The talk about Polygamy

There is hullaballoo in Canada about how the provincial government in British Columbia is asking the Supreme Court of Canada for a legal opinion on the matter of polygamy. As my friend the Rook says, it’s probably not so much that the BC government wants to outlaw polygamy, but that the BC government wants to get rid of the fanatical religious sects living in their province. Which is to say, they can’t figure out how to get in there and tell the folks living in places like Bountiful that it’s a little reprehensible that they marry off their daughters at 12 to men four and five times their age, and that the girls really have no choice in the matter.

But that isn’t an issue of polygamy.

That is an issue of misogyny, child abuse, and pedophelia.

In essence, I don’t think there’s a single thing wrong with polygamy or polyandry or group marriages. Nor with polyamoury. In fact, I think that the more people you can love, the more people you *should* love. Doing so within committed relationships makes it *even better*. Here’s the trick: polygamy is not the same as bigamy. There’s a big difference between being married to more than one person, and marrying more than one person. If you get my drift.

So.

a) I have a HUGE problem with the government of BC spending taxpayers’ money on something they should be able to handle provincially. They just don’t *want* to. Nobody wants to be the bad guy. No parent wants to discipline their kids. The BC government wants to get rid of some religious communities they find distasteful, and which are probably harming the provincial image.

b) I don’t think polygamy should be illegal. It shouldn’t matter who you choose to marry, as long as everyone involved is able to make an informed, reasonable decision to do so, in a state of honour and love.

c) It’s pretty terrible that a group of fanatical people are hiding behind a freedom of religion argument, but the bottom line is that polygamy oughtn’t be illegal. The fanatical people should be arrested for abuse and endangerment.

d) I really wish that people would stop trying to make this a discussion about morals. It needs to be a discussion about rights. And in my opinion, Canadians should have the right to marry whoever they want, with the provisions already mentioned. Morals have nothing to do with it. The most important moral really needs to be: do no harm.

  9 comments for “The talk about Polygamy

  1. 1minionsopinion
    24 October 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Oh good, it’s not just me. I hadn’t heard about these goings on but I’ve never seen anything wrong with multiple partner relationships between consenting adults. Considering what housing prices are like, why wouldn’t you want more salaries paying the mortgage? heh.

    It’s so sad what happens to the kids in those child marriage situations though. I’d like to see that stopped as well.

  2. Anonymous
    3 November 2009 at 6:38 pm

    you are an idiot.. polygamy affects property laws dumbo.. and every other law..get a grip

  3. cenobyte
    3 November 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Anonymous, that’s a *really* good point. If the only thing that you care about in a relationship is who owns what, then you probably shouldn’t get in to a polygamous or polyamorous relationship. I’m really glad that in Canada, spouses are still considered ‘property’, and that this property is covered by laws that clearly state that you can own *just only* one spouse. That’s a HUGE relief.

    I am curious, however, how polygamy affects labour laws. Since polygamy affects ‘every other law’, it must have an effect on labour laws, right? Also, copyright. I guess that one’s pretty straightforward – your spouse must be your intellectual property. Oooh! I bet there’s also a whole bunch of stuff about polygamy in traffic laws! I hadn’t even THOUGHT about that. It’s okay to run a red light as long as you’re only married to one person. Gotcha. And let’s not forget corporate law and parliamentary procedure laws. And, of course, the ubiquitous defamation and libel laws; they DEFINITELY are all about polygamy.

    Thanks for the comment, Anonymous! You’ve really changed my mind and enlightened me! I TOTALLY don’t support polygamy anymore. GAH! I can’t *believe* I ever said anything so STUPID. I didn’t even KNOW that polygamy was part of the censorship laws. I have completely got a grip now. Thank you.

  4. Woz
    7 November 2009 at 12:41 pm

    I’m in favour of banning marriage altogether. At least in any legally recognized sense. This would allow people to consort in any conjugal way they wish while putting a whole bunch of lawyers on the dole. This could only be a good thing.

  5. Silent Winged Coyote
    9 November 2009 at 12:29 pm

    While I love your comeback Ceno I think when a flame of that magnitude lands on your blog, the best response is.

    Yeah well you’re a stupid head who is just a big fag! And you must suck a lot of cock to be this stupid!

    Mind you I’m just stealing this from what I hear 15 year olds say as that seems to be the level of the flame. I do not in any way endorse the use of this method, merely pointing out it’s more on the flamer’s level. He might not recognize all those things you strung together called words into what become sentences that create a coherent argument.

    Just sayin’.

  6. cenobyte
    9 November 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Coyote, I don’t think I could say that. First of all, I don’t believe that sucking cock makes you stupid (what ARE they teaching 15 year olds in school these days?); secondly, I think lumping dear Anonymous in under the label ‘fags’ does a serious disservice to fags.

    And that would just make things worse. It’s clear that Anonymous is in favour of property laws and every other law, which means that Anonymous is probably in favour of libel and defamation laws, which, I should reiterate, is affected by property law, and, therefore, polygamy, so hurling insults at and calling Anonymous names would probably violate those property laws.

    More frightening than all of this is the idea that sucking cock makes you stupid.

    Thats like SRSLY scarey. ZOMG!

    (was that too subtle?)

  7. Anonymous
    10 November 2009 at 10:26 am

    Ceno, Saskatchewan allows any number of perfectly legal same time conjugal unions using section 51 of the family property act. Polygamy IS legal in Saskatchewan Canada.
    It gets a olittle tricky for subsequent spouses as the first spouse gets all the legal rights of property, child matters, etc. For example if a child of multiple spouses gets in trouble with the law, and parents must cough up money for the minor, the first spouse is legally liable, nnot the subsequent spouses. If one spouse dies, then the last one in the relationship gets inheritence. When this involves many men and women, it gets even trickier. However, each spouse is entitled to seperate legal council. Generally, the spouses don’t waznt to settle say a divorce until other spouses in the relationship settle first because they might have financial gain in waiting years.

  8. cenobyte
    10 November 2009 at 10:28 am

    Thanks, Anonymous II! “SON OF ANONYMOUS”. Heh.

    No seriously, thank you for the information. That is stuff I didn’t know, and it’s pretty interesting. I wouldn’t want to be the family court lawyer dealing with that situation…

  9. the-iron-troll
    2 February 2010 at 1:30 pm

    I agree entirely. I see no real reason that I should not have the freedom to marry as many people as I and they like.

i make squee noises when you tell me stuff.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE
%d bloggers like this: