 sj |
||
|
||
BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws
|
|
|
Subject: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Ed T Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:00 PM I dont want two wives. But, I wonder what is really wrong with it among consenting adults? Is it time to revisit the bigamy laws, with a new perspective. Or, is there a reasonable benefit to society for keeping existing restrictive bigamy laws in place? Just wondering what your views are on this, beyond religious ones. My interest was stimulated by this news article: A Montana man is seeking to strike down bigamy laws |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:18 PM If it really were among consenting adults, I couldn't see much of a problem. But most of the time, it's the women that end up being oppressed in such a relationship. I think that women in a "multiple relationship" have their rights protected far better if they don't get married. Many years ago, Rick Fielding had an interesting comment on the topic. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Rapparee Date: 28 Aug 15 - 09:54 PM In addition, children seem to be losers in many big ways -- vide Warren Jeffs, et al. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Mrrzy Date: 28 Aug 15 - 11:35 PM Where I grew up in was kinda normal, didn't seem to be all exploit-y for the women to me... but I didn't see behind the scenes, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Doug Chadwick Date: 29 Aug 15 - 03:16 AM Bigamy has its own intrinsic punishment - two mothers-in-law. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Ebbie Date: 29 Aug 15 - 03:22 AM In our crowded - and warring - world, polyandry makes just as much sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST, topsie Date: 29 Aug 15 - 04:01 AM I don't know if you have even one wife, but I was just wondering how you would feel about the prospect of sharing a wife with another husband? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 04:06 AM How amazing that only Rapparee mentions the effect on children, surely that is intended to be one of the main functions of marriage, to give them security and safety. This society seems to be getting more and more selfish. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 29 Aug 15 - 04:47 AM As soon as we question traditional marriage, we must distinguish its various roles:
Similarly, polygamy as a sociological problem is scarcely related to its legal acceptance. "De-facto harems" are not unusual, whether supported by a cultural/religious tradition or charisma or wealth, e.g. of a film star. Large same-sex households, each member vowing fidelity and in some cases even wearing a golden ring, are highly praised in some traditional Christian communities - by the name of religious orders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 29 Aug 15 - 05:03 AM Akenaton, it is precisely to provide safety and security for children that polygamy has been accepted in many societies, including the Hebrew societies of the Old Testament period. Marriage was more about those two things (women wanting safety and security for themselves and their children) than love until really quite recently. Polyandry is less common, though it is hard to see why exactly, since a woman with multiple husbands would logically be more secure still, but I think other factors come into play in that one. I will state that I am a Christian and take the whole Bible seriously (if not literally always), and I have not found any outright condemnation of polygamy anywhere, nor any clear promotion of so-called "traditional" marriage either (there are a few texts in the NT that would prohibit polygamous men and women from certain "offices" if taken literally, but no direct condemnation). There is, of course, much about fidelity and divorce, but that is another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 05:33 AM I respect your religious beliefs WW, but I don't presently share them. If we are talking about legalising Polygamy in present day society, I would oppose it on much the same grounds as I oppose Homosexual "marriage"......a redefinition of the institution to accommodate a tiny sexual minority, with associated risk factors regarding sexual health and possible psychiatric effects on children....insecurity, bullying, favouritism etc etc. I know these things can sometimes occur in conventional marriage, but do we really need to legislate to make them more prevalent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 29 Aug 15 - 05:42 AM From a legislative viewpoint it is much more difficult than gay marriage. The core legislation would be the same but the implications elsewhere would be extensive and expensive. Just think about the impact on inheritance law when instead of one surviving partner there are two or more. Because of such things I think the implications are much wider than the recent marriage changes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:15 AM I agree DMcG......but how do these monitory considerations fit in with Jim's "the basic right to be treated as a human being is fundamental to any civilised society" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 29 Aug 15 - 06:42 AM Although I phrased it in terms of money, that's only one aspect. As I said on another thread fairness and equality are in tension. This is especially so when looking at society as a whole on the fairness side and equality on the other at an individual level. To say we should alwaysgive fairness the upper hand, or always equality or that we can always achieve both are all simplistic. No, I fear there is no alternative to thinking carefully about each situation as ir arises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:50 AM Exactly so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:59 AM I was saying to the wife's sister in bed this morning, there's too much happiness in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:01 AM "but how do these monitory considerations fit in with Jim's "the basic right to be treated as a human being is fundamental to any civilised society" How on earth does this contradict with anything being said here? It is inhuman to treat human beings badly, be they of a different colour, religion or sexual orientation. You appear to disagree. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Ed T Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:16 AM As to children, and if one takes cults and religion out of it-what about communes - how successful have they been at raising children?( Israel comes to mind). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Ed T Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:19 AM When it comes to any change in marriage laws, children always come up. Strange that the impact of disfunctional marriage, divorce, foster homes, orphanage s on children rarely comes up in a similar way in discussions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:46 AM Akenaton: My comments on my religious perspective was a more general addition to the discussion, my response to you was mostly the first part, I did not mean to imply that you did or should agree with me on that. Still, I think my main point was valid: the argument for most of history for polygamy has been precisely the securing of safety and security for children, to fight against it now on those bases needs some pretty good arguing, I think. Why would one suppose that for a child to be raised in a monogamous household that is living well below the poverty line is better than for that child to be raised in a wealthy polygamous family? (Polygamy, traditionally, has only been a real option for wealthier men). Not that I am arguing for the re-introduction of polygamy, by the way. I just do not see any logical, political, or theological arguments against it that make any sense to me (though I accept DMcG's comments above that there are serious issues that would need to be addressed if it were allowed again). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:47 AM Jim, I don't think you quite understand the discussion. Some rights are not universal, it is not a simple matter, there are criteria which must be adhered to. Discrimination on grounds of skin colour is obviously wrong, but as you have admitted there is such a thing as "positive" discrimination. But who determines what is positive? Is having six wives, marrying your first cousin, marrying someone of the same gender, positive or negative? These issues are at the very least, debatable |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:51 AM Thank you for clarifying WW, I just thought that I shoul make it clear that I am not coming from any particular religious or secular viewpoint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 15 - 11:47 AM In a society where so many people are having extra-marital affairs (oppsoite and same sex), where divorce is rife and second divorces even moreso (percentage wise) why is not more done for children NOW? More consideration to children should be the first and last order of things (like divorce settlements being split between how many people are involved, the house being put in legal trust for the children until they are of legal age, and the money from the settlement also being put in trust. So, if you have 3 children the settlement would be split 5 ways and not two!) Maybe that might make some think about their children, their rights and their future instead of selfishness (unless in cases of domestic violence where the settlement should go the victim and the children only!) In poly relationships it is the unicorn who often is treated the worse eventually, when introduced later into the relationship, so legal protections should be in place for them I think. I do not want one husband, let alone two, and yet I love men to bits emotionally and intellectually. Each to their own... same sex or otherwise. No "marriage"... just plain simple marriage. Some need to get over that now fact of life I feel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 29 Aug 15 - 12:04 PM MP...hello again. I agree with your remarks in reference to children and the need to secure their future. On legalisation, one can oppose laws with which they do not agree, as long as they do not discriminate. If that had not been the case, male homosexuals would still be criminalised.....I opposed that law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Bill D Date: 29 Aug 15 - 12:29 PM Ed T's original question was about the need for *laws* regarding multiple marriages of any sort. That is a bit different than questioning multiple relationships in general. There are obviously many issues when people try to interact 'intimately' in more complex ways. Human psychology makes even monogamy sometimes difficult, and with 3..or 4.. or communes... the odds of problems arising increase geometrically. A major one, simply stated, is that although it may be possible to 'love' more than one partner, it is not possible to give multiple partners all the time & attention that they may desire. Thus, issues of fairness and favoritism may arise. All of this of course depends on the specific compatibilities and 'comfort levels' of the various individuals. I have no doubt that quite successful multiple relationships do happen... even without formal marriage. But I also suspect that most of those make an effort to keep a low profile... possibly by living in a secluded area that doesn't attract neighbors' attention. All these issues were explored back in the Naughty 60s when 'hippies' and 'free love' were big news, and one author, Robert Rimmer, wrote several novels on the topic(s). Notably, "The Rebellion of Yale Marrat", "The Harrad Experiment" and "Proposition 31"...but also a number of other books. 'Harrad' & Proposition 31 followed a group of kids from 'experimenting' in college to trying to maintain a residence after graduating... with the usual issues of getting along together added to their public problems with law & society. (In Prop 31, one person argues for maintaining as much anonymity as possible, while another favors daring the world to accept them.) Now...as to the law. IF one wants to argue, as this group in Montana does, that the law should allow polygamy.. or any other multiple situation.. they must realize that any law(s) will have to deal with all the complexities of finances, inheritance, child rearing, divorce, and even residential zoning. I would suggest that it all 'might' be possible if a special bureaucracy and court were established, requiring any group wishing to 'go legal' to submit a detailed plan as to rights and responsibilities. This would have to be examined for conflicts with OTHER laws, as well as internal consistency before any license were issued. (You can see that just designing the legal forms might give rise to an entire new branch of lawyers!) It is no wonder that no state wants to get into the technicalities, much less the moralities, of the issue. There have been various societies in history where polygamy, polyandry etc. were legal and/or ignored, but very seldom has human psychology managed to make this a smoothly administered situation. This guy in Montana may or may not be honest about his motives... and his 'wives' may or may not be equally comfortable with the arrangement... but I suspect they are facing defeat in the long run. Better just shut up and enjoy it as long as everyone is getting along ok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Stim Date: 29 Aug 15 - 01:32 PM Polygamy is still practiced in Iran. Here is a link to Nahid Pearsson Sarvestani's documentary Four Wives and One Husband-though she is a feminist and a Marxist, she does not judge, she documents-it is penetrating, touching, and unexpectedly humorous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Aug 15 - 07:53 PM "Unicorn"? ( mauvepink 11:47 AM) Leave well alone, I'd think. People are going to organize their lives in all kinds of ways, and the best thing seems to me is to let them get on with it, and not go adjusting laws in a pretence it's all neat and