• 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.

CANADIAN POLITICS and PLURAL MARRIAGE

Edward the Elder

Member
Male
Since Canadian politics affect plural marriage differently and since there are a few Canadian members in this group I thought it might be good to start an open thread that addresses the subject of plural marriage in Canada. Everyone has something they can share and I'm curious to learn more about plural marriage and its various ramifications in Canada as well as share what little I know. As plural marriage knows no borders everyone's input is welcome.
 
Okay... I'll start first. I was in a secular forum today where the matter of Winston Blackmore's group was being discussed. Interestingly Winston and the wives and children were being defended there rather than condemned. This was not a biblical forum by any means but the discussion that this subject entailed made for a rather interesting read. Below is a copy of my contribution to this secular group:

I could care less if the government allowed women to have 100 husbands apiece. It isn't the government's job to determine what marriage is and government should stay out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is the business of the church (whatever flavour you like) and NOT the STATE. Today the governments of North America already allow men to behave like indiscriminate dogs and women to be complete whores without any legal penalty. In CANADA and the U.S.A. there is no penalty - ZERO - for adultery so why should there be any penalties for BIGAMY? It strikes me as being rather hypocritical. I am certainly not opposed to any man having as many wives as he wishes just as long as he understands he's stuck with them for the rest of his days thereafter. KEY WORD: VOLITION.

If a woman desires to be the wife of a man who is already married and all of the parties involved agree and give their consent then who are we to tell them they can't? Even if a man desires to share his wife or wives with other men what is the government's role to tell them they can't? The Inuit did this all the time and they considered it a high honour for a man to have another man's wife. It was considered the greatest gift that a man could bestow on a friend. Technically, wife-swapping goes on all the time and there is no penalty for it because there is no penalty against adultery. Am I opposed to this? YES. I don't believe that this practice is the same as two or more women freely giving themselves to one man by mutal agreement and personal consent in a permanent, life-time, commitment. So morally, I disagree with wife-swapping; but morally I cannot force anyone to succumb to my personal, moral, or ethical persuasions anyway. People will still do whatever they like. The governments of our nations discovered this concerning same sex marriages. It is not their place to IMPOSE on society what the MAJORITY regards to be marriage. Howbeit the said MAJORITY had also better be in a position to practice what it preaches and freely illustrate what it claims it stands for, or it will will fall flat on its face. I submit that the majority of the people in the British Commonwealth and Western Society are simply not being honest about marriage. I submit that it is the MINORITIES of these Societies that actually represent MONOGAMY in its truest form and that the MAJORITY represents the hypocrisy of our Nations, having freely practiced BIGAMY and FORNICATION without knowledge of even so doing.

This attack on BIGAMY is such a farce! In the real world "out there" BIGAMY is actually the norm. In truth, monogamy represents a minority which is predominantly limited to the British Commonwealth, Europe, and the Western world; but the rest of the world freely accepts BIGAMY as a norm and BIGAMY is commonplace in these nations. Even the parents of Wally Oppal come from a country where BIGAMY was freely practiced. AGAIN. I don't believe that the morality of any nation is dependant on the ruling of that nation inasmuch as it is hinged upon each and every individual of that nation and must be honored by true, democratic representation in order to be free. Consider the alternative to DEMOCRACY. Someone here has mentioned that they are displeased with immigrants coming into their country and compromising their nation. Well, Wally Oppal himself is a first generation citizen of Canada. He is what reporters call "Indo-Canadian". I too, am a first generation Canadian and I fully support BIGAMY from an ethical and moral standpoint. At least in the BIGAMIST model there is no question concerning PATERNITY of the children; but I make no law stating that everyone has to be a BIGAMIST. Are gays and lesbians insisting that all citizens should be gay or lesbian or even bi-sexual for that matter? I sure hope not. Interestingly however, the lobby groups most opposed to bigamy are not heterosexuals. I saw a survey on this in one of the pro-polygamy groups rapidly expanding throughout the world of internet and lo and behold the people most opposed to bigamy were lesbians! The next in line were gay males. The hypocrisy of humanity never ceases to amaze me.

When one delves into the demographics involved I think it becomes evident that the true definition of actual monogamy is rarely EVER practiced. For as many individuals as may live MONOGAMOUSLY there are very few who are truly monogamous. I mean to say that the true definition of monogamy means two people who have NEVER known another partner sexually and conjugate to become one flesh until one of them literally dies. How many people do this today? How many marry one another as virgins until death do them part and actually practice this lifestyle to the letter? One does not need to have any gift of overwhelming brilliance to concede that in reality monogamy is NOT represented by the MAJORITY but rather by the MINORITY. So then. The practice of ENFORCED MONOGAMY is little more than TYRANY. It is FASCISM. It is TOTALITARIAN and ELITIST in nature. Many years ago I read that actual MONOGAMY was practiced to the letter by approximately only 2% of the North American adult population. Can you imagine??? Yet this law is foisted upon us as though it were endorsed by the majority when secretly, the majority of sexually active North American adults are not even living with the first person they engaged in coitus with! I'll say it again: The hypocrisy of humanity never ceases to amaze me. The Minorities are the ones who have their rights and freedoms protected while the Majority appears to care less that they are losing rights and freedoms consistently. In fact, the Majority lives in denial of what they really are and give their support to an ideal that they are evidently in no position to honour, much less maintain.

Indeed. Wally Oppal is a bigot. I rather doubt that he is in any position to practice what he preaches either. Neither are most pastors, clergymen, and the other moral figureheads in society today. I am a BIGAMIST. I practice what I preach. Even if my wives did not practice what I practice I would still be a BIGAMIST. That is what I am by nature and I will make no apology for it. At least I'm honest. I was born in this Country that we call in our own anthem, "The true north STRONG and FREE" and I mean to keep it that way. My prayers are with Winston Blackmore, not because I am in support of his religious doctrines but because he has a right to practice his culture as he sees fit among his people. It's not as though he's going to the streets of Vancouver and enlisting unsuspecting prepubescents to join his group. In fact, Blackmore's people don't even bother with society at large. They are a closed community like the Hutterites and the Mennonites and the Amish. Why is our government persecuting these people who mind their own business? I would understand it if Blackmore held them as prisoners of Bountiful against their will — but evidently he does not. If they want to leave, they leave. Now that is fair. I might even think that Mr. Oppal was serious about "cleaning up" the province of B.C. if he were prepared to shut down all the NIGHTCLUBS, ESCORT AGENCIES, and CASINOS that bring in so much revenue; but it is evident that this will not be the case. No, Wally wouldn't dare step on the toes of his "immoral" associates so he goes after a people who represent a threat to the livlihood of these agencies instead. Winston isn't pimping any escort agencies. Winston isn't running any casinos. Winston Blackmore isn't into night clubs and pornography. . . And Winston isn't giving his province any FILTHY LUCRE.

SO LET'S GET WINSTON and expose him for the "evil wretch" he is! British Columbia doesn't need his kind. How dare he live like those BIBLICAL PATRIARCHS of old in this AGE OF FREEDOM where everything has a dollar value and let him arrogantly refuse to give the POLITICIANS what they deem a worthy cut of the action! It would seem to me that Winston's cardinal sin is that he stubbornly refused to make merchandise of his people and secular government doesn't take kindly to that sort of thing. He refused to let the grid control his wives and his children by resorting to PRIVATE EDUCATION and establishing a PRIVATE COMMUNITY that did not support GOVERNMENT DAY CARES, ABORTION on demand, LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION, PHARMECEUTICAL DRUG DEALING, and GAMBLING etc. You know, I suspect that if Winston were in league with that coalition of fine, outstanding lawyers that Mr. Oppal so freely embraces with Canadian tax dollars, I hightly doubt that this scenario that we are presently witnessing would even make it to the media. I cannot help but to wonder how many bribes Mr. Warren Jeffs had to pay people to be left alone before he fell into corruption along with the so-called "best" of them. One might only speculate. While we are on the subject of corruption: The only reason Wally is going after Blackmore is simply because HE CAN. The neo-feminist misandrists are behind him, the Escort Agencies are behind him, the GAMBLING CASINOS are behind him; on and on the list goes. In truth, Winston is too clean for B.C. and that won't do. If one were to put up the DEMOGRAPHICS of the general public alongside Winston Blackmore's MODEL COMMUNITY one might think twice before one would be so inclined to declare which particular society is more moral and decent. Imagine if you will, the statistics for ALCOHOLISM, PROSTITUTION, THEFT, ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (that means mamma doesn't know who daddy is), DRUG ADDICTION, SINGLE MOTHERS, VIOLENCE, MURDER, yes, and even RAPE, I have absolutely no doubt that Winston's community would put the general public to an OPEN SHAME.

May GOD bless the reader
 
Well, this is up my alley being from the prarie myself.

Well said Ed, I dont have much to add. I don't jive wiht the Blackmore theology, but I support the guy. He is nice too, I mailed him a leter of encouradgment and he actually personally got back to me. jrb@kootenay.com if anyone is intersted.

God bless you Edward the Elder,
Jair
 
Hey, that is wonderful. Yes, I quite agree that Winston has a ways to go concerning theology and doctrine; but I also believe that GOD is merciful and that for the sakes of the women and children that the LORD is making a way for them. I saw a picture of Winston "yucking it up" with about a dozen of his daughters on a news website. They all looked so very happy. Surely he has the heart of a loving father and I readily commend him for taking a stand against the likes of Warren Jeffs and corruption in high places. For the record, I would just like to state that I am not FLDS or MORMON. I am FULL BIBLE TRUTH. If it's in the Holy Bible I receive it in faith. I am so past denominationalism that I rather doubt that I could ever return to it. I love the LORD. Nonetheless I feel that GOD is using Mr. Blackmore to do His work all the same. We live in interesting times and Canada is now being forced to face up to some long neglected issues touching marriage. Who knows... Perhaps Canada will be the first Nation to actually acknowledge in our law that GOD called marriage ONE FLESH. Okay, maybe that's "pusing the envelope" a little. lol :lol:

One can always hope for a better day and I look toward a day when the BRANCH of the LORD is truly beautiful. GOD bless you.

Edward
 
Great stuff here! Canada has a chance to lead the way. The reason Plural gets little freedom is that plural removes much of the motive and sin structure when PM is left alone to flourish. It rots the sin foundation of porn, sex crimes, abandoned women and fatherless and so on. It just does not fit into Satan's game unless some ungodly men include underage, force, lack of freedom, and financial fraud and these negatives should and could be handled by the government without persecuting Plural.

I remember running a marathon one year. Hundreds of us ran by a gay house where the gays all dressed in pink and dainties to cheer all of us runners as we went by. Someone told me that there were quite a few gays that lived there permanantly. True, I did not stop for tea and cookies, but I did wave (and they waved back). They may need more of God, but they certainly did not need more of freedom. Point being others need more freedom also.

It is also ok for a group of males and females to live permanently in a commune with shared sex. I suppose if there were 4 women and 4 men that would be ok, if one man left then 4 women and three men would remain, still ok. One more man departs, leving 4 women and two men, still ok. Another man leaves and now there are 4 women and just one man..........Jail the sucker! .......and query the women why they didn't know only the pervert would stay with them. The whole thing is ridiculous, I agree
 
welltan said:
Great stuff here! Canada has a chance to lead the way. I also agree that the government has no say in marriage structure.

The reason PM gets little freedom is that plural marriage removes much of the motive and sin structure when PM is left alone to flourish. It rots the sin foundation of porn, sex crimes, abandoned women and children and so on. It just does not fit into Satan's game unless some ungodly men include underage, force, lack of freedom, and financial fraud and these negatives should and could be handled by the government without persecuting PM.

I remember running the Cleveland Revco marathon one year. Hundreds of us ran by a gay house where the gays all dressed in pink and dainties to cheer all of us runners as we went by. Someone told me that there were quite a few gays that lived there permanantly. True, I did not stop for tea and cookies, but I did wave (and they waved back). They may need more of God, but they certainly did not need more of freedom.

It is also ok for a group of males and females to live permanently in a commune with shared non-gay sex. I suppose if there were 4 women and 4 men that would be ok, if one man left then 4 women and three men would remain, still ok. One more man departs, leving 4 women and two men, still ok. Another man leaves and now there are 4 women and just one man..........Jail the sucker! .......and query the women why they didn't know only the pervert would stay with them. The whole thing is ridiculous, I agree

Welltan.

This might be one of the reasons why Canadian Federal Law no longer recognizes "Common-law Marriage" per se as lawful marriage anymore. This law was just changed in 2007. It is no longer called "Common-law Marriage" but "Common-law Relationship". Methinks they have out-smarted themselves with these semantics yet again, but we Canadians can thank the advocates of same sex marriage in Canada for these recent changes in Canadian law. Interestingly enough, the present Provincial laws of Canada still need to catch up to the new Federal laws. The term "Common-law Marriage" is still being used in some Provinces. How the worm turns! Of course, the Canadian Federal laws have not yet abolished the FEDERAL CANADIAN EQUIVALENCY TO MARRIAGE legislation for child benefits and taxation. To do so would incite an outrage among single parents (most of them mothers). So now my "relationship" with my new wife is no longer considered a lawful, "Common-law Marriage" per se, but a "Common-law Relationship" eventhough at the Provincial level she is my "Common-law Spouse" (their words, not mine). Things would go so much more smoothly for them if they only defined marriage according to the Word of GOD. So how is it possible that I can now have a "Common-law Spouse" by their legal definition, or even a "Common-law Partner" by their legal definition and yet no longer be in a lawful marriage to my "Common-law Spouse" or my "Common-law Partner"??? As it currently stands Canadians are now forced to endure this sort of legal DOUBLE-TALK and to jump through various loops, hoops, and hurdles to line the pockets of lawyers and magistrates. The entire matter is an utter mockery and a complete disgrace. It is the price of magistrates playing GOD. As I stated earlier, these shysters will call it anything before they will call it what the LORD GOD called it. These are the sorts of people Mr.Wally Oppal of British Columbia fraternizes with.


Jair

Because of copywrite laws I cannot reprint the text here but you may want to look into this:

Requisite Age:

The federal age requirements for a valid marriage are 12 for females and 14 for males. The Provincial age restrictions on marriage usually exceed the federal age requirements.

http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/mar ... _in_canada
 
Re: Accused polygamist to use gay-marriage laws as defence

docburkhart said:
Alright all you Canucks....check this out!

http://www.canada.com/Entertainment/sto ... id=1202730

Blessings,
Hey, thanks for that link, Doc. Guard yourself to articles written by Daphne Bramham of the Vancouver Sun. I don't consider her an objective reporter. Daphne, in my opinion, is a Neo-Feminist Misandrist. She had a great deal to do with Winston Blackmore's persecution — I mean, "prosecution" and is definately chummy with Wally Oppal. In my view it's a one hand washes the other situation with Daphne Bramham and because she's a reporter she evidently likes to influence public opionion with her bought and paid for media muscle — especially, it seems, when there are big cash awards for her books condemning plural marriage waiting to be collected. That said, the link is very informative. Thankyou for the head's up.

GOD BLESS!

Edward
 
Back
Top