Talk:Bigamy

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genealogy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note

There seems to have been another statute, 4 Ed.1 st.3 c.5, intituled "The Statute of Bigamy". James500 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be biblical support for a man being able to take two wives. In Genesis it talks of the Almighty creating souls and putting half in the man and half in the woman. So we have Adam and his first wife Lillith.

Only later does the Almighty take Adams rib and creates Eve as wife to Adam. Nowhere is there any mention of Adam divorcing Lillith to marry Eve.

So using biblical precedent, can a man legally take two wives or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible does not mention Lillith. The story of Lillith is from a later Jewish legend. Therefore, any conclusion based on the role of Lillith is not relevant to discussing Biblical evidence.Pete unseth (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

In the article of morganatic marriage, there are examples of cases. Perhaps there should be examples here as well? There are some cases in history, called "marriage to the left hand", such as King Frederick William II of Prussia, who married both Julie von Voß and Sophie von Dönhoff while still being married to Frederika Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt, and King Frederick IV of Denmark, who married Elisabeth Helene von Vieregg and Anna Sophie Reventlow still being married to Louise of Mecklenburg-Güstrow --85.226.40.118 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this Sasketchwan stuff?

It makes the article really awful to read 94.194.66.92 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it was unnecessary, so I took the liberty of removing most of it. --Digshake (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the act of entering into a marriage"

As respects the United Kingdom, this expression is probably innacurate as bigamous marriages are deemed to be void and are not, strictly speaking deemed to be marriages at all (which is why interpretation of the expression "shall marry" in section 57 has caused problems as a person who is already married cannot marry again). It would be more accurate to say that it consists of going through a ceremony capable of producing a valid marriage (which is how s.57 has been interpreted). James500 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the technical jargon of the law perhaps, but the entry is not about legal terminology but more generally about bigamy as it is conceived across contexts. That said, I'm not sure the current lead is optimal, but I think your suggestion is much too technical.Griswaldo (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you are correct. I was about to change what I wrote. I agree that the expression is not "innacurate" per se, but it is POV, because the meaning of the word "marriage" depends on the system of law or theology or ethics that is being referred to. To put it another way, the expression is POV because there are people who would not accept that a bigamous "marriage" could be described as a "marriage" at all. Does that sound better? James500 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a separate article "Bigamy" and another "Polygamy"?

For the first time I have looked at articles on this subject here. It is very unclear to me why is there a separate article titled "Bigamy" and another titled "Polygamy"? Is there a principled reason? Could/should these be combined? Pete unseth (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article contents

What should the article contain? Right now, it contains:

a dictionary definition of the term
a (very inconsistently focused) history of the legal concept
what appears to be a content-fork of Legality of polygamy

The history section can probably be expanded. Are there other sections that are necessary? The etymology may be too obvious to need a section on that, but other terms (Estoppel, Alimony) have one.

In general, there's a lot of overlap with Polygamy, but I believe the difference is that "bigamy" is specifically a legal term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

If a reliable source can be found, I think adding Argentina would be valuable to the listing.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]