polygamy

[Guest canmic]

I think the problem is that Harper is getting painted with the same brush that covers some of the more radical members of his party.

 

Remember that the current conservative party was formed from two groups, one that was basically a libertarian type group and the other that was a hard core right wing fundamentalist party.

 

There are those in the conservative party who say things like "Gays can get married, so long as it's one man and one woman, so it's not a violation of their rights", but Harper isn't one of them. Unfortunately he has to hold the party together and he can't alienate the fundamentalists.

 

Harper is all about money, nothing more, nothing less. Let the upper class (rich) keep their money and not have to spend it on the rest, that's his only real agenda. Everything else is politics.

 

Why do you think he initially was pushing for a national referendum? He doesn't really care what the result would be one way or the other, but he's looking for political points.

 

Would he take away someone's rights if he had to do so to form a government? Yep. Would he do so to stay in power and hold his party together? Yep. He's the classic political whore, no doubt about it.

 

Don't confuse not caring about protecting rights with actively wanting to take them away.

 

Also, not sure what you mean by 'carefully disguised' unless that was sarcasm? I have never been accused of being too subtle, by anyone.

[Guest TheShrink]

Hey,

 

Well I can only speak for myself as a 'conservative' Muslim but I'll try to remain as objective as possible.

 

Polygamy in Islam has/had its reasons behind it and its not simply another tactic used to be rid women of their rights, I just wanted to make this clear. We believe that God allowed for it to be used under certain strict conditions. In the past, in the event of a war many women were widowed and unable to provide for their children. This is one case were polygamy may be used to support the societal structure. A man who was already married, would be able to ask his wife if it was possible to marry a widow in order to provide for her. On that note also it must be noted that Muslims believe that Muhammed(pbuh) married five wives, most of whom were widows.

 

Anyways I really wanted to clear that up b/c I know in Western/European culture a lot of people perhaps might see Islam's position on polygamy as being another way it belittles women and this is clearly not so.

 

On a personal note, I think by allowing for polygamy to be legalized would pose a lot of issues; I personally don't have a position on this issue yet. On one hand we look at our society now and look at the amount of cheating what not that takes place in the relationships and wonder if this unfair to the women on the side who end up with nothing in the event that the man breaks up with them. These ‘other women’ cannot make any financial claims even if this man has been their sole provider for the past few years. On the flip side polygamy as all other things could be used for societal destruction by those who choose to use for such.

 

Meh...I need a sandwich.

[Guest canmic]

Here's another twist on the whole polygamy thing... (which is the title of this thread anyway)

 

Has anyone noticed that in the case of abortion, pro-choice is pretty much universally accepted as the 'right' thing, regardless of any religious aspects etc.. (yes I am pro-choice, just in case anyone reads something else into this)

 

But.. in the case of polygamy, why is there no right to choose?

 

Of course, one partner in a relationship shouldn't be able to unilaterally turn it into a polygamous relationship, but what about the situation where both partners want that sort of a relationship? Why shouldn't both wives be granted the same rights?

 

Technically, all it comes down to is discrimination against wife #2. After all, if the couple WANTS to live in a 3-person relationship they can do so, no one is going to show up at their bedroom and arrest someone for having too many people in the bed..

 

So basically, in that situation, "wife" #2 is being deprived of her rights and discriminated against. Why should their 'sexual orientation' of having 3 in the bed not be protected under the charter? After all the charter protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation, doesn't it?

 

Why can't they call their little family of 3 a marriage too?

 

hmm.. interesting question? Or is it?

[Guest UWOmalestudent]

Anyone who badmouths polygamy is violating the man's rights under The Charter of Rights and Freedoms set forth by Mr. Trudeau.

 

Therefore, a man has every right to see polygamy as an option, because no one else has the right to tell him what his religious beliefs should be.

[Guest canmic]

Hmm...

 

Interesting that you don't even realize that the charter put forward by "Mr Trudeau" was never ratified.

 

Mr Mulrooney's government was the one that produced the version of the charter that is now part of the constitution.

 

yawn...

[Guest UWOmalestudent]

^ I'm sorry. I'm not very familiar with the politics of @#%$ countries. You know, countries where public tax dollars are used to perform abortions, pay off Quebec, give free child care to illegitimate bastard children...

 

Despite who did it, the fact still remains. If I support polygamy, and you don't, you are violating my rights and can be sued.

[Guest fierysweet]

Just as a side note, I wanted to clarify that polygamy in Islam does not mean that all three people share the same bed! In fact, the two (or more) wives are supposed to each have their own home and can have absolutely nothing to do with each other if they so choose. They certainly don't sleep together and the man cannot sleep with both at the same time.

[Guest canmic]

True, sorry if what I said could be understood to imply that it did mean that, I know it doesn't.

 

I wasn't aware that they had two seperate houses though?

 

I thought it was more of a situation where the 'head wife' runs the household and the others are underneath her in the household chain of command thing..

 

And, for what's his name, if you don't give single moms child-care options so they can work and you don't let single women get abortions when they can't afford to raise the kid then you wind up with more people on welfare, is that REALLY what you want?

[Guest ploughboy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

 

 

fiery,

 

So what you're saying is that an Islamic man with two wives has to support two households, deal with two mothers-in-law, and gets none of the...ahem...benefits of having two wives? ;-)

 

(I'm violating my own rule about posting after going to the pub - sorry if anybody is offended. It's meant in fun, but with the weekend we've had around here I probably shouldn't be writing this at all...)

 

On a more serious note, regarding the discussion of the charter above: the occassional story pops up in the Globe and other papers about a community in BC (Bountiful?) where polygamy is practiced by a splinter sect of the LDS. From what I've read in the paper, the BC gv't is reluctant to take any action against this group for fear that it will lead to a Charter challenge which the gv't might lose. Interesting times...

 

pb

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)

 

iD8DBQFCm/rH/HNgbK3bC2wRAoKDAKCdTOz9vu7K1pqayJGGpGA+jQVtSgCgmOSA

4ldz/mP08HlgwwQLlq/RSh0=

=rvhc

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Guest fierysweet]

"fiery,

 

So what you're saying is that an Islamic man with two wives has to support two households, deal with two mothers-in-law, and gets none of the...ahem...benefits of having two wives? ;-)"

 

That's exactly what I'm saying ploughboy

The only "benefit" is that the man has a choice of having sex with one or the other, rather than just one person for the rest of his life. But no threesomes. So you'd have to wonder if this "benefit" outweighs all the responsibility of having a whole other household to support.

 

And yes, having a second wife means having to follow all the Islamic responsibilities and obligations for both wives, including, financial support for both her and her kids. This goes back to why such an arrangement was permitted in the first place. It was to provide for widows and fatherless children in a time when this was a detrimental situation to be in. Widows were "used goods" and status-less, with no head of household in a very tribal, patriarchal society. A man could therefore add such a women to his own household in a socially accepted manner (ie. marriage). However, the man would have to treat these wives equally and provide for them and support them equally.