But I Want it Now... – The Dissolution of Society's Principles
Friday, January 14, 2011 | by Doug Ferguson 
- Vancouver, British Columbia -
“The creation of rules is more creative than the destruction of them. Creation demands a higher level of reasoning and draws connections between cause and effect.” -A. Zittel
I was at a friend's birthday party about a month back when a curious discussion started. I can't really recall how it began but it led into a conversation about Bountiful, the small settlement in British Columbia that has much controversy surrounding it. To fill you in, the community is a polygamist Mormon fundamentalist group and there have been many allegations regarding child abuse in forcing children under the legal age limit to marry and have sex. I don't know much beyond that and this article doesn't focus on it. Rather, I was shocked at some of the statements made by my peers. They said that the main problem with Bountiful was the child abuse. Okay, granted. Then they said how there isn't really anything wrong with polygamy. The idea was that there shouldn't be a problem with it as long as all the parties involved agree on it and they're full grown, well-informed adults. Rather than expressing discomfort, most people at the party jumped right on board with that idea, agreeing that our monogamous relationships are outdated or even going as far as talking about how there being more women than men in the world makes guy/girl coupling an unfair system.
Perhaps this is just me being too conservative or perhaps I'm not thinking “progressive” enough, but have we completely lost our minds? Did this discussion really take place? Am I so detached from my generation that I missed the memo where it was decided that polygamy is an okay thing?
Right, so men and women aren't exactly 50/50, but I think that extra 1% difference is leveled out by the amount of circumstance there is in life where people split up, die, or just have no interest in marriage whatsoever. And yeah, some people might get left out, but that's life.
This also rules out a lot of facts about human nature and denies truths about love. The truth is that love is jealous. That statement sounds bad, but it really is actually quite healthy. I'm not suggesting that you be that guy who attacks any man who you suspect checked out your girlfriend, but rather a man should feel a great amount of sorrow if his woman was in the arms of a third party. How could you say you love her if you simply dismiss such a betrayal?
Furthermore, I'm really not sure what a well-informed adult is, nor am I convinced that it really exists. Does a man suddenly become responsible when he turns 18? Actually, in British Columbia, the age is 19. Or what about the USA where legal drinking age is 21? Is that when Americans become a well-informed adults? Where is this line and when did I cross it? There are cultures where you aren't considered a man until you perform a torturous exercise involving bullet ants stinging your hands until they're purple. Does that mean that after a moment like that you can make an informed decision about having multiple sexual partners? Similarly, I know that at the age of 13, I made better decisions with my life than some 30-year old men do. I also know that at the age of 20, I made some pretty horrible choices.
This leads me into my main point. Believe it or not, this wasn't even really about polygamy. Rather it opens up a much larger issue. Has our society become so focused on being progressive and accepting that we've chosen to strip away the very rules that have kept our society functioning? The big question of the birthday party was why couldn't a man or a woman marry more than one person if they want to? This is a reflection of a reoccurring question that my generation seems to be faced with. Why can't we just do what we want? Why shouldn't we just follow our desires and discard the rules as we know them? Whether you believe the laws we follow were made by God or some old wise men who founded the country, you must believe that they were in place for a reason.
About two years ago, I lived with my nephew, Andrew, who at the time was 2 or 3 years old. He has always been a bit of a handfull and like most kids his age, he wouldn't always do what he was told. One day my mom was working on a project and had her sewing machine on the dining room table. I was sitting at the table while the sewing machine was left alone and Andrew came and sat beside me. He looked at the sewing machine, still plugged in, and started reaching for it. I stopped his hand and told him “no” and told him that it could hurt him. I let him go and without hesitation, he reached again. I stopped him again and explained that he couldn't play with the sewing machine. He was old enough to understand. And as if on cue, he reached for it again forcing me to shout at him and make my point very well known. He cried of course and ran off, but I figured that was a better alternative to him getting his hand stabbed by a needle.
I often see this in our race as we walk around this Earth, thinking that we have our lives figured out. Andrew didn't understand at first that the sewing machine could hurt him, but he longed for the experience just the same when I explained the dangers to him. Similarly, people continue to feed their addictions and hurt themselves knowing full well the consequences, but it gives them what they want. Or many people are damaging their lives without even knowing it. Perhaps a teenager who gets stoned at parties regularly doesn't realize the long term consequences of his defiant lifestyle. At the time, it just seems like something fun to do.
