Legality of polygamy

[Clara Tea]

I don't really believe government and religion should mix. Which is why I think that if multiple spouses were allowable to some groups, it should be allowable for all.

I also think if a government said "alright, Muslims/Mormons/Pastafarians may have X amount of spouses", you'd get a mess of people falsely claiming to be a member of those religions to take advantage of that. I think that, in the long run, that would also have negative consequences for those religious communities in which it was allowed.

Polygamy is not unconstitutional, and therefore should be permitted. To prevent polygamy of Mormons is to tamper with Mormon's First Amendment civil right to practice their religion freely. We should not allow one religion to impinge upon the rights of another.

 

[firedragon]

I don't really believe government and religion should mix. Which is why I think that if multiple spouses were allowable to some groups, it should be allowable for all.

I understand that to some people this is an axiom. But why?

I also think if a government said "alright, Muslims/Mormons/Pastafarians may have X amount of spouses", you'd get a mess of people falsely claiming to be a member of those religions to take advantage of that. I think that, in the long run, that would also have negative consequences for those religious communities in which it was allowed.

See, history has proved that a very very few people will take that kind of stance, maliciously or genuinely. Thats the issue with that assumption. Also, dont you think it is unfair to put a blanket on every one of a particular community or whatever, just because you "suspect someone from another community will be pretending to be from this community for some pleasure"?

 

[Koldo]

In a lot of countries due to an old UN intrusion the country would have a different law for religious minorities. In some countries it goes for even minority races. In places like India the so called "low caste" would get some government benefits the so called "higher caste" would not get. Some of them are a bit jealous. This kind of different systems exist in many countries, in many circumstances.

This particular thread is to explore the morality or the sensibility or what ever angle you would like to look at, the legality of polygamy.

Typically this would be polygeny because we are addressing Islam directly, and it is wide spread, global, and various countries with lets say, "secular laws", like India, England, etc would have a different law for non-muslims where polygamy is illegal, unlike muslims, and that polyandry is out of the question.

I remember reading some stats about India where thought Muslims are given the right to polygamy, non-muslims in India have polygamous marriages far more than muslims. But, the question is, is it fair to give muslims one law, and the rest of the community another law. Some of the Buddhist countries in Asia have been murderously against this law calling it discrimination towards the Buddhist majority. Some Buddhist monks have engaged in creating riots over these kind of things which developed into lynching and killing of several people including a child of 9. That is, ignoring Myanmar. So the bottomline is, the sentiment of discrimination seems to linger in the majority of these countries where the minority muslims are given the right to have polygamous marriages. Some have suggested that this could be a jealousy, but there is no real evidence that every one in a country like England wishes to marry more than one lady. So if there is a jealousy in this counting, it could be with some very rich guy or an underworld don who wishes to have a small harem. And anyway that could be achieved easily with no law needed. So all of these theories seem lame. Is it fair to let the minority Muslims have a different law allowing polygeny or is it their right to have it?

What do you think of this situation? How do you judge this situation?

I don't see any justification to give unequal treatment to a religious minority (or majority).
Either polygamy is on the board for everyone or for no one.

 

[firedragon]

Polygamists should be punished by.....hmm......being married to many women.

Lol. I agree. Just to let you know, being a muslim, knowing many many muslims, I have met a very very few people who had polygamous marriages. I can count them with the fingers in one hand.

 

[firedragon]

I don't see any justification to give unequal treatment to a religious minority (or majority).
Either polygamy is on the board for everyone or for no one.

Why?

 

[Kooky]

Monogamous marriage has been demonstrated to have the best outcomes for all three.

Well, serial monogamy with widespread practices of domestic abuse, if we're being perfectly honest here, and "best outcomes" only because we have no idea what to measure and by what scale, so we just assume the way the capitalist-bourgeois household has come to arrange our ways of life is intrinsically superior.

 

[Koldo]

Why?

Equality before the law.

