The founder of Italy’s main Islamic organization says that since the country now recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples, there’s no reason that polygamous relationships shouldn’t also be afforded legal protection.
Well, it only figures that would be the next step.
Should be coming to the USA soon as well.
Bradski’s law in full effect. Gay marriage is not a Pandoras box as some would think. This is using fear to demonize ssm
It can be for some cultures, being open to “trying new things.” Of course, Bradski’s law actually does apply to CAF from what I have seen. However, polygamy is slowly becoming considered reasonable… despite how saying this makes me a tool of Bradski’s law in some sense.
Polygamy would need to be tolerated in both forms: polyandry (more than one husband) and polygyny (more than one wife), although the latter is far more common in the Western world, the former mostly being in Asia (like Tibet and Cambodia).
We’ve been trampling on the fundamental human rights of various Latter-day Saint and Mormon sects for a long time now, since at least the 1860s… :shrug:
Given the rationale SCOTUS put forward in legalizing same-sex marriage, I don’t see how it wouldn’t apply to polygamous marriage as well. Only a matter of time, or the courts are going to have to do some very twisted reasoning to differentiate how the same sex ruling isn’t applicable.
This website (like another version of Listverse) has an article (here) listing ten reasons why polygamy should be legal. Some of the captions and comments are seemingly sarcastic.
Legally, it seems to be a sound and beneficial institution; morally, it would be a conundrum (although, people would adapt and become “tolerant” and “accepting”). At least it can be reconciled to natural law, even if not divine law.
Hasn’t polygamous marriage been something that has existed within Islamic cultures for thousands of years? A quick glance at the old testament also produces references to men with multiple wives. I’m not quire sure this “new thing” is really “new.” I can see why someone might have a sincere religious conviction that polygamous marriage is a part of God’s plan.
There is certainly far more historical precedent for polygamy than there was for same sex marriage.
I meant new to, say, a Western state. In the West, polygamy hasn’t really been a common attribute for a long time. Even in places like Greece and Rome, monogamy was far more common by the time of the Roman Empire (27 BC onwards) when the Republic ended:
Greek and Roman men were not allowed to be married to more than one wife at a time and not meant to cohabit with concubines during marriage, and not even rulers were exempt from these norms.
There’s a paper (PDF) here from Princeton University that details how there was both monogamy and polygamy (polygyny) in ancient Greece and Rome, and also puts to scrutiny the fact that historians and anthropologists overlook the latter: princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf
Yes, we have some Mormon groups that still practices polygamy, most notably the FLDS and Apostolic United Brethren (the people on Sister Wives are part of this), but there has never been an entire state (US or nation-state) made with polygamy in mind. The Mormon State of Deseret was never approved and it probably never will be. In fact, one of Utah’s requirements to become a US state was that they ban polygamy.
Sure it is. What’s stopping the government from further redefining marriage to give other groups “rights”?
I’m not sure why everyone automatically assumes the people who want this are only man/woman. My more immediate thought process is three men, or three women.
On its way, as we speak.
Have you ever noticed that with a polygamist’s the new wife is always younger than the current wife ?
In all the documentaries or news reports on polygamists which I’ve seen, the first wife is always older than the 2nd and so on. One documentary I’ve seen, they guy had seven wives and the first wife was twice as old as the newest wife, who was actually young enough to have been the guy’s daughter and in fact is nearly as young as the oldest child the guy had with his first wife.
What types of rights would come with legal recognition of polygamous marriages?
You mean homosexual polygamy? This has (as far as we would know) never been the case. We would know and it would also be considered. As for the more isolated cultures that practice polygamy, it’s only polyandry and polygyny (men-woman/women-man).
But we must remember that the archetypical form of polygamy many Americans think of is based off of Mormon fundamentalist communities, all of which aren’t that big (there’s only about 20,000 polygamous Mormons in all of the US and Canada; FLDS only has 6,000-10,000 members).
If this was a society-wide thing, it would vary from community to community or from family to family, just like how older men marrying younger women is more common in some places and cultures compared to others.
Right. That’s why I actually think, in a sense, polyamory is more capable of slipping in under the radar. It’s a continuation of the “monagamish” concept. Plus, it’s new.
I doubt that.
I think it would be the same. Men would take on new wives who are younger than their previous wives.
Human nature doesn’t change with religion. especially when the religion supports polygamy.
Polygamy in the US is illegal and most of the time is prosecuted because the wives are underage.
Are you in favour of same-sex marriage but oppose legalising polygamous marriage? If so, what argument or arguments do you use against legalising polygamous marriage if you support same-sex marriage?