Polygamy at The Root of Problem

[capricorn]

I think the bill to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 would go a long way to protect young girls from being exploited in any type of situation, either monogamous or polygamous. As I understand the proposed legislation, there would be an exception for prosecutions of sexual encounters between teens. I believe this would be reasonable. A 15 year old girl and a 17 year old boy engaging in sex should not be lumped into the same category as a 15 year old girl being coerced into sex with a 30 or 40 year old male. It's about protecting the vulnerable.

The federal child tax credit and other tax incentives may be enough to make some individuals prone to take advantage of the system by having more children than they can afford to raise. Yet, I think these people are in the minority. Isn't it more a question of power? An adult male who has 4-5 wives with 20 or more kids, I mean, what a legacy. It reminds me of a case where a doctor impregnated unsuspecting women through artificial insemination with his sperm to clone himself. Shades of the twilight zone? O.K., so I watch Law and Order to much.

[Canuck E Stan]

An adult male who has 4-5 wives with 20 or more kids......

...and if all the kids were under six collecting the government child care allowance of $100....x 20 = $2000 a month plus all the other government tax benefits....

..why work outside of the home?

[capricorn]

...and if all the kids were under six collecting the government child care allowance of $100....x 20 = $2000 a month plus all the other government tax benefits....

..why work outside of the home?

Yeah. And each wife drawing welfare at about $500./600. per month. Steaks all around.

[sharkman]

Spot on. If you can marry another guy or do with the plethora of women you are married to, why not with an 8-yr old girl? After all, it's just another sexual form of sexual orientation. :angry:

I noted with interest the response to this comment, the point being that an 8 yr old can't give consent. This is short sighted and misses seeing the forest for the trees. What about a twelve yr old. In Canadian courts today, a twelve yr old can choose which parent to live with if they are divorced and have been passing the child back and forth. If a child of 12 can make a decision of that magnitude in the eyes of the courts, why can't they give consent for sex?

The answer is no, they shouldn't be allowed to, just as 5 years ago, most people would agree that poligamy is wrong and degrading to women who become pretty much servants and property. But in reading the variety of opinions on this thread, it appears that common sense is not so common. We are going down the road that gay marriage started us on, and where we end up is anyone's guess.

Thirty odd years ago, abortion became legal in Canada. We have travelling down that road for a little while now. We are living in the age of the gland in the year of the pill, and Canada has a massive shortage of babies. They are closing elementary schools for lack of children. Yet we blindly refuse to see anything wrong with this picture, and instead jack up the immigration numbers to compensate. We really do deserve whatever fate we get.

[sucker punch]

I noted with interest the response to this comment, the point being that an 8 yr old can't give consent. This is short sighted and misses seeing the forest for the trees. What about a twelve yr old. In Canadian courts today, a twelve yr old can choose which parent to live with if they are divorced and have been passing the child back and forth. If a child of 12 can make a decision of that magnitude in the eyes of the courts, why can't they give consent for sex?

So polygamists can't legally have sex with them, obviously.

The answer is no, they shouldn't be allowed to, just as 5 years ago, most people would agree that poligamy is wrong and degrading to women who become pretty much servants and property. But in reading the variety of opinions on this thread, it appears that common sense is not so common. We are going down the road that gay marriage started us on, and where we end up is anyone's guess.

Polygamy doesn't cause abuse towards women, sweetie. Scumbags who abuse women do.

Where we end up? Hopefully in a country where there aren't laws against actions that don't have a victim.

Thirty odd years ago, abortion became legal in Canada. We have travelling down that road for a little while now. We are living in the age of the gland in the year of the pill, and Canada has a massive shortage of babies. They are closing elementary schools for lack of children. Yet we blindly refuse to see anything wrong with this picture, and instead jack up the immigration numbers to compensate. We really do deserve whatever fate we get.

You're right. Damn that abortion. I wish we could have many more unwanted children. That always turns out so well.

[Pliny]

I noted with interest the response to this comment, the point being that an 8 yr old can't give consent. This is short sighted and misses seeing the forest for the trees. What about a twelve yr old. In Canadian courts today, a twelve yr old can choose which parent to live with if they are divorced and have been passing the child back and forth. If a child of 12 can make a decision of that magnitude in the eyes of the courts, why can't they give consent for sex?

The answer is no, they shouldn't be allowed to, just as 5 years ago, most people would agree that poligamy is wrong and degrading to women who become pretty much servants and property. But in reading the variety of opinions on this thread, it appears that common sense is not so common. We are going down the road that gay marriage started us on, and where we end up is anyone's guess.

Thirty odd years ago, abortion became legal in Canada. We have travelling down that road for a little while now. We are living in the age of the gland in the year of the pill, and Canada has a massive shortage of babies. They are closing elementary schools for lack of children. Yet we blindly refuse to see anything wrong with this picture, and instead jack up the immigration numbers to compensate. We really do deserve whatever fate we get.

Where we end up is everyone equal,of course some will be more equal than others but most will be equal to the lowest common denominator.

