UKC

Anti-gay marriage arguments often claim that allowing gay marriage would lead to calls for marriage between animals and humans, and to bigamy. The animal point is silly because you can never get consent from animals. The bigamy one seems stronger but does it matter? Should we allow bigamy if people wish?

In reply to MG: You can't allow bigamy, bigamy is the crime of marrying when you're lawfully married to another. It's like asking if we should allow rape.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Why not? Plenty of countries/religions allow a man to marry more than one woman e.g. Mormons and Muslims. As far as I know if someone marries multiple wives in a country that allows it and then moves here all the marriages are recognised.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is there anywhere where a woman can have multiple husbands?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: I've given you the definition of bigamy, you're talking about polygamy, it's why the English language has different words.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Its called Polyandry and is rarer than Polygyny.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Bigamy is two wives or husbands(bi), polygamy many wives or husbands(poly), according to the OED 1st edition. The legality varies with location.

why's this likely?

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

I was wondering that too.

In reply to MG: Rubbish, the oed definition states that it's the offence as I said above.

In reply to Sir Chasm: You really shouldn't try and bluff when you can easily be shown to be wrong. The full entry is below, my asterisks

**Marriage with a second wife or husband when already married**; the crime of having two wives or husbands at once. Also in extended use.**The legal status of bigamy has varied over time and between legal systems.** It was first made a criminal offence in England and Wales under the 1604 Bigamy Act, and is currently defined in the United Kingdom by the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The 2004 Civil Partnerships Act defined a similar offence relating to same-sex civil partnerships, now often informally though not legally known as bigamy. In the United States bigamy was made a federal offence by the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.


See also Wiki, which list countries where bigamy is legal and illegal.

In reply to MG: And you're wrong about polygamy too, the oed defines it as more than one, not more than two.

In reply to MG: What possible link is there between gay marriage and bigamy?

In reply to MG: My apologies, I didn't realise you weren't in the UK.

In reply to gcandlin: Nothing direct that I can see but the religious seem to find one.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So in other words it's a law. Are you saying laws cannot ever be changed?


No it isn't. Not remotely. If we were to allow people to choose to marry more than one person, that doesn't raise an issue of consent.

In reply to Alyson: No, you've misunderstood, bigamy and rape are both crimes, if you change the law you need to change what you call them, if we legalised rape you wouldn't call it rape any more.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I think we would still call it rape, just because it was not a crime would not change the act itself ie a man having sexual intercourse with a woman without consent.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
if you change the law you need to change what you call them, if we legalised rape you wouldn't call it rape any more.

Bollocks, we have legalised suicide, divorce and so on and still use the same terms.

In reply to MG: Was divorce a crime? And what was bigamy called before it was a crime?

In reply to MG:

Agreed. I believe (though please correct me if necessary!) that some instances of rape aren't recognised as crimes in some countries, e.g. marital rape, rape as a war crime - but it's still rape.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is it that divorce and bigamy are legal terms whereas rape isn't? It falls into the same category as polygamy - it's a description of a situation or an act, not that act's legal status.

In reply to Tall Clare: Yes, I shouldn't have used rape as an example.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think Henry VIII had some problems with this, yes.

And what was bigamy called before it was a crime?

Bigamy.

In reply to MG: Divorce wasn't a crime was it? You're confusing church and court.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

well it was illegal in various countries for a long time including the UK. Still is in the vatican and the Phillipines.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Interesting that you only talk about men marrying multiple women. In today's equal(ish) society surely it would be acceptable for a woman to marry multiple men if bigamy were to be allowed? Or have I just touched a nerve?

In reply to MG:

I don't understand why gay marriage would/could lead to bigamy. I don't have many married gay friends but the few that I do have are just as committed to their marriage vows as my straight friends.

In reply to MG:

By what logic would it lead to more bigamy.

In reply to The New NickB: Just a point of information, the Mormons claim that having more than one wifr onlyentered their religion because so many of the men were killed by Indians on their wagon trains to Salt Lake City. As to why it's still neccessary over 100 years later is not explained. In fact I thought even if you are a Mormon it's technically illegal in the USA these days.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Suppose a bi man has a gay marriage with another bi man in a state in the US which allows it.

They then move to another state or country which does not recognise gay marriage (so they are regarded as unmarried) and one of them marries a woman.

Then all three of them come to the UK.

If the UK accepts all the foreign marriages - which I think it should given that it accepts polygamous marriages done in other countries then you would have a man married to both a man and a woman simultaneosly in the UK without breaking any laws.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

True. That's quite a complex (and unlikely?) chain of events though!

