A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term

« Masturbation Classes

A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term

by ranfuchs ^Pro @ 29/07/2009 – 23:31:07

It wasn’t long ago that premarital sex was punished with death; bustards were forced to live outside the community, and homosexuals would be burnt alive in the village square.

But this is not contemporary England, in which teenage sex and pregnancy is part of our school curriculum, same sex relationships are encouraged, and adultery is natural part of life.

So with traditional marriage being only one of many life-choices, why is bigamy still a crime, and what did Judge Mushhaq Khokar mean when he told a convicted bigamist that she had ‘undermined the institute of marriage’?

Isn’t it time that the court will stop interfering with the way we choose to live?
Options:

15 Comments to A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term

Hide subcomments

- banana ^Pro
- http://poetry4fun.blog.co.uk
- 30/07/2009 @ 09:17:34
Often I agree with you. But not in this case. This was not a lifestyle choice it was a series of frauds perpetrated against men who had no idea they were being 'married' by someone who was not free to make that legal choice.

Polygamy which is what I believe you were supporting is a different kettle of fish. Fair enough if all parties are in agreement, but for anyone to enter into a contract which is what marriage is - fraudulently is not acceptable in my opinion.

This woman led her 'partners' to make financial and emotional commitments and involved their families and caused emotional and financial damage and broke very clear laws in doing so.

My feeling is that had this been a man in court he would have received a far more severe punishment.

As for courts not interfering with how we choose to live - that is the entire purpose of courts. Some people choose to live by defrauding and harming those around them. They should not be given the green light to do so.
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 04/08/2009 @ 15:18:07
  Thank you for agreeing with me often. This is not a privilege I often enjoy.
  
  So just to make sure I understand your argument, your issue is not with the moral or emotional side, but rather with financial impact?
  
  Because if it is not about financial, should emotional damage be the realm of law? You say that polygamy is ok if all side agree? But isn’t that a moral discussion rather than a legal one? After all, what about having a few boyfriends? Is this also a matter of law?
  
  In modern UK, people are innocent unless proven guilty, but this does not mean that courts should try to prove everyone guilty, before we declare them innocent.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 30/07/2009 @ 14:27:21
The "institute" of marriage??? Or institution? Anyway, look up the defintion of marriage. To my knowledge it is a contract between two parties to the exclusion of other parties. If you wish to enter into multiple contracts, choose their nature carefully before you commit yourself. It's like you enter into a contract of sale of your car... with three different parties. It's obviously dishonest because you know from the outset you cannot deliver on all those three contracts as you only have one car.
I think this isn't abuot lifestyle but the logistics of contractual relationships. Marriage is nothing more than that anyway, but hey! the good news is it can be legally terminated before you commit yourself to the next one.
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 04/08/2009 @ 15:28:22
  Well, it depends what definition you are looking for: it can be contract between a man and a woman, but no more. In many places there can be more than one woman (go to Salt lake city, for instance)
  
  I am glad that you equate yourself to a car, and I do think about an institute when talking about marriage.
  - - deleted user (Visitor)
    - 04/08/2009 @ 17:02:19
    I am looking at the same definition as the court of law would be looking at. Don't you think we have to maintain that perspective when we're evaluation the court's decision in this matter? If were were talking about moral assessments, the definition could be more fluid. No point arguing with you though. And no, I don't equate myself to a car. Whatever gave you that idea? No need to answer. It's a rhethoric question.
    - - ranfuchs ^Pro
      - 05/08/2009 @ 12:10:56
      legally, as the law stands now, you are right. But it's not the court decision that I am evaluating, the court followed the law. It's the law itself that I find hypocritical.
      
      The definition of marriage has changed so many times. What court of law? At what period? 10 years ago in the UK it still stated man and woman, now it doesn't.
      
      Thanks for not wanting an answer for what gave me the idea
      - deleted user (Visitor)
        
        05/08/2009 @ 12:53:58
        
        You can challenge the law all you like, as long as you obey it.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        ranfuchs ^Pro
        
        05/08/2009 @ 13:22:24
        
        do you obey all laws?
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        deleted user (Visitor)
        
        08/08/2009 @ 10:55:57
        
        Those that apply to me, I try. But it isn't about me, it's about you. You seem to have a desire to revolutionise the law so that it reflects the moral values of the street. Well, all good, but then there are also some moral pressures on the horizon that may twist the law into a weapon against our culture.
        Believe me, child, revolution isn't the answer. Laws have to be thought through and preferably tested in unwritten form for decades before they are committed to paper.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        ranfuchs ^Pro
        
        09/08/2009 @ 13:28:40
        
        I believe you grandma. Thanks
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- avenscent
- 04/08/2009 @ 15:48:47
Its a mystery to me why any one bothers to keep marrying anybody any way what are they trying to proove.
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 05/08/2009 @ 12:01:24
  in some countries it makes no difference. In the UK, there are still some legal differences as far as inheritance etc are concerned.
  
  Yet, many get married because they believe they make a statement. Some would claim it’s an empty statement.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- kaimi0achava
- 18/08/2009 @ 03:15:14
Inheritance can be a minefield. Or should that read marriage?
- - ranfuchs ^Pro
  - 18/08/2009 @ 04:00:20
  marriage is a mindfield
  - - kaimi0achava
    - 19/08/2009 @ 00:54:03
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink

A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term
by ranfuchs on 29/07/2009 – 23:31:07
Masturbation Classes
by ranfuchs on 14/07/2009 – 07:14:31
High Moral Ground
by ranfuchs on 14/07/2009 – 00:58:14
Ministers Vow to Continue Afghanistan attack
by ranfuchs on 13/07/2009 – 22:09:06
Afghanistan campaign is our patriotic duty
by ranfuchs on 12/07/2009 – 14:28:07
The queen and tax money
by ranfuchs on 05/07/2009 – 13:42:00
A Muslim teacher in a veil was barred from a catholic school
by ranfuchs on 05/07/2009 – 12:18:25
A great moment for English democracy
by ranfuchs on 17/05/2009 – 14:29:50
I am not a guest here
by ranfuchs on 17/05/2009 – 11:55:57
Greed for Masticators
by ranfuchs on 12/05/2009 – 22:57:13

A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term

15 Comments to A bigamist received a ten month suspended prison term

Leave a comment (Login)