I don't believe that the intention of these rules being stripped away necessarily came from a bad place. I think for the most part people do things with good intentions. Obviously we don't want people to be left out. There have been rules in the past that have been done away with for good reason and society has been better because of it. People of different cultures and women have been oppressed in the past and sometimes it is worth breaking rules to fight for equality, but I think we're starting to take things too far. We now want people to be able to make choices to follow whatever lifestyle they want. But ultimately, if we let everyone do whatever they want, there are no boundaries. We are trying to create a society that discards what we consider our social norm and put in its place one where every individual lives by his own rules. Complete freedom is a system that does not work because it doesn't take into account that people make bad choices. Our current society with limitations comes from generations' worth of mistakes. Why are we so willing to let our ancestors' blunders go to waste? These rules are there to guide people into making better decisions for their lives and weren't created to simply inconvenience us.
At work just over a year ago, I was talking to a 16-year old girl who had aspirations to become a lawyer. She then admitted that she has had some problems with the police and she doesn't have too many more strikes before it will become impossible for her to get a job in that field. Essentially, she had a lot of friends who were drug dealers (whether or not she participates is unknown to me) and by associating herself with them her future was being compromised. I didn't entirely understand what the problem was. My obvious solution would be to stop hanging around people who are obviously violating the law and giving themselves and her criminal records. The thing is, she wasn't even aware that there was this alternative. That was the way life was and obviously teenagers exist to break the law. Are we reaching the point where it isn't even an option to live a healthy law-abiding lifestyle anymore? Is this where our youth are headed? I don't think it has been that long since I was a teenager and I managed to keep my nose pretty clean. How rapidly are we degenerating?
My intention is not to try and criticize others or say that we should all be perfect squeaky clean citizens. I don't necessarily even think that every aspect of the law is morally right as politicians are people and are certainly known for making mistakes with repercussions. And I am not better than them either. There are desires that I give into that are damaging to me. I'm not a drug addict, nor am in trouble with the law, but I certainly spend too much time on the internet. That doesn't sound very bad, but I lose a lot of sleep and waste a lot of valuable time that I could be using in forwarding my career as a filmmaker. With the hours I've spent watching videos, I could have finished several screenplays and started producing some of them. I don't think I'm exaggerating. There is no rule that says I shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I feel that what society needs to do is consider what we need and put that ahead of what we want. I'm not implying that we ignore our desires entirely, but we shouldn't compromise our morality, health, or future because of it. Every person has their vice, some much more extreme than others. I suspect most people are like me and deal with issues like poor time management, but there are people who drink too much or indulge in drugs and hurt themselves and others in the process. Or how about how liberal we seem to have gotten regarding our sexuality? I don't think monogamy is as outdated as some would like to think. The kinds of wounds left by cheating spouses sometimes never heal. I would recover much easier from a physical punch to the face.
Anyone who has accomplished great things will tell you that they had to make sacrifices to accomplish what they did and I believe that this is what our generation is unwilling to do. All of our desires are so easy to obtain that we feel that everything we want should be ours. It is now apparently reaching the point where there are discussions amongst educated young adults that polygamy is not a bad idea and we should be able to have more than one spouse if we so desire. As no one man had enough knowledge to choose our lives for us, the only way we can make smart healthy decisions is to consider the boundaries set for us and ask ourselves why they are in place. Because frankly, I love my fiancée more than anyone else in this world, but I wouldn't want two of her. I can say without hesitation that that is one rule there for our safety.
DF
liberalism, morals, mormons, polygamy, principles, sexuality | in Society
Reader Comments (16)
I like to think of the soccer analogy:
Two teams of kids are on the field waiting for the ref to arrive.
When the ref doesn't show up, the kids decide to play without him.
Before long, one kid is hurt. He's carried off the field.
Soon, another is hurt and he too has to be carried off.
Minor arguments start erupting about who did what, and whether a point was scored or not. Several minor fights break out as well, and more kids are injured.
Soon, most of the kids have given up on playing because the game isn't fun anymore.
The rules are there for a reason.
Granted, sometimes you can debate the ref, but it's a good idea for him to be around.
Okay, so I read this.
And all I can think is... you tried cocaine?!
:)
He thought it was sugar for his tea.
An absolutely excellent article, Mr. Ferguson. Your argument is well-thought out and convincing, and I would argue, accurate. Thank you for your compelling insight.
One of the many highlights for me was:
"Has our society become so focused on being progressive and accepting that we've chosen to strip away the very rules that have kept our society functioning?"
