Polygamy?

[The Blue Tory]

What are your opinions on Mr Martin's launch of an urgent study on the legal and social affects of polygamy?

[Bright Eyes]

Could you post a news link to this? I havn't heard anything about it.

Makes sense though. Polyamory has existed for years and years without society collapsing on itself in fire and brimstone. Perhaps it should be considered more closely as a viable way of life by our government.

[Dick]

I'm all for Polygamy... I mean, if one of your wives doesn't want to put out, you just go to the next one, and so on. And no one would get angry because your not "cheating".

Polygamy would put an end to all the cheating and divorces.

[The Blue Tory]

Could you post a news link to this? I havn't heard anything about it.

Makes sense though. Polyamory has existed for years and years without society collapsing on itself in fire and brimstone. Perhaps it should be considered more closely as a viable way of life by our government.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fb2666b2-4bdf-475b-98b4-a1ebc894ec40

Yes it is a slightly right winged source, however this was put forward by the Prime Minister. I am not surprised The Star has not carried it.

[Juice]

Well, why not. We're already in the process of redefining marriage. We might as well throw in that too.

NOTE: That was a serious statement. I don't see the harm if all parties are in agreement. Legal issues could get ugly though.

[Walsh]

I think one wife would be more than enough.

[Gopher]

I'm all for Polygamy... I mean, if one of your wives doesn't want to put out, you just go to the next one, and so on. And no one would get angry because your not "cheating".

Polygamy would put an end to all the cheating and divorces.
WOW! Post of the day or a kick in the head for that one.

Seriously though one is enough, can you imangine having more then one person spending your money?

[Dick]

Seriously though one is enough, can you imangine having more then one person spending your money?

You get a kick in the head for that comment. That was the most sexist thing I've ever heard :eek:

Who's to say your wives wouldnt all have jobs, and I could be sitting at home spending all THEIR money!??!! Get with the times. One wife just isn't enough anymore. And hey while we're at it, some women could have multiple husbands if they're into that sort of thing.

[Juice]

You get a kick in the head for that comment. That was the most sexist thing I've ever heard :O

Who's to say your wives wouldnt all have jobs?
Who said he was referring exclusively to wives?

[Dick]

Who said he was referring exclusively to wives?

There's nothing wrong with a Gay/Polygamist marriage! I think everyone should have one!

[wb256]

Polygamy obviously seems ridiculous to our current western cultural mindset. It has been so heavily ingrained in our consciousness that marriage is between one man and one woman it's almost incredible. However, not all Canadians originate from this cultural background, and not all should be forced to abide strictly by random cultural rules.

Polygamy has been a part of Canadian history for thounsands of years. I can't speak for all aboriginal societys (as they were as varied as european societies were), but in plains culture (palins cree, sioux, blackfoot, etc) it was fairly common for a man to take on more than one wife. The principle reason for this was men died quite often at war or while stealing horses in raiding parties. Better share a husband with someone else then starve (it's not like one person can handle both the hunting and processing tasks in such a society).

I believe the issue here is FORCED polygamy. That is disgusting and infringing upon people's rights. That needs to be halted.

And lastly, he's ordering a study into the social effects of it. He's not legalizing it. There's no harm done in performing scholarly research (as long as the research participants are treated ethically), so I don't see why anyone should care. The government funds an IMMENSE amount of studies on random things. I highly believe that the only reason why this even made the news was reactionary right wing nuts were scrounging for anything they could spin to claim that the liberal government is ruining the family unit, christian values, or anything else right wing nuts always complain about. Maybe something about them hating freedom.

(NOTE: this was not meant to be derogatory to right wing thinking in general, as there are viabale economic theories from all sides of the spectrum. This is targeted against those who attempt to place a negative spin on EVERYTHING the government does, completely ignoring facts and logic to suit their own political agendas)

[Walsh]

Seriously though one is enough, can you imangine having more then one person spending your money?

yeah. its called kids.

[The Blue Tory]

Polygamy obviously seems ridiculous to our current western cultural mindset. It has been so heavily ingrained in our consciousness that marriage is between one man and one woman it's almost incredible. However, not all Canadians originate from this cultural background, and not all should be forced to abide strictly by random cultural rules.

Polygamy has been a part of Canadian history for thounsands of years. I can't speak for all aboriginal societys (as they were as varied as european societies were), but in plains culture (palins cree, sioux, blackfoot, etc) it was fairly common for a man to take on more than one wife. The principle reason for this was men died quite often at war or while stealing horses in raiding parties. Better share a husband with someone else then starve (it's not like one person can handle both the hunting and processing tasks in such a society).

I believe the issue here is FORCED polygamy. That is disgusting and infringing upon people's rights. That needs to be halted.

And lastly, he's ordering a study into the social effects of it. He's not legalizing it. There's no harm done in performing scholarly research (as long as the research participants are treated ethically), so I don't see why anyone should care. The government funds an IMMENSE amount of studies on random things. I highly believe that the only reason why this even made the news was reactionary right wing nuts were scrounging for anything they could spin to claim that the liberal government is ruining the family unit, christian values, or anything else right wing nuts always complain about. Maybe something about them hating freedom.

(NOTE: this was not meant to be derogatory to right wing thinking in general, as there are viabale economic theories from all sides of the spectrum. This is targeted against those who attempt to place a negative spin on EVERYTHING the government does, completely ignoring facts and logic to suit their own political agendas)
Note how there was no mention in any post about legalizing.

Anyway it makes sense about for necessity. The problem laying in it would be the possibility people would abuse it.

[quadrapiper]

It's not my thing, but I really don't see any problems with polygamy, providing it is fully consensual. Also, the moment something is legalized, it can be more carefully scrutinized - so cases like that compound in Bountiful, BC wouldn't be a concern. Really, Canada's legal system needs to ditch the obvious old-guard Christian-influenced legislation - things like the offence of consensual sodomy, which was taken off the books only a few years ago - and move with the more varied cultural, religious, moral, and ethical points of view that are present in Canada as of now, not 1900. That said, the recent move towards Sharia law is one of the most moronic things I have ever heard out of a politician's mouth. If someone wants to use some sort of religion-based settlement system for their problems, fine, but don't give it legal force. The next thing you'll have is the Inquisition showing up at pride parades and burning heretics in Robson Square.

