|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 5 users and 59 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 01/27/2006 - 3:49pm.
Red herring?
» A new study commissioned by the federal government recommends that Canada legalize polygamy and change legislation to help women and children living in plural relationships. I'm posting this article because, as some have suggested, I'm merely using various arguments as either a "red herring" or as intellectual exercises. Later in the article there is discussion that while the government may not recognize polygamy, it could become decriminalized. Again, I'm not using this as a basis for prohibiting same sex marriage in this country but I don't suggest the unreasonable or the impossible. It would appear raising the polygamy question in this country and how one might confront it is a lot more than the "semblence" of a coherent argument. Paul Martin's (now ousted) government felt compelled enough to commission a study on the legal ramifications of polygamy. To expand upon an earlier statement, maybe in thirty-years we'll wonder why the government prohibited consenting adults from engaging in any relationship. Then again, I'm just protecting the radicals.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
I'm game, polygamy as polygam
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 01/27/2006 - 6:43pm.I'm game, polygamy as polygamy can certainly be discussed. I'm keeping my focus on that and not extrapolating.
I've read some before on Bountiful and issues around the fundamentalist group. From what I've read, polygamy may not ultimately be the most troublesome issue, if it is at all. I'd want to know how old the wives are and how they and children are treated.
Abuse, possible crimes such as kidnapping, age of consent issues etc. are already covered by law. If a particular polygamous group happens to be a destructive group, I would guess that each illegality could be dealt with accordingly.
Polygamy itself? Consenting adults, no laws (other than polygamy if it is illegal) broken? I don't see a problem with that, at least at first thought.
Tons o' info on some polygamous groups
Sarah: Polygamy itself? Conse
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 1:27am.The Fire: This is all I was simply trying to get people to recognize. I got the sense a few feathers were ruffled when the subject was brought up (regarding other "alternative" relationships outside of homosexuality). It appeared that some wanted to avoid the topic, either because they genuinely feel it is irrelevent to the discussion of same-sex marriage or out of fear it may give ammunition to Pat Robertson.
EDIT: I also posted this because I got the feeling some thought I was grasping for straws in a discussion.
We can dub this for all OlyBl
Submitted by Sarah on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 7:25am.Which includes the fact that I think we are hearing each other here.
TFI- You and I are level gro
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 01/27/2006 - 11:38pm.You and I are level ground here.
There is nothing wrong with poligamy, polyamorous relationships are fundamental to humankind's survival.
I don't mean for my reasoning
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 01/28/2006 - 1:23am.As I've said before, I do have a value system. If you asked me for my opinion on a subject, you might be shocked at how I would respond. In fact, I might even get religious.
I simply try to base my view of government on how government should function.
Now, I'm not one to believe government has to be secular. In fact, I think (as I've mentioned before) it's good for government to acknowledge a Deity. In our case, this is widely accepted to be the Judeo-Christian God.
I certainly don't think acknowledging is approaching theocracy, though I can certainly see how one might argue such.