Teina... where does it say anything about me trying cocaine?
and Christopher, thanks for your kind words.
I don't see anywhere where is says anything about Doug trying cocaine... I am glad that the boys have sense enough to stay away from things that would damage their gray matter on a perminant basis. I also don't want grand kids that have horrible disabilities because their parents made poor choices... FAS for example.
Regardless of these thoughts, I feel that this article is right on the money. We have "advanced" to the point of atrophy. Wanting to go forward we are delving into chaos as a society. More and more we either turn a blind eye or we just watch mutely as the rules that held us together cohesively are erroded away through lienency or political correctness. As a society we need to once again step up to the bat and say no these things are wrong and I choose to live a moral life.
We all make mistakes (I have made more than my fair share) but we can pick ourselves back up by the boot straps and once again trod upon the narrow road. I am no Shirley Temple by any stretch but I wouldn't want to see any of my sons living a life as Jacob did, with many wives that bickered and clawed their way to be the # one wife. The very competative nature of the human animal (as with any species) strives for an alpha female / male and the others below are "pecked into place" Have you ever seen the poor chicken in the barn yard at the bottom of the pecking order... it is not a pretty site.
But I digress.
Interesting article Doug, I am sure it will inspire many an debate, but my vote is with yours.
Doug you bring up some very interesting points.
Of course people are only trying to learn. The kid with the sewing machine. You say it will hurt him. He probably understood you. Most likely he was very curious about what it does and what may actually hurt him. I hear all the time that drugs are bad, I always ask myself what makes them bad. Why do people do them if they are so bad. Most of these "experiments" are simply taken because people are curious. Only because people simply do not communicate enough.
Rules are good. Rules are great. Rules which are absolute are terrible. Lets say a "leader figure" is opposed to drugs. The people he leads have obtained drugs and secretly do them. Now they do not discuss drugs because the leader says that they are illegal. The people will not talk openly about drugs because they will get in trouble. Once the people move on to another place (say a kid moving out of home) they continue doing drugs and develop disorder and diseases and whatnot because they never found out that they were bad.
My main point may not have been very clear so I will say it in short. Our old style of "do not talk back to me" teaching and parenting is incompatible with the information generation.
"Rules which are absolute are terrible."
Are you absolutely sure?
I don't really see much of this "do not talk back to me" stuff any more today in the dialogue against drugs. With that said, I don't think that there is really any positive ground from which to argue for drugs. Sure, some might be able to convince a good number that weed is okay for a painkiller, or something like that, but the vast majority of people aren't using weed as a painkiller, nor are they using Coke, LSD, etc. etc. for the health benefits. They are being used for the trip. The unfortunate matter is that the trip and all that comes with it messes people up, even adults. Then you get teenagers doing it as their bodies are developing and they screw them up even more.
If you need to ask yourself what makes drugs bad, you clearly have not been around drugs long enough to see how many lives it has screwed up and the permanent damage it does, thus it makes you sound naîve in this generation that you call the "information generation." If you want to know what makes drugs bad, do some research beyond your circle of peers. Find conflicting opinions on the matter. Sure, check out the Marc Emery crowd, but also check the professionals who have made a career of treating people who have been messed up by drugs.
The problem is not a lack of communication. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, followed by apathy and laziness. Kids who don't know that drugs are bad for them and instead blame their schools for not educating them, they need to give their head a shake. Personally, I think the anti-drug school stuff is sometimes overkill to the point that teens start to tune it out after hearing it so much. Most teens that I work with couldn't be bothered to do the research themselves. They are just happy to have an escape from the reality that they call their own. It doesn't really surprise me though, as if you are experiencing something that feels great and much better than the normal boredom that is life for many people today, why would you want to educate yourself when the high is that much better than life?
I don't think that monogamy is going out of fashion. That's quite extreme to say.
I also don't like your use of metaphors. Your nephew wants to do something that could endanger him so you stop him from doing it. Whatever a well-informed adult is your nephew lacks the experience to be one. When it comes to adults(well-informed or not), is that really the government's job? I don't think so. We have laws for things like seat belts, helmets, even prescription drugs, but why? All we're doing is stopping Darwin from weeding them out. The government is not our babysitter. It's not the government's job to protect you from being ignorant or stupid.
