B.C. court to weigh polygamy laws

[Ray]

Another bad side-effect of striking the law down is BC's population explosion when half of Utah moves there.

I doubt that half of Utah's population is polygamous...Even if they were, I doubt all of the polygamists would move.

Comment strikes me like one I heard in a Japanese restaurant the other night. 2 couples were sitting at the other end of the grill and they were talking about telephone solicitors. One guy described how he handled those calls...then he says "And I greet mormon missionaries with my shotgun." I could change "mormon missionaries" to any one of several other groups of people and it would sound so unacceptable...but what the heck, it's only mormon missionaries.

 

[Scott T]

I doubt that half of Utah's population is polygamous...Even if they were, I doubt all of the polygamists would move.

Comment strikes me like one I heard in a Japanese restaurant the other night. 2 couples were sitting at the other end of the grill and they were talking about telephone solicitors. One guy described how he handled those calls...then he says "And I greet mormon missionaries with my shotgun." I could change "mormon missionaries" to any one of several other groups of people and it would sound so unacceptable...but what the heck, it's only mormon missionaries.

Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.

So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.

 

[Ray]

Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.

So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.

I don't make any assumptions about you. Just your "joke," it wasn't funny, sound stereotypically prejudice and based in ignorance. I suppose that it makes it easier if you "mock all religions."

 

[Scott T]

I don't make any assumptions about you. Just your "joke," it wasn't funny, sound stereotypically prejudice and based in ignorance. I suppose that it makes it easier if you "mock all religions."

Much easier. It was always hard when I actually respected organized religion.

**and no, that wasn't a joke**

 

[Ray]

Much easier. It was always hard when I actually respected organized religion.

**and no, that wasn't a joke**

How about disorganized religion or other beliefs that others may have? Is it natural for us to minimize them as well?

 

[Ken Morgan]

It's your dime.
Sean

Many of the people who are polygamist right now live on welfare because they live in commune communities or live “underground”, simply because they do not want to be found out.

I know of many white males and females who don’t work and live off of our welfare system and are happy to do so. I have friends who have had arranged marriages, got a great dowry, brought the new wife to Canada, had four kids and the mom collects assistance. Remember that argument a few years ago in Toronto? The one about wanting to limit Jamaicans from coming to Canada because they participated in a disproportionate amount of criminal activities?

To say all polygamists are deadbeats that rely on government handouts is an erroneous argument. You can’t say that about any particular group and have it hold water.

You can not paint all group with the same brush.

Personally...way the hell would anyone want more then one wife????

 

[Scott T]

How about disorganized religion or other beliefs that others may have? Is it natural for us to minimize them as well?

Since we're getting way off topic here, I will end my participation in this particular line of discourse with this:

I respect any religion that preaches the idea that you have the right to think for yourself. That requires neither a man behind a pulpit nor a man on a tv screen. No Golden Gate as a reward. No Fire and Brimstone as punishment.

If a religion requires a modern liaison between you and a long-dead holy man to survive and save your soul, then it's nothing more than a mechanism of control that has the benefit of steady income for those at the top.

 

[David43515]

Sorry, If I were going to mock religion on this or any other thread, it would be all of them. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to religions.

So take the joke for what it is, or don't. Just don't start making assumptions about me.

No harm done I suppose, but the first time around it just wasn`t very clear that it was a joke.

I`m Mormon (one wife and that`s plenty thanks) and have been for nearly 25 years. The only polygamists I`ve ever met were in Ohio.....and they were not religious in any way shape or form. They just preffered to have a more open relationship. For the record, most Utah Moroms think that Polygamists are wierd.

Polygamy started, at least among Mormons, because the women outnumbered the men quite a bit and there were no social saftey-nets (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc).And at the time it wasn`t illegal. Female converts to the new relion generally outnumbered men, and many men were killed by mobs that opposed the Church`s beleifs. While many of the marriages were genuine family affairs, many were on paper only, similar to civil war veterans in thier 60`s "marrying" young girls in their teens who worked as maids and nurses. The vets couldn`t pay much, but the girls would be assured of recieving widows` penssions from the Defense Dept.

And at the height of polygamy in the 1890`s, less than 15% of LDS families were polygamous. It wasn`t something a man usually decided on his own. Generally community leaders would approach someone who`s business was doing well and suggest that he consider it because he could obviously support a larger family.

Personally I`m glad the Church gave up the practice. But just because I choose not to do something, I don`t think that I have the right to tell consenting adults how to live thier lives if it doesn`t harm me.

 

[David43515]

If the people that engaged in this behavior didn't decide to live on government money, I could see it as a freedom of choice issue, but this behavior costs the government big bucks. It is simply a bad choice until it gets payed for independantly.
Sean

Couldn`t have said it better. Many of these familes live on welfare because they can`t work out in the open for fear of being arrested for polygamy. The Govt`s main complaint has always been one of costs and property rights. Having 12 women and 86 children collecting survivors` benefits when John dies is much more costly than one wife and 3 kids.

 

[Makalakumu]

Couldn`t have said it better. Many of these familes live on welfare because they can`t work out in the open for fear of being arrested for polygamy. The Govt`s main complaint has always been one of costs and property rights. Having 12 women and 86 children collecting survivors` benefits when John dies is much more costly than one wife and 3 kids.

Why do we assume that welfare has to exist?

Under those conditions, forming cooperative groups that can work in the open with freedom, makes a lot more sense.

 

[elder999]

FWIW, I am unfamiliar of any societies that practice polygamy that don't also include child-brides. There could be some out there, but I am unaware of them (I'd be interested in hearing about any that exist).

