Polygamy - Off to the Courts to decide?

[Goober]

Polygamy in Canada is essentially a Latter-Day Saints' (Mormon) phenomenon imported from the States. However, the Bible does not prohibit polygamy. So, saying it is anti Christian or anti-Jewish is nonsense.

Personally, the best argument against polygamy is secular. Who, in his right mind, would want more than one back-seat driver in his vehicle?

Spade

Now if you were a single man - would you say No???????? Or would ya be gettin a script from the Dr.?????

Playboy twins get naked / PhotoGallery / playboy, naked, sexy, Karissa, Kristina Shannon,famous, celebrity, gossip, mag,

 

[selin]

Spade

Now if you were a single man - would you say No???????? Or would ya be gettin a script from the Dr.?????

Playboy twins get naked / PhotoGallery / playboy, naked, sexy, Karissa, Kristina Shannon,famous, celebrity, gossip, mag,

don't take his mind away with those examples -when given the chance to women to have sex with Johnny Depp or Gerard Butler, they might choose polygamy,too.




men or women, some people give importance to love and sex and prefer to keep it precious-between two people during their whole life without the third or more .

and men or women, some people are horny and try to justify polygamy by different ways- (it can be cured like an illness.)

 

[Goober]

don't take his mind away with those examples -when given the chance to women to have sex with Johnny Depp or Gerard Butler, they might choose polygamy,too.




men or women, some people give importance to love and sex and prefer to keep it precious-between two people during their whole life without the third or more .

and men or women, some people are horny and try to justify polygamy by different ways- (it can be cured like an illness.)

Well then I do feel empathy for those ugly fellows but such is life. Glad my Momma told me I was Good Looking, otherwise I might get nervous.

 

[Spade]

Yep, a man can have many wives (Sequentially a.k.a. divorce, or simultaneously a.k.a. polygamy), but a man has only one mum!

 

[Goober]

Yep, a man can have many wives (Sequentially a.k.a. divorce, or simultaneously a.k.a. polygamy), but a man has only one mum!

Wise words Spade and they never tell mis-truths.

 

[earth_as_one]

Seems that the problem is really that the decision/discussion is encased in a religious, or more specifically, freedom of religion framework. The folks that are currently contesting the status quo are doing it based on religious freedom and it would seem that the 2nd most likely group to do so (traditional Muslims) would also do so on that basis. However, in what is or should be a secular society, we should really be making these types of decisions based on an analysis of personal freedom (for all citizens regardless of religion)vs. potential harm.

Lets leave the religious aspect out of it.

Now polygamy and polyandry when all parties are fully aware and consenting ADULTS seems quite fair and harmless (at least as much so as any marriage) to all parties involved. Therefore it seems hard to find criteria on which to base its illegality. Ceremonies would have to be nondenominational (civil)or performed by religious institutions who support it.

Canadian law (when properly applied)is stringent enough to provide protection for minors and in cases where the relationship is unequal with some tweaks. Certainly polygamy where one spouse is unaware (the travelling salesman with 2 families completely unknown to one another) or where there is evidence of coercion should still remain illegal and prosecutable. We might even want to tweak the law to provide additional protection in this area.

And finally, I highly doubt that this type of relationship will suddenly jump in popularity to the point where it becomes mainstream just because we make it legal. Lets face it, those who would find this type of relationship personally unacceptable are the vast majority but they really have no reason to enforce their views/beliefs on the minority who live happy fulfilling lives in this manner.

Good post! Rational, independent thought!

don't take his mind away with those examples -when given the chance to women to have sex with Johnny Depp or Gerard Butler, they might choose polygamy,too.

men or women, some people give importance to love and sex and prefer to keep it precious-between two people during their whole life without the third or more .

and men or women, some people are horny and try to justify polygamy by different ways- (it can be cured like an illness.)

The current case involves a woman and two men.

Zoe Duff, 51, who practises polyamory poses for photos with partners Jayson Hawksworth (R) Danny Weeds in Victoria, B.C. November 18, 2010


Read more: Polygamy reference case could open door to legalizing multiple marriage
​

​

 

[Spade]

Slow death by the hung! May Gawd have mercy on her soul!

 

[Bar Sinister]

Seems to me the entire issue begs the question. First, it has to be establised that Mormonism is a religion, and then the religious beliefs can be examined. Since Mormonism is a cult, and not a religion, it's irrelevant whether this practice of polygamy can be justified through religion in Canada. I suppose that argument would cause an uproar in the bountiful Mormon community, but it would the argument I would make - if I were in a position to make an argument.

I fail to see the distinction between a religion and a cult. All religions and all cults have identical distinguishing characteristics. The only difference I can see is that the term "cult" is given to a religion one does not approve of. In a sense all religions are cults and all cults are religions. Some cults are simply larger than others and have more money.

 

[Spade]

Yep!

 

[selin]

Good post! Rational, independent thought!



The current case involves a woman and two men.


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

this choice depends on one's character mostly...

 

[earth_as_one]

Every time the issue of legalizing polyamorous relationships comes up, people try to change the topic to child brides and pedophilia. These are different issues and in the specific case before the courts, non-issues. This time, three consenting adults (two men and a woman) want to legitimize their relationship and none of them appear to be child brides. Should these three be allowed to share spousal benefits like other people in longterm stable relationships?

