Welfare for Polygamous unions!

[Adelle]

this should stop immediately. Polygamy is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

Your 100% correct. It should be de-criminalized immediately. No relationship freely entered into by consenting persons (including polyamourous relationships) should be subject to government censure or prosecution. It’s no ones business but those involved and would be subject to the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as any other historically accepted relationship. We had to go through this with same-sex relationships and marriage just as we had to with inter-racial relationships and marriage. This time lets just cut to the chase and get it done with out all the alarmist rhetoric and hand wringing about what it will do to society and “the children”.

[Oleg Bach]

Your 100% correct. It should be de-criminalized immediately. No relationship freely entered into by consenting persons (including polyamourous relationships) should be subject to government censure or prosecution. It’s no ones business but those involved and would be subject to the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as any other historically accepted relationship. We had to go through this with same-sex relationships and marriage just as we had to with inter-racial relationships and marriage. This time lets just cut to the chase and get it done with out all the alarmist rhetoric and hand wringing about what it will do to society and “the children”.

瓦塔波提。。。。

[Shakeyhands]

Simple soulution is to eliminate welfare for anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time while not allowing those who can't to immigrate here.

The problem isn't the muslims or religion is general but our lax welfare system.

No able bodied immigrant should be on welfare.

Quite right, but I will change that to no able bodied Canadian should be on welfare. Welfare should be viewed as a last resort safe guard to be used only as necessary and temporarily.

I'd go the the roles and investigate anyone that is on it longer than say 4-6 months.

[Oleg Bach]

Quite right, but I will change that to no able bodied Canadian should be on welfare. Welfare should be viewed as a last resort safe guard to be used only as necessary and temporarily.

I'd go the the roles and investigate anyone that is on it longer than say 4-6 months.

Imagine this - corporate welfare where the big cheese has a long term relationship with a staff member and supports her with perks...that is a form of polygamy also. Having said that..the standard welfare system is by design made to benefit big buisness..the more on welfare - the more money big buisness makes and the tax payer foots the bill - forget about subsidized housing that is owned by the banks..just think of the thousands that are addicted to pharma product..and the money goes to big buisness...as far as a welfare payment- they are Draconian in nature. It reminds me of the Brave Heart movie..where the Lords..starve the poor into submission..all welfare policy is dictated by those old coots that run big buisness..."what do you mean they won't work in my fish head soup factory for 8 bucks an hour that equals 5 dollars after taxes"...there is no charity in Canada - just coersion and abuse of the poor under the guise of charity.

Look at that insidiously evil United Way that behaves much like the reformed Red Cross that generated millions in interest from the Tsunami relief money...and now - a few years later say they still have a few hundred million left that is "ear marked" to build 6ooo homes..You would think that if these so called charities were legit they would have build the homes for the devestated immediately instead of hording the money for their own use.....people do not put themselves on welfare -some times it's the best and the brightest who end up on the dole- those with ethics and an independent spirit of true civlity that will not tow the abusive corporporate line of parasitic usery of society.

[freakinbox]

I personally look at it this way. If you immigrate here but then can't afford to live here, they should go back to their own countries. We are at the point of supporting other nations by bringing them in. You look what older generations of immigrants went through to be here. They didn't show up and expect hand outs. They showed up and worked like no tomorrow because they came here with NOTHING. don't let alot of the immigrants fool you, they are not BROKE. Italians for instance. Came here but they had almost nothing there and moved here in hope to actually work to better themselves. People are getting to lazy.

I think they want us to be to accepting to their values and beliefs to the point they are wanting us to ban our own and throw them out the window... If we went there do you think we'd be accepted and they would allow us to celebrate our own religious holidays and traditions? NO most of those countries would kill us for being westerners. I am not saying we should take away their rights and tell them they can't do this and that. But we shouldn't change our laws to accomidate everything about them.

