Legality of polygamy

[Estro Felino]

As usual, this is a woman's dignity issue. Polygamy is associated with mental health problems and a general unhappiness in married life for women. One of the jobs of government is to, as we Americans would say, provide for the common welfare -- which includes women. The laws passed in any country should reflect the dignity with which that society should hold women. Yes, I know this has not been the case historically. But I do believe that things are changing for the better.

In secular societies where there is the absolute juridical equality between husband wife, how can we even think of okaying that man can have 4 wives, but woman cannot have 4 husbands.
It is unthinkable.

 

[Valjean]

Well, some countries may have more women than men. Maybe even the whole world, in very small percentages. Most polygamists have used statistics to justify polygamy. But I think its not a very valid justification because the numbers are not that great. YET, what you say also has some truth in it.

Lets say polygamy is justified by statistics as you say, is it still fair to give a different legal system to one community and deny it to the rest of the countries communities by LAW?

Hope you understand the question.

No, in much of the world, and through much of human history, women outnumbered men. Women tended to stay home, perhaps gather food. Men hunted and fought. In Arabia, for example, many Bedu tribes lived by theft and raiding -- a dangerous undertaking.
There were/are a few, rare, polyandrous societies, where women are more numerous, but generally, till very recently, male mortality was much higher than women's.

Most polygamous cultures never felt any need to justify it. It was normal; the way things had always been. They were unaware of any other system, and would not have understood how a monogamous culture could possibly work.

Other systems weren't denied by law. Most cultures were unaware of any other system. Those that were couldn't care less how the tribe three valleys over conducted their lives.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, they are privileges. It is unequal treatment.

The State does not concede privileges to anyone. If it does, please give me an example.

It may not concede granting special privileges, but but it does so, de facto.
Prosecution of the rich or those with political power is rare, and sentences tend to be light. As a white male, I'm never pulled over, or surveilled in stores. Applying against a minority for many jobs, my chances would be better. Applying for a mortgage, or credit, I'd get better rates than a minority, in all probability. That's "white privilege."

 

[crossfire]

How about India? And England?

My original comment was specifically about the United States. Polygamy is illegal in all of the states with no religious exemptions. That is all I can comment on.

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

About 1 in 5 are in favor of polygamy in America. Like Conservatives, Liberals find it repulsive, but pretty soon
they will discover this new 'hot button' issue and hate Conservatives for being against 'marriage freedom' or
whatever the word smiths will call it.

 

[crossfire]

In secular societies where there is the absolute juridical equality between husband wife, how can we even think of okaying that man can have 4 wives, but woman cannot have 4 husbands.
It is unthinkable.

OK, how about a woman having 4 wives?

 

[Estro Felino]

It may not concede granting special privileges, but but it does so, de facto.
Prosecution of the rich or those with political power is rare, and sentences tend to be light. As a white male, I'm never pulled over, or surveilled in stores. Applying against a minority for many jobs, my chances would be better. Applying for a mortgage, or credit, I'd get better rates than a minority, in all probability. That's "white privilege."

That is a socio-cultural problem.
It is not a privilege de jure.

 

[Estro Felino]

OK, how about a woman having 4 wives?

It is still unjust if the woman in question expects loyalty from the all four.
I don't understand the meaning of a marriage like that.
Is it 4 women who have sex with each other?

 

[crossfire]

It is still unjust if the woman in question expects loyalty from the all four.
I don't understand the meaning of a marriage like that.
Is it 4 women who have sex with each other?

A woman with 4 wives = 5 women. I'm really not into micromanaging other adults' sex lives/marriages. Would the woman with the 4 wives have to worry about her wives pairing up and running off with each other?

 

[Valjean]

About 1 in 5 are in favor of polygamy in America. Like Conservatives, Liberals find it repulsive, but pretty soon
they will discover this new 'hot button' issue and hate Conservatives for being against 'marriage freedom' or
whatever the word smiths will call it.

I'm liberal and I don't find it repulsive. Live how you want, and with whom you want, as long as no harm's done. Makes no difference in my life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

The rule in India is that the first wife has to make a complaint to the police and then the law comes into action. Police cannot act without a complaint. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have to follow the same rule. The Constitution, the Supreme Court of India have advocated 'Uniform Civil Rights', and it may come any time. Most of the time, it is not marriage but concubinage, and that is not limited to Hindus.

However, there is no requirement in Hinduism to be monogamous. It is said that the law was created by Nehru to thwart a brother-in-law who was considering a second marriage (Hindu Marriage Act - 1955). And as far as the topic is concerned, I believe men were not created to be monogamous nor were the women. Evolution just requires more progeny. That is why it gives women an ovum every month and 250 million sperms in one ejaculation to men.

