Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[driveway]

Adults of legal age should be allowed to enter whichever form of romantic relationship they choose.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Everyone should watch "the lost boys" documentary on CBC and think about if that started to become more prevelent in society what would be the macro result. It's all about control. Sometimes a society must reaffirm why we do things the way we do things and resist the urge to get into moral equivilency arguements on all issues that automatically devolve into
"everyone do what you feel like as long as everyone involved gives consent." The ultimate problem is that in morman sects and Islamic polygamous relationships I'd find it really hard for the women who have been indoctirnated in these faiths (That incidently are about iscolation, domination and control) could even possibly give 'informed' consent. Consent yes, but you can't tell me a 15 year old girl who has been iscolated from common society that is forced into an arranged marriage in which she has to share her 60 year old husband with 5 other wives isn't in a lot of ways pschycologically forced into it.

This isn't an opportunity for "What might be right for some, might be wrong for others, the world marches to the beat of different drum" reasoning.

I agree with you on the problems about consent. But that really has nothing to do with polygamy; rather it's about how this specific community operates and governs itself. There are a lot of religious communities in the world (and probably in Canada) that have similar arranged marriage systems, similar indoctrination and coercion, but without the polygamy. If anyone can suggest how you'd go about creating a law that would prevent coercive arranged marriages, I'd be all for that. But a ban on polygamy certainly won't solve it.

[Bobblehead]

Good points being raised, great discussion so far.

There was an attempt to get SSM banned, which failed and Stephan Harper promised to not raise the issue again.

However that would imply that the Federal Government does have the ability legislate a ban on polygamy.

And it seems like a common view in this thread is that polygamy as a concept between consenting adults is fine, but in practice this isn't what occurs. Aren't there many laws in place that, if you were to think about them, are exactly in this same class? Speeding - if you were the only car that could possible be on the road, and you would personally pay for medical care/accident costs (i.e. no societal costs), would anyone really care? If you buy your own property and build your own road you can go as fast as you want, but if you want to go on public roads you need to abide by the public laws regardless of if there is another car on the road. If you want to shack up with as many of the opposite sex as you want, you are free to do so. But as soon as you look for government sanctioning you are now "driving on a public road" and must abide withint the rules of the road.

So I think government is fully within its rights to prohibit this arrangement.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think that's a great point. The thing is, as was pointed out earlier, the specific problem here is exploitation, which takes the form of polygamy in this case. Which is altogether different from "polygamy as an abstract principle." As an abstract principle, it's possible to imagine a polygamous relationship between consenting adults, and in that case they wouldn't be harming anybody by doing what they do. Cases like Bountiful don't really meet that standard--they use polygamy as a way of granting the sanction of religion to the exploitation of children and young women. I do think the point made by octothorp stands, though--what's wrong about this isn't polygamy itself as an abstract principle, however bound up it may be in all of these problems.

But you're absolutely right that in cases like this where the real-world consequences are quite grave, you can't fall back on moral relativism as the answer.

Ah, but aren't they harming people? Think about this for a second. If marriage is now no longer defined by number of people then theoretically sposual support pensions, benefits of employment would then have to apply to all participants. If some guy and 8 women want to live together and call themselves married and want reconition for it and everything stops there then great.

However many pension plans have clauses that the employer has to pay out for the duration of the life of the spouse. So in the case of the 60 year dude with 15 year old wives then the policy would have to pay out for like 60 years after hubby kicks the can while we wait for the last wife to perish. The cost of employing that guy just went high enough as to justify not employing him in the first place. That's just one benefit, what about health and dental benefits for like 8 people?

I understand that an arguement could be made that there only are so many people who do this and thus their net effect would be little, but what about cities/towns that have a higher concentration of these people, like Bountiful for instance? Well the cost of labor in those places will skyrocket and all the non-wackos won't be able to get jobs because we just had to be 'inclusive.'

This seems to be an awfully high price to pay for the incredibly small number of those well-meaning secular "Alternative lifestyle Enthusists" to label their combined relationship legally married. Quite frankly as a society we have to draw the line. Simply stated the agency costs of identifying, ehshrining, and maintaining special rights to every odd situation add up once we start to get to such a narrow band of people. The 'what's next arguement' must count for something at some point.