 

[Ponder This]

In a lot of countries due to an old UN intrusion the country would have a different law for religious minorities. In some countries it goes for even minority races. In places like India the so called "low caste" would get some government benefits the so called "higher caste" would not get. Some of them are a bit jealous. This kind of different systems exist in many countries, in many circumstances.

This particular thread is to explore the morality or the sensibility or what ever angle you would like to look at, the legality of polygamy.

Typically this would be polygeny because we are addressing Islam directly, and it is wide spread, global, and various countries with lets say, "secular laws", like India, England, etc would have a different law for non-muslims where polygamy is illegal, unlike muslims, and that polyandry is out of the question.

I remember reading some stats about India where thought Muslims are given the right to polygamy, non-muslims in India have polygamous marriages far more than muslims. But, the question is, is it fair to give muslims one law, and the rest of the community another law. Some of the Buddhist countries in Asia have been murderously against this law calling it discrimination towards the Buddhist majority. Some Buddhist monks have engaged in creating riots over these kind of things which developed into lynching and killing of several people including a child of 9. That is, ignoring Myanmar. So the bottomline is, the sentiment of discrimination seems to linger in the majority of these countries where the minority muslims are given the right to have polygamous marriages. Some have suggested that this could be a jealousy, but there is no real evidence that every one in a country like England wishes to marry more than one lady. So if there is a jealousy in this counting, it could be with some very rich guy or an underworld don who wishes to have a small harem. And anyway that could be achieved easily with no law needed. So all of these theories seem lame. Is it fair to let the minority Muslims have a different law allowing polygeny or is it their right to have it?

What do you think of this situation? How do you judge this situation?

I suppose the first question is: What interest does the government have in this?
I think this question must be answered. It cannot be that the government interferes without reason. If no reason can be given, then the government should not have any legislation on the matter as rights should be, in principle, reserved to the people.

If I understand the OP correctly, Buddhists have no objection to polygamy (the Buddha having never set any rules for marriage) and Muslims are permitted polygamy explicitly by their text. So there is no religious justification that Muslims are permitted polygamy and Buddhists are not. Thus the argument that this is simply a matter of different laws for different religious groups is false.

 

[JustGeorge]

I understand that to some people this is an axiom. But why?

I can only speak for myself, but I believe all should be equal in the eyes of the law, and no one group should get exceptions. Either no one has to abide by a particular law, or we all do.

Must be the Libra in me.

See, history has proved that a very very few people will take that kind of stance, maliciously or genuinely. Thats the issue with that assumption. Also, dont you think it is unfair to put a blanket on every one of a particular community or whatever, just because you "suspect someone from another community will be pretending to be from this community for some pleasure"?

I know little of what history says on the topic, but with culture as it is now(at least the culture that surrounds me), I can totally see people taking advantage of it, just for funsies.

It is unfair to blanket everyone, and that's what I few what would happen. "Oh, Philip has a second wife. I thought he was an atheist, but I guess this week he's Muslim " I actually worry that society on a whole would take religious groups that allow polygamy less seriously. Many people in my culture(Midwestern US) are not awfully supportive of Mormons for exactly that reason.

 

[firedragon]

Equality before the law.

Is it really equality if you think about it? Lets say you have a different worldview, and you force it upon another persons religious freedom just because you have the power. But you dont force the other communities worldview on yourself.

Is that really equality?

 

[firedragon]

I suppose the first question is: What interest does the government have in this?
I think this question must be answered. It cannot be that the government interferes without reason. If no reason can be given, then the government should not have any legislation on the matter as rights should be, in principle, reserved to the people.

If I understand the OP correctly, Buddhists have no objection to polygamy (the Buddha having never set any rules for marriage) and Muslims are permitted polygamy explicitly by their text. So there is no religious justification that Muslims are permitted polygamy and Buddhists are not. Thus the argument that this is simply a matter of different laws for different religious groups is false.

