It was my understanding that the polygamy law had already been held constitutional as a result of previous legal maneuvering by the defence.Court decision expected to-day on the legality of polygyny.
It's hard for me to have any respect for a law that dictates how two (or more) consenting adults must live their lives. (ex: polygamy , prostitution.)It was my understanding that the polygamy law had already been held constitutional as a result of previous legal maneuvering by the defence.
it's quite a controversial subject. I find it interesting that the court looked, among other things, at the harms against men, which included: "the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution."It's hard for me to have any respect for a law that dictates how two (or more) consenting adults must live their lives. (ex: polygamy , prostitution.)
Actually both were found guilty.update: one found guilty, further challenge to constitionality is expected
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...c-men-accused-of-polygamy-expected-today.html
This is concerning. The state ("Big Brother") telling you have many willing wives you can have.Actually both were found guilty.
That IS an interesting point though. Pooling of wealth or any other resource to a few individuals is detrimental to overall society, so why wouldn't the pooling of partners be? At a time when Western society is already faced with an epidemic of singles, mass polygamy could exacerbate things."the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women;
Well, we keep voting in governments that are statist, so it is predictable that more and more control and regulation over our private lives will ensue as the government continues to get bigger and bigger. In fact, I am not so sure there will be any concept of privacy, in any meaningful way, in the not too distant future.This is concerning. The state ("Big Brother") telling you have many willing wives you can have.
I would like to debate this point. An intelligent and rich individual like Bill Gates should be allowed to have as many wives and children as he can afford. This will improve the gene pool and benefit society as a whole.Pooling of wealth or any other resource to a few individuals is detrimental to overall society, so why wouldn't the pooling of partners be?
The verdict simply says there is indeed a law against polygamy and that they broke that law; free-will or personal choice wasn't at issue in the matter. However it certainly was part of the controversy surrounding the case, with allegations that teenage girls were smuggled into Canada to be married to a senior citizen who is a leader in that Mormon sect. The allegations ranged from 'brainwashing' through 'cult-indoctrination' to 'human-trafficking' and 'sex-slavery'.The child bride phenomenon is sick, but nothing wrong with multiple wives ( or husbands) if that is their free will.
What is the origin of this law? Most of us can't even deal with one wife so it's an unusual man or woman who wants multiple wives.The verdict simply says there is indeed a law against polygamy
Bigamy and Polygamy have been illegal in the West since 285 AD. In England it became a criminal (as opposed to ecclesiastical) offense in 1604 [The Bigamy Act 1604 (1 Jac 1 c 11)].This is concerning. The state ("Big Brother") telling you have many willing wives you can have.
The ruling is not about who can live with or have sex with whom but rather how the legal contract of marriage applies.It's hard for me to have any respect for a law that dictates how two (or more) consenting adults must live their lives. (ex: polygamy , prostitution.)
A lot can be said and argued about this issue. In no particular order:That IS an interesting point though. Pooling of wealth or any other resource to a few individuals is detrimental to overall society, so why wouldn't the pooling of partners be? At a time when Western society is already faced with an epidemic of singles, mass polygamy could exacerbate things.
That said, simply disallowing marriage doesn't really solve that overall problem.