| 0 |
Subject: Bigamy
Posted by: Myboyjack
- [27651610] Thu, Aug 31, 2006, 11:57
Bigamy is usually defined as purporting to marry a spouse knowing one already is married to another person. It's not only illegal - it crime in all 50 states. In most it's a felony. More serious than beating somebody up
Why is it a crime?
Why, assuming all the parties all adults is it even prohibited?
Adultery is neither illegal nor criminal. Cohabitation with multiple sexual partners is not prohibited. There's no law against having children with multiple persons.
Can anyone justify the enforcement of polygamy laws; particulary the crimnialization of bigamy? |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 31 | boikin
ID: 41745118
Thu, Aug 31, 2006, 20:42
|
nice i should be one worrying about be dumbed down.
|
| 32 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 16:59
|
Bigamy is a crime because the institution of marraige -- one man, one woman -- is fundamental to society. If one doesn't believe in marraige, it shouldn't be a crime. It's not surprising that bigamy/polygamy is now being defended legally; that was implicit in SCOTUS's homosexual rights decision.
Freedom of marriage to as many people as one wants is on liberalism's agenda. Perhaps soon, corporate scammers will be marrying all of their co-conspirators, of whatever gender, to take advantage of the testimonial privilege.
Toral
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 5384549
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 17:04
|
Freedom of marriage to as many people as one wants is on liberalism's agenda
The one in your mind, maybe.
|
| 34 | Tree
ID: 18826410
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 17:16
|
Bigamy is a crime because the institution of marraige -- one man, one woman -- is fundamental to society.
it's a different argument, but something that gives one person a benefit over another person because of that person's sexual orientation, is not fundamental to society.
it is fundamental to the destruction of society.
|
| 35 | nerveclinic
ID: 10526140
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 17:26
|
Toral Freedom of marriage to as many people as one wants is on liberalism's agenda
Care to provide linked evidence that this is an agenda of liberals? I've never heard it mentioned once in my life accept in the context of Mormonism.
You seem confident it's an agenda, I'm sure your evidence for this isn't psychic, so would you care to show us the evidence you've seen of this?
|
| 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 18:17
|
I dont know of any liberals practicing/endorsing polygamy. The only ones I do know of here in the US, are "god fearing rightwing ultra-conservative christian mormons".
|
| 37 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 18:35
|
For clarity's sake, the Fundamentalist LDS Church is no more Mormon than the Dominionists are Catholic.
|
| 38 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 18:45
|
Y'all are getting confused in the details. The liberal legal view is that "the right to marry" is a fundamental constitutional right. As such, it can be exercised with any other consenting persons or persons.
We've gone over this all before, after the discussion of SCOTUS's homosexual rights decision. I'm not going to explain it for the 17th time for people like nerveclinic who never assimilate anything except conspiracy wacko mindcrap.
Toral
|
| 39 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 18:45
|
No doubt.
Sarge, getting real tired of your labeling. Everyone on this board knows you don't believe in God and how you feel about "God-fearing, rightwing, ultra-conservative, Christians. So, give it a rest already. Rarely can I open a thread these days that hasn't degraded into the same crap.
BTW, it makes a lot of sense that ultra conservative people are the ones doing freaky shite. It would stand to reason that maybe they aren't so liberal or conservative by the definition of the word.
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 5384549
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 20:44
|
Conservatives like Toral believe that SCOTUS' ruling opened the door to legalized bigamy, incest, and bestiality. And in that, they make the elementary error of confusing effect with intent.
We could, of course, just leave it there with their argument twisting in the wind. But we simply can't let a chance go by without pointing out that liberals are pushing for homosexual "marriage" rights because they know that committed couples of whatever sexual orientation are good for society. By refusing to allow the Right to face the point of committed homosexual couples contributions to a more stable society we do a long-term service to society and this country.
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 20:48
|
sorry TB if I offended your sensibilities, but my comment was in response to Torals BS about liberals having polygamy on their agenda. Wasnt any kind of commentary at all, re my religious posture.
|
| 42 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:06
|
Conservatives like Toral believe that SCOTUS' ruling opened the door to legalized bigamy....
This thread is your big chance to show them their wrong then, PD. What SCOTUS logic allowsd for homsexual marriages but not polygamous ones? Enlighten them.
What's is wrong (Constitutionally or legally speaking) with bigamy?
|
| 43 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:11
|
But, someone might want to actually address Toral's post - you haven't yet. (I don't think sarge even understands it, based on his 2 replies...)
