Doesn't Canada recognize gay marriage? If that is so (if memory serves me --- it's still early in the morning), then why not polygamy? After all, Canada does not hold a biblical definition of marriage any longer. (you know, that sheep over there is startin' to look pretty good...)

Posted by: Golem at January 13, 2006 11:44 AM

The dhimmization of Canada continues. Soon they'll decriminalize spousal abuse and "honor crimes."

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at January 13, 2006 11:47 AM

Conservatives see the world as it is; leftists see the world as they wish it were. The ascendancy of Liberalism has ushered in breathtaking depths of stupidity never before imagined.

The intellectual collapse of academia was key to all this. Then the collapse of the media and government services. Then the collapse of public discourse. Then the collapse of Europe. But Canada's fall is a little close to home for comfort.

ALWAYS WINNERS ALWAYS CONTROLLERS ALWAYS VICTORS ALWAYS MOSLEMS

One inevitable outcome of this latest ineffable Canadian stupidity will boost the Moslem birth rate. Once Canuck Moslem Man can shift up to more wives, he goes from breeding like flies to breeding like roaches.

If this goes through, we'll need to pull in the projected date of the changeover to the Islamic Republic of Canada by at least ten years.

Allahu akbar. Sigh.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 11:54 AM

Perhaps, on grounds of sexual equality, Canada will also legalise polyandry. Decriminalising polygamy only would surely conflict with any laws that Canada almost certainly has about sex discrimination. That said, why anyone would want more than one Muslim husband is anybody's guess.

Rebecca will probably disagree with me about this, but allowing gay marriage does not necessarily mean that polygamy will follow in its wake. The UK has just introduced Civil Partnerships for gay couples, whereby gay partnerships have all the legal rights (and responsibilities) of marriage. This has been referred to as "gay marriage", but it is not, strictly speaking, "marriage" as the term is usually understood. There does not seem to be a demand for legalising polygamy as a result of this, although Muslims have asked for it to be legalised in the past.

Gay marriage is not the threat that polygamy is, because, as the Alarmed Farmer of Relaxed Pigs points out, polygamy will increase the already high Muslim birth-rate. The gay population is a fixed and low proportion of the general population. Legalising gay marriage will not produce more gays, but legalising polygamy will produce more and more Muslims.

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 12:10 PM

Doesn't Canada recognize gay marriage? If that is so (if memory serves me --- it's still early in the morning), then why not polygamy? After all, Canada does not hold a biblical definition of marriage any longer. (you know, that sheep over there is startin' to look pretty good...)

-Golem

Please do not equate one with another. They are not the same thing. That argument is sheer lunacy. Gays have only asked that they have the ability to marry (or enter into a legal partnership for reasons of fairness/equity) the person that they choose. You seem to be implying a "slippery slope" type of argument. I vehemently disagree with that argument. Giving gays the right to enter into a civil partnership or marriage - whatever you want to call it is only allowing a person to be with another person.

I strongly disapprove of polygamous marriages. This law is designed only to placate the Moslem extremists and LDS extremists. It is legally unworkable and a step towards the Sharia. I would vigorously oppose such a move in the US.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 13, 2006 12:10 PM

Shariah camel's nose, Canadian tent.

The end is near for the Great White North if this passes.

Imagine all of those "foreign wives" that can then be imported to Canada by every Muslim male, and immediately put on the dole... instant demographic and economic suicide in one law... judicial genius!

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 13, 2006 12:20 PM

Both ways, then? A woman with several husbands to support her, or she them? Or just one way-- the Muslim way?

And will this create any problems, or any more expenses and worries, for Infidel taxpayers? Will four widows divide up the same-sized pie of survivor's benefits, or will each receive what one Infidel widow would receive? Any effects of this on the larger society -- good, bad, indifferent?

And as already noted above, if recognized polygamy willl increase the already astounding difference in Muslim and Infidel birth-rates within the Infidel world.

There is a solution. If someone wishes to practice polygamy, that someone should do it in a Muslim country, in which, as long as the continued exporting of the excess population to Infidel lands is stopped, the problem will be an entirely Muslim one.

As for the gaga authors of the study, they live in no fixed mental or moral abode. They are squatters in civilized life, within it, but not of it. Instead of arguing with them, examine what explains how they arrived at this point. Examine them publicly. Hold them up as Exhibit #1 in the Museum of Modern Folly. Bring the children. Look, point, laugh, then ponder how such things came to be. Then move along, quickening your step.

Posted by: Hugh at January 13, 2006 12:25 PM

First off - Canada is in the middle of an election and the s--t hasn't yet hit the fan over this issue. It was completely under the radar and only surfaced in papers today.

I can't see any government approving this (remember the Liberal govenments of Ontario and Quebec shut the door to sharia within the past year). If the supreme court should ever decide in favour of this, I fully expect extreme pressure on the sitting government to invoke the "notwithstanding clause". Of course, our current idiot prime minister stated he would remove that clause (impossible without a change in the constitution) but he is on his way out. According to recent polls, the Conservatives have gained a substantial lead and may now be heading for a majority after the Jan. 23 election. The Liberals have run an incredibly inept campaign - one issue just breaking is the offering of a bribe to a NDP candidate in B.C. to drop out of the race.
(http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=575314)

Posted by: johnb at January 13, 2006 12:26 PM

Another victory for Islam!!! Yay! Whoo who! Go Islam, it's your birthday!!! It's your birthday!!!
All of Canada, Lets hear it!!!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at January 13, 2006 12:30 PM

As idiotic as this study is, it wasn't prompted by Muslims. I believe the source issue has been a breakaway Mormon group located in Bountiful, B.C. This issue has been in the news frequently regarding the issue of child abuse (i.e. marriage) and polygamy. This sect is related to another offshoot Mormon group in Utah - both seem to try to operate beneath public scrtiny.

Posted by: johnb at January 13, 2006 12:30 PM

Canada is an excellent bell weather for the theories of political correctness and multiculturism. What happens in Canada can be viewed with some adjustment as happening in microcosm in the US. In an effort to please all, all have been encouraged to believe that the sole requisite for the perfect society is "Just to get along." The result will probably please none.

Rodney King's blandishments to that effect seem to forget his own responsibility to stop for police officers when directed to do (This is in no way allows for his being two-handed with a billy club after he was subdued).

One hears of polyamorous individuals in Canada. What's the effective difference between that and polygamy, if in fact not the fact that polygamy may be more "moral" than the former, if it implies a commitment to the care and upkeep of the partner and children? When polygamy looks starts to look moral, it puts the lie to some of our notions of sexual permissiveness.

I'm hardly a moralist, but I have a conscience of sorts and I detect hypocrisy here. Most uncomfortably it may be my own. How can I behave in such a way as to play the field while not permitting somebody else to marry 2, 3 or 4 as they seem right?

There's something wrong in my mind with polygamy. Maybe it's the fact that I hold men and women to be of equal worth, if (happily and delightfully) of different characteristics. Polyamory, polygamy, serial monogamy, gay marriage are all phenomena that indicate an alienation from main stream mores that formerly characterized the West. So what? Can't we all just get along?

Sure! Why not? The laws are probably already in place. Perhaps polygamous marriages could be treated as a labor agreement, in which the family members have the right to collective bargaining and legal strike, with full protection of the law. Collective divorce action could provide a particular incentive to fair dealing (I just watched "War of the Roses" recently. Imagine that multiplied by four). Surely then, we could all get along, depending upon the level of risk we were willing to take in our marriage contracts.

The fact is, we can't just all get along, not if that means the simple turning of a blind eye to one anothers' peculiar institutions in the hope that our own go unnoticed. We've got to come to terms with each other and ourselves and with the decidedly politically incorrect but true conclusion that not all belief systems are created equal.

Posted by: Chatillon at January 13, 2006 12:36 PM

I love my wife ... but any man who wants more than one wife is either a lunatic or a psychopath or the follower of a (PBUH) lunatic psychopath!