[noahbody]

Remember how the enlightened left said those knuckle draggers that claimed that gay marriage was the Slippery Slope and would lead to Polygamy, etc. were hate mongers, monsters etc. Now the taxpayer of Ontario is sucking up the tab for multiple wives of Moslems here on welfare. My My. Wait till they start marrying their goats.

Edited March 18, 2008 by noahbody

[WIP]

Your 100% correct. It should be de-criminalized immediately. No relationship freely entered into by consenting persons (including polyamourous relationships) should be subject to government censure or prosecution. It’s no ones business but those involved and would be subject to the same privileges, rights and responsibilities as any other historically accepted relationship. We had to go through this with same-sex relationships and marriage just as we had to with inter-racial relationships and marriage. This time lets just cut to the chase and get it done with out all the alarmist rhetoric and hand wringing about what it will do to society and “the children”.

I'll set aside the fact that women imported from Muslim countries as 2nd and 3rd wives are not going to be likely to speak out against this arrangement and focus on the fact that societies which feature widespread polygamy cannot function as a modern democratic states. Countries in the MiddleEast and West Africa that are polygamous, have the highest birthrates and the widest income gaps between rich and poor in the world. This strengthens the power of wealthy patriarchs who become warlords, and with their large families to back them, they become entrenched feudal lords that rule any local government. The most powerful warlords can even grow big enough to conquer nations, Saudi Arabia is a case in point.

But the most dangerous and destabilizing feature is that most marriageable women are "bought" by wealthy men and the nation is left with a large group of young, single men who have no realistic opportunity to get married and have families of their own. The Saudis deal with this problem by sending surplus young men off to wage jihad and hope they never return. Strangely enough, polygamous Mormon communities in Utah and Arizona have dealt with surplus boys in a similar manner: by expelling them from the community. Do you still think allowing polygamy is a good idea?

Since polygamy is still illegal, my question is why doesn't the government have the stones to prosecute Muslim polygamists? If some of their wives are collecting welfare, then they can be nailed for non-support also!

[Sean Hayward]

The real question is: are the multiple spouses really in the relationship of their own free will? Probably not, especially if the marriage took place in some backward third world society. Whether polygamy should or should not be legal is a very difficult question. But they certainly should not be receiving any kind of financial support from the government.

[Qwerty]

It won't be long til people can have Sharia law and marry their hockey sticks...the brilliant looney left strikes again. They opened the door with this gay marriage crap.

[guyser]

It won't be long til people can have Sharia law and marry their hockey sticks...the brilliant looney left strikes again. They opened the door with this gay marriage crap.

Hmm...Sharia Law, nope wont happen.

Marry a hockey stick. Nope wont happen -too many splinters , but with the new one piece carbon who knows.

Gay marriage..hmm...I dont know, I would just think that giving equal rights to all people is the right thing to do.

By the way, if you are gay you have nothing to worry about. Not a thing. You wont catch the "gay" if you around them.You wont catch AIDS from a toilet seat. If you go to the Pride Parade in June about the only thing you will catch is the infectious disease called fun....they have a lot of that. No cure for fun times either.

But didnt you join the catholic church? Wow, now there is one institution that continues on the path of spreading AIDS . Blame your church.

[Qwerty]

Hmm...Sharia Law, nope wont happen.

Marry a hockey stick. Nope wont happen -too many splinters , but with the new one piece carbon who knows.

Gay marriage..hmm...I dont know, I would just think that giving equal rights to all people is the right thing to do.

By the way, if you are gay you have nothing to worry about. Not a thing. You wont catch the "gay" if you around them.You wont catch AIDS from a toilet seat. If you go to the Pride Parade in June about the only thing you will catch is the infectious disease called fun....they have a lot of that. No cure for fun times either.

But didnt you join the catholic church? Wow, now there is one institution that continues on the path of spreading AIDS . Blame your church.

I'm starting to think that you have a crush on me...what, the way you follow me around and post right after me all the time ...lol...