Is marriage a "fundamental right?" as has been successfully argued by advocates of same sex marriage in Mass, etc.? It is the Left who have made this arguement, you know. If it is a fundamental right, how can bigamy laws, among others, withstand that necessary level of Constitutional scrutiny.
|
| 44 | boikin
ID: 41745118
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:17
|
of course it is not fundematal right. marriage does not have any legal defintion in the constitution.
|
| 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 5384549
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:27
|
MBJ: I'm merely addressing Toral's error in presenting the "liberal legal view." Toral confuses effect with intent. As do you, apparently, in this matter.
|
| 46 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:27
|
Worry not MBJ, I understand fully Torals intended implications.
Marriage has always been between 2 people. Defined as such by societal norms as anything else. All the "Left" has argued for, is that those 2 people could be of any gender mix. IOW, Grant the legal benefits and authorities inherent in being a spouse, to one who is in essence a "spouse" even if of the same gender. At no time that I am aware, has anyone argued before the courts that marriage could/should be between as many people simultaneously as agree to it. Why not? For the same reasons essentially, I think that marriage should be OK between gays. For medical authority for ex. With multiple spouses, the very real potentiality of spousal disagreement enters into the picture, and you no longer have any kind of resolution possible. (Not a legal argument granted, more of a scenario which I think would be almost inevitable.) Which spouse(s) is then to have "ultimate" say and what of the rights then of the other spouse(s)? It opens such an ugly can of worms, that I would be utterly opposed to it.
But since we have "common law" marriage, recognized yet in TX though I cant address the other 49 states, without benefit of any ceremony a marriage is considered valid under specific circumstances. Why would those circumstances not hold for same gender couples? (The difference before anyone suggests it..between 2 guys sharing an apartment and suddenly finding themselves wed...is that one of the circumstances be that the couple involved presents themselves publicly and conducts their public/private affairs as if they were married.)
|
| 47 | Tree
ID: 18826410
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:39
|
The liberal legal view is that "the right to marry" is a fundamental constitutional right.
incorrect.
Is marriage a "fundamental right?" as has been successfully argued by advocates of same sex marriage in Mass, etc.? It is the Left who have made this arguement, you know. If it is a fundamental right, how can bigamy laws, among others, withstand that necessary level of Constitutional scrutiny.
it's an issue of equality, between two consenting adults.
currently, a man and a woman being married (read: two consenting adults), offers many benefits, including government-sponsored financial benefits.
but not allowing a man and a man, or a woman and a woman (read: two consenting adults), to reap those same benefits, including government-sponsored financial benefits.
this is about two consenting adults, not 3 or 6 or 92 consenting adults. nor, is this about a man and his dog, or a man and his
stuffed animal (warning: this link is probably NSFW, and probably contains some disturbing stuff).
no liberal that i know of has ever made the suggestion that the benefits afforded to TWO married people be extended to bigamists - that is strictly a Right Wing fabrication, or fantasy, or both.
|
| 48 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:39
|
I'm merely addressing Toral's error in presenting the "liberal legal view."
Ah, so when you said: Conservatives like Toral believe that SCOTUS' ruling opened the door to legalized bigamy...., you didn't mean it. At least, not enough to demonstrate otherwise. OK.
Toral confuses effect with intent. As do you, apparently, in this matter.
I must admit to having no frakin' clue what you're talking about with your intent v. effect claim, so I guess you got me.
Do you mean by it that because liberals who make a Csonstituional claim for same-sex marriage as a findamental right only mean for their screwed up arguments to apply to same sex marriages and definitely not to unions that THEY find icky that we should not criticize their screwed up legal arguments? is that it? You're right, you've lost me.
|
| 49 | Perm Dude
ID: 5384549
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:41
|
Well, you've lost me.
Saves me the trouble of writing it all out again, in different language, I suppose.
|
| 50 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:43
|
no liberal that i know of has ever made the suggestion that the benefits afforded to TWO married people be extended to bigamists - that is strictly a Right Wing fabrication, or fantasy, or both.
tree, sarge, etc: No one is saying that liberal are for polygamy or whatever. The question is whether the legal arguments that make same-sex marriage a Constitutional right don't apply equally to other non-traditional marriage arrangements. Here's your shot tree. Why should prohibition of bigamy be Constitutionally permissable but not prohibition of gay marriage. Make your case.
|
| 51 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 21:51
|
Is that the correct question to be asking? Isnt it more to the point, to ask what Constitutionally would prohibit gay marriage?