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 13, 2006 12:37 PM

Examine them publicly. Hold them up as Exhibit #1 in the Museum of Modern Folly.

You getting some TV network on your cable service that I ain't? Cuz the conversation of which you speak is all but impossible, in effect illegal.

Maybe I should switch to satellite...

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 12:37 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever writes:
" Please do not equate one with another. They are not the same thing. That argument is sheer lunacy. Gays have only asked that they have the ability to marry (or enter into a legal partnership for reasons of fairness/equity) the person that they choose. You seem to be implying a "slippery slope" type of argument. I vehemently disagree with that argument. Giving gays the right to enter into a civil partnership or marriage - whatever you want to call it is only allowing a person to be with another person. "

Well, I know that you believe the argument is sheer lunacy, and that you vehemently disagree
with it, but you gave no counterargument. It
seems clear to me that if you wish to redefine
marriage, just stopping at extending the use of
the term to homosexual partnerships (which has a
lot less precedent than polygamy) makes no sense.

What makes more sense to me is to leave marriage
(which *may* involve procreation) alone and to
create a separate "civil partnership" category,
something you (but not every gay person I know) seem to be OK with. This would ease the legal
issues like hospital visitation, but still
leaves open some issues, like adoption, that I
think are unlikely to be settled soon. Also,
we could ask if the civil partnership would be
specified to be exactly two humans.

Posted by: American at January 13, 2006 12:45 PM

Russia is also going backwards...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4610396.stm

Polygamy proposal for Chechen men

Mr Kadyrov said Chechen women outnumber men by 10%
Chechnya has lost so many men to war that survivors should be legally allowed to take several wives, acting Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov has said.
Speaking on Russian radio, the pro-Moscow leader said this was "necessary for Chechnya because we have war - we have more women than men".

He was backed by Russian parliamentary deputy speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Russian law restricts citizens to one marriage, but Islamic custom allows a man to take up to four wives.

'No interference

Mr Kadyrov told Ekho Moskvy radio that women in the Russian republic outnumbered men by 10%, and that a man should be able to choose how many wives he had without the state getting involved.

"Every man decides for himself how he should live. He is the boss, he decides, I am sure that his personal life will not be interfered with," he said.

Mr Zhirinovsky, who is the leader of the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR), said polygamy should be applied across Russia "because we have 10 million unmarried women".

He told the state-owned Itar-Tass news agency that he would introduce an amendment in the spring parliamentary session.

.
.
~Polygamy leads to poverty (except for the oil rich) can Russia really afford this?

Posted by: Borg at January 13, 2006 12:46 PM

What does PBUH stand for?

Posted by: fireangel at January 13, 2006 12:52 PM

I bet you a nickel that we will be seeing more of this in all Western nations, including the US. Gay rights/gay unions has been succesful, so on to the next issue.

The ACLU has been on record since 1997 in a Utah case that they support the right to polygamy. And will fight for polygamy as a civil right if public perception is changed.

I can guarentee that the UN has no problem with this.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at January 13, 2006 12:59 PM

"You seem to be implying a "slippery slope" type of argument. I vehemently disagree with that argument. Giving gays the right to enter into a civil partnership or marriage - whatever you want to call it is only allowing a person to be with another person."

The slippery slope exists, as proven by the new drive by the polyamorous to have their unions recognized in the US and Canada. For example, there is a court case in Utah in which polygamists are basing their case on the gay marriage precedent in Mass.

Sweden: the civil union laws also allow for multiple "spouses". It has just been used to unite a threesome.

Gays have the right of free association in their private lives. However, their relationships do not provide the basis of society, HETEROSEXUAL marriage and reproduction do. Hence the reasonable social preference for behaviors that provide a stable, healthy society, and the potential for the same in the future.

Posted by: treehugger at January 13, 2006 1:00 PM

What does PBUH stand for?

Posted by: fireangel

You've never heard a muslim speak about Mo?

Posted by: Borg at January 13, 2006 1:07 PM

With a topic like this I was wondering how long it would be before somebody blamed the gays. I wasn't quite expecting it in the first post. Wanting equal legal rights is completely different from wanting special treatment and extra rights above all others. You have to be a complete moron to think there is any similarity.

American - You say no counter arguament is being given. How can one be, when no one has given a sensible arguament in the first place? You expect the rest of us to go along with your rediculous point just because you say so. Try proving it. You can't because it's nonsense. If you say there is a giant teapot in space, it is up to you to prove it. It is not for us to prove otherwise.

Fireangel - PBUH means Peace Be Upon Him. It's what the Muslims feel the need to utter really quickly whenever they say mohammed's name.

Posted by: calum at January 13, 2006 1:13 PM

Gays will live together in one house and hopefully work together. Polygamous marriages often are a crowded, resentful, sabotaging relationship when under one roof and a no father present most of the time, multiple home paid for by the state relationship the rest of the time. Just look what that gave France.

Posted by: Borg at January 13, 2006 1:16 PM

Sorry Calum, the slippery slope exists even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

Besides, there is simply no reason for gay marriage.

Marriage is a sacred institution geared towards the engendering and rearing of children. Healthy heterosexual marriages equal healthy children equals a healthy, productive, society. All of us, both gay and straight, lose when this institution breaks down or is twisted into forms it was never intended for.

The needs of the many (children) and the good of society overall, need to outweigh the desires of the few.

Posted by: treehugger at January 13, 2006 1:37 PM

The slippery slope exists, as proven by the new drive by the polyamorous to have their unions recognized in the US and Canada.

The polyamorous can get along fine without benefit of the clergy and without tax breaks. It's the polygamous who need to be reined in.

The obvious solution for gays is civil unions/ civil partnerships as in the UK; see my posting at 12.10pm.

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 1:48 PM

Personally, I don't see why it shouldn't be legalised. The law is meant to protect peoples rights, and who's rights are being violated by having more than one wife or husband? This is not to say that I think polygamy is a good thing, just that in a free-society it's not the states job to sort out peoples relationships for them.

Posted by: redwine at January 13, 2006 1:49 PM

"What does PBUH stand for?

Posted by: fireangel"

Fireangle, it stands for "Peas be upon him"

Posted by: redwine at January 13, 2006 1:51 PM

Thankfully, it's only a study at this stage. As I've written elsewhere about the near disastrous attempt to legalize a form of sharia law in the Canadian province of Ontario, our government saw the light (i.e., outraged citizens) despite a similar study that approved the plan.

Posted by: Anne Penkill at January 13, 2006 1:54 PM

I thougt it was "Piss be upon him"???

Posted by: Buck at January 13, 2006 2:00 PM

If Polygamy is leagalised in Canada,Muslims will be overjoyed.
Just immagine- take the example of two families:
1.john with his wife-A Canadian by birth. ,and 2. Abdulla,who migrates to Canada from Arabia with four of his Wives.
_Abdulla's progress:
1+4=5
He brings in his parents,along with his wives'parents: 5into 2=10
Each wife sires five babies(minimum for muslims in western countires,where they get child benefits,free maternity benefits,which they cannot dreamof in their home country)
4into 5=20

So the Abdulla family grows into 5+10+20=35 within a span of 5years.

John's Progress.

1+1=2

Their parents=2+2=4

John's family have two babies.(Usually one or none for a normal white Canadian)=2.

In the span of five years, john fmily grows to:

2+4+2= 8.

PRAISE BE TO ALLAH! iSLAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN THE WORLD!!!

Posted by: rafia at January 13, 2006 2:07 PM

Rafia, You missed out the immediate extended family that Abdulla and his 4 wifes could petition for - Abdulla's brothers and sisters and the wifes brothers and sisters making a total in excess of at least 75 to 100 in a period of 5 years.
Now ,everyone knows how it is the fastest growing religion in the West. Except for the the conversions of morons in prisons, hardly anyone with an ounce of intelligence will convert to a evil, asinine religion, where one is slaughtered if one leaves.

Posted by: faqi at January 13, 2006 2:22 PM

The law is meant to protect peoples rights, and who's rights are being violated by having more than one wife or husband? This is not to say that I think polygamy is a good thing, just that in a free-society it's not the states job to sort out peoples relationships for them.

Two points here. First, if the law allows polgyny but not polyandry, it discriminates against women, so women's rights are being abused.

Secondly, and more importantly, if it is not the state's job to sort out people's relationships for them, then it is not the state's job to deal with the consequences of those relationships. Yet the state, effectively the rest of us, will be dealing with the consequences. Leaving aside the ill-effects of polygamy on children, just consider the cost to the taxpayer. You cannot give tax and other breaks to one set of taxpayers except to the detriment of other taxpayers. Tax revenues have to come from somewhere. Equalising tax breaks for gays and married couples is one thing, since the proportion of gays is fixed, small, and cannot increase. Giving tax breaks to polygamous marriages means that there is no limit to the amount that the ordinary taxpayer may have to pay. The Muslim population will grow and grow, and the non-Muslim population will pay for it.

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 2:22 PM

You're right John B. The study wasn't prompted by Muslims, but it still supports their brand of polygamy. And the Mormons may be morons when it comes to marriage, but at least they're not trying to force it on the civilizied free world.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at January 13, 2006 2:24 PM

Some how I don't see muslims being content to have polygamy legal. They'd want their divorce laws to be legal there too.

Posted by: fireangel at January 13, 2006 2:24 PM

PBUH - I allways think of this as "pigs blood upon him"

Posted by: baltic waves at January 13, 2006 2:31 PM

I doubt the recommendations of the Bailey report will ever be implemented, but the fact that a female law professor at one of Canada's leading universities would think that legalizing polygamy is a good idea is shocking. Thank goodness that there is another report (also from professors at Queen's -- feminists, my guess)which says that polygamy hurts women.

The Bountiful, BC, religious community referred to in the Canadian Press article is akin to a cult. Apparently our government didn't know what to make of the polygamy practised there and so had to turn to so-called experts for opinions.

But Bailey's thinking is muddy. She says, “Why criminalize the behaviour? . . . We don't criminalize adultery."

“In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society ... why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?”...

Oh dear . . . where does one begin to educate Prof. Bailey? Her thinking is so wrong that the task is monumental. She equates adultery and polygamy, reducing both to merely sexual acts. She sees polygamy as fitting well with a permissive society, when in acutality it's a sign of an oppressive society -- and so on.

Hard to believe that Bailey represents the thinking of a female law professor in a modern democracy.

Posted by: Jen at January 13, 2006 2:39 PM

Redwine:

In addition to the comment by Interested, it should also be noted that if ploygamy becomes entrenched to any degree, it tends to destabilize society. Having a significant number of physically mature (but young) unmarrried men does not promote a civil society. As an example, it could be interesting times in the future for China, where there is abundant evidence of sex selection in favour of boys (due to the single child policy).

I expect the state (i.e. remaining citizens) will have to pick up the pieces from any failures of this misguided policy. As an example, in the case of divorce amongst a polygamous family, will the father be able to provide child support or will the state be expected to step in? In the recent case of Tom Green in Utah, he was able to "support" his family of four or five wives by having them collect welfare.

Posted by: johnb at January 13, 2006 2:51 PM

Gay marriage is described above as merely enshrining the right of two people to be together.

In fact, any two people (or any combination of many people) DO have the right to be together in virtually any western nation. That is the current state of affairs (no pun intended).

Gay marriage, or polygamous marriage, is an attempt to do something else: legislate an equality between these various relationships that does not, in fact, exist. There can no more be gay "marriage" than there can be gay contraception. That is to say: there is no looming responsibility to avoid, and thus, there is no reason for the state to seek insurance that you are no longer trying to duck it.

Marriage is a codification of society's legitimate interest in stabilizing the very volatile force of human fertility: this force comprises sexual attraction, procreation, and the inevitable linkage of families, tribes, and lineages that proceeds therefrom. The state has a legitimate interest here because families enter disputes; tribes go to war; children must be cared for, educated, enculturated. Moreover, individuals can get divorced, but families, once there are offspring, cannot. There have to be rules about how these things are managed, or the whole society suffers. Thus, marriage.

But by contrast, it is not a legitimate state interest to certify that Billy and Michelle, or Billy and Michael, really, really, really care about each other. The government shouldn't give a hoot in hell about how Billy and M. feel in their private, tender moments. We may all have different views about what a marriage is--but these are personal views. This is why state marriage is distinct from religious or sacramental marriage. Religions can marry whomever the hell they please; state licensure of that marriage applies only to cases where there is a legitimate state interest; namely, where fertility is involved, or is potentially involved. This is precisely why gay "marriage" should be treated as the mere metaphor that it is, and also why polygamy should be actively proscribed. THe former has nothing to do with fertiliy and its consequences; the latter exercises it in a context that is too volatile.

I have every sympathy for the gay couple who wants to have a ceremony in which they publicly make commitments to each other. Fine, set Golden Gate park ablaze with your rejoicing. You can do that already.

But to discard our fundamental understanding of the origin and legitimacy of civil marriage in favor of "marriage is two people who care about each other" is to trade a non-sectarian basis for a clearly religious one.

In other words, the advocacy for gay marriage would establish a particular religious view (albeit a poorly delineated one) as the state's official position. The irony, of course, is that advocates of gay marriage regularly pose as protectors of the non-sectarian state, when in fact, they are doing as much as anyone to undermine it.

And yes, once you make marriage simply the codification of a particular religious view, it could be anyone's religious view, even, with sufficient demographic changes, a muslim's.

Posted by: chickaloon at January 13, 2006 2:54 PM

Why do they call it gay?

I rented Brokeback Mountain the other night, and the whole mess looked purty painful to me. Plus, all that agonized squealing on the soundtrack sent my hogs off into a panic. Musta lost 1,500 pounds on the hoof that night. Next time I'll keep the windows closed and the curtains drawn.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 3:09 PM

APF,

I don't think I've ever laugh out loud on JW before.

Posted by: chickaloon at January 13, 2006 3:15 PM

Great news Canada!!! Now, Mohamed, Abdulla, Ahmed and the rest can petition the Immigration dept to allow them to bring their other 3 wives & children from whatever Islamic hellhole they came from. They can all get housing, food vouchers, medical treatment, schooling and more MONEY in benefits.
No wonder its the fastest growing religion in the west.

Posted by: faqi at January 13, 2006 3:23 PM

Golem, those sheep look nervous to me! Remember: "Baaa" Means "NO!". But seriously, if the Muslims want to bring their camels and goats over with them, who cares? There are Mormons in Canada who already have multiple wives, secretly.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at January 13, 2006 3:24 PM

There are Mormons in Canada who already have multiple wives, secretly.

Ain't seen no Mormon Master Plan to overthrow world freedom.

MOSLEMS OR MORMONS MOSLEMS OR MORMONS MOSLEMS OR MORMONS WHICH

In fact, about all I've seen of Moslems are their young men in white shirts and ties going from door-to-door, knocking, and politely asking if they can deliver the Mormon recruiting spiel.

When scowling Moslems start going door-to-door, we're done for.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 3:33 PM

If muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife, then aren't there some men who go without?

Since the ration of the sexes is roughly 50/50, some men having 4 wives must mean that other men have no wives.

Posted by: Voltaire at January 13, 2006 3:42 PM

If muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife, then aren't there some men who go without?

That's where dumb white women come in.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 3:46 PM

PBUH = "peace be upon him"

Infidel definition: "pork be upon him"

Posted by: Just_Linda at January 13, 2006 3:51 PM

I once knew a young woman from Africa, the child of a second polygamous marriage. Her childhood was miserable. The first, favored wife bullied everyone, including the second wife and children. Her father barely acknowledged her; he had more than a dozen children. Her paternal grandmother ignored her and her full siblings and doted on the first set of grandchildren. Her older half brothers belittled her and physically abused her. Her older full brother took his frustrations out on her, verbally and physically abusing her. The young woman planned to stay in the USA, concentrate on her career and doubted that she would ever marry. She enjoyed living in peace, by herself, after the hellish childhood she had experienced. This is the fate of so many women, wives and children, of polygamous marriages. Still, if Canada decides to allow polygamy, I am certain that a movement for similar "civil rights" will emerge in the US.

Posted by: maryrose at January 13, 2006 3:55 PM

A couple people have made the crucial point that if they legalize polygyny, they'll have to legalize polyandry too. It's only fair.

Then, women in plural marriages can have multiple husbands while also being one of their husbands' multiple wives. Imagine: 1.) all those @#$%#@%$# in-laws, and 2.) the custody/visitation disputes, 3.) whose surname to take?

Pretty soon, everyone in Canada can be married to everyone. But only for one generation, because then everyone will be related, and it'll be incest.

*off to listen to Willie Nelson's version of "I'm My Own Grandpa"*

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 13, 2006 4:08 PM

Have we heard a peep from the Canadian feminist crowd? Or are they looking at their feet in deference to the big bad Moslem Man?

IS CANADA REALLY DEAD IS CANADA REALLY DEAD IS CANADA REALLY DEAD

I mean, if they're silent then it's gotta be that, cuz ain't nobody askeert of those EU-like Canadian government officials. Everybody and his mother knows that they are toothless losers.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 4:09 PM

"But Canada in its myopic relativism cannot see that anymore." --Robert

This calls for greater care in word choice. I don't care about political correctness, just accuracy. How is it, exactly, that the entire country of Canada is guilty of the myopia of "relativism" due to the recommendations of three academics?(1)

Academics whose recommendations have been countered by those of other academics? (2)

Academics whose suggestions aren't going to be followed anyway? (3)

I haven't seen the polls on this, but I think the idea that Canadians are willing to accept polygamy out of some relativistic philosophy is patently ridiculous. The relativism that occurs in some small academic populations in Canada, U.S., France, Britain, Sweden...etc. does not reflect the views of the vast majority of people in those countries. This kind of study could have been produced by academics of like-minded relativistic leanings in any of these countries.

(1) "The paper by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., argues that Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy serves no useful purpose and in any case is rarely prosecuted."

"But the project was also intended to provide the Liberal government with ammunition to help defend its same-sex marriage bill last spring."
"Opponents claimed the [same-sex marriage] bill, now law, was a slippery slope that would open the door to polygamy and even bestiality."

(2) "Another report for the project, also led by two Queen's University professors, dismisses the slippery-slope argument, saying that allowing same-sex marriages promotes equality while polygamous marriages are generally harmful to women's interests and would therefore promote inequality."

"Another paper for the project, by the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, urges British Columbia to proceed immediately with a prosecution in Bountiful [where polygamy is being practiced openly, as it is in Utah, Arizona, etc., including in groups linked to those in Bountiful]."

(3) "Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said he has seen only a summary of the research reports, but already rejects lifting the criminal ban on polygamy. At this point, the practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada and will continue to be, he said from Montreal."

Let's see. He's seen the summary and rejects it, which is apparently what they were going to do anyway before the study even started. The Conservatives, who will probably form the next government, would be even less likely than the Liberals to approve of such a thing.

Why is this a story in the MSM? Probably because this is a juicy, ironic thing to put in the public sphere during an election, in order to sell newspapers. It's certainly a valid subject matter for DW (because of the Islamic angle), but it is exceedingly unlikely that these recommendations would be followed.

Strictly for educational purposes, check this out folks.

We all know the Koran approves of polygamy.

Here’s what the Bible has to say (you be the judge, but there is plenty of support for it):

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html

Posted by: Archimedes at January 13, 2006 4:21 PM

Polygamy, like divorce, like "traditional" marriage, like homosexual marriage, and like inter-racial marriage, is only the business of those that engage in it. It is not the place of any government to "protect us from ourselves" should we choose to engage in consensual "crimes" like non-traditional relationships (even unto marriage), divorce, drug use, alcohol consumption, viewing pornography, exotic dancing, etc.

The problem with polygamy is that in the case of Islam it will inevitably, if not immediately, lead to the abuse of women. If a woman willingly marries a man who's already married and willingly consents to her (ahem) position, she should be allowed to do so.

But Muslim women cannot make rational choices because they have been brainwashed from birth to believe that their only station in live is that of sex toy for a Muslim man, and producer of more Muslims.

Furthermore, and especially when considering the career welfare recipients like Hook Hamza et al., we should assume that such polygamist marriages will produce mass quantities of welfare grubbers.

There's a world of difference between a simple-minded single woman having two or three kids with different fathers in the course of her lifetime, and a man willingly and serially marrying as many women as possible and then having as many kids as possible. And the latter is exactly what we should expect to happen if polygamy is legalized for the sake of a tiny yet vocal group of agitators. And exactly what we will deserve should we capitulate.

However, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a Muslim may take multiple wives "if he can support them." Now it remains to be seen whether or not that includes "supporting them" by merely living in a civilized society where women and children aren't allowed to unduly suffer, thanks in no small part to the efforts of "infidels."

Mormons could certainly do the same thing. There's no way in hell that one man can sire more than 10 kids and still pay for all their food, clothing, health care, etc. unless he's rich. We've all heard of the wayward Mormon extremist, usually living in Utah (or Idaho, or one of the other states where nobody lives) that has five or more wives and dozens of kids.

In the case of a Mormon or Muslim (or just a plain, old idiot) what's to stop them from wedding a "true love", then divorcing, then marrying another "true love", divorcing, etc.? The marriage is a religious ceremony, and done in a church/mosque/etc. The divorce is just a piece of paper and more of a civil document. They certainly could CONSIDER the marriage to still be binding.

I don't know of too many cases of Muslims men marrying a woman, having a bunch of kids, then "divorcing her" (on paper, as it were) while actually remaining "married" for all intents and purposes. It would be easy enough to do for anyone. Mayhap the rise of vilifying "deadbeat dads" keeps this phenomenon at bay.

If muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife, then aren't there some men who go without?

That's where dumb white women come in.

Or going off to conquer new lands...ooops, same thing in this case. Like the Pakistanis who marry their cousins in England, have a bunch of inbred, chronically ill children, get sick of them, divorce, and take up with a hard-working, money-making, relatively "exotic" English gal to cook their food, pay their bills, etc.

Ah, love.

Posted by: fustercluck13 at January 13, 2006 4:31 PM

In your desire to paint gay marriages as the enemy, you have ALL missed the most important point of all. Most of you heterosexual men out there, listen to me, you know what nearly all/most men (dare I say all) want: multiple partners. So allowing for polyamorous will sweel the ranks of adherants of the "religions" that allow this several fold. Anyone who does not believe me is smoking something I am not allowed to get near due to my job.

I am entirely against polygamy.

For those who see the problem in gay marriage, call it the "disgusting-gay-oral/anal-not-accepted-by-society-because-
we-find-it-distateful-and-we-frankly-don't-understand
-these-perverse-homosexual-deviants-and-we-need-
Taliban/fundamentalist Christian rule-in-order-to-cleanse-society partnership agreement". Frankly I don't care what you call it, just allow me to get property rights, allow my PENSION NOT TO BE LOST upon my death as is the case now, allow me the tax advantages of marriage for my partner, allow us to get the same social security benefits (survivorship rights) and you can call us disgusting, deviants or perverts, but don't punish people like myself who on a daily basis do their small part to PROTECT this country from terrorists, pay taxes and contribute to our families and community.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 13, 2006 5:51 PM

Slightly OT but the following is from Mark Steyn in New Chronicle.

A commenter on Tim Blair’s website in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: “Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning’s Terrorist Attack.”

Its a very interesting, if depressing article. If I can paraphrase his argument: left-wing low birth-rate social welfarism is like HIV; Islam is just the opportunistic pneumonia that's moving in to finish us off.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at January 13, 2006 5:58 PM

Malta, do not dispair. Not all is lost. In the Battle of Thermopylae of 480 BC an alliance of Greek city-states fought the invading Persian army. Though vastly outnumbered, the Greeks held back the Persian advance in order to buy time for the evacuation of Athens and the preparation of a greater Greek fighting force. They will not defeat us with the bellies of their women as it is the quality and not that quantity that claims victory in an intelligent world.

Posted by: Polish infideless at January 13, 2006 6:29 PM

Interested said:

"Two points here. First, if the law allows polgyny but not polyandry, it discriminates against women, so women's rights are being abused."

Yes, I did say "or husbands".

"Secondly, and more importantly, if it is not the state's job to sort out people's relationships for them, then it is not the state's job to deal with the consequences of those relationships."

Yep, absolutely. Not one single cent of taxpayers money should go into it. I must mention that I am a libertarian and do not support taxation full stop, but if we must have it, then it should be limited to a defence force, police force, and justice system. Other than that, people should support themselves, and if they get themselves into a mess, then they need to look at what they're doing and change, or look to charity, but no one should be forced to support what they do not support.

Posted by: redwine at January 13, 2006 6:49 PM

Hugh, Robert and ladies and gentlemen:

It's time to take a valium and relax a bit. I listened a few minutes ago to an interview on CBC Radio As it Happens with Prof. Bailey and here is what she stated.

First - the report has been widely misquoted and misunderstood. They advocate the decriminalization of polygamy and NOT legalization. It may seem a fine point but not neccessarily. The report is directed generally to the Mormon (or Mormon related) community of Bountiful, British Columbia and any other similar communities. Since polygamy is presently against the law in the criminal code, the authors' concerns were any women who wanted to leave (i.e. divorce) would be afraid to as they would be admitting to having committed an illegal act. They are there fore unable to leave with custody of children or any other property settlements. If they did leave a bad marriage, they would also be unlikely to remarry within the community as they would be seen to be married.

When asked if any current polygamous marriages have been prosecuted, Prof. Bailey answered no with the likely reason being that crown prosecters were most likely afraid this would end up as a court challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She is of the opinion that such a challenge would be won under the freedom of religion article.

Prof. Bailey also stated that the current marriage act, which now defines marriage as a union between two people (and is not in the criminal code) would be sufficient to prevent polygamy.

The authors were not in favour of polygamy.

The interview can be heard on CBC's website as a past program (with a one or two day delay) or can be heard currently as it passes through timezones in Canada (it aired in the Eastern zone at 6:30 - it's the first topic). It should repeat at 6:30 local time as it passes through other time zones. The first link is the general program site - click on past shows. The second has links for different cities across Canada for live streaming.

http://www.cbc.ca/aih/

http://www.cbc.ca/listen/index.html

Posted by: johnb at January 13, 2006 7:14 PM

Redwine - great stuff, by the way, as is white wine, so good and so haram - of course you, as a libertarian, mean polyandry as well as polygyny. But what do the Mohammedans mean? And what does this mean in practice? Which groups of people want it? Backward, primitive, misogynist people - Mohamedans and Mormons. This is no liberation, no empowering live-and-let-live charter.

Kafir above has stated that all men want multiple partners. This is not true, though it is true of many men and some women some of the time and some people all of the time. What is undoubtedly true is that many men who want multiple partners are not keen on women wanting the same. The sexual double standard is universal. Under Islam it is enshrined in law. Muslim men in the West who allow themselves a great deal of liberty, punish minor sexual transgressions of "their" women ferociously. Legalising polygamy will legalise the sexual double standard. It would be a regressive step and astonishing in an advanced Western country that supposedly respects women's rights.

You go on to say:

Not one single cent of taxpayers money should go into it. I must mention that I am a libertarian and do not support taxation full stop, but if we must have it, then it should be limited to a defence force, police force, and justice system.

Even if revenues from taxation are limited to these areas, legalising polygamy will cost the taxpayer more. Here in the UK - I don't know if this is true in the US - Muslims are not hard working and do not contribute much in tax. They commit more crimes and more of them are in prison. They are a security risk, and taxpayers' money is being spent to deal with this risk. Polygamy will increase the Muslim population, hence the burden on the taxpayer.

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 7:17 PM

They advocate the decriminalization of polygamy and NOT legalization.

Oh, enough of this. Enforce the damned law against it. After you nab all 17 Mormons, then go to work on the 250,000 or so Canuck Moslem Bigamists.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 7:18 PM

APF - what about the Muslim Pigamists? You need to watch out for them - they like to get their teeth into a pork sword.

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 7:26 PM

APF - what about the Muslim Pigamists?

Pigamy is a horrible, horrible crime. I want to make sure that everybody in here, and also any government regulators who might be observing these proceedings, knows that I am not a pigamist. I am not, and I have contributed to many anti-pigamy causes.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 13, 2006 7:44 PM

Mind you, those little curly tails....

Posted by: Interested at January 13, 2006 7:51 PM

And they're now available in green, but not for pigamy. There'll be a questionnaire, background check, and 5-day waiting period. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/01/12/taiwan.pig.reut/index.html

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 13, 2006 8:25 PM

i knew it.
i knew legalizing polygamy was next on the list.

i bet somewhere there's a brother-sister couple just waiting for it to be their turn.

Posted by: jim at January 13, 2006 9:06 PM

APF

The prof (one of the authors) stated clearly she believed the reason the law hasn't been enforced is that prosecutors are concerned about a successful challenge under the charter. It's those Supremes again.

Posted by: johnb at January 13, 2006 9:55 PM

A shame that the Dhimnitude awards have been given out. These law professors deserve the prize. Legalization will encourage more polygamy. Look at what polygamy has done to French society!

Posted by: DavidE at January 13, 2006 11:00 PM

Interested-

In France, I believe the prison population is 70% Muslim.

Given that they make up 10% of the population, that statistic certainly gives one pause.

Posted by: treehugger at January 14, 2006 12:04 AM

First, there is no Biblical definition of marriage. Monogamy is in the western world a Christian tradition inferred from the single spouse that Christ has (the Church) to the relationship between men and women. Something similar was constructed in Judaism concerning Israel and Yahweh where idolotry is described in terms of marital unfaithfulness. But actual monogamy in both cases is a tradition, not a scriptural command. Since Muslims are voluntarists, and have explicit textual warrant, there is no way, on pain of falsifying the religion, that polygamy could be repealed.

Second, it isn't a slippery slope argument to note that if one permits marriage on the basis of feelings, free association and consequently as a right rather than as a pre-existing institution as in the case with gays, then there is no principled basis to limit it to two people. That *is* a sensible argument.

The problem with gay marriage is that it essentially widens the definition of marriage to first, what is not common to all and second and consequently that marriage can no longer be recognized by the law, since it is not common to all. If the taxonomy of marriage isn't based on procreation and raising children to carry on the civilization by doing likewise, then there is no reason why it should be limited to two people and consequently no reason why the state should recognize it.

In any case, marriage is not a right since it exists prior to the existence of any state. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution. The Greek principle that what is natural is refined, perfected and made beautiful, which is why people intuitively see polygamy as being somehow wrong because it doesn't typify the refined love between two people who have forsaken all others. How can you forsake all others if you are a foursome?

In any case, Chickaloon's post pretty much nailed it on the head with the exception of one point. The idea of a civil marriage is the product of the Puritans who wanted to drive out the idea that marriage was sacramental. If a judge can do it, then it can't be sacramental since the judge has no priestly or sacerdotal power. Civil marriage already IS a sectarian view.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 14, 2006 1:19 AM

It seems to me that rich males will be able to mate with many woman and get good tax rightoffs while the poor male doesn't get a mate and has to pay tax through his nose.There is also the problem of having even more families without a father figure and the problems occurring with that including higher rates of crime etc. Addditionally as poligimany is a import problem the families who come as poligamist will indeed have a much harder time of adjusting to Canadian culture,and may even coplain as many that are poligamous also like to FGM.Where will this stop? Poligimous families of immigrants were implicated as being heavily involve in the French riots.http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/18/news/nation/21_05_1411_17_05.txt

Posted by: mark52 at January 14, 2006 2:43 AM

American_Palamite's analysis is correct. The concept of marriage being defined by civil law is a modern construction. In the past, religious communites governed marriage according to their own traditions. Catholics married according to the teaching of the Church while Jewish marriage customs were regulated by their own Rabbis. In this later case, especially among the Sephardim, polygamy was extremely rare but did occur in a few instances.

In all cases, Catholic, Orthodox, or Jewish, it almost never came under the civil authority but marriages were registered with the local church or synagogue, not with any government agency.

In Europe marriage was governed by the sacramental authority of the Church which is why Henry VIII split from the Church in order to regularize his adultery (interestingly, the Pope was willing to give him a dispensation to legitimize any children by Ann Boleyn but was powerless to approve a divorce from Catherine because of the sacramental nature of her marriage).

Since marriage is neither a political, civil, or social right stemming from society, but a natural state basic to the human condition, it is not in the proper power of the state to define or expand it any more than the state can re-define or expand the definition of what is a "male" or "female".

The push for so-called "gay marriage" is a similar fallacy. My position is historical and philosophical, not personal. I know several homosexuals whose decency is exemplary. As for any "sins" only God can judge, not me.

Personally, I am more concerned with sins such as adultery or fornication, since my own nature would not be immune from that kind of temptation, and although homosexuality is a sin in my religion, it is not a sin to which I have any temptation.

Nevertheless, I believe to legally codify homosexual relations as a "marriage" is just a legal fiction that has no basic in reality.

Beyond that, I see that it is also part of a long-term and conscious effort to undermine and destroy whatever is left of traditional civilization. I use "traditional civilization" because this is a concerted modernist attack not only on the last vestiges of Christendom, but is also being used to attack traditional Hindu, Buddhist and other civilizations as well.

Should this modernist assault acomplish its goal of undermining all traditional religion and morality, then we have nothing left to confront the continual expansion of a militant Islam which has wisely refused to accept this internal cancer.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 14, 2006 3:26 AM

What other despicable culural practices will the Justice Department advocate? Cannabalism,FGM,or the ancient Pakistan tradition of vanni whereby young girls as young as 4 are given as payment for offences. In otherwords as goats to be given as the headline expresses.http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/heritage/s/207/207379_theyre_girls_not_goats.html

Posted by: mark52 at January 14, 2006 3:34 AM

There are times when I despair civilization will be destroyed by muddled thinking.

To paraphrase Weaver, when we elevated feeling over thinking, we must soon elevate wanting over deserving.

The point of marriage is family building and child rearing, not self-gratification, not the assertion of "rights" of the individual, but a collective investment in the future of civilization. The family is the institution through which civilizational values are transmitted from one generation to the next.

Marriage cannot convey the value of women and girls through polygamous unions. Boys will not learn to respect women through polygamous unions and girls will not learn to respect themselves as the equal partners of men.

If monogamous marriage goes, our civilization is not far behind. I do not want to live in a world where polygamy is accepted. I truly hope I don't live to see it.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 7:46 AM

Rebecca JW:

Very well said! Such a thoughtful comment! Yes, if monogamous marriage goes, our civilization really won't be far behind. It seems that we're about to go into free-fall as things are, doesn't it?

Posted by: Mark Alexander at January 14, 2006 10:12 AM

Mark A., I believe we are at the point when, like Wile E. Coyote who as run out onto thin air, we are suspended in space because we haven't yet looked down and realized our predicament.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 10:46 AM

Rebecca-

We are fighting the battle for traditional marriage on two fronts.

But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund. A founder of UUPA along with her brother, Harlan White, Valerie White let Bi Magazine know in 2003 that UUPA planned to keep its quest for recognition on temporary hold: "It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. . . . Our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community are fighting a battle that they're close to winning, and we don't want to do anything that would cause that fight to take a step backwards." In short, the Unitarians are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost certainly begin.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558013/posts

Posted by: treehugger at January 14, 2006 11:26 AM

Rebecca:

No, we don't seem to realize our predicament at all. You're right about that, too. It seems that people are unable to see further than their noses. Is it, perhaps, because people don't sit back for long enough to think deeply enough to realize the consequences of their actions?

People these days are so busy trying to make money to satisfy their insatiable appetites for material possessions that they think too little about the future.

If they were to spend a quarter of the time they spend on making money to satisfy their children's appetite for designer clothes and hi-tech this and hi-tech that, they would be able to give their children a far more secure future. As things stand, their children's future might well hang in the balance.

Then we have the problem of the extremely liberal liberals wanting to be fair to this one and fair to the other, and at the same time their are shooting themselves in the foot. Moreover, they have no moral anchor.

We have allowed all these Muslims into the West without thinking over the consequences of our actions. Moreover, instead of making it clear to these people that they can come here AS LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY OUR RULES, Westerners are bending over backwards to change OUR RULES to suit THEIR ECCENTRICITIES.

Posted by: Mark Alexander at January 14, 2006 11:39 AM

What's the next step? Legalizing slavery (allowed by the Qur'an and widespread in the Arab)? Legalizing Female Genital Mutilation? Adapting the Canadian punitive code to include mutilation and public flogging?

Canadians, what dark future awaits you.

Posted by: US_infidel at January 14, 2006 11:51 AM

Provoslavni,

The pope couldn't grant an annullment for Henry 8 because Henry couldn't guarantee that his troops could reach Rome before Charles' the Emperor did and Charles was a lot closer. Charles was a relative to Catherine and threatend to march on Rome if the Pope granted the anullment. Popes passed out anullments pretty freely to royals at the time, which is why Henry expected to get one-the sacramental status didn't phase them.

Posted by: American_Palamite at January 14, 2006 12:05 PM

As I stated before, I don't care if you allow me to marry my partner or not, just be equitable to us with respect to the benefits we get. You don't need to call it marriage; call it what you will, just be fair, ok? The current state of the law is inequitable in the US. Have you all forgotten that gays and lesbian Americans (and Britons and others) are dying in Iraq?

Some articles about gay people I feel compelled to share with my friends at JW/DW:

New Details Emerge About Final Minutes Of Gay Hero's Battle With 9-11 Terrorists
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/072604binghamTape.htm

Gay US generals speak out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3325335.stm

So gays and Lesbians are willing to die for you, but you treat them like dogs? Reports even indicate that known gays are allowed to complete service in Iraq, only to be dishonorably discharged upon return to the US. SHAME ON AMERICA for such treatment; the loss of their careers and pensions. The "don't ask don't tell" policy is not being used; NIS is INVESTIGATING allegations of sexual orientation where there was no mention of such from the "accused".

Official Says Law Doesn't Cover Gays
Counsel Cites Lack of Authority to Enforce Discrimination Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401496.html

Also the ranks of Gays and Lesbians are all over, even in the white house, at the Department of Homeland Security, DOJ and the Department of State. Do you dispute this?

How foolish are those that think gays are not good warriors. Gays can be ferocious warriors and often can be even more aggressive then their straight counterparts. Why? Gay men ARE men. Remember, we are not all hairdressers. Never mind a mean lesbian!

So which is it, are gays' rights worth NOTHING to you? Is this how patriotic Americans such as myself should be treated? Simply fully protect our relationships legally with benefits and burdens, and we won't need to "marry", ok?

POLYGAMY
As for polygamy, the legal argument against it is NOT that people should not be allowed to enter into such agreements - they are, it's that the state cannot possibly create a system to make such relationships fair. As for gay marriage being against public policy of "offending morals", then I ask you to grant us something to protect our partners legally and ENCOURAGE gays to stay together. Why is the UK approach not acceptable? All of your arguments are specious. Would you rather we go to leather bars and bathhouses?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 14, 2006 1:38 PM

APF is 100% shits and giggles. Alarmed pig farmer needs to be promoted to the board of Jihad Watch. APF is always "on". He's our Andy Kaufman.

