyway?


This is the pretext for this argument.

I see it as a case of give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

 

[Six Pack]

ah, the thin end of the wedge argument!

a classic :clap

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Back to the issue of polygamy, how can anyone ask Livers to separate the moral issue from the legal issue when it is the very issue of polygamy being legally recognised? Let's keep things in context here. As far a religious beliefs are concerned, people can do what they like for I care as long as they are not harming others. But to make it legally recognised is an entirely different matter.

How does it make it different? The question asked of Livers was specifically about the moral issues surrounding polygamy. Our laws tend to reflect the moral standing of the populace at large. If polygamy is considered morally alright (I am not advocating that view BTW) then why shouldn't it be legal? Because it is different from what you are used to? How does it affect you?

Besides, what rights have Muslim women ever had under Islamic law anyway?

Indeed.

 

[1eyedtiger]

How does it make it different? The question asked of Livers was specifically about the moral issues surrounding polygamy. Our laws tend to reflect the moral standing of the populace at large. If polygamy is considered morally alright (I am not advocating that view BTW) then why shouldn't it be legal? Because it is different from what you are used to? How does it affect you?

Indeed.

Since when have laws ever reflected morals? Laws reflect the view of the influential minority. Far from what the majority think.

Recognising polygamy legally sets a precedence which the Islamic community may use in the future to justify further legal reform in their favour. Before you know, Australia will be an Islamic nation run according to sharia law. The lack of spine displayed by Australian governments in the last couple of decades shows me that there will be minimal resistant to this. Any resistance will be labelled as racist and 'un-Australian' .


That's how it affects me.

 

[Six Pack]

Before you know, Australia will be an Islamic nation run according to sharia law.

Hilarious!

:hihi

 

[1eyedtiger]

Hilarious!

:hihi

Maybe,

Let's pass the law allowing polygamies. What next?

You know, I had a discussion with a bloke once about compulsory voting. (I don't believe in it. At least we should be allowed to waive our vote is the absence of anyone worth voting for.) His response was that if we remove compulsory voting, there was a danger that no one would vote (being lazy australians of course) except for the religious fanatics and they would win. This was someone who is much older than myself and would probably know much more about world events than I. Immigration is a prime cause for this.

Ask any Aboriginal how it works.

Made me think about it. The last election saw at least one Muslim candidate stand for election. Whether you agree with me or not, (and you can make all the fun of me that you like), if there was ever a majority of Muslim representatives in parliament, then you can kiss our current way of life and democracy goodbye.

 

[Six Pack]

voting isnt compulsory. enrolling is and turning up and getting yr name ticked off is. but casting a vote isnt compulsory,

you can stick that bit of paper in the slot with nothing on it.

no vote recorded

 

[Tiger74]

I just wanted to ask you T74, If you were born in a country and lived your entire life under certain laws and morals, would you be prepared to fight for your way of life or just pack up and leave if the country you lived in was stupid enough to let those with what you consider to be immoral ways, in, become citizens, vote and use our democratic ways to size control and remove democracy? Other countries have a habit of not giving out citizenship to every Tom, *smile* and Harry (apologies to any Tom, *smile* and Harry's out there.) who happens to come along. Australia is labelled as racist if anything is said or done against foreigners but there are many countries where the only way the gain citizenship is to be born there. This is to preserve their way of life.

Is is racist to preserve your way of life?

Back to the issue of polygamy, how can anyone ask Livers to separate the moral issue from the legal issue when it is the very issue of polygamy being legally recognised? Let's keep things in context here. As far a religious beliefs are concerned, people can do what they like for I care as long as they are not harming others. But to make it legally recognised is an entirely different matter.

Besides, what rights have Muslim women ever had under Islamic law anyway?


This is the pretext for this argument.

I see it as a case of give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

So you believe that even if people who agree with your view only constitute 20% of the population, your way should hold because "I was 'ere first"?

I hated much of what Howard brought our country, and to help get rid of him I voted against him and lost of fair bit of shoe leather helping convince others to do so to.