As for the allowing gay marriage to open the doors to polygamy/bigamy/bestiality etc etc etc...society already has laws on the books prohibiting such things. Nothing in making the allowance/exception to allows 2 persons of the same sex to wed one another, would invalidate those other existing laws.
|
| 52 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 22:02
|
Isnt it more to the point, to ask what Constitutionally would prohibit gay marriage?
Uh, no. No one argues that the Constitution prohibits a State from recognizing gay marriage. It obviously doesn't. What are you talking about.
The issue only arises because States don't recognize/authorize gay marriages and advocates sue the State based on a Constitutional claim. Get it?
society already has laws on the books prohibiting such things. Nothing in making the allowance/exception to allows 2 persons of the same sex to wed one another, would invalidate those other existing laws.
Put it to the test. You make the Constitutional argument that mandats recognition of gay marriages but not bigamous ones.
Marriage has always been between 2 people
well that's demonstrably false. It's not even universally true today. Saudi Arabia much? What marriage has "alwasy been between" is a man and woman - if "what marriage has always been between" is yout argument - you lose.
|
| 53 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 22:23
|
The Constitutional claim MBJ, as far as I understand it, is that to deny gays the ability to wed one another, is to discriminate against them. They lose governemtnal/insurance/tax/inheritance rights/protections which other spouses enjoy. Since no other US law recognizes polygamist marriages, (since they are not between two people,....and I for one dont much give a damn what Saudi Arabia considers to be a marriage. Not in terms of US law at any rate.) no threat of allowing bigamy is presented. Its an equal rights issue.
|
| 54 | boikin
ID: 41745118
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 23:02
|
how is bigamy different issue to gay marriage in terms of equal rights i could just as easlly claim that i am being descriminated against becuase i havel multiple wives. i do understand how the equal rights issue can not be used to defend bigamy?
|
| 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Sep 04, 2006, 23:30
|
Because the 2nd marriage, while the first is still valid, invalidates the second and all subsequent marriages. It further introsuces criminal status into the picture. IOW, there are no rights and there is no "like state" for it to be compared to. Marraige between gays, is still a union between two people. Not 3, 4 or 5.
If bigamy/polygamy were allowed and recognized....try and create a family tree.
Joe is married to Jane/Cindy and Sue.
Sue is also married to John/Mike and Tim.
Mike is married to Sue(same one) Sue(diffeent one) etc etc
So now, whose kids are whose? Tax deductions? Estate purposes? What of family support in the event of divorce?
There is no manner of granting legal status to such a configration. The fact that some try and use this as an argument against gay marriage, is in my minds eye a "scare tactic" and nothing more. They have no valid argument against gay marriage, so they drum up smoke and mirrors to try and scare people into acting the way they want them to.
|
| 56 | Tree
ID: 3484755
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 06:59
|
Here's your shot tree. Why should prohibition of bigamy be Constitutionally permissable but not prohibition of gay marriage. Make your case.
i rarely answer a question with a question, but since the anti-gay agenda seems fond of doing that, i'll be a follower. :o)
why should the prohibition of bigamy be Constitutionally permissable but not the prohibition of marriage between a man and a woman?
make your case.
(never mind the fact you're ignoring the more pertinent fact, regarding government-sponsored financial benefits mentioned in post 47)
|
| 57 | Stuck in the 60s
Dude
ID: 274132811
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 07:26
|
I've often wondered why bigamy is a crime.
To be sure, it creates some unique problems for the legal system -- but I'm not sure that's a reason to outlaw bigamy, or anything else.
It's hard for me to accept that the "traditional" marriage between a man and a woman has ever been or could ever be threatened by the existence of gay marriage, bigamy, or any other living arrangement.
So my guess is that bigamy is illegal because, with the exception of Muslims, most of the world's religious establishments object to it.
Still, the concept is intriguing.
Years ago, I traveled to Egypt. Not speaking Arabic, I hired a guide to chauffeur me around for a week. Got to know him fairly well. He had two wives and was constantly complaining that whatever gift he got for one had to be precisely balanced by a gift for the other. He offered other, just as amusing, anecdotes. But his point was that multiple wives were a sign of prestige and that many Muslims gauged their prosperity by how many they could support.
As usual in America, we want to criminalize behavior we disagree with. For me at least, that attitude is increasingly unacceptable.
Don
|
| 58 | Boxman
ID: 427471614
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 08:53
|
Tree: why should the prohibition of bigamy be Constitutionally permissable but not the prohibition of marriage between a man and a woman?
