The Shotgun Blog
« Quibble, over such a small thing | Main | From our bulging What Liberal Media? file »
Friday, July 30, 2004
Invitation to a brouhaha
Why is polygamy illegal in Canada if gay marriage is a human right? Surely a man with two wives could not be considered more of a threat to the foundations of society than a man with a husband? Go ahead, mingle, talk it over, have some fun.
Posted by Alan Rockwell on July 30, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83456769a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Invitation to a brouhaha:
» Join The Brouhaha from small dead animals
Over at the Shotgun, Alan Rockwell poses this question: Why is polygamy illegal in Canada if gay marriage is a human right? Surely a man with two wives could not be considered more of a threat to the foundations of... [Read More]
Tracked on 2004-08-02 7:09:32 PM
Comments
Good question. I have no idea why polygamy is illegal in Canada. Perhaps it is down to the arbitrary imposition of one set of religious beliefs on everybody else.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-07-30 1:13:30 PM
The traditional rationale for opposing polygamy says that it creates undesirable rivalries and tensions between the wives.
"...the more wives, the more witchcraft...": Avot 2:8
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter2-8.html
Apologies to our Wicca friends.
I assume we oppose polyandry simply on the basis of natural law.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-07-30 1:20:34 PM
If the issue of marriage is visited by Parliament or the courts it should certainly not be restricted to one group's hobbyhorse.
Assuming the adults involved could overcome their psychological foibles, what would be wrong with a polymarriage? With proper planning (and now, DNA testing) each child could know exact parentage. Wives and husbands would be freer to alternate between periods of careerism and childraising - less sacrifice of career, increased likelihood of at-home childcare (and for those that prefer it, home schooling). The unit would be less economically vulnerable to the departure (death or divorce) of one member. Functionally it should be much like an extended family living in one place.
RA Heinlein would probably enjoy the discussion.
Posted by: lrC | 2004-07-30 3:15:12 PM
Absent definable harm to non-consenting individuals (e.g., children of the arrangement), I can't see why it should be impermissible.
Posted by: Bob Tarantino | 2004-07-30 3:19:07 PM
It would be especially interesting when such a family had to go on welfare. Lets see here one husband, 4 wives, eighteen kids. Just cut a cheque for 10 thou a month. Do ya think maybe a company medical plan might bicker just a bit when an employee writes in the names of his 4 dependent wives and eighteen kids. Cant't find an emoticon smiley here to put in.
Posted by: Mike P | 2004-07-30 4:00:50 PM
Bob Tarantino's comment is an interesting one (as usual).
Should the standard be that polygamy is allowed unless you can prove kids would be harmed by it, or that it's not allowed unless you can prove kids wouldn't be harmed by it?
As I am currently immersed in the biological imperative to protect my own small children - what my wife calls Papa Bear mode - my opinion is quite biased towards the latter (call it my bleeding heart - get it Bob? Bleeding...ah, you're right, that was uncalled-for).
Have there been any studies done on children raised in a polygamous environment? I think until we know more, we move slowly.
This thread hasn't really been discussing polygamous marriage so much as polygamous unions. Again I beat the drum: government should get out of the business of defining marriage, and stick to civil unions. Let the religions talk about marriage.
Posted by: Damian | 2004-07-30 4:59:16 PM
Monogamy is a far greater imposition of religious values than the heterosexual requirement for marriage. In every culture I am aware of - even ones that are tolerant of homosexual behaviour or relationships - marriage hes been reserved for the union of men and women. But there are many societies, cultures, and religions which have been polygamous - Egyptian, Hebrew, Islamic, African tribal traditions, Mormonism, etc. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman is a distinctly Christian idea. I see no possible basis under which we could say that, say, a Muslim immigrant could sponsor one of his wives and her children, but not his other wives and children, or that a fundamentalist Mormon couldn't have multiple wives (as long as they were of age and consenting). There have been surprisingly few court cases in this area, because prosecutors are well aware that under the Charter there is no way that the monogamy provisions could survive.
Posted by: Mark C. | 2004-07-30 9:37:27 PM
Re: Bob's comment
How would one define harm to non-existent individuals, i.e., children not yet conceived?
By the way, speaking of brouhahas, how about multi-spouse gay marriages with adopted children? Who gets custody? Giddy-up!
Posted by: alan | 2004-07-30 11:20:50 PM
I have no idea why we accept any authority, be it government or otherwise, legislating our relationships. Marriage has nothing to do with the State. It _May_ have something to do with whatever Church you are a member of, but that's your choice as well. Other than that, why should anyone care about my relationships?
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2004-07-30 11:31:25 PM
Ooh - those whacky Canadian leftists....
If marriage was a "human right" why do you need to get a blood test, apply, and possibly be denied?
Actually, i wonder... what are lefties going to do for their anti-establishment kicks after they've completely dismantled every redeeming quality in society?
Posted by: Joe | 2004-07-31 11:05:59 AM
Echo Damain and Ian: the state should get out of the marriage game altogether. If you want to register a civil union wherein you and your partner(s) assume responsibility for the children of the union and agree to share the other fruits of that union - which constructive trust law will likely force you to do in any event - grand. If you don't then you will find out that constructive trusts are imposed in the unlikeliest circumstances.
As for the moral issue of polygamy we have already dealt with it in principle as a society: we have no trouble at all with people being married several times. Just not at the same time. One is the world of marriage/divorce, rinse/repeat: the other is the quaint world of bigamy laws. So serial monogamy is OK which effectively means that a man or a woman can have many spouses and children with each one (natural or adopted). All that polygamy would do is remove the temporal element.
Finally, personally I cannot imagine a worse fate than being married to >1 women. Life is complicated enough and the pleasure of a couple supporting each other and their children could be so easily lost. I don't want to make it a legal requirement and it's not in the Bible, but there is a lot of truth to "Two's company, three's a crowd."
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-07-31 11:23:59 AM
Jay.. I couldn't imagine the fate of being married to more than one woman either.. but.. I could imagine the fate of enjoying a multiude of relationships without having one woman tell me that I shouldn't be doing such things. And maybe that is why I'm either priviledged or cursed to not enjoy a single relationship with one other person of the opposite sex. But then I have many relationships with those of the same sex, but none of those seem to have any demands on what I do or not do, naked.
It's only among those of some of the 'fairer sex' that want to place such demands. And then talk about marriage!!
But the fact of the matter is, I enjoy my life, and ALL relationships, regardless of how they are defined by me or the others in it, and none of them neen any legal or government officials to define them for us, regardless of our activities.
Intercourse.. or desire to have intercourse, does not make a good "relationship." Oral or course helps.. and the ability to kiss for hours or days is even better. But not all the time.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2004-08-03 4:05:59 AM
Most of you seem to be talking about polygyny, (multiple wives). I'm with Bob Tarrantino on it. I'm even more with those who don't the state should have anything to do with it.
Posted by: Kathy K | 2004-08-03 12:08:20 PM
Polygamy encompasses polygyny, so I guess you can't be wrong on this question unless you start confusing polygyny with polyandry. What's it called if a man marries two other men? Anybody?
Posted by: alan | 2004-08-03 1:00:35 PM
Ok. So having established a strong concensus about legalizing poligamy, find me a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage between close family members - sisters, mother-daughter, brothers....
Posted by: Kate | 2004-08-03 1:02:22 PM
I dunno Kate. What good reason is there to prohibit it? For me personally, it would be "yuck!"
But really, the whole thing about prohibiting any relationship is more bizarre, the more I think about it. The fact of the matter is, we all have relationships with every single person we come into contact with. The only difference between them is the level of trust or intimacy we have. We make choices about the time we spend with others - the amount of time, what we do during that time, etc. What's a State got to do with any of that?
If a brother and sister want to live together instead of getting "married" or however you want to label some male/female relationship, why not? That doesn't mean they sleep together. But even if they did (and my mind thinks that would be gross), and they take responsibility, what valid argument other than the 'grossness' some would "feel" about it, is there?
For those who want to argue on moral grounds against it, you should be very very careful about that. If morals are not relative.. and are absolutes, explain the morality of Adam and Eve and their offspring. Or Noah's family.
Use logic, and with the premise that morals are absolute.
It's an impossible argument, logically.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2004-08-03 11:35:39 PM
Christians left out Christ Jesus long ago in their current religion. They have no business forcing others to get lost in their religion. We need to see the love of GOD in reaching out to the lost before we accept their way of life. I profess JESUS CHRIST AS MY LORD but left christian religion when I realised it is shutting out many from the kingdom of GOD than any other religion. Christians who speak against polygyny yet debate about homosexualism and lesbianism are pure hypocrates. Think of the rampant divorces taking place in christian communities and children who are confused about who their parents are, not to mention single parents who live double lives and in prostitution? Poligyny needs to be seen in the light of GODS love. AM not one but I hate standing in the seat of judgement condemning people who GOD doesn't condemn. If Jesus was to be asked, I believe He would have no problem with polygny. There is nowhere in the bible where it is condemned apart from for the pastors and nowhere does the LORD himself speak against a man with more than one wife. This cannot be likened with lesbianism or polyandry.
LARRY
Posted by: Larry | 2005-10-29 3:44:58 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.