(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: 1-How is a single person going to include fairness into this relationship? Say, I have a wife, and she gets old, and I take up a new, younger wife. I suddenly stop showing attention to my old wife and start sleeping with my new one all week long.
Then your old wife also gets to find a young new husband and sleep with him all week. This polygamous institution would be built on fair treatment - not misogyny.
(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Obviously, the point of such marriages are nothing but the animalistic suppression of carnal desires, and have nothing to do with commitment.
On the contrary, there can be many, many other reasons.
1. A lonely old man without any surviving family marries a beautiful young couple for love and company in his last days and the coupe gets financial security.
2. Marriage between a gay couple and a lesbian couple who want to raise their children together and not force them to live apart from either one of the biological parents.
3. A working has both a working wife and a housewife ensuring both financial and emotional stability for their home and children. This one was even on Boston Legal.
But even if all these situations were not possible and it was only about carnal desires - well, marriage is not expected to prevent that. Britney Spears certainly proves that.
(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: 2-The children that are born from different mothers will obviously be in great confusion regarding the world around them, especially in places where monogamy has been traditionally practiced.
No more confusion than is expected form children of single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents or no parents. Do you wish to outlaw all those institutions as well?
(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: 3-Another obvious flaw is that such marriages tend to be emotionally abusive towards the partners who are amongst the multitude. Like I said, many marriages break apart due to a side claiming that he/she is not shown enough attention by his/her partner, how is a marriage based on a single-multiple partnership going to survive other than by force?
How about by mutual understanding? You know what the other side of one side claiming lack of attention is? The other side usually claims that the spouse would simply not leave them alone, constantly asking for attention when they were otherwise occupied. How about if there is another spouse in between who takes care of the attention-seeking spouse while the other one gets the much desired solitude.
(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Only in primitive societies where women are seen as belongings, this type of marriage is still prevalent, and these are generally women who have been forced into accepting a second or more wives, to share their men with.
Yes, and now that in modern societies, women are much better empowered and their economic and social status is not in question, your paranoia no longer applies.
(May 22, 2012 at 4:18 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: How is this going to work on the basis of "mutual consent"? Obviously, one or multiple partners will have to suffer emotional abuse if such a "marriage" is to be continued, for I really wonder how many people are willing to share their men, or women. But they would have to cope with it if they are forced into it, yes? That is it. Polygamy rests on the shoulders of inequality and abuse. It has been so for many years.
You mean you aren't willing to share anything with another person you love? What if two best friends fall in love with the same person and are unwilling to see the other one hurt? That seems like a perfect reason for sharing. Your problem is that you can only see through the glasses of your primitive society and cannot imagine how a loving and nurturing relationship can survive between rational people without conflict.
