BCCLA calls for charges to be dropped in polygamy cases

[JLM]

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
- http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/09Polygamy.pdf

BCCLA would much prefer that Blackmore and his cronies be charged for various sexual abuses if there is any truth to it. Charging them with polygamy sounds like a legal nightmare considering the Charter of Rights & Freedoms (the liberty to practise your religion). I think Oppal is off his nut.
[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

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.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why would sex be the biggest concern? To me matters of sex tend to work themselves out easily, it's the kids, yard work, home life issues which are the sticky bit.

You think there won’t be any quibbling over sex? I would think that would be the biggest sticking point in any polygamous situation (unless of course, it is modeled after the existing polygamous marriages where man is the boss and he wields the whip, he decides with whom to have sex and how often).

 

[karrie]

You think there won’t be any quibbling over sex? I would think that would be the biggest sticking point in any polygamous situation (unless of course, it is modeled after the existing polygamous marriages where man is the boss and he wields the whip, he decides with whom to have sex and how often).

In the circles I run in, women decide who they have sex with, when, and how often. Women hold the power. And sex sorts itself out pretty easily with little quibbling in my household, regardless of how many people are in the bed. So yeah, I don't think there would be any more difficulty there than there would be over whose turn it is to mow the lawn.

 

[JLM]

In the circles I run in, women decide who they have sex with, when, and how often. Women hold the power. And sex sorts itself out pretty easily with little quibbling in my household, regardless of how many people are in the bed. So yeah, I don't think there would be any more difficulty there than there would be over whose turn it is to mow the lawn.

I don't think people take "mowing the lawn" quite as personal. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[karrie]

I don't think people take "mowing the lawn" quite as personal. :lol::lol::lol:

well of course not... the point was that sex, to me, wouldn't be any more problematic than any of the other issues that arise in a household. And if it was, then chances are you wouldn't be the type of person who's running off to jump into a polygamous marriage, right?

 

[JLM]

well of course not... the point was that sex, to me, wouldn't be any more problematic than any of the other issues that arise in a household. And if it was, then chances are you wouldn't be the type of person who's running off to jump into a polygamous marriage, right?

You got that right, Karrie- from a man's point of view just imagine the amount of nattering.

 

[gerryh]

Not everyone can "handle" a polygamous, polyamorous, or a hedonistic lifestyle.... none of these are for everyone. It is also not for everyone to denounce what they don't or are unable to understand.

 

[karrie]

You got that right, Karrie- from a man's point of view just imagine the amount of nattering.

You think so? See, I always envisioned wives who'd have one another to gripe to, so that only matters of importance actually make it to hubby.

 

[karrie]

Not everyone can "handle" a polygamous, polyamorous, or a hedonistic lifestyle.... none of these are for everyone. It is also not for everyone to denounce what they don't or are unable to understand.

exactly. Most people I know couldn't handle a polyamorous relationship. But the ones who can, it's as natural to them as monogamy is to others.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not everyone can "handle" a polygamous, polyamorous, or a hedonistic lifestyle.... none of these are for everyone. It is also not for everyone to denounce what they don't or are unable to understand.

It is not a question of denouncing such relationships. The point is, should such relationships be sanctioned by the government? And my answer is a resounding no, because of the human rights problem associated with such relationships.

I can imagine circumstances where a polygamous marriage would work quite well. Take 7 or 8 women with low self esteem, low opinion of themselves, bring them into contact with a macho man, somebody who also has a low opinion of women, who thinks women are little better than animals, put them together.

Such a relationship probably would work. Both the man and the wives would agree that man is the boss, he will issue orders, which the wives would unquestioningly obey (I think currently prostitutes and pimps have such relationships).

Or say a man, a career woman and a housewife type get married. The housewife could keep house for the other two. Then the career woman doesn’t have to worry about the household chores and can concentrate on her career. It may work out quite well for all three of them.

But the fact that such relationships may be suitable for some individuals does not mean that state should sanction it, there are plenty of human rights, equal rights problems associated with such relationships.

 

[Zzarchov]

It is not a question of denouncing such relationships. The point is, should such relationships be sanctioned by the government? And my answer is a resounding no, because of the human rights problem associated with such relationships.

I can imagine circumstances where a polygamous marriage would work quite well. Take 7 or 8 women with low self esteem, low opinion of themselves, bring them into contact with a macho man, somebody who also has a low opinion of women, who thinks women are little better than animals, put them together.

Such a relationship probably would work. Both the man and the wives would agree that man is the boss, he will issue orders, which the wives would unquestioningly obey (I think currently prostitutes and pimps have such relationships).

Or say a man, a career woman and a housewife type get married. The housewife could keep house for the other two. Then the career woman doesn’t have to worry about the household chores and can concentrate on her career. It may work out quite well for all three of them.

But the fact that such relationships may be suitable for some individuals does not mean that state should sanction it, there are plenty of human rights, equal rights problems associated with such relationships.

The problem with all of your analogies is they apply equally well to monogamous relationships.

And the state sanctions monogamous relationships.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Zzarchov, you keeping bringing in the red herring of monogamy. We are not discussing if monogamy should be legalized, so your arguments about monogamy are dishonest and irrelevant.