tidy, and all relationships can be fitted into the institution of marriage by twisting the definition of what it involves. The only role for society and law is to do what it can to prevent people being abused and exploited, most especially children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:20 PM That's a very wise post. It's amazing how some people automatically see anything to do with sex 'n' relationships as a big moral issue into which they can poke their noses (and have their own motives seriously questioned by the more enlightened among us!). I heard today of a young woman who was at school with my son 20 years ago who has married another woman, and the they are both having IVF, using the eggs of just one of them, to have children. I can just imagine their future household to be the happiest imaginable. Brilliant stuff. BGosh, I do need to keep up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:21 PM @ McGrath of Harlow A unicorn is 'the third' in a poly relationship. Referred to as "Unicorn's" because a good third is extremely hard to find and quite rare! They are usually female (though male unicorns exist) and are expected to have no other sexual relationships with anyone other than the couple (dyad) The term is often used perjoratively or dismissively but can have deeper meaning. For more information take a look at Unicorn Hunters Hope this explains more. I thought you all knew more of the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 29 Aug 15 - 08:21 PM Gosh! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Aug 15 - 09:45 PM Extremely rare and hard to find? I'm afraid the truth is, unicorns don't exist. But maybe that makes it a quite good word to use in this context, though I don't imagine that's why the word was chosen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: LadyJean Date: 29 Aug 15 - 10:57 PM Reading an account of a Mormon polygamist, who married 5 women, his wives were, pretty much, on their own. They did not share a house. Each had her own home, and pretty much had to support herself. Not a lot to be said for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 30 Aug 15 - 02:21 AM Hadn't heard that unicorn stuff myself either, but I really don't like the sound of it. This sounds like setting out with the intention of identifying a 'real couple' (the dyad) and a hanger-on (the unicorn). Sounds like a problematical setup from the start, and no wonder people for that role are hard to find. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 03:57 AM Wouldn't the real couple be the myum and the dyad? I'll just get me coat... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:31 AM Isn't this just a test case to show where the "twisting of definition" referred to by Mr McGrath can lead.....despite what Steve says society has a duty to protect its institutions. These institutions were set up for good reasons .....Society already prohibits certain types of relationships, sometimes for health reasons, sometimes societal, sometimes simply because of the complexity involved, as illustrated by DMcG. Can we finally stop saying that anybody should be allowed to marry whoever they please, as long as they "love" one another? Modern life is complicated enough and children are often un-consulted victims in these social experiments Further redefinition could be one idiocy too far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Megan L Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:07 AM Children are the victims of married parents as well as any others. Addiction, drunkenness, smoking,abusive, angry,depression,ill health, domineering arguing parents,and I am sure there are many other things parents can do or say that can negatively effect children. Stop using them as an excuse.people protect children not laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:34 AM Frankly I'm amazed that the population had flourished in the UK if as Akenaton suggests we "need" marriage to follow only his format. I would have thought that marriage as he understands it is a fairly recent phenomena |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:44 AM "These institutions were set up..." Who by? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:28 AM Megan L It would be lovely to live in such a simple world, but isn't that a bit like saying "people kill people, not guns"? I agree that children are subjected to a degree of abuse within traditional marriage or in a traditional family relationship, but what is the point of further complicating the problem? The psychological and physical trauma within polygamous relationships seems to me to be obvious, children need security and numerous studies have found that a traditional family relationship yields the best results. The effects of the social experiment in allowing same gendered people to bring up children from infancy have yet to be determined, it will possibly take three or four decades before data is available. I certainly would not have wanted any of my children to be part of such an experiment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:50 AM The use of the word experiment to characterise the relationships that human beings who love each other want to have is disgraceful. If you have solid figures that show children suffering disadvantage in different kinds of relationships from the one you approve of, let's be having them. Your latest post is no more than a vile assemblage of weasel words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:15 AM "The use of the word experiment to characterise the relationships that human beings who love each other want to have is disgraceful" Consenting adults can have whatever kind of relationship they like, I certainly don't object. I object to legislation to promote relationships which are obviously unhealthy, dangerous, or harmful to society. The "experiment", as I'm sure you know, is the placing of babies and infants with homosexual "parents". As I said, it will take several decades to determine what psychological damage may have been done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:26 AM "Obviously"? More weasel words... We have had same-sex relationships for decades which have included children. Also, "psychological damage" is picked up during children's school years. It does not take "several decades" to emerge. As for the "placing" of babies, in most cases the baby is the child of one member of the couple, so nothing new there. Why don't you think before you post instead of insulting our intelligence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:30 AM Well Steve, your little joke made me chuckle! Set up by whom? Certainly for much of the world, and my own position....marriage is God ordained. And much of societal institution of marriage followed on from that. Of course, as society becomes more godless, there are less and less reasons to have boundaries. Everything is up for grabs sooner or later..