Warren Jeffs and FLDS

[Oleg Bach]

Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.

It`s not that they are oppressive - it is in the fact that they are not fully committed relationships. There is no real loyalty..because one can constantly shift affection and attention from one wife to the other then back again - it because a constant and on going state of manipultaion - in other words - a stream of lies. That is no way for anyone to live.

[betsy]

Since I've brought up NAMBLA, the Catholic Church cabal, and homosexual pedophilia....I've brought up the two ancient topics ("Pedophiles line up...." and EGALE)that dealt with the same subject. Unfortunately, they turned up in Federal Politics.

Edited August 7, 2011 by betsy

[Oleg Bach]

Since I've brought up NAMBLA, the Catholic Church cabal, and homosexual pedophilia....I've brought up the two ancient topics ("Pedophiles line up...." and EGALE)that dealt with the same subject. Unfortunately, they turned up in Federal Politics.

There was no point in you bringing up this garbage - we all know were the evil is - no need to rub shit in the faces of our members...forget about this crap and post something helpful.

[betsy]

Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.

But then again, it's a speculation that these women in polygamous marriages have been coersced....or just simply brainwashed as children.

We say the same thing about women in burquas! That it's oppressive to women....or that they're just being coersced into waering them....not to mention the overall treatment of women as chatels.

YET, Sharia Law is accepted in England, and if I'm not mistaken....I've read somewhere that it's also quietly operating in Toronto.

You need not even have to look far beyond our borders. First Nations women were just recently given some fairness by the Federal Government regarding their divorce laws! After all these years of feminism....those women who really need the feminists' help appear to be invisible!

Or simply ignored!

Why single out polygamy....if your reasons for doing so is about women's right?

It is the least of your worries.

Edited August 7, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

But then again, it's a speculation that these women in polygamous marriages have been coersced....or just simply brainwashed as children.

We say the same thing about women in burquas! That it's oppressive to women....or that they're just being coersced into waering them....not to mention the overall treatment of women as chatels.

YET, Sharia Law is accepted in England, and if I'm not mistaken....I've read somewhere that it's also quietly operating in Toronto.

You need not even have to look far beyond our borders. First Nations women were just recently given some fairness by the Federal Government regarding their divorce laws! After all these years of feminism....those women who really need the feminists' help appear to be invisible!

Or simply ignored!

Why single out polygamy....if your reasons for doing so is about women's right?

It is the least of your worries.

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out. To my knowledge the Province of Ontario hasn't endorsed the concept of Sharia law although it may very well be considered within some segments of the Muslim community.

As for aboriginal women on reserves those changes were negotiated against a backdrop of collective as opposed to individual ownership on reserves and as constrained by the Indian Act. The benefit for those first nations signing onto such a scheme isn't limited to women. If you are interested may I suggest your read "Beyond The Indian Act-Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".

Edited August 7, 2011 by pinko

[Oleg Bach]

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out. To my knowledge the Province of Ontario hasn't endorsed the concept of Sharia law although it may very well be considered within some segments of the Muslim community.

As for aboriginal women on reserves those changes were negotiated against a backdrop of collective as opposed to individual ownership on reserves and as constrained by the Indian Act. The benefit for those first nations signing onto such a scheme isn't limited to women. If you are interested may I suggest your read "Beyond The Indian Act-Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".

Flesh of my flesh bone of my bone - forsaking all others - The union between man and woman is supposed to be a finite and devine arrangment - If you deeply love and have full committment- then ONE person is enough...other than that - Polygamy is akin to animal husbandry - a bull - with a harem of cows..we are better than that.

[betsy]

I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out.

No I haven't been following. Do you mean this?

It`s not that they are oppressive - it is in the fact that they are not fully committed relationships. There is no real loyalty..because one can constantly shift affection and attention from one wife to the other then back again - it because a constant and on going state of manipultaion - in other words - a stream of lies. That is no way for anyone to live.

But again, it's a question of what exactly do we mean by "committed relationship"?

Some of our average wives cheat on their spouses and yet claim to be in a "committed relationship"...vice versa.

So there's really no difference....just being there accepting and participating all these years to that kind of marriage/relationship is a proof of....commitment. What more when you give birth as a result of such relationship.

Do you know exactly the code of ethics being followed by members of this sect? What may be a definition of "commitment" to us....may not exactly be theirs.

