polygamist marriage

i was lissioning to the ABC this morning and there was a news artical on some comments made by the islamic advisior to the former mosfty (sorry if that is misspelt) of australia saying that the goverment should alow polygimist marriage.

my first thought was that i find it funny that one of the people against gay marriage wants a change to the marriage act for HIS benift but after i got over that i couldnt actually think of a good reason NOT to alow this.

As he said if it involves concenting adults then why should it be against the law. I can only really see benifits rather than harms to any children of this sort of arangement because they get another income, another person to surport them as a parent which is surly to the good

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, one of the arguments against allowing gay marriage is that it would lead to justifying polygamy. But, actually, I'm with you. What's the big deal with Polygamy? Is there a law against "open marriage"? Why is it Ok for married couples to fornicate but illegal for them to make the relationship legitimate?

Furthermore, there's no law against 7 adults all living together and having sex with each other which may lead to them having kids together. But, if they decide to all get married, that's illegal? Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it should be illegal for men and women to get married since it leads more often than not to divorce. Expensive for everyone including society in general.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

argument against gay/lesbian marriage and polygamy is the sanctity of marriage. allowing polygamy is an insult to marriage, in some people's eyes anyway. the problem here is everyone's using the word marriage, when they all mean something different. that's why i think civil union is appropriate for gays, marriage was made by a religion, they're allowed to define the requirements etc.

my personal reaction to polygamy in australia was 'i don't want to facilitate any more religious practices'. other than that, i don't really see a reason why anyone shouldn't be allowed. marriage is just a certain kind of promise, people should be able to choose which kind of promise.

 

no my friend. If religion wanted to keep marrage they should never have pushed for it to be recognised by civil law. Its no longer a religious cerimony, infact i would say most arnt even conducted by religious minsters anymore. Its a legal contract with certain rights and responcabilities which should be freely avilable to EVERYONE.

As for poligiomy, which religion are you talking about?
This is an islamic minster asking canbera to alow THERE religious cerimony to be given the same weight as a christan cerimony

Both of these are about discrimination, under the spirt of australian law (and sociaty as well) discrimination should be illegal. Yet its being put into law

The aborigional intervention required the goverment to change the racial discrimination act
Preventing gay marrage required a change to the marrage act to inshrine the discrimination in law
and this is about religious freedoms as well

So basically we have to ask whos religion is more important?
there ARE religious groups who will marry same sex couples and are doing it right now, its only the LEGAL recognision thats lacking (ie the civil part of the contract)

 

Except that in history, poligamy was more often the NORM, not the exception...

 

I find the concept of marriage an anachronism at best, but having said that, if people feel they need to legitamise their relationship by speaking some gobblydigook in front of their relatives and signing a few bits of paper, well, anyone that wants to be able to do that should be able able to, polygamists included.

Basically marriage is just a contract, and it should not be limited to two parties, or two genders.

Maybe some enterprising soul should perform 'civil contract ceremonies' to bind people together via a contract, and cut out the government. Once the govt start losing revenue, I'm sure they'll wise up.

 

Actually, when I think of all the shit my wife expects of me, it be great if there was another 1 or 2 suckers around to share the load. Western women want it all. If you can't provide then they'll get the court to take whatever you have. Hope you've paid the rent on your cardboard box.

Of course, I'm kidding (kinda).

 

Look noob, there is nothing sacred about a civil union. It's just paperwork. It's still considered 'marriage' though.

Marriage is an anachronism.

 

Only if you think children are an anachronism. There's plenty of data to support the idea that a two parent stable family is best for children (ie marriage).

 

Asguard, you crack me up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Finally the words of wisdom. Most people have a hard time to understand the contract nature of marriages. Once they were treating it as such, they wouldn't be sanctifying it or wanted it to last forever...

 

Not to defend polygamy, but I'm certain that there is a mountain of evidence in Saudi Arabia that will show that a man with several wives can have a fruitful and healthy family on all levels. I mean, are the Christians on this board going to bash all the ancient saints who predated Jesus who ALSO had several wives? Abraham, Jacob, Noah, Jonah to name a few.

Our modern society has given us this rule: marriage = 1man and 1woman. The alternatives aren't necessarily destructive. We just have this paradigm that we are loath to jettison. There is nothing inherently destructive and/or unnatural about polygamy (in fact, it might be the most natural state of all in some regions).