[guyser]

I'm starting to think that you have a crush on me...what, the way you follow me around and post right after me all the time ...lol...

I doubt it. The last guy that couldnt hold up his end of the debate said the same thing. Called me a gay boy he did.

Seems a pattern is forming.

[Qwerty]

I doubt it. The last guy that couldnt hold up his end of the debate said the same thing. Called me a gay boy he did.

Seems a pattern is forming.

Well by your own analogy isn't not granting polygamy against the Charter of rights and freedoms then?

It is part of their religion so it should be allowed right?

This is the problem that allowing gay marriage started, how can you say no to polygamy now?

Edited April 17, 2008 by Qwerty

[guyser]

Well by your own analogy isn't not granting polygamy against the Charter of rights and freedoms then?

It is part of their religion so it should be allowed right?

This is the problem that allowing gay marriage started, how can you say no to polygamy now?

Easy, one + one (human) can be married . But I could not care less if polygamy is legal or not.It almost is the way the country turns a blind eye to it.

[Qwerty]

Easy, one + one (human) can be married . But I could not care less if polygamy is legal or not.It almost is the way the country turns a blind eye to it.

lol, go squeegee a window kid.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Qwerty

[WIP]

Well by your own analogy isn't not granting polygamy against the Charter of rights and freedoms then?

It is part of their religion so it should be allowed right?

This is the problem that allowing gay marriage started, how can you say no to polygamy now?

No, allowing two men or two women to get married does not open the door to allowing polygamy. There are public safety issues at stake in the case of polygamy, since its legality comes to attention interwoven with patriarchal religions (L.D.S. & Islam) that are based on an unequal standard between men and women. Women are restricted to one husband, where a man can have multiple wives. The wives and their children, have to vie for the attention of one man, so every legal examination of polygamy - like the Bountiful Community - comes away with the conclusion that the family structure violates the provisions for equality, and that they should supersede the guarantees of freedom of religion. And there is a recognition that polygamous unions will result in large numbers of children who are not adequately provided for. In many cases, the second and third wives are set up in separate residences as single mothers and they and their children are supported by the welfare system.

In some cases, there is a prevailing culture of female subordination in polygamous households and this is particularly harmful for female children (Wing 2001: 817). For female children, their mother is the most important role model through which they may glimpse their own future. While not without its roots in patriarchy, the legal system and socio-economic structure of Canadian society is informed by the value of formal equality, which feminists and many others believe should stress the freedom of a female to choose her own path in life and associate with anyone she desires. However, this is certainly not the reality of the family environment in the typical polygamous Bountiful household. The idea that a man is the dominant voice in a household and that various female subordinates must vie for his attention is not one that ensures optimum freedom for young females to choose their future direction. These lessons are also negative for the male children in the family, as they learn their notions about women and their unequal status from their family experiences as well.

Polygamy as practised in Bountiful is harmful to children, women and society, because it perpetuates a value system premised on the idea that women have no place in a community as fully equal citizens. Certainly, a value system predicated on the concentration of political and religious authority in the hands of a few men is one that neither respects nor fosters free, critical thought and independent action. In Bountiful, the children of polygamous unions are raised in an environment where women are told what to believe and are controlled entirely by men; they are conditioned to believe that women are subject to the will of their husband. Furthermore, they see that although their mother only has the one husband to whom they owe complete devotion and loyalty, that male can have as many wives as he wishes.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/06624...0683-4_7_e.html

Limits on Freedom of Religion in Canada

While the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada seem to disagree on whether the limits to freedom of religion should be applied during the Charter s. 2(a) analysis or during the Charter s. 1 stage, they do recognize that there are limits to the right. These limits appear to fall into one of three categories: conflicts with other rights, harm (individual and public safety), and significant societal interests. While there are no legal decisions indicating how the court might view polygamy law as a limit on freedom of religion, other cases provide guidance as to how such an issue would be decided.