Tree, why do you choose the annoying path? Just answer the man's question. He asked first.
|
| 59 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 09:17
|
i rarely answer a question with a question, but since the anti-gay agenda seems fond of doing that, i'll be a follower. :o)
why should the prohibition of bigamy be Constitutionally permissable but not the prohibition of marriage between a man and a woman?
make your case
tree, it's not really fair to ask a question when you haven't answered one previously asked; but, since your's is so easy, I'll play along.
The reason that bigamy doesn't present a Constitutional problem is because there's nothing the Constitution that prohibits the State defintition and regulation of marriage.
There's no 14th Amendment "equal protection" issue here. No suspect class is being singled out for arbritrary or discriminatory treatment. Everyone has the same option of marrying a single spouse of the opposite sex of their choosing - no Due Process problem. The State can hardly be deemed to be acting arbritrary - and would, in fact, seem to have a compelling State interest, in enforcing the idea of marriage that has existed in our legal framework for time immemorial. Thus, the State can regulate bigamy and prohibit it, if it chooses, without triggering a Constitutional claim.
OK, your turn.
|
| 60 | Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 11:23
|
The State can hardly be deemed to be acting arbritrary - and would, in fact, seem to have a compelling State interest, in enforcing the idea of marriage that has existed in our legal framework for time immemorial.
time immemorial? that would indicate we can't really even guess when this idea began to exist.
personally, i'm going to go back about 230 years or so. it doesn't go back any further than 1776 B.C.E., because no "legal framework" existed in the United States prior to that, as the U.S. didn't exist.
i'm still looking for the initial question, i asked, which hasn't been answered.
why are you in favor of government-sanctioned financial benefits based on sexual orientation?
i'd have a lot less issues with believing gay marriage should be legal if straight marriage, and all the government sponsored financial benefits, wasn't state sanctioned either.
|
| 61 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 11:30
|
because no "legal framework" existed in the United States prior to that, as the U.S. didn't exist.
Stop being silly. You're aware that there were laws in the US before 1776. You're aware that even today the basis of our legal system, our "legal framework" goes back hundreds and hundreds of years to the English common law and the Roman legal codes, etc. If you're not aware of that, educate yourself. Long after 1776, US judges cited English case law as precedent......
why are you in favor of government-sanctioned financial benefits based on sexual orientation?
I'm not. Your turn.
|
| 62 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 11:59
|
mbj, I'd say your answer is in post 57. In theory, if someone truely believes in equal rights for all bigamy should not be illegal. Its more of a moral thing, and people (even pro-equal rights for gays people) think of bigamy as 'higher up' the immoral chain then other things. The law most likely exists because of religious reasons, and anyone crazy enough to challenge it right now probably is busy trying to change attitudes towards same-sex marriage.
In this, I agree with Toral; arguements in favor of same-sex marriage can be (and probably will be in some distant future) used to argue in favor of bigamy. While you acknowledged as much, it should be noted again that most same-sex proponents would not be in favor of that and it isn't their intent.
|
| 63 | Matt S
ID: 45621302
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:21
|
I'm not married, therefore don't know. But what exactly are the "government benefits" to being married?
I'm aware that marrying someone of a different nationality provides citizenship rights, but what else? Are there really financial benefits?
|
| 64 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:25
|
Are there really financial benefits?
There are legal benefits such as inheritance, testimonial privileges, presemption of guardianship, etc...
Finacial benefits would include spousal Social Security benefits...
|
| 65 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:27
|
Inheritance rights, next-of-kin medical authority, group insurance rights/options via employers. Military spouses for ex, gain access to free medical, Space Available travel options on Air Force transports/charters, Commissary and PX privaleges, Survivors benefits in the event of a deceased military member...
|
| 66 | boikin
ID: 400291013
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:34
|
Tree it is call common law, look it up.
Re 55, so the argument that seperates gay marriage and ploygamy is that one is union of two and the other falls outside of this. this seems to be a fair distiction. the arguemnt then continued to use children as an example but children do not come about out of gay marriage but can out of ploygamist one. So in some ways bigamy can be argued for easier that same sex marriage becuase of the fact that children could be a direct result of the relationship and allready have laws defing responsiblities and custidies.
|
| 67 | sarge33rd
ID: 257222410
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:45
|
Children most certainly can come out of gay marriage. Invitro fertilization (sperm donord for lesbian couples) and adoption for either gender.
|
| 68 | boikin
ID: 400291013
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 12:47
|
i ment naturally, sarge. then again wild dogs could raise a child.
|
| 69 | Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:06
|
why are you in favor of government-sanctioned financial benefits based on sexual orientation?
