Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[fable]

Then, let me give you an example mentioned in the book "De Retfærdige" ("The Just") by the Danish Journalist Martin Krasnik: In Saudi Arabia, a woman entered into a settlement with her husband, paying him a rather large sum of money for him not to take an additional wife.

Now, obviously, even though the husband having taken an extra wife was avoided, this is still not a happy marriage. Even so, the woman went to great lengths in order to prevent her from merely one of the wives.

Now, changing the setting to a western country, but looking at those religiously conservative families where there really is a great lack of gender equality, the wife would have very hard time actually preventing her husband taking a second wife. Legally, she might be entitled to veto such an additional marriage or divorce her husband if he goes through with it, but socially it would be very difficult for her. She is rebelling against the head of the family.

Of course, this does not make their marriage just peachy in my eyes. Still, for her, the legalization of polygamy would mean more grief and oppression, not less.

I don't understand how you got to your final conclusion. I know plenty of two-person marriages that have failed, where one partner or the other resorts to various forms of bribery or blackmail to keep things going, or where both maintain a stark, hateful relationship. Is this anecdotal evidence therefore proof that monogamous marriage doesn't work? Hardly, but it certainly fits the form you've used, above. Polygamy no more leads to jealousy and heartbreak, than monogamy leads to rainbows and Lifetime movies. It is the people inside a relationship that determine its quality, barring the effects of social influence (war, family disapproval, etc) or chance (disease, etc).

And to find the "Western" equivalent of your example, would the situation be any better if the man in the relationship had simply cheated on his wife by setting up a mistress, in full view of his wife?

And finally, do you or anybody else believe that by refusing to legalize polygamy, polygamous relationships are prevented from occurring in those same countries? All that's accomplished by this is furthering a social stigma on those involved, who consequently keep their relationships quiet unless they live in very liberal communities. In other words, polygamy is simply driven underground. Which is where those who irrationally fear it want it to be, I suppose: out of sight, out of mind. And they don't have to worry about polygamists looking normal in front of everybody else, and somehow seducing their children into such relationships.

[Chanak]

...I wasn't aware that the US still had the antiquated view that you actually need a reason to be granted a divorce...

Having gone through a divorce last year, I can safely state that no "reason" needs to be given during the process...and I am referring to the state of Texas, where religious groups exercise a great measure of influence. A justification seems to be a technicality, a little custom kept from days gone by. While the petition for divorce provides an area to record the reason why you desire a divorce, you do not have to stand before a judge and explain yourself. To paraphrase a key comment from the paperwork the courthouse provides both parties of a divorce proceeding: "although you may delay and prolong the process, if your spouse wishes to divorce you, the court will not deny the request." That is it in a nutshell.

The majority of law is concerned with children of the marriage, and communal property. As I had no children with her, and (wisely) refrained from establishing much communal property, my divorce sailed through the court, despite her protests. I drafted the language of a divorce agreement between us, which I felt was fair and considered the both of us. She didn't like it, but it didn't matter. The judge signed the decree and it was over. Now...if we had children, or a house, it would have been a different matter. Enter the lawyers. Ugh.

[dragon wench]

It offends the moral values of the majority of people. Well, that is why polygamy is still a crime punishable by law.Polyamory is not a crime. Pornography is legal as well. That is true. Does not automatically means that it is always a good thing.
The human mind is conservative. The traditional is usually perceived as something better. That is why I don't believe that polygamy will be legalized in this country in the observable future.

Just because something is supported by a majority of people does not mean it is right. Many Germans endorsed The Final Solution, if not directly then tacitly. That hardly gives a policy of mass genocide credence. Yes, I know it is an extreme analogy, but I think it illustrates my point.

Many people will argue that History shows that immoral things slowly become moral as cultures change.

Immoral by whose definition?
And please let us not start discussing "History" as some kind of amorphous, willed entity. That is a terribly inaccurate definition of History.

The human mind is conservative. The traditional is usually perceived as something better.