In Amselem, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that often individual rights will compete with each other. In fact, although a broad and expansive interpretation of freedom of religion should be taken initially, the court noted that "our jurisprudence does not allow individuals to do absolutely anything in the name of that freedom."123 The court went on to say:

Even if individuals demonstrate that they sincerely believe in the religious essence of an action, for example, that a particular practice will subjectively engender a genuine connection with the divine or with the subject or object of their faith, and even if they demonstrate non-trivial or non-insubstantial interference with that practice, they will still have to consider how the exercise of their right impacts upon the rights of others in the context of competing rights of individuals. Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected. The ultimate protection of any particular Charter right must be measured in relation to other rights and with a view to the underlying context in which the apparent conflict arises.124

In Amselem, the majority of the Supreme Court held that the intrusions or effect on the respondent's right to personal security and right to enjoy property (by allowing the appellants to exercise their freedom of religion) were minimal and could not be considered as imposing valid limits on the exercise of freedom of religion.125 http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/06624...0683-4_8_e.html

These problems all show that allowing polygamy raises many problems for society that allowing gay marriage does not. So they should be treated both ethically and legally as two separate issues.

Edited April 19, 2008 by WIP

[Qwerty]

WIP.

I have a problem with your logic and those of similar thinking.

The right basically cited the exact same thing when fighting gay marriages and now the left in this country is using the same argument for polygamy...basically that it is damaging to the fabric of society and goes against traditional Canadian values but gays are marrying anyways now in the church which is absurd and a mortal sin but that is for another argument.

So the left can use these arguments when it suits their own needs?

Yet another example of the left speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

[fellowtraveller]

Just as there is no reason to discriminate against people marrying because if their gender or sexuality, there is no reason to discriminate against people who choose to have more than one marriage partner. None. You truly cannot have it both ways, which is why nobody in Canada has been charged with the 'crime' of polygamy since the 1930s.

And if they are charged with all the recent publicity about Bountiful, it is hard to imagine the laws standing a Charter challenge.

And really- as long as all partners to a domestic arrangement are

consenting adults

, why should we care? If the chief proponents of polygamy happen to be non-mainstream religions, why should we care about that either. The legalization of same sex marriage has surely taught us tolerance for tohers views, right? Just as I am not required to become a homosexual because of SSM laws, I am not required to marry one, two or more other people just because it is legal.

And really, polygamy is -by dint of complete lack of enforcement- de facto legal now.

[WIP]

WIP.

I have a problem with your logic and those of similar thinking.

The right basically cited the exact same thing when fighting gay marriages and now the left in this country is using the same argument for polygamy...basically that it is damaging to the fabric of society and goes against traditional Canadian values but gays are marrying anyways now in the church which is absurd and a mortal sin but that is for another argument.

So the left can use these arguments when it suits their own needs?

Yet another example of the left speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

Well, I'm not exactly on the left, but I am for freedom and making public policy decisions based a rational examination of the evidence...............so I guess that makes everyone who is not a raving fundamentalist loon some sort of commie by that line of thinking.

If you believe that polygamy is okay because it's in the Bible, and gay marriage is bad because Mosaic Law advocated stoning homosexuals to death, then your notion of good and bad is tied to adherence to an arbitrary set of rules; not which institution will actually cause harm to others.

Simple fact is that gays are a small minority of the population, so it does not have the opportunity to have as much impact on society as if polygamy came back in style! Besides, most gay couples (even lesbians)have few children, and those that do raise them in what are otherwise typical two-parent households. My son had a friend in the early grades who had "two mommies;" I'm not sure how they handled all of the gender identity issues, but before they moved away a couple of years ago, there was no sign that the two kids exhibited any signs of gender-nonconformity (usually an advance indicator that a child may be gay when they reach adulthood).

On the other hand, if you look at polygamous communities like Bountiful or that one in Texas, or Muslim countries that allow polygamy, the first thing that jumps out at you are the large numbers of children ( "be fruitful and multiply"); these women are baby factories and obviously will have no opportunities in life other than producing offspring for their patriarchs! The alarm raised by the population explosion among those early Mormons in the 19th Century was a key reason why Americans, who had become tolerant of the many oddball cults that grew up during that time, could not tolerate this one.

If there are any more reasons needed to shut down these polygamous compounds, there is another crisis created by polygamy that wasn't addressed in the previous articles posted: these communities end up with surplus boys who are driven out of the community because the patriarchs fear that unmarried young men will be competition for their women, married or otherwise! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy

[WIP]

Just as there is no reason to discriminate against people marrying because if their gender or sexuality, there is no reason to discriminate against people who choose to have more than one marriage partner. None.

Oh yes there are! And I've already listed them above.

You truly cannot have it both ways, which is why nobody in Canada has been charged with the 'crime' of polygamy since the 1930s. And if they are charged with all the recent publicity about Bountiful, it is hard to imagine the laws standing a Charter challenge.

Failure to enforce the law (polygamy and bigamy are still criminal offences) is already being interpreted as de facto recognition of polygamy. That charter of rights challenge could easily be shot down since the Supreme Court has already determined that Freedom of Religion provisions are not absolute. If they threaten individual or public safety, the religious practises of a community are over-ruled. This has already been tested in cases such as Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions because of religious beliefs.

And really- as long as all partners to a domestic arrangement are , why should we care? If the chief proponents of polygamy happen to be non-mainstream religions, why should we care about that either. The legalization of same sex marriage has surely taught us tolerance for tohers views, right? Just as I am not required to become a homosexual because of SSM laws, I am not required to marry one, two or more other people just because it is legal.

And really, polygamy is -by dint of complete lack of enforcement- de facto legal now.

If there is one glaring weakness of secular liberalism, it's this principle of privatizing issues regarding religion,ethics and morality, so that issues of conscience are never examined in public. This is part of the reason why abortion is always a contentious issue! Liberals refuse to take a stand on the moral implications of abortion at various stages of life, passing it along as "the right to choose," instead of taking a stand on if, when, and what stages abortion is an ethical procedure. The only ones who talk about the moral implications are the conservative pro-lifers, and since religion is a private matter, their primary reasons for opposing all abortion right from the stage of fertilization are never addressed in the public debates of the issue. So it becomes one more social issue that can never be settled.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh yes there are! And I've already listed them above.

Failure to enforce the law (polygamy and bigamy are still criminal offences) is already being interpreted as de facto recognition of polygamy. That charter of rights challenge could easily be shot down since the Supreme Court has already determined that Freedom of Religion provisions are not absolute. If they threaten individual or public safety, the religious practises of a community are over-ruled. This has already been tested in cases such as Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions because of religious beliefs.

If there is one glaring weakness of secular liberalism, it's this principle of privatizing issues regarding religion,ethics and morality, so that issues of conscience are never examined in public. This is part of the reason why abortion is always a contentious issue! Liberals refuse to take a stand on the moral implications of abortion at various stages of life, passing it along as "the right to choose," instead of taking a stand on if, when, and what stages abortion is an ethical procedure. The only ones who talk about the moral implications are the conservative pro-lifers, and since religion is a private matter, their primary reasons for opposing all abortion right from the stage of fertilization are never addressed in the public debates of the issue. So it becomes one more social issue that can never be settled.

I think that may be the first time I've been accused of being a liberal, if that is what you meant. I'm certain I have never been accused of being a Liberal, a far more scathing accusation.

You overlook the obvious: despite the massive publicity of Boutniful and the incarceration of Warren Jeffs, no charge have been laid in Bountiful for the reasons I have stated. Polygamy, under the Charter and with SSM as a recent precedent- cannot be legally challenged, or not successfully challenged. If it were, it would have happened already.

