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