Is it? This seems to be something of an ad hominem statement.
Even if the human mind is conservative, I highly doubt this to be the case on a general level. Moreover, how would the human mind become conservative? Would the manipulations of politicians and interest groups with agendas have anything to do with it per chance?

Also, if the human mind were naturally conservative, I doubt our "hairy ancestors" would have ever been able to evolve and adapt to their changing circumstances. If the human mind were innately conservative, chances are our species would have died out long before anyone had ever even heard of "immorality."

[Vicsun]

Many people will argue that History shows that immoral things slowly become moral as cultures change. That is true. Does not automatically means that it is always a good thing.

Well, when you word it like that it doesn't. I'd personally argue that moral things were no longer considered immoral as time progressed. Now that I've made the exact same statement only spun it the opposite way, I can claim the moral high ground

[dragon wench]

Well, when you word it like that it doesn't. I'd personally argue that moral things were no longer considered immoral as time progressed. Now that I've made the exact same statement only spun it the opposite way, I can claim the moral high ground

No offense intended to LD,
but I'd hazard this entire thread is really about morality as defined by a particular set of cultural values. I have yet to see any objectively demonstrated proofs that plural marriage is the apocalyptic scourge likely to bring human society crashing down to its knees.

If people want to debate the ethics and morals of plural marriage at a philosophical level I think it would be very interesting. But, I've seen nothing so far that proves plural marriage affects the rights of those not directly involved in the arrangement, nor have I seen anything that convinces me the problems characteristic of plural marriage differ in any way from those existing in monogamous marriage.

[Silur]

This has, however, nothing to do with "straw men". If I was to use a "straw man" argument, something I consider abhorrent, I would be attributing a position to someone else. While I have misunderstood Fable's position at one time, this was just that - a misunderstanding.

Yes, I agree and I am mixing my fallacies... the one I was looking for this time was really non sequitur.

You claim polygamy by necessity has a certain consequence and then attack that consequence, without explaining why the consequence must follow. To clarify:

We should disallow polygamy because of gender inequality.

This would be a valid statement if polygamy was responsible for the lack of gender equality, but gender inequality exists equally well without polygamy and there is no evidence to support that it would in fact get worse if polygamy was permitted, so there is no obvious connection. Then a number of posts from various opponents of polygamy go on to explain how bad gender inequality is, and that this is why we should ban polygamy.

[Silur]

Well, when you word it like that it doesn't. I'd personally argue that moral things were no longer considered immoral as time progressed. Now that I've made the exact same statement only spun it the opposite way, I can claim the moral high ground

I completely agree on this one, and polygamy is a prime example. Sofar, no one has produced any reasonable explanation to why it is or should be considered immoral. I would also argue that in most cases, it has been a good thing that frivolously defined morals have disappeared - issues concerning illegitimate children, treatment of rape victims, views on how people dress, etc. Much of the gender inequalities shown in this thread stem from such misguided moral dogma.

To me, morals is something completely different from the simplistic practice of putting tags on certain behaviours. A person of high morals is someone who is honest, just and fair, who treats people equally regardless of gender or creed, and any number of similar attributes. If he/she has sex with two dozen people every week has nothing to do with it.

[Silur]

... out of sight, out of mind. And they don't have to worry about polygamists looking normal in front of everybody else, and somehow seducing their children into such relationships.

I don't think you need to go that far even... they're already worried sick about having to explain homosexuality to their children, much less discuss other alternatives to the core family.

[fable]

I don't think you need to go that far even... they're already worried sick about having to explain homosexuality to their children, much less discuss other alternatives to the core family.

Oh, I had my irony throttle on high when I made the comments in that final paragraph, above. The ability to place homosexuality in where polygamy is was intentional. But then, for those who won't accept homosexuality because of cultural taboos, polygamy rates no higher. Unless, of course, they view it as a "you go, guy!" or "you go, girl!" thing when the object of their envy is thought of in bed with two people of the opposite sex.

[Magrus]

As this is a nonsense thread in all reality anyhow, I feel obliged to ask whether people would be opposed to a polygamous homosexual marriage being legalized?

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Xandax

How is what other people do - whether illegal or not, but not affecting you directly - involving/disrespecting "your rights"?

Let me give you an analogy. The pornography is legal in this country (freedom of speech). But it is prohibited to sell porno magazines (even sealed in plastic) within a certain distance from schools. Is there a conflict of rights?
This is a negative law attempting to protect children from a dubious 'adult' entertainment (perceived as unsuitable for children) by suppressing a constitutional right of somebody else because the majority thinks that is a right thing to do (Somebody might say than the neighbors actually need protection FROM the students... well, from some students).

Marital laws protect my rights and rights of my children. Introducing a new law that might benefit a small fraction of population (who practice polygamy anyway) but at the same time might cause anxiety and the sense of instability to many others is not a right thing to do, in my opinion. You may despise me for that.
To pass such law is impossible without amending the Constitution anyway. It is not easy, trust me. The Electoral College is a good example of such an attempt, and that issue is far more important than any plural marriage.

The simple truth is that in a so-called democratic society a so-called majority allegedly rules by electing their so-called representatives who allegedly represent and protect so-called interests of the so-called majority to the so-called benefit of the above-mentioned so-called majority. So, as long as the majority could not care less about polygamy, polygamy will remain a crime.

There is no universal freedom, period. We are all restricted by rules and regulations coming from inside and outside our persona, whether you call it morals, manners, ethics, principles, biases, laws, views or whims.
I cannot, for example, violate rules of this forum without running a risk of getting 'a wink from a quietly supportive universe'. It depends on what a particular moderator might find 'inappropriate'. And I don't criticize this rule at all. It is supposed to protect, for example, a religious person's right not to be offended by hasty remarks of an atheist that all religions are <label here>. Umm... probably a bad example. But it is supposed to do something, I am sure.

@DW

Immoral by whose definition?
And please let us not start discussing "History" as some kind of amorphous, willed entity. That is a terribly inaccurate definition of History.

I have a weakness to read stuff about social evolution and development of human morals over various periods of history. A lot of things once deemed immoral became normal. And vise versa. It is interesting to read about different cultures. Gives a perspective.

@Vicsun

Well, when you word it like that it doesn't. I'd personally argue that moral things were no longer considered immoral as time progressed. Now that I've made the exact same statement only spun it the opposite way, I can claim the moral high ground

I accept your correction. That is probably a better way to describe things in a neutral way. The moral high grounds are subjective.

@Silur

To me, morals is something completely different from the simplistic practice of putting tags on certain behaviours. A person of high morals is someone who is honest, just and fair, who treats people equally regardless of gender or creed, and any number of similar attributes. If he/she has sex with two dozen people every week has nothing to do with it.

I agree that humanity developed some sort of universal standards of morals. Being honest, just and fair are excellent qualities. The meaning of being honest and just was somewhat changing over time, but the concept is fine.
I would not comment on your given example though.

And this thread is not about sex. It is about marriage as a legal institution and about a supposed threat to it from a few activists trying to legalize polygamy. It is about the polygamy activists using the same argument the gay activists did. And the gay activists do not like it because they are concerned with the possibility that any association with polygamists could hurt their case. And they are right.

Time for a smile
A vicious crowd of predatory looking plural wives in negligee surrounds a tree with their harassed husband hiding among top branches. The gang is hissing: CLIMB DOWN, SLACKER!!!

[Heksefatter]

Yes, I agree and I am mixing my fallacies... the one I was looking for this time was really non sequitur.

You claim polygamy by necessity has a certain consequence and then attack that consequence, without explaining why the consequence must follow. To clarify:

We should disallow polygamy because of gender inequality.

This would be a valid statement if polygamy was responsible for the lack of gender equality, but gender inequality exists equally well without polygamy and there is no evidence to support that it would in fact get worse if polygamy was permitted, so there is no obvious connection. Then a number of posts from various opponents of polygamy go on to explain how bad gender inequality is, and that this is why we should ban polygamy.

"Necessity" is not a part of this. Necessity is not a concept of which I am fond outside logic or mathematics, and I don't apply it on society.


But let me rephrase my argument:

1) Gender inequality exists in Western societies.

2) In this argument, the gender equality which is exists in certain religiously conservative groups is the most important.

3) If we consider Danish society, the most important group for which 2) is relevant is muslims, as they are the only large group where religious conservatives can draw on af tradition of polygamy.

4) In conservative religious groups with a tradition for polygamy, gender inequality is strong and wives would have little say as to whether their husbands took another wife.

5) Even though a marriage of the type mentioned in 4) is hardly my ideal of a marriage, becoming just another wife could be terrible indeed.

6) Legalizing polygamy would probaly affect very few people, but it would be more common in religiously conservative groups with a tradition of polygamy.

[Heksefatter]

I don't understand how you got to your final conclusion. I know plenty of two-person marriages that have failed, where one partner or the other resorts to various forms of bribery or blackmail to keep things going, or where both maintain a stark, hateful relationship. Is this anecdotal evidence therefore proof that monogamous marriage doesn't work? Hardly, but it certainly fits the form you've used, above. Polygamy no more leads to jealousy and heartbreak, than monogamy leads to rainbows and Lifetime movies. It is the people inside a relationship that determine its quality, barring the effects of social influence (war, family disapproval, etc) or chance (disease, etc).

And to find the "Western" equivalent of your example, would the situation be any better if the man in the relationship had simply cheated on his wife by setting up a mistress, in full view of his wife?

And finally, do you or anybody else believe that by refusing to legalize polygamy, polygamous relationships are prevented from occurring in those same countries? All that's accomplished by this is furthering a social stigma on those involved, who consequently keep their relationships quiet unless they live in very liberal communities. In other words, polygamy is simply driven underground. Which is where those who irrationally fear it want it to be, I suppose: out of sight, out of mind. And they don't have to worry about polygamists looking normal in front of everybody else, and somehow seducing their children into such relationships.

Regarding the anecdotal nature of my example, you said: "No offense meant, but I don't see any way in which women (or children, or men, for that matter) can be abused in a polygamous relationship that cannot occur in a monogamous one. Unless you're going to tell me that jealousy enters into it more often, and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that."

Hence, I gave you an example of how polygamy could oppress a woman. I think that if it legal, we can expect to see that more often.

As I see it, your argument is basically threefold:

1) Monogamous marriages can fail or succeed, the same holds true for polygamous marriages. If we are to outlaw the second, why not the first?

2) Regarding unhappy polygamous marriages, it would generally be better to have them out in the open.

3) Outlawing polygamy would have little or no effect on the oppressive cases of polygamy.

Regarding the first, the answer is that I believe that polygamy would be more common in religiously conservative groups with a tradition for polygamy than in other groups, and due to the gender equality only too often found in such groups, the wife would have little influence on whether she becomes "one of the wives".

The counter-argument goes: "Ah, but that does not answer my objection, for in such a group, where there is little in the way of female emancipation, the wife could well have had little say about her original marriage in the first place. Why not forbid marriage then?"

Then I would explain that I did, in fact, answer that objection, as the original argument implicitly took into account a utilitarian principle: It is based on numbers. If the number of religiously conservative people who would desire a polygamous marriage is comparatively large with regards to other groups, the situation would be different from the monogamous marriage.


With regards to 2) above: The situation is "out in the open". In my country, women from families with traditional gender roles are already severely overrepresented in the institutions for women who have fled their families. This is, however, not a reason to introduce a legal option which would leave women from such families even worse off.


About 3): Yes, I believe there will be a difference, depending on how powerful the state is, and how well it is generally able to enforce its laws. If you cannot be openly polygamous in a particular country, polygamy is more difficult and would hence be more rare.

