Replies

"Measure the achievements of societies that conform to monotheistic standards against those that don't."

Like the Roman Empire? That lasted quite a while with polytheism and it was Christian when it finally fell. And quite a lot was accomplished while it lasted. There are sciences that are essentially unchanged to this day that came from the Romans. How about the Persian Empire? They had quite a pantheon. Just because the latest (and greatest) happens to be monotheistic (predominantly) doesn't mean that that is the reason for its success. Maybe it is because we speak English or because we don't speak French. And as a counter example, the various and sundry incarnations throughout history of the Islamic Caliphate, with a nod to the Ottoman Empire as the *possible* exception, have been even more monotheistic than Western Civilization and have been miserable rat holes filled with terror and despair. Just because a religion is monotheistic doesn't make it morally superior, nor does it insure that its culture will produce anything of value.

"As far as who gets their nookie, and when, and with how many, I consider it irrelevant. What I oppose is the dismantling of the legal concept of marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman, which is basically construed to protect their children and manage the distribution of property."

You are avoiding my question. If you can't defend your position against someone like me that basically agrees with you (I think you are right that there are serious problems with polygamy, but you are right for the wrong reasons), how will you defend it against people that disagree with you? The original point was that pedophilia is essentially universally repulsive when defined as the act of sex with a sexually immature person and that polygamy is not as universally rejected when defined as the practice of having multiple concurrent sexual partners. You cannot measure them with the same yardstick. So it is the argument that we reject both from the same fundamental moral base that I reject (the argument, that is) and it is that argument that you have not supported. The empirical evidence does not support that claim.

"That is, from when we had property. Now you want to see arbitrary?"

No kidding. We haven't had private property since the States assumed the power to tax it. Now we are merely tenants. And now we can be evicted pretty much on a whim. but there are multiple other threads for that discussion.

'"Measure the achievements of societies that conform to monotheistic standards against those that don't."'

Whoops. I meant to refer to monogamy. I didn't mean to wander into a discussion of religion. Brain slip. Actually I think it was because my wife was nagging me at the time.

I agree with you about the Romans, who celebrated monogamy as a civic virtue

I'm glad you see serious problems with polygamy. Serious problems. And I don't care what kind of arguments anyone wants to bring to this fight as long as they fight on our side. My argument is that permitting polygamy in any form will destroy our society. That same permissiveness will erode what remains of our standards towards pedophilia. I think you're wrong about the universality of our disgust at pedophilia. It was and remains widespread. I submit there is no innate biological predisposition, or that if there is, it is very weak and prone to failure. Our rejection of it stems from our understanding that it is exploitive and debased. Our revulsion is moral.

We despise exploitation though exploitation is an innate human tendency. We reject pedophilia because we've been taught, inculcated with the belief that it degrades. Likewise our rejection of polygamy: it degrades its adherents, undermines the social assumption of equality before God and the law, and so on. Permit one; open a door to the other.