Legalized prostitution and plural marriages coming soon

[Canuck E Stan]

In the news in the last couple of days.

Prosecutor rejects charging polygamists

Polygamy has long been illegal in Canada -- it was banned in Canada's first Criminal Code enacted in 1892 -- but prosecutions have been rare. Benjamin Berger, a University of Victoria law professor and constitutional expert in the area of religious freedoms, said the court will have to decide the boundaries of religious freedom -- a right enshrined by Canada's constitution -- and try to balance that with possible harm to members of the community.

"This is a question the courts are going to have to wrangle with," said Prof. Berger, who published an article last year titled Understanding Law and Religion as Culture: Making Room for Meaning in the Public Sphere in the journal Constitutional Forum.

The law, he said, has to respect the religions of others and differing world views, but those rights are not absolute.Court decisions involving religious rights have to decide "what kind of activity are we going to tolerate and what kind are we not going to tolerate," Prof. Berger said.

Looks like Polygamy is going to be the new "rights" issue.

And this will be followed by another "rights" issue:

Prostitution laws face challenge

The statement of claim says the constitutional rights of the group's members are being violated by the prostitution laws.

"The basis of this whole case is that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that that Charter protects all of us equally," Ms. Pacey said in an interview this week. "Regardless of the type of work we are in, or how we live our lives, we should all have equal access to those fundamental protections."

Canadian law does not explicitly prohibit the exchange of sex for money. Instead, there are sections in the Criminal Code that prohibit activities surrounding prostitution, such as: keeping a "bawdy-house;" procuring another person to have illicit sex; and communicating in a public place for the purposes of engaging in prostitution.

In today's challenge, Ms. Pacey said she is relying on sections of the Charter -- including those dealing with equality, freedom of expression and the right to life, liberty and security of the person -- to challenge the communication law, the brothel laws and significant portions of the procurement law.

What a wonderful,open society we live in.

[capricorn]

Sad as it is, I must agree that individual polygamy charges would fail. Why? Because the women involved said publicly they were compliant of their participation of their own free will. IMO one must look beyond the religious aspect and focus on the males who prey on mostly younger women to satisfy their sexual perversions. These men profess to their victims that if they do not comply, they will burn in hell. This is the ploy they use to lure and keep these women in their clutches. Indoctrination at its best and it has worked for these predators. Suffice it to say that no one has stood in their way so they continue the victimization of the women involved.

I think the more central issue is that the women are rendered subservient and it is they whose rights to equality are infringed upon. Of course, the women are unaware and obey their master. IMO polygamy is a form of slavery. I believe prosecutors should concentrate on arguing that there are victims involved and it is they who must be protected and liberated from this scourge.

The exercise of one's religious freedom should be limited as to not violate the basic human rights and well being of others, i.e. members of the community, namely, the women who continue to be victimized. This also applies to the children born of these unions. They too are victims and the cycle is perpetuated through injecting a sort of normalcy to this lifestyle which they well may adopt.

If the question goes to the courts, who knows what the outcome would be. One thing for sure, this cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged. How long can the government ignore this situation?

[FascistLibertarian]

Looks like Polygamy is going to be the new "rights" issue.

And this will be followed by another "rights" issue:

What a wonderful,open society we live in.

Minors need the states full protection. 13 yr old girls and 30 yr old guys is wrong (and vise versa).

This being said, what do you have against constenting adults?

If it doesnt hurt people stop telling people how to live their lives.

[Canuck E Stan]

If it doesnt hurt people stop telling people how to live their lives.

And I said that .....where?

[capricorn]

This being said, what do you have against constenting adults?

If it doesnt hurt people stop telling people how to live their lives.

Do not ignore the fact that polygamy is illegal in Canada. This is a far cry from consenting adults having sex. For example, private clubs that host orgies for consenting adults are allowed; prosecution for such activities are unheard of. Live and let live as they say. In such cases, there are no victims, although some of us think such activities are destructive to the human psyche, not to mention human relationships in the long term. We all have our opinions on that score.

With polygamy, we're talking about an ongoing long term situation that on the surface appears to be harmful to the women and their offspring involved.

Look, if the courts decide that polygamy is O.K., so be it. Let's just get on with it and get a decision one way or another. We'll deal with the fallout later.

My question is why polygamist groups are always headed by older males with a number of younger wives? Why are there no polygamist groups headed by an older woman with a number of young, male husbands? Think about it.

