Canada considers polyamory

[nguirado]

spectator.org/archives/2010/09/02/the-more-the-merrier

For those not hip to the new lingo, that’s a multiple partner relationship where everybody “loves” everybody else.

While the United States is occupied with the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, Canada has its own pending marriage case, which is likely headed for the Canadian Supreme Court. Canada, which redefined marriage nationwide to include same-sex couples in 2005, against the backdrop of successful provincial lawsuits against the country’s marriage law, could be moving on to bigger things – literally. Specifically, polygamy and polyamory, as this case invokes the question of whether the government can continue to criminalize multiple-partner marriages. The case itself, initiated by the British Columbia Attorney General under a special provision of that Province’s law, arises in the wake of failed prosecutions of polygamous sect members in British Columbia.

Advocates of polygamy and polyamory seem to have an ally in the Law Commission of Canada, a statutory body of government appointees who propose changes to modernize Canadian law and report to the Justice Ministry. In 2001, the Commission issued a report, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships, that questioned the continuing illegality of consensual polygamy in Canada.

 

[manualman]

No surprise there. Catholics have long been saying that once the meaning of sex was redefined to rationalize contraception, homosexual marriage, polygamy and even incestuous marriages will not be very far behind.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What did they expect once you start the slippery slope.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So, what’s new? I thought that it used to be called a ménage à trois. Nguirado is right, it’s just the new lingo.

 

[revert_jen]

So, what’s new? I thought that it used to be called a ménage à trois. Nguirado is right, it’s just the new lingo.

As I understand it, not so.

Who could, in all conscience, deny equal recognition to those who share their love in even more non-traditional ways, and restrict a family to only three adults? Four, five, however many choose to love each other all equally, they should be recognized legally as being a family, just the same as bourgeous heterosexual couples.

As soon as you redefine “love” to mean “lust” all the rest follows, as the night the day.

–Jen

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, what’s new? I thought that it used to be called a ménage à trois. Nguirado is right, it’s just the new lingo.

How, then, would one proscribe a “menage a beaucoup”? Perhaps there’s no real intent to do that.

Interesting how the word “marriage” is fairly easily defined in the English language, and how virtually impossible it will be to define it once it departs from its historic meaning.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How, then, would one proscribe a “menage a beaucoup”? Perhaps there’s no real intent to do that.

How was a ménage à trois or even à quatre ever proscribed? It just went on “behind closed doors.” On a positive note, at least, one can have children if the “lovers” are heterosexual.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How was a ménage à trois or even à quatre ever proscribed? It just went on “behind closed doors.” On a positive note, at least, one can have children if the “lovers” are heterosexual.

Well, certainly, at one time “menages a trois” would have been proscribed under the adultery and/or fornication laws of the various states. Whether that kind of prohibition makes sense or not is another issue.

I think the question is whether the word “marriage” is to be redefined to include, e.g., “menages a trois” or “a beaucoup” “avec les animaux” or whatever, to suit the desires of particular groups in society who don’t like the traditional view of marriage and want it to include their proclivities within the definition; both as a legal matter and as a societal understanding.

To me, there are several aspects to the question: First, whether the traditional view serves legitimate societal purposes better than the notions of various groupings.(welfare of children, for example) Second, whether, by encouraging the governmental acceptance of various concatenations of (one assumes) sexual combinations, one has gotten the government into the business of encouraging what most in the society would consider immorality or harmful conduct. Third, whether societies are better off leaving language its meanings and adopting other terminology to describe certain behaviors, instead of changing meanings by fiat.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the question is whether the word “marriage” is to be redefined to include, e.g., “menages a trois” or “a beaucoup” “avec les animaux” or whatever, to suit the desires of particular groups in society who don’t like the traditional view of marriage and want it to include their proclivities within the definition; both as a legal matter and as a societal understanding.

I don’t think that last menage is contemplated. There has been plenty of polygamy in history and even some polyandry, but animal contacts have always been taboo even in primitive societies.

 

[DawnInTexas]

What did they expect once you start the slippery slope.

Precisely. Catholic Mystics have warned:

Click Here:Mark Mallett/O Canada…Where Are You?

…there is a new assault coming upon our schools, public and Catholic alike. Writes Fr. Alphonse de Valk:

**In December 2009, Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Kathleen Weil, released a policy that assigns the government the task of eliminating all forms of “homophobia” and “heterosexism” from society—including the belief that homosexual activity is immoral. So get ready**… —Catholic Insight, February 2010 Issue

Ready for a persecution against a sleeping Church, which has for the most part allowed immorality to sweep through society almost uncontested…

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Corki]

How, then, would one proscribe a “menage a beaucoup”? Perhaps there’s no real intent to do that.

Interesting how the word “marriage” is fairly easily defined in the English language, and how virtually impossible it will be to define it once it departs from its historic meaning.

“menage a beaucoup”

The divorce lawyers must be salivating over this idea. Imagine a break up with “beaucoup” people to sue for property and custody.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“menage a beaucoup”

The divorce lawyers must be salivating over this idea. Imagine a break up with “beaucoup” people to sue for property and custody.

There’s another term for such unions that begins with “cluster”, but I won’t say it. Possibly instead of redefining “marriage”, the Canadian Supremes could just call this arrangement what it is.

 

[estesbob]

spectator.org/archives/2010/09/02/the-more-the-merrier

For those not hip to the new lingo, that’s a multiple partner relationship where everybody “loves” everybody else.