[The Blue Tory]

It's not my thing, but I really don't see any problems with polygamy, providing it is fully consentual. Also, the moment something is legalized, it can be more carefully scrutinized - so cases like that compound in Bountiful, BC wouldn't be a concern. Really, Canada's legal system needs to ditch the obvious old-guard Christian-influenced legislation - things like the offence of consentual buggery, which was taken off the books only a few years ago - and move with the more varied cultural, religious, moral, and ethical points of view that are present in Canada as of now, not 1900. That said, the recent move towards Sharia law is one of the most moronic things I have ever heard out of a politician's mouth. If someone wants to use some sort of religion-based settlement system for their problems, fine, but don't give it legal force. The next thing you'll have is the Inquisition showing up at pride parades and burning heretics in Robson Square.
However, keep in mind the roots of Canada. Sure one must progress, but in the quest for progress, one must not forget the roots and history that have built the nation to what it is today.

[Dick]

things like the offence of consentual buggery

"The dog said he was ok with it officer! I swear!"

[quadrapiper]

"The dog said he was ok with it officer! I swear!"That is not buggery. Buggery = anal sex with humans. There is a word for what you are thinking of - I just can't call it to mind right now. Definition, anyone? And it isn't "sick" or any synonym - although those do apply.

[quadrapiper]

However, keep in mind the roots of Canada. Sure one must progress, but in the quest for progress, one must not forget the roots and history that have built the nation to what it is today.What form would you have those roots take today? I'm all for knowing your history; however, the Criminal Code shouldn't be some sort of living museum, like Fortress Louisbourg, displaying what Sir John A. and Co. thought were moral offences. As far as "defining Canadian values" go, most of the big ones are accepted by just about everyone - justice, active, colourful democracy, equality, and the Charter freedoms.

[Dick]

That is not buggery. Buggery = anal sex with humans. There is a word for what you are thinking of - I just can't call it to mind right now. Definition, anyone? And it isn't "sick" or any synonym - although those do apply.

BS to that I say.

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/buggery.htm

OR BEAST! That's the British meaning of it anyway, as my parents have always told me. Or Xylophone Buggery, ya know.

[quadrapiper]

BS to that I say.

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/buggery.htm

OR BEAST! That's the British meaning of it anyway, as my parents have always told me. Or Xylophone Buggery, ya know.So sorry, wasn't aware that it covered both... the legal interpretation seems to concern human-only activities... I think bestiality (remembered the term) is generally used to cover the other, more disgusting activity.

[Walsh]

BS to that I say.

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/buggery.htm

OR BEAST! That's the British meaning of it anyway, as my parents have always told me. Or Xylophone Buggery, ya know.

so if its anal sex with an animal what is it? buggery^2?

[quadrapiper]

so if its anal sex with an animal what is it? buggery^2?Probably, but this is getting way off topic... Polygamy, remember?

[The Blue Tory]

So sorry, wasn't aware that it covered both... the legal interpretation seems to concern human-only activities... I think bestiality (remembered the term) is generally used to cover the other, more disgusting activity.
Bestiality is an offence where the person has sexual relations with an animal.

[DMCorrigan]

...right, how did we get from the study of polygamy to the finer points of sodomy?

On the note of the study, I'm all for Martin being allowed to study about polygamy to their hearts content. But if they DO legalize it at some point, I don't care, but if a polygamist hits on my girlfriend, I'll still spear them with a spear. ;)

[Dick]

I'll still spear them with a spear. ;)

Talk about redundancy... well, i guess it's better than getting speared with a brick.

[DA Wright]

That is not buggery. Buggery = anal sex with humans. There is a word for what you are thinking of - I just can't call it to mind right now. Definition, anyone? And it isn't "sick" or any synonym - although those do apply.

Let's get terms straight.

Buggery = anal RAPE i.e. forcing non-consensual anal sex upon another person.

Sodomy = consensual anal sex between two persons (legal definition) or between a person and an animal (Concise Oxford Dictionary def'n)

Polygamy = 1 man with multiple wives (usually) but may be 1 wife with more than 1 husband

Polyandry = 1 wife with multiple husbands

Polygyny = 1 husband with multiple wives

[Legionnaire]

I'll still spear them with a spear. ;)


And then, let me guess. You'll kill them 'till they die from it! :)

[wb256]

I realized you made no mention of the legalization of it ed. However, if they're not even discussing legalizing it, why is this even as issue?

Other than serving the purpose to some how twist blame onto canada's current government.

[quadrapiper]

Can we get back onto topic? The particular non-monogamous-hetero relationship under discussion was polygamy, gay or straight (wow - there's something that hasn't shown up in this thread yet!).
BTW, mod, there seems to be an incredible lack of the nuts that usually show up for the homosexual-related threads... wierd... also not much in the way of mud-slinging (ie, "The Liberals will be the downfall of all that is pure and good").

[KarlSchultz]

ABSOLUTLEY AGAINST IT!

A very good friend of mine grew up in a polygamous group in BC.
The women are treated as second a second class and totally taken advantage of. If you don't do what your husband tells you, your going againts God. The women are abused, and the men often hold their children against them as threat against leaving.

The first marraige would most likely be to a man your age, but if something happens to him, you are likely to be swept up by a MUCH older man with many wives already.

There is a new book that has just been published about this particular group. its called "Keep Sweet: Children of Polygamy" written by Debbie Palmer.

In Canada having more then one spouse is ILLIEGAL, yet these men hide behind their religon.

[Bright Eyes]

BTW, mod, there seems to be an incredible lack of the nuts that usually show up for the homosexual-related threads... wierd... also not much in the way of mud-slinging (ie, "The Liberals will be the downfall of all that is pure and good").
blahblahblah ... The Bible ... blahblahblah ... Progressive Conservative Party ... blahblahblah ... root of all evil ... blahblahblah ... your mother.

There. Happy?

[Insane Power Pilot]

BTW, mod, there seems to be an incredible lack of the nuts that usually show up for the homosexual-related threads... wierd... also not much in the way of mud-slinging (ie, "The Liberals will be the downfall of all that is pure and good").

The Liberals ARE the downfall of all that is pure and good. But contrary to what my name suggests, I'm not a nut.

[quadrapiper]

ABSOLUTLEY AGAINST IT!I believe your point was adressed earlier by the mod... something to the effect of forced polygamy being absolutely wrong and disgusting (agreed). If it isn't forced, however, what is your stance (instead of two consenting adults, then three, four, etc)?

Out of curiousity, why does one hear about the existence of such groups, but never the prosecution of them? To put it simply, why hasn't Bountiful been raided by the RCMP, the offenders locked up, and everyone else offered assistance in getting new lives going? If the RCMP enforce laws re: marijuana, which a significant chunk of the population have issues with, then why are they not busting these creeps, who have, like murderers of small children and rapists, no popular support?

[quadrapiper]

blahblahblah ... The Bible ... blahblahblah ... Progressive Conservative Party ... blahblahblah ... root of all evil ... blahblahblah ... your mother.

There. Happy?My post was in reference to how nice this calm, more-or-less reasoned situation was, not a call to arms. BTW, where do you fall on consensual polygamy between independent adults?

[The Blue Tory]

Warren,

I believe Martin is creating this study, just incase some polygamists believe that they deserve rights, if homosexuals receive rights to marry.

This fits rather nicely into the argument that Samesex marriage could lead to this, as predicted...


On the lighter side of things... one of the people that would benefit most if it was legalized, would be our own Colin Hoult ;)

[quadrapiper]

Warren,

I believe Martin is creating this study, just incase some polygamists believe that they deserve rights, if homosexuals receive rights to marry.

This fits rather nicely into the argument that Samesex marriage could lead to this, as predicted...Part of the reason for Martin's study might be to determine whether polygamy is actually Bad for Society, and thus something that needs to be guarded against, or whether it is simply another "lifestyle option." There are some things that are considered wrong - for example, child molestation - with good, solid reason in addition to the moral revulsion felt at the act. However, polygamy has been seen to work in some cultures - including both multiple wives and multiple husbands - without the sort of religous coercion and mental, physical, and sexual abuse that has come to be associated with the word in North American forums. (Of course, there have been cultures practicing polygamy that held to the old woman-as-chattel system...)

[DMCorrigan]

ABSOLUTLEY AGAINST IT!

A very good friend of mine grew up in a polygamous group in BC.
The women are treated as second a second class and totally taken advantage of. If you don't do what your husband tells you, your going againts God. The women are abused, and the men often hold their children against them as threat against leaving.

The first marraige would most likely be to a man your age, but if something happens to him, you are likely to be swept up by a MUCH older man with many wives already.

There is a new book that has just been published about this particular group. its called "Keep Sweet: Children of Polygamy" written by Debbie Palmer.

In Canada having more then one spouse is ILLIEGAL, yet these men hide behind their religon.

If you are speaking of Bounty, British Columbia, your example is not in the proper context. The village of Bounty is... different in nature than what Paul Martin is having a study done on.

[Insane Power Pilot]

Ed and quadrapiper are exactly right. The study is being done so in the event that polygamists demand the right to change the definition of marriage to better suit their needs, the government will be better educated, in other words, determining if it's bad for society.

[Bright Eyes]

When you force someone to do anything, it's obviously wrong.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with people having an open relationship and sharing love in a healthy way. As long as all parties are consenting and a mutual respect is observed, then it can be a beneficial lifestyle.

Sure, there is bound to be cases of abuse, but people get abused in "normal" heterosexual marriages hundreds of times a day. Really, you have to put things into perspective. Physical, sexual, emotional and sexist abuse is not limited to "the freaks." Chances are the involved parties in these cases, if involved in "normal" relationships, would have similar bad outcomes. Justifying abusive actions with religious ideals is also not limited to polyamorous people.

However, I do not believe that legaization of multiple spouses is the way to go. Creates way too many loopholes that could be abused by husbands or wives wanting to hang on to a relationship gone bad. That's why we need to do studies.

[Steph38]

My name is Stephanie Palmer, my mother is Debbie Palmer.
My mother was raised in the polygamus group in Bountiful, and i was in it as a young child. I don't have time right now to post something long, but if anyone has any questions they would like to ask go ahead.

[DMCorrigan]

Steph38, you're opening yourself a whole big can of worms, dear...

[piper-from-camp]

While we're going about trying to legalize ploygamy, why not legalize marrying animals and children? How about being allowed to marry plants and non-living objects like chairs and beds? Heck, lets marry our cars. How far is society going to descend into the depths of foolishness until people realise that we don't have to accomodate every single person who lives in Canada? But no, gotta please every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to have a husband or ten wives. Oh well.

[Kat]

Marriage is kinda a scam anyway. You have to pay all this money....and for what? So the government can keep track of you better :p haha. No, but seriously, do animals get married? NO. So why do people? It just doesn't make sense.

If people want to marry 4 people, why should the government care? They're getting more money from all the marriage licences

[wb256]

While we're going about trying to legalize ploygamy, why not legalize marrying animals and children? How about being allowed to marry plants and non-living objects like chairs and beds? Heck, lets marry our cars. How far is society going to descend into the depths of foolishness until people realise that we don't have to accomodate every single person who lives in Canada? But no, gotta please every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to have a husband or ten wives. Oh well.


Because none of those things make any sense, and are a sign of insanity:p

However, polygamy is a part of many cultures, cultures that have been present in canada far before christianity and monogamy was.

Furthermore, I live in canada, and I want society to please my needs:p I highly doubt you'll ever convince me to support one dominating culture that me, a mostly white heterosexual christian, dosn't even feel a part of. I don't see why I should have to follow your culture...I'm hardworking, I contribute to society and I don't hurt anyone...and furthermore this is just as much my country as it is yours.

[Juice]

Polygamy might have been fine, and "loving" in the past.. but from doing a bit of my own reasearch latley, modern Polygamy in Canada is full of abuse.
So is modern monogamous relationships. I don't like it when people play the abuse card, just because in every sytem of interpersonal relationship, romatic or otherwise, there is abuse. I'm sure there are loving polygamous relationships just as much as there are abusive ones. Just like there are many loving monogamous relationships, but there are also many abusive ones. You can't just say because there is abuse in polygamous relationships then it shouldn't be allowed, because then monogamous relationships would have to go too. Let's try using something that can withstand scrutiny if you want to argue against polygamy.

[DMCorrigan]

...EVERYTHING is full of abuse. There will ALWAYS be people to abuse others and to abuse the system. It is a fact of modern life.

[Wood]

I don't think having the law involved in this area of our lives is particularly needed but anyways.

I think that the excuse that giving homosexuals this right would lead to something "worse" is disgustingly dishonest. Firstly, because it is by definition a falacious statement (slipery slope), but furthermore the fact that the idea is that a section of our population must give up on their rights to act as a barrier.

Gay marriage debate has to be handled in isolation, the idea that our society must be oppressive to have legitimate laws is an excuse for totalitarian regimes and not a democratic nation.

