At Aldebaran’s request, I am opening a new thread.
Serious question. From your posts, I gathered that you spend time in both Belgium and your unnamed Arab country. So I was just wondering how Belgian law treats your bigamy? For example, if you were to die in Belgium, who would inherit your money? Or if you were sick, who would make medical decisions for you? If you were to go on welfare or disability, would both of your wives collect?
Thanks for your reply.
Bigamy? Am I missing something? A link maybe?
Two wives, apparently…
Of course, the word was deliberately chosen for its insulting value.
Bigamy is the act of marrying a second wife, illegally, in a society that only recognizes monogamy.
Aldebaran is apparently engaging in polygyny, the marrying of more than one woman in a society that recognizes that relationship.
He said “wives”, but never said there were only 2.
Wrong, tomndebb, and I must say, as usual.
Bigamy: “the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another”.
The definition of the word does not mention anything illegal about the arrangement, nor does it say anything about which “society” recognizes it.
Do you defend bigamy? Yes, or no.
“Bigamy” is usually employed as a description of a criminal act. As such, it does include an implicit moral disapproval.
But who cares? milroyj is quite free to disapprove of Aldebaran’s apparent lifestyle choice, and it hardly makes him a bigot if he does disapprove. AT
“Bigamy” is usually employed as a description of a criminal act. As such, it does include an implicit moral disapproval.
But who cares? milroyj is quite free to disapprove of Aldebaran’s apparent lifestyle choice, and it hardly makes him a bigot if he does disapprove. At least not in any meaninful sense of the word, that is.
Feel free to criticize my polyposting, too.
What is the great debate ?
I wonder if any of our resident feminists will chime in to express her (dis)approval of bigamy? Err, thought not.
Is bigamy morally acceptable?
Yes it is. I think it is incumbent on the anti- folks to demonstrate that it isn’t.
And how does one go about demonstrating that something is or is not “morally acceptable”?
I tend to agree with John Mace, if only because I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be “morally acceptable”, assuming full knowledge of all parties concerned (and in which case it is probably better termed ‘polygamy’ or similar – ‘bigamy’ (to me) does not infer full knowledge as between all parties
But then milroyj has yet to make his case, so I’m not sure I’m aware of the counter viewpoint. Want to make you case milroyj ?
Sorry, I disagree. For example, if you married another woman, wouldn’t your wife be hurt, to say the least?
I think that deliberately hurting other people is immoral.
Why do you assume wife #1 would be hurt? By your logic, though, it might by immoral not to marry wife #2 in some instances. Supposing wife #2 were terribly hurt if she coudn’t marry you. That is certainly possible.
You need to come up with a better reason.
You allege in your OP Aldebaran is a common criminal i.e. a “bigamist”, when we all know his culture permits multiple marriages. That was intentionally hurtful in any reasonable persons view.
Are you saying immorality is acceptable or are you being a tad contradictory and/or hypocritical ?
I see, and I’m not surprised, that y’all are getting relative on me. A bigamist in America is jailed, but a bigamist in, say Saudi Arabia, is peachy keen. Got it. Moral relativism, and all.
It was NOT intentionally hurtful, not did I call him a common criminal. Either bigamy is immoral, or it’s not. Your choice, I guess.