Oh, and the slippery slope did not start with the legal acceptance of gay marriage. It started when the federal government, for it's own tax purposes, altered the definition of "marriage" and included common-law marriage as legal. In my opinion the dictionary definition should not have changed to suit the government's purposes. They opened a Pandora's box with that one.

If you look for reasons for social decay it generally starts with the enactment of legislation proposed by meddling, do-good politicians. Legislation regarding this type of cultural and social engineering is, more often than not, entirely unnecessary but is the first step in any politicians attempt to build himself a legacy and representative bureaucracy.

It is society that will define marriage and not a law. The law is only about governmental benefit and privilege - get rid of that and there is no reason why anyone would demand the definition of marriage include them or not include them.

[maldon_road]

Remember when SSM came in. We were told it would be the end of Western Civilization. There would be plagues of locusts and that everybody should start building an arc. Much ado about nothing. In a few short years it has become a non-issue. Scott Brison is marrying his boy friend and nobody cares.

The same thing would happen if polygamy was legalized. It might be practiced sparingly by a few cultural groups but by nobody else. One spouse is enough. Who wants two of them?

BTW, "Susie Has Two Mommies" is a text book used to teach about lesbian parenting.

Edited August 14, 2007 by maldon_road

[betsy]

Nonsense. An 8-year old girl cannot be presumed to give informed consent, however an adult can.

They can easily tweak that around. If you can change the traditional definitions of words....the definition of "adult" can easily change as well. Really, who would've thought that the traditional word "marriage" can easily accomodate same-sex, and now may be open to also include beasts!

All it takes is a well-orchestrated, well-funded lobby group and the right kind of government. Of course society gets "indoctrinated" to accept all things "progressive."

Anything is acceptable these days, as far as sexuality goes, by the looks of it.

Edited August 14, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Susie was the kid in this analogy, but anyway....

You've made quite a leap in logic there, Moxie! I didn't see any mention of social programs for polygamists, other than your assumption that they will go on social assistance. How is that different from a monogomous family on social assistance, by the way? And can you explain what you mean by "Contrary to their lack of beliefs Canadians are sick of the weak, lame and perverted in the name of tolerance." Whose lack of beliefs are you talking about? And what have you got against the weak and lame?

A resourceful KENNEL will go all out producing their batches of litter. Guess who'd be the first ones to go into this kennel business?

Most likely those who'd been content to be on welfare for the rest of their lives, who's got kids also raised into this kind of mentality!

[betsy]

So polygamists can't legally have sex with them, obviously.

Polygamy doesn't cause abuse towards women, sweetie. Scumbags who abuse women do.

Where we end up? Hopefully in a country where there aren't laws against actions that don't have a victim.

You're right. Damn that abortion. I wish we could have many more unwanted children. That always turns out so well.

Okay, now let's talk about this from the view point of a woman.

What woman would wish to share a mate with other women? Someone desperate for a mate? Someone with low self-esteem?

What? I don't understand why a woman would willingly go for that....unless the man is uber-rich that it's all about money and the comfort it may bring.

[betsy]

Remember when SSM came in. We were told it would be the end of Western Civilization.

You make it sound that this is ancient news. SSM came in when????

It usually takes more than several generation to see the impact of what had been done!

The mushrooms of single parenthood we see nowadays and the ease of extrication from what should be lifelong commitments are the consequences of no-fault divorce.

We do not yet know the real consequences of SSM. We've yet to wait for children (who are brought into these SSM, or who were brought up into this new "society") to grow up and become parents themselves and so on....wait til traces of people from the "old society" - those who thinks like me - die out.

I'm willing to bet there will be major consequences (good or bad). You can't throw a pebble in the water and not expect any ripples.

[Renegade]

They can easily tweak that around. If you can change the traditional definitions of words....the definition of "adult" can easily change as well. Really, who would've thought that the traditional word "marriage" can easily accomodate same-sex, and now may be open to also include beasts!

All it takes is a well-orchestrated, well-funded lobby group and the right kind of government. Of course society gets "indoctrinated" to accept all things "progressive."

Sure, what exactly is an adult is up for debate, however the implications are beyond maritial consent. An "adult" can vote, and "adult" can be held accountable for his/her crimes, an "adult" has both the rights and priviledges that designation infers.

As far as beasts, you'ed have to show that a beast has the same capability to make informed decisions as an adult. Good luck with that.

Anything is acceptable these days, as far as sexuality goes, by the looks of it.

Sure, anything is acceptable as far as sexuality goes so long as it doesn't violate another person's rights. Offending someone's sensibilites about what is "right" or "wrong" is qute permissable.

[sucker punch]

Okay, now let's talk about this from the view point of a woman.

What woman would wish to share a mate with other women? Someone desperate for a mate? Someone with low self-esteem?

What? I don't understand why a woman would willingly go for that....unless the man is uber-rich that it's all about money and the comfort it may bring.

Luckily, you don't have to understand, since it doesn't affect you.

Maybe she is bisexual and loves the other woman as well?

Maybe she is marrying 2 men?

Maybe she believes in open marriages?

Maybe she doesn't believe in monogamy?

