Polygamy (Split from Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack)

[Ziggurat]

The right to marriage to the person they wish to marry.

https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/marriage-and-family.html

Leaving aside the question of what moral or legal authority the UN really has, that says nothing about the right to multiple spouses.

Having said that, if there actually are people that want to genuinely live in that sort of group, then why should you or I tell them that they can't, and that their relationships should not be allowed to be recognised?

Who am I to say that?

A voter, that's who. And I get a vote in what my government does.

Actually Gay Marriage was legalised by people fighting for it. It was supported by less than 50% the population when legalised in most countries, and is still illegal in others, and in those countries it was legalised in it has seen a dramatic boost in acceptance now that it has been.

Exactly: if polygamy is legalized, it will become more accepted, and likely become much more common.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Leaving aside the question of what moral or legal authority the UN really has, that says nothing about the right to multiple spouses.

That's the "Gay men and straight men have the same rights, they can both marry women" argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the "Gay men and straight men have the same rights, they can both marry women" argument.

I'm not the one who appealed to a legal declaration. If you want to claim that that's where rights originate, then you can't avoid that kind of argument.

 

[carlitos]

Exactly: if polygamy is legalized, it will become more accepted, and likely become much more common.

And you need to establish and defend about 5 more logical steps in your argument before you get from the above to "social unrest" from single frustrated men. Are you ever going to do this? A hint - start with population data so that you have at least a chance of making a cogent argument about how many men will be affected.

 

[Arcade22]

It should be noted that Europe has a far more restrictive definition of the "right to marriage". Article 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights state that: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right".

Noticeably this means that citizens of ECHR member states do not have a "right" to same-sex marriage simply by virtue of this treaty, as has been determined by case law, unlike in some other countries.

Since this is partly based on consensus of the European states it's likely to change at some point, similar to how laws prohibiting sodomy was originally found to be consistent with the treaty but subsequently were considered a violation. However since as recently as June 2018 the European Court of Justice re-iterated that it was up to individual member states whatever or not they should recognize same-sex marriages.

 

[theprestige]

Come on, theprestige. The arguments are made in support of the claim.

And the claim is that it's a coincidence?

Is that too strongly worded for your taste? How about, the claim is that we shouldn't infer anything from the correlation? Is that the claim?

 

[Belz...]

And the claim is that it's a coincidence?

No.

Please make the effort of reading those arguments. I've already clarified what they are once.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

And you need to establish and defend about 5 more logical steps in your argument before you get from the above to "social unrest" from single frustrated men. Are you ever going to do this? A hint - start with population data so that you have at least a chance of making a cogent argument about how many men will be affected.

If polygamy caused social unrest, Islamic countries would be in turmoil. As it stands, these are some of the most prosperous, stable, and equitable nations on Earth.

 

[Roboramma]

And the claim is that it's a coincidence?

Is that too strongly worded for your taste? How about, the claim is that we shouldn't infer anything from the correlation? Is that the claim?

I think the claim (at least by one poster, others seem unclear on what they actually think) is that the causation goes in the other direction: oppression of women leads to them being treated like goods which leads to polygamy. I gave an argument why I don’t think that actually explains the data but I think maybe I worded it poorly because based on the response I don’t think it was understood.

It’s not entirely implausible that it’s a coincidence: Christianity, for whatever reason, imposes monogamy. The enlightenment, age of exploration, and industrial revolution happened in Europe, which just happened to be mostly Christian. Women’s liberation was an outgrowth of forces that were caused by those things and we’d expect it to be correlated with Christianity and thus monogamy. Even as those societies became less religious monogamy remained an underlying value.
That’s a coincidental association between the history of where certain things first happened and the values that happened to be held by the people in those societies at the time that doesn’t include a causal influence.