Multiple wives often misunderstood, Musli

I don't understand the whole problem with it. Personally I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in polygamy, whether it be polygyny, polyandry, or group marriage. It is all up to each individual community to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

Also, this goes to what I feel about government and religion,  I plainly don't like government in my religion and I abhor the government using religion as a tool to be used for it's own devices. That being said if a community in Southern Utah would like to have multiple wives, or a Nepalese community in New York would like it's women to have multiple husbands or a group of hippies in San Fransisco would like to have a group marriage I have no problems with that since they do not operate under my personal moral code, which as far as I'm aware isn't 100% correct, no matter how much I want it to be.

Also I think that laws to this nature are hypocritical and stereotypical, since a poor inner city man can have children with several women and not support them, or a successful billionaire like Hugh Hefner can have a "harem" of girlfriends without any repercussions against them.

Personally I like the way that members of the FLDS have gotten around the law, by marrying and divorcing their wives legally, while retaining their Church marriages as plural and living and raising their kids as they would have done a hundred and fifty years ago.

While you make some certainly valid and interesting point and explained yourself admirably, you either have ignored or susperseded the moral and traditonal impact on the community, that whether protected or not, by the US constitution originally, (using the USA as an example) that was the originator of the 'American experience' prior to it's independence and yet summarily carried forward even after it.

Originally posted by Lord Ranulf While you make some certainly valid and interesting point and explained yourself admirably, you either have ignored or susperseded the moral and traditonal impact on the community, that whether protected or not, by the US constitution originally,�(using the USA as an example) that was the originator of the 'American experience' prior to it's independence and yet summarily carried forward even after it. � To whit" the� predominate� historical expereince of the 17th and 18th century views of England and Europe as a whole,�as they related to this issue and by those in a position to impact on it's enforcement and or it's promulgation. � I agree wholeheartedly with you view on government interaction reference faith and practice of it. And i'm sure that we might both agree that what we really want is an ability to practice or not, 'right', to be protected by the government and no more. � But to deny the originating experience and the subsequent adaptation or even the systematic developement of it to include changing attitudes and mores is not sound history. � Nor do i necessarily believe you did that. � But in the case of the LDs they certainly did do this�nor do they deny this. In the end it's easier i suppose to site historical and cultural as well as theological differences in general between Christainity and Islam, then the varying sects within Christainity. And yet in the end the LDS remains the SOLE denomination, historicaly recognised, with a sizable congregation to revise an earlier historical,�theologicaly based, monogamous practice based on the aforementioned European experience. � Quite interesting really, as personaly I care less, because i don't purport to judge their conduct nor their mores. � Thanks.

I'm not sure if polygamy were illegal or not in the 17th century in America. But if it were illegal, then the practice would have been banned, regardless of religious affiliation. Religion was not regarded as an exemption from secular law in the 17th century; freedom of religion meant freedom of belief, not a license or special privelege to be above the law in some respect. Today, it is different; everyone wants to be special and exempt from the rules, and the lawmakers cater to that demand.

The issue simply never came up. The law was based on English law and English law was in turn based on an admixture of Roman laws, Christian mores, peculiarities of English culture, and so forth. There never was a conflict between the practices of any of the major religions of the time, and the law.

Mormonism was certainly at odds with the mores (and probably the laws) of the US in the 19th century; but in the case of Mormonism, the law had not yet truly reached that part of the country! So there was no real conflict.

Edited by edgewaters - 06-Jun-2007 at 16:25

Head lines: Mr Ed (the horse) marries his long time owner!!!EXTRA EXTRA read all about it!! I mean, why not, if they love each other- get my point!! or marriage to under age girls like they do in some third world countries- 9-14? Knowing human history-there can be no end to man's depravity. This is why we have laws and cultural standards, usually influenced by religion.

The standards of the community should dictate what laws should be created for that community.

For example if I was having sexual relations with a fifteen year old in America, I would be considered a pedophile and would be in jail. Whereas in a place like say the Netherlands there would be no legal ramifications and if say in 3 years we were married, I doubt there would be much talk about our "illicit past".

Again, different cultures, different values...or do you suppose that the American moral system is the correct system for the world?

I wonder if there have been other groups besides the Muslims and Mormons who believe in more than one wife, in the U.S.A

Depending on your definition of wife...

Thus, although polygamy and polyamory are often treated by outsiders as similar concepts, the two groups are based on very different philosophies and ideals, and little interaction occurs between self-described "polygamists" and "polyamorists".[8] Instead, polyamory is more closely associated with values, subcultures and ideologies that favor individual freedoms and equality in sexual matters � most notably, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Neo-Pagans,[9], Sexual Freedom Advocates,[citation needed] and Raelism. SOURCE.

I do not know what the studies are, but I will bet you will find a lot of emotional issues with this type of marriage arrrangement.

Because of course monogamous relationships are entirely devoid of emotional issues....

