Velvet Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I see the BC Supreme Court is ruling on the legality of polygamy. Personally, I find it bizarre that polygamy is illegal. I find it even more bizarre that the lawyers three main arguments are against legalising polygamy are (cut n' pasted from the cbc article in no particular order) a) the decline of polygamy has been "inextricably entwined" with the growth of Western democracy, the practice leads to trafficking of child brides, and c) all forms of polygamy contribute to the discrimination of women and the sexualization of young girls. If polygamy was legal, both genders would be free to practice it, right? And child marriage would remain illegal, right? And it wouldn't really signal the decline of Western civilisation, would it? Is it just me or are these arguments reminiscent of the arguments against gay marriage? I am willing and able to have my mind changed about this, so if you think I'm a sick fuck for thinking people should be able to marry as many people as they want I hope you'll explain why, and maybe I'll be able to see the light. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/22/bc-polygamy-hearing.html#ixzz164NFUvr7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonyak Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 as far asI am concerned people should be able to do anything they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others rights.which I don't think polygamy does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I think the fear is that those who actually wish to practice polygamy generally belong to religious sects that make a habit of marrying off girls who are too young to actually consent or know exactly what they are getting into, or who have been brainwashed into believing that this is the only way to live - which makes it quite distinct from the gay marriage issue. Polygamy is, unlike homosexuality, a lifestyle choice.Personally, I don't have an issue with polygamy in and of itself. I agree that outlawing the practice in order to protect young girls who are members of such sects isn't actually going to prevent the situation from arising, so it seems pointless to make an argument against the practice itself. It would make more sense to strengthen the laws or regulations that ensure that someone is entering into such a contract under their own free will.Also, i'm drunk, and may have left out part of an argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I thought one of the big problems had to do with spousal benefits. Imagine what having dental coverage for 6 wives would do to the insurance industry. Since I don't know much about the insurance industry, I can't really imagine, but I bet it would affect everyone's premiums if polygamy popularity grew.How about that Big Love show? Looks like TV does affect real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Good point. But I don't think it would really take off, even if it were legal.I love Big Love, though. Great show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Divorce laywers are going to love this!I don't understand the push to have the government sanction every possible union under the sun. Beyond the reason of benefits, which Mike has already pointed out will become a can of worms, it's just a piece of paper.Isn't living in sin more fun anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 it's just a piece of paper.It's not just a piece of paper. When two people get married to each other, they accept a change in each person's status (e.g., debt obligations, next-of-kinship) under the law; when they get divorced (or the marriage ends for other reasons, like death or annulment), each person's status changes back.With multi-person marriages, things get a lot cloudier.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 It's not just a piece of paper. When two people get married to each other, they accept a change in each person's status (e.g., debt obligations, next-of-kinship) under the law; when they get divorced (or the marriage ends for other reasons, like death or annulment), each person's status changes back.That's why I said "Beyond the reason of benefits". I could have been more specific but gave the reader the benefit of the doubt instead. Also, I'm lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I think the fear is that those who actually wish to practice polygamy generally belong to religious sects that make a habit of marrying off girls who are too young to actually consent or know exactly what they are getting into, or who have been brainwashed into believing that this is the only way to live - which makes it quite distinct from the gay marriage issue. Polygamy is, unlike homosexuality, a lifestyle choice.Personally, I don't have an issue with polygamy in and of itself. I agree that outlawing the practice in order to protect young girls who are members of such sects isn't actually going to prevent the situation from arising, so it seems pointless to make an argument against the practice itself. It would make more sense to strengthen the laws or regulations that ensure that someone is entering into such a contract under their own free will.Also, i'm drunk, and may have left out part of an argument there.drunk Hamilton for Prime Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edger Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) As long as I get to be one of his cronies. I do have high friends in places. Edited November 23, 2010 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The benefits thing would be bound to be really, really complex, along with lots of other legal issues, but isn't life already pretty complex to begin with? I find it funny that church and state never really had anything to do with marriage until early modernity, when they jumped in and claimed authority over it (which church has finally been getting elbowed out of). Polyamory works for some people, and there's no legal red tape around that - though I imagine the people that want the legal recognition or sanctification for it, in terms of polygamy, have their reasons. Islam (and some kinds of African Christianity) makes an interesting test case. The stated rule there is that a man can only take on more than one wife is he is able and sworn to protect them all equally (and yes, this only works in one direction). No doubt this is very rarely the case. A secular legal apparatus around that might stand a better chance of ensuring that kind of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 In the Mali's Dogon Valley men are allowed up to three wives. When I asked why the limitation the reply was, "Who would want more than three wives?"I don't know if women are allowed multiple husbands, but based on other observations I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bONES Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 how about a ban on marriage! periodthat way we all get treated the samego out and have as many (or few) partners as you like. but legal marriage as we know it today could should be scrapped as far as I'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 The benefits thing would be bound to be really, really complex, along with lots of other legal issues, but isn't life already pretty complex to begin with?I think we (humans) work pretty hard to make it that way but I don't think it has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagochips Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Is it just me or are these arguments reminiscent of the arguments against gay marriage?Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 what if you want to have a wife AND a husband? (i mean, it's only 1 of each?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Is it just me or are these arguments reminiscent of the arguments against gay marriage?Pretty much. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 Imagine the empire some families could build having 4 working adults in successful positions bringing in an astounding income. Imagine if Bill Gates could land 5 more really smart woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 Imagine if Bill Gates could land 5 more really smart woman?Stay in school, kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 BTW, "Polly Amory" is going to be the Thunderflurry Five's third album title, after "Intervention Afterparty" and "Misappropriation of Fun" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted November 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 Intervention Afterparty. That's good. Bet it happens all the time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagochips Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 How are these arguments reminiscent of the arguments against gay marriage? Well, they basically support the old model (one man plus one woman equals marriage) and argue that any other arrangement is a dire threat to the sacred nature of the union. Like the whole world will fall apart if we allow the currently marginalized members of our society the same rights the rest of us have. It's a joke. Many of the specific arguments may be different but their general theme is quite similar. Those who live differently from the mainstream society are wrong and in fact they are a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 don't look em in the eye, boc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagochips Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 Which eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted November 25, 2010 Report Share Posted November 25, 2010 How are these arguments reminiscent of the arguments against gay marriage?Are you referring to something said in this thread or just the conversation in general? If the former then I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now