Saturday, August 9, 2008

ZenTiger Marrying your prostitute to avoid adultery

Is Labour's secret agenda legalising polygamy? This question is asked at No Minister who points out a few interesting links. One of those links made for interesting reading:
Trad this week said he'd proposed to a second woman because he'd fallen in love and thought it sinful to commit adultery. His wife, Hanifa, said she'd approved, because it would mean "having (sex) in the right way instead of having it like go to a prostitute . . ."


It's all very fine to allow consenting adults to do anything they like, but does that include tearing apart the fabric of our moral and cultural values? Such changes to our society are profound and far reaching, even if we can't see it. We can get a clearer view by looking back in history, or even into Islamic cultures.

Liberals and Muslims and possibly the gay lobby will be pleased with legalizing polygamy, thinking we are moving forwards. It's not until you they get to the final destination will they suddenly realise they had inadvertently turned a full 180 degrees along the way and ended up back at the beginning. Before Christian values declared marriage as a man and a women, two halves of a whole, in union for life under the holy sacrament of marriage.

It might be a tough ideal, but that's only a reflection of its value.

--ZenTiger

* Related Link and Good Article: Polygamy - was it good for you too?

* And a broader discussion at No Minister: NZ Labour Party - married to a secret agenda

* And a polyamory fan page: Wikiamory - where one page is just not enough

Update: Just realised I chopped off a paragraph from my original that explained my position on the state giving legal recognition to polygamy as equal to marriage, versus banning it outright. Luckily, this topic comes up in the comments. My apologies to the early commenters for the confusion caused.

12 comment(s):

Christopher said...

Hmmm, and where in the Bible is polygamy prohibited? There were lots of men in the OT who had multiple wives, and Jesus never said anything against it. Or does it come down to 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eves'?

Sb said...

Just out of interest ZenTiger the copy of TGIF linked to by No Minister contains text written by you on this blog. Did they/he ask permission to reuse you words?

Sb

Psycho Milt said...

This one is a classic example of how Islam's legalistic approach to morality leads to people trying to weasel their way around things as if they were a top defence lawyer. In this case, sex outside of wedlock is forbidden; so Mr Trad, far from recognising that it may be forbidden out of some kind of general moral principle, proceeds to look for loopholes. Here is a handy one - he could marry the woman he wants to fuck, then the sex wouldn't be outside of marriage. Thus making a mockery not only of Islam's proscription of sex outside marriage, but of marriage itself.

I believe this way of approaching morality is a direct result of Islam's framing itself as a game of Simon Says, with God playing Simon. If the religion is more about pedantic rules than about abstract moral absolutes, finding ways around the rules becomes a major pre-occupation. It's endemic in the Muslim world - I found all my dealings with Arabs in Kuwait owed nothing to concepts of fairness, natural justice etc, and everything to whether or not one's actions could be presented as meeting the minimum requirements of the relevant rules.

NB: in Kuwait, polygamy (of the multiple-wives only kind) is legal, but you have to be able to support the new wife in the same style as the existing one(s). Doing so at govt expense is not an option (I say govt rather than taxpayers, because Kuwait doesn't have those). this guy Trad would get short shrift there.

ZenTiger said...

Hi Christopher, I'm not using the bible in this post as my reasons for not supporting polygamy. Was I supposed to?

Also, I haven't said here that I'd make it illegal for multiple people to cohabit.

There is a difference, I think, to explicitly making cohabitation illegal, versus not legally recognising polygamy as a valid marriage.

What do you think about NOT making something illegal versus recognising this relationship as legally equal to a marriage between a man and a women? Do you think there is a difference?

Anonymous said...

I bet we won't see the major feminist blogs opposing this Zen.

Too busy writing about shooz and lattes and racist gorillas.

Probably your conservatism re polygamy and prostitution is far nearer to *real* feminism than many realise.

Rebel Heart said...

It's all very fine to allow consenting adults to do anything they like, but does that include tearing apart the fabric of our moral and cultural values?

How do you define moral and cultural values? And on what basis do you speak on behalf of 'our' moral and cultural values? And on what grounds are consenting adults not part of the fabric of our moral and cultural values?

ZenTiger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

Hi SB. I just now had a flick through TGIF. It looks quite good.

After your heads up, I was interested to see where I was quoted. To answer your question, unless an email is in my spam folder, I haven't been contacted about using my post in TGIF.

However, I'm not fussed about it, and indeed, see it as a good thing to have a post picked up as newsworthy.

I have a couple of guidelines that determine how I personally feel if my material is used:

1. That my posts are properly credited (ZenTiger, NZ Conservative).

2. That the main stream media and print media are welcome to reprint the entire article, providing rule 1 is meet. Print media should include a valid web address, and electronic media ideally a link to source.

3. That fellow bloggers use an excerpt and link back to the post - although I'm not too precious about this, I see it more as an etiquette thing.

TGIF followed rule 1 and falls into rule 2 as well, so no problems from my perspective.

ZenTiger said...

Interesting question Rebel Heart.

Which is why my comments are tempered firstly with the subtly of distinguishing between not legalising something, rather than banning something.

So I'm arguing for the State not getting involved in what consenting adults might do, but equally that consenting adults in such a relationship should have no right to demand the state recognise and tacitly approve their relationship.

Morals aside, state recognition often translates to sate funded welfare as PM mentioned, which ends up as providing a small degree of financial encouragement. I do not contribute taxes for this purpose.

Secondly, I justify my opinion because I argue that our traditional moral values around a monogamous marriage illustrate a grounding of a social construct that is proven to work.

Thirdly, I would argue that by far, (ie the largest number of cases) these so called "consenting adults" typically involve women being sold or transferred as property to men (by their own families) who do not treat them as equals, but rather as property. True free will for many cases is contestable I would suspect.

Fourth, it is hard to claim equality in a relationship where one man marries and controls 3 women (for example). The effective result of the action calls into question the quality of the original consent.

ZenTiger said...

Have added this to the original post:

Update: Just realised I chopped off a paragraph from my original that explained my position on the state giving legal recognition to polygamy as equal to marriage, versus banning it outright. Luckily, this topic comes up in the comments. My apologies to the early commenters for the confusion caused.

MK said...

I think this is the result of going down the slippery slope of gay marriage, if you legalize gay marriage, how can you deny polygamy and vice versa. How can you deny marriage between 4 guys then, 5 women. Why can't they all be parents then, two fathers, 4 fathers, who is to say how many. Just madness, i think.

Vaddi said...

I would like anyone who welcomes polygamy to read the book "Escape" by Caroline Jessop. She was the 4th wife of a man who now has something like 12 wives and she ran away when she was no. 7. He has over 50 children if not more.
The future cost to the welfare system from failed relationships would be horrendous. Especially in the cases where there are children involved. The scars from broken homes, inhouse competition vying for attention from a husband whose main interest is to have sex with as many women (supposedly legally) as possible not to mention the children being neglected and mistreated by jealous wives and siblings.
A good link to go to would be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjDJs7wvGLg
to see just what a horror this lifestyle is. God forbid that such a thing would ever be allowed in NZ.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.