₦airaland Forum

No, I admit that I have based my polygamy argument on current feminist theory as proposed by feminist which are usually women (Not my fault). There is no question of presumption immediately it can be shown socialization plays an overwhelming role in how we think or act. Any proof would be redundant.

As for human rights I never cited myself did I? Abeg let me be joor

Have you thought about how the Indian community in America? Hardly do you find any top corporate organisation without an Indian at the top. Look at the Medical doctors, Financial Analyst, and especially in IT world they rule America. Most of them cant speak English self, but hardly do you find them in Jail, Hardly do you see an Indian male working at Burger King and doing menial jobs.

I beg to differ. Indians/south asians do menial jobs plenty, plenty- but they are not as noticeable as blacks i admit. What about the Pakistani that run subway .

I know white people (especially girls) like touching my hair a lot. Not that bad though

^ I figured that you were talking about british common law.

Deep Sight:
@ Gamesmart

@ SEFAGO

Legal clarifications.

  1. Fundamental Human Rights do not originate from any international charter. As Gamesmart (and Fela Anikulapo Kuiti) stated - they are inherent.

  2. Consent between adults is essential to sexual relationships.

  3. Sexual relationships may however be subjected to reasonable limitations in terms of public affront only (e.g. Public Nudity, Public Copulation)

  5. Incest is not a criminal offence. R.ape/ Se.x with a minor is. It is not legally permisibble in Nigeria to marry a person within the bounds of  affinity or consanguinity. 

  6. There is no criminal offence called polygamy. There is an offence called Bigamy.

Ride on with your debate.

1. Fundamental human rights are inherent but still have to be explicitly stated and standardized. The Universal declaration of human rights served as a standardized form if the fundamental human rights of all individuals. I would point that consenting adults is more of a derived human right and would admit I might have made a wrong assertion that its intrinsically a fundamental human right
2. Yes
3. Yes, I think we were talking about privacy
4. where is 4 lol
5. Incest is criminal in some countries including some states in the US. It was initially a taboo law, but it could easily be challenged if a court. Just that no one has tried yet. However, i think the Lawrence Vs. Texas case that challenged sodomy laws in Texas and made homosexuality legal in that state, could be cited as a possible precedent. I dont think in Nigeria though incest is illegal which would make sense. Obasanjo would have been in prison lol.
6. There is a criminal offense in the US called polygamy. Polygamy is actually worse than bigamy lol. Bigamy is a misdemeanor while polygamy is a felony. The UK recognizes 'foreign" polygamous marriages-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom

one in which someone performs a polygamous marriage outside the UK, then emigrates to the UK or something in that vein. That is what I meant when I was talking about foreign marriages.

This is quite in line with several african countries in which  polygamy is illegal or unrecognized but allowed under sharia jurisdictions such as Nigeria, Eritea. However several African countries like Benin, Ghana, Ethiopia and a host of other african countries. Even Somalia a country which has a large muslim contigent has restrictions on polygamy.

People like Gamestart who are adamant on the polygamy law are not bring anything unique to the table.They are just copying the retorts of the Malawi Government (where polygamy is perfectly legal with total disregard to its indirect contribution to the exploitation of women as well as the state) . The Malawi Government forgets that they are the one of the few only backward African country that  allow free polygamy. Most African countries have polygamy as illegal but do allow muslims engage in polygamy, typically after informing their wives that they would be  taking another wife and she agrees. This is what we call informed consent 

Even  claims of informed consent cannot easily be applied to the case of women in polygamous unions. You have to get the consent of two women that they would want to be involved in bigamous union. It would be impossible for any court to decide if a first wife is being coerced since she would be scared of refusing her husband from taking another wife. In a male dominated culture such as Africa or Islamic societies how common is it for women to tell there husbands not to take another wife?

Polygamy laws protect women and the autonomy of women. This is so obvious- if you expect that any sane woman will really want a polygamous marriage then you dont know women. They love to be the focus of attention, and would not do otherwise except there are big benefits.


Like always I have received a baseless argument and wasted time addressing it.

Polygamy is not the reason women are supressed in the muslim world.