Posted by: dennisw at January 14, 2006 2:48 PM

Kafir non-believer, tell me, why is it the business of the state to legally protect your relationships? How would that promote the interests of the state, that is, the good of the entire people for the future, and not just serve your own narrow interests? And why is it harder for you to go to a lawyer's office to arrange your own will or legal guardianship/trusteeship whathaveyou instead of a justice of the peace? I think this is a fabricated problem. I don't see a problem that compels a state remedy - no where near it.

Treehugger - your posts made a great deal of sense to me. We seem to have forgotton the concept of sacred in the sense that some loyalties should be above question, should be above the temptation of the flesh. We have abandoned the world of "should" for the world of want or immediate self gratification without regard to duty or truth. We constantly betray our children and even betray our higher selves and we do all this in the name of freedom.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 3:31 PM

American_Palamite,

There is no doubt that Popes at that time greatly abused their office. They were also similtaneously the secular rulers of central Italy which caused many conflicts of interests as you describe. Still, there was no doubt that Catherine's marriage was valid and the pope was correct in denying the economia.

The secularization of episcopal authority has often been a bane to the Church, both east and west. Look at Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus, who also was President of the country. This caused him to violate his pastoral responsibilities to the Christian Cypriots in tragic ways.

He arranged for a Turkish Muslim, Fazil Küçük, to be his Vice President and then openly sided with the Turks against Greece, when on July 19, 1974, while addressing the UN Security Council, Makarios accused Greece of having invaded Cyprus (a falsehood)and of posing a threat to the Turkish-Cypriot community. Under the terms of the Treaty of Guarantee, Britain, Greece or Turkey were entitled to sanction one or all of them to intervene militarily to restore peace to the island.

This gave the Turks the excuse to invade Northern Cyprus and occupy it to this day. Because of Makarios' foolish hyperbole, Orthodoxy has been almost destroyed in Northern Cyprus, with churches razed and the Christians forced into exile.

It is tragic when our bishops, patriarchs popes, or any other churchmen forget Jesus' command to "occupy till I come" and "hold fast to those things that remain". The result is always tragic, whether in England, Cyprus, Rome, or anywhere.

Our best hope (perhaps only hope?) is to return to the ecclesiatical structure that existed at the time of the 7th Ecumenical Council. When Popes, Patriarchs and bishops have a correct relationship with each other as well as with the civil authorities, then Christendom may see a true rebirth in unity and can effectively face the double threat of both Islam and decadent modernist secularism.

Posted by: Provoslavni at January 14, 2006 3:32 PM

"...then Christendom may see a true rebirth in unity and can effectively face the double threat of both Islam and decadent modernist secularism."

I believe it can be done if we unite behind our common Christian goals, for after all, what we are seeking is unity of direction not uniformity of thought.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 4:19 PM

It is thinking like this that lacks any sense of reason, which makes people like myself loathe Christianity too. I would like to know if you Rebecca represent the views of others on this board. Fellow JD/DWers, are Christians really not different from Islamists?

"How would that promote the interests of the state, that is, the good of the entire people for the future, and not just serve your own narrow interests?

Pardon me Madam, but I have written extensively about that, did you even bother to read it? I conceded to you that I don't need marriage if you were to provide an alternative legal mechanism, but you offer no such alternative in the face of clear inequity. Thus there is no other conclusion other than the one that you are religious fundamentalist who is no as far as I am concerned no different from an Islamist; one who is utterly devoid of reason.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 14, 2006 5:05 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever, I did read your posts and I remain unconvinced that there is any real problem that the state should be compelled to remedy here. All legal means are at your disposal now short of marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental institution on which the rest of civilization (or what remains of it) rests. You yourself had a mother and a father. This is the ideal pairing for childbearing and child rearing. That is why the nation has an interest in it. The state of marriage today portends the state of civilization tomorrow.

This battle with Islam will require all our civilizational strength for a very long time. We must seek to strengthen it at its foundations and yes, this means making common cause with (gasp!) Christians.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 5:36 PM

Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

“The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.”

Dhimnitude awards to each who wrote this report. It is pathetic. What about the harm to women, children and society from polygamy!

Posted by: DavidE at January 14, 2006 8:27 PM

You, non-Islamic citizens of Western countries -Be prepared to pay more taxes for the upkeep of the ofsprings of Islamists.
It is a well known fact here, that Muslims are lazy. They never work.They all rely on the Welfare doles. After Poligamy, the Welfare dole expences will be ten times more,and it is you, the Tax payer,who have to pay for it..
Insted of importing these troublesome,lazy. Muslims, if we immigrate the Hardworking Chinese,Sikhs,Hindus,and the much persecuted Christians of Pakistan,Labanon,and Middle east,they will work hard,help your economy to grow,and most impartently, they will be greatful to you and will not secretly plan to murder you,overthrow your country,and plan to impose their religion on you.

Posted by: rafia at January 14, 2006 8:56 PM

Rebecca-

To steal someone else's line-
Gold Star for you today!

Posted by: treehugger at January 14, 2006 9:19 PM

Fellow JD/DWers, are Christians really not different from Islamists?

To equate the position that heterosexual marriage is the best type of social instution for the care of children and the future of society with the desire to crush all gays under rock walls and stone them to death is using the same propaganda tactic as Muslims.

Think about it.

Posted by: treehugger at January 14, 2006 9:27 PM

Until recently, homosexuals were locked away for years for having engaging in "sodomy". In prison for their "crimes", gay men were abused, raped, assaulted, beaten - often at the direction of the prison guards themselves. Are these the filthy values you wish us to return to? Keep those values for yourself thank you very much.

And where did this "crime" come from? A biblical "story" in a book about "fornicators"? A book that I do not personally find "sacred": your bible. I do however respect those who are Christian and live their lives according to the teachings, but do not impose their religion on me will not silence me from telling the truth.

We no longer accept things that are "ok" in the bible. Do you wish to return to those times? Well if you expect that since I hate Islam as much as you do I will somehow accept your tyranny in exchange for Islam, you are mistaken.

Your arguments are also intellectually flimsy and entirely circular. On the one hand you (and Rebecca) have state that there is "moral decline" in the West because of "lost values", on the other you compare the situation to that of say, Iran. By loss of values one can infer you meant the allowance of homosexuality. You note that such countries stone gays, and thus, I ought to shut up and take what you give me. Well I won't accept inequity and I don't accept your specious arguments. You have indeed proven that you are no different from Moslems. You hide behind liberalism the same way Moslems do, pointing out that the society is free and thus the Christian religion is tolerant. You have demonstrated the opposite.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United S, a Supreme Court almost appointed mainly by REPUBLICANS held that gays have the right to consensual sex; that such right is part of the right of privacy; that such activity cannot be criminalized. This was not a "radical" decision, as you would like it to be, a conservative court made it.

Since we are not criminals, we have every right to live our lives and be given equal protection under the law as is ordained under the US constitution. Oh, perhaps you don't like that document and instead prefer the bible? I swore allegiance to the constitution, not your "holy" book.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 14, 2006 10:19 PM

Kafir Nonbeliver-

You make an awful lot of assumptions.
Assumption Number One: that I am a Christian, and/or that because I am a Christian I wish to see gays harmed or killed.

Incorrect statement: On the one hand you (and Rebecca) have state that there is "moral decline" in the West because of "lost values". I have not made that statement. Please review back posts. The statement is also vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Assumption Number Two: "By loss of values one can infer you meant the allowance of homosexuality". One can certainly INFER a lot of things. Clear statements and facts are better. To clarify: I did not speak about a loss of values. That is an entirely different discussion. I spoke out on behalf of the natural family, which includes a loving, married mother and father. This unit is the best for the nuturing of children. In turn, healthy children and nuclear families mean a healthy society. Quite simple, really. "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." (Aldo Leopold). Therefore, I do not support gay marriage.

Assumption Number Three: "In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States, a Supreme Court almost appointed mainly by REPUBLICANS held that gays have the right to consensual sex. This was not a "radical" decision, as you would like it to be, a conservative court made it" . This was not in any of my posts. You are also assuming that I am a Republican.