I cant understand what you said about Buddhists and Muslims. I didnt say anything about Buddhist teachings. If you want to think of Buddhist teachings then murdering people for being Muslim and having a different law given by the government itself is against panathipatha veramani sikka padhang samaadiyaami. And if someone is to follow the Vinaya of the Buddhist teachings then they must leave their homes, be unmarried, with no children, and seek sovan, rahath, and nibbana.

SO lets not talk about religious teachings. It is irrelevant.

The question is, is it really unfair! What are the repercussions? Etc. Hope you understand Ponder.

 

[firedragon]

I know little of what history says on the topic, but with culture as it is now(at least the culture that surrounds me), I can totally see people taking advantage of it, just for funsies.

I think a few will.

 

[syo]

Polygamy? If someone wants ten brides, so be it. Why not?

 

[JustGeorge]

Polygamy? If someone wants ten brides, so be it. Why not?

I don't care either, as long as all ten brides are okay with it.

And, one is also provided with the same right to ten grooms, if they wish it.

 

[Koldo]

Is it really equality if you think about it? Lets say you have a different worldview, and you force it upon another persons religious freedom just because you have the power. But you dont force the other communities worldview on yourself.

Is that really equality?

It is part of any democracy to live with the fact that you can't always have things your way.

Change the word 'religious' in your post for 'political', and you will see it happening every election year.

But more importantly, what's stopping you from speaking in favor of making polygamy legal for everyone? Why must it be legal only for a really specific group?

 

[syo]

I don't care either, as long as all ten brides are okay with it.

And, one is also provided with the same right to ten grooms, if they wish it.

Yup.

 

[firedragon]

It is part of any democracy to live with the fact that you can't always have things your way.

Change the word 'religious' in your post for 'political', and you will see it happening every election year.

But more importantly, what's stopping you from speaking in favor of making polygamy legal for everyone? Why must it be legal only for a really specific group?

Why are you asking me to speak on behalf of polygamy? If you read there OP you will see that I am only asking a question. Try not to address the person personally. Try to address the question.

BTW, not only in a democracy, even in a monarchy or a dictatorship, you still cannot always have things your way.

Cheers.

 

[Estro Felino]

Is there some hindrance or a violation of rights if polygamy is given to a particular community or religion? Do you understand what I am saying?

Its not that I disagree with you.

Let's say that a pagan religion has values based upon poliamory.
So they want to legalize a poliamorous marriage of four people (3 men and one woman).
Why shouldnt the state grant them this kind of marriage?

So...if the State concedes a privilege to a particular religion, it will be forced to give it to any religion.

 

[firedragon]

Let's say that a pagan religion has values based upon poliamory.
So they want to legalize a poliamorous marriage of four people (3 men and one woman).
Why shouldnt the state grant them this kind of marriage?

So...if the State concedes a privilege to a particular religion, it will be forced to give it to any religion.

I have no say in saying "shouldn't" to anything. In all honesty, this is a slippery slope fallacy.

The OP is all about whats going on today, and if its fair, unfair, and based on the conclusion, what is the repercussion or aftermath that one would perceive.

Hope you understand.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In the west its banned for all? How do you define the west? What are the countries you include in it?

Also, do you have any studies for the second statement you made about polygamy being horrible for all and that monogamy brings best outcomes? You maybe right, but is that based on a study?

I know in North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand it's banned for all.

The puzzle of monogamous marriage
Polygamy Harms Men, Women, and Children — David Wilber
Why polygamy breeds civil war
The impact of polygamy on women's mental health: a systematic review | Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences | Cambridge Core
The impact of polygamy on women's mental health: a systematic review | Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences | Cambridge Core
The Problems with Polygamy
HARMS OF POLYGYNY - Polygyny and Canada's Obligations under International Human Rights Law
Stress, quarrels and neglect: the 'normal' polygamous family
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._marriage_on_the_family_members_in_Diyarbakir
Why Polygamy Is Bad for National Security

That's just some of what you can find.