zen Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Civil rights are ABSOLUTE in a democracy and the fundamental pillars. If there are cons' date=' you address the cons as a result of those absolutes - you don't change the absolute benchmarks.[/quote'] Agree when you are talking about the basic rights - Freedom of speech, equality, etc. However, issues such as Polygamy / Polyandry are complex. Right to getting married is a basic right, but right to be getting married despite being married is a different argument as it changes how the society behaves, For e.g.: Current scenario: When the wife notices a lipstick mark on her husband's shirt, she has the right to get angry. She will probably be supported by others in the extended family too Under PolyX scenario: Wife is at home taking care of the kids. The husband comes home from his official date. Goes to bad dreaming about the lass. Everyone including the extended family is like "So, he is within his rights?" Similarly, in case of the husband, where the wife is dating someone else. The husband would have lost the right to do something about it. Avy37fgeG8k
The Outsider Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 It should be. However, in this realm of bhaagam-bhaag individual choices rarely get to see the chance of daylight. Proof? Look at the poll of same sex marriage where one bhagwa chadhi dhaari has voted in favor of gay marriage, but will lay their lives down for defending anyone their political party plucks out, no matter if these guys are declared invalids, heretics, and liable to be persecuted by death. Off topic: You ask these intellectual questions on a forum which is essentially a RSS vermin politically.
Raghav_12 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Why not.. if all parties involved are okay with this. Same logic which has been applied for allowing gay marriages.
swatpulla Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Why not.. if all parties involved are okay with this. Same logic which has been applied for allowing gay marriages. Really? Are you sure about the fact that most of the wives won't be tortured and beaten-up to "accept" their husband's new wife? This move could have such vast social implications that it can make life a living hell for so many women.
moniker Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Why not? Just because something is complicated' date=' it should not be illegal. If all adult parties consent to these relationships, they must be legalized. The parties involved can deal with the complications.[/quote'] Ok, but there's also this thing - Marriage right now is a contract entered into by a couple. Let's remove the cap and make it more than two. So shouldn't all the concerned parties be married to each other? I'm perfectly fine with allowing three bisexuals to marry each other, for instance. Also, isn't it discriminatory towards the spouse who is married to just one person, while the other person is married to many? Doesn't the spouse deserve the same attention that he/she is giving? A black man may be ok with being called racial names, but he will still be considered to be discriminated against.
Alchemist Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Is the consent is there, then yes. It might actually solve a lot of love triangles.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Since the thread is in chit chat - such topics remind me of the song belong (esp. Saeed Jaffery's part) G0T1xWPjSio :P
Khalpat Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Next Thread: Should a man allowed to do sex with animals as he is only attracted towards goats. This is mutual because goat is only saying meein meein..... and ofcourse both are adult.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I guess in the opinion of many life is like Lego bricks, you can fit and make anything with it :dontknow: 4gtvhPkJeis
mishra Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Having to deal with multiple sets of inout-laws!! :nervous: fxed
mishra Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Next Thread: Should a man allowed to do sex with animals as he is only attracted towards goats. This is mutual because goat is only saying meein meein..... and ofcourse both are adult. You mean this. Go Pompei http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/9926420/Erotic-Pompeii-goat-statue-arrives-in-the-British-Museum.html
Texan Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Why not.. if all parties involved are okay with this. Same logic which has been applied for allowing gay marriages. You are comparing apples to oranges. Gay marriage is still monogamous. They are not asking for polygamous relationships to be made legal.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Agree when you are talking about the basic rights - Freedom of speech, equality, etc. However, issues such as Polygamy / Polyandry are complex. Right to getting married is a basic right, but right to be getting married despite being married is a different argument as it changes how the society behaves, For e.g.: Current scenario: When the wife notices a lipstick mark on her husband's shirt, she has the right to get angry. She will probably be supported by others in the extended family too Under PolyX scenario: Wife is at home taking care of the kids. The husband comes home from his official date. Goes to bad dreaming about the lass. Everyone including the extended family is like "So, he is within his rights?" Similarly, in case of the husband, where the wife is dating someone else. The husband would have lost the right to do something about it. Avy37fgeG8k "Right to Association" + "Freedom to choose partners" not "Right to Marriage" EDit - Also, that's a false argument. A person can choose to marry two people AT THE SAME TIME. Your scenario of one after the other is one plausible scenario. Even then, all parties consent.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 "Right to Association" + "Freedom to choose partners" not "Right to Marriage" Here we are discussing polygamy - the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time :dontknow:
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Next Thread: Should a man allowed to do sex with animals as he is only attracted towards goats. This is mutual because goat is only saying meein meein..... and ofcourse both are adult. False analogy - a goat doesn't have the intelligence or ability to communicate its consent.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Here we are discussing polygamy - the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time :dontknow: Fundamental rights are not some limited quantities in doses. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have free speech with ONLY one person or organization. Same logic for marriage - freedom of marriage doesn't mean you have freedom with ONLY one person. Yes and there is no reason why one should NOT have multiple spouses IF everyone gives their consent. The ulta logic of it will create problems doesn't work.
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 EDit - Also, that's a false argument. A person can choose to marry two people AT THE SAME TIME. Your scenario of one after the other is one plausible scenario. Even then, all parties consent. :cantstop:
zen Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Fundamental rights are not some limited quantities in doses. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have free speech with ONLY one person or organization. Same logic for marriage - freedom of marriage doesn't mean you have freedom with ONLY one person. Yes and there is no reason why one should NOT have multiple spouses IF everyone gives their consent. The ulta logic of it will create problems doesn't work. Let's be practical .... Human relationships are not like scientific formulas
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 :cantstop: Three people MAY enter a union of marriage and associate with themselves AT THE SAME TIME. That's what a ménage à trios is by definition.
Brainfade Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 You are comparing apples to oranges. Gay marriage is still monogamous. They are not asking for polygamous relationships to be made legal. What inherently is wrong with a polygamous relationship that has the consent of all adults involved? People had all kinds of objections to gay marriage, but failed to make them stick. Religion, culture etc. may define marriage in specific ways, but who really cares? You think gay couples really care whether churches and masjids accept their relationship? Of course not. They wanted the government to recognize them so they became eligible for the tax and other legal benefits that married couples got. So, if heterosexual and homosexual couples can avail the tax and legal benefits of marriage, why shouldn't polygamous partners be able to do so regardless of cultural perceptions towards their relationship? As soon as the government got involved in incentivising marriage, these issues were bound to crop up.
Recommended Posts