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Megan L Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:31 AM From my experience as a victim support volunteer having two caring parents who protect their child while not wrapping them in cotton wool regardless of the parents gender will inevitably do less damage than an a child brought up by abusive,neglectful or domineering parents who insist "my way or no way" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,mauvepink Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:35 AM Why is parent being placed in inverted commas? For many a year gay men have been married to women and made great parents. Lots of females 'come out' in later life as gay too and have also been (and are) wonderful parents. Heterosexuality does not guarantee making you a good parent. Many straight folk preach a gospel of hate and bigotry that messes up not only their children's lives but that of others as they grow up. It is not just a straight flaw though. Sadly many on the LGB & T spectrum also preach non acceptance and hatred of others. Years ago I saw speech like this being applied to black people. Mixed marriages were abhorrent and mixed race children somehow less than. What utter nonsense. More sad is that some people still hold such beliefs and their targets only sin is to be somehow not like them. Give me a gay parent any day over someone straight who would preach or teach that having a gay parent(s) is somehow an experiment and 'less than'. Straight folks get diseases too and some are ill equipped to fight the ones in the head that would decry any child a loving parent of any sexuality, race or open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:38 AM Obviously? check any set of health statistics. Psychological damage can occur at any point in a child's upbringing it often does not appear or become a problem for decades. How does a male produce a child....you certainly must be super intelligent if you can work that out :0) If you are referring to a man marrying and having a child with a woman, leaving her, marrying a man and keeping the baby, then I think that is a little far fetched even for super brain Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:38 AM Ake, you state "I object to legislation to promote elationships which are obviously unhealthy, dangerous, or harmful to society" If the effects are so obviously detrimental, as you say they are, you will be able to back up your statement with facts and figures that prove that to be the case. I am sure we would all like to see them , why not share them with us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 07:50 AM I take it you are referring to Polygamous relationships guest? If so then obviously the number of sexual partners increases with polygamy and the opportunity for "cheating" also increases, as in "open" relationships among the homosexual community. In traditional marriage or any traditional family structure, monogamy is encouraged cutting down the risk of the spread of STD.s These "open" relationships are reckoned to be the biggest vector of HIV and other STD's amongst MSM. This brings me back to the "Obviously" which is obviously in dispute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 09:04 AM Mauvepink, you provide an oasis of sanity and humanity in a thread that has lapsed into what would be comedy if it wasn't so tragic. We are swamped by assertions that can't be supported by any statistics, just prejudice, and now we have had God, yes the God of the archetypal ménage á trois, invoked as the instigator of traditional marriage. Nurse! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 09:13 AM Pete from the seven stars link, Just as an aside, you maintain that for much of world "marriage is God ordained" Does that mean that my wife of 29 years and I are not married because we chose a Registry Office Wedding with no religious fripperies. I'd be interested to see where you got your facts and figures about the world viewpoint of marriage too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 15 - 10:25 AM "I object to legislation to promote relationships which are obviously unhealthy, dangerous, or harmful to society." Ake... the word 'obviously' has been correctly pointed out above as HIGHLY debateable, so I will focus on the word 'promote'. A law that allows freedom & latitude in choosing one's relationships and decisions about marriage & child rearing within those relationships is hardly 'promoting' anything. You have asserted before that various things...(like display posters on buses) promote homosexuality. Those items are designed to be information about where to find medical care, helpful organizations...etc. No one is 'promoting' a particular lifestyle...except those who think like you! It is just NOT obvious that the majority case should be the only case. The 'straight' lifestyle will always be the majority... that's how most reproduction works. But for those nice, decent, caring people who happen to have been dealt a minority hand in life's card game, adoption and IVF can help provide a happy, meaningful way to participate in society. Children? They are amazingly adaptable.... having 2 mothers or 2 fathers makes little difference if those parents are good and honorable people.... certainly better than 'normal' parents who mistreat, ignore and repress their kids. 'Studies' have shown this! ------------------------------------------------------ Pete...Raggytash makes the point quite well about the necessity of religious trappings for marriage. For those who wish to add the church into their marriage ceremony... fine. But marriage licenses are issued by the state. (We in the US have just had that difference spelled out by the Supreme Court. Sadly, a few very conservative local bureaucrats are refusing to issue marriage licenses based on their own religious beliefs, rather than the status of the applicants. No one is asking a clerk to perform a marriage ceremony, but merely to issue a piece of paper.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 10:40 AM Come on Bill you know very well what I meant by "obvious", the health figures, which I wont print on this thread, but are easily accessed, say quite clearly that there is a serious health problem among male homosexuals......to ignore this fact in legislation which proscribes other groups on these grounds is promotion. You were one of those who poo pooed the "slippery slope" argument which I did not advance, but now we have people trying to strike down the bigamy laws in the cause of "equality" the ONLY plank in the Homosexual "marriage" campaign. The slope now looks very slippery indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Megan L Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:01 AM It worries me at times to watch those who profess to believe in God judging and condemning those around them harshly and with bitter words for they are placing their very souls in danger for does it not say in Mathew chapter 7 verses 1to3 that the way you judge another is the way that you yourself will be judged. It would seem to me that anyone who judges others harshly is building