Depends upon which form of polygamy you're talking about, then, doesn't it? Some societies-like Tibetan nomads and Sri Lanka-practice polyandry, that is to say, a wife with more than one husband. Some societies also practice(d) group marriages, with more than one husband and wife,such as occured in Polynesian, Melanesian and Hawaiian societies, where brothers might form a family unit with their respective wives. There was also group marriage among the Lakota, as well as a few Australian aboriginal tribes.

 

[elder999]

The homosexual activist has more in common with the woman who married a dolphin or the woman who married the Eiffel Tower; they all think that marriage depends not on any inherent reality but on the desires of the parties involved. As a friend of mine said during a conversation we were having with another friend who is gay told him: "You should be able to marry anybody. You should be able to marry a door knob." I had to demure on that point as it would make marriage meaningless.

Pax,

Chris

Neither the door knob, the Eiffel Tower or the dolphin can consent, which should be a key element of a legal, civil union/marriage (NEWSFLASH:all legal marriages are "civil unions") in a free society, sot the comparison is somewhat specious.

 

[elder999]

.Advocates of gay "marriage" have no ally in polygamists for this reason. The polygamists realize marriages are between men and women.

Pax,

Chris

ANd yet, in Canada, these polygamists used Candada's legal gay marriage as a defense against charges of polygamy (bigamy?):

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.
The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.
"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.

:lfao:

 

[Ray]

Since we're getting way off topic here, I will end my participation in this particular line of discourse with this:

I respect any religion that preaches the idea that you have the right to think for yourself. That requires neither a man behind a pulpit nor a man on a tv screen. No Golden Gate as a reward. No Fire and Brimstone as punishment.

If a religion requires a modern liaison between you and a long-dead holy man to survive and save your soul, then it's nothing more than a mechanism of control that has the benefit of steady income for those at the top.

Thanks, I appreciate that. Normally, I'm not sensitive to mormon jokes, or the joking stereotypes that we all probably use at one time or another. I was just still not over my conversation with the guy at the japanese restaurant who said he greeted the mormons with his shotgun...he smiled as he mentioned how he cocked it and pointed it at them; then laughed as he described how they ran.

I'm opposed to polygamy. I know there are supposed legal advantages to "legal" marriages, but am beginning to wonder and think it's time for me to do some research into it.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Depends upon which form of polygamy you're talking about, then, doesn't it? Some societies-like Tibetan nomads and Sri Lanka-practice polyandry, that is to say, a wife with more than one husband.

The article, and the conversation thus far, and my own comments about child brides made it pretty clear that polygyny was what was being discussed. I am unaware of any culture that practices polygyny that doesn't include the marrying of female children. I would be interested in knowing of any that exist.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Neither the door knob, the Eiffel Tower or the dolphin can consent, which should be a key element of a legal, civil union/marriage (NEWSFLASH:all legal marriages are "civil unions") in a free society, sot the comparison is somewhat specious.

Why? If, as some people claim, the state has no business regulating marriage at all what difference does it make if one of the parties doesn't consent? That's certainly not my position but you do hear people talking about how the state just get out of the marriage business all together. If that's the case then your point about consent is irrelevant. Conversely, the appeal to the consent of the parties involved is an appeal to an inherent nature of marriage in the first place, which is exactly the position of the anti-gay "marriage" people. Interesting.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

ANd yet, in Canada, these polygamists used Candada's legal gay marriage as a defense against charges of polygamy (bigamy?):


:lfao:

It seems from the article that the argument is that since gays can "marry" polygamists shoud be able to since that's less of a variation from monogamy than homosexual "marriage" is in the first place. It's not really a matter of pushing things further but pointing out that they've already redefined marriage in the first place.

That's not the same thing as being in support of gay "marriage," it's using an already existing law to support your position.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Blade96]

Interesting. Have you read any autiobigraphies of women who were "brides" in polygamous groups? It's not a pretty picture.

The polygamists may realise that "marriage is between men and women" but it is loaded in favour of men, these cults that promote these multiple marriages don't allow women to have more than one husband. It's a perversion, there's no good in this for women or children.

This story about Teressa Wall and her family's fight might be of interest.

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/polygamist-cult-kids-wife

 

[elder999]

The article, and the conversation thus far, and my own comments about child brides made it pretty clear that polygyny was what was being discussed. I am unaware of any culture that practices polygyny that doesn't include the marrying of female children. I would be interested in knowing of any that exist.

Pax,

Chris

Well, it depends upon how you define "marriage," and how you define "child."

In Senegal, for example, polygyny is legal-a man can have up to four wives. The minimum legal age for marriage for a woman is 16. While you or I might define that as a child, in some cultures it clearly is not.

In some cultures, both monogamous and polygamous, arranged marriages take place between people who are, quite literally, children-often as young as 9 years old, but more typically around 12. The children continue to live with their parents, and don't live together as man and wife until they reach something resembling a majority, though that may be as young as 15. Again, within their cultural framework, they aren't "children" any more when they do so, and, while they are "married" prior to that, there is no consummation.

Can't say for sure that "child brides" don't take place in this instance, but this article on polygyny in Siberia and Mongolia is interesting.

 

[Talon]

i've never understood why governments thinks they should be criminalizing polygamy.

The "to protect women and children" argument just doesn't wash, imo.

Yes, prosecute forcing children into "marriages" regardless of whether it happens in the context of monogamy or polygamy.

But polygamous marriages between consenting adults? Whose business is that?

Polygamists should be joining homosexuals in the fight for the right to marry who they want.

amen!