What are your thoughts on polygamy? Fri, January 9, 2009
BOUNTIFUL, B.C. - The defiant leader of a polygamous sect in British Columbia says the decision of the B.C. Crown to charge him for practising polygamy is religious persecution and political grandstanding.
Winston Blackmore said there are tens of thousands of polygamists from many different cultures living across the country but his religious sect, which openly practices multiple marriage, is being targeted.
Blackmore said Thursday that the Crown has disregarded his basic charter right to religious freedom.
Awfully confusing if allowed in Quebec.. the parents names are hyphenated and given to the children so during nominal roll verification you would need extra staff just to call out the students name. As well didn't this issue go away with Polyester Double Knit suits?
IRLAME, 2010-08-31 08:32:17
OMG people...like one wife isn't enough!! anyone woh needs more action can just check in with Ashley Madison... oh wait, that would be immoral..
rusty, 2010-08-27 14:24:44
What happens between consenting adults is up to then. The problem I have is with the "marrages" with underage girls. If they want multiple wives then they must be willing and must be of legal age. The children born of these "marrages" also need to be protected
Mickey, 2010-08-26 17:39:03
@Daniel Kolos, 2009-01-22 00:40:24
"Coren is also wrong when he claims that polygamy "perverts natural law." There is both monogamous (geese) and polygamous (chickens) mating in nature. Bring Michael Coren into Ontario farm country for a month!"
As much as some people believe that we should model society after rutting animals or emulate avain behaviour "natural law" DOES NOT refer philosophically to "the laws of nature".
"It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/na
tlaw.htm
Also "1 in every 3 women and 1 in 7 men report having been sexually abused as a child." Those studies are HIGHLY suspect, with questions composed so that corporeal punishment or two children playing doctor was included as sexual abuse. Those figures stem from dated, feminist propaganda and have been totally debunked.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-02-02 04:19:40
"BB for years has said he would like to have a 3some."
Goats don't count.
That is actually a form of animal abuse.
Someone should notify the Salmon Arm SCPA.
uplink, 2009-01-28 13:00:21
A thinly disguised justification for middle aged men to have sex with teen aged girls.
Westwind64, 2009-01-22 20:46:25
The state should not be telling people who they can and cannot marry. That goes both ways though. Women should be able to marry as many men as they wish as well.
Brian, 2009-01-22 08:03:39
Having read Michael Coren and Michael Den Tandt's article, Marry me, marry me (Owen Sound Sun Times, January 15, 2009) and some of the comments, below, I noted that a historical perspective is missing.
There is no question in my mind that modern laws protecting minors from sexual exploitation are good for our society where, in spite of those laws, 1 in every 3 women and 1 in 7 men report having been sexually abused as a child. Not only is such a social disease unacceptable, but it calls for a closer scrutiny as to its origin.
A mere century and a half ago gitls in all European and American countries were bethroed as early as eight years of age and married off as soon as they were able to bear children, all within, or under the auspices of a Christian monogamous culture.
But that Christian monogamy did not become law until 1139 of our era, less than a thousand years ago, when Pope Innocent II declared polygamy a sin and forbade priests to marry. Previous to that, even a priest could take a second wife if his first wife was ill, as long as the second wife would care for the frist one. That sounds like responsible polygamy.
Although monogamy can be read into the Old Testament books, both the Patriarchs and the Kings of Israel practiced polygamy. We cannot claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage brought us the tratidition of monogamy.
In fact, the Papal sanctioning of priestly monogamy in 1139 AD (or CE) was a clear move to protect the wealth of the Church: with heirs, money and property could not accrue to the Church.
Capitalism, as an awoved economic ideology in Western democracies, also has an underlying conservation of wealth. It has been such a radical practice before the advent of democracies, that in Feudal Europe only the eldest male survivor could inherit property. This male primogeniture was the greatest incentive for monogamy.
Even in Islam there is an element of responsible polygamy: men are cautioned to marry only as many wives as they can afford. Of course, in the Middle East, polygamy and harim life goes back all the way to ancient Egypt and Babylon. The ancient Egyptian model assigned to each royal wife an estate of her own, which she managed for the future benefit of her children. In effect, once the king tired of one of his wives, her life would become the same as that of a widow or a single mother! Ancient Egyptian traditio at least provided for the abandoned wife's welfare.
In our own enlightened age, responsible polygamy, with either gender, has to remain legal since such family unions do not ordinarily cause social harm. The Mormon practice of forcing underage girls to marry 'Elders' is an aberration. Similar practices can be found among Africa's Maasai people, but I don't believe for a moment that the Mormons have any historical connection with this ancient cattle-herding tribe.
Michael Coren mentions the inherent inequality within polygamy and, even more cogently, the unequal distribution of power. However, the trend is toward dispensing with a 'head' of the household so that wives are no longer considered chattels. In the ensuing sharing of responsibilities, earnings
and even sexual roles, power need not dominate either a monogamous or polygamous family, unless religious laws or traditions call for it.
Coren is also wrong when he claims that polygamy "perverts natural law." There is both monogamous (geese) and polygamous (chickens) mating in nature. Bring Michael Coren into Ontario farm country for a month!
Daniel Kolos, 2009-01-22 00:40:24
Isnt it funny.
A man can live with 5 woman,have sex with them and have illegitimate kids with them,all at the same time.