his or her self a pathway that leads to destruction for daring to presume that the God they profess with their mouths is so week that they have to stand judge on God's behalf. Perhaps they should read Matthew chapter 7 in its entirety and look to their own souls first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:11 AM Ah... the 'health' figures. Your point never changes.. and my answer to your point will remain the same.... the solution the health issues is to find medical ways to address disease, not to change or repress a section of society that has always been there and always will be there. I don't remember the details of whatever "slippery slope" discussion you refer to, but I will almost always disagree with that approach....however... I do not see anyone here actually defending striking down bigamy laws. I even noted that those people in Montana have very little chance of winning their case.... there are far too many posts, fences & terraces on the slope to ensure that whatever slipperyness you imagine to present a danger will not be likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:39 AM That is not the point Bill, is "equality" equality or not? Because there are too many obstacles in the way, does not an argument make....If I had advanced that argument against homosexual "marriage", I would have been shot down in flames. Who exactly is being repressed by the way? In the UK homosexuals now have more legal "marriage" rights than heterosexuals and the same will apply in all countries where civil union of homosexuals is legal. As long as we say anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they "love", the problem will persist or at least be regularly challenged. Regarding the health issues, the lifestyle is obviously the cause, or why is there such a differential in infection rates "Open" relationships, including "marriage" are presumed to be a major vector by all health agencies.....and these relationships are a large part of the lifestyle. Despite propaganda to the contrary, there are huge differences between homosexual and heterosexual unions and relationships. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:40 AM Ake, why won't you add the figures if you are so sure of them. Could it be that the figures do not add up as you would like. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys if my friend, neighbour or colleague is of a different sexual persuasion to myself. What I DO care about is that are happy and fulfillled with their life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:43 AM Lest anyone think we are getting off the point, these remarks apply at least in part to polygamous "marriage" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:43 AM The issue of "gay marriage" is one that's been argued up and down in the Cat, and that will no doubt continue to be so. Predictably once it came up here it has completely diverted discussion, and I think that's a pity, because polygamy hasn't had the same attention yet. The two issues do have aspects in common, but differences too. Notably cultures around the world which accept polygamy tend to be hostile to the idea of gay marriage. I think it would be more helpful to keep the discussions apart, because if they are discussed together, the current climate in our societies is for the issue of polygame (and polyandry) are bound to be squeezed out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 11:49 AM I think you are correct Mr McGrath, as long as the similarities are not intentionally obscured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 03:37 PM Talking of people obscuring the conversation Ake we're still awaiting your facts and figures. Surely as you're so convinced of your argument you should be able to provide them at will. ????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:25 PM Rag, do you mean figures relating to " differential in infection rates?" If so they have been posted many times. Find it all here. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-20 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:27 PM Link no good, address too long. Paste in, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:36 PM Ake... "Who exactly is being repressed by the way?" In the past, when pushed, you have advocated some sort of repression/control. Others do regularly. If the general trend has been to allow more freedom and rights, those who agree with that trend must guard constantly against attempts to deny & remove such rights... (as in the conservative American marriage bureaus I noted before. The current hot case is in Kentucky.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:47 PM It is interesting that in practice, whether in Utah, Africa or the Muslim world, acceptance of polygamy does seem in practice to go alongside hostility to homosexuality. Does it work the other way round? Perhaps societies operate on the basis that there's a fixed amount of acceptance of diversity available, and the more acceptance in this context means the less in that context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 04:55 PM Tell you what Professor let Akenaton provide the information HE is working from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:41 PM Raggytash, methinks you missed my point. My position is that marriage originated as an ordinance from God, not that it must be encased in "religious frippery" to be valid. Assuming yours is a monogamous and heterosexual union, it is as valid as another that opted for a church service IMO. I freely admit that I am not claiming facts and figures but expressing opinion, but I hope an educated guess based on the stronger faith position of former generations. Megan, if I am being "judgmental" for expressing an opinion based on a plain reading of scripture......where does that leave you , judging me for holding said opinion......an opinion held without animosity and in social interaction with homosexuals and lesbians ?. Btw, as an example I know a lesbian couple. One had a child from a former husband who then cheated on her. She changed to a female partner who was childless, so they adopted. Now the first has broken up that relationship because she does not "love" the other woman anymore !. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:45 PM So have you got a Christian point to make about that failed liaison? Careful now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 15 - 05:49 PM My position is that marriage originated as an ordinance from God Now there's your problem, pete. More fairytales. And now, back to reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Raggytash Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:02 PM Pete, What ordnance from which god. As far as I am aware marriage as I understand the concept did not become prevalent until the 13th century. I do not recall any communication from your god or any other at that time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:13 PM Pete, as I stated above, I, as a Christian, can find absolutely no prohibition of polygamy in the Bible. Plenty against divorce (which so many Christians now accept), some against homosexuality, but nothing against polygamy! Nor is there any clear expression of a one-man-one-woman "norm". Until the late middle ages, marriage was a civil affair. No religious ceremony was involved (as a necessity--a blessing might be given). It became a religious thing at the service of the state who wanted an easier way to track property and inheritance rights. Even the Puritans (like the founding fathers) rejected the religious form of marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:15 PM Sorry, just back from hospital duty. Raggytash, the infection rate data has been posted here at least a dozen times...they are from reputable govt sponsored sites like CDC and PHE. I don't think there is anyone left on the forum who seriously disputes them. Mr McGrath has civilly asked that we try to concentrate on the Polygamy/ Bigamy issues, and I think he is correct as it moves the whole discussion forward. I apologise for not re-posting if you are unaware of their conclusions, but they can be easily found on the CDC and PHE sites MSM factsheets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Aug 15 - 06:40 PM "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh." That passage from Matthews Gospel does fairly clearly indicate the teaching that marrage was seen as a two/ person affair." And always has been in the Christian tradition ever since. As for the suggestion that the move to having priests preside at weddings changed the religious status of marriag to such an extent that it's right to say "the concept was not prevalent until the 13th century", that is a complete misunderstanding. Then and now the role of clergy in a religious wedding has never been other than as a special witness required in most circumstances, but whose presence can be dispensed with if need be. I'm not suggesting that this settles the matter for everyone. For example Islam has some very different ground rules. Whether this will impact on legislation in countries where there is a sizeable Muslim population is a matter that is unclear - though it is noteworthy that with very few exceptions Muslims in Europe adhere to a two person view of marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Aug 15 - 09:24 PM Catholic "Canon Law" on the matter: "If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only: 1/ in danger of death; 2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 31 Aug 15 - 03:58 AM So, if the one man one woman marriage is God's form of marriage (only) then I suppose we must believe that polygamy is wrong and that such "additional" marriages are invalid. Now Abraham only had one wife at a time (marrying again after Sarah dies) but he did have multiple concubines who gave him children (Gen 26:1-6). Why is he never condemned for it? Jacob married Leah and Rachel and also had children with his concubines. If only first marriages are valid, then presumably Rachel and the concubines children are illegitimate, making the tribes of Naphtali, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Joseph also illegitimate? Again, not a word of condemnation. David, Solomon, and most of the kings of Israel also had large harems, yet nothing is said against that either. Why, if polygamy is so wrong, is God so silent when almost all of the great men of the OT practised it???? As for the Matthew passage, that states a man and wife become one, but where does it say that is the only possibility? Indeed Paul seems to indicate that such a union is formed any time two people have sex (1 Cor 6:16). I know it is the "standard" Christian interpretation, but I see far too many Christians simply assuming that the norms of their society are Scriptural without actually knowing why (or even if). As for the infection argument that Ake uses above, surely that is a complete red herring. The statistics there show that a promiscuous culture is dangerous, but how is that relevant if we are talking about three people who want to form a stable, exclusive relationship? Surely we should be encouraging just that if we want to slow down the spread of these diseases! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 31 Aug 15 - 04:26 AM I see far too many Christians simply assuming that the norms of their society are Scriptural without actually knowing why (or even if). Good point, Windhover, and well supported by the rest of your post. As a child I was taught (some) Canon Law rules in school, but I'm not sure to what extent they are taught these days - I have asked a few people but await replies. But like all such formulated rules, they tend to fracture or break completely when they hit the real world. There are parts of the world which have Catholics but only see a priest every few years. Are they unable to marry? That quoted Canon Law would say they cannot; reality says otherwise. In the UK a registry office wedding has no priest officiating. Would the Church by happy to give one of them a full church (but not civil) wedding to someone else on the grounds they were not actually married according to that Canon Law? Obviously not. McGrath is perfectly correct to point out that what Canon Law says, I fully support him there. But what the actual significance of the law is (both in this extract and more generally) is much harder to pin down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 31 Aug 15 - 05:20 AM Sorry I misread the clause. In the first case I described they could marry because they could see the situation [i.e. unavailability of the priest] "will continue for a month". The second example is still valid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 31 Aug 15 - 06:09 AM A thought has just occurred to me. We are all talking of marital nuances as though we concur to some extent with the teachings of "the church". Why do so many of us allow ourselves to be controlled by the teachings of a few people with a vested interest in maintaining some sort of status quo. I should add that my mate, the priest, is going to be ordained as a bishop on Saturday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST Date: 31 Aug 15 - 06:41 AM I tried to avoid a mostly religious type of discussion on the topic in the OP, as it seems clear to me that most religions today oppose pologamy, at least to some degree. I suspect this is the main source of most related government laws. That discussion direction, IMO, seems less interesting. However, this may be where some folks interests lie? I am OK with that, but I remain interested in views of the potential or real impact on societies and individuals, as this seems less clear to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: DMcG Date: 31 Aug 15 - 06:54 AM On the wider social implications then. A decade or so ago I was in Maueus in Brazil and reading about various tribal customs there. One, unfortunately I forget which, was claimed to have polygamy and polyandry simultaneously, one of the consequences was that socially everyone was quite closely related to everyone else (genetically I suspect it was about the same as any other marital arrangement). As a result whatever happened as a result of a death there was an extensive support network for children and surviving partners and, again, claimed but with little or no evidence provided, e low level of dispute because you were almost always dealing with a relative rather than a stranger, so cheating them in any way collected a great deal of oppriibium. It was observations of a traveller not a formally trained anthropologist so the accuracy or even broad truth is uncertain. Nevertheless, there is some plausibility isuch marital arrangements could have those sorts of effects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 31 Aug 15 - 07:18 AM I suspect that people are more liable to have real lasting quarrels with family me,bers than with neighbours. "Would the Church by happy to give one of them a full church (but not civil) wedding to someone else on the grounds they were not actually married according to that Canon Law? Obviously not." Not that obvious. In practice, since that would involve legal bigamy, a request for that would be refused, if there hadn't been a divorce? But if the civil wedding had been dissolved, there could well be a church wedding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST Date: 31 Aug 15 - 08:36 AM Oops, 0641 guest was Ed T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 02 Sep 15 - 05:54 AM I concede th there is no direct condemnation of those n the bible who had multiple wives and concubines. However the Matthew passage is important because it confirms the creation ordinance. Ie Jesus confirmed that was how it should be. We do find that Deuteronomy looking forward to kingship forbad kings to multiply wives, Jesus taught that Moses law allowed divorce .....for the hardness of your hearts...ie a less than perfect allowance , and the thought is that the same pertains with this discussion, but again, I concede is not directly spelt out. Gotta go.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 02 Sep 15 - 06:59 AM Pete, the problem I have with the idea that "Jesus confirmed that was how it should be" is that Jesus was NOT arguing what marriage should be, he was arguing why divorce is wrong. To take an argument made in one debate and simply transfer it to a different debate as normative is, to say the least, dodgy. It seems to me that the most important things to Jesus and the other biblical writers are fidelity and commitment. There is a lot about those, but virtually nothing about the nature of those relationships. Personally, I am very happily married to one woman and would not want to change that, so this is not an issue to me, I am just very wary of making my own preferences into God's without a very clear mandate to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 15 - 07:22 AM The problem I have with that idea is that Jesus probably didn't exist (there is not a single mention of him in any contemporary Roman writings, even though he's supposed to have got up their noses big time) and that any claimed biblical policies on marriage, or on anything else, were very likely formulated by ordinary people with axes to grind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 15 - 07:25 AM I accidentally sent that before I'd finished. I was about to say that the best way to read biblical accounts is with a healthy degree of scepticism, though one should never throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: WindhoverWeaver Date: 02 Sep 15 - 07:51 AM Sorry, Steve, but your idea that Jesus "probably didn't exist", while it was a faddish view many year ago, is no longer accepted by many, if any, scholars today. The debate now is much more along the lines of what Jesus view of himself was and how his contemporaries saw him. As for the idea that he "got up" the Roman's noses big time, that is also a great exaggeration. He was a bit of a nuisance in a minor province. There were certainly many nuisances in many provinces who also got no notice in the surviving Roman official documents. There is a reference to him in the Jewish historian, Josephus, though that is somewhat debated. In fact, we have much more evidence for his existence than for many other figures whose historicity is accepted without question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 15 - 07:55 AM Admirable and valiant but you'll have to do better then that to convince the healthy sceptic (or even unhealthy ones like me)! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM Well, they didn't have newspapers in those days or books either, just scrolls for reading aloud. And most of those have been lost over the years, especially in the fringes of the Empire. And there is no reason to think that the execution of a preacher in Palestine was a big deal for the Romans, any more than something like that would have been noted much in the times of the British Empire, say in Kenya. But in any case it has to be accepted that the religious tenets of Christianity are not in themselves what determines policy except indirectly. As I pointed out, though Islam is easy about accepting polygamy, in actual fact its very much a minority sport. That's even true in Muslim countries. Probably even in the territory under control of Isis. And that seems reasonable enough. By virtue of the fact that there are about the same number of men and women, polygamy just doesn't make sense as a mainstream form of marriage. Those who choose to live in polygamoius arrangements are welcome to do so, but adjusting rules and regulations such as tax laws and benefit laws seems something we can reasonably dispense with. As for gay relationships, where the numbers issue I mentioned in the last paragraph doesn't apply, I can't see why a further redefinition of "marriage" to accomodate that kind of arrangement would really be a good idea. Particularly since there has not been any demand for it, and the likelihood of such relationship being lifelong rather than transitory does not appear great - and that is a fundamentall aspect of marriage, at least as an aspiration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Raggytash Date: 02 Sep 15 - 08:20 AM McGarth you sound very much like Akenaton. Why is marriage used for heterosexual relationships and "marriage" for Lesbian or Gay relationships. As for a demand for marriage of homosexuals I really think the on-going debate had highlighted a very real demand for marriage amongst the Lesbian and Gay community. Finally what evidence can you provide to support your claim that "likelihood of such relationship being lifelong rather than transitory does not appear great" I am aware that marriage today does not seem to be a lifetime commitment for many people of whatever sexual persuasion. At the end of the day as long as people are not harming other people I can see no valid reason the restrict their freedoms. PS Ake, I know your views and dislike them, you have no need to regurgitate them here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: akenaton Date: 02 Sep 15 - 12:28 PM Raggytash, the health figures YOU REQUESTED are not my VIEWS, they are documented fact. I only take instructions from admin on what I post here, and keep a civil tongue in your head when addressing Mr McGrath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Bill D Date: 02 Sep 15 - 01:03 PM In the last few days, several have commented on various religious/cultural practices regarding forms of marriage and the justification of such. In reality, different practices evolve according to 1)needs (imbalance of the sexes, etc.), 2) the examples of the rich and powerful (usually male) who choose a lifestyle to suit personal wishes.3) various stories and rules set out in religious texts. (perhaps there are 4). 