Also with all of this talk you don't say anything about how polygamy sans child abuse hurts anyone. You talk about it being immoral, but not everyone has the same morals. You equate it with cheating and jealously, of course it's not for everyone. The thing is with enough trust and honesty some people make it work. Does it harm you in any way? Do you think this law is going to stop people from having polyamorous relationships? You say that that law protects you, how? Would you otherwise go out any find another fiancée?
"Right, so men and women aren't exactly 50/50, but I think that extra 1% difference is leveled out by the amount of circumstance there is in life where people split up, die, or just have no interest in marriage whatsoever"
That's quite alright, the ten percent of the population that are homosexuals could even that out... or make it more unbalanced, either way. As well as the percentage of the population that could go either way.
Honestly Vanessa, I had a hard time with your comment once you made the comment that all safety laws are doing are weeding out the ignorant from the gene pool.
I mean...wow.
The metaphors are pretty solid, IMO. Whether you like it or not, the state does play an effective role in society when managing behaviour. You may think it has no place, but it truly does. Laws for things like seat belts, helmets, prescription drugs, etc.....they exist to protect people who aren't necessarily always there in the head. If someone is suffering from depression, by your statements, you seem to suggest that it is cool if they are offed by "Darwin" and the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, since they were just one of the weaker ones. However, maybe John Doe needs the government to prevent how much can be prescribed, or who has access to certain drugs, because they could cause him to become more unstable and/or lead him to an outburst of some kind where he actually hurts other people beyond himself. Your comments, at least to me, are actually surprisingly offensive, since you clearly don't see the purpose or benefit of society working as a community. By your words, I feel like you take the "every (wo)man to him/herself" philosophy. Maybe I am wrong.
While you might feel comfortable dismissing them as stupid or ignorant, there are people who are incapable of protecting themselves. I can't help but feel like you think the state has no responsibility to protect its citizens from themselves and from harming others if they are an idiot. I agree, the state shouldn't be our babysitter, but I am more than happy to have it act as a mediator between conflicting parties and to be a peacemaker. Sometimes keeping the peace is looking after the idiots that you are so willing to see kill themselves. I'm sorry, but your comment makes you sound rather selfish and blind to helping society around you.
You say that some people make polygamy work with honesty and truth. Do you know any polygamists that you'd like to refer as your base of reference for this statement? I believe that polygamist relationships do harm me and others because I don't believe they are good for people. I've known far too many people who have had multiple "parents" due divorce and remarriage over and over again, and I can tell you that it screws people up so much, who then screw up the lives of others as well. These messed up family situations damage society, but you fail to see that.
It seems clear that you are an anarchist, or at least some variation of one. Laws do protect us. They are a deterrence. They do not prevent all crime, but not all. That is not any reason to not have laws. While they may not stop you from doing things, for the vast majority of society, they do work. Case in point.....red-light cameras: They make people hesitant to run red-lights when they know that they might actually get caught when they know that there may be a camera operating to catch them. This protects against T-bone accidents, which protects me physically and protects me from having to pay for their healthcare bills as a result of one's incessant need to get somewhere quicker.
The worst part of your comment is that you've taken comfort in the modernist platitude of simply asking, "well, what harm does it do to me?" It is a lazy philosophy and rather selfish one at that, because it thinks only of the individual asking the question. It fails to ask, "what good does it to him who does the act?"
Vanessa,
I find it quite curious that you cite Darwinism as your leading argument.
First, I would think that the THEORY of evolution suggests that in order for life to progress, animals must learn from the example of their parents. If one was left to their own devices in the wild, they would die. They learn everything from their mothers, or some animals rely entirely on instinct, which is essentially a set of rules encoded deep within their DNA.
And, while Joel was offended by your statement, I am choosing not to be simply because no offense was intended. It certainly does completely devalue human life however. It suggests that simply because one makes a bad judgment call, that they deserve to die for the sake of bettering the race. It is easy to say from one side of the fence... but of course, do we ever really know which side of the fence we're on? Do the ignorant know they're ignorant?
I actually think it is the government responsibility to keep their citizen's safe. What else would their job be? Why else do we give them so much money if not to create rules to keep us safe? I'd like to think their job is more than just hosting fancy meetings and comparing wallet sizes.
Of course if you are suggesting disbanding the government entirely... well, let me know how well that society works.
I also disagree that polygamist relationships really work. Perhaps I could have elaborated a bit more, but even after I submitted my article I was thinking of things to add. After sending it, I knew I had to let it go as it was. However, I have a whole article on human sexuality that I want to write soon. Perhaps this will touch on the topic.
