Just heard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beowulf said:
Look at the Republican nominees for President. Almost all had multiple wives except for Mitt Romney, and he's a Mormon. Hah.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's disappointing and disgusting. :(

(I don't mean about Romney.)
 
Polygamy can't legitimize it if it's taking place in a country where it's illegal.
Click to expand...

But in a country where it IS legal, I don't necessarily have problems with it. Usually in countries where it is legal, women have virtually no rights or means to support themselves other than being married. Perhaps it's better to be Ahmad's 4th wife than to be out on the streets, you know?

Not that it's a lifestyle I would ever want for myself, but in some cultures, it might for the time being be a reasonable way to live, considering the available alternatives.
 
Beach girl said:
But in a country where it IS legal, I don't necessarily have problems with it. Usually in countries where it is legal, women have virtually no rights or means to support themselves other than being married. Perhaps it's better to be Ahmad's 4th wife than to be out on the streets, you know?

Not that it's a lifestyle I would ever want for myself, but in some cultures, it might for the time being be a reasonable way to live, considering the available alternatives.
Click to expand...
I realize that's their culture, and I'm not advocating invading their countries. It's just my viewpoint is, why not improve conditions and make more opportunities available to women so they're not stuck with only one way out?

One interesting thing I read recently about polygamy in countries where it's allowed. Men can still divorce their wives and leave them helpless without support. The reason is, they're allowed only four wives, and if young woman number five is more appealing than old wife number one, then number one has to go to make room for the new number four. So the women still don't have security.

What a bum deal!
 
I agree, and I totally agree about trying to improve conditions. I used to do a lot of work on "women in development" issues.

But that sort of work, in all honesty, is nibbling around the edges. A few projects here and there, microcredit loans, better health care for women and children, all those things are very much to the good. It's a very slow and incremental process.

All that said, people are just not going to change their entire religion and culture overnight. It just doesn't happen. So whatever can be done to improve the lot of women in those countries still has to take place within the religious and cultural framework they already have.
 
Beach girl said:
But in a country where it IS legal, I don't necessarily have problems with it. Usually in countries where it is legal, women have virtually no rights or means to support themselves other than being married. Perhaps it's better to be Ahmad's 4th wife than to be out on the streets, you know?

Not that it's a lifestyle I would ever want for myself, but in some cultures, it might for the time being be a reasonable way to live, considering the available alternatives.
Click to expand...

And homosexuality is a part of all cultures...some more overt than others, but it exists in virtually every society. And has been observed in the animal kingdom, as well. Same premise applies: it may not be the lifestyle I live, but I have to right to judge anyone else as being amoral because it is their lifestyle.
 
Your nose belongs in your own relationship only
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% convinced of that. I think there's a role for society's approval of relationships. We don't approve of first cousins marrying. We don't approve of grown men marrying 13 year old girls. I think it's ok to not approve of extramarital relationships and in some cases, to explicitly say so to the person(s) involved, and/or to vote for a political candidate according to how he or she has lived his personal life, regardless of otherwise agreeing with his views.

It's acceptable to stand up for one's concept of morality. That's one of the ways by which cohesive societies are formed.
 
Well, that's nice, mentioning animal homosexuality in a post about human homosexuality.

I don't judge individuals but I have the right to speak up about immoral behavior, whether or not it's called a lifestyle. (Is it a "lifestyle" and culture for animals, too?) Of course, it's amoral behavior for animals.

Just because something is widespread doesn't mean it's right.

Yes, there is such a thing as right and wrong.
 
Reba said:
Well, that's nice, mentioning animal homosexuality in a post about human homosexuality.

I don't judge individuals but I have the right to speak up about immoral behavior, whether or not it's called a lifestyle. (Is it a "lifestyle" and culture for animals, too?) Of course, it's amoral behavior for animals.

Just because something is widespread doesn't mean it's right.

Yes, there is such a thing as right and wrong.
Click to expand...

It's in the eye of the beholder. One person would be okay with homosexuality but against war, while the other would be okay with war but against homosexuality. Who is right and who is wrong? In the eye of the beholder, neither one of them.
 
Beowulf said:
It's in the eye of the beholder. One person would be okay with homosexuality but against war, while the other would be okay with war but against homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Some people might be OK with both or neither, too.