Actually you could argue that polygamy, would be less stressful, since a woman could be more independent if she didn't have to worry about taking care of kids all the time, didn't have to worry about keeping a house or worry about money as much if all the wives have a job.

In some Muslim countries they can marry pre teen girls- will this be the next demand?

Actually they could marry pre-teen girls under US law (not legal marriage) as long as they didn't have sex with them.

Mormonism was certainly at odds with the mores (and probably the laws) of the US in the 19th century; but in the case of Mormonism, the law had not yet truly reached that part of the country! So there was no real conflict.

If you look into the history of Mormons and that of Utah, you would learn that the Mormon settlers acted as if their territories were a sovereign entity and in fact, they fought a short-lived rebellion against the Federal government in order to maintain their independence so you could say that them practicing polygamy was a form of civil disobedience on the part of some as they believed they were occupied by the US government.

The fact that the mainline LDS church changed doctrine in order for Utah to be admitted as a state doesn't mean that the morals of that region instantly changed.

Originally posted by Lord Ranulf The difference for example between a 'common law wife' and that of marriage, �in the church in England for example was allowed and yet viewed as scandolous. And to a greater or lesser degree involved property rights and inheritances�as much as morality...altho there was darn little of that for women. Mostly morality as influenced on lawmakers by the theologians.

Well, common law marriage was a simple response to conditions England found itself in and certainly wasn't viewed as scandalous under the conditions for which it was originally intended. Some parts of Wales and Ireland - which the English were attempting to settle - were very remote, and there were no clergy available for decades at a time in some cases. Or, in Ireland, there were clergy available, but they were Catholic.

English Common Law is partially informed by Christianity of course - but partially not. Much of it is based in mores and traditions of the folk culture which predated Christianity - it is partially based both in Roman law and Germanic law codes, traditions which had either become customary to the folk or were preserved in text.

Common law was actually established in violent opposition to the church - you are familiar with Thomas Becket? And the strange popular folk tales which arose in connection with him, that he could not stand English water, made the birds in one town flee because they disturbed him, cursed another town to be born with tails because they supported their king against him? He seems to have been universally unpopular. And yet Henry II went down as one of England's more popular medieval monarchs. Christianity was not as popular or as inviolable in England during the medieval period as it was in, say, Italy or France. Chaucer got popular with the English, precisely by mocking the church and characterizing the clergy variously as fools, thieves, beggars, tramps, sadists, and overlords.

Also much of English law is simply practical to the conditions, and has little to do with either religion or tradition. Such is the case with common law marriage.

And i must beg to differ simply because as a result of the designation of the area of Utah as a United States territory it most certainly did fall under the purview of recognised federal authority and regulation.

Only in theory. It was not enforceable, and therefore, in practical terms, could not come into conflict. A case has to be brought up before there can be a conflict. The application of law in the West during its early settlement had little to do with the letter of the law.

Edited by edgewaters - 06-Jun-2007 at 19:52

Why should it be illegal to have more than one wife? Even though we might personally shake our heads in incomprehension, we should also try be a bit open minded concerning other forms of marriage that might feel right for other people. I don't favour polygamy myself, but I know people who do and who have multiple wives, and they and their wives consider this form of marriage to be just as socially acceptable as monogamous marriages.

Nothing wrong with Sharia law, in Muslim countries. But it's another thing altogether in Western countries. Demands by Muslim groups to be allowed to have sharia courts in the US and Canada simply goes too far. We would not demand to have Western courts in India or Sri Lanka ...

The rule of law applies here, meaning that everyone falls under the same law codes and no one is exempted or falls under a different law code. No one is above the (singular) law. People know this before they come here; if it is truly the most important thing to them, then perhaps this is not the culture for them.

Originally posted by Sparten So a Hindu and a muslim can have their cases heard and enforced by the same courts.

Not just "can". They must. At least, in Western countries. You can work it however you want in India or Pakistan - that's none of my business.

It relates to personal or private law matters only, such as marriage/ divorce/ inheritance. These matters are mostly for the individuals to decide�and the state should have little as possible involvement in them anyways (except the resolution of disputes).

But that's exactly what proponents of sharia courts in Canada and the US have been proposing. They want sharia courts to handle disputes rather than the civil courts. Sorry - no deal!!! The civil courts are part of the law, and the law applies to everyone. No exemptions. It doesn't matter if it's civil courts or criminal courts - the rule of law is as binding on torts or divorces as it is on any other aspect of the law.

That is not what the rule of law means at all. The whole phrase "rule of law" was invented by the English acedemic AV Dicey. For Dicey, the concept was as follows ... the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power ... the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts

That's exactly what it means, and is not in opposition to the least degree with what I said. The law is supreme, and no one is above it.

The equality of individuals only relates to equality within a defined class. Juveniles, invalids and the insane for instance�have several rights denied them (as well as several benefits given) whether or not their�capability is the same as a�person from another class granted the right in issue.

