Next stop legalized Polygamy

[Calgaryborn]

This is an article by Ted Byfield:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53648

[octothorp]

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario. In long-standing marriages, any step-parent has the right to seek custody should the biological parent die; we already have scenarios and have had for years where a child may have three parents. Protecting the rights between parents and children is very different from allowing marriages between three or more individuals. Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario.

Great point.

Originally Posted by octothorp

Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

Weelll....I think Calgaryborn has a decidely anti-gay marriage stance, so I think that influenced why he posted this....

[photon]

I thought a banner ad from the same site was funnily appropriate to this thread:

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by photon

I thought a banner ad from the same site was funnily appropriate to this thread:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This is an article by Ted Byfield

Ha Photon.

Ted Byfield, to say the least, is a guy with his biases as well.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario. In long-standing marriages, any step-parent has the right to seek custody should the biological parent die; we already have scenarios and have had for years where a child may have three parents. Protecting the rights between parents and children is very different from allowing marriages between three or more individuals. Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?

The difference is we are not talking about guardianship. We are talking about three way shared custody. That is a huge difference. This has only been afforded to married/common-law couples or divorced/separated parents.

If these three can share custody of a child why not Winston Blackmoore and his 5 or 6 wives? After all they all participate in the primary care of said child. And if they can be afforded this status why deny them the "right" (as so many call it) of being married.

You see once we opened the door to redefine marriage we were not going to be able to shut it. The definition will continue to dilute until marriage as the institution we know will cease to exist.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Ha Photon.

Ted Byfield, to say the least, is a guy with his biases as well.

As opposed to yourself who are biased free?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As opposed to yourself who are biased free?

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.

Agreed. But I don't think mentioning Ted Byfield biases was necessary. He is pretty up front about were he stands in the article and in general.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I didn't say that.

In my opinion, it is important to acknowledge biases, especially from sources such as articles, etc. I do the same thing in my school work to the best of my abilities. It is important to know who is writing something, as it helps you better understand their particular perspective.

The bias of this article is very evident in this paragraph.

Originally Posted by Article

In Canada, apparently, the legality of all these processes is to be established, not by our elected politicians, but by our unelected judges, almost all of whom were appointed by the previous Liberal government specifically because they were considered people dedicated to fashion a new and ultra-liberal society, uninhibited or constrained by values drawn from the past.

It's hard to take points from articles seriously when they lean so far to one side and play the "it's part of the crazy right side/left side agenda" card.

[Calgaryborn]

Here is another excellent article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ=

Please note when it was written.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Agreed. But I don't think mentioning Ted Byfield biases was necessary. He is pretty up front about were he stands in the article and in general.

Disagree.

Not everyone knows who Ted Byfield is, and/or his particular standings on issues.

Also, not everyone knows of this website (first time ever I have viewed it) and its consequent biases.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The bias of this article is very evident in this paragraph.

It's hard to take points from articles seriously when they lean so far to one side and play the "it's part of the crazy right side/left side agenda" card.

Yup, is it article or more editorial?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Here is another excellent article:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ=

Please note when it was written.

Please also note who/what organization wrote it.

I think to be fair, you should be providing articles from both sides of the debate, Calgaryborn.

Also, well, umm....

Martha Bailey, Queens University law professor and chief author of the now infamous report advocating the decriminalization of polygamy, played an important organizing role in the Beyond Conjugality project (translation: the “Abolish Marriage” project). In 2004, Bailey published an article, “Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada,” arguing that, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians would be able to turn their attention to the more urgent business of abolishing marriage itself. (That article is the source of items #2, #3, and #4 above.) So it is hardly surprising that Bailey has now called for the decriminalization of polygamy.

I clicked on the article and skimmed through the abstract. Where does she say she wants to decriminalize polygamy? And also, its interesting that is all he supplied in this case, as I cannot read the rest without buying it. Most people aren't going to look the article up; so all they have to go on is the abstract of it.

Interesting to note that later on he states...

It’s like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what Bailey and her friends really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.

The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by Bailey’s polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years. (Granted, these intentions were telegraphed in a semi-incomprehensible intellectual gibberish, with the really scary stuff hidden in footnotes.)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Please also note who/what organization wrote it.

I do believe the site is very open about it's position on the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think to be fair, you should be providing articles from both sides of the debate, Calgaryborn.

Why? I'm not instructing a class. I'm expressing a political opinion which time will and is bearing out. If you want to ignore it or refute it go ahead. That's not my job.

By the way if the best you can come up with is "that's biased" why even bother? ALL OPINION IS BIASED!

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I clicked on the article and skimmed through the abstract. Where does she say she wants to decriminalize polygamy? And also, its interesting that is all he supplied in this case, as I cannot read the rest without buying it. Most people aren't going to look the article up; so all they have to go on is the abstract of it.

Well I can't see it is the author's fault that this women wants to charge you to read her work. If you want to conclude he is lying; go for it. Also, I wouldn't expect an abstract to be complete or express contraversal opinions which might keep people from buying the article. That's not good business.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by fotze

The only polygamists I know are very very Christian ones, so banning christianisty must be the only solution to tide this slippery slope.

The only ones I know are Mormon. They believe they need at least three wives to obtain godhood. Don't confuse Christians with Mormons. There isn't a lot in common.

Also, within the Muslim religion this is a common practice.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fotze

The only polygamists I know are very very Christian ones, so banning christianisty must be the only solution to tide this slippery slope.

Many Muslim secs pratice polygamy aswell.

EDIT: Sorry I should say some Muslim secs not many.....my bad.

[photon]

I know of a few Christian ones, and no Mormon ones.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

[JiriHrdina]

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If I may ask, what is so wrong with polygamy anyway?

Ditto that.

What if 4 people all want to be married.

Why is it such a non-starter for some that polygamy is somehow evil.

I will qualify my remarks saying that all parties in a polygamous relationship must be consenting adults.

Either way, polygamy doesn't seem wrong to me.