[fable]

Regarding the anecdotal nature of my example, you said: "No offense meant, but I don't see any way in which women (or children, or men, for that matter) can be abused in a polygamous relationship that cannot occur in a monogamous one. Unless you're going to tell me that jealousy enters into it more often, and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that."

Hence, I gave you an example of how polygamy could oppress a woman. I think that if it legal, we can expect to see that more often.

First, if you compare what I wrote with what you just replied, you'll see that you missed an important part:

""No offense meant, but I don't see any way in which women (or children, or men, for that matter) can be abused in a polygamous relationship that cannot occur in a monogamous one." That example, like every other I've seen, has a direct monogamous equivalent.

Second, in the next paragraph of my last post, which you didn't quote above, I showed how that exact same relationship would play out in a culture that only recognized monogamy: the man or woman would be maintaining a second relationship right in front of the spouse, who would respond by trying to bribe them out of it. This actually happens quite a bit. "Polygamy" therefore isn't "oppressing" anybody. What we have instead is a behavior pattern that transcends divisions such as monogamy and polygamy, is really fairly common, but which you're refusing to see in the latter, and only in the former.

Regarding the first, the answer is that I believe that polygamy would be more common in religiously conservative groups with a tradition for polygamy than in other groups, and due to the gender equality only too often found in such groups, the wife would have little influence on whether she becomes "one of the wives".

As I pointed out before, there are numerous polygamous relationships involving two men and a woman in Western cultures, and we are discussing the legalization of polygamy there. Second, why should the government legislate gender-based behaviors in the home? Would you allow the government to see whether you roleplay in bed? Whether you are allowed to look at images of naked women or men? If the government isn't allowed to tell you what to do in these matters, why should they be allowed to act as policemen over what people who are certainly of the age of rational decision-making and personal consent do in their private time? Twosomes=automatically okay, threesomes=automatically wrong?

With regards to 2) above: The situation is "out in the open". In my country, women from families with traditional gender roles are already severely overrepresented in the institutions for women who have fled their families. This is, however, not a reason to introduce a legal option which would leave women from such families even worse off.

You are confusing polygamy with spousal abuse, and the two are certainly not the same. If you want to deal with spousal abuse, you deal with it under the law. If polygamy was allowed in Western European nations, what would prevent a woman in such a relationship from going to the courts, if abused? If you say the husband, why wouldn't that hold true in monogamous relationships? If you say the culture, what about Orthodox Judism and Roman Catholicism, both of which frown on gender equality and divorce, alike? Playing cultural favorites, aren't we?

About 3): Yes, I believe there will be a difference, depending on how powerful the state is, and how well it is generally able to enforce its laws. If you cannot be openly polygamous in a particular country, polygamy is more difficult and would hence be more rare.

No, it wouldn't be rarer. It would simply be kept behind closed doors; that's all.

And again, I have yet to hear anybody who opposes polygamy any examples of "bad" polygamous behavior that haven't been observed in monogamous relationships. There is always some equivalent. To state that "polygamous relationships would be more prone to..." is personal opinion without the support of evidence. In cultures where women are normally treated as second class citizens, there's going to be a tendency for similar treatment to occur within some marriages--whether polygamous or monogamous; in cultures in Western Europe and the Americas, which pride themselves upon greater gender equality, there's no reason to believe that women or men in a polygamous marriage would behave any differently than in other wedded units. And if problems occur, there's always the law to turn to--just as occurs in monogamous relationships.

[Silur]

3) Outlawing polygamy would have little or no effect on the oppressive cases of polygamy.

Absolutely no effect whatsoever.

About 3): Yes, I believe there will be a difference, depending on how powerful the state is, and how well it is generally able to enforce its laws. If you cannot be openly polygamous in a particular country, polygamy is more difficult and would hence be more rare.

Unless you are going to outlaw polyamoric relationships alltogether, your tough out of luck on this one. If it is the fundamentalistic religious polygamic relationships you are opposing, the battle is already lost. The practice exists under all our noses all the time and you just don't see it, since only one official, registered wife exists. The other wives aren't bound in matrimony under our laws, but that's pretty irrelevant since the religion will have precedence in these cases anyway.

I haven't really considered the implications of this before, but that is actually much worse than having those marriages out in the open, since a legal wife at least has some rights in society whereas these women have none.

With regards to 2) above: The situation is "out in the open". In my country, women from families with traditional gender roles are already severely overrepresented in the institutions for women who have fled their families. This is, however, not a reason to introduce a legal option which would leave women from such families even worse off.

This might seem cynical, but I actually view this as an advantage. I want those women to flee from their oppressive marriages, and I want those shelters to take very good care of them. That is the only way they will ever be seen, and the root of the problem might be addressed. The abuse, the oppression and much of the gender discrimination is already illegal, so no new laws need to be made - just enforce the existing ones.

All nations law books need to be purged of all the ineffective, unsubstantiated, off-target, populistic crap they're filled up with, so due process isn't clogged up with them the way it is now.

[Silur]

As this is a nonsense thread in all reality anyhow, I feel obliged to ask whether people would be opposed to a polygamous homosexual marriage being legalized?

Actually, for all the same reasons, all the same people. Probably including a couple who would promote one or the other but not both. Depressing, isn't it?

[Magrus]

Actually, for all the same reasons, all the same people. Probably including a couple who would promote one or the other but not both. Depressing, isn't it?

*nods* Yep. Personally, I find that marriage is an outdated concept. Humans as social creatures do need interaction with other humans. However, in a world as fast paced as this is for most humans, people are simply moving and changing and growing too fast for the majority of humans to pick a mate and keep the same mate for the rest of their lives nowadays. It was a necessary thing for survival and procreation purposes long ago to mate and stick together for the rest of your life. You have a short life, and live just long enough to raise your children into adulthood, and then you die. Nowadays, that's not the case. Doubling or tripling your lifespan changes the game entirely.

[Xandax]

As this is a nonsense thread in all reality anyhow, I feel obliged to ask whether people would be opposed to a polygamous homosexual marriage being legalized?

I still maintain that as long as marriage is an institution of state with legal benefits, it should be open to all (consent and legal age) people who wants to participate in it, despite "group structure" or sexuality..... otherwise it is discrimination.
I do not see in fact, why there should be legal benefits connected with exchanging a ring.

[Magrus]

I still maintain that as long as marriage is an institution of state with legal benefits, it should be open to all (consent and legal age) people who wants to participate in it, despite "group structure" or sexuality..... otherwise it is discrimination.
I do not see in fact, why there should be legal benefits connected with exchanging a ring.

My thoughts as well. I have had relationships that last longer than many marriages in this day an age. My father is on his third marriage, my mother her second, step-father his second, step-mother her second. My mothers sister is on her 3rd marriage, which is on it's 3rd attempt. My fathers oldest sister is on her 2nd marriage, and his middle sister her 2nd as well. Marriage is a flawed concept in this day an age. People change, and no longer truly NEED a second person in their life in order to survive and raise children. The only benefits are to cure loneliness and for financial support.

Why keep a person from marrying someone else if they truly want to in this case? You can get a divorce whenever you want, and people do regularly. It is not a holy union, nor is it sacred. It is simply a fancy commitment, one with paper work and legalities. The people that choose to view it as something life-long and holy, should keep it to themselves, rather than ruin it for other people who simply want to get married to someone else.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Bountiful, British Columbia (BC):

…about 1,000. Almost all residents are the descendents of about six men.
...
FLDS beliefs and practices:

Polygyny presents obvious problems for a religious group or community. Since roughly equal numbers of boy and girl babies are born, it takes extraordinary steps to provide men with multiple wives. Policies have to be developed to control:

-The removal of the excess males;

-The importing of additional females;

-A high level of genetic disorders due to inbreeding within a small, closed group.

