The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Polygamy and contemporary morals > Comments

Polygamy and contemporary morals : Comments

By Keysar Trad, published 27/6/2008

Why should the state proscribe formalised polygamous relationships but condone informal ones?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
Bronywn, we are probably already arguing in circles and I hope that we are both misunderstanding the other to some extent. Whilst I disagree with you at times I generally appreciate your thinking.

"You're assuming the current power balance between the genders is already equal, which is a very shaky assumption to be basing an argument on." - if anything I think that for most the current power base within monogamous marriages in our society is shifted slightly in the females favour. I know that there are exceptions and that some of those exceptions will be along cultural grounds but I'm certainly not convinced that men hold most of the power in the home.

"the legitimate expectation that they could enter into a committed relationship on an equal footing with their male partner and have it remain that way, not taken from them by someone else."

Since the introduction of no-fault divorce none of us has that right. Legitimate expectations for a committed relationship can be removed at a change of mind of the other party with no comeback. I don't know a good way around it either, keeping people trapped in a destructive marriage because it has not passed some externally verifiable threshold of harm seems worse.

I'd like to see more options available for people regarding what they sign up for rather than the current mostly meaningless till death do us part unless someone has a change of mind monogamous marriage.

I've not seen anything so far in this discussion that shows pluralistic marriages introduce new negatives which are not a part of our existing structures and I can see the posibility of some benefits to both men and women.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 5 July 2008 2:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidJS: <<Not all Muslims agree with Keysar Trad>>

Islamist apologists like DavidJS may like to know that mainstream Mormons (LDS) don’t practice polygamy since 1890. If Muslims disagree with the practice of polygamy they should also change their doctrine on polygamous marriage.

It is sad indeed that the pseudo-left in the West are easily taken in by the Islamist’s hidden agenda of establishing sha'riah law in secular democracies.

Imam Keysar Trad wrote, “I believe that we cannot ignore the rights of women and children of philanderers” , implying that the Muslim’s doctrine on polygamy would solve the plight facing women. But this is far from the truth when we examine the practice of Muslims regarding divorce.

A married Muslim man can dissolve his marriage at any time by saying to his wife: "Talaq, talaq, talaq" at one occasion of his own free will and desire. Even in some Islamic countries eg Malaysia a Muslim can divorce his wife using sms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/.stm

If a man can divorce a woman in Islam so easily, when he is tired of his wives, what security and rights (for Muslim women) is this guy, Keysar Trad, talking about?

When Irfan the Muslim divorced his wife of 20 years, he thought that saying ‘talaq’ three times and paying her a one-off payment of US$2,500 would be enough. Fortunately for his wife she was in the United States. (Court denies Islamic divorce)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/maryland/bal-md.divorce07may07,0,7995.story (Court denies Islamic divorce)

Surely it is arrogant of DavidJS to deny Muslims the freedom to practice the full range embodied in the sha’riah laws. It is on this basis that some in OLO advise devout Muslims to go to Islamic countries to fulfill their aspirations; much as the Puritans left England to the US and Australasia to be free to practice a purer form of Christianity.
Posted by Philip Tang, Saturday, 5 July 2008 5:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,

rather than the relativities of glass half full/empty, l reckon the glass is TOO BIG.
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 6 July 2008 9:43:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Tang contradicts himself. On the on hand, he says I'm soft on Muslims. On the other, he calls me arrogant for wanting to deny Muslims the freedom to practice particular religious freedoms. This is the sort of response you get when someone like Mr Tang doesn't read your posts correctly and simply wants to trot out old mantras.

I'm not going to add anymore information except to say that in this day and age, there can be no such thing as unlimited religious freedom. My previous post adequately describes the rest of my position.
Posted by DavidJS, Sunday, 6 July 2008 10:31:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an example of how Muslims are determined to get their own way, they do it quietly, a bit at a time until they get an inch then the wedge goes in and they get a bit more. But all the time the work of chipping away goes on.
And that is how the Uk has become a basket case and Holland and France, all in trouble with their Muslim population.
Muslims know our laws, they just do not want to live by them. It should be made very clear that ALL in Australia follow Australian law or find another country more suited to their ideas.
There must be NO weakening of our laws for anyone. There is no need for it.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 6 July 2008 3:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trade, I'm strongly opposed to others deciding how big someone elses glass should be. I think the government should butt out of consenting adults choices where those choices don't unreasonably impact on others. I don't see how this proposal makes things worse for woman than the current arrangment and I don't see equitable fixes to the current levels of access to divorce.

I'd rather there was less divorce but would hate that to require false accusations and or the destruction of the other parties reputation which seems to be the fault divorce fallback.

It's been put as a womans human rights issue but no one has demonstrated why that is so.

I don't see how the sexual morality issue can be considered relevant when the levels of infidelity are so high and when the idea of inteferance in consenting adults sexual choices has been so thoroughly trumped in the gay rights debate.

Again I'm waiting to see good reasons why current laws against polygamy are a legitimate intrusion into the private lives of consenting adults and I've not seen them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 6 July 2008 5:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy