Questioning the censure on polygamy
I just happened upon this editorial by Jacob Brinkman Reaume posted on the National Post blog site - We’re lost in the fog of a moral disaster . Reaume’s premise appears to be that here in Canada we really have very little ground to stand on when attempting to restrict polygamy from a moral viewpoint.
When we abandon the notion of an absolute truth (read ‘God’) , then we put ourselves at the mercy of the State to define morality for us. When it comes to polygamy, the only legal club we could possibly have against it is prosecution in cases of underage girls being forced to have sex. That becomes difficult when the victims refuse to testify or even acknowledge abuse.
The comments following the piece are interesting and demonstrate the wide variance of opinion on this matter. Please feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts here.
* * * *
Update : Shane at the Politic has a somewhat related post - Gay rights do not equal cohabitation rights in England.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“…the only legal club we could possibly have against it is prosecution in cases of underage girls being forced to have sex.”
Yes, and..? Sexual assault of a minor can be punished just for what it is - it is already a crime. However, if a group of consenting adults decides to form a relationship, and provided that the tax benefits are properly handled in a reasonable fashion (something the state can dictate), then I fail to see what business it is of yours.
Next problem please.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Anon: are you male perhaps?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Anon actually confirmed my point - that there is no good reason to have a law against polygamy these days, on the basis of ‘moral values’, because we do not hold any common values any longer. (sadly)
April 30th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Kelly, you might be interested in this story by Barbara Kay on how Muslim polygamy is tolerated easier in Western society than white polygamy.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
kelly: Not that it’s any of your business (again), but yes, I am. I’m married, with a 9mth daughter and a wife of about 5 years, that I’ve known since high school. And - horror of horrors - she has a girlfriend, too…and YES, I mean a girlfriend in the way you think. You see, adults can decide what kind of sexual life they wish to have. Unfortunately for you, the state cannot dictate people’s intimate relationships.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
And . . . . just as predicted during the debate over SSM, the slippery slope has been stepped on and our feet are coming out from under us. What’s next, group marriages with animals involved? Of course I am not allowed to comment because it doesn’t concern me, because it’s happening between consenting adults and consenting goats.
Would it concern me if one of the adults consenting to this was my child’s teacher? They might be unconsiously passing along this view of what is right in a relationship.
For myself, one spouse is more than enough.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
and YES, I mean a girlfriend in the way you think.
Wow! And you’re o.k. with that?
April 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Why would I care? I like girls, too.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Chris:
Way to throw the “consenting adult intimacy == beastiality” canard around. At least we can identify who NOT to listen to around here, with that calibre of critical thinking.
They aren’t the same, and drawing a line between them is therefore easy - thus, no slippery slope. If you can’t see the difference, I suspect you are either willfully dense, or in need of therapy.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
And with that, I suspect my input here is neither of interest or of value, so I’ll bow out. Carry on with the one-sided discussion.
Choir’s all ready for the preaching…
April 30th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I’ll chime in with anon here… ‘cept I won’t be a coward and be anonymous!
Polyamorous relationships are not uncommon. There are many many people that choose to have more than one partner in a long term committed relationship. No, it’s not a case of ‘cheating’ or countless partners, it’s people that chose to have more than one relationship at a time.
I’ve done it. I’ve been in two committed polyamorous relationships in my past life… one with a man and a woman, one with two men. It’s not everyone’s thing, but it’s not in anyway sleazy nor is anyone being abused. Some people just prefer to have more than one relationship and yes… there are just as many people that are ‘ok’ with it. Most poly people have strict guidelines with their primary partner over bringing in a secondary partner. And.. like anon, the partners are all aware of it.. there is no lying.
Poly people live everywhere. They could be living next door to you and you would have no idea. Kitchener Waterloo has a large poly population, as does Hamilton, Guelph and London. For the most part these people are decent, educated, professional average people.
When it gets sick is when one partner, usually the female is not consensual.. or in the case of some Muslim relationships, not permitted to object. That’s wrong.
The issue with the Bountiful group is the child abuse and sexual relationships with minors. And IF the women are kept against their will. These men are pedophiles and there is some question if the adult relationships are consensual.
Sexual relationships are no one’s business unless it involves a minor or there is non-consent. And yes, the slippery slope started a while back not with SSM, but with common-law relationships. Poly relationships will eventually be legal, like it or not - and it won’t be the quiet ones who prefer to keep their sexlives out of public display, it will be to accommodate the foreigners.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Thanks for your very frank testimony, Kim. It seems that it’s only a matter of time before poly-relationships come out of the closet.
I wonder how our social and legal system will deal with spousal benefits and such. Should be interesting.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Kim:
Honestly, how more anonymous is my name ‘anon’ and your name ‘Kim’?
I think it’s unfair to say there was a slippery slope at all. Either you believe people can have personal intimate relationships of their choosing, and that these should be recognized by the state with respect to benefits, etc., or you think that the state should restrict them. Common-law marriages were an institution created to respect that belief. So are same sex marriages, and maybe some time, so will polyamorous relationships. There is no slippery slope, unless you have the predetermination that common law, same sex, and polyamorous are immoral. If you don’t have this predetermination, then there is no slope.
All of the other things you talk about (sexual assault, sexual confinement, sexual abuse, sexual assault of a minor, spousal abuse) have very definable lines and don’t fall under consideration here at all. They are not a point on any slope, because we can draw a very solid legal line to demarcate them. The same goes for bestiality, for those that feel inclined to bring THAT into the conversation.
As Joanne notes, the determination of spousal benefits is the main question facing the state in this matter.
Also, the inevitable outcry that will come from the proportion of the population that believes that they have trademarked a word in the English language.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Not good news for the ‘poly’ people here.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It’s all coming down. With challenges in Germany to the laws against incest, and in England with platonic couples seeking same sex benefits, the rules are being changed.
My desire is for government to recognize this and quit pandering to special interests, and just simply revisit the intentions of legislation, and redefine it to meet those intentions.