Irrelevant. They are not outside or above the law. There are specific laws regarding specific designated groups, but these groups are not exempt from the law itself, and are not governed by some other system of arbitration. The law regards some groups differently, but it is the same system of law which regards them all. To have a separate civil court system for one group would mean it is outside the civil court system for everyone else, and it would mean that the civil court system has been usurped by an alternate system of arbitration. Further, these groups are never based along ethnic lines. They are based along lines of capacity, generally - a mentally handicapped individual is exempt from contract liabilities, because he can't understand what he's signing, but you don't get an exemption because of your religious beliefs, skin colour, manner of dress, country of origin, etc etc, because this has nothing to do with your liabilities under the law.

The mentally handicapped person who signs a contract might understand very well what he's signing. The 13 year old might be able to drive very well. But most 13 year olds can't drive well and most mentally handicapped people have difficulty comprehended complex legal documents. That's the reason for those laws - it's not just "Hey, let's write a special law for this group because it's Friday and my tie is yellow!" It would be too difficult (not to mention expensive) to assess the individual cases where these laws are not applicable. Your 13 year old son may be able to drive better than your 18 year old daughter, but that's not a good enough reason to drop the legal age for driving altogether, is it?

As for the cultural argument, well if you do claim to be multi-cultural then you have to allow such things. I know western countries have beeen traditionally usually one langage, one religion (Christianity) based, but you cannot claim to be multi-cultural on one hand, and then call for integration in the same breath.

Canada invented the term multiculturalism, in 1971, with the world's first official multicultural policy - which was essentially an expansion of our earlier policy of biculturalism and bilingualism (Canada is, historically, a nation of two cultures - English and French). The term has since been exported and perverted by other Western countries and various political movements, but in our law it has a specific meaning which only vaguely resembles the strange notions that the term has picked up in common usage.

Multiculturalism was a policy of recognizing and affirming ethnic diversity as a positive thing, but always, within a framework of Canadian law and bilingualism. It meant removing barriers to employment, giving arts and cultural funding to immigrant and native groups as well as traditional English and French groups, and so on.

It was meant to deal with discrimination in terms of employment - and within the legal/justice system. Having different ethnic groups treated differently in law runs very much counter to our policy of multiculturalism, since this would be a legal distinction whereby different ethnic groups are treated differently.

Multiculturalism occurs within the framework of our existing law and Constitution, and is not in conflict with the rule of law (in fact, it is very much in tune with it).

From the text of our current Multiculturalism Act:

all Canadians, whether by birth or by choice, enjoy equal status, are entitled to the same rights, powers and privileges and are subject to the same obligations, duties and liabilities

Multiculturalism - in the original context in which it arose, here, in Canada - never meant some sort of free for all where people get exemptions from the law on the basis of their ethnicity - exemptions or different treatment for different cultures are, in fact, about as far removed from the original meaning of the term as one might possibly get. What it meant was that all citizens of any ethnic group - English, French, aboriginal or immigrant - were to be treated the same and enjoy the same access and benefits under the law, but also suffer the same penalties, have the same responsibilities, submit to the same systems of arbitration.

Refusing sharia courts doesn't mean Muslims are subject to some sort of assimilatory process. Cultural programs for Muslims are funded just as they are for English and French groups, Muslims cannot be discriminated against in employment, and mosques and churches face the same rights - and liabilities. It's simply a standardization of the law for all ethnicities. To implement different arbitration systems for different ethnicities, means tossing out the notion of standardization and runs counter to multiculturalism in the sense the term first appeared.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean, for instance, that a culture which practices euthanasia can do so here. They will be subject to the same laws as anyone else - that's what multiculturalism means. It means that you should not face stiffer penalties for the same crime because you happen to be Asian or black or something. It means that if an English person gets money from the government to do a mural depicting some facet of English culture, then an aboriginal person should be able to get funding for aboriginal art too. It means that the everyone gets treated the same - not different.

Edited by edgewaters - 07-Jun-2007 at 17:35

I don't like that outlook, Jagiello. I believe that, ideally, you should be able to live both the one way or the other, in whatever country you choose. This is a pipedream of course and far from the reality, but it remains an ideal and I would never speak in favour of anything else.

As for Sharia law, I really don't see a problem with Muslims regulating marriage, divorce and inheritance affairs managed among themselves, as this is a private matter anyway. Of course, I would ask whether it's really necessary, I'd think most modern courts these days handle such matters just as well if not better than some local religious community made up of who knows who. Then again, one could argue that it should at least be an alternative for those who desire it.

I'm not sure your reading what your writing edgewaters, at least twice in this thread you have strongly disagreed with someone by backing up their arguement.

And before you oppose something, you should probably find out what it is. I get the feeling your just venting randonmly. For example, sharia does not allow you to have 14 wives. It doesn't allow you to have 14 girlfriends either, which is perfectly legal in the western system.
Actually western culture has always permitted polygamy, it just never legalised it.