Why not? There’s not a single argument in favor of homosexual marriages that does not apply equally to polygamy and palamory. How can you allow one and not the others?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Why not? There’s not a single argument in favor of homosexual marriages that does not apply equally to polygamy and palamory. How can you allow one and not the others?

Polygamy was tolerated by the Bible; that’s one reason it is different.

 

[revert_jen]

Why not? There’s not a single argument in favor of homosexual marriages that does not apply equally to polygamy and palamory. How can you allow one and not the others?

I think they’re going to find that they can’t.

–Jen

P.S. “Palamory” – having sex with everyone one regards as a pal. I love it!!

 

[saveusfromhell]

Precisely. Catholic Mystics have warned:

Click Here:Mark Mallett/O Canada…Where Are You?

…there is a new assault coming upon our schools, public and Catholic alike. Writes Fr. Alphonse de Valk:

**In December 2009, Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Kathleen Weil, released a policy that assigns the government the task of eliminating all forms of “homophobia” and “heterosexism” from society—including the belief that homosexual activity is immoral. So get ready**… —Catholic Insight, February 2010 Issue

Ready for a persecution against a sleeping Church, which has for the most part allowed immorality to sweep through society almost uncontested…

i read mark mallett link there i have to agree with it on so many levels.like that i want to shake people out of their slumber.why do so few see where we are. how much longer will GOD tolerate us mocking him. i recently heard a priest mention hell in his sermon. first time in many a year.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[Neil_Anthony]

How would the “spousal rights” that were so important to the gay-marriage movement apply in this case? Do they want employers to have to extend benefits to more than one spouse of their employees? Would everyone in these large family groups have the right to not have to testify in court against any their “spouses”? Hopefully it will turn out to be impractical to officially recognize these unions.

 

[bona_fides_1]

It will all snowball down the slope now. Once morality is out the window there will be any arbitrary grouping - contract relationship can’t rationally be limited to specific combinations or numbers of genders, species or age groups.

I am just wondering how long it will take to go full circle and for the animal rights groups to insist that any kind of marriage to a human being is too cruel a territorial restraint to inflict on animals. There could be some very peculiar political allies forming up soon.

It’s easy to see now why Jesus used the imagery of sheep and goats and the accounts of separating the good from the wicked at the 2nd comming. I have been told that goats are dishonorable where sheep are honorable. The male goat permits his female mate to freely have intercourse with any of other male goat. But male sheep drive away other males trying to have intercourse with its mate while the female sheep would try to resist the advances of other males. The culture is becoming more like the goats every day.

I think the very next progression is going to be to open up the mores on age and reduce the legal age of consent to 16 or even lower. This is all playing into the gay culture; and they may find some support for it from surprising sources. There are plenty of hetero men who want legal options for younger women. There is a very interesting social dynamic going on right now that is inverting all the traditional age mores (female older cougars hitting up the young men sexually and young women not finding any seriously interested young men open to a much older good provider male).

This topic is disturbing as is the notion of gay marriage. But there is something as bad or worse that will climax it. The single adult population of the USA is soaring at a time when marriage is declining rapidly. There is an attitude of “why bother to marry at all”? Rather than marrying secular men and women are often opting for a progression of mini-relationships of 3-5 years. As the relationship and the faces age and the drama increases both men and women are swapping out for younger and newer (esp the men). There are a huge number of single/divorced middle age and older women on the secular dating sites – marooned career women or victims of failed culture and marriages.

It’s easy to predict that we are headed toward contract relationships with time expirations. Men and woman in any combination of sexes and numbers will agree to be domestic partners and to share debts and benefits etc. When the expiration dates arrive it will be up for renegotiation and splitting of assets by covenantual agreements or renewing relationships. I think the days of “till death do us part” are going to be modified contractually to “till we both amicably agree to severe and expire or pending contract renewal”.

The lawyers are going to love all this…

BF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The single adult population of the USA is soaring at a time when marriage is declining rapidly. There is an attitude of “why bother to marry at all”? Rather than marrying secular men and women are often opting for a progression of mini-relationships of 3-5 years. As the relationship and the faces age and the drama increases both men and women are swapping out for younger and newer (esp the men). There are a huge number of single/divorced middle age and older women on the secular dating sites – marooned career women or victims of failed culture and marriages.

It’s easy to predict that we are headed toward contract relationships with time expirations. Men and woman in any combination of sexes and numbers will agree to be domestic partners and to share debts and benefits etc. When the expiration dates arrive it will be up for renegotiation and splitting of assets by covenantual agreements or renewing relationships. I think the days of “till death do us part” are going to be modified contractually to “till we both amicably agree to severe and expire or pending contract renewal”.

It was easy to say “until death do us part” over the last two millenia when the life expectancy was only into the 40s - at best - but, with today’s life expectancies, there’s opinion that holds that expecting all couples to remain married, not for 20 years, but for 60 or so, is totally unrealistic.

I don’t doubt that what you suggest will be the norm sometime in the future, and I don’t find it shocking.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It was easy to say “until death do us part” over the last two millenia when the life expectancy was only into the 40s - at best - but, with today’s life expectancies, there’s opinion that holds that expecting all couples to remain married, not for 20 years, but for 60 or so, is totally unrealistic.

I don’t doubt that what you suggest will be the norm sometime in the future, and I don’t find it shocking.

You don’t? So I should go out and find some younger “babe” because my wife’s getting on in years? And you don’t find that shocking? I certainly think it’s shocking that someone would not find it shocking.