Legality of polygamy

[PruePhillip]

People should pay what they can afford to pay. The top 2% has way more than their fare share of the wealth while those at the bottom slave away for them and do not reap the rewards.

And that would apply to doctors, dentists, engineers and entrepreneurs.
In which case why bother going to university and busting your guts 'cos
people will say 'You can afford to pay more' and this 'more' is the great
leveller.

The signal you send to anyone who 'walks on glass' like Musk with his
Tesla Co, working 7 days a week and nearly bankrupt 2 or 3 times - is
that you can 'afford' to pay all your renumeration. No one is rewarded.
That's why you wouldn't buy a Soviet car - the smart people have left
Russia or just dig potatos.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In a lot of countries due to an old UN intrusion the country would have a different law for religious minorities. In some countries it goes for even minority races. In places like India the so called "low caste" would get some government benefits the so called "higher caste" would not get. Some of them are a bit jealous. This kind of different systems exist in many countries, in many circumstances.

This particular thread is to explore the morality or the sensibility or what ever angle you would like to look at, the legality of polygamy.

Typically this would be polygeny because we are addressing Islam directly, and it is wide spread, global, and various countries with lets say, "secular laws", like India, England, etc would have a different law for non-muslims where polygamy is illegal, unlike muslims, and that polyandry is out of the question.

I remember reading some stats about India where thought Muslims are given the right to polygamy, non-muslims in India have polygamous marriages far more than muslims. But, the question is, is it fair to give muslims one law, and the rest of the community another law. Some of the Buddhist countries in Asia have been murderously against this law calling it discrimination towards the Buddhist majority. Some Buddhist monks have engaged in creating riots over these kind of things which developed into lynching and killing of several people including a child of 9. That is, ignoring Myanmar. So the bottomline is, the sentiment of discrimination seems to linger in the majority of these countries where the minority muslims are given the right to have polygamous marriages. Some have suggested that this could be a jealousy, but there is no real evidence that every one in a country like England wishes to marry more than one lady. So if there is a jealousy in this counting, it could be with some very rich guy or an underworld don who wishes to have a small harem. And anyway that could be achieved easily with no law needed. So all of these theories seem lame. Is it fair to let the minority Muslims have a different law allowing polygeny or is it their right to have it?

What do you think of this situation? How do you judge this situation?

In the Quran Sura 4:3 polygamy is conditional upon being just which is impossible so the intention here is monogamy but as polygamy was rife, the weaning off it was explained as an unjust practice and that justice was the right path.

It’s like saying it’s ok to take poison as long as it doesn’t make you sick.

 

[Clara Tea]

In a lot of countries due to an old UN intrusion the country would have a different law for religious minorities. In some countries it goes for even minority races. In places like India the so called "low caste" would get some government benefits the so called "higher caste" would not get. Some of them are a bit jealous. This kind of different systems exist in many countries, in many circumstances.

This particular thread is to explore the morality or the sensibility or what ever angle you would like to look at, the legality of polygamy.

Typically this would be polygeny because we are addressing Islam directly, and it is wide spread, global, and various countries with lets say, "secular laws", like India, England, etc would have a different law for non-muslims where polygamy is illegal, unlike muslims, and that polyandry is out of the question.

I remember reading some stats about India where though Muslims are given the right to polygamy, non-muslims in India have polygamous marriages far more than muslims. But, the question is, is it fair to give muslims one law, and the rest of the community another law. Some of the Buddhist countries in Asia have been murderously against this law calling it discrimination towards the Buddhist majority. Some Buddhist monks have engaged in creating riots over these kind of things which developed into lynching and killing of several people including a child of 9. That is, ignoring Myanmar. So the bottomline is, the sentiment of discrimination seems to linger in the majority of these countries where the minority muslims are given the right to have polygamous marriages. Some have suggested that this could be a jealousy, but there is no real evidence that every one in a country like England wishes to marry more than one lady. So if there is a jealousy in this counting, it could be with some very rich guy or an underworld don who wishes to have a small harem. And anyway that could be achieved easily with no law needed. So all of these theories seem lame. Is it fair to let the minority Muslims have a different law allowing polygeny or is it their right to have it?

What do you think of this situation? How do you judge this situation?

Sultan Mohamed Shah Aga Khan III used to receive his weight in diamonds each year, and later, his weight in gold.

This was in India, a starving nation.

There is a vast chasm between the rich and poor, particularly in India. You'd think that the rich would make sure that the water was pure, rather than have unemployable people holding their stomachs in agony rather than working. You'd think that the rich would provide modern tractors and irrigation systems, and hybrid plants that are drought resistent and bug resistant.

India has good climate and soil, but they don't produce as much food as they need. In the United States, kids were taught to eat all of their food because there were people going hungry in India.

When I think of Buddhism, I think of a peaceful religion. I am amazed that the Buddhist priests encited riots over polygamy.

Polygamy might be promoted by a man who wants several wives, or it might be promoted by the wives (some think that it is less stressful to have several wives serving several functions).

I hate to judge a different country's polygamy laws without fully understanding the reasons for their laws.

Americans believe that everyone has rights.

 

[Clara Tea]

And that would apply to doctors, dentists, engineers and entrepreneurs.
In which case why bother going to university and busting your guts 'cos
people will say 'You can afford to pay more' and this 'more' is the great
leveller.

The signal you send to anyone who 'walks on glass' like Musk with his
Tesla Co, working 7 days a week and nearly bankrupt 2 or 3 times - is
that you can 'afford' to pay all your renumeration. No one is rewarded.
That's why you wouldn't buy a Soviet car - the smart people have left
Russia or just dig potatos.

If the rich get most of the money, and the middle class has been eroded away (and are now poor), money has to be redistributed.

Under these conditions, taxing the rich to pay for the poor makes senses. This, of course, takes away the incentive for the poor to work.

There should be a balance between Socialism (government paying for everything) and Capitalism (just a few rich people will own everything). This is the way America used to work, and it was highly successful.

Antitrust laws and antimonopoly laws, and child labor laws, and pure food laws, and environmental laws were put in place by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. He felt that the rich were getting too powerful and trying to rule the US.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think polygamy should not be allowed in any country, Muslim or Non-Muslim.
This is like saying, in Islam, girls can marry at 9 years old. Indeed in some Muslim countries girls can marry as young as 9.
So, now should other non-Muslim countries allow this Law for Muslims in their own country as well as for non-Muslims, or should they just abandon it?
Or, Homosexual marriages. In Islam it is not permitted. Should the Non-Muslims countries also disallow it to Muslims living in those countries, just because this is forbidden in Islam?
The answer is, the Law should be based on the Law of country and everyone treated equally. If polygamy is wrong it is to be forbidden for everyone, and if it is OK, it should be allowed to everyone. But in my opinion it is wrong.

The country's laws should be the law for everyone. Muslims could have their own laws within the country, and they could self-enforce it. The country could make exceptions for Muslims if their religion dictates that they may have polygamy. Why not for all? Because their religions don't dictate a particular lifestyle.

 

[Clara Tea]

Polygamy is not unconstitutional, and therefore should be permitted. To prevent polygamy of Mormons is to tamper with Mormon's First Amendment civil right to practice their religion freely. We should not allow one religion to impinge upon the rights of another.

I agree.

Utah Becomes a State

Website says:

From 1852 polygamy kept Utah from statehood. US Republicans said that polygamy was a twin of slavery.

1857-58, President Buchanan removed Brigham Young as governor of Utah Territory, and sent 2,500 troops (wasn't even part of the US).

1862: US Congress passed the Morrill Antibigamy Act, which also disincorporated the LDS church. (Utah wasn't even part of the US at this time).

1874: Poland Act (more power to prosecute polygamists

1882 US Congress passed the Edmunds Act (unlawful cohabitation). Utah was not a part of the US at this time.

1887 US Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Bill to confiscated LDS property and deny Utah women's votes. Utah was not a part of the US at this time.

1894: US Congress passed the Enabling Act (things that must be done for statehood)...including banning polygamy.

1896: Under President Grover Cleveland, Utah became a state (by banning polygamy).

///////////////
The United States bossed the Utah territory and Mormons, and removed their power. All this was contrary to the First Amendment right of Freedom of Religion. There is nothing in the Constitution about polygamy.

 

[Clara Tea]

It is part of any democracy to live with the fact that you can't always have things your way.

Change the word 'religious' in your post for 'political', and you will see it happening every election year.

But more importantly, what's stopping you from speaking in favor of making polygamy legal for everyone? Why must it be legal only for a really specific group?

The more I learn of history, the more I realize that freedom didn't exist in the United States. It was (and perhaps is) a mirage.

 

[PruePhillip]

People should pay what they can afford to pay. The top 2% has way more than their fare share of the wealth while those at the bottom slave away for them and do not reap the rewards.

The top 1% pay 40% of the total USA income tax.
The anti-Wall St protestors protested about this 'one percent' but are ignorant of the
fact that THEY ARE THE ONE PERCENT IN GLOBAL INCOME - and THEY should
start paying more.
I recommend a 90% flat income tax rate for all Americans to pay for the poor around
the world.

 

[PruePhillip]

The more I learn of history, the more I realize that freedom didn't exist in the United States. It was (and perhaps is) a mirage.

It's not a mirage, freedom is a real thing in the USA.
But... compared to some ideal of freedom, America isn't really free.
But compared to most nations America is very free, and inspires
other nations.

 

[Clara Tea]

Right. Thus, I asked you the question on your generalisation.

The OP does not address the west or the east. It is not always a great idea to make everything a we against them argument. Why's, epistemes and oughts are better.

Anyway, do you have any studies for the second statement you made about polygamy being horrible for all and that monogamy brings best outcomes? You maybe right, but is that based on a study?

I looked at an Army uniform, and it said "US Army," so I assume that the enemy's uniform says "THEM Army."

 

[oldbadger]

This sounds like class hate, ie 'fat-cats hiding funds.'

No Pru, not class hate because most mid-class folks pay their taxes.
It's the greedy criminals who evade paying their taxes....every time. Billions lost to fraud.

This of course leads to higher taxes
against the 'fat-cats' who already pay most of American taxes (Top 5% pay 60% of all taxes)
and will just lead to more businesses leaving America.

No Pru........ Criminal fraudsters evading their taxes DO NOT pay most American taxes.
And if rich folks want to take their businesses out of America, or to blackmail the country with such threats to deter paying proper taxes..... then they should get caught and do time first before being ejected out of the land.
Where I live we seize property belonging to such criminals.......

If America just applies laws without
leniency, sloppy bail provisions and early release then you can make a dent in the crime.
Not much of a dent in such a violence loving nation, but hey, any dent will do.

Evading taxation by stuffing huge funds in to hiding and out of the land is massive loss. Catch it, seize it and put these folks in to prison....... that'll be a big deter for others who are doing it.

 

[Clara Tea]

The top 1% pay 40% of the total USA income tax.
The anti-Wall St protestors protested about this 'one percent' but are ignorant of the
fact that THEY ARE THE ONE PERCENT IN GLOBAL INCOME - and THEY should
start paying more.
I recommend a 90% flat income tax rate for all Americans to pay for the poor around
the world.

Hypothetically pile all food of the poor and middle class into a huge box. The poor cannot afford food. So, we give the poor money to afford food. Now the poor can buy the food, but the middle class cannot.

The trick is to make more food (not shove money back and forth), so that everyone can eat.

By funding the poor, we are defunding the middle class.

Some say that there is a Zero Sum Fallacy (which means that if we give to one, we must take away from another). That is a fallacy only if we don't manufacture and distribute more food.

There was a pervasive theory in economics following the Great Depression of 1929, that the cause was overproduction. Consequently, dairies would dump milk to drive the price up. This decreased food to the poor.