But if he wants to marry them and make the kids legitimate it is illegal
Oh dear.Now why is that really anyones business other than the theirs?
BB for years has said he would like to have a 3some.
That is legal
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-01-21 16:41:14
The right to a gay marriage is based on the charter principle that you cannot restrict a minority from an activity the majority can do. So if the majority can marry, then any minority - religious, racial, sexual orientation, ethnic etc - can marry.
The prohibition against Polygamy is different because all polygamy is banned. There is no majority that can legally practise polygamy. The decision to ban polygamy is a social policy issue and legally justifiable on that basis.
The charter defense that makes more sense is polygamy is their religious belief and the ban is an unreasonable restriction of their faith. People use religion to champion all kinds of craziness such as withholding medical treatment from children, denying woman equal rights, etc. So we shall see.
What are your thoughts on polygamy?
IRLAME, 2010-08-31 08:32:17
rusty, 2010-08-27 14:24:44
Mickey, 2010-08-26 17:39:03
"Coren is also wrong when he claims that polygamy "perverts natural law." There is both monogamous (geese) and polygamous (chickens) mating in nature. Bring Michael Coren into Ontario farm country for a month!"
As much as some people believe that we should model society after rutting animals or emulate avain behaviour "natural law" DOES NOT refer philosophically to "the laws of nature".
"It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/na
tlaw.htm
Also "1 in every 3 women and 1 in 7 men report having been sexually abused as a child." Those studies are HIGHLY suspect, with questions composed so that corporeal punishment or two children playing doctor was included as sexual abuse. Those figures stem from dated, feminist propaganda and have been totally debunked.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-02-02 04:19:40
Goats don't count.
That is actually a form of animal abuse.
Someone should notify the Salmon Arm SCPA.
uplink, 2009-01-28 13:00:21
Westwind64, 2009-01-22 20:46:25
Brian, 2009-01-22 08:03:39
There is no question in my mind that modern laws protecting minors from sexual exploitation are good for our society where, in spite of those laws, 1 in every 3 women and 1 in 7 men report having been sexually abused as a child. Not only is such a social disease unacceptable, but it calls for a closer scrutiny as to its origin.
A mere century and a half ago gitls in all European and American countries were bethroed as early as eight years of age and married off as soon as they were able to bear children, all within, or under the auspices of a Christian monogamous culture.
But that Christian monogamy did not become law until 1139 of our era, less than a thousand years ago, when Pope Innocent II declared polygamy a sin and forbade priests to marry. Previous to that, even a priest could take a second wife if his first wife was ill, as long as the second wife would care for the frist one. That sounds like responsible polygamy.
Although monogamy can be read into the Old Testament books, both the Patriarchs and the Kings of Israel practiced polygamy. We cannot claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage brought us the tratidition of monogamy.
In fact, the Papal sanctioning of priestly monogamy in 1139 AD (or CE) was a clear move to protect the wealth of the Church: with heirs, money and property could not accrue to the Church.
Capitalism, as an awoved economic ideology in Western democracies, also has an underlying conservation of wealth. It has been such a radical practice before the advent of democracies, that in Feudal Europe only the eldest male survivor could inherit property. This male primogeniture was the greatest incentive for monogamy.
Even in Islam there is an element of responsible polygamy: men are cautioned to marry only as many wives as they can afford. Of course, in the Middle East, polygamy and harim life goes back all the way to ancient Egypt and Babylon. The ancient Egyptian model assigned to each royal wife an estate of her own, which she managed for the future benefit of her children. In effect, once the king tired of one of his wives, her life would become the same as that of a widow or a single mother! Ancient Egyptian traditio at least provided for the abandoned wife's welfare.
In our own enlightened age, responsible polygamy, with either gender, has to remain legal since such family unions do not ordinarily cause social harm. The Mormon practice of forcing underage girls to marry 'Elders' is an aberration. Similar practices can be found among Africa's Maasai people, but I don't believe for a moment that the Mormons have any historical connection with this ancient cattle-herding tribe.
Michael Coren mentions the inherent inequality within polygamy and, even more cogently, the unequal distribution of power. However, the trend is toward dispensing with a 'head' of the household so that wives are no longer considered chattels. In the ensuing sharing of responsibilities, earnings
and even sexual roles, power need not dominate either a monogamous or polygamous family, unless religious laws or traditions call for it.
Coren is also wrong when he claims that polygamy "perverts natural law." There is both monogamous (geese) and polygamous (chickens) mating in nature. Bring Michael Coren into Ontario farm country for a month!
Daniel Kolos, 2009-01-22 00:40:24
A man can live with 5 woman,have sex with them and have illegitimate kids with them,all at the same time.
But if he wants to marry them and make the kids legitimate it is illegal
Oh dear.Now why is that really anyones business other than the theirs?
BB for years has said he would like to have a 3some.
That is legal
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-01-21 16:41:14
The prohibition against Polygamy is different because all polygamy is banned. There is no majority that can legally practise polygamy. The decision to ban polygamy is a social policy issue and legally justifiable on that basis.
The charter defense that makes more sense is polygamy is their religious belief and the ban is an unreasonable restriction of their faith. People use religion to champion all kinds of craziness such as withholding medical treatment from children, denying woman equal rights, etc. So we shall see.
Laurie, 2009-01-21 15:19:22