polygamy

[Guest choti]

This is not actually an interview question per say, but is something a friend and I were discussing. Some people argue against gay marriage on the grounds that it may open the door for polygamy.

 

If all the parties involved consent, why is polygamy wrong? The only thing I can think of is that it is in opposition to Judeo-Christian values which form the basis of our laws, but there has to be more to it than that, right?

[Guest medeng]

well there is an issue with the extension of spousal benefits if you allow polygamy, how many spouses is the employer required to support, especially in the case of pensions... or do you just divide one spouse's benefit among x spouses?

 

but i think really it comes down to the same issues of Judeo-Christian values that are relied upon by the political right to oppose same-sex marriage.

[Guest DrNicki]

Please, let's not forget the rights (or lack thereof) of women in polygamous circumstances. We in the western world are fortunate to have made tremendous gains for women in society. To allow polygamy - and its corollary, the oppression of women - is to rewind the women's movement literally hundreds of years. Leave this one alone.

N.

[Guest shy]

I think one of the concerns of polygamy is the affect it has on children. The children born into these communities have not chosen this lifestyle but are forced to live it. Often girls as young as 14 years old are forced to become wives. I think it is wrong not to expose children to enough in the outside world to allow them to make their own decisions when they are old enough about what lifestyle they want to live. It is like religion where children are forced to participate. I think it is great when children are raised in a religion and then have the choice whether or not to practice as adults.

[Guest Yevgenydorn]

But making Polygamy legal would not mean that children could legally be forced to marry anyone. And polygamy by definition doesn't only mean marriages involving one husband and several wives, but could also be the opposite or some other combination of the two. Of course, historically, the term has generally referred to the former situation, but presumably, if polygamy were to be legalized now, the law, at least in theory, would not be sexist or discriminatory towards women since it would allow both men and women to have multiple spouses.

On a personal level I haev no reason to support polygamy, but I do think the point that there is nothing inherently wrong about the idea of more than two consenting adults getting married is a valid one. The issues that are raised above may be linked to polygamy but would not be necessary corollaries of its legalization.

Yev

[Guest choti]

But if the women consented to be in a polygamous relationship are their rights being violated? I think we need to be careful to not use our own standards of living to judge the lifestyles others choose, which may be different from our own.

[Guest cmitchelca]

This is just referring to the original posting, but I find it ridiculous that people believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy more than heterosexual marriages will. It makes you wonder where these people get their logic that they think gay people need to have sex with everyone and can't be monogamous.

[Guest Ollie]

I find it ridiculous that people believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy more than heterosexual marriages will. It makes you wonder where these people get their logic that they think gay people need to have sex with everyone and can't be monogamous.

 

I agree with you on this point, but I don't think that some people's perception of gay relationships is the reason for bringing up polygamy. I think the reason is that the debate over marriage right centres around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I'm sure you know it states that one cannot be discriminated against based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So I guess the argument is, that if gay people are allowed to get married (because not doing so is a violation of the charter) then is not allowing polygamous marriage also a violation of the charter since some people's religion allows polygamous marriage. Although it should be pointed out that the Mormon church does not support polygamy and hasn't for quite some time. Those that do practive polygamy are extremists within that church.

 

I'll just add that I don't buy this argument!

[Guest choti]

The Mormon Church may have banned polygamy but Islam has not. So are the rights of Muslims being violated?

[Guest canmic]

Exactly.. once you say that the definition of marriage can't be discriminatory based on the charter, well, what happens if your ethnic background or religion believes in or enforces polygamy? Is there then grounds for a charter challenge?

 

Another issue that people aren't looking at too closely with the whole gay marriage thing is that any court precedents that are set in gay divorces or child custody battles will apply to non-gay marriages too, because by law, a gay marriage is 'exactly the same' as a non-gay one, so... the precedents start applying.. Talk about a legal mess..

 

If the government really wanted to 'fix' things they would get out of the 'marriage' business altogether, and leave that to the various churches. Then the government would ONLY have 'civil unions' and they would carry all the legal aspects, and 'marriages' would stay the way they are..

 

Once you start changing the definition of a word, rather than using different words, where do you stop? They've already said that people have a right to 'self declare' their gender, so the definition of 'man' and 'woman' is meaningless legally (I can't wait for the courts to start dealing with that one)..

