TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Polygamy coming to Canada
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi The logical extension of this argument then is that impotent men or women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry either. Would you support this?

No, because it's still a man and a woman. However, their marriage would be incomplete. Plus, those conditions are treatable and reversible.

quote:

Originally posted by j_spot Im taking philosophy of sexuality right now. just read the symposium. in fact, ive got to go to class in about 10 minutes here.

*cough* indoctrination *cough*


my god, no wonder society's going down the tubes....

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf No, because it's still a man and a woman. However, their marriage would be incomplete. Plus, those conditions are treatable and reversible.

Can't say I've ever heard of a woman having a uterus IMPLANTED, so no, not always treatable reversible.

So in this case, the marriage is as you say "incomplete" because they can't have kids, but you'd still be fine with it because it's a man and a woman.

How is a gay couple any more "incomplete" if they can't naturally have children? Furthermore, the possibility also exists for them to adopt / have a surrogate child.

The entire idea of a "marriage" is just a social construct, and what can be constructed can also be renovated or torn-down and rebuilt.

Isn't there a group of Mormons in Vancouver that own so much land that the province turns a blind eye to their polygamy?

I saw it on a 20/20 once.

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi How is a gay couple any more "incomplete" if they can't naturally have children?

The infertile heterosexual couple is the exception, not the norm. In contrast, no gay couple could ever have children - it's impossible.

quote:

Furthermore, the possibility also exists for them to adopt / have a surrogate child.

That should be illegal because it totally messes up the children. A child needs a father and a mother.

quote:

The entire idea of a "marriage" is just a social construct, and what can be constructed can also be renovated or torn-down and rebuilt.

It's not at all a social contruct - it's a natural extension of sexual reproduction.

If we reproduced asexually like certain plants, your argument would be stronger. However, marriage as an institution that's based on the physical reality that we as humans face.


edit: that's not to say that culture doesn't affect the insitution at all - Hindus have their fire ceremony and Christians have their church rites - but at the end of the day, those are just two interpretations of the same institution. UNITY

God created Woman and gave her to the man (i'm not suggesting that a woman is a man's property - although there is a law where you can sue someone if they "steal" your partner). Moses had more than one wife because polygamy served a purpose: to increase the number of Jews at the time. Once Christ was here, he reiterated that marriage was for one man and one woman. Or a man could choose not to marry. But fornication, drunkedness, adultery and all that good stuff at 1 Corinthians 9:11-13 is bad. So sex outside of marriage is just as "wrong" as polygamy or getting drunk to drunkedness. It's not the person, it's the ACT.

quote:

Originally posted by muzzybear So sex outside of marriage is just as "wrong" as polygamy or getting drunk to drunkedness. It's not the person, it's the ACT.

The difference is that marriage is an inherently PUBLIC institution which affects everyone. I am being forced to recognize unions that have no basis in natural law or our shared traditions.

In contrast, pre-marital sex (or homosexual sodomy for that matter) is a private act. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. You could argue that it has a public effect in the aggregate, but that's a weak argument.

Though polygamy is allowed in Islam..... the reason for it to be there was because.....during those times, after a war ended, wives whose husband died in the war would have support for themselves and their children. Even then, you had to get permission from your existing wife to take on another one...

Now a days, it�s rarely practiced, mostly in Arab countries by the rich and in rural areas where the whole village basically supports one another.

Culturally it is frowned upon by the middle class in every muslim country..and honestly guy...its difficult to handle one woman.. I cant imagine having to deal with 2!! give the guy a gun so he could shoot himself... no offence to the women on the forum...

The writings in the Bible can be twisted and construed to suit anyone's purposes.

Leviticus 14:33-55 states that if you have mold / mildew in your house, you must clean it and if it returns, you must tear down the house and take it outside the town.

How many people subscribe to this teaching?? Or is this a case where we can selectively pick and choose what we want to follow and what we don't want to? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf The difference is that marriage is an inherently PUBLIC institution which affects everyone. I am being forced to recognize unions that have no basis in natural law or our shared traditions. In contrast, pre-marital sex (or homosexual sodomy for that matter) is a private act. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. You could argue that it has a public effect in the aggregate, but that's a weak argument.

It's all PUBLIC in God's eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi The writings in the Bible can be twisted and construed to suit anyone's purposes. Leviticus 14:33-55 states that if you have mold / mildew in your house, you must clean it and if it returns, you must tear down the house and take it outside the town. How many people subscribe to this teaching?? Or is this a case where we can selectively pick and choose what we want to follow and what we don't want to? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The whole idea of "the Law" was to prepare us for the coming of the Christ. He's been here and has relesed us from the "burden" of the law. The Scribes and Pharasees (and orthodox jews today) wear "the law" on their foreheads (they were supposed to have it formost on their minds). That was a showy display of one's spirituality. And not correct either.

quote:

Originally posted by muzzybear The whole idea of "the Law" was to prepare us for the coming of the Christ. He's been here and has relesed us from the "burden" of the law. The Scribes and Pharasees (and orthodox jews today) wear "the law" on their foreheads (they were supposed to have it formost on their minds). That was a showy display of one's spirituality. And not correct either.

