Jump to content

Polygamy Law goes to BC Supreme Court


Michael Hardner

What do you think ?  

15 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm a homophobe because I support the traditional,and only the traditional form of marriage???

The traditionaly form of marriage? Thats kinda scary.

Traditionally marriages were arranged by parents in order to further themselves socially and financially, and the women were basically the property of their husbands, and couldnt testify against them in court.

Traditional marriage is a pretty shitty deal for the women. Luckily... bad traditions are left behind we redefine things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditionaly form of marriage? Thats kinda scary.

Traditionally marriages were arranged by parents in order to further themselves socially and financially, and the women were basically the property of their husbands, and couldnt testify against them in court.

Traditional marriage is a pretty shitty deal for the women. Luckily... bad traditions are left behind we redefine things.

Give it a rest...You know what I'm talking about...

By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it a rest...You know what I'm talking about...

By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage?

No Im just pointing out that marriage as you know it today is NOT the "traditional" version. Its changed... a lot.

By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage?

Nope. I dont have any reason to think youre a bad guy and Im sure you treat your wife just fine. But you DONT treat your wife like wifes were treated in "traditional marriage" so using "tradition" as a reason why marriage shouldnt change now is not a compelling or reasonable argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Im just pointing out that marriage as you know it today is NOT the "traditional" version. Its changed... a lot.

Nope. I dont have any reason to think youre a bad guy and Im sure you treat your wife just fine. But you DONT treat your wife like wifes were treated in "traditional marriage" so using "tradition" as a reason why marriage shouldnt change now is not a compelling or reasonable argument.

OK....

The traditional form of marriage being between a man and women with all the modern societal advancements women have made???

Is that acceptable???

My wife comes from a place where polygamy is legal...It's a horrendous idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK....

The traditional form of marriage being between a man and women with all the modern societal advancements women have made???

Is that acceptable???

My wife comes from a place where polygamy is legal...It's a horrendous idea...

once I finish considering all the plus sides to polygamy ;)...the thought of two, three or four mrs wylys berating me for not shoveling the driveway, forgetting to take out the garbage or painting the house again, takes shine off the idea...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contend that you look off into the future perhaps too much. Standing on the corner... gazing off into the future....

Plant your feet and discuss the here and now, my friend.

The prolonged indulgence of the visionary mind in time becomes quite useless and not very practical in the here and now..I take your advice seriously my friend..might be time to do some real work in the real here and now..enough soothe saying I suppose..Besides - sometimes visions project and create the present and I would not want to be found guilty in the end of being partly responsible for creating a more nasty world...thanks Michael.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prolonged indulgence of the visionary mind in time becomes quite useless and not very practical in the here and now..I take your advice seriously my friend..might be time to do some real work in the real here and now..enough soothe saying I suppose..Besides - sometimes visions project and create the present and I would not want to be found guilty in the end of being partly responsible for creating a more nasty world...thanks Michael.

Do you like people ? If so, I heartily recommend the service industry for you. The pay is poor, but the education and self-development is immense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the case, the numerous reviews of what's going on in Bountiful have yet to turn up any evidence of it.

ya there is child sexual abuse going on somewhere in canada every single day, unless someone complains(the victim) there's nothing anyone can do...and it's a seperate issue from polygamy...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya there is child sexual abuse going on somewhere in canada every single day, unless someone complains(the victim) there's nothing anyone can do...and it's a seperate issue from polygamy...

My point is that Bountiful has been investigated a number of times, both by Provincial ministries and by the RCMP. If there is abuse going on, these guys are pretty damned good at hiding it. Pursuing polygamists from these Mormon sects, both in Canada and the US, is very damned hard to do, as evidenced by the fiasco in Arizona last year.

The bigger question of polygamy is a tough one. My more social libertarian streak tells me I don't think we have much right to tell people how to live their lives, and certainly monogamy cannot guarantee the safety of children or of wives, so it's not like we can reasonably make that argument. My gut has that "ick factor" reaction, but I don't think that these things should be settled by subjective gut instincts. If there is a sound, rational, objective reason to ban polygamy, then let's hear it. But child and spousal abuse don't really cut the mustard; first of all because they seem predicated mainly on what these polygamous Mormom sects do, and not on the wider question of whether all polygamous relationships must lead to that place. To maintain a ban on entire kind of marriage because of allegations (unproven in the Bountiful case) of child abuse against one group of polygamists seems quite wrongheaded.

Let's put this another way. If polygamy were allowed, does that mean we stop pursuing spousal assault and child abuse, forced marriages of those below any reasonable age of consent, that sort of thing? I doubt it. These things happen in monogamous families, as well, and where there the Crown has some hope of demonstrating wrongdoing and achieving a conviction, cases against people who perpetrate these sorts of things can be built.

Quite frankly, legalizing these unions is not exactly going to alter the situation all that much. Polygamy was never all that common even in the cultures where it was accepted. For most men, it's never been all that economically feasible to keep multiple wives, and as often as not it has been wealthier members of those societies who have practiced it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the case, the numerous reviews of what's going on in Bountiful have yet to turn up any evidence of it.

What about the two women who escaped?

"We are not individuals, we are not persons," Jensen says. "Our hearts and souls are killed before we even get a chance to know ourselves."

While not all children are subject to physical and sexual abuse, Jensen says that all -- boys and girls -- are victims of mental abuse. The goal, she says, is to make sure they are "empty vessels, so that righteous brothers could fill you up and lead you to exaltation.

"This is not a religion," says Jensen, who managed to avoid marriage to her "assigned" 60-year-old husband when she was 16, and married a young man from another sect after the family had moved to Arizona.

It even goes beyond polygamy... to the whole idea of arranged marriage. Minors being "assigned" to 60 year old husbands isnt acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the two women who escaped?

And no charges were laid, because no evidence was found to support them. Bountiful has been under the microscope several times now. The last attempt by the Crown to drag these guys to court lead to a very strong rebuke by the presiding judge. It was a blatant abuse of process. Even with all the circumstantial evidence, enough questions have been raised about the validity of statements made by former members of the community to demonstrate the impossibility of conviction.

It even goes beyond polygamy... to the whole idea of arranged marriage. Minors being "assigned" to 60 year old husbands isnt acceptable.

I'll agree, to the point that a minor is being forced into a marriage and being forced into the conjugal relations that go along with. But a promise of marriage is not marriage. There are arranged marriages among other social groups in Canada, and providing both parties have the power to end the arrangement prior to the actual act of matrimony itself, it isn't incompatible with Canadian law.

Again, you're invoking things that are not simply the province of a few Mormon sect weirdos in southern BC.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBC Story

My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted.

Seriously? What religion requires polygamy?

Not Christianity, that's for sure.

This comes from a bunch of law students, who want to take marriage apart for ideological reasons. In other words, it is a part of a conscious program to destroy the family on the basis that forming one endows those married with rights that other people don't have! Example: Married people do not have to testify against each other in court. The study points out that unmarried people do not have this right. They actually propose that unmarried people get to choose someone who can't testify against them, simply to remove this heinous bit of discrimination.

Martha Bailey, Queen's University law professor and chief author of the now infamous report advocating the decriminalization of polygamy, played an important organizing role in the Beyond Conjugality project (translation: the "Abolish Marriage" project). In 2004, Bailey published an article, "Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada," arguing that, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians would be able to turn their attention to the more urgent business of abolishing marriage itself. (That article is the source of items #2, #3, and #4 above.) So it is hardly surprising that Bailey has now called for the decriminalization of polygamy. What's that you say? How does legalizing polygamous marriage advance the cause of abolishing marriage? Canadians, I'm going to have to spell it out for you in a way that Martha Bailey and her friends on the Law Commission of Canada will not.

The plan

It's like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what Bailey and her friends really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.

The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country's liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by Bailey's polygamy report, even though the judicial elite's intentions had been completely public for five years. (Granted, these intentions were telegraphed in a semi-incomprehensible intellectual gibberish, with the really scary stuff hidden in footnotes.)

If it were merely a matter of a few thousand so-called "Mormon fundamentalists," legalized polygamy wouldn't stand a chance in Canada. Even the addition of Canada's rapidly growing Muslim immigrant population wouldn't create a winning pro-polygamy coalition (although pressure from Canada's Muslims does matter). It's the many and powerful legal elites (including judges)--the ones who see marriage itself as an outdated and oppressive patriarchal institution who make decriminalizing polygamy something to worry about.

What's that you say? You still don't understand how a bunch of liberal-feminist elites could even think about supporting an "oppressively patriarchal" institution like polygamy? I guess you still just don't get it. Read Bailey's report and you will see that she does not endorse traditional "patriarchal" polygamy. Bailey's whole point is that Canada can decriminalize polygamy without endorsing what "fundamentalist Mormons" or Islamic immigrants actually do.

But why would Bailey favor that? Simple. Canada's antipolygamy laws stand in the way of Bailey's true goal: the creation of a modern, secular, "non-patriarchal" relationship system that would allow for marriage-like unions in any combination of number or gender. That would mean the effective abolition of marriage. But to get to the postmodern version of multi-partner unions, Canada's old-fashioned anti-polygamy laws have got to go.

This is from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+conspiracy+to+abolish+marriage%3A+Martha+Bailey+and+the+Law+Reform...-a0151394664

If you want to look at the report, it's can be tracked down at: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/beyond_conjugality.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...