During the depression, there were a lot of homeless people (as there are today), and there were plenty of empty houses. Apparently the owners of the houses felt that the houses would undergo more damage than the cost of rent would cover if they dropped the price of rent.

My idea of economics is about distribution, not throwing money at the poor. We should make sure that enough is manufactured to distribute to all, make sure that no farmer dumps their produce to drive prices up, the government should insure crops so that if a hurricane hits one farm, all farms sustain a slight loss rather than one farmer sustaining the entire loss. Farm subsidies (pays rich people not to farm land that they own, and some of that land could not grow crops) should be removed. The government should insure crops only if the farmers follow government guidelines about which crops to plant. Crop rotation is necessary to keep soil fertile (beans should be planted every other year to put nitrogen into the soil with nitrogen fixating legumes), and the Department of Agriculture should offer free soil analyses to recommend soil amendments, irrigation procedures, etc.

Recently, it has been found that plowing soil disrupts it, robs the soil of vital nutrients, and washes nutrients down drainage channels. An alternative is to plant in unplowed soil. The soil must be fertilized with composted plant matter from the last crop. Sadly, natural pest control doesn't work, so modern pest chemicals must be employed. Furthermore, hybrid plants can be grown to fend off diseases and bugs.

 

[oldbadger]

Variety.
Just as you'd get tired of the same food every day, no matter how much you liked it.

I only hope that deceived spouses can find release in their own private ways, or better still, divorce and seize assets for future security.

I had several Muslim colleagues here (UK) and one had three wives....these wives were all friends together and didn't mind their husband staying with the others, in fact one of the wives preferred him to leave her alone if possible. I think that folks just assume how others feel about marriage, just applying their own ideas to all situations. As soon as polygamous-marriage wives are asked then a whole differing spectrum of answers come back. One colleague met his wife not long before their arranged marriage (she was the daughter of a very wealthy Pakistani businessman) and he explained to me that they just discussed their situation and got on with their new relationship....it budded in to a most loving couple with three children.

 

[Clara Tea]

No Pru, not class hate because most mid-class folks pay their taxes.
It's the greedy criminals who evade paying their taxes....every time. Billions lost to fraud.


No Pru........ Criminal fraudsters evading their taxes DO NOT pay most American taxes.
And if rich folks want to take their businesses out of America, or to blackmail the country with such threats to deter paying proper taxes..... then they should get caught and do time first before being ejected out of the land.
Where I live we seize property belonging to such criminals.......


Evading taxation by stuffing huge funds in to hiding and out of the land is massive loss. Catch it, seize it and put these folks in to prison....... that'll be a big deter for others who are doing it.

If the US taxes the rich too much, they will leave (leaving citizens with a huge National Debt (and other debts).

Biden chided Trump for taking advantage of tax loopholes, and Trump said that you (Biden) voted in those loopholes and he (Trump) merely took advantage of them.

As Trump correctly analyzed, the key to fixing the US economy is to get factories back on US soil. US workers cannot compete with 25 cent per day child slaves (who never get a chance for an education, and cannot contact their parents). Such untrained workers can't properly design electrical circuits, which explains why Chinese manufactured goods are of such poor quality (not to mention the poor quality materials).

The W. Bush administration tried to outsource factories abroad to take advantage of cheap foreign labor.

W. Bush was trying to close down the Port of Los Angeles, and make a port in Mexico to take advantage of cheap foreign labor. As the economy tanked, W. Bush used lasseiz faire (hands off economics, using the Invisible Hand of Capitalism of Adam Smith). That is....watched helplessly as the economy was sucked dry (as Ross Perot said it would).

 

[Clara Tea]

I only hope that deceived spouses can find release in their own private ways, or better still, divorce and seize assets for future security.