[flylock shox]

Excellent discussion so far with lots of great points made.

The prosecution of Blackmore and Oler is on hold until February 18 to give the Crown more time to assemble its case and make disclosure. I'm still amazed they're pursuing the polygamy charge.

A more detailed article is available on CBC, with the comments section a fairly interesting read too, though not quite as reasoned as that going on here.

From the article

Blackmore told reporters outside that he is just a Canadian practising his rights as laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"I've taken the time last night to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — twice — not just our basic Canadian rights but our equality rights. I think if I am guilty of anything, it's being a Canadian and just living my religion," he said.

...

Blackmore is the former bishop of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the religious community of Bountiful.

He has also reportedly fathered about 80 children with numerous wives, some as young as 15 when he allegedly married them.

In 2003, Blackmore and an estimated 1,000 community members split from the church after rejecting Warren Jeffs, the church's U.S.-based leader, as a prophet.

Jeffs then appointed Oler as his leader in the community.

While the church calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has distanced itself from the polygamous sect.

[FireFly]

I think my problem with polygamy, and the biggest issue I can see is the children raised in that environment.

What 15 year old girl do you all know thinks a 60 year old man is hot? Seriously, think about it. And yet, these disgusting old creepy men continually marry young women. Why would the young women think it's okay? What makes the situation acceptable to them? Even if you changed the laws to state that these men can only marry women 18 and older, even with parental consent, these women are still being brought up in the same environment that makes them think it's okay at 15. I'm sorry, but in no way would any 15 year old girl that I know agree to marry a 60 year old man. There's something wrong there.

[Daradon]

^^^ Well that would be child abuse in of itself and laws against that would still stand.

In concept I think consenting adults should be able to do whatever they like and define their love however they like. However polygamy often does come with many abuses and control. As I mentioned before there needs to be laws in places or structures and support in places to ensure that it is more of a polyamorus situation where all parties have the same rights, and not a typical polygamy situation where those rights often get trampled on (usually the rights of women).

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think my problem with polygamy, and the biggest issue I can see is the children raised in that environment.

What 15 year old girl do you all know thinks a 60 year old man is hot? Seriously, think about it. And yet, these disgusting old creepy men continually marry young women. Why would the young women think it's okay? What makes the situation acceptable to them?

How about 19 year olds thinking an 82 year man is hot? Cause the bitches flock to Hef, just look at his newest two "live-in girlfriends". He's essentially living a polygamist lifestyle without the actual marriage. I'm sure there are hundreds of lesser-known examples of U18 girls in Europe getting with 55+ men.

The answer is money, status and power. Technically, these young golddiggers are exploiting the man. Point is, polygamy or not... unless marriage licenses are pending cross-examination, and professional approval... exploitation will always exist.

[Cain]

The fact that same sex marriages might have opened this up just shows that our way of looking at things might be inherently unfair. If a situation is deemed acceptable between two (or more int his case) consenting adults, with no power disparity or abuse of said power...what the heck is wrong with it? Frankly I have no problems with other groups saying "hey, look at me - I am not hurting anyone and this is something that is important to me." Isn't that the type of thing that we should cater to in a tolerant society - not infringing on peoples rights unless there is significant grounds to do so?

As for the power issues...I said before and will say again, there are huge power issues in some traditional marriages. We deal with these as best we can (not perfectly) so why are we hesitating in this case? We would have to deal with it as a society as best we can. A few black apples should not ruin it for everyone.

Economically, it shouldn't be either advantageous nor disadvantageous. In some ways, this is an argument for the government to again get out of marriage altogether.

I am not sure who said it, but I read of someone thinking that being tolerant about something is a me first attitude. I'm not entirely certain about this line of thought...is it the "if it doesn't impact me, I don't care" line of thought? Because I'd say it is the opposite that is really true. If it doesn't impact you, but you take the time out of your day to fight it...you are really the one being selfish.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

How about 19 year olds thinking an 82 year man is hot? Cause the bitches flock to Hef, just look at his newest two "live-in girlfriends". He's essentially living a polygamist lifestyle without the actual marriage. I'm sure there are hundreds of lesser-known examples of U18 girls in Europe getting with 55+ men.

The answer is money, status and power. Technically, these young golddiggers are exploiting the man. Point is, polygamy or not... unless marriage licenses are pending cross-examination, and professional approval... exploitation will always exist.

And being the 10th wife to a polygamist gives the girl what power, status or money? Is the guy rich?

I guess my point is that these children are not raised in open society and know nothing else. The 'bitches' flocking to Hef know what they're getting. The girls in Bountiful are in essence brain washed into believing this is right.

I don't care about polygamy in multiple consenting adults going into the marriage knowing all their options. In fact, if that's what you want to do, all the power to you. However, people in such a relationship would have to live in society in order to know that's what they want. The women of Bountiful don't.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And being the 10th wife to a polygamist gives the girl what power, status or money? Is the guy rich?

I guess my point is that these children are not raised in open society and know nothing else. The 'bitches' flocking to Hef know what they're getting. The girls in Bountiful are in essence brain washed into believing this is right.

I don't care about polygamy in multiple consenting adults going into the marriage knowing all their options. In fact, if that's what you want to do, all the power to you. However, people in such a relationship would have to live in society in order to know that's what they want. The women of Bountiful don't.

Brain washing is an interesting concept as some would argue that is why major religions often tackle young people more than anything. They are still open to shaping and forming major beliefs. Is that by nature wrong and something that should be protected against? How about the Amish or similar? Oiler fans?

I agree with you by the way, just tossing that out there.

[octothorp]

The Amish are an interesting example, in that they generally believe that it's a positive for young people to expose themselves to the external world before making a decision about devoting their life to the Amish tradition. The majority of Amish youth don't actually do this, and it varies from community to community. But the attitude is that they want their youth to make an honest and informed decision.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And being the 10th wife to a polygamist gives the girl what power, status or money? Is the guy rich?

I guess my point is that these children are not raised in open society and know nothing else. The 'bitches' flocking to Hef know what they're getting. The girls in Bountiful are in essence brain washed into believing this is right.

I don't care about polygamy in multiple consenting adults going into the marriage knowing all their options. In fact, if that's what you want to do, all the power to you. However, people in such a relationship would have to live in society in order to know that's what they want. The women of Bountiful don't.

The Hef example just proves that power, status and money can overpower chemistry, biology and emotion. The Bountiful girls are raised in the same manner just as our society tacitly teaches our young girls that promiscuity and dressing like whores is ideal. The results just look a little different.

In their religion, this guy is very powerful. To have his kids is a privilege. Screwed up, no doubt. But is it any different than girls wanting to have Beckham's kids when it gets down to it? only in the superficial sense, where this head guy is likely ugly as sin.

With Islam and Hinduism, they are told they can only marry who is approved for them... they know no better. Shall we ban those religions too because they persecute and dehumanize their people, especially women?

Naturally, I don't agree with any of those. However, Canadian society opened the door to allow this freely and proclaimed allowing these religious freedoms as a strength... we can't be hypocritical now when we decide we don't like it since it doesn't mesh with our sensibilities.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Ah, but aren't they harming people? Think about this for a second. If marriage is now no longer defined by number of people then theoretically sposual support pensions, benefits of employment would then have to apply to all participants. If some guy and 8 women want to live together and call themselves married and want reconition for it and everything stops there then great.

However many pension plans have clauses that the employer has to pay out for the duration of the life of the spouse. So in the case of the 60 year dude with 15 year old wives then the policy would have to pay out for like 60 years after hubby kicks the can while we wait for the last wife to perish. The cost of employing that guy just went high enough as to justify not employing him in the first place. That's just one benefit, what about health and dental benefits for like 8 people?

I understand that an arguement could be made that there only are so many people who do this and thus their net effect would be little, but what about cities/towns that have a higher concentration of these people, like Bountiful for instance? Well the cost of labor in those places will skyrocket and all the non-wackos won't be able to get jobs because we just had to be 'inclusive.'

This seems to be an awfully high price to pay for the incredibly small number of those well-meaning secular "Alternative lifestyle Enthusists" to label their combined relationship legally married. Quite frankly as a society we have to draw the line. Simply stated the agency costs of identifying, ehshrining, and maintaining special rights to every odd situation add up once we start to get to such a narrow band of people. The 'what's next arguement' must count for something at some point.

That strikes me as an argument of convenience, not an ethical argument. Obviously employers would rather not pay spousal benefits at all--but that's not a basis for a social policy eliminating marriage itself altogether. I guess the question becomes: what is the role of the state in an institution like marriage? Frankly, I don't think that "saving employers money" is a very good answer. Nor is "regulating social codes of morality" particularly great either.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

- Charter Rights: Particularly, Freedom of Expression and Religious Freedom. They'll likely highlight the part where it says rights must be equally distributed. If one group is granted a special status, the others must be afforded it too. Again, SS couples will be the precedent.

How do they determine a legitimate religion though? Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Pretty easy to say yes. Mormonism? Pretty young religion, but again no doubt they would say yes. Some guy that invents a new religion so he can have lots of young women feeding him grapes? Not likely. So where's do they draw the line, by what criteria?

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that this is a seperate question and more to do with personal responbility vs. religious institutions. Is marriage a sacrament or is it a deep trust between two people. I tend to follow the latter and I don't really think that the official institution of marriage needs to exist for everybody at all.

The real question is, will monogamous pair-bonding exist in 100 years? I definitely hope so.

I think I meant more monogamous pair-bonding when I wondered about marriage existing in 100 years. Times change, needs change. Needs led to monogamy to begin with, and as society changes maybe that need will change or even go away. Maybe it's just reading too many science fiction books with interesting structures for societies and relationships, but I don't really see something magical about pair-bonding that makes it inherently better than other setups, it's just the one that's worked the best for us for the past while. I'm not an anthropologist though.

Originally Posted by FireFly

What 15 year old girl do you all know thinks a 60 year old man is hot?

Kind of a red herring, I think everyone recognizes that a relationship based on a gross imbalance of power isn't a healthy one, that's got nothing to do with polygamy. That happens in regular marriages too.

As someone pointed out, I think we're talking more about an abstract version of polygamy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by photon

How do they determine a legitimate religion though? Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Pretty easy to say yes. Mormonism? Pretty young religion, but again no doubt they would say yes. Some guy that invents a new religion so he can have lots of young women feeding him grapes? Not likely. So where's do they draw the line, by what criteria?

Take Christianity for instance. There are several sub-categories, and dozens more within those. Technically, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. Are Mormonism or the Evangelical Sects on par with Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism? Age wise, no. Membership wise, no. Dogma tolerability? Well, now you're in value range, and with that comes the dreaded Charter. Who is to say a new church with low membership is any less valid than the massive Catholic Church, so long as no laws are being broken? Age of Consent is in place (or was when it was 14), no adultery laws are in place, and there's been a refusal to prosecute polygamy to this point because the government of BC felt it would lose (according to their SG).

I believe the best way we have tried to answer that is to make certain requirements to be considered a religion in Canada (or the US), but once those requirments are set, its done. You'd have to do some research to find out what they are. In other words, that dude with the harem would have the same rights as the Catholic Church if he satisfied the requirements.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I guess my point is that these children are not raised in open society and know nothing else. The 'bitches' flocking to Hef know what they're getting. The girls in Bountiful are in essence brain washed into believing this is right.

But in the theoretical realm of permitted polygamy, these communities wouldn't need to shut themselves off from society.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

i have not read this whole thread, sorry, but I heard an interesting take. it was a lawyer and they were arguing that the wifes should be charged as well, they are also in a polyamaist marriage.....the lawyer was acting as a devil's advocate, but saying the accused could take a human right type of run at the charges

[Azure]

Don't give a crap, as long as the people involved are of age.

Can I say I knew it was going to come to this?

[Devils'Advocate]

My issue with polygamy is that there is rarely any discussion of polyandry.

The cultures that currently allow multiple spouses generally only allow men to have multiple wives and not the other way around. And there is a strong correlation between those religions/cultures that allow polygamy and those that have a long way to go in terms of respecting the rights and equality of women. In many of these "marriages" the women are conditioned from their teen years to be barefoot and pregnant.

So, is it possible to have multiple spouses without infringing on the human rights of anyone? Sure. I suppose. However, I am concerned that far more damage will be done by legitimizing polygamy than rejecting it. I'm certainly with Jammies that consenting adults should be able to enter into any romantic arrangement that they so desire. I'm just concerned that there would be far more polygamist marriages where the women are viewed as objects than there would be polygamist marriages where the women are viewed as equals.