 

Reminds me of a scene in the movie 'baseketball' (I think that was the title?) with Matt Stone and Trey Parker.. The one with the play on the old Foster's beer ads...

[Guest shy]

Just so you know...Mormon Fundamentalist Churches (not supported by the main Mormon Church) have polygamy as part of their religion. If you are interested in this topic a great book is Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" (he also wrote "Into Thin Air" and Into the Wild").

[Guest marbledust]

Hey Shy,

I just finished reading "Under the Banner of Heaven" a few weeks ago. It was very interesting...and rather chilling.

 

I have also picked up "Into the Wild." No idea when I will get a chance to read it, but hopefully soon! Have you read it?

[Guest mythots]

I agree with you canmic.

 

When women were fighting for the right to vote or for equality in the workplace they did not demand that the definition of sperm be changed to include all gamete types. Women didn't fight to be able to say "I produce sperm" because being able to say that one produces sperm has nothing to do with giving women the same rights to the polls or to equal pay as men. A woman can vote without changing the definition of sperm . . . and under a civil union a homosexual couple would be able to get the same tax benefits as married couples do, just as the state of common law allows for unmarried couples who live together long-term. Why does the definition of marriage need to change from "one man and one woman" for that to happen?

 

Once you start changing the definition of a word, rather than using different words, where do you stop?

 

I think the equal treatment of human beings needs to be separated from language. Soon words are going to have such broad meanings that we'll no longer be able to communicate properly.

[Guest shy]

Marbledust-

 

"Into the Wild" was excellent. Also very chilling. Jon Krakauer seems to examin issues to their deepest levels but still leave you with a sense of the unknown.

[Guest medeng]

The difference between this issue and the def'n of sperm, is that "marriage" brings with it a sense of legitimacy & permanence to a relationship. By not allowing same-sex couples to marry, we are saying that their relationship is less valid, and no matter what benefits they are afforded (taxes etc.) this still relegates them to a second class by not recognizing their relationship.

Presumably if as canmic says government gets out of the marriage business altogether, then they are implicitly giving permission to churches to marry whoever they want, be that man-woman, or same sex. This is really what should happen, the govt. can make all the rules the want about taxes etc. that come with a civil union (which would include same-sex unions) and each church/group in society can decide what they view as a "marriage".

[Guest mythots]

The difference between this issue and the def'n of sperm, is that "marriage" brings with it a sense of legitimacy & permanence to a relationship. By not allowing same-sex couples to marry, we are saying that their relationship is less valid, and no matter what benefits they are afforded (taxes etc.) this still relegates them to a second class by not recognizing their relationship.

 

Perhaps the analogy of "producing sperm" wasn't quite right, but the point was that definitions do not need to be changed to achieve equal treatment. The idea that marriage brings with it a sense of legitimacy and permanence to a relationship . . . isn't that what a civil union would do for a same-sex couple? The relationship will be what it will be . . . legitimate or permanent will depend on who's scrutinizing the relationship, not on whether a couple can say they are married or not. A civil union is not saying that the couple is worth any less as human beings than a couple that is married - it's distinguishing between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. If we're not allowed to distinguish the two relationships anymore then we should not even be using the terms heterosexual and homosexual.

 

And specifically in the permanence department . . . with the current divorce rate marriage does not even remotely indicate permanence anymore. The only thing that makes a marriage permanent these days is the committment of the two people involved - the legal "contract of marriage" has long ceased to make relationships life-long.

 

All a matter of perspective, I guess. :b

[Guest canmic]

Yep, that's basically what I meant, but I was not saying that 'civil unions' would be only for homosexuals.. I was saying that the government would only confer civil unions and the churches would only confer marriages.

 

Then marriage would hold its traditional religious significance and civil union would hold the legal / rights type significance.

 

Yep, I suppose some churches would have gay marriage, and others would not. But people can DECIDE which church to belong to, they don't have a choice of which legal system to belong to (apart from changing countries).

 

I think the point is well made that changing the definition of a word to make it more 'inclusive' is a bogus idea. Why not just use a more inclusive word, if that's what you want to do?

 

Otherwise you have to start sticking adjectives in front of everything, or qualifying everything you say, which would be a pain in the butt.