I had several Muslim colleagues here (UK) and one had three wives....these wives were all friends together and didn't mind their husband staying with the others, in fact one of the wives preferred him to leave her alone if possible. I think that folks just assume how others feel about marriage, just applying their own ideas to all situations. As soon as polygamous-marriage wives are asked then a whole differing spectrum of answers come back. One colleague met his wife not long before their arranged marriage (she was the daughter of a very wealthy Pakistani businessman) and he explained to me that they just discussed their situation and got on with their new relationship....it budded in to a most loving couple with three children.

That was my understanding, as well. Wives are usually fine with polygamous relationships.

Polygamy means that one man may have several wives, but there are some men who have none.

I wonder what would happen if wives could also have several husbands. It seems like a disaster waiting to happen for STDs like AIDS. It might greatly complicate custody battles.

 

[Clara Tea]

In secular societies where there is the absolute juridical equality between husband wife, how can we even think of okaying that man can have 4 wives, but woman cannot have 4 husbands.
It is unthinkable.

Such polygamy should be punished.....by....hmm......by having many wives.

 

[PruePhillip]

Hypothetically pile all food of the poor and middle class into a huge box. The poor cannot afford food. So, we give the poor money to afford food. Now the poor can buy the food, but the middle class cannot.

.

This is all interesting, but we have to beware of seeking utopian solutions.
Here's an interesting tid bit from working on an 'organic farm.' To keep
weeds under control we had to keep ploughing - this cost diesel and labor
and wear and tear - and it was constantly ploughing the ground. So some
ideas appear good on the surface....

 

[PruePhillip]

No Pru, not class hate because most mid-class folks pay their taxes.
It's the greedy criminals who evade paying their taxes....every time. Billions lost to fraud.


No Pru........ Criminal fraudsters evading their taxes DO NOT pay most American taxes.
And if rich folks want to take their businesses out of America, or to blackmail the country with such threats to deter paying proper taxes..... then they should get caught and do time first before being ejected out of the land.
Where I live we seize property belonging to such criminals.......


Evading taxation by stuffing huge funds in to hiding and out of the land is massive loss. Catch it, seize it and put these folks in to prison....... that'll be a big deter for others who are doing it.

True, criminal fraudsters do not pay most American taxes. I bet you it is now found out that
Trump is one of these.
But the TOP ONE PERCENT PAY FORTY PERCENT OF THE TAXES, AND THE TOP FIVE
PERCENT PAY SIXTY PERCENT OF TAXES.
So yes, the middle class pass the other forty percent.
But if you take every last cent from say Elon Musk, and give it to everyone on earth, that will
work out to what.... $37 each. And you have dissolved the companies that do such good
(presuming no-one is game to pony up $350 billon for his companies and be subject to the
same demands) For many 'rich' people their wealth is tied to their companies - dismantle them,
give everyone a brick or nail each and tell them they are part owners of the wealth. And lay off
millions.

 

[pearl]

Mormons.

I see a confusion with polygamy and 'sister wives'. It's not illegal because there is only 'spiritual' marriage.

 

[oldbadger]

If the US taxes the rich too much, they will leave (leaving citizens with a huge National Debt (and other debts).

Biden chided Trump for taking advantage of tax loopholes, and Trump said that you (Biden) voted in those loopholes and he (Trump) merely took advantage of them.

As Trump correctly analyzed, the key to fixing the US economy is to get factories back on US soil. US workers cannot compete with 25 cent per day child slaves (who never get a chance for an education, and cannot contact their parents). Such untrained workers can't properly design electrical circuits, which explains why Chinese manufactured goods are of such poor quality (not to mention the poor quality materials).

The W. Bush administration tried to outsource factories abroad to take advantage of cheap foreign labor.

W. Bush was trying to close down the Port of Los Angeles, and make a port in Mexico to take advantage of cheap foreign labor. As the economy tanked, W. Bush used lasseiz faire (hands off economics, using the Invisible Hand of Capitalism of Adam Smith). That is....watched helplessly as the economy was sucked dry (as Ross Perot said it would).

Ah yes. Former President Trump didn't pay his taxes, did he?
If tax Dodgers can be caught, arrested, have owed taxes seized, then they could be ejected....no need to listen to their threats to leave.