I’ve posted here before on the potential outcomes of altering the traditional definition of marriage. Now Darcey has another post demonstrating that once you’ve opened up the subject, others are going to take the ball and run with it.
Last spring, Aly Hindy of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre in Ontario told the Toronto Star that he had personally blessed more than 30 polygamous marriages over five years and touted it all up to his religion:
“This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion,” he said. “If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that.”
After that article a few more came out across Canada talking about thousands of Muslims with multiple-wives which is now the now politically correct term for polygamy and I believe we are going to be hearing more of it now that British Columbia has charged two men from Bountiful with polygamy including their leader Winston Blackmore. This case has been coming for a long time and I believe it stems from public pressure but I don’t believe they are going to win. A few years ago Winston Blackmore stated if he was ever charged he was going to use the charter of rights and freedoms and most current speculators are assuming he is going to do just that:
Get ready Canada, legalized polygamy (or mulitple-wives, or polyamory, or whatever you wish to call it) is coming to the courthouse near you .. the city near you .. and likely the house near you. What’s more, the proponents of polygamy will have as strong a legal and moral argument for further redefining the definition of marriage as gay couples have recently presented to society and the courts.
It doesn’t matter if it offends my Judeo-Christian sensibilities, or someone else’s Muslim/Mormon/Catholic/Buddhist/atheist/agnostic beliefs, or your feminist contention that polygamy is a tool for the subjugation of womyn, or our traditional North American beliefs and heritage, or that the definition of marriage has been “one man and one woman” for most of human history. None of that matters anymore.
As I have said in other posts, if you are willing to defend the “right” of homosexual couples to marry, you cannot reasonably deny the same “right” to informed adults who wish to enter into other forms of “marriage.”
On the horizon – next comes inter-species marriage. Since animals are now being given the same legal rights as humans – one could not legally argue that would be inappropriate. so long as both parties were willing.
1) What business is it of anyone how many people decide to “marry”, as long as all parties have “informed consent” to do so?
2) if “one man – one woman” marriage is so fantastic, why does it need “defending”?
Actually, I was commenting on the people who are all gaga over the notion of gay marriage but then get up in arms about polygamy or Muslim multiple marriage. Their arguments are contradictory and self-defeating. If you support the notion of gay marriage, you cannot logically refuse others the same “rights.”
What I personally feel about the concept of marriage one way or another is irrelevant to that argument.
To better understand my position, I have trouble with equivocating the term “marriage” into meaninglessness. Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. As a Christian, I have personal problems with the redefinition of marriage. However, I also realize that many people have issues with my personal beliefs. The beauty of living in an ostensibly free country is that we can disagree on personal issues and still live together peacefully.