I suspect though, that if you look at many of people's problems and insecurities in life, they stem from issues with their relationship with their parents. I do believe our society is degenerating as the family structure dissolves. Do you look at the world and all that is going on and actually believe we're heading towards a utopia? (Keep in mind, I am talking mostly about North American society. I'm not asking you to look at the problems in Africa. They don't have the societal problem of getting everything they want.)
The Darwin comment was intended to be tongue in cheek, but clearly it was not well received so I apologize to those who took offense.
Ah yes, humour. Difficult to read in text form. I recommend inserting the occasional :P for clarification.
I, first, must apologize for the delay on this, I have been meaning to write it for a while but have been busy.
Firstly(secondly maybe… I don’t know numbers), as admirable as your goals may be, as grounded as they might be, there is simply no room for belief and faith to rule in a society as pluralistic as ours. We simply have too many competing interests to secure what may be called a national belief set. I of course don’t mean this solely in the theistic sense but in the lifestyle sense as well. We cannot dictate to others what is a better lifestyle or pass down patriarchal laws. As you say good intentions lead to bad things and that is no more true than in the sense of forcing belief sets on others. We have seen it with various Indian Acts(government terminology, not mine) the disallowance of blacks to marry in the 50’s and the continued refusal to recognize homosexual marriages in many parts of the states. Stating a fact based off belief is entirely invalid and in order frame a good argument we need to look at the laws of our state and especially the charter of rights and freedoms. In addition it is also needed to prove that there will be adverse affects one way or the other. And it is on these bases that I argue that polygamy should be allowed.
In order to determine whether there are adverse affects it is best to look at societies as a whole. There is very clearly child abuse in the nearby community of Bountiful and the question is, “is that systematic of polygamous communities?”. I think that most people can understand that is two different things, especially considering there is child abuse in many families, whether they be secular, muslim, Christian, British, or American, and we do not say that is endemic to their ways; but it may help to note that we have had many polygamous societies in the past, Thailand, China, and various regions of Africa all have been polygamous at times and have had very successful societies. In fact it was until 1971 that polygamy was banned in Hong Kong. The vilifying of polygamy is largely due(right or wrong) to the prevalence of Christianity throughout the world and before then it was common to see polygamy, polyandry, or group marriage. The foundations of many societies were built with polygamy in place. Now I would not be so foolish as to argue that we created what we have with polygamy, I argue that it was merely present. However what this fact does do is show that our society will not collapse into chaos should we allow it, an argument equally as ridiculous as the one I mentioned in the previous sentence.
Clearly societies can function as polygamous so the question now must be, “is it possible for Canada to be the way”. For that I turn to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. Well life and liberty clearly would indicate that if so choosing one has the right to enter into a polygamous relationship, but would allowing it constitute a violation of fundamental justice? I doubt we could find a plausible argument for that because a marriage of one to another does not affect any parties outside of that group. It is the same as a contract, if Steve and I made an agreement to be roommates it would hardly affect Brian or Doug. So we must look only at the parties involved and since we have done away with the notion that violence and destruction is native to polygamy we can see that provided these people are of sound mind they seem to have a right to do as they so please… provided again it does not infringe on their security of person… hence abuse and violence are not tolerated and rightfully so.
In your essay, Doug, you make use of the notion of truth but it is hard to tell where you get that from, it may be that the truth that love is jealous is your truth and that is fine and no one has the right to take that away from you. But again, in a pluralistic society we have no right to force our beliefs and notions of truth on others who do not share it. To define human nature has been a thoroughly fruitless, but nevertheless highly thought provoking, activity throughout history and I believe it will continue to be true that we cannot pin down exactly what makes people act and believe and thus never achieve a true sense of truth. You also noted that Andrew was touching a sewing machine and likened him to an adult making a bad decision. I am sure you can see the difference there as Andrew has no notion of consequence and we do. Also if your argument is correct and there are no responsible, well-informed adults then why is it that anyone has the right to marry? If we truly cannot understand the consequences of what will happen to us the drawbacks your argument seems to indicate that no one should be allowed to live together romantically. Clearly a ridiculous notion but that is exactly my point: people do, at least to reasonable(forgive the vuagueness) extent, understand what they are getting into. We can and do weigh the pros and cons and therefore have the right to make informed decisions regardless of what outsiders may say. So I submit again that knowledgeable, sound-minded people have the right to live as they choose provided they are not infringing on the rights of others and that includes the right to marry whoever they choose.