Never said that. I said "polygamy is demeaning to women"

Consenting adults having a right to privacy in their homes is not a fundamental human right.

It is lol, you just dont get it. Or choose not to. Everyone knows it is. Except if the activity could lead to death of the individual like sadomasochism.

I think it really says a lot about your intelligence when you can not explain your arguments.

LOL, ok- just learn how to use "Google"

The American legal system, which regulates rights and responsibilities for married (and divorced) parties is premised upon a particular definition of marriage: that it is an institution between TWO people.

Laws would have to be completely re-written and re-interpreted to accommodate a new definition of marriage that permits plural unions. Expanding the definition of marriage to include plural ones may SEEM like a slight alteration, but in fact it is a radical one in the American legal system.

Allowing polygamy in American legislation affects not only who people marry and divorce, but also who can claim spousal benefits for health care, who can immigrate to the United States with family visas, and who can be granted custody in family courts, to name only some affected legislation. Accommodating plural marriages has far reaching implications in all of American society.

And it also causes problems of legal definition within the existing American legal structure. For example, suppose a woman is married to multiple men and has children, would each of her spouses who are not the child's biological father be considered the child's step-father and retain child-custody rights in the event of a divorce? Or let's say a man is married to more than one wife and wishes to divorce one, how would alimony be fairly decided in a family court if the husband has other wives at home to support?

Legal ramifications aside, polygamy is often rightfully criticized for its subservient treatment of women, since in the history of plural marriages, it has been males who have been able to take more than one spouse at a time. Plural marriages on the part of women have historically been less culturally or religiously accepted, because of historic double standards that have tried to control women's sexuality. Thus, women in plural marriages have historically been relegated to inferior roles within marriage, and have been financially and emotionally reliant on the male head of the household.

Allowing people to practice polygamy in the United States means potentially accepting a marriage practice that has disparaged women, and is unacceptable to many women who have struggled to make inroads in American society.

This should help you think for a bit and stop making silly analogies. Even same-sex marriage is not comparable to polygamy marriage. Polygamy is prohibited whether it is one man and multiple women, one man and multiple men, one man and multiple cats it does not concern me lol. And it is done for good courses.

You would not understand anyways when you grew up in a sexist culture.

^are u sure that is the only reason

Gamesmart:
You still haven't explained the difference between fundamental human rights and fundamental rights.

Ok you are daft- I am done. I cannot keep debating with a blockhead who cannot google to find the difference between the two terms.

I am going to play videogames, at least the computer characters are way smarter.

The same way the West feel polygamy is damaging.

It is quite silly of you to come here and claim the restriction on women is Islamic world is mainly as a result of polygamy.

It is such a poor argument.

Furthermore, is it not left to an adult woman to decide if polygamy is for them?

By banning polygamy, is the West not restricting muslims rights as prescribed by the UN charter you provided?

You are just going round and round. What does polygamy have to do with this discussion? I have told you ten thousand times it has nothing to do with my first assertion but you adamantly claim otherwise like a blockhead.

Stop comparing polygamy to anything. Its even painful that the arguments against polygamy are obvious. Moreover the polygamy laws in the US and UK were made before the UN Charter so yes, if that would give you some satisfaction, and stop asking irrelevant questions, it could be possible to challenge polygamy laws, but it would be very hard to do so from a legal point of view.

It is good you realise you misspoke. You appear to be someone that acts before they think. That is not a mark of an intelligent person.

Errm I think the problem is that YOU always mixed up "recognized" with the word "Illegal" and I was tempted to do so to buttress my argument.

So if you are trying to run from stating your position about gay marriage despite claiming intelligence and being  well versed in standard philosophical theory, let me relieve you.

What exactly are you trying to debate? I was discussing the Malawi people. If you want to discuss gay marriage, I dont have time because homo activity is illegal in Naija, not to leap into "gay marriage" that you are so eager to jump into.

But my stance varies. I would not like to discuss it with someone who does not know what a "fundamental human right" is. I like arguing with people who know what they are talking about  , sorry just not enough time. i vex easily when faced with the miseducated