 

Also, as an interesting side point, basically the way I see the argument from the 'for' side of gay marriage is that they are basically saying this:

 

For 100s of years, heterosexuals have had marriage, and in those 100s of years, they have made the word 'marriage' into more than just a word and through their efforts and accomplishments they have given reverence and deeper meaning to the word. Homosexuals want to have a word like that too, but they aren't interested in putting in the effort over 100s of years to get it, so they just want to change the meaning of the existing word, and get the significance without the tradition behind it..

 

What if John Smith wanted to change his name, legally so that his first name was John his middle name was Smith and his last name was MD. Then he would be "John Smith MD". People have a right to change their name, should he be allowed to change it to that?

 

I'm all for equal rights, and I'm all for gays living together in wonderful, happy, monogamous, committed etc relationships.

 

But leave the dictionary alone...

[Guest wattyjl]

For 100s of years, heterosexuals have had marriage, and in those 100s of years, they have made the word 'marriage' into more than just a word and through their efforts and accomplishments they have given reverence and deeper meaning to the word. Homosexuals want to have a word like that too, but they aren't interested in putting in the effort over 100s of years to get it, so they just want to change the meaning of the existing word, and get the significance without the tradition behind it..

 

listen, this statement makes no sense; it's totally ludicrous. you have to see that don't you? 'homosexuals don't want to put in the effort to make their own word'?? first, since when is wanting what everyone else has become unreasonable (we seem to be trying to move toward equality for race and gender, why not sexuality?), and second, when you start to have different 'words', that carry different 'significances', then you start to separate people into groups, and minorities (in our society) inevitably get shafted.

 

should i apply the logic of your statement to Canadian culture? 2nd gen. immigrants who want to change Canada's laws/customs/'words' to include them: they shouldn't be allowed because they haven't contributed for 100's of years? just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it's 'right', and restricting marriage to one group of people over another isn't right either. you said it yourself, marriage isn't just a word, there is a lot associated with that word, and thus, when you take marriage away from one group of people you are automatically singling them out for some reason. and unfortunately in our society all groups are NOT equal, and can't exist without persecution of some sort (except the white male heterosexual group, that one does pretty well).

 

as for government not performing marriages, sounds like a good idea to me. but, coming back to everyone's problem with 'words', do we start inviting people to our gatherings for civil-unionization? because inherent in the definition for wedding is marriage, and we can't say that these people are being married because then all the individuals with 'real' marriages will be upset that their terminology (and what's behind it) is being misused.

 

sorry canmic, you can't say you're all for equal rights, not attached to the statement you made above those words. and as for leaving the dictionary alone - hah, come on. so <100yrs ago when women in Canada weren't recognized as voters, you don't think in the defnition of voting it was at least implicit that only men vote? there are a zillion examples like this one could use to argue against preseveration of 'the dictionary'. as a society/culture evolves, so does its language. come on.

[Guest Yevgenydorn]

For 100s of years, heterosexuals have had marriage, and in those 100s of years, they have made the word 'marriage' into more than just a word and through their efforts and accomplishments they have given reverence and deeper meaning to the word. Homosexuals want to have a word like that too, but they aren't interested in putting in the effort over 100s of years to get it, so they just want to change the meaning of the existing word, and get the significance without the tradition behind it..

 

Wow, this really is ludicrous. I'm a heterosexual, but have I put in effort over 100s of years to make marriage "more than a word"? No...

The reason your statement is so offensive canmic, is that it really shows your "us and them" mentality. Why can't the efforts that people have made in the past to define the word marriage now be enjoyed by homosexuals (who weren't around to do the work themselves) if they can be enjoyed by heterosexuals (who also weren't around)?

Do you think they are just so different that including them in the definition of marriage would somehow invalidate it for you?

Let me just point out, like wattyjl did, that the definitions of many, many wordshave been expanded to include women and other previosuly discriminated against people without losing their significance.

Yev

[Guest canmic]

Are you married? If so, if you haven't put in any effort to make it 'more than a word' well... I guess that's between you and your spouse. I know I have with mine.

 

I guess you totally missed my point about the guy changing his name to appropriate the 'word' MD.

 

If you are pointing out that many words have had their meanings changed to include women or others, maybe some examples would be helpful.. About the only one I can think of off the top of my head is "Mankind" but even that one is more often referred to as "Humankind" now, to be more inclusive. I can't think of any words that have been changed to include other groups.

