Canada ponders polygamy

Quelle surprise to see the minority trying to make the majority guilty for rejecting abnormal behaviour in society!! Homosexual behaviour is not a fact in the animal kingdom.  Have you seen it?  Are you able to distinguish between “calling” behaviour, that is, readiness for mating as heifers do (if you lived on a farm as I have)and deliberate homosexuality activity?  My experience with nature draws a blank. Do not buy that nonsense until you have actually witnessed it yourself. Also, When wild animals are caged, confined to crowded areas, etc., any type of behaviour is possible. Because a male dog jumps on another male is it practicing homosexuality? There are many other actions in the animal kingdom that we can, and must, never imitate; just check it out!

And of course, most importantly, we are not animals! We are made in God’s image. The fact is, the well-being of society is seen time and time again to be dependent upon the male/female relationship. And, biologically, we are made with an anatomical part whose sole purpose is the elimination of waste and excess matter; the male sexual organ is made specifically for the female sexual organ, don’t you realize that yet? Quelle surpirse! And of course we are accountable for all our actions before our Creator.

Brendan of Wollongong says “The debate is hijacked by God-wielding heterosupremacists seeking to impose their view on the world around them by perpetuating the usual uninformed claims about what is natural and what is an abberation.Apparently homosexuality falls into the latter of those two, despite the observed behaviour of bonobo apes, birds, lizards, sheep, spotted hyena, bottlenose dolphins, fruit flies AND humans to the contrary.”

Bravo Brendan ... how about those ignorant God-wielding heterosupremacists bigots ... even a basic knowledge of science tells you that the sexual instinct is something we share with with the rest of the animal kingdom. 

The sexual instinct (and, thereby, the homosexual behaviour) of bonobo apes, birds, lizards, sheep, spotted hyena, bottlenose dolphins and fruit flies is as natural as the instinct to eat or sleep.

But I must chide you Brendan for being inconsistent - why do you consider legalised polygamy a “bogeyman”?  Polygamy occurs throughout the animal kingdom.  Indeed I am sure that polygamy is as natural to the fruit fly as it is to humans.

And, while the iron is hot, can I strike a blow for the following animal behaviours which are normal and natural and no longer deserve societal distain:

- intra-specie canabilism (those mountain tribes in PNG were light years ahead western civilisation)
- submission of females (by force) to a dominant male (people may call this ‘rape’ but please don’t be put off by that… just a ‘word’ invented by those higher-intellect homo sapiens)
- paedophilia (you know, age of consent is such a heterosupremacist social construct)

Anyway, despite this oversight on your part, I congratulate you Brendan for highlighting the “naturalness” of animal behaviour.  It will be of particular benefit for all those ignorant bigots who think that homosexuality is not something that society should encourage.

By Jove, if it is good enough for the spotted hyena, then it is good enough for me!

There is an implicit presumption in the comments of some hetero-marriage supporters that marriage is a strict license to have children. It is not. It never has been.

Marriage is an institution under the law that recognises committed partnerships (in the considered interests of couples, families and society at large). This often includes, but does not require, the having of children by traditional or assisted means. Whereas the vast majority of the natural world rears offspring, across an amazingly diverse array of relational forms, quite successfully in the absence of formal marriage.

This strident emotive debate lacks a healthy sense of perspective. As the global human population soars and resources become scarcer, what will be said about marriage and children? Will we continue to be waylaid by misleading abstract paternalistic arguments about which couples are “more worthy” of legal recognition and “naturally better” as parents? The aforementioned challenges will be a far greater threat to the stability and dignity of human society than same-sex marriage and same-sex parents could ever be.

I think we have to acknowledge that the “natural procreative relationship” is no guarantee of establishing “the same reciprocal rights and duties” between married partners. There is tragically not enough room in refuges for the people fleeing violence in these relationships.

COnsequently I cannot see how anyone with the realisation of the real situation of domestic violence and harm to children can even find on their radar of concern the positive same-sex relationships I know.

I also don’t think we have time to bother a polygamous arrangement between consenting adults where violence including verbal and economic abuse is not present.

