Why is open marriage tolerated but polygamy isn't?
From a religious standpoint, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that is okay with open marriage.
From a legal standpoint, I'm sure there's a tax issue or some bullshit.
Personally I don't think open relationships are a good idea. I've known a few people who've been involved in them and they usually devolve into some form of jealousy.
One of the two will get laid more than the other and it always causes problems.
Open marriages are not coded or sanctioned by law, they're taken as the expression of free will between between the two partners. The open marriage agreement happens privately, and it is considered by society as a private matter.
I think that is because the institution of marriage, as the representation of a particular societal order based on a nuclear or patriarchal family, is on the decline. The economic structure of western society has less use for traditional family structures and this is why it is eroding.
Regardless, the polygamy taboo still exists in our culture and law. I think the law will eventually support polygamy, but it will require a different group to support it. Open marriage people are enacting a very liberal set of values. And, in general, those values don't necessarily center around the importance of marriage as an institution. People that are for polygamy usually believe in a patriarchal system and are devoted to a conservative-religious set of values. Those people are less and less in western society, they will have to make polygamy acceptable through religious freedom legislature, not through "common sense" cultural believe in freedom of choice.
TL/DR: open marriage is private, non-sanctioned, and secular. Polygamy is a public contract (a form of marriage), usually religiously motivated, and patriarchal. All societal forms of decreasing strength and popularity.
How did they get away with this?
Well, European powers cared during Louis XIV's conquests
But they were simply no match
Hey /his/ i was just wondering:
Why is it so important for human history the time when people started buriyng their deads?
-Under standing that other person was meaningful. not just something to mate with or be contact with because of hormones or genes determine it.
I cannot think anything else nor am I expert on this issue.
Did Jesus accept homosexuality?
>"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”" (Matthew 19:11-12).
Is clear that he used the word "eunuch" in three different meaning. Two of them are pretty obvious, but the third (people born eunuchs) is interesting....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why were native fighters so terrible. I'm not talking disease...I'm talking about the actual battles.
>5,000 Incan soldiers
>80,000 more not far away
>Under 200 Spanish
>All 5,000 Incans killed with Atahualpa taken hostage
>No spanish killed
How the hell can anyone take the Inca or Aztec seriously when they were BTFO so easily?
Talking in general, Spaniards had shitload of native allies.
Besides that, they had steel weapons, firearms, steel armor, even war dogs.
Don't forget, Spain was literally Total War: The Country for centuries. They had long and awesome martial tradition.
all vets of wars against the moors and the french
>5000 Incan soldiers
never seen an horse a gun a culverin in action
The same thing happened in Africa 300 years later
Military discipline and higher technology
And also the biggest cojones in all history
They were poor warriors indeed, look up for how they were organized, basically they had huge armies with poor training.
these were actually good warriors, but they were doomed by the tech gap plus lots of enemies, plus what they believe (prophecies of their own end and stuff like that)
Natives in S.A had some success when they learned to ride and shot. Check out charruas, and Lautaro (pic related) he was some kind of...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Remember that one time when longbowmen rekt everyone? Oh wait that's every time they were deployed.
Joan of Arc, i don't need to say more
Why is architecture so lifeless and artificial nowadays, compared to other ages?
Sometimes I wonder if in a few centuries people will look back and admire our architecture for whatever reason.
I can imagine some pretentious student going on about its "stoic simplicity" or something.
Of course it's just as possible everyone will look at the late 20th/early 21st century as an artistic dark age.
What did Evola see in him, /his/?
Where does the 'Divine right of kings' come from?
I must have missed that part of the bible.
Buddhism works because it offers two ways to end suffering in rebirth.
One, lead an ascetic life.
Two, accumulate karma by good works.
Catholicism works because it offers two ways to enter heaven.
One, imitate Christ directly by joining the church or becoming a saint.
Two, by avoiding sin and performing good works.
Protestantism leads to cultural suicide because it rejects good works.
All protestants know how to do is eat porridge, mutilate genitals, censor artwork, and cuckold themselves sullenly.
>tfw no Anglicanism
Oi mate, me porridge and twenty hour days at me fact'ry's good a work 's any o' them Roman cunts, ya hear? Cat'lic an' reformed, good works 'n porridge, there's a good lad.
>Protestantism leads to cultural suicide because it rejects good works.
Find one Protestant confessional statement which rejects good works. Every Protestant church -- Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican -- teaches good works. What they do not do is make good works an instrument of justification. This and no more.
You might be thinking of the Antinomians and the Socinians/Unitarians.
Whats the history of traps?
I know I can't post it somewhere else because it would turn into a porn thread.
Looking for serious answers here.
I have read that some native cultures boys would grow up as girls and would be treated as women etc.
Was any of that true, or is this an agenda?
Native Americans have a zillion genders is a myth. However, the Bugis do indeed have five genders where boys are raised as girls, girls as men, and some to be androgynous. Most are still heterosexual men and women, though.
was there any chance for the pagan religions of Europe to hold out and never convert?
or was it inevitable after the roman empire converted from Hellenism?
No, even before Christianity, sol invictus, paralleling Akhenaten's cult in Egypt, was on the rise. Even if Christianity never arose, polytheism would have declined in favor of monotheism. Christianity did, however, provide a great deal of depth to the monotheism which it otherwise would not have had, allowing it to endure as a paradigm far longer than it otherwise could have.
>polytheism would have declined in favor of monotheism
What is Hinduism.
from my understanding. kings and other rulers would convert to Christianity but the common people would still hold onto the pagan traditions for years to come. which is how many of those traditions spilled into Christianity (Easter being a prime example)
pretty hard to find reliable sources on this topic though.
Best World War 2 generals that were not Commonwealth, American, or German. Japanese welcome.
Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Chuikov, Yeryomenko were all great generals. I'm on the fence about Semyon Budyonny. His defense of the Carpathians was incredibly important to soviet supply lines, but I wouldn't br surprised if anyone could defend such a geographical area against an army depleted by the battle of Stalingrad.
Any books on Norse Paganism? Any of you practicing pagans?
Who eradicated the European pagans? Was everything they had destroyed? Do we have legit sources of their lore today?