If someone is pushing an agenda you disagree with, you need to convince the majority of the merits of your beliefs by getting off your backside and showing the value of your argument. Of course its harder to convince people you are right, but this is a core of being a part of a democractic society.

 

[1eyedtiger]

voting isnt compulsory. enrolling is and turning up and getting yr name ticked off is. but casting a vote isnt compulsory,

you can stick that bit of paper in the slot with nothing on it.

no vote recorded

That's beside the point.

I often put in informal votes. And I refuse to vote in local council elections where (in my area at least) it is postal only, you must sign it and therefore it can be recorded who you voted for (whether you believe it or not. Don't argue on this, it could potentially happen).

You tell me what would happen if one day an Australian election resulted in the majority of politicians being Islamic?

Keep in mind that most likely most candidates would probably not even disclose their religion before the election claiming it may influence the result and then claim after the election that they have a 'mandate' to do as they please.

How ironic that one day they may remove our freedoms and democracy using the very freedoms and democracy that get them into power in the first place.

I would quote your last post T74, but if you can't see my point, then so be it.


I've said before, I don't care about polygamy, but why change our laws to accommodate it? Why now?

 

[Tiger74]

I've said before, I don't care about polygamy, but why change our laws to accommodate it? Why now?

[/quote]

You is changing a law here? Neither party has agreed to take it up. A few clerics raised it, and NO-ONE has run with it.

 

[Liverpool]

I didn't ask you 'who' informed you...I asked you 'what' informed your moral stance....ie. why do you consider polygamy wrong? What I am asking for is some introspection on your moral stance, further than saying, well that is the way it is, so it must be right. If you take that stance than any two individuals from different societies have no hope of ever seeing eye to eye on different views of morality. Moral principles are informed by the factors that you mentioned, but it can be useful to ask yourself why you hold such moral principles. Your responses suggest that you haven't subjected your moral beliefs to such analyses.

I told you what informed me....the environment I grew up in, my family, my school, the media, personal experiences....all have a bearing on developing one's beliefs, and hence, my moral stance on a variety of issues.
I don't have the need to subject my moral beliefs to analysis because I am quite confident in them as a person.
I look at the people who have influenced me throughout my life and the type of people they are....and that helps you along the moral path you wish to take in life....and whether you take it with confidence or not.
Only people who don't really believe in their own morals and beliefs and change with the wind (or what is popular at the time) need to analyse their stance on issues.

I don't know where this came from. I am pretty sure that no one will disagree with you on the fact that there are moral boundaries that are essential for a cohesive and harmonious society. The question is why do we consider certain actions right and wrong. That can generate healthy debate on the grey areas.

There are no grey areas....only people who are trying to push a certain agenda manufacture 'grey areas' to try and get what they want.
Seeing this is the 'polygamy thread'....for a start, there isn't a 'grey area' legally....you either marry one person (legal) or marry multiple people (illegal)....end of story.
And even morally there are no 'grey areas'....you either commit your undying love to one person.....or you don't.
You can't make a commitment and take a vow to one woman and then have the audacity to use the same vows on another woman while still married to the first one. That is what is called IMMORAL....because you can't promise a unique gift to someone and then give the same gift to someone else, can you?
Like footy where there are too many coaches overanalysing and complicating the game....such as it is in life...where people overanalyse simple issues and make a mountain out of a molehill with them....twisting and skewing things to appease a certain section of the community or in most cases, appeasing their own egos.

 

[1eyedtiger]

You is changing a law here? Neither party has agreed to take it up. A few clerics raised it, and NO-ONE has run with it.

I'm not changing to law. I'm simply questioning why the clerics would raise the issue and why now?

I question their motives.

Muslim clerics concerned with the rights of Muslim women! :rofl

 

[jb03]

No one suffers from the arrangement so what's the problem?

Too simplistic that argument I reckon Patsy. There are a squillion things that people do that harm no one but that are both immoral, illegal or both.

 

[Liverpool]

More people are willing to live and let live now. That's why we don't see any number or barbaric practices from centuries gone by in today's society.
If a man and more than one women are willing to make the same commitment to eachother as a single couple why should they be denied? No one suffers from the arrangement so what's the problem?

