• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Two men with 29 wives, 160 children convicted of polygamy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cap
  • Start date Start date
This is the latest development in the big story about how Canada is handling Bountiful, the Mormon fundamentalist settlement in southeast British Columbia led by Winston Blackmore and James Oler (the defendants in this case), and also tied to Warren Jeffs and the shenanigans in Short Creek (pronounced "crick" by locals) on the Utah-Arizona line.
 
Last edited:
Which begs the question, has Canada gone after any of the polygamy practicing Muslims they've been diligently importing?

Although, the issue in the US with that group was very complicated; involving marrying minors, local political corruption, fraud, and whatnot. Is that true as well of this group in CA or are they being targeted simply over the polygamy thing?
 
rockfox said:
Which begs the question, has Canada gone after any of the polygamy practicing Muslims they've been diligently importing?
Click to expand...

Zactly!!! Selective application of laws.... Wouldn't want to profile or offend anyone.
 
Ancient Paths said:
Selective application of laws.... Wouldn't want to profile or offend anyone.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly goes on. But it could also be the group is making themselves a pain and this is an easy way to put pressure back.

As a counter example, the Amish get away with a lot that their English neighbors don't and are seen as oddities, rather than foreigners (even though they are a foreign unassimilated culture). But they work hard to be the quiet of the land.

Now I realize the Muslims are anything but the quiet of the land, but there is a pro-Islam bias at work.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
And then Canada goes and does this...
https://christiannews.net/2018/06/1...-relationship-with-woman-as-parents-of-child/

Be nice if they could make up their minds.
Click to expand...

That could be a reflection of the fact that societal moores are changing and so there will be some chaos involved as the governments adapt.

Or it could be that the state is more than happy to have two men on the hook for child support. They're going to award custody to her anyway when it fails, so having two fathers doesn't really lend any complications, only benefits.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
And then Canada goes and does this...
https://christiannews.net/2018/06/1...-relationship-with-woman-as-parents-of-child/

Be nice if they could make up their minds.
Click to expand...

From the article: "Canada, while bigamy/polygamy—being married to more than one person—is illegal, polyamory is not as those in the relationship are unmarried."

So, what is their definition of marriage? If a certificate, then just don't get a certificate. If intercourse, then polyamory qualifies. Is this crazy, or what? Man's law is so convoluted....
 
If you ever wanted an example of the fact that we are in the world but not of it then Canadian law is a pretty good example. Religious persecution at it's finest, paraded as decent laws that are 'protecting' people. And everyone goes with it because of the 'greater good'.
YHWH's greater good looks a whole lot different than theirs I'll tell you that.
 
Ancient Paths said:
"Canada, while bigamy/polygamy—being married to more than one person—is illegal, polyamory is not as those in the relationship are unmarried."
Click to expand...

Outside of the issue of marriage licenses, it is hard to differentiate in between polyamory and polygamy; they often look alike in ways. But I don't doubt the left won't try; no one ever accused them of being logical.

It would behoove PM people in Canada to study this Fowler opinion to see how it might apply beneficially to them. It may be worthwhile to legally construe your relationship as polyamory. But I don't know that the law is that well developed yet.
 
rockfox said:
It may be worthwhile to legally construe your relationship as polyamory.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of construing. It's just a fact. Polyamory is a silly recently invented word (coined in 1992 on the internet), now meaning "The practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved." Polygamists do that. So the word applies.
Romans 12:18 said:
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Click to expand...
We're not in this world to argue about what people should call us, to risk the peace and security of our family for the sake of what word to call our relationships in a language that has been constantly evolving for hundreds of years and didn't even exist in scriptural times.

Just call yourself a polyamorist if the law comes knocking, and focus on with what is more important in life.
 
One useful bit re 'polyamory' that's worth reflecting on is that it puts the emphasis on the fact that the man loves more than one woman instead of reinforcing our culture's preoccupation with the idea that the man is having sex with more than one woman, or worse, thanks to certain negative stereotypes, the fear/anger/concern that the man is exploiting and oppressing more than one woman.
 
The law is a funny thing, I wouldn't be quick to make assumptions about what may or may not apply to a relationship.
 
I have no idea how that connects to anything FollowingHim or I said....
 
I'll attempt to clarify...

FollowingHim said:
So the word applies...Just call yourself a polyamorist if the law comes knocking, and focus on with what is more important in life.
Click to expand...

This can work now, while the law is still in flux. But as statutes are written and case law solidified it may not be that simple. If you say the wrong thing or hold yourself out in the wrong way, you may risk adverse consequences if you claim to be a polyamorist. So know the law, read the opinions, talk to a lawyer.
 
Ah, got it, thanks.
 
andrew said:
One useful bit re 'polyamory' that's worth reflecting on is that it puts the emphasis on the fact that the man loves more than one woman instead of reinforcing our culture's preoccupation with the idea that the man is having sex with more than one woman, or worse, thanks to certain negative stereotypes, the fear/anger/concern that the man is exploiting and oppressing more than one woman.
Click to expand...
The name might include "amory", but the definitions are all about sex. The word as used IS focussed on "our culture's preoccupation with the idea that the man is having sex with one woman". It's all about sex. If you just love multiple women, without having sex with them, nobody would ever call you a polyamorist. The word only exists because our culture is so preoccupied with sex it wanted yet another word to describe it.

But I agree it doesn't have the negative stereotypes of exploitation and oppression that our culture has now associated with "polygamy". This makes it potentially useful.
 
rockfox said:
If you say the wrong thing or hold yourself out in the wrong way, you may risk adverse consequences if you claim to be a polyamorist.
Click to expand...
I think it's important not to "hold yourself out" as anything, or "claim" anything, if you can possibly avoid it. I wouldn't advise getting politically active and trying to be a voice for polygamists for instance. Just live a quiet life, doing your thing, without claiming any particular legal status.

But if you do end up in court for some reason, grab whatever definition of your lifestyle is most acceptable in the culture you live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top