15 September, 2016

Canadian polyamorists face unique legal challenges, research reveals - Politics - CBC News

When they legalized gay marriages, we Christians said that next would come polygamy. Its proponents accused us of promulgating a false 'slippery slope' argument that would never come to pass. 


Calling it by a different name (polyamory instead of polygamy) is just a smoke screen to confuse the issue. To quote William Shakespeare, 'A rose by any other name....'

I hate it when we Christians are proven correct. 



Canadian polyamorists face unique legal challenges, research reveals - Politics - CBC News

5 comments:

  1. But these people are not married. They are living together. as to parental rights, that often extends to multiple people now with grand parents and divorced. Ss to polygamy that's almost alway religious, often Christian. This isn't a slipery slope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael: Did you listen to the piece on CBC Radio One this morning about this issue? The advocate being interviewed spoke about the 'discrimination' against 'polyamourous families' because all the adult partners are not granted the same rights and privileges as traditional married couples. So I ask you: If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, isn't it in fact a duck? If the argument is that the State should recognize polyamourous units the same way and with the same benefits as a traditional marriage (two spouses), how is it not in fact polygamy?

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    2. It is polygamy but I don't see it becoming viewed as equivalent to marriage. Polyamourous is just having many partners, polygamy is having one male and multiple married spouses. The first is just the equivalent of "swingers', the later is almost exclusively a religious mandate.

      Beside no matter what society does the penalty for multiple spouses will rename, namely multiple mother-in-laws. :-)

      Delete
    3. Michael: I have no experience with mother-in-laws for obvious reasons so I bow to your experience on that one. But I think you're playing word games since the drive that's starting up is to give multiple spouses the same rights that the state grants to a two-spouse family - at least according to that CBC radio piece. We social conservatives said that once we opened the definition of marriage that eventually this would happen with one of two possible outcomes. First, that the state would lose out on a great deal of revenue as benefits (tax and direct payment) would be given or more and more individuals... or facing such a situation, the state would withdraw all such benefits to everyone since the rationale for their establishment in the first place was to support and promote families. Given the plummeting birthrate in the country together with more and more people demanding the tax benefits of being considered a 'spouse', I suspect we will see the latter come to fruition sooner rather than later.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    4. I actually got along very well with my mother-in-law. Like the old saying goes behind every successful man is a supportive wife and a very surprised mother-in-law.

      I really don't think these rights will go further than being able to pick up kids from school (our neighbours had that right for us) or perhaps hospital visits (I had the right in college when my dorm roommate ended up in hospital and his family was far away). No secular society has extended those rights to multiple concurrent spouses and I really can't see it happening.

      Delete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics