Well, I support that form of marriage in which it is one woman and two or more husbands...sorry, I forget the name of it but Judy knows.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_...@...> wrote: > > There's a vedic story stating that a woman has nine times the sexual power of > a man. So, how would a man satisfy sexually more than one woman in a > polygamous marriage? Or, he can die early with a smile on his face? > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > POLYGAMY AROUND THE CORNER > > > > > > REAL Women of Canada - (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) > > > > Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, and Liberal MP, Tom Wappel, were > > ridiculed during the same-sex marriage debate last spring when they claimed > > that the same-sex marriage bill would lead to demands for the legalization > > of polygamous unions. It turns out, however, that they were right on the > > mark. > > > > Same-sex marriage in Canada has only been legal for about six months, but > > already the demands for polygamy have been creeping out from the dark > > shadows and are gradually moving onto centre stage. The issue will soon be > > before the courts in BC. > > > > This court case will result from a situation in the community of Bountiful, > > situated near Creston, BC, in the interior of the province, that has been > > the home of a renegade branch of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). > > This community's beliefs include polygamy as one of its tenets. It argues > > that polygamy is a legitimate way of life and marriage. The leader of the > > community and his assortment of wives have boldly appeared on TV, radio and > > in print, unabashedly discussing their joy and happiness about being in > > polygamous relationships and all the supposed advantages, (obviously for > > the male at least!) The Attorney General of BC, Wally Oppal, has merely > > blushed and looked the other way, and has not prosecuted the leader of the > > polygamous community. Why? Because he knows that with the passing of the > > same-sex marriage legislation, and the protection of religion in the > > Charter, there has been created serious legal problems for the Crown in > > prosecuting such a case. That is, to lay a charge of polygamy will be > > dangerous, since the courts could then follow the identical arguments heard > > once in the trumped up, same-sex marriage court challenges in 2003. > > > > Provincial Attorney General, Oppal, would have happily continued to ignore > > the polygamous business in Bountiful except for the fact that the Attorney > > General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, came calling on him in late November > > demanding that something be done, as girls as young as 13 years of age have > > been crossing the border from Utah into Bountiful to be married off to much > > older men. Another troublesome issue is that some of the polygamous wives > > in Bountiful have begun to complain about their treatment and their lack of > > consent to their "marriage" arrangements. Also, young men have been ejected > > from the Community in order to avoid a competition for young wives with the > > older leaders in the community. > > > > As a result of these problems, the RCMP has recently undertaken an > > investigation of Bountiful. Based on the RCMP's findings, the Provincial > > Attorney General may then be obliged to lay charges against the leaders of > > the polygamous sect in Bountiful. > > > > New Debate on Polygamy > > > > If so, a new debate on marriage, to legalize polygamous marriages will hit > > the public eye. The exact same arguments, that were used to recognize > > same-sex partnerships as legal marriages, will be heard again. One of these > > arguments will be that the failure to approve polygamous marriage is due to > > the stereotypical treatment causing historical disadvantages against people > > who love each other. Another argument will be that since the courts have > > conceded that procreation no longer provides sufficient reason to restrict > > marriage to heterosexuals, then there is no reason to restrict marriage to > > other sexual arrangements as well. > > > > And why not? Take marriage away from its historically recognized essence of > > one man and one woman, and there is no logical reason to restrict other > > marital arrangements, such as those who love two women, or bisexuals who > > have a sexual desire for both sexes. The fact that these arrangements are > > currently prohibited under the Criminal Code is no argument because > > homosexual conduct was also illegal until relatively recently. The laws > > against polygamy can also be similarly changed. > > > > What a mess the courts have created! In their zeal to be liberal and > > progressive and to make the world aware of their trailblazing spirit, the > > Canadian judges have made fools of themselves and us. They are also tearing > > down the foundations of society, while establishing a dangerous precipice > > on which the institution of marriage is now tilting. > > > > Polygamy Established Elsewhere > > > > Canada, however, isn't the only nation facing the problem of polygamous > > marriages. For example, Norway's Directorate of Immigration has reported > > that, despite the illegality of polygamy in Norway, it is becoming > > increasingly prevalent, since Norway liberalized the "marriage" laws by > > allowing legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Now Norwegian men travel > > abroad to meet and marry women, where polygamy is legal. Then they bring > > their new "wives" to Norway to live together under legal civil unions, in > > one, happy, polygamous harem. > > > > The Netherlands > > > > The Netherlands is experiencing this problem in a very big way. In > > September 2005, the government approved a polygamous union when a Dutch man > > and two women were given a license for their three-way legal union. The > > male in the union claims that, since both of his "wives" are bi-sexual, > > there is no jealousy between them - they're all just happily loving one > > another. > > > > Ill Effects of Same-sex Marriage > > > > The common theme when same-sex marriage was argued last spring in Canada > > was that the Netherlands had experienced no ill effects from same-sex > > marriage and that the issue was no longer contentious there. > > > > Had the actual situation in the Netherlands been disclosed, however, the > > story would have been much different. It would have disclosed that there > > has been a substantial increase in out-of-wedlock births and parental > > cohabitation as a result of the legalizing of same-sex marriages in that > > country. > > > > That is, the broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage, which detached > > marriage as an institution from parenthood in the public mind, has led to > > substantial changes in Dutch society. In addition same-sex marriages have > > also now started the Netherlands down the slippery slope to group marriage. > > The Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, recently refused to ban > > group marriages as he states that multi-partner marriage contracts serves a > > "useful regulating function". In short, it is difficult to withhold equal > > standing for another organized sexual minority once same-sex marriage is > > accepted. > > > > Polygamy in the US > > > > The pressure for group marriage has also started in the US. The Unitarian > > Church, headquartered in Boston, played a key role in the legalization of > > gay marriage in Massachusetts. That church has now begun to promote public > > acceptance of polygamy and polyamory, (which refers to open stable > > relationships among more than two people, blending heterosexuality, > > homosexuality and bisexuality). Unitarian ministers in the US are already > > are performing "joining ceremonies" for polyamorous families. > > > > Status on Polygamy in Canada > > > > With the overlapping of same-sex marriage rights and the co-habitation > > contracts such as occurs in Holland, it was understandable that the > > Canadian Department of Justice and the Status of Women a year ago at a cost > > of $150,000 commissioned four separate studies on polygamy. The attention > > grabber paper on these studies was released in the middle of January this > > year. It was written by three feminist / lesbians, law professors at Queens > > University. These same individuals were among consultants retained by the > > Law Commission in its report "Beyond Conjugality" tabled in the House of > > Commons on December 2001. That Commission's report recommended that all > > close relationships should be recognized by law, not just the relationship > > of a man and woman in marriage. The Commission recommended also, of course, > > that same-sex marriage be legalized. In their study of polygamy, the three > > consultants advocated decriminalization of polygamy and urged that Canada, > > allow immigration by polygamous families. They also argued that Canada's > > current prohibition against polygamy in the Criminal Code may well be > > unconstitutional. Their study unfortunately, gave little attention to the > > children of such polygamous unions and the fact that polygamous families > > are plagued by spouse abuse, poverty and fathers not involved in the care > > of their children - apparently, not issues for these feminist / lesbians. > > > > Justice Minister Cotler Misinforms Committee on May 12, 2005 > > > > In view of his department commissioning several studies on polygamy, it was > > disingenuous of the Liberal Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, to argue in > > his testimony before the House of Commons Committee studying the same-sex > > marriage legalization, on May 12, 2005 that polygamy, incest, etc. will not > > result from the passage of Bill C-38, since "bigamy and incest are criminal > > offences in Canada. That is the law of the land. That will not change." > > Perhaps Mr. Cotler believes Canadians were easily confused by his > > statements. Common sense tells us that if the government could make the > > revolutionary change in the definition of marriage, by opening it up to two > > "persons," regardless of their sex, then it is perfectly capable of making > > further amendments to the legislation at a later date for polygamy. That > > is, the courts may well find polygamous or group marriage an equality right > > on the grounds of the criteria for "equality" chosen by the Supreme Court > > of Canada in Law v. Canada [1999] I.S.C.R. 497. That is, when a person > > "feels" demeaned, by his or her exclusion from a law then the law is > > discriminatory. Why cannot that same criterion be applied to polygamy, > > incest, etc.? > > > > Perhaps, also, Mr. Cotler was not aware that advocates of polyamory (group > > marriage) are taking their cue from the movement for gay marriage which is > > now the favourite cause of scholars of family law (see The New York > > University Review of Law and Social Change: "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory > > Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence 2004," Volume 29. Number 2). > > Polyamorists have long treated their inclination toward multi-partner sex > > as analogous to homosexuality. In short, the arguments for the logic of gay > > marriage extend to state sanctioned polyamory as well. > > > > The truth is, by keeping the label and the legal status of marriage, but > > changing its meaning and concept, in the legalizing of same-sex marriages, > > this necessarily involves rejection of what marriage actually means and has > > meant for millennia. Marriage then means everything and includes anything > > and this means nothing. > > > > Polygamy can and will become a serious problem for Canadians in the future. > > > > > > realwomenca.com > > Originally published February, 2006 > > >