Benjamin Bistline spent part of his childhood among polygynists in the main FLDS group in what is now called Colorado City, AZ. He has written a book about his experiences. He has observed that in order to maintain a culture in which most men have many wives, it is necessary to persuade or force most male youths to leave the community at a relatively young age. Teenaged women with restricted education are then matched up with older men, preferably before they develop an interest in boys their own age. After an unregistered marriage, the new wives often financially support the family by applying for welfare as single mothers. It is quite possible that the same policies are pursued in the Bountiful group. The U.S. and Canadian branches appear to be closely linked. There have been allegations in the U.S. and Canadian media that teenage women have been transported from the U.S. group to supply men in Bountiful with additional brides.

According to The Economist magazine, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Fifth Estate TV program, some of the unusual theological beliefs and practices of the FLDS are:

-Men must have at least three wives and as many children as possible in order to enter the highest level of heaven, and to have the opportunity to evolve into a God.

-A woman's role is to serve a man and be submissive to his needs.

Women who disobey men will have their souls burn in Hell for eternity.

-Children are usually required to leave school at the age of 13 or 14.

-Their marriage ceremony consists of the woman placing her hand in the man's hand in what is called "the patriarchal grip."

-A man is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with one of his wives if she is pregnant.

"If...an older man seduces a 13-year old girl....in his own mind he doesn't commit sexual abuse.....he views himself as married." (Comment by Ron Barton, special investigator of "closed societies," at the Utah State Attorney's Office)

Because all the plural marriages, except perhaps for the first one, are celestial, and not legal unions, FLDS men are not polygamists; they are only adulterers in the eyes of the state. Adultery is not a criminal act. (Comment by former Bishop Winston Blackmore of Bountiful)

Also according to The Economist, critics say that the schools run by the Canadian branch of the FLDS provide minimal education. Boys are trained as farm and forest laborers. Girls are trained to be"

"... young brides and mothers....Women who have fled tell of girls as young as 13 being married off to polygamous men three times their age; of babies born to girls of 14 and 15; and of under-age girls being brought in from similar American communes for arranged marriages and to serve as 'breeding stock'."

According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
"...some men have close to 30 wives and father up to 80 children....teenage girls are married to men old enough to be their grandfathers".

The child abuse allegations:

According to Daniel Girard of The Toronto Star:
"Bountiful....has long been the subject of allegations of sexual abuse and of teenaged girls being made concubines or 'celestial wives' of men who are much older and already have several other wives."

A new RCMP team has been organized to investigate allegations of child abuse at Bountiful. Attorney-General Geoff Plant said in an interview on 2004-JUL-23:
"The groundswell of public concern has reached a point where government and the police, in my view, have an obligation to act. It's a priority to investigate the many allegations being made....What truly offends the majority of people who hear about these allegations goes beyond the question of multiple marriages. It includes suggestions there are children who are being sexually exploited, girls being transported across the border, and so on."

Plant had received a letter in 2004-MAY from Debbie Palmer, a woman with eight children from three assigned marriages. She fled Bountiful in 1988 and has since become a crusader against what she calls the "illegal cross-border trade in Canadian and American female children for sexual and breeding purposes." Her letter contained her personal account as an alleged sexual abuse victim.

Jancis Andrews, an activist working for women's rights, helped Palmer write the letter. She welcomed news of a police investigation, saying that it is "welcome and very long overdue." She described polygyny as "the poisonous root" -- the source of the various problems that the police will be investigating. She continued:
"This is a cult, a totally medieval, screwed up, grotesque philosophy. And, I truly believe that when the public realizes the gross injustices and contraventions of human rights that are taking place there, it will have to be done away with."

A total of nine women fugitives from Bountiful have filed a complaint with the Attorney General. They alleging that polygamy exists in the town, and that girls as young as 13 are being sexually abused. The Attorney General says that he has:
"... indicated [to police that] the existence of a constitutional opinion on the enforceability of [the law on polygamy] is not a reason for the entire public criminal-justice system to sit on its hands."

Mormon polygyny in Canada