Polygamy and Democracy

[Adelle]

"..because children must be protected from sexual predators. Polygamous societies should not be welcomed in Canada."

Polygamy and sexual predation, particularly of children, are two different things. You could as easily have said "Sexual societies shouldn't be welcomed because children must be protected from sexual preditors".

As I said recently in a letter on the subject to the Edm Sun:

"No personal relationship between people above the age of sexual consent, including Polyamory or Polygamy, should be considered illegal unless there is no consent. There are other laws to address that. Cultism, abuse and exploitation, which are the real problems in Bountiful, should be and are. It is about time the government took action. Any philosophy, culture or religion that treats women as second-class citizens or chattel should be questioned and not just in Bountiful. Women must be free to make their own choices."

Some definitions:

monogamy - the practice of each person having only one spouse at a time,

serial monogamy - used to describe the lifestyle of persons who have regularly and repeatedly married and divorced multiple partners,

polyamory - romantic or sexual relationships involving multiple partners at once,

polygamy - the practice of marriage to more than one spouse,

polygyny - one man having more than one wife,

polyandry - one woman having more than one husband,

polygynandry - some combination of polygyny and polyandry (group marriage).

Bigamy is when one individual is married to two people at the same time. The purpose of bigamy laws is to protect a spouse from entering a marriage based upon deceit ... in otherwords, fraud. Adultery, although no longer illegal in Canada, is based on the same concern.

Of particular note: Presently in Canada a consenting person may be anyone above the age of 14 (unrestricted) though, as such, they would not yet be considered an adult. The legal term is "youth".

Edited September 12, 2007 by Adelle

[Adelle]

Notwithstanding that cultures that practice polygamy including those in North America are oppresive in nature and in fact, primitive in structure and violent in practice.

Which has more to do with tribalism (as in Rwanda), sectarianism (Iraq), and ideology (ex-Yugoslavia). The practice or non-practice of polygamy is really secondary and coincidental. Even racism (Arab vs Israeli) would be a better marker than sexual practices.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Adelle

[M.Dancer]

Polygamy and sexual predation, particularly of children, are two different things. You could as easily have said "Sexual societies shouldn't be welcomed because children must be protected from sexual preditors".

They may be to different things, like rain and lightning, but lightning is often accompanied by rain. In this case, polygamy requires the sexualization of children, becuase willing female adult recruits are few and far between.

[M.Dancer]

Even racism (Arab vs Israeli) would be a better marker than sexual practices.

Hmm...Israel, monogamy and democracy, Palestine, polygamy and child brides allowed and tyranny.....

[jennie]

They may be to different things, like rain and lightning, but lightning is often accompanied by rain. In this case, polygamy requires the sexualization of children, becuase willing female adult recruits are few and far between.

That 'slippery slope' argument is a slippery slope itself.

Laws are made or not made based on evidence, not such speculation.

However, I note that the current criminal case involves the leader of the community pressuring the child bride and child groom, who married against their will to have sex in order to multiply. He is charged with '"counselling rape'.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, to see if non-consenting minors in such communities are protected.

Edited September 12, 2007 by jennie

[fellowtraveller]

"No personal relationship between people above the age of sexual consent, including Polyamory or Polygamy, should be considered illegal unless there is no consent. There are other laws to address that. Cultism, abuse and exploitation, which are the real problems in Bountiful, should be and are. It is about time the government took action. Any philosophy, culture or religion that treats women as second-class citizens or chattel should be questioned and not just in Bountiful. Women must be free to make their own choices."

Interesting that you would use the term 'personal relationship'. Do you mean passing acquaintances, friends,lovers, or spouses? The first three don't require laws. It is marriage that has everybodys knickers in a knot, and I'm not sure why since we have just had an exhaustive, lenghty debate on a very similar subject - same sex marriage.

Now the discussion on polygamy even uses the same old tired arguments and language , that "Polygamy and sexual predation, particularly of children, are two different things. You could as easily have said "Sexual societies shouldn't be welcomed because children must be protected from sexual preditors".

Note that this very argument was introduced with SSM, where opponents tried to get all of us to swallow the bait that homesexuality was linked to pedophilia. Another example is the language of abortion rights, where you either are Pro-Life or, I guess, Pro-Death or AntiLife.

Next up, in a last ditch attempt to forestall the legitimization of polygamy in Canada: it is against Gods will.

It is too late folks, Elvis has left the building.

Edited September 12, 2007 by fellowtraveller