Except for Godbotherers, the 'morality' or 'conscience' is irrelevant under the law. You may not like that, but life is so much less stressful when you accept the inevitable. There is zero threat to individual or public safety with polygamy , just as there is none with same sex marriage. Gangs of queers have not been on the rampage, forcing young men and women into lives of depravity and sodomy since the SSM law was passed. Likewise, Polygamists are no threat to people who prefer conventional marriage models. And this of course all assumes, as it must, that only consenting adults are involved in the marriages. The same thing -of course- applies to anybody involved in conventional or samesex unions- where there is duress, there is no contract.

It is pretty much a done deal, like it or not.

If you don't like it, press for a change in the Charter.

[WIP]

I think that may be the first time I've been accused of being a liberal, if that is what you meant. I'm certain I have never been accused of being a Liberal, a far more scathing accusation.

I was referring specifically to the secular liberal principle that all religious or faith beliefs should be kept private and not mentioned when social or ethical issues are discussed. This is why issues like gay marriage, abortion and now polygamy are continually rehashed and never settled. No one seems to deal with why these groups want polygamy in the first place and why it always means men having many wives and not the other way around. The religious beliefs that motivate Mormon and Muslim advocates of polygamy should also be part of the debate.

You overlook the obvious: despite the massive publicity of Boutniful and the incarceration of Warren Jeffs, no charge have been laid in Bountiful for the reasons I have stated. Polygamy, under the Charter and with SSM as a recent precedent- cannot be legally challenged, or not successfully challenged. If it were, it would have happened already.

I went through the trouble of digging up the evidence that polygamy is still illegal and would survive a court challenge on the basis of freedom of religion, so I'm not going to bother all over again. The reason no charges have been laid has more to do with government officials' aversion to controversy and potential confrontations. The officials in Texas held off raiding the FLDS compound for years because they feared another Waco. And it's because the government is paralysed with fear, that polygamy may become legal! If no one takes action and polygamous Mormon groups flourish, Muslims with extra wives overseas will be able to lobby successfully to have them recognized as well.

Except for Godbotherers, the 'morality' or 'conscience' is irrelevant under the law. You may not like that, but life is so much less stressful when you accept the inevitable. There is zero threat to individual or public safety with polygamy , just as there is none with same sex marriage. Gangs of queers have not been on the rampage, forcing young men and women into lives of depravity and sodomy since the SSM law was passed.

I guess you didn't read my points about gay marriage, because I pointed out that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious taboos and not potential harm to others, since homosexuals will always be a minority of the total population and as a group, have few children. But a quick examination of Mormon and Muslim polygamists finds a huge population of children.

From an anthropological view, polygamy becomes a standard form of family structure in warrior cultures, where men frequently die in battle and there is a larger percentage of women as a result. It is a practical method to keep the group from disappearing as a result of the pressures from frequent conflicts with enemies. But, in a modern society with equal numbers of men and women, there are too many surplus young men hanging around. Since the elders recognize they can become a destabilizing force, they kick them out, just as the Saudis solve the problem by sending them off to wage Jihad.

Likewise, Polygamists are no threat to people who prefer conventional marriage models. And this of course all assumes, as it must, that only consenting adults are involved in the marriages. The same thing -of course- applies to anybody involved in conventional or samesex unions- where there is duress, there is no contract.

It is pretty much a done deal, like it or not.

If you don't like it, press for a change in the Charter.

Those articles I posted excerpts from earlier, pointed out how girls raised in closed polygamous societies do not have the same opportunities to give consent that a young woman growing up in a free society does; and it also pointed out the examples where the Charter guarantees of freedom of religion are trumped where there are issues that cause harm. The failure of the government to enforce the anti-polygamy rules is already a violation of the Charter Rights guaranteeing safety and protection from harm. The full text listed many points that I didn't have room to include:

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/06624...0683-4_7_e.html

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/06624...0683-4_8_e.html