("War" is a general term; does that mean a person would be OK with every war, or just some wars?)

Who is right and who is wrong? In the eyes of the beholder, neither one of them.
Click to expand...
Right and wrong is declared by God. If it was up to each and every person (the beholder) to determine, it would be chaos. As the Bible says, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes...," and that didn't turn out well.
 
Beach girl said:
I'm not 100% convinced of that. I think there's a role for society's approval of relationships. We don't approve of first cousins marrying. We don't approve of grown men marrying 13 year old girls. I think it's ok to not approve of extramarital relationships and in some cases, to explicitly say so to the person(s) involved, and/or to vote for a political candidate according to how he or she has lived his personal life, regardless of otherwise agreeing with his views.

It's acceptable to stand up for one's concept of morality. That's one of the ways by which cohesive societies are formed.
Click to expand...

Those are social controls that are already in place and are accepted cultural norms. That has nothing to do with sticking your nose into someone else's relationship and making a judgement value against them simply because their lifestyle is different from yours. One stands up for one's concept of morality by remaining true to that, not by using it to judge others amoral based on one's personal perspective.
 
Reba said:
Some people might be OK with both or neither, too.

("War" is a general term; does that mean a person would be OK with every war, or just some wars?)


Right and wrong is declared by God. If it was up to each and every person (the beholder) to determine, it would be chaos. As the Bible says, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes...," and that didn't turn out well.
Click to expand...

For you, right and wrong are declared by your God. Not everyone subscribes to your notion of God. As is evidenced by increased tolerance of gay clergy and church sanctioned same sex unions.
 
As thinking human beings, we make judgments all the time. So do you, when it comes to your strongly-held values.
 
Beach girl said:
As thinking human beings, we make judgments all the time. So do you, when it comes to your strongly-held values.
Click to expand...

Value judgements are often necessary. However, when judging another for a lifestyle simply because it is not your lifestyle is completely unnecessary.
 
So you're going to quit judging people for "audism" and less than a full embrace of Deaf cultural values and so on now, recognizing that just because that lifestyle is not your lifestyle, it's not for you to judge? I'll be very happy to see that.
 
Beach girl said:
So you're going to quit judging people for "audism" and less than a full embrace of Deaf cultural values and so on now, recognizing that just because that lifestyle is not your lifestyle, it's not for you to judge? I'll be very happy to see that.
Click to expand...

Audism is not a lifestyle. It is a belief system.:roll:

And I don't judge the individual. Never once will you find that I have stated that an audist or someone who does not embrace Deaf culture is amoral, immoral, going to hell, or an unworthy person. Or subject to some subjective notion of God's judgement.

Obviously, you are a bit confused regarding value judgements placed on a person.
 
If you (general "you" not anyone specific) don't approve of someone's lifestyle choices, ask yourself if it has any effect on you. Most of the time it does not affect you, so why pass judgment on them? Perhaps they don't approve of your lifestyle choices either.
 
jillio said:
For you, right and wrong are declared by your God. Not everyone subscribes to your notion of God. As is evidenced by increased tolerance of gay clergy and church sanctioned same sex unions.
Click to expand...
It's obvious that many people in today's world don't obey God, that's true. Each person will be confronted by the consequences someday. Clergy who lead their people astray will be held to an even higher accountability.
 
Reba said:
It's obvious that many people in today's world don't obey God, that's true. Each person will be confronted by the consequences someday. Clergy who lead their people astray will be held to an even higher accountability.
Click to expand...

Again, it is obvious that many people do not obey your idea of what God is.

And the consequences you think they will be confronted with, once again, is based on your belief.

Whether or not clergy lead their congregations astray is again, based on your belief system.

Its great that you have so much faith in your belief system being the only correct one, but I would question any belief system that encourages intolerance and judgement in its correctness.
 
jillio said:
Value judgements are often necessary. However, when judging another for a lifestyle simply because it is not your lifestyle is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
When lifestyle is a euphemism for sinful behavior, that can be judged. When lifestyle means urban vs. rural, or highbrow vs. redneck, or coastal vs. mountain styles of living, then that is unnecessary to judge, yes.

Homosexuality is not just a "lifestyle."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top