I'm not. Your turn.
so, to clarify, you believe that marriage should have no financial benefits from the government, be that marriage gay, straight, or otherwise?
|
| 70 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:12
|
MBJ, Good luck on ever getting an answer...
|
| 71 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:16
|
so, to clarify, you believe that marriage should have no financial benefits from the government, be that marriage gay, straight, or otherwise?
tree - see post 6 this thread.
MBJ, Good luck on ever getting an answer...
There's no shame in not having a good answer. I just assume that's the case here.
|
| 72 | Toral
ID: 52621719
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:23
|
Here's an interesting Canadian story demonstrating that the legal connection between same-sex marriage arguments and polygamy arguments are not merely a right-wing fantasy.
Before the government legalized same-sex marriage, numerous provincial Courts of Appeal had struck down the old marriage law as contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Supreme Court of Canada would uphold these decisions, although the cases never got there because the fegeral government didn't appeal the adverse decisions.
Status of Women Canada, an umbrella feminist group, having some smart people associated with it, immediately recognized the possible implications of these decisions on polygamy bans, which they support. They convinced the federal government to commission and fund an urgent research study into the legal bases of polygamy -- preparing anti-polygamy arguments which they knew they would eventually need. The federal government denied that its involvement was based on a supposed connection between same-sex and polygamy reasoning, but it was definitely on Status of Women Canada's mind. The original research proposal stated: "The question of polygamy has also arisen lately in connection with the current public debate on civil marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions,'' says the three-page document from Status of Women Canada.
"Concerns have been raised by some that in changing one aspect of the legal capacity to marry to allow equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples, all of the other aspects of legal capacity may also be vulnerable to attack under the Charter, including the ban on the practice of polygamy.''
A likely goal of the report was to gather data and arguments that could be used to argue that polyygamy laws, while limiting Charter freedoms, were nevertheless justified because polygamy in practice is contrary to women's sexual equality rights.
To (I believe) the surprise of the originators of the proposal, the study, by 3 law professors, concluded 1) that the prohibition on polygamy might indeed be struck down; and 2) that the best solution would be to legalize polygamy.Chief author of the report Martha Bailey told The Canadian Press that criminalizing polygamy serves no good purpose.
"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she said. "We don't criminalize adultery.
"In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society, why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?, Ms. Bailey told The Canadian Press. So the issue is in play and the connection between the arguments is real.
Toral
|
| 73 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:27
|
"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she said. "We don't criminalize adultery.
"In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society, why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?,
Did she ever get an answer, Toral? I certainly haven't, after posing almost the exact question in the initial post in this thread. Good luck to her.
|
| 74 | boikin
ID: 400291013
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:28
|
was there ever any doubts about there relationship, TORAL? though most of the posts here have been written worse than something i would post so i may just not been able to understand.
|
| 75 | Tree
ID: 1411442914
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 13:52
|
tree - see post 6 this thread.
so you're ok with a homosexual couple who have children together being afforded the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple who have children together.
MBJ, Good luck on ever getting an answer...
There's no shame in not having a good answer. I just assume that's the case here.
i'm working on getting your answer first, because it seems to me we believe very similarly.
i don't care if no couples get the benefits, or all couples get the benefits, i just want to see it applied evenly, regardless of sexual orientation.
|
| 76 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Sep 05, 2006, 17:34
|
so you're ok with a homosexual couple who have children together being afforded the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple who have children together
Yes, generally speaking. What I'm not OK with is perverting the Constitution to make believe it says things it doesn't.
|
| 77 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Jun 12, 2007, 22:19
|
Looking for legitmacy
Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.
|
| 78 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 22:32
|
England to subsidize bigamy.
|
| 79 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 06:33
|
Can anyone justify the enforcement of polygamy laws; particularly the criminalization of bigamy?
I assume it has it's basis in religion.
Lots of men walking through the malls here in Dubai with their 4 wives.
In reference to this is should be interesting how china faces the fact that sex ratio of there country is complety out proportion and whether this will lead to pologamy increase there.
I assume you mean a kind of reverse pologamy where a woman could have 2-3 husbands?
My Chinese friend tells me it's against the law there for the doctors to tell the parents what the sex of their babies is in advance. It's also against the law to abort a fetus based on gender.
They understand they have a problem.
|
| 80 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:07
|
I assume you mean a kind of reverse pologamy where a woman could have 2-3 husbands?
the word is polyandry, though techically polygamy is still correct.
polygyny is sounds too much like polygamy so they end up getting used interchangeably.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|