[scribblet]

There is no reason that plural marriages (between consenting adults) should not be legalized, now that the definition of marriage has been changed, the barn door has been opened.

[Renegade]

Why are there no polygamist groups headed by an older woman with a number of young, male husbands?

I can think of at least a couple of reasons:

- Several major religions which permitted polygyny, but yet banned polyandry.

- If one of the goals of marriage is procreation, it is far more efficient to pair one man with many women, rather than visa versa for obvious reasons.

- Men have historically been the high-income earner and are thus more capable of supporting multiple wives than a woman principal bread-winner

[Renegade]

I think the more central issue is that the women are rendered subservient and it is they whose rights to equality are infringed upon.

Why do you say this is exclusive to polygyny? Isn't it is pretty common in monogomous marriage for the male to dominate the woman so they are subservient to the same extent? The existance of numberious women's shelters, and cases of battered women should prove that.

In any case, are you against independant adults making their own decisoins about the kind of marital arrangement they commit to? Is an adult woman not allowed to commit to an arrangement which makes her subservient?

[maldon_road]

There is no reason that plural marriages (between consenting adults) should not be legalized, now that the definition of marriage has been changed, the barn door has been opened.

We of course have already broadened the concept of marriage with SSM. And if the courts are going to call that a constitutional right they can easily do the same with polygamy. As for "legalizing" prostitution, there are plenty of ads every day in the paper for those that want to pay for play. Okay, so the word sex isn't mentioned but we all know what they are offering.

[FascistLibertarian]

Your whole post (even though you didnt say much) appeared to be sarcastic.

If it wasnt, I appologize, I took your comments as sarcasm.

If they legalize this clearly there will be cases of a women with many wives and or husbands. It would have to be legalized for everyone. Then we would get some wierd situations (transexuals with multiple husbands and wives come to mind lol).

Neither of these things are things I myself would do. Its up to the courts.

I find it intresting that:

Marriage is such an diverse institution, existing far before organized religion, now of course it is basically a legal contract and nothing more unless people make it more (which most do). Marriage has nothing to do with love or religion unless those involved make it so.

Plural marriages almost certainly existed before organized religion.

Not to say the above 2 statements 'prove' it should be legal of course.

Trying to stop violence against partners, controlling partners, and underage people marrying are DIFFERENT ISSUES. wow.

Edited August 4, 2007 by FascistLibertarian

[capricorn]

Why do you say this is exclusive to polygyny? Isn't it is pretty common in monogomous marriage for the male to dominate the woman so they are subservient to the same extent? The existance of numberious women's shelters, and cases of battered women should prove that.

In any case, are you against independant adults making their own decisoins about the kind of marital arrangement they commit to? Is an adult woman not allowed to commit to an arrangement which makes her subservient?

Where did I say anywhere in my comments that "this is exclusive to polygyny"?

Violence against women is a totally different issue unrelated to the matter of polygamy which we are discussing. Nowhere have I read that physical violence was uncovered in any polygamous community.

The law banning polygamy is over 100 years old. Obviously, at that time legislators felt such a law was needed. Society evolves and so should it's laws.

If this matter is referred to the courts they will decide whether the existing law is unconstitutional. It they rule it's unconstitutional their decision will open the door to legalizing polygamy, and presumably, other similar forms of arrangements between individuals. So be it.

No, I am not against male and female adults making their own decisions, even when those decisions are not in their best interests. In fact, I, like many others, have made decisions in the past which I have regretted. As a conservative, I encourage adults making their own decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences, provided those decisions do not break the laws of this country.

[geoffrey]

Nowhere have I read that physical violence was uncovered in any polygamous community.

You are kidding, right?

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special4...ygamywomen.html

http://w3.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy251.html

Palmer herself was only 15 years old when her father "assigned" her to marry a 55-year-old man in Bountiful, British Columbia. Palmer says she didn't question the union and believed it to be a "really great thing."

She was her husband's sixth wife. Some men in Bountiful have 30 wives, and as many as 80 children each, she says.

Source: Here

It's a web of child abuse, rape and oppression. These kids are brainwashed from day one, into believing that they are subserviant to their masters (men three or sometimes four times their age). They are married into these abusive relationships before they can fully rationalise the situation (age 14 and 15) and then abused and coerced into staying by community and religious pressures.

There is no clearer case of abuse in my opinion.