My last addition to this rambling post is that if polygamy were to be legalized there would obviously have to be the same laws that exists everywhere to stop abuse. But its easier to stop illegal behavior in a legalized practice than it is in a underground one.

[Steph38]

Steph38, you're opening yourself a whole big can of worms, dear...
Yes i do realize this, but i think i can handle worms. What i can not handle is under educated people trying to argue about something they know next to nothing about. :mad: Further more for all of you comparing a monogamus marriage to a polygamus one you need to realize that in these polygamus cults you are running into a whole differant ball game. Polygamus rules are differant, the religion is differant, and how people are viewed is very differant. Therefore i think everyone in this forum needs to do their homework before trying to say they know what they are talking about.

[Steph38]

So is modern monogamous relationships. I don't like it when people play the abuse card, just because in every sytem of interpersonal relationship, romatic or otherwise, there is abuse. I'm sure there are loving polygamous relationships just as much as there are abusive ones. Just like there are many loving monogamous relationships, but there are also many abusive ones. You can't just say because there is abuse in polygamous relationships then it shouldn't be allowed, because then monogamous relationships would have to go too. Let's try using something that can withstand scrutiny if you want to argue against polygamy.
What you don't understand is that while there are many abusive and non abusive relationships in the monogamus world. Every single person in a polygamous cult is being abused wheather they know it or not. Not every polygamous group, but the one i am speaking of is the FLDS(Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) group in bountiful BC. I was born there and left when my mother escaped with all her children. People in this group are not treated as individuals they are treated as a sort of modern day slaves. Everything they work for and live for can be taken away at a whim of one of the leaders. I doubt you can say that for a the normal monogamus world. No one in this group owns anything. they are subjects in a world with out law, order, or justice.

[Loyal Edmonton]

Yes i do realize this, but i think i can handle worms. What i can not handle is under educated people trying to argue about something they know next to nothing about. :mad: Further more for all of you comparing a monogamus marriage to a polygamus one you need to realize that in these polygamus cults you are running into a whole differant ball game. Polygamus rules are differant, the religion is differant, and how people are viewed is very differant. Therefore i think everyone in this forum needs to do their homework before trying to say they know what they are talking about.


True enough, I myself have recieved the Steph Palmer workshop on it from 1 am to 330 am and trust me its a scary world, and people need to understand some facts about it.

[Bright Eyes]

I think we have established that the "cult" in Boutiful is NOT a healthy example of a polygamous relationship. I would pose that it's not a polyamorous relationship, but rather polygyny (one man with many wives) that operates in a very male dominated atmosphere where the head of the household operates as the social and religious head of the household community, and is free to do whatever he likes to his followers under the authority of religion. I don't think that it should stand as a representative example. It's like saying the relationship between Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka was an example of a monogomous relationship. It was, but certainly not a typical example. It's funny how if a non-monogomous relationship fails, then it proves non-monogomy doesn't work ... but if a monogomous relationship fails, it's "normal."

It's unfortunate that so many people are controlled by others under the guise of religion. However, I don't believe we should paint every polyamorous relationship with the same brush.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/polydefn.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/polyintro.htm
http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm
http://www.sexuality.org/polyamor.html

Here's a couple of websites that I found were really helpful.

[wb256]

Agreed BL. Obviously the examples of current cults are dreadfully wrong. However, there are many other religious cults that don't involve polygamy that are incredibly immoral. I think the problem is in the cult aspect, not the polygamous one.

I, personally, do not want more than one wife. I would also not be comfortable with my wife having more than one husband. However, the practice could quite easily be carried out by more open minded individuals than myself (I don't like to share...so sue me:p), and it could easily be non-abusive.

[Svejk]

What is the Right to Get "Married"? It is a special social/legal contract (you can't get a lawyer to write you contract with all the Benefits of marriage without the License) that entitles you under law to extra privledges. It was first to protect the Children, to pass on property in a systemized fashion, and to encourage Population Growth. Currently, you can get tax write-offs etc only because you are married (with the Government License). This special tax treatment etc is what the Gay/Lesbian Lobby is after. It's about your money going to other people.

I would never be a polygamist but I can't see why it should remain outlawed or why a polygamist family shouldn't qualify for the benefits outlined above that have now been extended to Gays and Lesbians or to common law couples. Abuse happens anywhere and by being illegal it drives the Stakes up higher.

And then there is common law. After a year, the Government assumes that you made a contract with a cohabiting person! So now you don't even have to agree to get married.

Aren't we better than animals? At least most of the Time?

[DA Wright]

I would never be a polygamist but I can't see why it should remain outlawed or why a polygamist family shouldn't qualify for the benefits outlined above that have now been extended to Gays and Lesbians or to common law couples.

Yikes!!! The tax write-off for a spouse is pretty significant, it would be very disadvantageous for the government to permit polygamy from a tax perspective, unless the benefit was less and less for each additional spouse.


And then there is common law. After a year, the Government assumes that you made a contract with a cohabiting person! So now you don't even have to agree to get married.


Common law status is no-longer automatically assumed, you must claim it. However, if there is a child born of the relationship, the parents have some automatic financial responsibilities to the child and to the maintenance of the household in which the child lives, but unlike marriage, not to each other.

[DA Wright]

There may be a somewhat legal way to conduct polygamy now, in a common-law sort of way. It is only illegal to "marry" more than one person at a time, not to have multiple relationships. Assume the following to be purely amongst willing, consenting adults. A man and a group of women wish to start a polygamous family. Instead of any of them marrying, they form a not-for-profit corporation (say, a 24/7 daycare cooperative), with each member appointed to the board of directors. All their assets and employment earnings go directly into the corporate account (donations), and each in turn receives an expense account. Nobody would have any personal income, because their entire income would be donated to the corporation, so individual taxes would not have to be paid, only corporate taxes, which would have generous write-offs because of the huge expenses, and the not-for profit status. The birth parents of any children would sign a consent giving the corporation in locus parentus rights over the child, which would give every other "employee" the same rights as school teachers, camp cousellers, CIC over their charges. Nobody is "married" by law, there is just consensual sex between unmarried "employees".

Not my cup of tea, but...

NOTE: This isn't an origianl idea, this is an extension of something I heard (can't substantiate accuracy) some gay couples did before they were legally recognised for joint benefits - they would form a limited partnership business together, and everything would be done through the business (buying a house, insurance, cars, investments, etc...). It cost a little more than it would for a married heterosexual couple, but it got around the legal barriers that were in place at the time.

I'm not advocating a position, just throwing out food for thought, and showing that there usually is a way...

[wb256]

Aren't we better than animals? At least most of the Time?


I really don't understand this statement, or what it's in reference to...

[Boosey]

While we're going about trying to legalize ploygamy, why not legalize marrying animals and children? How about being allowed to marry plants and non-living objects like chairs and beds? Heck, lets marry our cars. How far is society going to descend into the depths of foolishness until people realise that we don't have to accomodate every single person who lives in Canada? But no, gotta please every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to have a husband or ten wives. Oh well.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Polygamy be legalized.


This special tax treatment etc is what the Gay/Lesbian Lobby is after. It's about your money going to other people.

Now this I resent. The legalization of gay marriage is NOT just about receiveing the same benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive, its about allowing two NON-RELATED PEOPLE who love each other to marry and be treated as equals to heterosexuals.

[Steve]

The Liberal argument for same-sex marriage is based on a human rights argument. Put simply, it states that if it is the case that homosexuality is determined by some factor other than personal choice then it is constitutionally wrong for the government to prevent homosexuals from marrying. It would be much more difficult to prove that polygamy is not a choice, hence I doubt there is much chance of polygamy becoming legal. Cultural traditions have no place in the argument.

Besides which, if it's in your culture to eat other human beings (which it is in some) should that be allowed under law? I certainly hope not.

[Svejk]

...be treated as equals to heterosexuals.

Exactly, to claim the Same Benefits from the Government. What other benefit does a marriage license convey that you can't do without government interference?

Whether it is my choice or I am born a polygamist doesn't matter whether I should be able to get married. Multiple consenting adults or two same sex adults going into a legal arrangement for permanent cohabitation isn't hurting anyone else (unless they are getting benefits) so why should it be regulated? If my two wives and I voluntarily contracted the Relationship why shouldn't it be allowed?

It's not a human right to get a government license...for anything except...citizenship.

[DA Wright]

The Liberal argument for same-sex marriage is based on a human rights argument. Put simply, it states that if it is the case that homosexuality is determined by some factor other than personal choice then it is constitutionally wrong for the government to prevent homosexuals from marrying. It would be much more difficult to prove that polygamy is not a choice, hence I doubt there is much chance of polygamy becoming legal. Cultural traditions have no place in the argument.

Besides which, if it's in your culture to eat other human beings (which it is in some) should that be allowed under law? I certainly hope not.

I haven't heard the question of biological vs. environmental roots for homosexuality come up much in the court cases, or the judgements. It appears the argument to allow gay marriage is founded simply on the basis that you cannot restrict consenting adults from doing something, unless it can be shown that the something goes against the public or societal good. It is on the basis that "it goes against the public good" that illicit drugs are illegal, tobacco, pornography and alcohol are controlled, and that prostitution and polygamy are outlawed (all invasions of an adult's right to self-determination, but constitutionally OK because to permit them would be contrary to the public good). For many years, and up until fairly recently, homosexuality, adultery, felacio and sodomy were all illegal on the basis they were contrary to the public good (some of these are still in the criminal code, but have been rendered invalid by case law). To leagalise polygamy, a case would simply have to be made to show that it did not go against the public good, and that nobody in the polygamist realtionship would be negatively affected by it. Personally, I think that is a stretch, and I strongly doubt it would pass the muster of a constitutional challenge today. More likely to be able to challenge the 19 year-old drinking age of majority that exists only in some provinces - now THAT seems like ageism!

While he hasn't come out clearly to say it, I think Harper would like to see the traditional definition of marriage maintained on the basis that it would be detrimental to society to change it, and that by giving homosexuals all the rights of marriage (albeit under a differently named institution), it can be justified within the constitution. Given the bulk of Liberal appointed justices on the supreme court, the precedence set to date, and what appears to be a broad legal opinion, I believe Harper is doomed to fail, and the notwithstanding clause would need to be invoked to maintain it.

Incidentally, and this is just a personal read of the nation, were the matter to go to a binding referendum, and every eligible person voted, I think the notwithstanding clause would indeed be invoked and gay marriage would be denied. When it came up again in 5 years, it would still be close, but public opinion would probably not support renewing the use of the clause. Were they just barely able to squeak a renewal after 5 years, they certainly wouldn't again after ten.

As for cannibalism: I couldn't find a specific law against it (not that my search was that thorough!). Providing you didn't kill them, it would likely just be performing an indecency to a dead body. What about that guy in Germany who arranged over the internet to eat somebody? They arranged to meet, he killed the guy...and ATE him. Of course, he did kill the guy, and was charged by German authorities with murder.

[Boosey]

[QUOTE=SOAirTrg (Central)] and that prostitution and polygamy are outlawed (all invasions of an adult's right to self-determination, but constitutionally OK because to permit them would be contrary to the public good). QUOTE]

Not that I am arguing, just clarifying, but prostitution is legal, soliciting for sex is illeagal

[DA Wright]

Not that I am arguing, just clarifying, but prostitution is legal, soliciting for sex is illeagal

True, prostitution itself is not illegal, my generic reference to prostitution being outlawed would include specific offenses like: communicating for the purposes of obtaining; operating a common bawdy house; living off the avails of, and other related statutes, such as indecent act in a public place that are commonly used to control the sex trade in Canadian towns and cities. It just didn't seem to need to be that precise and the wordiness would have further encumbered an already wordy post. Call it poetic licence :D

[Steve]

I'm not actually talking about the court cases. I'm referring to the Liberal argument for legalizing same-sex marriage. It is founded on the biological nature of homosexuality (yet to be proven). The Liberals say that if it is a biological situation rather than a personal choice then it would be a violation of homosexual's human rights to deny them marriage. The same argument could not be made for polygamy because there is no evidence that polygamy is anything but a personal choice.

The constitution's good governance clause leaves alot open to interpretation.

[Boosey]

Call it poetic licence :D

Okay.....:)

But that licence may be revoked upon any other infractions :)

[Coriel]

do you mean polygyny (one man having 2 or more wives) or poly andry (1 woman haveing 2 or more husbands) or just polgamy as a whole?

[KarlSchultz]

I believe the topic was more then one spouse for any person.

[Steph38]

do you mean polygyny (one man having 2 or more wives) or poly andry (1 woman haveing 2 or more husbands) or just polgamy as a whole?
Even though we are talking about Polgamy as a whole the majority of polgamus marrages are polygyny. Also i just wanted to say something as to something that was talked about before. Someone was talking about polygamy as being part of out heritige. The reason why they needed to live like that is to survive. In this modern day it isn't practicle. Haveing more than one spouse would most likely cuase more problems than it would solve

[Legionnaire]

Someone was talking about polygamy as being part of out heritige.


Well, you know, it's in our milk commercials.



"One is good,http://www.milkismilk.com/picts/milkismilkcarton2.jpg


but two is better."http://www.sthelensfarm.co.uk/images/milk.jpg

[Steph38]

Well, you know, it's in our milk commercials.
"One is good, but two is better."
Very amusing. Did you think that one up all by yourself

[Bright Eyes]

Even though we are talking about Polgamy as a whole the majority of polgamus marrages are polygyny. Also i just wanted to say something as to something that was talked about before. Someone was talking about polygamy as being part of out heritige. The reason why they needed to live like that is to survive. In this modern day it isn't practicle. Haveing more than one spouse would most likely cuase more problems than it would solve
Wow. I'm so glad you dug this thread up to point that out!

Why would it be impractical for there to be multiple wives/husbands in a household? Most modern households need 2 incomes to only make ends meet. That means that mother and father have to work and hire out for various child care services. Wouldn't it be much better to have someone always stay at home, so the children have a more stable home base? Even if that other parent did work some, there's more money coming into the household so everyone has a better standard of living.

[Steph38]

Most modern households need 2 incomes to only make ends meet. That means that mother and father have to work and hire out for various child care services. Wouldn't it be much better to have someone always stay at home, so the children have a more stable home base?

Very good points. But what you are talking about would have to be polygamy with out a religious base. Also it's all fine to say that having more than one wife or more than one husband would work out that well for everyone, but there is always jelousy issues, and compatition for who is eaither the better spouse or who has the better children. Things like who got to go on the trip that time, and who got to spend more time with the "main" spouse. As far as a more stable home base goes children put in the middle of this often get played against the parents to gain more affection on their side. Also the only examples the government has to go on are bad ones so far. Polygamy in Canada and the US is illegal, and no one is getting prosecuted, charged, or tried for anything. There are people and groups of people that are trying to stop the abuse be it sexual, physical, or emotional. If anyone is intersted go to www.keepsweet.com (http://www.keepsweet.com)

[The Blue Tory]

did anyone catch the bit they did on Bountiful, BC on CTV News tonight? Interesting to say the least...

[Juice]

Very good points. But what you are talking about would have to be polygamy with out a religious base.
Why should that make a difference? If everyone holds the same values, then there shouldnt be a problem. Besides, there's always that wonderful thing called compromise.

Also it's all fine to say that having more than one wife or more than one husband would work out that well for everyone, but there is always jelousy issues, and compatition for who is eaither the better spouse or who has the better children.
I suppose that's something you have to deal with as they come up. If one thinks that there will never be any issues like that when entering into a polygamous relationship, then one is crazy.

and who got to spend more time with the "main" spouse.
Why does there have to be a 'main' spouse? Can't it be an equal opportunity relationship?

Polygamy in Canada and the US is illegal, and no one is getting prosecuted, charged, or tried for anything
That shows more of a problem with the government and the judicial system rather than polygamy itself.

There are people and groups of people that are trying to stop the abuse be it sexual, physical, or emotional.
Just because there is abuse here does not mean that polygamy in and of itself is a bad thing. It's just been misused in these cases.

[Loyal Edmonton]

It's just been misused in these cases.

Have you ever heard of a good poly situation?

[Juice]

Have you ever heard of a good poly situation?
Sure. Arab society seems to be doing fine with it. Just because their values are different from ours does not mean that they are bad.

It's not a perfect system, clearly, but neither is a monogamous relationship.

I'll agree that there is more of a chance of abuse and a breakdown on solidarity in it, but that doesn't mean that it CANNOT work.

[Chief Hoult]

Personally, I find all these arguments fairly amusing.....many people against same-sex marriage, because clearly it's just against nature, are also against polygamy.

Interesting on two points:

1) Homosexuality does occur in nature

and more interestingly...

2) Humans are NOT naturally monogomous creatures.

Arguing from a "biological" standpoint my butt ;) lol

CH

[gunzgirl85]

Has anyone heard of this "bountiful" group out west?
they are a polygamous sec and they can practice because it is a religious sec, to press charges against them would be to infringe on their religious rights.
What im thinking right now is if you beleive in it, like they do, well then join a sec like that. If you dont believe in it, then dont go visit. :rolleyes:

[Dick]

my butt ;) lol

CH

yes... your butt indeed.

[wb256]

Have you ever heard of a good poly situation?


How about our First Nations and Inuit citizens BEFORE we came and crushed their culture? It was mostly a survival tactic, but it worked out quite well.

If a husband was killed (generally in battle or out hunting) his wife and children would generally be adopted by another man (much of the time it would be the deceased brother). The horrors of being a single mother in a society like that would have been immense, so I think it was a very good idea.

I don't see why it "wouldn't work" now. Maybe it wouldn't work for christians, as it's not a part of your culture and goes against YOUR morals. But those are your morals, not mine. I'm sure many people would fare just fine in a polygamous relationship.

[Chief Hoult]

If anyone gets the National Post, there was an article on Page A3 that talked about an 'open house' given by The Women of Bountiful...was an interesting read.

CH

[Bright Eyes]

I think it has been well established that the community in Bountiful is NOT a good example of healthy polyamory. People are forced into that lifestyle. Forcing someone to do anything always results in bad things happening. I also watched that special on the National, and it's a cult under the guise of a religion. I would not be surprised if another Waco developed out of it, and I hope that the city of Eldorado starts to take them much more seriously.

There are many people that live in consenting polyamorous relationships. I'd be careful to say that there are "always" issues of jealousy. If all parties consent, one would suppose that they are aware and can manage their jealousy. You can't convince me that monogamous relationships are free from jealousy. :rolleyes:

Warren is right. Many societys have multiple spouses at their base and have operated quite well for thousands of years. Consenting adults living in a healthy environment always make for a better partnership, regardless of how many adults there are.

[Steph38]

I think it has been well established that the community in Bountiful is NOT a good example of healthy polyamory. People are forced into that lifestyle. Forcing someone to do anything always results in bad things happening. have you heard of a polyamorus marriage that was a good example. I also watched that special on the National, and it's a cult under the guise of a religion. I would not be surprised if another Waco developed out of it, and I hope that the city of Eldorado starts to take them much more seriously. The fact that you would not be surprised if another Waco happend is saying that you do not believe this is a good comunity for people to live is....also Waco is another WONDERFUL example of polgamus relationships .

There are many people that live in consenting polyamorous relationships. Where are these people. and how come they aren't speaking up that not all polygamus marriages are bad instead of you. I'd be careful to say that there are "always" issues of jealousy. If all parties consent, one would suppose that they are aware and can manage their jealousy. if you were married (you may be i don't know) and your husband already had one wife before..and you had to share you husband with this other womman..you and this womman get along fine, but one day he tkes her on a trip instead of you ...then he comes home one day with another wifesh;es younger than you. he spends more time with her and even though you do like her ..you love your husband and you have no angry feelings towards this other womman...you Can not tell me that you would not have jealousy issues. You can't convince me that monogamous relationships are free from jealousy. The fact that monogamous relationships have jealousy should tell you that polygamus relationships have them...im not advicating for monogamy just against polygamy. :rolleyes:

Warren is right. Many societys have multiple spouses at their base and have operated quite well for thousands of years.Are any of these societies currently alive and thriving today in north america?? Consenting adults living in a healthy environment always make for a better partnership, regardless of how many adults there are. You say things like that with no proof. And who is it better for..the more wommen there are the more children there are and the more children there are the less individual attention each child gets.

Next time you or anyone else decides to say what they believe would work maybe they should read up on the subject..OR ask someone who has first hand information

[Shippy]

Next time you or anyone else decides to say what they believe would work maybe they should read up on the subject..OR ask someone who has first hand information

No offense... but care to explain? :confused:

Edit:

nevermind... just the way you decided to comment on her post is rather confusing.

[Juice]

The fact that you would not be surprised if another Waco happend is saying that you do not believe this is a good comunity for people to live is....also Waco is another WONDERFUL example of polgamus relationships .
Of course she is saying that Bountiful is NOT a good example of a polyamorous society! She said that already! That, however, does NOT mean that polyamory is bad in EVERY case. You're universalizing where you shouldnt be.

if you were married (you may be i don't know) and your husband already had one wife before..and you had to share you husband with this other womman..you and this womman get along fine, but one day he tkes her on a trip instead of you ...then he comes home one day with another wifesh;es younger than you. he spends more time with her and even though you do like her ..you love your husband and you have no angry feelings towards this other womman...you Can not tell me that you would not have jealousy issues...The fact that monogamous relationships have jealousy should tell you that polygamus relationships have them...im not advicating for monogamy just against polygamy.
Sure, of course there will be jealousy issues, but there are also jealousy issues in monagamous relationships, and in friendships, and in families. Jealousy issues are not a good argument against polyamory or polygamy.

Are any of these societies currently alive and thriving today in north america??
What does that have to do with your argument? You have this idea that ALL polygamy is bad. BL has shown that you are wrong by stating that. Changing the parameters of your argument halfway through does nothing to help your case.

You say things like that with no proof. And who is it better for..the more wommen there are the more children there are and the more children there are the less individual attention each child gets.
That isn't always the case. Why must a polygamous relationship always be one man and a bunch of women? Why must ALL the women in the relationship have children? There are MANY factors that you are failing to consider.

Next time you or anyone else decides to say what they believe would work maybe they should read up on the subject..OR ask someone who has first hand information
True, but if someone has first hand experience, they have first hand experience in one situation. One cannot use the experience of one polygamous society to denounce the entire idea of polygamy. Especially when historically, it has been beneficial to many different societies.

JB

[DA Wright]

I know it is frowned upon to re-open dormant threads, but I read the following in the "Social Studies" section of today's Gloabe and Mail:

Polygamy? Forget it

"It's perfectly legal in Canada for an adult who lives alone to have sexual relations with a different partner every day of the week," writes Karen Selick in Canadian Lawyer magazine. "Something else that's perfectly legal is for a group of celibate adults to reside in a house together -- sharing the chores, sharing their meals, and even pooling their finances if they wish. What's not legal is trying to combine the two . . . Do that, and you could find yourself charged with polygamy under section 293 of the Criminal Code."

Understandably, most Canadians will view that polygamy is immoral, but does that mean it should be illegal?

[N. McKay]

Most things are illegal because they are, or are thought to be, unethical. What would you consdier to be the difference between unethical and immoral? (If you could answer that question, it might get us a step closer to closing the loop. I've never come up with a decent answer for it, but then I haven't tried very hard either.)

[wb256]

well, morals are completely relative. What's immoral and disgusting to one person may seem completely natural to another.

Polygamy dosn't seem to hurt anyone in particular, other than possibly those involved...but how many monogamous, heterosexual relationships are unhealthy and abusive? Obviously many examples of this exist. Likewise, there's no eidence to suggest that polygamy inherently leads to abuse, just that the current cases within north america are abusive cults.

[N. McKay]

well, morals are completely relative. What's immoral and disgusting to one person may seem completely natural to another.

Some would say that ethics are relative as well, though. (e.g. a normal business practice in one country might be considered unethical in another.)

[hartleymartin]

Excuse me for being somewhat conservative, but polygamy does not make much sense to me. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Stephanie, Caroline, etc. And neither did God create Adam and Steve.

Homosexuality is still a touchy issue. It has been generally acknowledged that some people are "just like that" for no particular reason. Under Catholic teachings (as stated in the Catechism) It is not wrong to be homosexual. Rather is it "contrary to the natural order" that two people of the same sex have a relationship of a sexual nature. Two people of the same sex don't produce babies! It is taught in the Catholic Church that people who feel inclined to have a relationship with someone of the same sex are called to abstain from a relationship and instead enter into a deeper state of prayer with God.

Polygamy is not a good thing in my eyes. No person loves two people in exactly the same way. Unfortunately there will always be a favourite. Religious sentiments aside, I do not think that I could love and care for multiple wives as well as I should. I would rather focus my relationship on a single female.

In much older times polygamy was practiced out of necessity. A woman's voice in the world was her husband. A widow had virtually no rights in society. Everything belonged to the man of the family. That is why Jesus so often preached that we should take care of the widows and orphans. A woman and her children would be taken into another family so that a man could speak for her. Not so that the man could have lots of woman to have in bed and make babies with.

[Lt(N) Deck]

Excuse me for being somewhat conservative, but polygamy does not make much sense to me. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Stephanie, Caroline, etc. And neither did God create Adam and Steve.


Homosexuality is still a touchy issue. It has been generally acknowledged that some people are "just like that" for no particular reason. Under Catholic teachings (as stated in the Catechism) It is not wrong to be homosexual. Rather is it "contrary to the natural order" that two people of the same sex have a relationship of a sexual nature. Two people of the same sex don't produce babies! It is taught in the Catholic Church that people who feel inclined to have a relationship with someone of the same sex are called to abstain from a relationship and instead enter into a deeper state of prayer with God.

Polygamy is not a good thing in my eyes. No person loves two people in exactly the same way. Unfortunately there will always be a favourite. Religious sentiments aside, I do not think that I could love and care for multiple wives as well as I should. I would rather focus my relationship on a single female.

In much older times polygamy was practiced out of necessity. A woman's voice in the world was her husband. A widow had virtually no rights in society. Everything belonged to the man of the family. That is why Jesus so often preached that we should take care of the widows and orphans. A woman and her children would be taken into another family so that a man could speak for her. Not so that the man could have lots of woman to have in bed and make babies with.


Well that opens more questions than it solves...

For starters, the presumption that what one religious group believes their deity did should be entrenched as a matter of law. In secular countries, that does not happen, religious based laws are being phased out, thankfully.

Second, your statement appears to say that your deity created only Adam and Eve, and no one else. Setting aside for a moment the fact that the biblical creation story is a MYTH, then that means your god did not create anyone else since Adam and Eve, is that correct? So then why should anyone else have to care what that god supposedly thinks, since it did not create them, it only created Adam and Eve...?

Third, you seem to be aware of the fact that there are numerous references to polygamy in the bible. They were not just incidental, polygamy was heartily endorsed by the bible god and other key figures in the bible.


King Solomon, also called Solomon the Wise, and a person supposedly highly favoured by the biblegod, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. The concubines were legally sanctioned mistresses. See 1 Kings 11:3.

Like father, like son, Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. See 2 Chronicles 11:21.

Abraham also had concubines, see Genesis 25:6.

Numerous other biblical references also sanction polygamy. Of course, like in many things, the bible clearly contradicts itself with regard to polygamy. Though dozens of passages condone and encourage it, there are at least 6 that discourage it:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/polygamy.html

Hardly a clear and concise, dinvinely inspired authority from which we should be taking any modern day wisdom from.

Obviously there is much biblical precedent for a man having numerous partners. But not women, of course, they were not afforded any such freedom. The bible was long used as a tool to oppress women in the Judeo-Christian religions, and it also formed the basis for the Muslim treatment of women which was further clarified in the Quran.

It is interesting to note that the ideal of monogamy crept into Christianity from the Greek and Roman (ie, pagan) cultures where Christianity first took root, but for many centuries polgamy continued on in various Christian sects. Our current concept of monogamy comes to us primarily from the European cultures if the 1400 - 1700's, when it became a standard of "propriety" within society to be, at least officially, monogamous. That however does not erase the fact that our basic biological programming makes us inherently attracted to others, it has been part of our survival as a species. Societal conventions of a couple hundred years are not going to erase physiological programming of a couple hundred thousand years. But it is ironic that the "pagans" who were "sinners and heathens" by the Christian definition were the ones who actually fostered the notion of monogamy in early times, not the Christians, most of whom now so heartily condemn any sexual activity other than 1 man 1 woman only for a lifetime.

As for the "Two people of the same sex don't produce babies!" comment, and your other comments on gay marriage, I invite you to read the comments I posted here (http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showpost.php?p=256419&postcount=58) in our recent discussion of gay marriage in Canada:


show me one legal document that says a "point" or requirement or purpose of marriage is to have kids.

If marriage is only about pro-creation, then should we take away marriage licenses of any hetero couples who choose not to have kids? Sorry, you have decided to have no kids, you must get divorced now!

Or those who try to have kids and cannot? Sorry, you are infertile, your marriage is hereby annulled!!

What if they have kids, then after they are too old to have more kids, their kids die in a car accident?? Should we tell them they can't stay married any more, since you think one of the main points of marriage is to have children??


Obviously the answer to those questions is no. So if hetero marriages cannot be conditional on whether or not they produce offspring, why should gay marriages be subject to that condition?

In that thread, I invited the user to whom I was replying to "read your bible, the 4 gospels only, and tell me what Jesus himself supposedly said about homosexuals." Never got an answer, not unsuprisingly. Do you know what your Jesus character said about homosexuality??

[non_magna_belli]

Like the man in Around the World in 80 Days who jumped onto the train in Utah at the last moment, I say one is more than enough! With two wives or more they would always get their way, because majority rules. It would give new meaning to the phrase,"Whipped." Plus, the multiple wife aspect of Mormanism and the fact the that man is the boss has shown to have adverse phsycological effects on female children.

My first point was more of a joke, but polygamy is sort of a step backward in womens rights. In a situation where there are multiple wives and one husband, someone has to be the boss, and in all the societies I've heard of it is the man. This leads to a society where men are in charge, and this leads to sexist ideologies that men are superior. This puts the rights of women back to where it was 100 years ago. Many women in these situations have low selfesteem and selfrespect. Thus, I do not believe in polygamy.

And from what I've read, Abraham did not have concubines. He had a child with his slave Haggar to produce an heir, but that was a common practice at that time. She was not a concubine.

[SLt T. Clausen]

She was not a concubine.

No, that makes her a mistress. Not any better.

[wb256]

My first point was more of a joke, but polygamy is sort of a step backward in womens rights. In a situation where there are multiple wives and one husband, someone has to be the boss, and in all the societies I've heard of it is the man.


Someone dosn't have to "be the boss". I don't really understand why this is necessary, or why polygamy automatically leads to male dominance.

I realize that the odd polygamy cults are dangerous...but other cultures have practiced it (with their women sharing the same rights as women in monogamous christian relationships...almost none).

[Bright Eyes]

Someone dosn't have to "be the boss". I don't really understand why this is necessary, or why polygamy automatically leads to male dominance.
Because the amateur analysts are trying to compare it with one spouse unions.

In a "traditional" one spouse union, the man is at the top and woman is underneath. It's assumed that the polygamous relationship is simply more women under in a sort of chain of command. Primary wife ... secondary wife ... etc.

It a healthy one spouse union, the man and woman (or any combination thereof) work together. No one is more powerful than the other. Why can't it work that way in a polygamous household. As long as there are open lines of communication (which all healthy relationships should have) then it would be much easier to have a coalition rather than a dick-tatorship. (haha)