Nobody suffers?
That's a pretty short-sighted view.
What about the children born within this 'family'?
What about welfare....does the amount of wives you have determine how much money the Government should give you?
What about the fact that the number of available women would decrease dramatically as men marry multiple wives, leaving many other men single with no wives? How does that affect our society and our future?
What about the fact that polygamy is something that is really degrading to women....more or less showing them no more respect than the way males of certain species of animals treat the female gender of the same specie (such as lions...a dominant male and a handful of lionesses).
I would like to think that the human race has evolved somewhat more than mere animals and that women have gained some equality in society, which the act of polygamy sets back centuries...which is no surprise considering the religion of Islam that is pushing this agenda hasn't evolved itself out of the stone-age yet either.
Maybe you need to attend one of Panthera's "Moral analysing" sessions....? :hihi

 

[Liverpool]

oh dear oh dear just another nail in the coffin of democracy . its not the enemy without but the enemy within that you really have to fear. just ask the brits. theres a good chance that in 20 30 yrs time gb will be under sharia law
i really dont get these muslims if they really want to live under their customs and lets face it most are offensive to us the inhabitants, why do they come here to live.
one thing all immigrants should learn it should be written in stone our laws take precedence over all else. if you dont like it dont come here.

:clap

That's beside the point.
I often put in informal votes. And I refuse to vote in local council elections where (in my area at least) it is postal only, you must sign it and therefore it can be recorded who you voted for (whether you believe it or not. Don't argue on this, it could potentially happen).
You tell me what would happen if one day an Australian election resulted in the majority of politicians being Islamic?
Keep in mind that most likely most candidates would probably not even disclose their religion before the election claiming it may influence the result and then claim after the election that they have a 'mandate' to do as they please.
How ironic that one day they may remove our freedoms and democracy using the very freedoms and democracy that get them into power in the first place.
I would quote your last post T74, but if you can't see my point, then so be it.
I've said before, I don't care about polygamy, but why change our laws to accommodate it? Why now?

Another :clap
Exactly....why now?...because we are getting more and more Islamic people within our society here and therefore more and more of their agendas will be pushed into the limelight. This is the tip of the iceberg.
Sure, their beliefs and what they want legalised might not get the support NOW.....but as the numbers grow within their ranks, then so will their views get stronger....and as we have seen in a variety of Western countries who have a far greater ratio of Islam/non-Islam people making up their population, their views get stronger and their actions to get what they want become stronger as well.
Name one westernised country that has an Islamic population which has not caused difficulty within that country, their society, or their laws?
You only need to look at the fine examples of England, France, Germany, Holland, and Denmark to see what we are in store for in this country in the next 20+ years regarding Islam:

 

[Liverpool]

I'm not changing to law. I'm simply questioning why the clerics would raise the issue and why now?
I question their motives.
Muslim clerics concerned with the rights of Muslim women! :rofl

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. :-\
I think Disco/Panthera/Tiger74/SuxPack should read the clerics views that polygamy should be allowed to 'protect women' and then visit this webpage to show them what they do to protect their women:

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Polygamy is just the beginning....

 

[Tiger74]

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. :-\
I think Disco/Panthera/Tiger74/SuxPack should read the clerics views that polygamy should be allowed to 'protect women' and then visit this webpage to show them what they do to protect their women:

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

Polygamy is just the beginning....

Liverpool, for about the 20th time on this thread....


I DO NOT SUPPORT POLYGAMY OR CHANGING THE LAW


I support the right however of any Australian citizen to have the right to advocate changes to the law.

 

[Six Pack]

and I was just curious about yr moral standpoint on this.. I haven't expressed an opinion either way yet.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I support the right however of any Australian citizen to have the right to advocate changes to the law.

That's cool and I believe the same but I don't think that people should be allowed to advocate changes purely for religious purposes. Politics and religion IMO should be kept far apart. One day someone will want human sacrifice legalised for religious purposes. >