[auto98]

Quote

Cultural sensitivity has prevented politicians from discussing the issue of polygamy in the UK, a leading Muslim peer has told the BBC.

Baroness Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion, told Radio 4's Today programme it was time policy makers took the issue seriously.

She said she wanted registering all religious marriages to be considered to stop men marrying more than one wife.

Baroness Warsi said politicians had been ignoring the issue.

"There has been a failure on the part of policy makers to respond to this situation," she said.

"Some of it has been done in the name of cultural sensitivity and we've just avoided either discussing or dealing with this matter head on.

"There has to be a culture change and that has to brought about by policy makers taking a very clear stance on this issue, saying that in this country, one married man is allowed to marry one woman," she added.

Now, quite aside from the fact that there are a lot of male politicians who would quite like as many wives as possible, is this really an issue?

If the man and the women involved are all happy with the arrangement (and assuming they only get the marriage tax benefits once ), what exactly is the problem? Is it just a holdover from when Britain actually was christian, and if so should it be gotten rid of?

(btw this is NOT saying that Britain is now muslim, before certain people start inferring that, it is saying that Britain is essentially secular by action, if not by name)

And yes, I know she is muslim, but I can't see this being brought up in a country by a muslim (or christian) politician if that country has a polygamous state religion

This post has been edited by auto98: 20 February 2009 - 03:52 AM

[Renolds]

whats the problem again? I dont see any here.

[Vicea]

I see nothing wrong in consentful and loving Polygamy.
Forced or non-loving marriage however, is a different story.

This post has been edited by Vicea: 20 February 2009 - 04:12 AM

[Renolds]

Now that I think about it the woman is probably thinking about where the man marries another woman without the first one knowing.

which is bad of course.

[Kenadian_2006]

Renolds, on Feb 20 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

Now that I think about it the woman is probably thinking about where the man marries another woman without the first one knowing.

which is bad of course.

Isn't that bigamy?

[auto98]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 20 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

Isn't that bigamy?

Bigamy is jut the legal name for it - the wives could know of each other and it is still bigamy

[Dublandia]

The issue is not about, whether or not polygamy is good or bad.

It is about gutless politicos that are not dealing with a violation of law.

[Kzin]

The government should not be in the 'defining love and marriage' business.

Preventing child abuse, i.e. arranged/forced marriages of minors, you betcha. But the combinations that consenting adults choose to form? None of the State's business.

[Delta1212]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 20 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

Isn't that bigamy?

Bigamy is specifically two. Polygamy is any number of wives greater than one.

[Utracia]

if the parties are of consenting legal age (and i think BOTH spouces should consent to it) then i see no problem with marrying more than one person. no one else's business

[Aeternos Astramora]

Dublandia, on Feb 20 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

The issue is not about, whether or not polygamy is good or bad.

It is about gutless politicos that are not dealing with a violation of law.

I wouldn't want them to enforce a bad law...

[Kenadian_2006]

Delta1212, on Feb 20 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

Bigamy is specifically two. Polygamy is any number of wives greater than one.

That is true, but bigamy is usually used to describe the crime of marrying one person and marrying another while still married, no? As it's usually only two people, especially with each spouse being unaware of the other.

[cjav0]

Aeternos Astramora, on Feb 20 2009, 10:11 PM, said:

I wouldn't want them to enforce a bad law...

I would want them to enforce laws AND remove bad laws.

Yeah ain't gonna happen I know

[Delta1212]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 20 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

That is true, but bigamy is usually used to describe the crime of marrying one person and marrying another while still married, no? As it's usually only two people, especially with each spouse being unaware of the other.

Generally speaking, yes.

[Tritonia]

If the complaint is that not all religious marriages are reported to the state, which results in loopholes resulting in polygamy (which I am lead to assume is illegal in the UK), then, yes, they should probably do something about that.

[KCToker]

Tritonia, on Feb 20 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

If the complaint is that not all religious marriages are reported to the state, which results in loopholes resulting in polygamy (which I am lead to assume is illegal in the UK), then, yes, they should probably do something about that.

Yes, like repeal whatever stupid law that bans polygamy.

[Tritonia]

That's certainly an option. I'm not sure how likely it is though.

[auto98]

Delta1212, on Feb 20 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Bigamy is specifically two. Polygamy is any number of wives greater than one.

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 20 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

That is true, but bigamy is usually used to describe the crime of marrying one person and marrying another while still married, no? As it's usually only two people, especially with each spouse being unaware of the other.

Actually , bigamy is one wife

Interesting (well to me ) story about that - when the bigamy law first came out (the modern version) it was realised to be absurd because a bigamist was defined as someone who goes through a second valid marriage ceremony - obviously, there is no way for the second marriage to be valid because he is already married (one person was actually acquitted because of this. So, it is now a person who attempts a second marriage ceremony (hence they only have one wife to be a bigamist)

Which now that i think about it also seems slightly absurd

This post has been edited by auto98: 21 February 2009 - 03:27 AM

[Mack Truck]

If they're talking about a man having more than one marriage under the law I could understand. The government controls the law and gets to decide how it works, and if they decide that people can only have one spouse then fair enough, their system their rules.

But if they're talking about marriages that aren't registered then it should be a non-issue. Who cares if someone has multiple people they call their spouse?

[Renolds]

Mack Truck, on Feb 21 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

If they're talking about a man having more than one marriage under the law I could understand. The government controls the law and gets to decide how it works, and if they decide that people can only have one spouse then fair enough, their system their rules.

But if they're talking about marriages that aren't registered then it should be a non-issue. Who cares if someone has multiple people they call their spouse?

well no its not the governments system its the peoples system. The government are meant to be servants of the people, I think the current labour government needs a good slapping to remind them of that.