Maybe she feels her husband would be much happier with a second wife?

Maybe its cultural and she feels its the proper thing to do?

etc

The fact that you don't get it has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal. Actually, the fact that you don't seem to understand it should completely invalidate your arguments because you're preaching from ignorance.

[maldon_road]

I'm willing to bet there will be major consequences (good or bad). You can't throw a pebble in the water and not expect any ripples.

Given the very limited use of SSM I doubt any consequences will be "major". If I were to try and identify the biggest problem we have now with respect to "marriage issues" it is that the institution is decaying - 50% of current marriages end in divorce with all the trauma (for both parents and kids) that is associated with a divorce - and I know first hand. Far bigger numbers than SSMs.

[Drea]

Okay, now let's talk about this from the view point of a woman.

What woman would wish to share a mate with other women? Someone desperate for a mate? Someone with low self-esteem?

What? I don't understand why a woman would willingly go for that....unless the man is uber-rich that it's all about money and the comfort it may bring.

Betsy, legalizing polygamy would put women's rights back hundreds of years. The men will say "but women can have multiple husbands too!" But more than likely it would be men with economic power wielding it over women with no economic power.

Like Bountiful where the women are brainwashed into thinking that this is their god-given lot in life. One 15 year old (on news interview) said "God has asked me to put up with this bad life on earth so that I can go to heaven". She said this as she was slated to marry a wrinkly old bugger.

I always wondered about Bountiful's young men -- if all the young women get married to old buggers who marries the young men? Where do they go? What do they do?

[Renegade]

But more than likely it would be men with economic power wielding it over women with no economic power.

How is it different with monogamy?

[M.Dancer]

I always wondered about Bountiful's young men -- if all the young women get married to old buggers who marries the young men? Where do they go? What do they do?

There was a news feature on just that about a year ago. A lot get the boot. A lot have to submit. In effect it's a virgin (female) trading game. People who have many daughters get social status by marrying them off to the others....people who have too many sons have liabilities.

[Pliny]

Given the very limited use of SSM I doubt any consequences will be "major". If I were to try and identify the biggest problem we have now with respect to "marriage issues" it is that the institution is decaying - 50% of current marriages end in divorce with all the trauma (for both parents and kids) that is associated with a divorce - and I know first hand. Far bigger numbers than SSMs.

We can take the conspiratorial avenue of the government attacking and tearing down the traditional family or we can say that the government is messing up. I would say they are messing up for their own aggrandizement. I think people are more like children than adults these days and it goes back to the State having to define every relationship in an individuals life and no associations are made without legal protection.

I was on this board a few years ago and it was a really sad commentary on our state of affairs when a discussion about a business transaction agreed to on a handshake between two friends met with dire warnings from others of ruinous "legal" ramifications and covering your backside legally was the most important thing in any business transaction.

No personal relationship is safe to cultivate anymore in the minds of a lot of people in society today and there is always condolences from government and perhaps even some opportunity to gain some revenge or retribution and just make it all better.

So no matter the choices we make in our life, if they turn out to be something other than we imagine the government can make it all right.

How did a discussion about polygamy turn to this? Well, does there have to be a law about this? People will act and make decisions according to their own views on life wouldn't it be better if they could make wise decisions with regard to their lives instead of legislated decisions?

[Drea]

How is it different with monogamy?

Generally in a monogamous relationship both partners are equal -- generally

In a situation of multiple wives I doubt if they share "power" with the male head of the household.

The women have no rights, no power, no decison making capabilities -- they are just a bunch of concubines. I'm actually quite suprised that the young men aren't made into eunics...

The wrinkly old bastards of Bountiful make me so sick. Dirty filthy sicko pigs.

[sucker punch]

The wrinkly old bastards of Bountiful make me so sick. Dirty filthy sicko pigs.

And therein is the problem. Not polygamy. But evil people who use others for their own gain.

Men who dominate and manipulate women is a completely separate issue. Don't get the two confused.

[maldon_road]

We can take the conspiratorial avenue of the government attacking and tearing down the traditional family or we can say that the government is messing up. I would say they are messing up for their own aggrandizement. I think people are more like children than adults these days and it goes back to the State having to define every relationship in an individuals life and no associations are made without legal protection.

We can blame the government for "legalizing" common-law relationships and making divorce easier as the causes for marriage breakdowns or we can blame it on a self-centred society that doesn't want to take responsibility, that finds it easier to chuck a marriage than sit down with the other person and make an effort to make it work.

[M.Dancer]

We can blame the government for "legalizing" common-law relationships and making divorce easier as the causes for marriage breakdowns or we can blame it on a self-centred society that doesn't want to take responsibility, that finds it easier to chuck a marriage than sit down with the other person and make an effort to make it work.

We can blame the government for making divorce easy....but common law is older than this nation. It has never been outlawed.

[maldon_road]

We can blame the government for making divorce easy....but common law is older than this nation. It has never been outlawed.

The government gave it the same legal status as marriage.

[M.Dancer]

The government gave it the same legal status as marriage.

Not exactly....but it already had a status that was legal.

[M.Dancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada