Polygamy at The Root of Problem

[maldon_road]

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

You are talking about developments that have occurred over the last 25 years. The right to alimony, for example.

[betsy]

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.

Pedophiles are saying that children are willing. NAMBLA is advocating this as a kind of "mentorship" for children.

All they need is another so-called study that would validate and agree that children introduced to sex at an early age does not do them any harm....or/and it's actually good for them....and society will lap it all up!

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.

Someone might say, making an animal show the same capability as a human adult is putting unreasonable expectation towards the beast.

The human would-be spouse of the beast could say of course his sweetheart is an adult (in his specie), consenting and wants the union as much as he does, that he and his sweetheart understands one another...after all, human couples from differing races can have a marital relationship even if they do not speak each other's language!

If the Animal Rights movement says animals have rights....and human rights acknowledge that humans should have the freedom to to sexual orientation....then they're almost there!

All I'm saying is.... if there is a will, there is a way.

Once a law or a rule is bent....it can be manipulated.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

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.

I didn't say making it legal or not depends on my understanding.

All I did was ask a question....and truthful enough to admit that I don't understand it!

Why, doesn't society ask questions about things around them? Why youth are joining gangs? Why inspite of all these information and help for women, there are still women suffering in abusive relationships? Etc..,

For crying out loud, we can't even fix the kind of problems we are facing now regarding our youths....and here we are embarking on yet another possible reality that could have serious implications for the near future!

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

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.

I've noticed from the news that I've seen over the years regarding polygamy...they always show the women doing the works (either farming, housechores, raising all the kids, baking and selling)...the husband seem to have the grand position as that of a sultan with his harem!

Yes, I believe that a lot of these women have been brainwashed! Some women got into it in their moments of weakness when they were young and/or were troubled and confused. It is pandering to one of the classic male fantasies (up there alongside threesome and sandwiched between two buxom females)!

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

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.

But they are not completely separate issues!

A lot of young woemn nowadays are confused, or uncertain, or have problemas with self-worth.....what more when a lot of young girls are overweight. Why do we have problems with young teens getting seduced into prostitution....or suffering from unhealthy eating disorders...or getting into all sorts of drugs, involved in more crimes and misdemeanor, etc.

Young girls/women in this day and age are more susceptible to being seduced and used!

Btw another issue, what are the chances that pimps will marry the women they send out prostituting? Prostituion will most probably become leaglly recognized too, and can also be tweaked into becoming a sexual orientation. hey, if one gets a kick out of being a voyeur...or one who bares all infront of viewers....who's to say that a guy doesn't get a sexual kick out of the idea that his women are getting paid for sex, and the women getting a kick out of getting paid for it, just like the guys who pay for hookers get a kick out of paying for sex?

After all, nothing is un-natural anymore. Nothing is deviant. Nobody's getting hurt, right? Everyone is consenting!

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[capricorn]

After all, nothing is un-natural anymore. Nothing is deviant. Nobody's getting hurt, right? Everyone is consenting!

I think we have come to a point in our society where the lines between good and evil, and right and wrong have become blurred. When you elevate what is wrong and decrease what is good, both meet somewhere in the middle. They become, well, equal.

If persons engaging in an activity which has traditionally been perceived as wrong/unhealthy/immoral yet does not harm persons not engaged in said activity, it is now permissible. Society gets its back up when there are victims to said activity who cannot speak for themselves. When there are no victims of said activity, other than the participants themselves, society tolerates it.

One example I can think of is the case of crack addicts who are supplied crack pipe kits by government and activist agencies. The reason given for handing out crack pipe kits is said to prevent HIV infection among addicts who share crack pipes. There is some truth to this, but does providing crack kits make crack smoking right? The fact that these addicts cannot lead a normal life free of drugs takes a back seat to long term efforts of liberating the addicts from the addiction. Handing out free paraphernalia sustains the addiction.

It used to be that illegal drug use was seen as wrong both for the addict and for society. It used to be right to discourage the use of illegal drugs because it was destructive to addicts who subsequently could not make a positive contribution to society. Now, it is not smoking crack which is wrong. What is wrong is allowing crack addicts to share crack pipes. In the end, smoking crack has been elevated from wrong and what was right about curing drug addiction has been reduced. So, smoking crack is neither right nor wrong.

[Renegade]

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

This really depends upon the cultural background. Even in western culture equal partnership in marriage is a relatively new concept. 100 years ago the model for monogamous marriage was the man at the head-of-the-household and the woman in an unequal relationship.

The change in the role and options available to women is what changed monogamous marriage into a more equal partnership. In many religions and cultures today, monogamous marriage is not an equal partnership.

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

That doesn't mean it is that it is polygamous marriage that is the cause. It is entirely possible that the religion that these groups suscribe to, preach male dominance and female subservience.

If you accept that it is even possible, that a polygamous marriage doesn't necessarily result in a relationship where one parties rights are being violated then it should be permitted just as monogamous marriages are.

[Renegade]

Pedophiles are saying that children are willing. NAMBLA is advocating this as a kind of "mentorship" for children.

All they need is another so-called study that would validate and agree that children introduced to sex at an early age does not do them any harm....or/and it's actually good for them....and society will lap it all up!

Actually it makes no difference if the children are willing or if it does no harm to them. What makes a differnce is when they are capable of giving informed concent. We can all agree that a newborn doesn't the capacity to consent to anything. We can all agree that a normal 30-year-old adult can. Somewhere inbetween there needs to be a criteria by which we determine when the individual has the capacity to consent. If as you say that there are pedophile groups who are looking to make a case that a child has the same capacity to informed consent as an adult, then they are fighting a losing cause as such a case can never be made.

Someone might say, making an animal show the same capability as a human adult is putting unreasonable expectation towards the beast.

The human would-be spouse of the beast could say of course his sweetheart is an adult (in his specie), consenting and wants the union as much as he does, that he and his sweetheart understands one another...after all, human couples from differing races can have a marital relationship even if they do not speak each other's language!

If the Animal Rights movement says animals have rights....and human rights acknowledge that humans should have the freedom to to sexual orientation....then they're almost there!

I don't think so. I think that one would have to convince society that a beast has the same capacity as a human adult. If someone could prove that, then yes a beast would be able to vote, be able to be charged with a crime, be able to own property, and yes even be able to marry.

So if you think that it is possible to show that a beast has the same cpacity as a human adult then yes I'd be worried. Personally I don't think it is possible to make such a case, so I'm not worried.

All I'm saying is.... if there is a will, there is a way.

Once a law or a rule is bent....it can be manipulated.

Any law or rule will always have borderline cases which cause you to examine why the rule is in place to begin with. Personally I think the right way to deal with the situation is to not have a rule at all, and let the adults decide for themselves what their consetual relationship should be.

-----------------------------------

Let me ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a rule on who is allowed to marry whom? Would caos desend on society if we didn't have such a rule and let people decide for themselves?

[Canuck E Stan]

What next besides polygamy will "human rights" demands attach itself to?

I guess I'll have to answer my own question.

Incestual marriage, then pedophilia.They have "rights" too.

Shocking Proposal To Change Marriage Laws in New Zealand

A respected academic in New Zealand has recommended that incest between consenting adults be legalized, playing down any concerns about the genetic abnormalities resulting from inbreeding.

Professor Peter Munz, professor emeritus of history at Wellington's Victoria University, stunned lawmakers who are considering amendments to criminal law by proposing that it was no longer necessary to outlaw sex between close relations.

Although Munz only argued for legalizing incest between consenting adults, Alexander said his personal view was that the proposal was merely a "forerunner" of pedophilia. "I can see a potential link between the two."

"Once you loosen the bonds of incest, where do you go from there?"

[Renegade]

I guess I'll have to answer my own question.

Incestual marriage, then pedophilia.They have "rights" too.

Shocking Proposal To Change Marriage Laws in New Zealand

Munz is right. Incest should be legalized, however I see no reason why Alexander is correct in assuming it is the "forerunner" of pedophilia.