More information about these three here:
Polyamorous triad: "We are a stable and happy blended family"

 

[karrie]

Not only does the topic switch from one of consenting adult unions to that of child brides, but, because they hide behind murky laws on the issue, the polygamy argument serves to sheild pedophiles. If unions like the one pictured above this post were made legitimate, there would be a clear cut understanding of what is and isn't an acceptable polygamous union, and child brides could be dealt with on the grounds it SHOULD be dealt with.

 

[Dilettante]

this choice depends on one's character mostly...

You are entitled to that opinion however I caution against defining the character of an individual based on one aspect of their lifestyle. Particularly an aspect such as this which causes no harm to others.

 

[Goober]

You are entitled to that opinion however I caution against defining the character of an individual based on one aspect of their lifestyle. Particularly an aspect such as this which causes no harm to others.

Then I wonder are you aware of the social costs on Polygamy in these types of communities such as Bountiful. I then find judging those men and adult women as problems for society - It is little more than a cult. And run with an iron grip.

 

[earth_as_one]

Cults, pedophilia, child brides... are other issues. Do those three look like a cult? The topic is about legitimizing polyamorous relationships like the one above which involves three consenting adults, one of whom is a mother with children.

In an attempt to steer the debate back on topic, let's presume the mother has a good job with benefits. If something happens to the her, who gets custody of her children. Who gets spousal survivor and pension benefits.

Under current laws, she's a single mom and the men have no rights.

 

[Goober]

Cults, pedophilia, child brides... are other issues. Do those three look like a cult? The topic is about legitimizing polyamorous relationships like the one above which involves three consenting adults, one of whom is a mother with children.

In an attempt to steer the debate back on topic, let's presume the mother has a good job with benefits. If something happens to the her, who gets custody of her children. Who gets spousal survivor and pension benefits.

Under current laws, she's a single mom and the men have no rights.

This case before the courts is all about the situation in Bountiful. And please consider the social costs. What you are asking for is a little of this and none of the same for others. That would fail any legal test. Those 3 you are referring to, if the good Lord gave them brains they should have contracts written up covering all the nitty, gritty details, Child support, visitation, holidays and all the other things that a divorce lawyer is familiar with. But to recognize it as a legal marriage would then equate to Bountiful and a disgusting situation that is becoming the law of the land. You cannot separate the 2 issues. It either is or it is not. No cutting the baby in 2 as Solomon offered.

Common Law agreements are enforceable by the courts when entered into by all parties and when they are all informed of all the legal ramifications under the Present Laws.

 

[Dilettante]

Then I wonder are you aware of the social costs on Polygamy in these types of communities such as Bountiful. I then find judging those men and adult women as problems for society - It is little more than a cult. And run with an iron grip.

Yeah, What Earth_is_one said!!! ;-)

But in all seriousness, Bountiful was founded with the intention of creating something of an isolationist group of like minded people. As with many groups who do this, be they leftover hippies or fundamentalist religious groups, they descended into abuse and inequality of power. I'd argue that polygamy as it was being practiced in bountiful, did not in all cases meet the requirements of consent and age of majority that surround even monogamous marriages in Canada.

 

[Kreskin]

These people should live the monogamous Canadian way.. marriage.. divorce.. marriage.. divorce.. marriage.. adultry.. hookers.. divorce.

 

[earth_as_one]

This case before the courts is all about the situation in Bountiful. And please consider the social costs. What you are asking for is a little of this and none of the same for others. That would fail any legal test. Those 3 you are referring to, if the good Lord gave them brains they should have contracts written up covering all the nitty, gritty details, Child support, visitation, holidays and all the other things that a divorce lawyer is familiar with. But to recognize it as a legal marriage would then equate to Bountiful and a disgusting situation that is becoming the law of the land. You cannot separate the 2 issues. It either is or it is not. No cutting the baby in 2 as Solomon offered.

Common Law agreements are enforceable by the courts when entered into by all parties and when they are all informed of all the legal ramifications under the Present Laws.

The case before the courts is to determine if the current law regarding polyamorous relationships violates Canada's Charter. Bountiful is only one aspect of the case. Zoe Duff's illegal relationship with her two husbands are another aspect. The current law is vague, likely unenforceable, based on narrow Christian views regarding marriage and strips consenting adults of the their charter right to pursue happiness and make personal choices.

If you find the idea of polyamorous relationships disgusting, then I suggest you avoid entering into that type of a relationship.

 

[Goober]

The case before the courts is to determine if the current law regarding polyamorous relationships violates Canada's Charter. Bountiful is only one aspect of the case. Zoe Duff's illegal relationship with her two husbands are another aspect. The current law is vague, likely unenforceable, based on narrow Christian views regarding marriage and strips consenting adults of the their charter right to pursue happiness and make personal choices.

If you find the idea of polyamorous relationships disgusting, then I suggest you avoid entering into that type of a relationship.

My Post
But to recognize it as a legal marriage would then equate to Bountiful and a disgusting situation that is becoming the law of the land. You cannot separate the 2 issues. It either is or it is not. No cutting the baby in 2 as Solomon offered.

The situation I was referring to as disgusting was Bountiful. Was that not clear? Can you not follow the logic train on this?