5)....but these will do to make my point. (forgive my seeming tedious formality, but I'm trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible) When precedent is set due to #1 & #2, the stories of #3, edited and repeated and embroidered and interpreted can create a powerful incentive to behave AS IF they are true & binding, whether they are totally factual or not. Jesus may or may not have some basis in fact.... he may have been one person, or a conglomerate of several persons whose stories were mixed...or even mostly stories/legends based loosely on some actual person or set of persons.(Mohammed seems to have a bit more documentation, but the details are still debated among Muslim scholars) What we are dealing with is how people accept, internalize and follow various stories..(again-whether they are true, partially true, or largely invented.) Children 'believe' in all sorts of things when they are very young. They even treat cartoon characters with serious attention and 'worry' about their situations. Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are usually abandoned by age 6-10 as they see the logic of it all and as adults break the news formally. But when adults continue to repeat some stories as not only actual, but important & binding, these stories are often internalized until they are part of the fabric of living.... again, whether they are true or not!. It is not even necessary to BE a child to be susceptible to well-told stories and ideas... politicians and missionaries know this well..... but children are especially vulnerable. If you care to read about one example, see this article about Slender Man, a fictional entity created only a few years ago, but which affected some young minds in very frightening ways. We can debate interpretations of scriptures and the habits of various cultures forever... but, in my opinion, no discussion of polygamy-Bigamy laws is complete without considering... implicity, if not explicitly, the ways in which we learn and process these mindsets. Even debating them only from a practical viewpoint ..(can regulations BE written that would fairly and clearly cover all the possibilities)... is, as we above, quite awkward. The only answer that I can see is to not be hasty to judge and to allow others to follow their own path as long as it doesn't compromise MY path............and of course, off we go again about perceived compromising of paths. (side note... I firmly believe that one reason so many just choose one opinion and cling to it, is that very few care to deal with the long, tedious explications that we philosophical types indulge in... ;>) ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Greg F. Date: 02 Sep 15 - 01:22 PM Well, they didn't have ...books [in those days] Google "Library At Alexandria". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Sep 15 - 03:09 PM They weren't books as such in the library at Alexandra. They were scrolls. The first true books were in fact produced in the first century, but it was centuries before they replaced scrools. The word "book" of course is ambiguous. I was using it to mean what we would physically mean by the word. There were plenty of book-length scrolls of course, but these were by no means easy to read, since spaces between words and punctuation weren't invented till hundreds of years later. They were used very much in a different way. But all that's a pedantic quibble really. And it has to be accepted that the authority of religious tradition and texts as such cannot be seen as relevant to those who do not accept the religion in question. As for "marriage" or marriage, it seems reasonable to use apostraphes for forms of marriage which are accepted in all countries, and "marriage" for those which are more locally accepted. heterosexual two person marriages are universally accepted as marriages, whereas polygamous and gay relationships are only seen as such in cetsin countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Sep 15 - 03:51 PM The only answer that I can see is to not be hasty to judge and to allow others to follow their own path as long as it doesn't compromise MY path............and of course, off we go again about perceived compromising of paths. This is all that needs to be said on this topic. Well said, Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Sep 15 - 04:12 PM I left a "not" out of the first line in my last paragraph - I was watching Bake Off at the time. So it should have said "it seems reasonable not to use apostrophes for forms of marriage which are accepted in all countries". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 02 Sep 15 - 05:02 PM I think I see your point windhover weaver, but I am not sure you fully see mine.....but I was a bit pressed for time. Certainly I agree that Jesus' main point was limiting divorce. His quoting of genesis however seems to be that at the beginning marriage comprised a man being joined to his wife , and the two shall be one. I don't know how you see this being worked out in polygamous marriages. However, I concede that I only know the one passage that prohibits it directly, ie of kings prohibited from multiplying wives. I am not certain, but I think that by Jesus' time Judaism had returned to monogamy. In fact even in the OT we can discern this, by Ezra and Malachi storming against those divorcing their wives so they could marry someone else. I would have thought that an alternative would be just add another, if polygamy was still in vogue !. Btw, I have had the debate as per the existence of Jesus on other threads, and despite giving a few evidences from ancient literature, only reference from the exact time would satisfy steve,.........well, probably not..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: polygamy-Bigamy laws From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Sep 15 - 08:52 PM I think administrative and linguistic matters like this are best determined through either the political process or through popular referenda, not by being treated as matters of human rights. And in the basis of either of these any recognition of polygamy or bigamy as legal firms of marriage seems pretty remote. Nothing to stop people shacking up together. Trying to do that would deserve to be treated as a breach of human rights. |