I think that the needs of children could be agreed to be the highest priority by many people in opposite gender marriages as well as many in opposite gender defacto-relationships, same-sex relationships and even maybe some polygamous arrangements. Fracturing that alliance is only in the interest of those who place the joy of children below the desire to privelage their form of family.

As much as we need to support the freedom of religion, we have to be aware of the growing prejudice against supernatural religious beliefs - especially among the oh-so-tolerant believers in the religion of secular liberalism - and thus use religious arguments only when there are no other arguments available. In case of same-sex marriage, common sense based on physical reality is sufficient to show the absurd character of this legal fiction. The same applies to the logical rigmarole concerning polygamy vs. same-sex marriage. This is why Prof. Margaret Somerville’s voice is so important.

Quelle surprise!

Margaret Somerville deploys the bogeyman of legalised polygamy as rear-guard attack on the nuptial rights of same-sex couples, and what happens? The debate is hijacked by God-wielding heterosupremacists seeking to impose their view on the world around them by perpetuating the usual uninformed claims about what is natural and what is an abberation. Apparently homosexuality falls into the latter of those two, despite the observed behaviour of bonobo apes, birds, lizards, sheep, spotted hyena, bottlenose dolphins, fruit flies AND humans to the contrary.

What’s next? Blaming parthenogenesis and hermaphroditism on “The Devil”?

Imagine if my benefits package from my employer, had to be applied to a legal, polygamous relationship that involved partners of both sexes and all of our children from the females involved.  For this very reason, I think the courts would be wary of a finding for polygamy.

Mrs. Andrews seems to display ignorance of the way Canadian parliament and courts function. She would do well to revisit the Liberal Party’s investigation on polygamy as they approached legalizing homosexual marriages. They actually came up with the conclusion that prohibiting poligamy was discrimination against women.  They were in favour of legalizing it. And they would have done it given the chance. Ask Mrs. Andrews why the BC courts did not convict the poligamists? When it comes to UN resolutions Canada is no saint! Canada fought for GM crop in spite of the refusal of the majority; Canada refused the Doha Agreement on the rights of children because they wanted homosexuality in, although most reliable studies have shown the advantage of male/female relationships for children; and also shown the derogatory effects of same-sex relationships on children.

And by the way, the Canadian Charter in no way permits homosexuality; this interpretation is an activist judge’s rendering of the charter. Go read it again and see that the reference to sexual discrimination is not concerning same-sex relationships in terms of marriage, but discriminating against individuals due to their sex. And, activist judges’ rulings do not make error right.  That is why the Brits, knowing this, wish to remove ‘right and wrong’ from schools teaching values. Instead of teaching right and wrong they must teach endearing values, human values, not God’s revealed ones. Deja vu! see Genesis 6.

Finally, while polygamy is not beneficial to society, it is much to be preferred than abnormality, as in homosexuality. Therefore, then, if we legalize homosexuality, there is even more reason to justifiably legalize poligamy. And while the churches can never accept homosexuality (although the renegade ones have), later on down the road they can tolerate polygamy, as was done in Bible times. And in the end we will all stand before the Soverign God to give an account of our actions.  Be warned!

I totally agree with Margaret. Somerville.  If same-sex marriage can be legalized so can polygamy.  Polygamy stands a better chance (although it is not ideal nor preferred) of benefiting society than homosexuality.  We know that homosexuality is destructive to individuals; we know that homosexuality as a disorder was removed from the psychology and psychiatry handbooks not because it was not a disorder, but because homosexual activists wanted it and the governments wanted their small votes.  We are aware of the sloppy, erroneous, misleading, research in favour of homosexuality; this has been exposed time and time again.  Court cases have demonstrated the fallacy of arguments favourable to homosexuality; yet governments in Europe and Canada have acted arbitrarily, against the majority of the population, and passed laws in favour of same-sex marriage.  And the major reason is not because of any benefit to society; in fact they have been shown clearly the detriment it would have on society.  The real reason is that activists politicians and other significant members of society, clearly the minority, wanted it.  And through connivance and intrigue they got it.