Does "committed relationship" in their definition means just providing roof and basic needs under one roof? Equal time? Sex time? Equal labor contribution?

What does the matrimonial looks like? Who gets to sleep in the bed. By rotation?

Can a wife decline to have sex if she has a headache?

Is there an heirarchy among the wives? Is wife #1 considered to have more status than the other wives?

If all wives know their codes and are agreeable to it....how can we say it's a "constant state of manipulation?" Doesn't any average relationship involve a certain amount of - positive/negative or constructive/destructive - manipulation?

What do we know for us to be able to say, "oh, they're not fully committed!"

To say that - based on our own societal code or religious belief - polygamy is wrong, is one thing.

But to authoritatively say that those who practice in polygamy are not fully committed, is another.

Edited August 7, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

No I haven't been following. Do you mean this?

But again, it's a question of what exactly do we mean by "committed relationship"?

Some of our average wives cheat on their spouses and yet claim to be in a "committed relationship"...vice versa.

So there's really no difference....just being there accepting and participating all these years to that kind of marriage/relationship is a proof of....commitment. What more when you give birth as a result of such relationship.

Do you know exactly the code of ethics being followed by members of this sect? What may be a definition of "commitment" to us....may not exactly be theirs.

Does "committed relationship" in their definition means just providing roof and basic needs under one roof? Equal time? Sex time? Equal labor contribution?

What does the matrimonial looks like? Who gets to sleep in the bed. By rotation?

Can a wife decline to have sex if she has a headache?

Is there an heirarchy among the wives? Is wife #1 considered to have more status than the other wives?

If all wives know their codes and are agreeable to it....how can we say it's a "constant state of manipulation?" Doesn't any average relationship involve a certain amount of - positive/negative or constructive/destructive - manipulation?

What do we know for us to be able to say, "oh, they're not fully committed!"

To say that - based on our own societal code or religious belief - polygamy is wrong, is one thing.

But to authoritatively say that those who practice in polygamy are not fully committed, is another.

In my view a committed relationship is one in a marriage which is exclusive to two partners to the exclusion of all others. Under my definition that would exclude more than one marital partner. In the province we live in the family residence is jointly owned. There is an expectation that there be an equitable division of labour within the family home and as well, subject to means, a proportionate contribution in financial terms. Certainly a wife (or husband) may decline or accept sex with a marriage partner.

The whole idea of polygamy is counterintuitive to the exclusivity I have described above. What you appear to miss from these polygamous collectives is that women and children are treated as chattels and may be disposed of by the leadership within the cult. Many of the women who have escaped these oppressive conditions described the systemic abuse suffered at the hands of the likes of Jeffs and others.

[Oleg Bach]

A committed relationship is when you are deeply in love and are willing to go the full distance till death do you part - polygamy does not have this - It is assembly line breeding and marriage - when one unit fails - you just replace it with the next the same day...After all my years of experience and having more than a few mates and understand what a long term marriage is - but never formally getting married - I would do it right - but maybe I did - once there is a child - you are committed..whether your mate is "ms. or mister right or not.

[pinko]

A committed relationship is when you are deeply in love and are willing to go the full distance till death do you part - polygamy does not have this - It is assembly line breeding and marriage - when one unit fails - you just replace it with the next the same day...After all my years of experience and having more than a few mates and understand what a long term marriage is - but never formally getting married - I would do it right - but maybe I did - once there is a child - you are committed..whether your mate is "ms. or mister right or not.

Agreed although divorce may also do you part. Once children are in the mix that definitely makes the relationships more complex.

Edited August 7, 2011 by pinko

[betsy]

In my view a committed relationship is one in a marriage which is exclusive to two partners to the exclusion of all others. Under my definition that would exclude more than one marital partner. In the province we live in the family residence is jointly owned. There is an expectation that there be an equitable division of labour within the family home and as well, subject to means, a proportionate contribution in financial terms. Certainly a wife (or husband) may decline or accept sex with a marriage partner.

Like you, I am not in favour of polygamy. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give any excuses for the leader of this sect. He is a pedophile.

My point is that polygamy shouldn't be about women's rights! If all are consenting adults, no one's rights is violated!

As I've said, what do we know about a sect's moral code on their polygamous marriage? For one, we assume that it's only the women who has to marry. What if a man is also put upon or pressured to marry a woman?

It should be about the law. If polygamy is against our law, then it is a crime.

The whole idea of polygamy is counterintuitive to the exclusivity I have described above. What you appear to miss from these polygamous collectives is that women and children are treated as chattels and may be disposed of by the leadership within the cult. Many of the women who have escaped these oppressive conditions described the systemic abuse suffered at the hands of the likes of Jeffs and others.

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims practice polygamy. It's not a just a cult or a sect.

But yes, I understand what you mean about sects or cults. Since usually people who join these are troubled (which makes them vulnerable), they tend to be of serious concern....most especially when there are children involved.

Edited August 8, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

Like you, I am not in favour of polygamy. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give any excuses for the leader of this sect. He is a pedophile.

My point is that polygamy shouldn't be about women's rights! If all are consenting adults, no one's rights is violated!

As I've said, what do we know about a sect's moral code on their polygamous marriage? For one, we assume that it's only the women who has to marry. What if a man is also put upon or pressured to marry a woman?

It should be about the law. If polygamy is against our law, then it is a crime.

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims practice polygamy. It's not a just a cult or a sect.

But yes, I understand what you mean about sects or cults. Since usually people who join these are troubled (which makes them vulnerable), they tend to be of serious concern....most especially when there are children involved.

Here is what the Criminal Code states in relation to polygamy:

"Polygamy

293. (1) Every one who

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

(i) any form of polygamy, or

(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

( celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Evidence in case of polygamy

(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.

The question before the court at the moment is whether such a prohibition violates religious freedom outlined in the Charter.

If Muslims are practicing polygamy in Canada they are doing so in violation of the law as it currently stands.

Edited August 8, 2011 by pinko

[betsy]

If Muslims are practicing polygamy in Canada they are doing so in violation of the law as it currently stands.

Yes.

But is the government going to seriously and aggressively enforce our law....that's another topic.

[g_bambino]

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims practice polygamy.

Some do; not all. Just as it is with Christians.

[pinko]

Yes.

But is the government going to seriously and aggressively enforce our law....that's another topic.

In British Columbia the provincial government has instituted court action. Evidence and argument have been presented by a variety of parties and a decision is pending from the B.C. Court of Appeal.

I would suspect the case is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[M.Dancer]

Matthew 19

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Ephesians 5:25-33

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Romans 7:1-3

Released From the Law, Bound to Christ

1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

1 Corinthians 7:2

2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

The New Testament is filled with so many passages against adultery.

But none against polygamy....which leads back to the other posters question....did god change its mind?....or does it have something to do with the hellenization that took place in the region and had been taking place sine the time of Alex the really awesome?

[M.Dancer]

I've done as you requested....but really, I don't see why you're getting yourself knotted up over this?

Those who end up getting victimized by lunatic sect leaders usually are troubled people who are seeking God or trying to fill their spiritual needs. I've given the advice of reading the Bible to them who seek God....and to all Christians. So as not to be misled.

Umm...no you didn't. And a zero for effort vis a vis slavery.

[M.Dancer]

So what was Jesus talking about in all your quotes??? The LAW.

What's the law? The Commandments!

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY is one of them!

Furthermore, Jesus really expanded on adultery. He explained what is adultery under the law.

Wow....I mean ...just wow...

Jesus, when refering to the law, would not have confined the law to the 10....like any Jew today, or 2000 years ago...knew the law to mean the entire mosaic law. I mean really, how hard is it to keep the 10?....Now try and keep the 613 commandments that make up...the LAW.

[cybercoma]

If grown adults want to enter into a polygamist or polyandrous relationship that's their business. However, an adult should never under any circumstances take a child as his wife. I'm honestly quite disappointed at the media going out of its way to paint polygamy as pedophilia. They're different things entirely and it's the same sort of intellectual dishonesty that goes on with homosexuality.

Edited August 8, 2011 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

Agreed although divorce may also do you part. Once children are in the mix that definitely makes the relationships more complex.

It is not complex - In my case - when the first child was born - THAT was the mutual committment - I and the mother dearly loved what we produced - so knowing that the child would fare better with both of us - we stayed together - three more children arrived....Those that say - if your spouse is not perfect - that you should not stay together "for the sake of the children">

I disagree - those who divorce - that have young children do not fully love their children - You make your bed - you sleep in it. So I did my 27 years as a husband - I now live apart from the spouse - but we are still a pair - and we still provide an emotional base for our adult kids - Both of us know we were never well matched mates - but that was secondary - the children came first - because our love for our kids was very strong and with out limit...By the way - the kids turned out well...I could have left - but I knew that the kids would not do as well with one parent or with a father that was not the father.

[cybercoma]

That must have been a wonderful home to grow up in with no love and the parents resenting each other.

[WIP]

if you haven't noticed all those laws mean bugger all to stop polygamy...it's the push for a more open accepting society that will end polygamy not attempting to restrict it with laws...public secular education breaks down the barriers that means eliminating private religious schools...

We don't have to accept polygamy in the name of tolerance, if there is clear evidence that allowing plural marriage will lead to harmful social consequences. As soon as there is polygamy, there is a desire to get the girls before they come of age and have time to mess around with the boys. Most Muslim countries that aren't floating on oil, are trying to outlaw or restrict and discourage polygamy because of the negative social effects. Some countries like Yemen for example, have laws against marriage under 16, which are constantly flouted every time a case of an under 13 year old girl in an arranged marriage makes the news.

I would say that the problems of so called "lost boys," which I forgot to mention last time, is another one of the big problems. If you have a society where rich old guys can marry lots of women, there are going to be lots of young men who are unable to get married or even have a girlfriend. In the FLDS communities, they find excuses (especially teenage boys trying to get with the girls) to kick them out and banish them from the community....so that they become the problem of the larger society.

What happens when you look at a society where polygamy is widespread? Well, if we take Saudi Arabia for example: they spent most of the 80's and 90's encouraging young men to go off to wage jihad in Afghanistan or elsewhere....and hoped most of them wouldn't make it back home! Polygamy was only a sensible family structure in ancient times, when we had warrior societies that were constantly at war and having young men killed in battle with enemies. If there was an actual disparity in male/female ratios, it might make sense; otherwise it's a recipe for disaster...Saudi Arabia again! In the end, the welfare of society has to take precedence over individual wishes and desires.

[Michael Hardner]

We don't have to accept polygamy in the name of tolerance, if there is clear evidence that allowing plural marriage will lead to harmful social consequences.

There could never be such evidence, because plural marriage doesn't happen in a cultural vacuum and it's impossible to separate its effects from the effects of the surrounding environment.

You have set the bar, though, and I agree with the bar you have set - it means that it should be legal.

[pinko]

We don't have to accept polygamy in the name of tolerance, if there is clear evidence that allowing plural marriage will lead to harmful social consequences. As soon as there is polygamy, there is a desire to get the girls before they come of age and have time to mess around with the boys. Most Muslim countries that aren't floating on oil, are trying to outlaw or restrict and discourage polygamy because of the negative social effects. Some countries like Yemen for example, have laws against marriage under 16, which are constantly flouted every time a case of an under 13 year old girl in an arranged marriage makes the news.

I would say that the problems of so called "lost boys," which I forgot to mention last time, is another one of the big problems. If you have a society where rich old guys can marry lots of women, there are going to be lots of young men who are unable to get married or even have a girlfriend. In the FLDS communities, they find excuses (especially teenage boys trying to get with the girls) to kick them out and banish them from the community....so that they become the problem of the larger society.

What happens when you look at a society where polygamy is widespread? Well, if we take Saudi Arabia for example: they spent most of the 80's and 90's encouraging young men to go off to wage jihad in Afghanistan or elsewhere....and hoped most of them wouldn't make it back home! Polygamy was only a sensible family structure in ancient times, when we had warrior societies that were constantly at war and having young men killed in battle with enemies. If there was an actual disparity in male/female ratios, it might make sense; otherwise it's a recipe for disaster...Saudi Arabia again! In the end, the welfare of society has to take precedence over individual wishes and desires.

Well put.I take the position polygamy should not be legal.

Edited August 8, 2011 by pinko

[Oleg Bach]

It's very animmalistic to have the rich bull monkeys run the young male monkeys off...so they can have all the prime breeding females. You would assume that those with money and power would want to behave more like evolved human beings than alpha apes?