Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It seems that the groups that are doing polygamist marriages are groups where the men are definitely in the position of power and near ownership. These marriages are also usually arranged by the church leaders or community leaders to me that puts these woman into a position no better then that of slave. How much pressure was exerted on these young girls to marry these creepy old men?

Hm...

Is it really a case though that the only people practicing polygamy are these groups that are all about power and control? Or is it just a case of those are the ones we hear about on the news because they're the screwed up ones? The 3 people living together in a polygamist relationship in a condo don't make the news.

A guy tanks up and kills a schoolbus full of kids, tragic but not many would call for prohibition.

It could also be that those wacky groups are the ones that think they're above the law and violate it, whereas if it wasn't illegal others would in ways that are balanced and healthy.

Hard to say for sure without a lot more info and research.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It also seems that there is quite a bit of control exerted over these woman.

This kind of thing happens in 1:1 relationships as well, arranged marriages, etc, can't really legislate against that.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the government has made a mistake in these charges and should have focused on the underage marriage issues.

Definitely a lot easier to deal with.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

See I would agree, but I just can't in certain points.

It seems that the groups that are doing polygamist marriages are groups where the men are definitely in the position of power and near ownership. These marriages are also usually arranged by the church leaders or community leaders to me that puts these woman into a position no better then that of slave. How much pressure was exerted on these young girls to marry these creepy old men?


It also seems that there is quite a bit of control exerted over these woman.

I think that the government has made a mistake in these charges and should have focused on the underage marriage issues.

There's almost no way that this isn't going to open some supreme court intervention at some point.

I think you're on the money here.

As for how this relates to gay marriage, it's a fairly simple line of reasoning.

The Charter's equality provisions have this to say:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Note that it says nothing about sexuality. However, sexuality is an analogous ground which has been read into the Charter by the courts. This is a big part of the argument underlying the pro-gay-marriage argument: you can't discriminate on the basis of homosexuality because it receives protection under the Charter, therefore you can't prevent homosexual couples from marrying - a right extended by the state to heterosexuals.

Religion, on the other hand, is an explicit ground upon which you cannot discriminate. If one religion allows polygamy, how can the state stop that practice without infringing the Constitution?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

i know it wasnt an attack, just a question. just being preventitive, maybe too much, sure. but i expected it may turn into some kind of religious argument or something like that.

A thread on CP that involves gays, marriage and religion delving into a quagmire of religious finger pointing, circular arguments and counterpoint posts that all parties totally ignore and they all repeatedly restate the same opinion??? NEVER! Actually, I give it til about post 40, max.

And no worries, seems I didn't get my bran today and am all feisty.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine. my point of view is that God made marriage as a thing for a man and a wife, in certain ways men and women fit together (not just in a physical sense). what complicates it is that people want to get married because they get financial benefits and society is more accepting of married people. why does a gay couple need to get married? i still think guys having sex together is not what God intended, but if they want to then thats what they want to do. why get married? same thing with marrying multiple partners, why marriage? cant they just commit to the other person? isnt marriage a commitment to one other person? a guy is supposed to just have sex with his wife, not other women(or men). same thing the other way around. again, my opinion/beliefs here.
the argument of course is that people should be allowed to do what they want...come up with a new term or something for a permanent(how permanent is marriage nowadays tho) union that isnt marriage but essentially the same thing. if people want to get married, who is the governement to stop them as consenting adults, as was stated by another poster. its a valid argument, which is why im not going to protest it or something, but i would still vote against it. i hope that makes sense.

And this is a great example of the type of arguments that were raised against gay marriage and that, when they failed, paved the way for the polygamy argument.

Calgaryrocks' point comes from a religious view of marriage. But, one religion shouldn't dictate the laws of a secular state, nor the practices of another religion. So the argument from religion fails with respect to polygamy just as it failed with respect to gay marriage.

The next argument is the tradition argument. Marriage was always between two people: a man and a woman. That argument was rejected with respect to gay marriage, which effectively redefined marriage as between two people, regardless of gender. But if marriage can be between two men or two women, why not two men and two women? The argument that "marriage has always been between two people" is just as fragile as the one-man-one-woman argument.

Power imbalances and abusive scenarios aside, what basis remains for rejecting a 3 way marriage?

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine.

Well the whole point of discussion is to attack opinions But I understand what you mean and of course I'm not going to attack you, but asking to clarify and justify an opinion should be fair game.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

my point of view is that God made marriage as a thing for a man and a wife, in certain ways men and women fit together (not just in a physical sense). what complicates it is that people want to get married because they get financial benefits and society is more accepting of married people. why does a gay couple need to get married? i still think guys having sex together is not what God intended, but if they want to then thats what they want to do. why get married? same thing with marrying multiple partners, why marriage? cant they just commit to the other person? isnt marriage a commitment to one other person? a guy is supposed to just have sex with his wife, not other women(or men). same thing the other way around. again, my opinion/beliefs here.
the argument of course is that people should be allowed to do what they want...come up with a new term or something for a permanent(how permanent is marriage nowadays tho) union that isnt marriage but essentially the same thing. if people want to get married, who is the governement to stop them as consenting adults, as was stated by another poster. its a valid argument, which is why im not going to protest it or something, but i would still vote against it. i hope that makes sense.

Whew, lots in there. I think we should avoid the whole semantic debate around the word marriage and definition, what it means, etc, as I think that is secondary to the main issue, and don't want to derail too far.

I can appreciate your opinion, but that still doesn't really answer the "why?" question.

Usually in the Bible when there's limits placed on behaviours, there's a pretty clear natural reason. Not murdering makes good sense, Bible or no Bible, murder does clear harm to society in general. You obviously wouldn't expect every standard of thought and behaviour in the Bible to be legislated into law (just like you wouldn't want standards of other religions enforced on you), society is secular and should accept everyone.

So laws should be derived in part from what's good for and what harms society. No one would expect you to participate in polygamy if you didn't want to.

So I guess the why I'm looking for is what harm does polygamy bring to society?

[photon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Calgaryrocks' point comes from a religious view of marriage. But, one religion shouldn't dictate the laws of a secular state, nor the practices of another religion. So the argument from religion fails with respect to polygamy just as it failed with respect to gay marriage.

To be fair calgaryrocks did say it was a valid argument and that he wouldn't protest it.

He did say he would vote against it which I think goes against the whole "do unto others" thing but that's again a different topic.

[Resolute 14]

I think they have a point only if all of the "marriages" were completely consenting. I haven't followed the Bountiful case closely, but typically in these situations, some or most of the wives are coerced and/or promised when they are still children.

However, if 20 women actually want to share one man, then hey, high five to the man, even though in this case he's probably a complete creep. I'm willing to bet though that this case is probably close to the typical.

[photon]

Interesting, in the UK polygamy isn't legal, but they do recognize those arrangements as a legal marriage if they were made in other countries where the practice is legal.

I think they should legalize it like this:

Step 1 - 5 year trial, polygamy legal, but only for one woman multiple men.
Step 2 - If more than a dozen people that clearly aren't doing it for tax reasons actually do it, then make it ok for other arrangements.

[Daradon]

I have nothing against polygamy as long as it's not in an abusive situation. Often it can be. Just another guy conning multiple women.

A better term for people who have multiple relationships is polyamoury.(sp? it's a rather new term) Wheras polygamy is often just one guy with many wives, polyamoury is where either partner can have multiple relationships, or a group of people are all in a relationship together.

Messy as hell, but at least it's not just one person having all the 'fun'.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by photon

To be fair calgaryrocks did say it was a valid argument and that he wouldn't protest it.

He did say he would vote against it which I think goes against the whole "do unto others" thing but that's again a different topic.

Absolutely. My response wasn't designed as an attack on Calgaryrocks - in my view his voice is extremely valuable to the whole issue.

Part of the reason I find this issue so interesting is that I think there is a fairly large segment of the Canadian population that is pro-gay-marriage, but anti-polygamy. And I'm interested to see whether these individuals adopt the types of arguments which Calgaryrocks seems to endorse - arguments from religion and tradition (or even emotion) - which are very likely the same arguments they would have rejected with respect to gay marriage.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

A better term for people who have multiple relationships is polyamoury.(sp? it's a rather new term) Wheras polygamy is often just one guy with many wives, polyamoury is where either partner can have multiple relationships, or a group of people are all in a relationship together.

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

I think you're on the money here.

As for how this relates to gay marriage, it's a fairly simple line of reasoning.

The Charter's equality provisions have this to say:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Note that it says nothing about sexuality. However, sexuality is an analogous ground which has been read into the Charter by the courts. This is a big part of the argument underlying the pro-gay-marriage argument: you can't discriminate on the basis of homosexuality because it receives protection under the Charter, therefore you can't prevent homosexual couples from marrying - a right extended by the state to heterosexuals.

Religion, on the other hand, is an explicit ground upon which you cannot discriminate. If one religion allows polygamy, how can the state stop that practice without infringing the Constitution?

I suspect you know this, but the s. 1 arguments should be interesting

[photon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Absolutely. My response wasn't designed as an attack on Calgaryrocks - in my view his voice is extremely valuable to the whole issue.

Ok cool.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Part of the reason I find this issue so interesting is that I think there is a fairly large segment of the Canadian population that is pro-gay-marriage, but anti-polygamy. And I'm interested to see whether these individuals adopt the types of arguments which Calgaryrocks seems to endorse - arguments from religion and tradition (or even emotion) - which are very likely the same arguments they would have rejected with respect to gay marriage.

Totally agree, it is very interesting!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Religion, on the other hand, is an explicit ground upon which you cannot discriminate. If one religion allows polygamy, how can the state stop that practice without infringing the Constitution?

Is there a legitimate religion that condones polygamy? The Mormon church officially does not, and for the most part these polygamist sects could charitably be called cults, and nothing more.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I suspect you know this, but the s. 1 arguments should be interesting

Now that there...

... is a can 'o' worms.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Is there a legitimate religion that condones polygamy? The Mormon church officially does not, and for the most part these polygamist sects could charitably be called cults, and nothing more.

Define "legitimate religion."

Something the courts might be asked to do, and another can 'o' worms. The type of thing that could get all sorts of interesting groups popping out of the woodwork.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Yup, I like this quote, pretty much explains it...

'The defining characteristic of polyamory is belief in the possibility of, and value of, multiple romantic loving relationships carried out "with the knowledge and consent of all partners concerned."[1] What distinguishes polyamory from traditional forms of non-monogamy (i.e. "cheating") is an ideology that openness, goodwill, intense communication, and ethical behavior should prevail among all the parties involved. Some consider polyamory to be, at its root, the generalization of romantic couple-love beyond two people into something larger.[2]
People who identify as polyamorous typically reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are necessary for long-term loving relationships. Those who are open to, or emotionally suited for, a polyamorous lifestyle may be single or in monogamous relationships, but are more typically involved in multiple long term relationships.'



It's definitely not for everyone. And it does take a LOT of work. But it can be very... rewarding isn't quite the best word, but it's the best one I can think of right now. When you get to that place of true trust and your not barred from meeting new people, it can be very eye opening.


Very hippie styles for sure, lol. Free love. The biggest thing is communication and trust obviously.


But it's dynamics like this that I believe are truly up to people if they want. Polygamy generally is too one sided and abusive. I think if the courts do decide to grant rights to multiple partner dynamics, they need to really open the debate about polygamy vs. polyamory while exposing things that have been talked about in this thread. Like possible control of partners especially women, influence of churches or cults, etc.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Define "legitimate religion."

Something the courts might be asked to do, and another can 'o' worms. The type of thing that could get all sorts of interesting groups popping out of the woodwork.

Indeed, which is why most of these nutbar organizations have no prayer. The SCOC isn't going to want to touch this with a ten foot pole, imo.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Daradon

When you get to that place of true trust and your not barred from meeting new people, it can be very eye opening.

Sounds like the type of people that go to Chicken on the Way.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sounds like the type of people that go to Chicken on the Way.

Haha, swinging is different from a polyamorus relationship. That's more a one day or night thing. Just a little fun on the side. Polyamory denotes some level of seriousness and commitment.

I would be seriously creeped out from a swing club in a greasy chicken place... Kinda makes both fried chicken AND sex less appealing, lol!