The Global Mail’s appeal to the Charter of Rights in defense of same-sex marriage is absolutely nonsensical!  This very Charter begins by stating clearly that Canadians recognise the Soverignty of God and rule of law.  And this Soverign God prohibits the practice of homosexuality; it is called an abomination.  And the rule of law cannot, and must not diminish or nullify the Soverignty of God.  So to appeal to the Charter in defense of homosexuality is only humbug and obfuscation of the facts, and a desire to mislead unsuspecting people.  Homosexual unions are in no way, not even by an inch, or better, a centimeter, equal to monogamous marriages.  Marriage is male and female, not same sex.  Even nature demonstrates this, for those who like to appeal, wrongfully, to nature for our origins.

RE: Dr. Andrews states:
“Canada has agreed polygamy harms women in that wives (in reality, concubines) are not entitled to share in their “husband’s” estate, nor receive medical, dental or pension benefits. Finally, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which in sections 15 and 28 state women have equality with men. Polygamy will never be legal here.”

The harm reported by Dr.Andrews is due to the failure of the government to legalize and recognize polygamous relationships. It seems that the fault lies with the government. After all, wasn’t the question of benefits a major impetus to recognize same sex unions. Why not benefits for these relationships?

Once polygamy returns, Canada will not be very far away from relaxing the laws of consent on sexual activity thus permitting every sexual perverts’ dream of legalised paedophilia. You think this is a sick joke? On the contrary, with St Death being widely spread as an increasingly popular but sinister devotion in Mexico, substance abuse increasing exponentially in the West and beyond and the increasing momentum of interest toward anal sex & transexualism, society is never very far away from other signs of paganism such as cannabalism. There are already reports of this being practised in Asia.

As GK Chesterton wrote, when people no longer believe in God they do not believe in nothing - they will believe in anything.

Once polygamy returns, Canada will not be very far away from relaxing the laws of consent on sexual activity thus permitting every sexual perverts’ dream of legalised paedophilia. You think this is a sick joke? On the contrary, with St Death being widely spread as an increasingly popular but sinister devotion in Mexico, substance abuse increasing exponentially and the increasing momentum of interest toward anal sex & transexualism, society is never very far away from other signs of paganism such as cannabalism. There are already reports of this being practised in Asia.

As GK Chesterton wrote, when people no longer believe in God they no longer believe in nothing - they will believe in anything.

Thank you again, Professor Somerville, for your precise and dignified response to Dr. Andrews. It not only revives the almost-forgotten tradition of civilized dialogue among academic peers (which by now has been mostly substituted by loud political declarations and thinly veiled insults) but also points out to the fact that Canada, after the introduction of the Charter of Rights, ceased to be a parliamentary democracy to become a sort of judexocracy where unelected, activist judges simply dictate the law of the land according to their subjective interpretations of the Charter.

What an insightful piece! Besides, I think that marriage should be liberalised in all fronts. Whether the setting is two-same-sex,opposite-sexes or polygamous.Albeit, the condition must be that those involved in any of the unions must acclaim it,restrictions must be imposed to shield negative impacts that are likely on the children.

Professor Andrews might hope she is correct that the position on polygamy, in the international instruments she identifies, will prevail in Canada, but she is wrong to state that they will necessarily do so. She doesn’t seem to understand how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms operates or the status of international law when it is relevant to domestic law in a case before the Canadian courts.

The Charter gives the courts the power to declare a validly passed law unconstitutional and, therefore, inoperative. For example, Canadian domestic law (and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Canada has ratified) restricted marriage to men and women. The Canadian courts held that restriction to constitute discrimination under the Charter and struck down the law. They could do the same to the prohibition of polygamy, if they accepted that its prohibition is an unconstitutional breach of freedom of religion or discrimination on the basis of religious belief. In deciding that, the courts will follow the Charter provisions, not those of international law as Professor Andrews seems to believe. They might take the fact that Canada is a party to the international conventions named into account - or they might not. The interaction of international and domestic law where both are relevant is a complex and unsettled area. I agree with Professor Andrews that polygamy is a bad idea, but that is not the legal basis on which the courts decide when faced with a Charter challenge, as they’ve explained often. The court’s role is to apply the law, and it’s not their role to make social policy - or so they say. I would respectfully suggest that Professor Andrews might consider taking her own advice to me that one does, indeed, have to be careful not to be “frighteningly ignorant” and “stop spreading inaccurate information”.