The politicans are just as shocked as the other poliiticians were when homosexual marriage was first considered.

[betsy]

Actually it makes no difference if the children are willing or if it does no harm to them. What makes a differnce is when they are capable of giving informed concent. We can all agree that a newborn doesn't the capacity to consent to anything. We can all agree that a normal 30-year-old adult can. Somewhere inbetween there needs to be a criteria by which we determine when the individual has the capacity to consent. If as you say that there are pedophile groups who are looking to make a case that a child has the same capacity to informed consent as an adult, then they are fighting a losing cause as such a case can never be made.

I don't think so. I think that one would have to convince society that a beast has the same capacity as a human adult. If someone could prove that, then yes a beast would be able to vote, be able to be charged with a crime, be able to own property, and yes even be able to marry.

So if you think that it is possible to show that a beast has the same cpacity as a human adult then yes I'd be worried. Personally I don't think it is possible to make such a case, so I'm not worried.

Any law or rule will always have borderline cases which cause you to examine why the rule is in place to begin with. Personally I think the right way to deal with the situation is to not have a rule at all, and let the adults decide for themselves what their consetual relationship should be.

We both are making assumptions at this point.

You seem to base yours on logic and rational thinking (and there is no wrong in that)....in fact I'd very much would like to base mine on the same ground, HOWEVER....some recent developments (as pointed out by Capricorn) had made me base mine on that premise - precedence - what had been intolerable or "forbidden" before but has now become acceptable and considered mainstream.

The line had been obscured. Society loves the gray zone. Relative morality rules!

So the fact is: the pendulum could swing either way. My assumption cannot be farther from the truth anymore than yours is.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Personally I think the right way to deal with the situation is to not have a rule at all, and let the adults decide for themselves

I hope you are kidding when you said this.

[Renegade]

We both are making assumptions at this point.

You seem to base yours on logic and rational thinking (and there is no wrong in that)....in fact I'd very much would like to base mine on the same ground, HOWEVER....some recent developments (as pointed out by Capricorn) had made me base mine on that premise - precedence - what had been intolerable or "forbidden" before but has now become acceptable and considered mainstream.

The line had been obscured. Society loves the gray zone. Moral relevancy rules.

So the fact is: the pendulum could swing either way. My assumption cannot be farther from the truth anymore than yours is.

You are correct that I base my argument on reason and logic. My reading of the difference is that I have confidence that the courts will base rulings on reason and logic, where you don't seem to have that same confidence.

Nothing I've seen in the precedence leads me to believe that future rulings would be anything but rational. As far the progression from what was "forbidden" before into what was tolerable not. I don't have an issue with it if it can be justified rationally. There was a time when divorce was forbidden. There was a time when women voting was forbidden. All of those things we take for granted now. If a position cannot be rationally defended, then it is indefensible and ought to be abandoned.

[Renegade]

I hope you are kidding when you said this.

No, I was completely serious. I think only by examining what seems obvious can we arrive at what (if any) should be the bounds we impose on individuals.

BTW, I was not meaning no set of rules at all on human behaviour. I simply was referring to marriage. The behaviour of what is permissable or not is already defined by other laws

Edited August 15, 2007 by Renegade

[betsy]

You are correct that I base my argument on reason and logic. My reading of the difference is that I have confidence that the courts will base rulings on reason and logic, where you don't seem to have that same confidence.

You are right. I have lost some confidence with court rulings based on some recent developments. A lot of judges are appointees, and some judges can be swayed by some influences other than logic and rational thinking.

Nothing I've seen in the precedence leads me to believe that future rulings would be anything but rational. As far the progression from what was "forbidden" before into what was tolerable not. I don't have an issue with it if it can be justified rationally. There was a time when divorce was forbidden. There was a time when women voting was forbidden. All of those things we take for granted now. If a position cannot be rationally defended, then it is indefensible and ought to be abandoned.

While there is no denying that some rulings had been good for society....there's no denying either that there were some recent rulings that boggles the mind.

Yes, there was a time when divorce was forbidden. But then it had been improved to make it possible for spouses to divorce if they are abused or unfaithful. Now however, you no longer need a reason....all you need to say is, "I want out."

Decisions can swing from one extreme to the other.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

No, I was completely serious. I think only by examining what seems obvious can we arrive at what (if any) should be the bounds we impose on individuals.

BTW, I was not meaning no set of rules at all on human behaviour. I simply was referring to marriage. The behaviour of what is permissable or not is already defined by other laws

So if there's no set of rules for marriage, that means anything goes. Marriage will be open to anyone's interpretation.

The law offers no guarantee for as we found out regarding the definiton of marriage for example, it can be bent.

Btw, being an "adult" does not automatically equal having sound judgement.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Munz is right. Incest should be legalized, however I see no reason why Alexander is correct in assuming it is the "forerunner" of pedophilia.

I think the assumption makes some sense.

If parents are granted the rights to incestuous relationships with their off-springs, how much difficult is it to convince the court that introduction to sex (for their own children) should also be granted as a right for parents.

We all know that the first time experience can play such a significant impact on an individual....who else should know best what's good for their children other than their own parents?

If NAMBLA is promoting the idea of positive sexual mentorship between man and boy, I don't think it will have any real obstacles standing in the way if the idea is "packaged, promoted and endorsed" by a well-funded and powerful lobby group who knows how to sell it to society. A parent can provide the best "mentorship" to his child, don't you think? After all, don't we learn values and other things from our parents? Sex is just taking that learning a step farther.

These days, "packaging" is everything. If you take a close look how special interest ideas such as smoking, drinking and driving, etc.., have managed to become a huge success...you'll notice the pattern from the way it got promoted and sold to the public.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[Renegade]

You are right. I have lost some confidence with court rulings based on some recent developments. A lot of judges are appointees, and some judges can be swayed by some influences other than logic and rational thinking.

That is true, afterall judges are only human, however the judical process incudes the opportunity to review and appeal which in my view has resulted in reaonably rational rulings.

While there is no denying that some rulings had been good for society....there's no denying either that there were some recent rulings that boggles the mind.

I'm pretty sure that when some of the rulings society now considers "good" first came out, they were considered abysmal by its detractors. I believe the same will be true for more recent rulings.

Yes, there was a time when divorce was forbidden. But then it had been improved to make it possible for spouses to divorce if they are abused or unfaithful. Now however, you no longer need a reason....all you need to say is, "I want out."

Yes that is true. In my view that is not a bad thing. It two people don't want to be together, they shouldn't have to invent a better reason than incompability.

[Renegade]

So if there's no set of rules for marriage, that means anything goes. Marriage will be open to anyone's interpretation.

The law offers no guarantee for as we found out regarding the definiton of marriage for example, it can be bent.

Yes, it would be open to anyone's interpretation. Different people or religions would interpret it differently. The reason I ask the question is, so what? If I want to declare myself married to my car, should society care?

Btw, being an "adult" does not automatically equal having sound judgement.

Of course you are right, however in a free society we have a presumption that an adult has free will, and short of violating another's rights, we give him free reign to do as he pleases. IOW, an adult has to presume he is acting a a way which negatively affect others, before society feels compelled to act.

[betsy]

Yes that is true. In my view that is not a bad thing. It two people don't want to be together, they shouldn't have to invent a better reason than incompability.

Yes. And that reflects our society now - the "I" or the "me" first, before all others.

Children had taken a backseat when it comes to priorities. For a lot, children comes behind careers....for other, way down the line alongside pets.

It may have been a good solution for some....but casualties abound. We are facing them right now.

Some consequences for changes do not surface prominently untill several generations later. Society is making such quick decisions based more on whims to satisfy some. There should be serious impact studies done - REAL and GENUINE, CREDIBLE INDEPENDENT STUDIES , I must add, before we change things around.

[Renegade]

I think the assumption makes some sense.

If parents are granted the rights to incestuous relationships with their off-springs, how much difficult is it to convince the court that introduction to sex (for their own children) should also be granted as a right for parents.

We all know that the first time experience can play such a significant impact on an individual....who else should know best what's good for their children other than their own parents?

If NAMBLA is promoting the idea of positive sexual mentorship between man and boy, I don't think it will have any real obstacles standing in the way if the idea is "packaged, promoted and endorsed" by a well-funded and powerful lobby group who knows how to sell it to society. A parent can provide the best "mentorship" to his child, don't you think? After all, don't we learn values and other things from our parents? Sex is just taking that learning a step farther.

These days, "packaging" is everything. If you take a close look how special interest ideas such as smoking, drinking and driving, etc.., have managed to become a huge success...you'll notice the pattern from the way it got promoted and sold to the public.

Actually I wasn't imagining parent-minor child incest. I was talking about adult sibling incest. I think that parent-minor child incest woudl still be probhited for the same reason that pedopehelia is prohibited and I dicussed above. (ie that the child cannot make informed consent). In the case of an adult child, then logic would indicate that yes, than kind of relationship would be permitted.

[betsy]

Yes, it would be open to anyone's interpretation. Different people or religions would interpret it differently. The reason I ask the question is, so what? If I want to declare myself married to my car, should society care?

Yes, society should care. If we're going to have to recognize your car as your wife...and entitle her to some rights afforded a spouse!

[Renegade]

Yes. And that reflects our society now - the "I" or the "me" first, before all others.

Children had taken a backseat when it comes to priorities. For a lot, children comes behind careers....for other, way down the line alongside pets.

It may have been a good solution for some....but casualties abound. We are facing them right now.

Some consequences for changes do not surface prominently untill several generations later. Society is making such quick decisions based more on whims to satisfy some. There should be serious impact studies done - REAL and GENUINE, CREDIBLE INDEPENDENT STUDIES , I must add, before we change things around.

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread into a discussion on divorce, however I will say that it is my belief that you cannot legislate a parent making children a priority, or going to church, or being a faithful spouse, or any number of "good" behaviours. Further, the importance of allowing free will, means that you shouldn't even try to should impose general rules to dictate such behaviour.

[betsy]

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread into a discussion on divorce, however I will say that it is my belief that you cannot legislate a parent making children a priority, or going to church, or being a faithful spouse, or any number of "good" behaviours. Further, the importance of allowing free will, means that you shouldn't even try to should impose general rules to dictate such behaviour.

It was not legislated that children should be a parent's priority....even society's priority, since these are the future. That was without any question the priority of most members of society. There was never any doubt about the roles of parents in the lives of their children. Correct me if I'm wrong that there was no such specific legislation directed at that.

It was one of our values - an unwritten code. That responsibility/priority came naturally.

Ironically, it was legislation that changed all that.

It might be just my imagination, but I do think people nowadays - adults - are so confused as to their roles. A sense of discontent ...to fill some sort of a void....seems to be the driving force. The sense of fulfilment seem to be ever shift-changing... more elusive.

Edited August 15, 2007 by betsy

[Renegade]

It was not legislated that children should be a parent's priority....even society's priority, since these are the future. That was without any question the priority of most members of society. There was never any doubt about the roles of parents in the lives of their children. Correct me if I'm wrong that there was no such specific legislation directed at that.

It was one of our values - an unwritten code. That responsibility/priority came naturally.

You are absolutely correct. There is no such legislation, nor should there be. This is my point. Just because society thinks monogamous marriage is "good" it shouldn't legislate it. It should leave it to people to do for themselves what comes naturally. Well before society created rules for it, couples were paring and acting as parents.

Ironically, it was legislation that changed all that.

I'm not sure which legislation you are referring to, but maybe you are reinforcing my point that perhaps there shoud not be legislation in this area at all.

It might be just my imagination, but I do think people nowadays - adults - are so confused as to their roles. A sense of discontent ...to fill some sort of a void....seems to be the driving force. The sense of fulfilment seem to be ever shift-changing... more elusive.

You may be right, I'm not sure, however I'm pretty sure that imposing rules on society is not the way to solve this.