If we are talking freedoms, I can see allowing polygamy for those that rationally arrive at that decision, adults free of coercion. But that's simply not the case in Bountiful or elsewhere in these religious cults. They breed children to foster a pedophilic older male population that continue to abuse them for their entire life.

It's about time we shut that crap down.

This isn't a freedom issue, shutting down polygamist cults is a grave matter of protecting the rights of children and women in Canada.

[capricorn]

You are kidding, right?

It's about time we shut that crap down.

This isn't a freedom issue, shutting down polygamist cults is a grave matter of protecting the rights of children and women in Canada.

Geoffrey, thanks for the links. I had not seen these stories.

If children and women are at risk and abused, and there is supportive evidence, what are BC prosecutors waiting for to lay charges? According to a linked story in Canuck E Stan's original post, this is not a situation that they have just become aware of.

Where are the BC children's protective authorities in all this? Is it not their job to remove children from abusive situations? They may have tried to intervene. In any case, they should involve themselves and not let go.

All the better that these charges could lead to a ruling on the legality of polygamy groups in Canada.

[Renegade]

Where did I say anywhere in my comments that "this is exclusive to polygyny"?

You said this:

With polygamy, we're talking about an ongoing long term situation that on the surface appears to be harmful to the women and their offspring involved.

I took that to mean that you mean it ws a characteristic of polygamy but not other forms of marriage. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize

Violence against women is a totally different issue unrelated to the matter of polygamy which we are discussing. Nowhere have I read that physical violence was uncovered in any polygamous community.

I agree. They are separate issues.

The law banning polygamy is over 100 years old. Obviously, at that time legislators felt such a law was needed. Society evolves and so should it's laws.

If this matter is referred to the courts they will decide whether the existing law is unconstitutional. It they rule it's unconstitutional their decision will open the door to legalizing polygamy, and presumably, other similar forms of arrangements between individuals. So be it.

No, I am not against male and female adults making their own decisions, even when those decisions are not in their best interests. In fact, I, like many others, have made decisions in the past which I have regretted. As a conservative, I encourage adults making their own decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences, provided those decisions do not break the laws of this country.

But where do YOU stand? Do you think that polygamy should be legal?

[Renegade]

It's a web of child abuse, rape and oppression. These kids are brainwashed from day one, into believing that they are subserviant to their masters (men three or sometimes four times their age). They are married into these abusive relationships before they can fully rationalise the situation (age 14 and 15) and then abused and coerced into staying by community and religious pressures.

Where child abuse, rape and oppression take place, it is those acts which ought to be procecuted, not the marital structure itself.

If we are talking freedoms, I can see allowing polygamy for those that rationally arrive at that decision, adults free of coercion. But that's simply not the case in Bountiful or elsewhere in these religious cults. They breed children to foster a pedophilic older male population that continue to abuse them for their entire life.

I agree that polygamy (or any other form of marriage) should be permitted for freely consenting adults.

Even if you procecuted some of the more exteme behaviour demonstrated, I doubt it would stop polygamy. If you forced spouses to be at least 18 before marriage, it would simply defer but not change the nature of the marriage in these communities.

Edited August 5, 2007 by Renegade

[Moxie]

You are kidding, right?

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special4...ygamywomen.html

http://w3.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy251.html

Source: Here

It's a web of child abuse, rape and oppression. These kids are brainwashed from day one, into believing that they are subserviant to their masters (men three or sometimes four times their age). They are married into these abusive relationships before they can fully rationalise the situation (age 14 and 15) and then abused and coerced into staying by community and religious pressures.

There is no clearer case of abuse in my opinion.

If we are talking freedoms, I can see allowing polygamy for those that rationally arrive at that decision, adults free of coercion. But that's simply not the case in Bountiful or elsewhere in these religious cults. They breed children to foster a pedophilic older male population that continue to abuse them for their entire life.

It's about time we shut that crap down.

This isn't a freedom issue, shutting down polygamist cults is a grave matter of protecting the rights of children and women in Canada.

[/quote

I agree.

The constitution allows for religious freedoms but there has to be a line of demarcation regarding polygamy and other cultural practices being practiced that aren't acceptable like honour killings, forced marrages, Sharia Law being practiced under ground. I don't care if three men and twenty women want to live together but I do not want that union reconized under law as being a lawful union. They are consenting adults but if children are involved they don't have a choice. We need to protect the children from these pervs. Polygamy is another tool for stupid lazy males to dominate women, they use religion to enforce their sexual appitites. It's a red herring for the pervs and freaks using religion of course to abuse famale women and children. We need this issue to be dealt with now before more young girls are raped by pedophiles. Of course the left/left think any form of sexual union is cooooooooooool so I'm not holding my breath.

