SNP’s word of the day: Polygamy
Word: Polygamy
Usage: “Polygamy: An endeavour to get more out of life than there is in it.” — Elbert Hubbard
Definition: The practice of marrying multiple women, found in some older tribes, but in North America, mostly originating with the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
You should know it because: Canada’s 120-year ban on this secretive, mostly-Mormon practice was upheld by a B.C. court yesterday. Newspapers are calling it a “landmark” decision, even though the case will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court, so maybe newspapers should chill. What it really is, though, is a tenuous, contingent decision, predicated on the possibilities of harm, and rife with prejudices to boot. If the practitioners of polygamy in Canada weren’t just these large, leering Mormon men who brag about taking underage girls as wives but instead clean consenting groups of attractive adults, would the decision stand? I think what’s happened in the Bountiful, B.C., community (the National Post has a good timeline, if you’re just catching up) is far from love, but maybe that’s ’cause my personal tendency more or less follows the teachings of Milan Kundera: “Making love with a woman and sleeping with a woman are two separate passions, not merely different but opposite. Love does not make itself felt in the desire for copulation (a desire that extends to an infinite number of women) but in the desire for shared sleep (a desire limited to one woman).” I’m nobody to say you can’t love more than one person, though, especially if that person is Bill Paxton shirtless. And even if you can’t, there are millions (conservative guess) of loveless monogamous marriages. What difference does it make if there are loveless polygamous ones, too?
What this case came down to wasn’t whether polygamy is philosophically okay, but the great legal question in a democratic society: the question of harm. The harm being done to women and children—to children forced to become women via marriages as early as age 12—couldn’t be overlooked. Having seen Martha Mary Marsha Marsha Marsha or whatever, I can’t not agree. (That is a joke. I would not have agreed anyway.) But that’s not the whole verdict. Said the judge: “I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.” Society? Maybe. But the institution of monogamous marriage? We’re really putting that already pretty much screwed institution on the same sacrosanct level as human beings, i.e. those women and children? It’s something to think about. Another question: why do these cases also revolve around polygyny, the practice of having multiple wives, and never polyandry, the practice of having multiple husbands? I would welcome polygamy if we could, in addition to polygamy, have polyandry too–and then clone Ryan Gosling.
![](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://fashionmagazine.com/flare/celebrity/snps-word-of-the-day-polygamy/&title=SNP’s word of the day: Polygamy&picture=https://fashionmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P1220247.jpg&description=
[caption id="attachment_66765" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Illustration by Lewis Mirrett"] [/caption]
Word: Polygamy
Usage: “Polygamy: An endeavour to get more out of life than there is in it.” — Elbert Hubbard
Definition: The practice of marrying multiple women, found in some older tribes, but in North America, mostly originating with the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
You should know it because: Canada's 120-year ban on this secretive, mostly-Mormon practice was upheld by a B.C. court yesterday. Newspapers are calling it a "landmark" decision, even though the case will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court, so maybe newspapers should chill. What it really is, though, is a tenuous, contingent decision, predicated on the possibilities of harm, and rife with prejudices to boot. If the practitioners of polygamy in Canada weren't just these large, leering Mormon men who brag about taking underage girls as wives but instead clean consenting groups of attractive adults, would the decision stand? I think what's happened in the Bountiful, B.C., community (the National Post has a good timeline, if you're just catching up) is far from love, but maybe that's 'cause my personal tendency more or less follows the teachings of Milan Kundera: “Making love with a woman and sleeping with a woman are two separate passions, not merely different but opposite. Love does not make itself felt in the desire for copulation (a desire that extends to an infinite number of women) but in the desire for shared sleep (a desire limited to one woman).” I'm nobody to say you can't love more than one person, though, especially if that person is Bill Paxton shirtless. And even if you can't, there are millions (conservative guess) of loveless monogamous marriages. What difference does it make if there are loveless polygamous ones, too?
What this case came down to wasn't whether polygamy is philosophically okay, but the great legal question in a democratic society: the question of harm. The harm being done to women and children—to children forced to become women via marriages as early as age 12—couldn't be overlooked. Having seen Martha Mary Marsha Marsha Marsha or whatever, I can't not agree. (That is a joke. I would not have agreed anyway.) But that's not the whole verdict. Said the judge: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage." Society? Maybe. But the institution of monogamous marriage? We're really putting that already pretty much screwed institution on the same sacrosanct level as human beings, i.e. those women and children? It's something to think about. Another question: why do these cases also revolve around polygyny, the practice of having multiple wives, and never polyandry, the practice of having multiple husbands? I would welcome polygamy if we could, in addition to polygamy, have polyandry too--and then clone Ryan Gosling.
){kind=link}