Let's be honest, this is a Judeo-Christian values Vs. non Judeo-Christian values thing and little more.

~String

 

I won't argue that. You're probably right. I was mainly speaking to the idea that marriage itself isn't an anachronism, not how many wives should be involved.....

 

Why is it illegal? A boy I knew in high school asked me that and at first I thought it was obvious why polygamy was illegal, but as I thought about it I couldn't think of what my obvious reason was. So it certainly must be the values that are taught because I don't actually see what the actual crime is.

 

Polygamy seems insane

One of the prerequisites to entering any sort of legal obligation is that one must be psychiatrically competent to do so. It would be one thing if the nightmare of marriage was cast only by those who have never been married, but even people who are married—and claim to be happily so—describe a macabre, dystopian existence that only reinforces the superstitions of the determinedly single.

Or, to put it more directly, after listening to allegedly happily married men bitch and moan about their wives, anyone who wants more than one spouse needs their head examined.

It is not necessarily fair to point to yahoos in Texas, who need DNA testing to figure out whose kid came from which mother; any idea can be poorly executed, and the fact that polygamy has, for centuries, treated women poorly and reinforced male-supremacist stereotypes is not in any way a final testament against the practice. However, the idea of a man who wants more than one wife ought to speak for itself. At some point, a civilized society is obliged to protect insane people from themselves.

• • •​

The polygamy argument does not work against gay marriage in the U.S., except on an emotional level. While homosexuals have a strong argument against sex discrimination and in favor of equal protection, there is no constitutional protection that applies so directly to numbers.

While it will be interesting to see what it takes to win popular support, there is not, at least in the United States, much of a constitutional argument forcing the issue.

 

i have to wonder why you people are assuming automatically that its 2 women and one guy?

ok yes in this case this is what the guy wants but I really cant see anything wrong with any arangement as long as its stable (from the goverments point of view) for any progeny and concentual from the paticipants.

After all we are talking about rights that for the most part have nothing to do with money (im sorry to say it but most marrital rights DONT involve tax or welfare). Things like the right to visit a partner in ICU, the right to authorise medical treatment, the right to make funeral arangments for a partner, the right to recive there super (ok this one IS finantial but its NOT public money, it belongs to the person who earned it) ect.

Some of these rights do come with defacto but can be overruled by a previous marrage and even the defacto laws dont alow a person to be in a relationship with more than one person.

As for the idea that polygomy leads to abuse tiassa im sorry but thats just bull shit

Can anyone name the most well known polygamist relationship in the world?

Come on they make millions each year and most 18 year old girls drive around with at least one symbol of this relationship in there cars

 

Oh, don't apologize

In truth, sir, I just don't hear a lot of women shouting for more husbands. To consider our friend Orleander, she could have one to burn up the lawn, one to knock down the house, and one to make the engine fall out of the car. In the end, though, polygamy might prove redundant; her stories suggest one husband ought to be enough to ruin her.

Nonetheless, the point holds that way, too. Unless, of course, the one wife is a witch who has figured out how to turn her husbands into pizzas at four in the morning.

Why apologize?

Note the bold accents in this reiteration, and you'll find we agree on that point:

It is not necessarily fair to point to yahoos in Texas, who need DNA testing to figure out whose kid came from which mother; any idea can be poorly executed, and the fact that polygamy has, for centuries, treated women poorly and reinforced male-supremacist stereotypes is not in any way a final testament against the practice.​

My whole thing with polygamy is that polygamists are f@cking bonkers.

 

for interest sake i found an artical on the origional comments

The main reason this artical left me laughing my head off was the speaches by both pollies like Howard and religious leaders on how marrage is a RELIGIOUS cerimony between 1 man and 1 women. Yet here we are with a RELIGIOUS leader asking for a change to the marrage act in his favor.

To be honest this issue is just above my concern of brendon nelsons current aproval rating in importance as a political issue but if religious leaders can call for this maybe all that same sex couples need to do is push for there own religious cerimonies to be recognised

 

In India we have instances of public figures like Hema Malini and Soni Razdan as second wives in legally unrecognised marriages. They go ahead anyway, have kids etc. but being rich, they don't suffer in terms of financial benefits that legal recognition provides.