I think that court's decision was correct. I could care less about the sex life of consenting adults (other then when it relates to the wellbeing of children) as long as it doesn't involve minors or require me to pay taxes to support someone else's irresponsible behavior.

However, your rights do not trump the rights of children. As the most vulnerable members of our society and also as our future, they deserve the most protection, INCLUDING society's preference for two person heterosexual marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, adults can (and should) take of themselves.

Again, you need to look at how you phrase your arguments. You are using the same techniques that are used by CAIR et al for your own area of interest. "Sauce for the goose".

Posted by: treehugger at January 15, 2006 1:40 AM

Kafir Nonbeliever, you are surely jumping to a lot of conclusions and I think you are reacting to perceived hostility that I never meant to convey.

I do not stand with fundamentalist Christians on the issues of Intelligent Design or abortion, but I do stand with them on the issue of marriage because I believe that marriage shouldn't be tampered with at this critical time.

All I am doing is arguing that side of the issue. Please don't take it personally.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 15, 2006 8:54 AM

We are in an existential fight for existence. Polygamy, as do all things Islamic, belongs in Muslim countries, away from the West. Those that want to live that way can go there.

Posted by: epg at January 15, 2006 11:51 AM

There is AMPLE authority in the bible.

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

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 15, 2006 3:05 PM

There is AMPLE authority in the bible for polygamy.

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

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 15, 2006 3:06 PM

"I do not stand with fundamentalist Christians on the issues of Intelligent Design or abortion, but I do stand with them on the issue of marriage because I believe that marriage shouldn't be tampered with at this critical time."

Since you have offered this explantion to your beliefs, I am curious to know what exactly the "critical time" is? Is it ok to keep homosexuals in a state of inequity because of this "critical time" theory? Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication is: were we not at "war" it would be ok to grant you this equity. We are not in a traditional war and I don't see how granting some sort of equity to gays/lesbians interferes with that untraditional war. An argument can be made that equity actually strenghtens the West. I believe you have found yourself in a mental trap, or conversely, you are not being honest about your goals/desires. I await your answer and strongly suspect the latter.

If you fight a war with Islam, do we take their values for our own? Or is it your plan to create a "triumphant" Christianity? Good luck without secularists like myself, if we are to be used to "hasten the return of the king", we won't make good little Christian soldiers.

I have repeatedly said that I love Christians, so long as they are not FUNDAMENTALIST. The argument has repeatedly been made about what a "moderate Moslem" is. Yes I know Islam is at its core warlike, but at its core, Christianity isn't nearly as rosy as you make it sound. But what then is a "moderate Christian", is it one who takes religous doctrine ala carte, i.e. does not accept all of it? Do you accept all of it? And if you do not accept all of it, as you seem to indicate, then how can it be that you accept clear inequity? And how does this inequity tie into the "critical time"?

Here are a short list of postings I made on the other thread, perhaps you care to address them:

Injustices in the bible:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

A cute little story about family stoning:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/family_stoned_burned/jos07_02.html

Will I likewise be stoned after I fight against Islam?

Women's issues in the bible that are ridiculous:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

For woman, apples = bad. But men's "seed" = priceless and ought not be wasted/spilled. I hope women here engage only in the missionary position with their husbands (in wedlock) in order to prevent this terrible loss.

"Sex"
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/sex/long.htm

"Homosexuality"
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

On Homosexuality:
Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put TO DEATH; their blood shall be upon them.

True Christianity, in its purest form really is just wonderful and needs to REPLACE Islam! Or will you kind enough to spare my life in this "new" Christian world?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 15, 2006 3:38 PM

Kaffir Nonbeliever-

Why do you keep bringing up the issue of Christianity?

Biblical precedent has not been posed as the rationale for the protection of marriage.

I believe that is called the "straw man" approach, setting up a false argument and then attempting to knock it down.

At the same time the real discussion goes unaddressed.

As it is here.

Posted by: treehugger at January 15, 2006 5:13 PM

Why do I bring up Christianity? Because it is what we are talking about. You are not truthful in your arguments. You accuse me of putting up a straw man, but the only things made of straw around here are the combustible arguments you make in your disingenuous attempt to refute my arguments. Moreover, your own words deceive you, look below. Would you like a gold star and think yourself a victor then? You win nothing but my disgust, and you lose the readers of this page seeing that Christians are no different from Islamists.

To quote your own words, Treehugger,

"Sorry Calum, the slippery slope exists even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

Besides, there is simply no reason for gay marriage.

Marriage is a SACRED institution geared towards the engendering and rearing of children."

Sacred huh, to whom? To Christians like yourself that like to dish it out against Islam, but cannot also accept the truth about Christianity. It is no wonder Christianity is so pathetically weak. Christians dare not even admit their true beliefs: that homosexuality is sinful (and punishable by death) and instead try to be cunning and PC themselves. Go ahead, at least admit your belief in a collection of books that you have probably never even read in toto, so that your position can be clear and be on the record; so secularists like myself can see you are no different from Islamists.

Hey Tree, we gays have kids. Have you been to my house?

So now, if I have mischaracterized you, tell us just what DO you believe, and then you can earn your "gold star".

P.S. I am still waiting to know what "Critical time" means, as Rebecca seems to, at least in part, represents this site. As such, I am owed an explanation to something I deem to be very important!

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 15, 2006 6:11 PM

Kafir Non-believer, I thought I had explained myself in the quote you quoted, but since you are originally from Romania, I see the confusion. When I said, "I do not stand with fundamentalist Christians on the issues of Intelligent Design or abortion, but I do stand with them on the issue of marriage because I believe that marriage shouldn't be tampered with at this critical time," I thought that would explain that I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I do not attend any organized Church. I believe that there is truth in all manner of religion that can be gleaned by the careful observer.

To your second query, times of war are rather generally thought of as "critical times" when far-reaching social earthquakes occur. Times of peace are generally stable socially. Things are moving very fast now and I think we need to really think through these deep and far reaching issues like gay marriage before we enact possibly socially destructive legislation out of some sort of misplaced sentimentality.

Satisfied?

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 15, 2006 6:34 PM

"Kafir Non-believer, I thought I had explained myself in the quote you quoted, but since you are originally from Romania, I see the confusion."

Are you impugning my English skills? :) Admittedly, I am rather careless and sloppy at times, but I was "law review" and am able to write. Perhaps they have been so bad lately I gave such an impression. By the way, I have never indicated my place of birth.

As for your explanation, and I thank you for at least replying, a reply is appreciated. I find troubling that earlier you pretended there was no legal problem earlier by stating, "All legal means are at your disposal now short of marriage."

Such words are either said out of terrible (or willful) ignorance about the truth about the problem, or a desire to mischaracterize the truth.

Later you indicated that you opposed changing the law because it was not the "critical time”. You added the following:

"Things are moving very fast now and I think we need to really think through these deep and far reaching issues like gay marriage before we enact possibly socially destructive legislation out of some sort of misplaced sentimentality."

I don't have a problem with your position of opposition to gay marriage. But remedying the situation with respect to gays would amount to misplaced sentimentality eh? So then, laws protecting gays are not to be enacted because they are a group are undeserving of sympathy. What's next, a statement they they are a class so vile they need to die - or be stoned? This is clearly animus against gays. The sooner you acknowledge it to yourself - if noone else, the better.

I understand your stated desire to keep marriage as somehow special, a statement with which I disagree, but is an opinion you are certainly entitled to have. However, what is important, is the current state of the law. I have repeatedly said I don't care if I can marry my partner. What I have a problem with is the CURRENT state of the law, and your (and others like you) desire not to remedy it. Since this site is about ISLAM, something I care deeply about, this web site can be viewed by many Moslems and others. I indeed hope it is being read. Moslems need to know what it is those opposed to Islam offer. Non Moslems need to get a sense of what those opposing Islam believe.

If you do not admit that the current state of the law is not equitable, you