Oh My God - After burqa, France plans to ban polygamy

thanks for inform me. how about other people in India, they can't have more than one wife?

I meant women who have more than one husband in Nepal and India near that.

 

It is illegal , they will be jailed .

 

I have seen at list two documentary tv reports about it. for sure see this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

 

From the link you gave:

Marriage laws in India are dependent upon the religion of the subject in question. Although the Vedas and the Hindu religion itself do not outlaw polygamy, the terms under the Hindu Marriage Act has deemed polygamy to be illegal for Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, and Sikhs[15]. Muslim men in India are allowed to have multiple wives, since they are governed under Sharia law.

Thats is the law, there are always people who break the law

 

Polygamy should be legal ONLY if polyamory is legal. (One rule for men and another for women is obviously a fucked up concept, unless you're a Muslim.)

Bigamy should be illegal however, and I think it is. (It is here and in the US.)

 

It seems france once again want to suffer from revolution..

 

And if its with the consent of the current partner?

 

I agree with Helvetii.

Who is anyone to say that consenting adults cannot engage in any form of -my? People care too much about other people's lives these days... how about focussing on one's own?

Alexis, you wouldn't have a problem with polygamy, polyamory but would with bigamy? All three mean the same thing, just different ways of wording it.

Bigamy is just the legal definition of the offence of polygamy.

Where in any of those definitions is there any reference to gender?

 

I'm about to go to bed, so excuse me if I seem short.

Helvetti AND Brum; I didn't state WHY bigamy should be illegal, now did I? The reason has nothing to do with right and wrong, love, sex, marriage, faith, etc. It's a practical thing. (I'll be happy to explain it when I get up if you like.)

Brum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy (I see you went there already but didn't actually read the whole thing, it's high up, I promise, and explains the gender thing.)

Admittedly I misspoke above, I meant to say Polyamory should be legal; Polygamy is encompassed in that, of course.

RE Bigamy - Bigamy is being legally married to more than one person, at least here - no just open marriages, relationships, etc. As stated above, my reasons for the objection is not as you seem to think.

 

I understand the gender situation. Polygamy encompasses all three forms. You didn't mention polygyny though, which is a man marrying multiple wives.

I think I know why you'd object to bigamy. I'm assuming it has something to do with legal framework regarding breaks ups and entitlement issues? I've heard others use this argument before, but I still, personally, don't see it as an obstacle.

As far as I'm aware polyamory is legal in all countries based on freedom and common sense, rather than religious dogma, seeing as, if I'm correct, it just means "playing the field"?

Besides all this, the reason I said most -my forms are the same is because, although some use the word marriage and some don't, marriage in some cultures is the sexual union between people not just the legal documentation. I like the idea of recognising common-law marriages, which I've read is popular or at least widely accepted in Australia.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts though

 

The way I think about it is this: The government should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage is a private affair between two or more people and, if they so choose, representatives of whatever religion(s) they follow.

Getting government approval of personal relationships is just plain weird.

 

So when it comes to women, there needs to be an agreement.

 

Being Muslim is fucked up.

 

Woochy, I couldn't agree more XD

Brum, sorry, I am not as active here as I was - but I'm back to respond now

Regarding legal marriages of multiple people - the reason I oppose it (currently) is because how things stand right now, there are tens of thousands of people on welfare when they don't need to be, who have more children to get more money from the government.

By marrying small (or large) groups of people, it would have an impact on welfare, seeing more money going to those who don't need it. (Not everywhere, of course - but in Australia it would work like this, and I imagine in the US too - certainly in the UK.)

I could rant about it and talk about the UK and the other issues it would present there with housing for immigrants, those on welfare, etc - but I just woke up.

As to what one is entitled to; this to me presents less of an issue than other legalities. What if one person in the marriage is injured, badly, and one husband/wife wants to pull the plug and the other doesn't? There are other scenarios like this too and details would need to be worked out to protect a person's best interests.

Also, I know I wasn't that clear in my original post right before bed - but what I meant was consensual group relationships are fine provided women can have multiple males partners and it isn't Islams thing of a guy marrying a bunch of women, often under sickening circumstances - and that actual legal group marriages are not currently OK in my mind, simply because of the things mentioned above. (But if that were ironed out, fine.)

 

That's an interesting way of looking at it mate. I, however, don't agree with a welfare state, so under the broad spectrum of changes all my views encompass, welfare wouldn't be effected by polygamy if they were to be enacted. I don't disagree with your analysis of the current situation though, with polygamy as an isolated issue.

I agree with your last paragraph too.

 

Brum, huge differences actually.
Polyamory is essentially, legalised and managed swinging
Polygamy, on the other hand, is legalised multiple marriage for one partner
Bigamy, meanwhilem is being polygamous without a legal right to it.

Although Alexis, truth be told, none of those strikes my fancy...
No offense to you though, Brum

 

Mine either; I assure you ^-^; I just think it should be up to the individual provided no one else is harmed by it.

 

Assurance noted
And you're absolutely right on the individual choice. We are after all, not amoebas

 

No offence taken, I am monogamous.

I understand the differences between them, but like I said, they're more or less the same because in some cultures marriage is the sexual union between people, not just a legal document. We may call it swinging and not operating within marriage, but am I correct in thinking the bible claims marriage is when a couple becomes "one"?

 

I don't mind polygamy. As long as: If the man can have many wives, so should the wife can have many husbands too. That's their life; to each their own.