 

Of course, if you say that in the past women and blacks were not considered to be 'people' in US law and now they are.. they've always been 'people', but some countries didn't recognize them as such, and that has changed. That's more a case of a country altering the meaning of the word 'person' to suit their wishes and then going back to the real meaning.

 

Many words have been altered to include women and many words have had new, equivalent versions created to be more inclusive of women. For example: Chairman = Chairperson or Chairwoman, there are many many examples of this (think about most words ending in 'man'. The french have had seperate words for male and female titles for a very long time. Speaking of the french, in France they created a 'new' civil union type joining of two people that had all of the legal weight of marriage but did not involve the churches, and now, the majority of heterosexual couples are opting for that instead of marriage, and everyone seems to be happy with the situation. Why can't we do the same?

 

I'm all for creating some new more inclusive word, and if 'civil union' doesn't have a nice ring to it, then use something else. Or, create a word (or two words) for man/man and woman/woman couples.

 

I do not have an "us and them" or "us vs them" mentality. I have a "call an apple an apple and an orange an orange or call them both fruit but don't call an orange an apple" mentality.

[Guest Yevgenydorn]

Thanks for your response canmic,

No, actually I'm not married. I'm glad you work hard at your marriage and that it means so much to you, I just don't understand why you find it threatening that non-heterosexuals would like to able to get married as well. What would that take away from your marriage?

 

You mentioned a couple of the words I was thinking of- the legal defition of "person" is one example- in Canada it was expanded to include women in 1929. Yes, women have always been "people" in the sense that they've always been human beings, but they were not legal persons in Canada until 1929 when the word was legally redefined. I don't think it's fair to say that the word was "changed back" to its original meaning, since women had never before been legally defined as persons, and had traditionally been denied many rights (i.e. the vote, the right to sit on senate, the right to own property, etc).

Another similar word I was thinking of is citizen, whose definition has been (and in some places still is) very limited historically. It's "original" definition (that is, the ancient Greek one) only included certain men who owned a certain amount of property- it excluded women, slaves, children, and countless others. So I don't think it's fair to say that that word was merely "changed back" to its original definition either. The definitions of both "person" and "citizen" were expanded to better fit with societal conceptions of who should have what rights... and of who was fundamentally different from whom... Do you think women were just to "lazy" to come up with their own word for person because they hadn't been working for 100s of years to make it more than a word? My point is that the reason they weren't workng at it (like gays and marriage) was that the were prevented from doing so.

Your point about someone changing his name to John Smith MD seems like a very different situation... Pretending to be a liscenced Dr is fraud, and should obviously be against the law. John Smith is not a doctor- I think we disagree about this: I think a "monogamous, commited, etc union" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It's two people committing to love one another and to spend their lives together. If your mentality is not "us and them," then how can you explain the difference between a homosexual commitment and a heterosexual one?

 

But I actually think we agree in some ways- the French solution makes sense to me- leaving "marriage" to churches (who can decide for themselves who they want to leave out) and letting the state perform "civil unions" for couples regardless of their genders seems a fair alternative. As long as civil unions all receive equal tax benefits etc., and the religious marriage has no legal significance, I see no problem with that solution.

One question though- are churches allowed to refuse to marry couples of different races or religion if they believe that is wrong? I'm really not sure what the law says about this.

 

I'm sorry for the long message, I really would like to better understand your arguments. I find it really difficult to see how being against gay marriage does not equal being homophobic. But I would like to understand.

Yev

[Guest medeng]

Yevgenydorn, that was a very well thought out post, I was thinking the exact same thing about the definition of person... everyone remember the heritage minute? Definitions are important, and will constantly evolve. Anyway, in answere to your question...

 

One question though- are churches allowed to refuse to marry couples of different races or religion if they believe that is wrong? I'm really not sure what the law says about this.

 

churches are allowed to refuse to marry couples of different religions, and I'm guessing they are also allowed to refuse different races, but i'm not sure about that... Also in support of your take on the French solution, I'm guessing that any couple in France who has a "civil union" calls themselves "married", and refers to their spouse as husband/wife, so really what the govt. has done is said, we are going to provide civil unions, you as individuals or churches can call it whatever you want. Essentially letting the word marriage evolve as society wants, which is really what should happen.