Here is an interesting take on polygamy by those who partake of it in the US.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../INTBR8OJC1.DTL

[capricorn]

You said this:

I took that to mean that you mean it ws a characteristic of polygamy but not other forms of marriage. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize

I agree. They are separate issues.

But where do YOU stand? Do you think that polygamy should be legal?

I did not mean to imply that abuse is exclusive to polygamy. I'm francophone so my sentence structure when I write in English is sometimes off. No need to apologize. Your offer shows sensitivity. Thank you.

Honestly, I admit not knowing enough about the matter yet to take a stand. I learned more about polygamy through this thread than I ever knew previously.

What I am most interested in and concerned about right now, is whether the children in these communities are well treated. They are vulnerable and need protection if there is abuse or neglect.

[weaponeer]

Minors need the states full protection. 13 yr old girls and 30 yr old guys is wrong (and vise versa).

This being said, what do you have against constenting adults?

If it doesnt hurt people stop telling people how to live their lives.

So what about the brother & sisteer that want to get married, or the grandmother and grandson, or man that wants to marry his dog. Where does it stop?? It doesn't. You cannot have order and scocial norms with this endless "progressive" BS. Anything goes, society looses....

[M.Dancer]

So what about the brother & sisteer that want to get married, or the grandmother and grandson, or man that wants to marry his dog. Where does it stop?? It doesn't. You cannot have order and scocial norms with this endless "progressive" BS. Anything goes, society looses....

The litmuis test is full consent on both parties and that offspring must be viable. A dog cannot give consent and incest is not viable.

[Bonam]

Is it not true that close relatives marrying and reproducing simply increases a few genetic risks, rather than guaranteeing inviability? In fact, I think there are situations that are much more likely to reduce in non-viable offspring, for example two carriers of a recessive genetic disorder. Should everyone be compelled to have a genetic screening before they are allowed to marry.

Besides, while often associated, marriage does not necessarily mean having kids. People can get married and not reproduce.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bonam

[weaponeer]

The litmuis test is full consent on both parties and that offspring must be viable. A dog cannot give consent and incest is not viable.

So if brother & sister consent, and can produce offspring, it is OK. If Gramma & grandson consent, and they have a baby, it is OK. Not in my world... How do you know the dog doesn't consent!!

Marriage has been between man & woman for thousands of years, in most societies and religions, there is no need at all to change it now.

[M.Dancer]

So if brother & sister consent, and can produce offspring, it is OK. If Gramma & grandson consent, and they have a baby, it is OK. Not in my world... How do you know the dog doesn't consent!!

Marriage has been between man & woman for thousands of years, in most societies and religions, there is no need at all to change it now.

Ummmm...you think bro and sis can have children that don't put the gene pool at risk?

[Renegade]

So if brother & sister consent, and can produce offspring, it is OK.

Yes, it should not be illegal.

If Gramma & grandson consent, and they have a baby, it is OK.

Yes, it should not be illegal.

Not in my world...

True, but no one is forcing you to procreate with your mom, sister, or granma. Thus "your" world is safe.

How do you know the dog doesn't consent!!

Because a dog doen't have the capacity to give legal consent. Same with a child.

Marriage has been between man & woman for thousands of years, in most societies and religions, there is no need at all to change it now.

It would seem to be a weak argument when the only defense is "We've always done it that way".

[Renegade]

Ummmm...you think bro and sis can have children that don't put the gene pool at risk?

Not sure what you mean by putting the "gene pool at risk". Close relations have an increased risk of certain genetic disorders, that is true, but to make that the basis of your restriction, then you also have to restrict the marrying of any two oher individuals who introduce similar genetic risk to their offsping.

[Canuck E Stan]

Forget about getting married for sex or pro-creating.No one says that has to happen.

Let's talk about another aspect of plural/incestual marriage.

If I marry my elderly father and my mother and her old friend,the disabled neighbour,then all of them could benefit from all my personal benefits that I get from work,dental,extra health,personal programs allowable for the "spouse",I would even get time extra time off to take care of any of my "spouses" when required.

How will the law take care of this kind of "rights"?