BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Leave the Mormons out of it,

Karrie, leave Mormons out of it? Why? They are the major proponents of polygamy, along with Muslims.

discuss why three college students who are all in love with one another, educated, and aware of their choices, shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Oh, there are several reasons. First, if you let them marry you also have to recognize the polygamous marriages of Mormons, with all the accompanying sexual abuse of minors and the brainwashing of women that goes on in those compounds.

Same with Muslims. We also must recognize Muslim polygamous marriages. Muslim women will be forced to enter polygamous marriages, same as many times they are forced to enter monogamous marriage these days. Their misery will be compounded in polygamous marriages.

Also, your ideal three member couple, all college educated, may work well for a while. What happens if one of them gets pregnant? Who decides how the child should be brought up? Only the father and the mother? Then what about the rights of the other woman, she presumably works and contributes to the running of the household. Does she have a say in how the child should be brought up? If not, why not?

If she does have a say, what does that say abut the right of the father and the mother to decide how their child should be brought up (a right that they enjoy today).

If there is a divorce, does the other woman get custodial rights? If not, why not? She has contributed financially to the household. If she gets custodial rights, what does that say about the right of the father and the mother to decide how their child should be brought up?

If the man wants to marry another woman, who decides that? Does the man alone decide? If so, then the women in the marriage have no rights. If women have the veto over who the man marries, that denies man the very basic, fundamental right, the right to marry whoever he chooses, the right of association.

One can think of many situations like this, where right of one person can only be protected at the expense of rights of another. There is no way out of the dilemma, no way to square the circle.

Mormons, Muslims are at least upfront about it, they make no secret of the fact that the aim of polygamous marriage is to keep women down. Any union of one man and several women will precisely have the same effect. Either that, or man may be totally denied his rights. There is no middle ground, no way to square the circle.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I remember Robert Heinlein described polygamous marriage in ‘Moon Is a Harsh Mistress’. Only he called it ‘line marriages’.

However, Heinlein, though a brilliant science fiction writer, was a male chauvinist of the first order, and proud of it, he made no bones about it. So in his polygamous marriage, men had the veto over who is admitted into the marriage. Women, of course had no say.

And I think that is about par with the existing polygamous marriages today, and I assume any future polygamous marriages (if I am wrong and Supreme Court legalizes polygamy).
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
well....I just read through the entire thread...and I agree with Z....you're an idiot that has no idea what the heck he is babbling about. You use similar arguments against polygamy that have been used in the past against women getting the vote..... SSM....... and none of it holds water. There is no lose of rights to any member of a polygamous marriage.

Concerning your biggest objection...that being a man would not have the right of "free assosiation"..... if he was married to 4 women and wanted a 5th without the consent of the other 4.....he could always diorce the other 4 and marry the 5th..... no one would be stopping him from doing that..... he has that right... so..... no suppression of his "right to free assosiation" But we all know( at least those of us that have loving, stable marriages) that it's never about MY rights...it's about OUR rights.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
you're an idiot that has no idea what the heck he is babbling about.

Sorry, Gerryh, but I never discuss anything with anybody who cannot debate without resorting to personal insults and personal abuse.

If you have nothing to say except personal abuse, personal insults, that tells me that you have nothing to say, that I have won the debate. So I claim victory.

Goodbye.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
you're an idiot that has no idea what the heck he is babbling about.

Sorry, Gerryh, but I never discuss anything with anybody who cannot debate without resorting to personal insults and personal abuse.

If you cannot say anything but personal abuse, personal insults, that tells me that you have nothing to say, that I have won the debate. So I claim victory.

Goodbye.



ROFLMFAO.....sure...no problem chicken sh*t....what ever excuse you need to run away.

I'm so sorry that I hurt your widdle feelings.:roll:..but...I call a spade a spade.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
This just boggles the mind- polygamy in Canada is clearly AGAINST the law, or so I've thought for over 60 years. Why have laws on the books that aren't going to be enforced? Seems to me like such a stupid waste of time and money not to mention making a farce (or more of one than it already is) of the legal system.


Homosexuality used to be against the law also.....your point is?
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
:roll: I rest my case....... look up beastiality in the criminal code.

160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of 16 years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3; 2008, c. 6, s. 54.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of 16 years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of 16 years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3; 2008, c. 6, s. 54.


Exactley...but it would have been nicer if porter had actually done the research himself....he might learn a little more that way.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Children and animals are not consenting adults. A forced marriage is not a consenting relationship.

Cheating on your partner, lacks consent and isn't an example of plural marriage either. Its legal, but immoral.

Unlike the above examples, consenting adults who freely choose to enter a plural marriage are making a "personal choice".

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint (i.e., imprisonment would be inconsistent with liberty unless it is consistent with fundamental justice). That right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices such as homosexuality. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal."

Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People who make personal choices in pursuit of happiness in their own way without hurting anyone else should be legally protected from harassment and discrimination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zzarchov and gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Children and animals are not consenting adults. A forced marriage is not a consenting relationship.

Cheating on your partner, lacks consent and isn't an example of plural marriage either. Its legal, but immoral.

Unlike the above examples, consenting adults who freely choose to enter a plural marriage are making a "personal choice".

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint (i.e., imprisonment would be inconsistent with liberty unless it is consistent with fundamental justice). That right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices such as homosexuality. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal."

Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People who make personal choices in pursuit of happiness in their own way without hurting anyone else should be legally protected from harassment and discrimination.


Very well put.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Very well put.
Thank you.

Polygamists will win their case.

BTW, polygamy isn't just about multiple wives. It would also include multimple husbands and communal living. We are going to have to change other laws regarding divorce, property ownership and child custody....

This opens a big can of worms.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Karrie, leave Mormons out of it? Why? They are the major proponents of polygamy, along with Muslims.

Oh, there are several reasons. First, if you let them marry you also have to recognize the polygamous marriages of Mormons, with all the accompanying sexual abuse of minors and the brainwashing of women that goes on in those compounds.

I will happily recognize their marriages and prosecute them for the child abuse that occurs. Polygamy does not excuse abuse. And as for the brain washing... you perpetuate that by not allowing them to be recognized, by ensuring that their marriages need to be 'hidden', giving those men ammunition to keep their women living in fear. I would happily recognize their marriages so that they can freely move about and learn whether they are being treated well or not.

Same with Muslims.

Also, your ideal three member couple, all college educated, may work well for a while. What happens if one of them gets pregnant? Who decides how the child should be brought up? Only the father and the mother? Then what about the rights of the other woman, she presumably works and contributes to the running of the household. Does she have a say in how the child should be brought up? If not, why not?

If she does have a say, what does that say abut the right of the father and the mother to decide how their child should be brought up (a right that they enjoy today).

If there is a divorce, does the other woman get custodial rights? If not, why not? She has contributed financially to the household. If she gets custodial rights, what does that say about the right of the father and the mother to decide how their child should be brought up?

Those would all be issues for the families, and family courts to work out. As it is, more people than my husband and I get a say in the raising of our children. His parents, my parents, sisters, etc. It is by choice that we give them a say, and it would be by choice that someone would enter into a polygamous marriage and give another person a say.

If the man wants to marry another woman, who decides that? Does the man alone decide? If so, then the women in the marriage have no rights. If women have the veto over who the man marries, that denies man the very basic, fundamental right, the right to marry whoever he chooses, the right of association.

One can think of many situations like this, where right of one person can only be protected at the expense of rights of another. There is no way out of the dilemma, no way to square the circle.

Mormons, Muslims are at least upfront about it, they make no secret of the fact that the aim of polygamous marriage is to keep women down. Any union of one man and several women will precisely have the same effect. Either that, or man may be totally denied his rights. There is no middle ground, no way to square the circle.

How is that any different than my marriage? My husband and I have no illusion of 'freedom of association'. We have freely chosen as adults to enter into a contract which puts our unity ahead of individual freedoms in certain respects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Thank you.

Polygamists will win their case.

BTW, polygamy isn't just about multiple wives. It would also include multimple husbands and communal living. We are going to have to change other laws regarding divorce, property ownership and child custody....

This opens a big can of worms.


Nothing remains the same...... I'm sure when women got the vote someone said basically the same thing...... and even then we ended up having to change some laws to recognise women as having the same rights as men when it came to divorce, child custody, and property ownership.