[Guest tea]

a lesbian couple in BC has sued the Knight of Columbus for returning the deposit and cancelling the hall rental agreement when they [KofC] found out that the Hall was being used to hold a wedding reception for samesex marriage.

 

I am tempted to think that once the definition of marriage has been changed, the next step would be to have marriages performed in churches and churches refusal to do so would be discriminatory. theoretical argument: if churches perform marriages then why is same sex marriages be treated differently than opposite sex marriages by churches? Refusal= violating the same sex rights toward equal treatments.

 

i'm all for equal rights and treatments, but leave the definition of marriage alone. Government's role is to create law to ensure equal treatment of all citizen, not to change definitions of words. If i need a definition change, i'll lobby Oxford, and other encyclopedia, not the government.

 

besides, the word marriage is nice and short. Can you imagine this scenario:

are you married? yes. same sex marriage or opposite sex one? does it matter? well... i have two boxes here and i need to tick the correct one. oh...ok. opposite then.

[Guest shy]

Churches (and other private groups) refusal to perform certain marriages is discriminatory but we cannot force them to perform marriages that go against their doctrine. Religion means following a certain set of beliefs and if you don't agree with them, then you shouldn't be part of that religion. For example, if someone doesn't believe that god sacrificed his son Jesus for them, then they shouldn't expect the Catholoic Church to marry them. Same probably goes for other religions and refusing to marry inter-racial couples.

 

I think it is sad that religion can be so intolerant, but the Church needs to change this intolerance themselves before the law can force them to perform marriages that are against their beliefs. Religion is a private institution and it is not secret what the beliefs are, so I am not sure why you would want to get married in an institution that doesn't think you are worthy of marriage. It is the government which should make marriage (or unions, or whatever you want to call them), available to all without discrimination.

[Guest canmic]

As far as the change in the definition of 'person' in canadian law to include women (and US law to include blacks). It is NOT true that the definition of 'person' did not already include women and blacks. The law actually contradicted the widely accepted definition of the word, which had been around for 100s of years before either Canada or the US existed. (read some shakespeare in the original form for examples)

 

That is actually a big part of my point. The government should NOT start messing around with the definitions of words. When they changed the definition of 'person' to exclude people, that was wrong.

 

Similarly, let me try to make my point again, if you ask gay couples why they want to get 'married' instead of 'civil union' (which I agree is a lousy term that doesn't have a nice sound to it, and I'm sure a better term could be found) the only answers I have heard are these:

 

1) The term "Marriage" has a special significance, etc etc...

 

2) I have a right to do what I want and I want to get married and if you don't let me you are violating my rights to do what I want.

 

3) If I have a 'civil union' then people who think I shouldn't be gay will say that I'm different, or less than they are because I'm not 'married' like they are.

 

Now, for the 1st point, yes, marriage has a special significance, and part of that is that it is between a man and a women. If you mess with the definition then the ENTIRE meaning of the word has to start all over again... no more special significance..

 

For the second point, Yes you have a right to live in a relationship with whoever you want, and yes you have a right for that relationship to have all of the same legal rights as a marriage does. I don't see anything in the charter that says you have a right to edit the dictionary...

 

For the third part, yes, there are people who will think that (no I am not one of them) but you know what? If you antagonize them then they aren't going to start thinking better of you because you've changed the definition of marriage to include yourself, they're still going to be homophobic, basically, and they are going to refuse to recognize your 'marriage' in their own minds.

 

Basically, the government can't legislate people's opinions, and changing a word isn't going to change people's feelings about the situation it describes, it will likely only make things worse..

 

I really really wish the government had come up with a word that sounds better than 'civil union' which is so 'blah'.

 

By the by, as far as the definition of citizen, it actually has not changed. Look up the definition. The rules to qualify for citizenship and some of the rights given to citizens have changed, but the definition of the word itself hasn't changed.

 

For example, in some countries you can immigrate and become a citizen, and in others one or both of your parents has to have been a citizen. The definition of the word isn't different in the two countries, but the rules to become one are.

 

Tell me something, do you think that the definition of 'bride' should be changed as well? If so, what would you change it to? How would you differentiate between bride and groom? Bride is the one on the officiator's right, groom is the one on the left? But then aren't there a whole lot of people on each side? now what?