Polyamory.com Forum

Polyamory.com Forum (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/index.php)
-   Press and media coverage (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Articles in need of commentaries... (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6729)

ImaginaryIllusion 02-13-2011 06:54 PM

Articles in need of commentaries...
Was pointed to these articles from a thread on Fet. Thought they might deserve some extra attention from those who don't mind dropping well thought and appropriate comments on News articles that deserve it, for better, or for worse.

Unfortunately today it's mostly on the worse side, and I don't have the capacity to put in the appropriate comments till I cool off.

Three's company for polyamorous Edmontonians
Last Updated: February 7, 2011 1:48pm


I’ve covered some strange stories over the years but this is one of the most mind-blowing.
Marilyn bumped into Bob one day and opened up to him about her feelings. She wondered if Bob was interested in experimenting with polygamy, or polyamory, as she prefers to call it.
The trio don’t live together, by the way, mostly for financial reasons.
She’d like polygamy either legalized or the Criminal Code section narrowed so proof of exploitation is required for a conviction.

Sorry, Marilyn. While I can’t imagine the police busting up your polygamous party, I don’t want Canada to be a beacon for the cause. Overall, polygamy causes immense harm to women. Why encourage it?
I don't even know where to start on this one...some good comments have been put in already suggesting the author do her research next time...but I'm just not sure any of been strong enough...

DiManno: Both sides of polygamy debate fear the law
Published On Thu Jan 27 2011
By Rosie DiManno

Plural marriages: That’s polygamy and against the law.

Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage.”

The law does not limit the number of people who can live together and call themselves a family. The law is not concerned with how many consenting adults are parties to a relationship. If your thing is a ménage à trois, or a partner-swapping quartet, or all-male or all-female or transvestite or transgendered or howsoever polyamorous — the vogue term for an intimate cleaving that involves more than two willing adults — the state will not bring you to trial.

It’s your business.
This is absurdly untrue. The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.

“Canadians can have sex with as many people as they like,’’ notes the Section 293 explanation on the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association website, which then goes on to whine: “We’re criminalized only when we form committed families.’’
Inflamatory or biased just a little maybe? Contradictory? 'Whine'? How does that belong in a 'news' article?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 AM.