Muslims Practicing Polygamy in the US

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]Chushin wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
mafzal4 wrote:
And that gives you zero credibility.

Believe whatever you want, Mr. 115 posts.

Drop it already!

lol! Somehow the fact that I have ‘only’ 115 posts makes me have no credibility? Somehow your logic eludes me (and I would imagine a whole lot of other people as well).

And no I won’t drop it. It’s simply decietful and wrong to edit posts in a thread such as this one without stating why you are doing so/what is being changed. The fact that you even had to go back and edit posts in the first place says a lot about your posts. Oh, and please look back at my previous posts in response to you where I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer to my other issues that I raised.

I have to really wonder about this accusation. GK has, in my experience, always been a pretty straight-up guy. Do you have any evidence at all?[/quote]

Nope.

Hey, mafzal4, I did reply to your posts. You responded to me by saying I edited my posts.

You got a problem, show me proof, take it up with the Mods, or STFU.

I don’t care if have credibility on the Political Thread of a Bodybuilding site.

203

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Believe whatever you want, Mr. 115 posts.

Drop it already!

Actually he has 116 posts. No wait… 117 …118 …119[/quote]

It was 115 before my last post.

204

I now know what a woman accused of rape in Saudi Arabia must feel like.

Lixy and his bud are ready to stone me with cpu boards.

205

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2008/05/30/01016-20080530ARTFIG00003--lille-la-virginite-encause.php

Can a guy not only divorce but proclaim the marriage to be null and void because the woman lied about her status of virginity? (the quran forbids fucking out of wedlock)

I think this fits well into the discussion because ultimately monotheism is about debasing woman and restricing their sexuality.

206

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I think this fits well into the discussion because ultimately monotheism is about debasing woman and restricing their sexuality.[/quote]

Interesting.

Do you feel it is monotheism which debases women, or all religion in general?

207

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2008/05/30/01016-20080530ARTFIG00003--lille-la-virginite-encause.php

Can a guy not only divorce but proclaim the marriage to be null and void because the woman lied about her status of virginity? (the quran forbids fucking out of wedlock)

I think this fits well into the discussion because ultimately monotheism is about debasing woman and restricing their sexuality.[/quote]

Did you read the article?

Le vice-président du conseil régional du culte musulman du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Abdelkader Assouedj, souligne que si “l’islam n’exige pas que l’épouse soit vierge”, il demande que le mariage ne soit pas “basé sur le mensonge”.

Translation: The head of the Islamic council insisted that while “Islam doesn’t require the spouse to be virgin”, it demands that the union not be “based on lies”.

208

I’m talking about the so called abrahamic (or sometimes abrahamitic) religions, which are essentially the same.

(Also: I did not mean to imply that it is ONLY about woman abuse)

The other monotheisms are either far too insignificant or so hidden that it doesn’t matter (Hinduism, for example).

And as far as I know, I’d have to say,
yes, (abrahamic) monotheism is the winner, because it was so effective at creating an abusive culture.

The majority of muslims, of course, don’t actually believe in faeries or Allah literally most of the time, the quran is more like the most fundamental part of their culture.

To make this more precise; a true believing, consistently radical society would make the Taliban look like the Rolling Stones in their after show party- it would be something we cannot really imagine, nor could we live and breath in it.
Even Lixy is not a real religious person and this is what pisses me so off. Intelligent beings talking like five year olds.

There were of course, a large number of cultures were woman were pretty much insignificant and opressed as well, for instance, ancient, medieval (and largely modern) japan.
But because their traditions weren’t sanctioned by the ultimate rationality deal breaker [a bearded gawd], they could dissolve or at least weaken, (mostly through the consequences of applying modern technology and discoveries) making it possible for woman to feel and act a lot more free.

209

[quote]lixy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2008/05/30/01016-20080530ARTFIG00003--lille-la-virginite-encause.php

Can a guy not only divorce but proclaim the marriage to be null and void because the woman lied about her status of virginity? (the quran forbids fucking out of wedlock)

I think this fits well into the discussion because ultimately monotheism is about debasing woman and restricing their sexuality.

Did you read the article?

Le vice-président du conseil régional du culte musulman du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Abdelkader Assouedj, souligne que si “l’islam n’exige pas que l’épouse soit vierge”, il demande que le mariage ne soit pas “basé sur le mensonge”.

Translation: The head of the Islamic council insisted that while “Islam doesn’t require the spouse to be virgin”, it demands that the union not be “based on lies”.[/quote]

I don’t give a shit.
Have you read my post? No sex out of wedlock.
No fornicating without a spouse.
Who wants (of course only female) leftovers in your society? Not many, especially not the traditional families.

The courts have to protect women.
If they don’t, hymen reconstruction surgeons will make a fortune. And the lying will go on.

You know, woman like to fuck, too.

210

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The majority of muslims, of course, don’t actually believe in faeries or Allah literally most of the time, the quran is more like the most fundamental part of their culture. [/quote]

That is one very ignorant post. It particularly stands out because of the “of course” arrogance.

211

It’s ignorant to think otherwise.

For example, catholics, even the ones who believed literally in hell, did never flinch to kill, maim, rape, plunder and burn.

A muslim I know drinks and more or less seriously places his hand above his face, to “let him not see it”. All his pals do that.

How is that possible?

We aren’t designed for this nonsense. We can act like it, but without really being consistent. It’s culture, no more, no less.

212

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I don’t give a shit. [/quote]

Correction; I don’t give a shit about that guy being bamboozled or the girl’s shaky moral grounds.

You, on the other hand, do give a shit or else we wouldn’t be discussing this in the first place.

[quote]Have you read my post? No sex out of wedlock.
No fornicating without a spouse. [/quote]

And how exactly is exclusivity a bad thing?

Do you own a bar? Stock in Pfizer?

[quote]Who wants (of course only female) leftovers in your society? Not many, especially not the traditional families.

The courts have to protect women.[/quote]

This is insane! You’re asking the judicial to uphold a contract even though one of the parties engaged in it in bad faith

Good luck with that.

Hypothetical scenario: A man approaches a woman asking for her hand. The woman asks if he’s got a functioning prick. The man answers with the affirmative. They get married and the woman finds out he lied. Should the courts protect limp dicks?

It’s a pity, but hey, what’ya gonna do?

Thanks for scoop.

213

[quote]lixy wrote:
And how exactly is exclusivity a bad thing?[/quote]
It doesn’t work for most people. Period. Deal with it, Allah.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Who wants (of course only female) leftovers in your society? Not many, especially not the traditional families.
The courts have to protect women.
This is insane! You’re asking the judicial to uphold a contract even though one of the parties engaged in it in bad faith
Good luck with that.
Hypothetical scenario: A man approaches a woman asking for her hand. The woman asks if he’s got a functioning prick. The man answers with the affirmative. They get married and the woman finds out he lied. Should the courts protect limp dicks?
[/quote]
A marriage is once of the most important contracts in our societies.
This guy wasn’t satisfied with a divorce. According to him, a lie about virginity is so vile the marriage should be null and void.
According to our cultural horizon, you can only do this because of severe reasons. Like, you were tricked, drugged etc.

To me, this hymen fixation is preposterous. He can nullify (I don’t know if that is the correct english term) the religious aspect with the help of his imam, of course, if his backwards religion tells him so. But a court is a different matter.
According to this logic, there’d be no divorce anymore, because you could always find some dishonesty for bizarre reasons like this. (She lied about her nonsmoking, she did inhale!)

[quote]lixy wrote:
If they don’t, hymen reconstruction surgeons will make a fortune. And the lying will go on.
It’s a pity, but hey, what’ya gonna do?
[/quote]
Yes, it’s a pity that large numbers of girls have to lie about their sex lives. A lot of problems are a result of this.

[quote]lixy wrote:
You know, woman like to fuck, too.
Thanks for scoop.
[/quote]
No biggy.

214

More and more I become convinced the courts and the state shouldn’t recognize any “marriages.”

215

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Wow, this thread devolved fast. I propose taking a step back.

Why is polygamy illegal?

Because more men are born than women, and a bunch of women belonging to one man is not a recipe for social stability. But since we’re allowing men to marry one another, there’s no logical reason why polygamy shouldn’t be allowed.

And that’s precisely what we’ll see in a few years. The destabilizing influence it will have on society with our sudden redefinition of marriage will be interesting to watch.
…

The first part is right on the money.
Polygamy [for practical purposes, we’re talking about polygyny, which is way more dominant then polyandry]cannot be integrated into our idea of society.

The second part is pure nonsense.
One gay person can marry…another …one… person. The sky is not falling? They can marry horses, trees or hamsters (one at a time, please) for all I care!

The thing that is changing is something entirely different. As woman in the western hemisphere slowly regain power, archaic, patriarchal mindsets also collide with our view of society. The outcome will be interesting.

[/quote]

Western civilization had a certain ascendancy in part because of the cultural values it espoused. If we’re just going to decide to shed the most crucial of these, we should expect decline. In my view, that’s precisely what we see.

To be sure, gays can and will get married. We should expect the polygamists to want their definition of marriage to be allowed now as well, and the Muslims theirs. Essentially, marriage will be whatever one wants it to be.

But this will mean that marriage will not be how it has been understood in the traditional Western sense for a long time. The West will have given up that particular value in favor of a family unit based on the whim of a given individual or group.

The quality of families in a given society, if they are formed at all, go a long way towards explaining the quality of that society. I hope this is a non-controversial assertion.

216

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Western civilization had a certain ascendancy in part because of the cultural values it espoused. If we’re just going to decide to shed the most crucial of these, we should expect decline. In my view, that’s precisely what we see. [/quote]

Back this up.

[quote]
To be sure, gays can and will get married. We should expect the polygamists to want their definition of marriage to be allowed now as well, and the Muslims theirs. Essentially, marriage will be whatever one wants it to be.

But this will mean that marriage will not be how it has been understood in the traditional Western sense for a long time. The West will have given up that particular value in favor of a family unit based on the whim of a given individual or group.[/quote]

What do you feel your conceptualization of marriage is based on, if not the whim of a certain group?

[quote]
The quality of families in a given society, if they are formed at all, go a long way towards explaining the quality of that society. I hope this is a non-controversial assertion.[/quote]

Define “quality of family”
Define “quality of a society”

In doing so, make please make it clear why this conceptualization makes sense. Unless you do this, it’s impossible to agree or disagree with what you’ve said, because you’ve said nothing.

217

Sure. As soon as you finish answering my question about Surah 9:29, it’s relation to 2:163 and Mohammed’s behavioral patterns being normative for the rest of the ummah. I don’t think I care to be the only one with burden of proof in our discussions:

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2155797&pageNo=2

218

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I now know what a woman accused of rape in Saudi Arabia must feel like.

Lixy and his bud are ready to stone me with cpu boards.[/quote]

Excuse me? We’re just having a discussion here - if it’s your purpose to just try and fire us up - you’re not doing a good job. There is widespread ignorance about Muslims nowadays - this is nothing new.

219

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Believe whatever you want, Mr. 115 posts.

Drop it already!

Actually he has 116 posts. No wait… 117 …118 …119

It was 115 before my last post.[/quote]

Point is, it does not matter.

220

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I have to really wonder about this accusation. GK has, in my experience, always been a pretty straight-up guy. Do you have any evidence at all?[/quote]

Aside from the evidence that II have personally seen with my own eyes - posts that said something a few days ago that now read differently, no.