PDA

View Full Version : Polygamy: For or Against



arosar
05-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Islam's mouthpiece in Australia, Mr Keysar Trad, argues for polygamy. But in this article (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html) for the SMH, he seems to have caught himself in a double-standard. If Islam is OK for "polygamy", then why not also "polyandry"?

Of course Trad's hidden agenda is quite obvious: he wants to finally legitimise his religion's practice (though it's apparently not the norm, anyway) of a husband acquiring more than one wife.

Whatever you may think of anyone, man or woman, having more than one "legal" partner - what say you about this?

AR

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2009, 02:23 PM
I think his arguments for distinguishing between polygamy and polyandry are artificial apologism at best. Paternity is a minor issue these days; easily DNA-tested. Differing sexual proclivities are at best a matter of tendency rather than absolutes.

As it is there is nothing to stop people from having polygamous marriage-like relationships provided at most one of the relationships is legally termed a "marriage". Following the recent legal changes, it appears that the law is effectively recognising long-term extramarital affairs as if they were second marriages, for instance by giving long-term mistresses access to property settlements.

Under this circumstance the law may as well end the facade and declare that multiple marriage is legal in this country, but only if both polygyny and polyandry are allowed. To make a law allowing polygyny but not polyandry would be discriminatory and sexist.

As the current proposal is for polygyny but not polyandry as well, I voted disagree in the poll. Also if any form of polygamy was legal I would support a ban on parents acquiring additional wives/husbands before their children reach age 18.

Of course no change will happen, because as shown in the debate about gay marriage, the concept "marriage" is considered to be the exclusive property of the Christian denominations, and woe betide anyone who suggests the concept be extended beyond what they want it to mean.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-10-2009, 08:05 PM
Of course no change will happen, because as shown in the debate about gay marriage, the concept "marriage" is considered to be the exclusive property of the Christian denominations, and woe betide anyone who suggests the concept be extended beyond what they want it to mean.

Really? I did not know other denominations (including majority of non-believers) define it differently.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-10-2009, 08:13 PM
Polygamy, polyandry, other arrangements should not be, of course, prohibited by law. No need to try to call those arrangements marriage either.
As far as polygamy/polyandry concerned, when a man wants to take a second wife he will need a consent of the first, otherwise she is cheated on the initial contract.
The example of the long-term mistress isn't a very good one as wife is usually not aware/not happy about it.
I can't imagine a man (in full possession of his faculties) agreeing to a polyandric arrangements. Don't think many women would be thrilled of either polygamy/polyandry either.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2009, 09:07 PM
Really? I did not know other denominations (including majority of non-believers) define it differently.

Christian denominations generally define it to the exclusion of all other similar arrangements; clearly some strands of other denominations have a different view about that.


As far as polygamy/polyandry concerned, when a man wants to take a second wife he will need a consent of the first, otherwise she is cheated on the initial contract.
The example of the long-term mistress isn't a very good one as wife is usually not aware/not happy about it.

I agree that the case where the wife is not even aware is different. But as for the "not happy" case, it's hard to tell whether first wives who consent to formalised polygynous marriages are really "happy" with the situation either.

Maybe (as discussed on a previous thread) the state should simply get out of the whole definition of marriage debate altogether. It should declare neutral criteria for recognising significant personal relationships between two or more adults for various legal purposes. This should include the possibility of a person being in more than one such relationship at a time. Then people can get on with calling "marriage" whatever they like without it having any legal impact or any impression being given that the State cares.

ER
05-10-2009, 09:58 PM
Polygamy doesn't mean many wives, it means many marriages; as such polyandry does not provide much of an antithesis here!

Capablanca-Fan
05-10-2009, 11:04 PM
Polygamy doesn't mean many wives, it means many marriages; as such polyandry does not provide much of an antithesis here!
And polygamy has several types: polygyny (many wives), polyandry (many husbands), as well as group marriage.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Christian denominations generally define it to the exclusion of all other similar arrangements; clearly some strands of other denominations have a different view about that.

Clearly? You might want to list some.



I agree that the case where the wife is not even aware is different. But as for the "not happy" case, it's hard to tell whether first wives who consent to formalised polygynous marriages are really "happy" with the situation either.

Happy enough to consent in the first place. I doubt many women consent (at the time of marriage) to husband having mistresses (now or later).


Maybe (as discussed on a previous thread) the state should simply get out of the whole definition of marriage debate altogether.

Not a bad idea. In this case anyone can define marriage differently, but nobody has to recognise this redefinition.
Marriage is an implicit contract, which is also can be changed by the State at any time. Generally explicit contracts that can be only changed by the mutual agreement of the parties involved are much better then implicit contracts that can be arbitrary changed by the 3rd party.

Desmond
06-10-2009, 02:43 PM
Could see a bit of swinging amoungst the voters.

Kevin Bonham
07-10-2009, 12:08 AM
Clearly? You might want to list some.

Well, much of Islam for starters. Islamic fundies seem to like it; the legal situation varies by nation (from open encouragement through to banning with the more moderate/modernised Islamic nations tending to discourage it). Also quite common in African tribal/traditional societies.


Happy enough to consent in the first place. I doubt many women consent (at the time of marriage) to husband having mistresses (now or later).

That consent doesn't necessarily indicate "happiness". The decision is often made for the sake of financial security in societies with massive income inequalities (both between genders and between different males) and in which being single and female is often severely stigmatised. I don't think the reluctant tacit consent of many western wives who keep their rich husbands although they know the husbands are cheating (and would prefer that they weren't) is really all that different.