Polygamy - the right to put down women

[almaty 19]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....trouble brewing

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Bogus and wrong as has already been pointed out Charles

The question regarding gay marriage is is there a legal difference between a same sex couple and a man/woman couple? The consenting adult thing is a bit of a red herring.

you keep right on playing that tune sweetie. rights for some, but not all, are your mantra.

I don't think that's necessary.

i'm not surprised.

I'm sorry, were you using "sweetie" not in a condescending, "let's put this woman in her place" way?

it's also a term of endearment

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I oppose polygamy on the basis that it is oppressive to women - of course there are exceptions where the arrangement is truly consensual, but I don't think that's usually the case.

Gay marriage is not about oppression. There's the difference.

The consent part is dubious anyway - as it relies on women's acceptance of the religious doctrines that suggest its a man's right to have many wives.

I don't see any distinction here between this and slavery - in that there were slaves who basically accepted the ideology that permitted their enslavement.

Well, I'm sure there are non-religious women who would like to be in relationships with multiple partners. I don't think it's always a religious thing. But usually when it is a religious thing, it's not truly consensual (by my definition at least).

As for A.J.'s question regarding how to separate these...I really don't know.

That may be true - but its being defined in the OP article as being pushed by a religious group for religious reasons. In terms of practicality there's nothing to stop someone having multiple partners (i.e. the "open" relationship), just not multiple marriages - which present clearly significant practical problems.

[*JG* 2]

My husband would not survive having more then one wife.

[Peikko 1,575]

For rights to be infringed there has to be group that is being denied the 'exact same rights' as another group. Currently same sex COUPLES (Charles) are denied the exact same rights that are enjoyed by male/female COUPLES (Charles) which is pretty hard to defend legally which is why slowly but surely there is acceptance of gay marriage.

Currently there are no multiple marriages that are legally recognized either with males and multiple females, females and multiple males or females with multiple femals or males with multiple males. So, I do not advocate rights for some but not for others while the deniers of same sex marriages do.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For rights to be infringed there has to be group that is being denied the 'exact same rights' as another group. Currently same sex COUPLES (Charles) are denied the exact same rights that are enjoyed by male/female COUPLES (Charles) which is pretty hard to defend legally which is why slowly but surely there is acceptance of gay marriage.

Currently there are no multiple marriages that are legally recognized either with males and multiple females, females and multiple males or females with multiple femals or males with multiple males. So, I do not advocate rights for some but not for others while the deniers of same sex marriages do.

Recognition of polygamy is much more fundamental shift in the established concept of marriage than opening it up to same sex couples.

We shouldn't pretend that the issues are equal - they aren't.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

For rights to be infringed there has to be group that is being denied the 'exact same rights' as another group. Currently same sex COUPLES (Charles) are denied the exact same rights that are enjoyed by male/female COUPLES (Charles) which is pretty hard to defend legally which is why slowly but surely there is acceptance of gay marriage.

Currently there are no multiple marriages that are legally recognized either with males and multiple females, females and multiple males or females with multiple femals or males with multiple males. So, I do not advocate rights for some but not for others while the deniers of same sex marriages do.

while i see your statement of same sex couples being denied the right to be married, i'll raise you with the same thing applies to polygamy in that they are denied too! what if that type of marriage is desired by all parties to it? in short:

- no same sex marriages in most states

- no multiple partner marriages in any state

so who's really being denied here?

[Peikko 1,575]

They are not denied the same rights, they are denied completely different rights and rights that our society has no way of legally dealing with. If, as a society we really want to engage in some multiple partner merry-go-round we would have to change our society fundamentally, I am not sure that anyone is very keen on that idea are they? Accepting gay couple, contrary to your or anyone else's feelings on the matter doesn't compromise any legal precedents.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's also a degree of momentum to consider. There is no widespread movement to legitimise polygamy in law. Its taken many years for the conversation to reach the point where we can have the conversation about gay marriage.

That's not to say that the same won't ever happen with polygamy (Never say "Never" and all that) - but given that it does require such a fundamental shift in our thinking about the family units - not to mention decades (centuries actually) worth of civil laws relating to it - that I have a hard time believing that this would happen in the current period of civilization.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

Hardly, Charles. Read what the courts have ruled regarding rights in general and discrimination. You're argument is bogus because you're saying any restrictions on such rights is discrimination. That's a loose definition of what is discrimination, and wtih regard to constitutional rights, discrimination occurs when an individual from one sect of society is denied the same right that is afforded to other individuals.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

Hardly, Charles. Read what the courts have ruled regarding rights in general and discrimination. You're argument is bogus because you're saying any restrictions on such rights is discrimination. That's a loose definition of what is discrimination, and wtih regard to constitutional rights, discrimination occurs when an individual from one sect of society is denied the same right that is afforded to other individuals.

bogus only because you can't consider it for long. i get it now: religious beliefs don't matter, nor do the wants or desires of those involved. only gay rights are worth speaking out for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Restricting who one may marry is discrimination, but defining marriage as between two consenting adults is not. Placing limits on rights provided it in isn't excluding a certain sect of society is not discrimination - at least not in the sense of denying that right. Every constitional right has its limitations.

and what if one of them is bi? a 3 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality. what if both were bi? a 4 way marriage would allow them to exercise their sexuality.

but i know, it's too much to comprehend.

it's not every day a liberal gets out liberaled by a conservative

Hardly, Charles. Read what the courts have ruled regarding rights in general and discrimination. You're argument is bogus because you're saying any restrictions on such rights is discrimination. That's a loose definition of what is discrimination, and wtih regard to constitutional rights, discrimination occurs when an individual from one sect of society is denied the same right that is afforded to other individuals.

bogus only because you can't consider it for long. i get it now: religious beliefs don't matter, nor do the wants or desires of those involved. only gay rights are worth speaking out for.

Charles, first take a step back and stop thinking of it as gay rights vs. polygamy. The larger argument here is whether restrictions or limits on individual rights is discrimination or not. It's not. It's why we can set the drinking age at 21 or voting age at 18. Civil law can set limitations in many numbers of ways without it being discrimination. You are trying to argue that if marriage can't be openly defined by number then that's discrimination and that's not the case. All you've got to do is think about other civil laws and how our rights limited without us being discriminated against.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I thought there's no way that Australia will do this in a million years - even though the current government isn't anything like as draconian as the Howard administration.

AUSTRALIA prides itself on its tolerance and its wide acceptance of different mores, but polygamy appears to be a bridge too far for even the most ardent multiculturalists, Islamic and otherwise.

Debate raged across the nation yesterday about whether a pluralistic and free society could happily accommodate the practice of polygamous marriage.

Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association, spoke out this week, admitting he had once considered marrying another woman.

He also backed calls by another senior member of the Islamic community, Sheik Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre, for polygamous relationships to be recognised.

Sheik Chami said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and he had been asked almost weekly to conduct polygamous religious ceremonies. Although he refused, other imams did not.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland was quick yesterday to rule polygamous relationships "entirely inconsistent with the culture and indeed with the law" of Australia. "Polygamous relationships are and will remain unlawful," he said.

But for Hanifeh Trad, whose husband sparked the debate, society should just live and let live.

"I have no personal qualms about the situation, but I don't criticise other people who do not wish it for themselves," Mrs Trad told The Australian.

The 43-year-old mother of nine said her situation would not change if her husband had one wife or three.

"If anything, it creates more responsibility for my husband, not for me, because he has to provide financially for her," she said. "For me, I would have one more friend in the house supporting our partnership. At the moment, I don't feel jealous, but if it does happen, I don't know how my feelings will be."

Sheik Chami said yesterday there was nothing wrong with having a number of marriages. "You allow the lesbians, you allow the gays - why not these people? What's wrong with it?" he said.

But the greater Muslim community in Australia is not pushing for any cultural accommodation for polygamy, nor do most Muslims want the law changed to permit men to take more than one wife.

Sydney University doctoral candidate Ghena Krayem, who is writing a thesis on Islamic marriage in Australia, said more than 90 per cent of the Muslims she interviewed did not want a change in Australian law to allow polygamous marriages. "Islam in certain circumstances permits polygamy, but it also enjoins Muslims to respect the laws of the nation they live in," she said.

Ms Krayem interviewed most Muslim community leaders.

"Many of them said they would advise men who came to them seeking a second marriage that they wouldn't bless this second marriage," she said. "A lot of imams were of the view that if the men took a second wife as a de facto partner, it was not Islamically a legal marriage."

She found no actual cases of polygamy in her research, but she was told of men who had taken second wives.

Elder David Osborn, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Canberra, said polygamy had been banned by the Mormon church for 120 years. The breakaway Mormon fundamentalists who practised polygamy were based in Texas, he added, and none had settled in Australia as far as he knew.

Queensland Ethnic Communities Council honorary president Nick Xynian condemned the idea of legally tolerating polygamy. "Under no circumstances should we change the law," he said. "I've got no problem with anybody who believes it, but we have our culture here, and people have to respect it. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When I go to other countries, I respect their culture and I respect their laws."

Yet academics pointed out that polygamy had been central to a number of traditional Aboriginal marriages in the Northern Territory - and these relationships were recognised in the form of welfare payments.

James Jupp, adjunct fellow at the Australian National University's Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies, said the accommodation made for Aboriginal polygamy did not necessarily make the marriages legal.

He noted that the institution of marriage was under siege across the world, with gays and lesbians pushing for the recognition of same-sex unions. "(Polygamy and same-sex marriage) come in the same category, in that both of them have been condemned by all the Christian religions," he said. "Australia is not a Christian country, but the majority of Australians regard themselves as Christian on issues like this."

The hysteria engendered by Islam more generally would make it very difficult to legislate to permit polygamy, he added.

He said if Muslims could not get a school built in Camden, in Sydney's southwest, it was unlikely the general community could be swayed on the issue of multiple-wife marriage.

"We're not really a multicultural society in that sense," he said. "We privilege one culture, the Western Christian culture, over all others."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...768-601,00.html