"The punishment for bigamy is imprisonment, of maximum 7 years or fine or in some cases, both. In case the person charged of bigamy has performed the second marriage by concealing the fact of first marriage, then he shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years or fine or both." Google Search, Sunday Guardian.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm liberal and I don't find it repulsive. Live how you want, and with whom you want, as long as no harm's done. Makes no difference in my life.

Yeah, to a conservative like me, these little no-harms prove to be very offensive.
Like de-funding the police they aren't a problem until it comes to your front door.

 

[Estro Felino]

A woman with 4 wives = 5 women. I'm really not into micromanaging other adults' sex lives/marriages. Would the woman with the 4 wives have to worry about her wives pairing up and running off with each other?

It cannot work out juridically.
Juridically two people sign a contract called marriage. Period.

 

[firedragon]

The rule in India is that the first wife has to make a complaint to the police and then the law comes into action. Police cannot act without a complaint. Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have to follow the same rule. The Constitution, the Supreme Court of India have advocated 'Uniform Civil Rights', and it may come any time. Most of the time, it is not marriage but concubinage, and that is not limited to Hindus.

However, there is no requirement in Hinduism to be monogamous. It is said that the law was created by Nehru to thwart a brother-in-law who was considering a second marriage (Hindu Marriage Act - 1955). And as far as the topic is concerned, I believe men were not created to be monogamous nor were the women. Evolution just requires more progeny. That is why it gives women an ovum every month and 250 million sperms in one ejaculation to men.

"The punishment for bigamy is imprisonment, of maximum 7 years or fine or in some cases, both. In case the person charged of bigamy has performed the second marriage by concealing the fact of first marriage, then he shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years or fine or both." Google Search, Sunday Guardian.

In my understanding, most of the British raj after liberation has very similar laws. 7 years max jail time for bigamy is very common.

I am not really promoting anything. I am trying to explore seriously considered thoughts about the fairness and aftermaths of different laws for different communities in one single government and their voters.

 

[firedragon]

About 1 in 5 are in favor of polygamy in America.

Thats info. I didnt know.

 

[firedragon]

My original comment was specifically about the United States. Polygamy is illegal in all of the states with no religious exemptions. That is all I can comment on.

Okay okay. I understand.

 

[Link]

You bring an interesting discussion of law and religion. You should enquire to people who study law in a secular setting to explain themselves in this regard. Do they get to "override" religion laws and freedoms? And why do they do it?

To me it seems freedom and limits are often with wisdom in secular societies, but often, just blind guesses and conjecture out of ignorance, and sometimes putting their heads in the ground like ostriches just to oppose religion particularly Abrahamic ones and even more rebellious towards Islam in general.

I think societies who have leaders they chosen or not chosen (mostly not chosen and elected leaders manipulate and it's only usually a few choices republics offer in politics) who don't see proofs from God and wisdom to his rights and rights we ask one another of through him and his name, his justice and laws, will eventually bring their society to great turmoil and debauched state. Time will tell.

 

[firedragon]

You bring an interesting discussion of law and religion. You should enquire to people who study law in a secular setting to explain themselves in this regard. Do they get to "override" religion laws and freedoms? And why do they do it?

To me it seems freedom and limits are often with wisdom in secular societies, but often, just blind guesses and conjecture out of ignorance, and sometimes putting their heads in the ground like ostriches just to oppose religion particularly Abrahamic ones and even more rebellious towards Islam in general.

I think societies who have leaders they chosen or not chosen (mostly not chosen and elected leaders manipulate and it's only usually a few choices republics offer in politics) who don't see proofs from God and wisdom to his rights and rights we ask one another of through him and his name, his justice and laws, will eventually bring their society to great turmoil and debauched state. Time will tell.

I really respect your post brother. I would like to disagree with some of your points. But this is my personal opinion and I believe this kind of thing cannot be said in a deductive manner. I believe that most of the secular governments, if not all are truly based on abrahamic theologies. I believe that though they will say that it is based on some other liberal doctrine, it is still grounded on abrahamic theologies. Just worded differently.

I think humans have that innate nature that naturally stems from abrahamic theologies. Most of the values that are projected any of the secular governments and their legal systems has some kind of essence that is belted on abrahamic theologies. Because, the law makers have a history that is rooted in them. I believe there is no way that any of these secular societies or governments are purely based on utilitarian foundations. Though I think they are trying to get out of it by letting people vote for trivial regulations like the hijab as an example, they simply cannot escape their nature.

Anyway, that an opinion. Its a popular opinion nevertheless.

 

[Link]

You a great treasure we have on these forums, you make us reflect in all sorts of good ways.

 

[1213]

...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 think the law should be the same for all and people free to choose. However, I think it would be best that all would have only one spouse, because then more people could have chance to have a spouse.