We have to look at polygamy on its own, and not based upon what is legal. The question is not how good monogamy is, but how good polygamy is. And at least in my opinion, it is sadly lacking when it comes to equal rights, human rights.

 

[karrie]

I can imagine circumstances where a polygamous marriage would work quite well. Take 7 or 8 women with low self esteem, low opinion of themselves, bring them into contact with a macho man, somebody who also has a low opinion of women, who thinks women are little better than animals, put them together.

So you'd prefer those women join into that relationship outside of any legal process which would grant them equal rights down the road to things like pension money? You'd prefer they were ghosts slipping alongside the legal system, with no recourse once their macho man tosses them? No right to support money? That doesn't sound preferable to me given the scenario you paint.

 

[Zzarchov]

Zzarchov, you keeping bringing in the red herring of monogamy. We are not discussing if monogamy should be legalized, so your arguments about monogamy are dishonest and irrelevant.

We have to look at polygamy on its own, and not based upon what is legal. The question is not how good monogamy is, but how good polygamy is. And at least in my opinion, it is sadly lacking when it comes to equal rights, human rights.

You sir are holding up a strawman arguement.

When homosexual marriage was discussed, it was discussed in relation to the rights heterosexual couples have to marriage.

When you discuss polygamous marriage, you must discuss it as it relates to monogamous marriages.

In an issue of rights, it boils down to rights others have that certain groups do not.


You're attempt to discuss polygamy while excluding monogamy is dishonest. Legality is directly related to one group getting government preference for their religious and moral views over another group. The rights and nature of monagamous marriages are of direct link to the legal status of polygamy.

 

[gerryh]

It is not a question of denouncing such relationships. The point is, should such relationships be sanctioned by the government? And my answer is a resounding no, because of the human rights problem associated with such relationships.

I can imagine circumstances where a polygamous marriage would work quite well. Take 7 or 8 women with low self esteem, low opinion of themselves, bring them into contact with a macho man, somebody who also has a low opinion of women, who thinks women are little better than animals, put them together.

Such a relationship probably would work. Both the man and the wives would agree that man is the boss, he will issue orders, which the wives would unquestioningly obey (I think currently prostitutes and pimps have such relationships).

Or say a man, a career woman and a housewife type get married. The housewife could keep house for the other two. Then the career woman doesn’t have to worry about the household chores and can concentrate on her career. It may work out quite well for all three of them.

But the fact that such relationships may be suitable for some individuals does not mean that state should sanction it, there are plenty of human rights, equal rights problems associated with such relationships.

SO far, all you have done is shown where you think polygamy could work and at the same time tell us that there are problems....well...... what human rights, equal rights problems are there with polygamy? Please try to list those rights that would be lost if the state were to sanction polygamy as a recognised form of marriage.

 

[Zzarchov]

He listed that right.

The right of married people to marry other people.

Don't ask me what logic lead him to think that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SO far, all you have done is shown where you think polygamy could work and at the same time tell us that there are problems....well...... what human rights, equal rights problems are there with polygamy? Please try to list those rights that would be lost if the state were to sanction polygamy as a recognised form of marriage.

Sorry, you joined the discussion rather late, I have already discussed in detail which rights are lost in a polygamous relationship (right of association, right to decide how to bring up one’s children etc.). In my opinion, polygamy comes right smack against the equality provision in the Charter.


I have no intention of going over the same ground again. Read my previous posts in this thread, then we will talk.

 

[karrie]

Sorry, you joined the discussion rather late, I have already discussed in detail which rights are lost in a polygamous relationship (right of association, right to decide how to bring up one’s children etc.). In my opinion, polygamy comes right smack against the equality provision in the Charter.

Why would a polygamist have any less right of association, or right to determine your child's upbringing, than a man married to a monogamous harpy? (might I point out that you seem to be modeling polygamous marriage on simply the religious zealots who you know engage in it now, rather than modeling it on normal everyday people).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why would a polygamist have any less right of association, or right to determine your child's upbringing, than a man married to a monogamous harpy? (might I point out that you seem to be modeling polygamous marriage on simply the religious zealots who you know engage in it now, rather than modeling it on normal everyday people).

Sorry, karrie, but I give the same answer to you. I have been involved in lengthy discussion with Zzarchov, you also came late to the debate.

I have no desire to repeat myself. I have answered your questions previously in this thread. Read them and if you still have questions or doubts, we will talk.

If you have already read all my relevant posts on the subject, point your discussion to specifically what I said (by quoting me), then I will be better able to answer you.

 

[karrie]

Sorry, karrie, but I give the same answer to you. I have been involved in lengthy discussion with Zzarchov, you also came late to the debate.

I have no desire to repeat myself. I have answered your questions previously in this thread. Read them and if you still have questions or doubts, we will talk.

If you have already read all my relevant posts on the subject, point your discussion to specifically what I said (by quoting me), then I will be better able to answer you.

I've read your posts, and what I stated stands. You seem unable to discuss polygamy on its own grounds, separate from the practice of religious indoctrination and suppression of women in fringe groups. Leave the Mormons out of it, and 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. Why should they have to pretend they are something they are not? Why should the partners in that marriage (whether you want to recognize it as one or not) have to take lesser status, and give up the stability that comes from being a legally recognized spouse?