Quote:
That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.


You're right, it's polygyny, I don't think anyone would argue that Muslim women would never want multiple partners.

As I understand it polygyny has existed in all of the Abrahamic religions. The Islamic justification (I'm no scholar so this isn't 100% certainty) is that male mortality used to be greater due to the more direct methods of justice administered as well as the greater loss in inter tribal/national wars etc in the times of the day. The intent was to provide welfare for women that were perhaps widows or otherwise left uncared for. Over the centuries since this facility has been abused to the max, even now there are brothels in the muslim world (I've been told) where you may be married prior to your "appointment" and divorced straight after.

Quote:
You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west.


You seemed to be implying that Islam was peculiarly susceptible to misogyny, I didn't intend to misappropriate your words.

Quote:
My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.


Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

Just seen Peter's post, I'm sure there was an element of that too.


Edited by tahir (13/06/2006 16:16)