In reply to The New NickB: I assume what the religious are suggesting is that if two men or women can legally marry if they wish to, why shouldn't two men and women or whatever also be allowed to? Ask this chap

http://global.christianpost.com/news/catholic-bishop-suggests-gay-marriage-...

In reply to The New NickB:

The OP didn't actually say it would lead to more bigamy, they said that it could lead to more calls for legalising bigamous marriage.

One could draw (at least) 2 assumptions or possibilities from this:

1. People already desire bigamous marriage but are not calling for it


2. That if legalising Gay marriage is merely a legal change representing a shift in morals and cultural acceptance, allowing a group to have recognition of their relationships, should it not also therefore follow that other groups feel entitled to the same recognition?

In reply to MG:

Scare mongering by the bigoted then really.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That would be a man with multiple marriages, not a woman.

The gay/bi thing is a canard here as you could have the same situation with heterosexual couples.

Not all polygamous marriages are recognised in the UK, in fact the law is very complex, if the first marriage, which is based on countrywide laws not statewide, is recognised as valid in the UK then the second would be recognised as invalid.

In order for there to be a chance of someone with two spouses entering there would need to be married in a country that recognised the polygamous arrangement.

In reply to gcandlin:

This is the bit you pick holes in???


I'm more interested in the link between gay marriage and marriage between human and animal!!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Not as complex as this

Two bi women get married in the US.
Then they fly to the gulf where their gay marriage is not recognised but polygamy is allowed. They both marry the same guy.

Then they fly to the UK which recognises their valid marriages in other countries so they are both married to the same husband and to each other.

Then the husband gets freaked out by the whole situation and has a sex change! In the UK that does not invalidate his marriages.

So you have 3 women each of whom is legally married to the other two.

In reply to The New NickB:


The strange thing is its not like the bible is against polygamy. Plenty of examples of it in the bible and only a few, stretch, arguments against.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You've really thought about this, haven't you?

In reply to Al Evans:

I may be having a slow brain day but I don't get this. Why would the risk of the man being killed lead to someone thinking it's a good thing if he has several wives??

In reply to Tall Clare:

Just doing the math

In reply to Ava Adore:


its not to deal with that risk but to deal with the population inbalance of a good proportion of the men being dead and hence it being way of 50/50 split.

In reply to Tall Clare:

If there isn't there should be.
(it worked for Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood in Paint your Waggon

In reply to dissonance:

So you mean that because there was potentially a limited number of men to marry, the women were to share?

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Maybe when we become truly enlightened you'll be able to marry one woman, one man and one sheep/horse/pig/chicken?

I guess zoos could then benefit from "marrying an animal" schemes as opposed to "adopting an animal" schemes.

Given that each member of a multiple marraige could also marry others it would lead to some interesting connections.

I've never been married to anything by the way, just idle musings on my part.

In reply to Tall Clare: In Bhutan both polyandry and polygamy are practised, and it is one of the most peaceful and harmonious countries I have had the pleasure to spend time in.

Polyandry is usually practiced in the rural and mountain communities of Bhutan. A woman can be married to more than one man at the same time and often the co-husbands are brothers. By using this system a family can pool its resources - one husband can be away on a trading mission whilst the other is able to help tend to the yaks at home, and the family land is not split up from one generation to the next.

In reply to Tall Clare:
Multiple husbands used to be common in Nepal. I was told the reason was, because farming was so difficult, you needed two men to provide enough food for one family

In reply to Tall Clare: Its a practice in Tibet. One woman marries all the brothers. I'm not sure how widely it's practiced.

In reply to Bloodfire:

Looks like it's also practiced amongst aboriginal people in parts of Saskatchewan, Canada.

In reply to MG: Why would gay marriage lead to more bigamy?

Couldn't see a reason further up, and i'm puzzled...

In reply to Timmd: Ask a Christian.

In reply to Ava Adore:

I think the excuse was that they were just looking after a surfeit of widows?

In reply to Bloodfire:

Yeh but it's not real marriage we are talking about is it, we are talking about Sha**ing, or am I missing something?

In reply to Al Evans:

That's pretty objectionable Al - why is a Tibetan approach to marriage any more or less 'real' than our ceremony?

In reply to MG:

Hmmn, that kind of reason. No ta. () Thought there'd be a non religious philosophical reason.

In reply to Timmd:
Gay marriage won't lead to more bigamy, and I wouldn't equate the desire for gay marriage / polygamy.
But the same justification can be used for both - consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want if it doesn't have a negative impact on other people.

In reply to stevieb:I agree.

Saw a cool picture of a dog holding a notice saying it's in favour of gay marriage, and that gay marriage would affect it and the person viewing the picture just as much.

In reply to Ava Adore:

The point of being a Mormon was to make more Mormons, so 1 man plus many women made sense; many men and one woman did not.