Enough of the crazy religious talk

Thump, thump...

"Ideology, being in possession of truth, has no need of compassion, which would be an expression of weakness...a pretension of simplicity and truth can readily be presented as self-evident, meaning we can but agree. This is false common sense, a manipulative mechanism to ensure the passivity of others."
- John Ralston Saul

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf *cough* indoctrination *cough* my god, no wonder society's going down the tubes....

youre claiming taht IM indoctrinated?
Im arguing a position that is not yours. It doesnt mean I believe it to be right. I just think its better than yours.

theres an altogether better Idea that I love, government no longer sanctioning marriage at all. Let individuals be recognized by their peers as who they chose. So a catholic gets married by a catholic church. Catholics recognize it.
Gays get married at whatever church that is downtown that does it. Tehy are recognized by their peers as married.
etc

Gay marriage?!?!!?

What's next, blacks drinking from the same fountains as whites!?!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Gay marriage?!?!!? What's next, blacks drinking from the same fountains as whites!?!

OMG! I know, Matt! Fuck, when I first heard about that years ago, i was shocked to hell!

Thats just fuckn disgracefull in the extreme!

quote:

Originally posted by j_spot to me its about love between two people.

Fuckn right! Some people's opinions here are absolutely appalling to me... i cant believe how ignorant and close-minded a few are!

And if its been proven that certain animals have been known to have same sex bonding (shit, i cant site sources, so i KNOW ill get attacked, but i recall hearing about seals (did i hear about 2 female whales too ?) and male seahorses!.... Im sorry for the lack of sources, but I know Ive heard about SOME sort of animal engaging in same sex behaviour), then how the hell can we call it unnatural if animals engage in it ?

And just because u dont see it (same sex couples) alot (which is starting to change a great deal), that doesn�t make it wrong. I cant wait till a larger number of men and women come out as gay/lesbian and all haters are forced to see just how "unusual" it is when so many ppl are identifying with this way of life!!!

That comment that gay parents mess up children is offensive in the extreme.

Ill tell you whut this fucking world needs, less bible thumpers and over-zealous preachers of god�s supposed will, and a hell of alot more sensible people (and atheists!)

[/rant]

Surprise, surprise... a Lieberal-funded study comes up with exactly the result the Lieberals wanted. They claim they wouldn't support legislation to legalize polygamy, but they don't have to; Lieberal-appointed courts will simply invent the "right" to polygamy. If Martin gets rid of the notwithstanding clause, there's nothing we can do to stop this abuse of women.

Beastiality is next.


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/...1391179-cp.html

Study supports legalized polygamy
By DEAN BEEBY

OTTAWA (CP) - A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women," says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. "The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed."

The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada.

The paper by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., argues that Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy serves no useful purpose and in any case is rarely prosecuted.

Instead, Canadian laws should be changed to better accommodate the problems of women in polygamous marriages, providing them clearer spousal support and inheritance rights.

Currently, there's a hodgepodge of legislation across the provinces, some of whom - Ontario, for example - give limited recognition to foreign polygamous marriages for the purposes of spousal support. Some jurisdictions provide no relief at all.

Chief author Martha Bailey says criminalizing polygamy, typically a marriage involving one man and several wives, serves no good purpose and prosecutions could do damage to the women and children in such relationships.

"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she said in an interview. "We don't criminalize adultery.

"In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society .n.n. why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?"

Instead, there are other laws available to deal with problems often associated with polygamous unions, which are not legally recognized as marriages in Canada.

"If there are problems such as child abuse, or spousal abuse, there are other criminal provisions or other laws dealing with those problems that certainly should be enforced," Bailey said.

The Justice Department project was prompted in part by an RCMP investigation into the religious community of Bountiful in Creston, B.C., where polygamy is practised openly.

The British Columbia government has long been considering whether to lay charges under Section 293.

But the project was also intended to provide the Liberal government with ammunition to help defend its same-sex marriage bill last spring.

Opponents claimed the bill, now law, was a slippery slope that would open the door to polygamy and even bestiality.

Another report for the project, also led by two Queen's University professors, dismisses the slippery-slope argument, saying that allowing same-sex marriages promotes equality while polygamous marriages are generally harmful to women's interests and would therefore promote inequality.

Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said he has seen only a summary of the research reports, but already rejects lifting the criminal ban on polygamy.

"At this point, the practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada and will continue to be," he said from Montreal.

"These reports will become part of the knowledge base on this issue and will be taken into account."

The Bailey report, consistent with other research for the project, also concludes the courts might well rule that Canada's law banning polygamy is a violation of Canada's constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

But Section 293 would survive such a challenge because the harm to women and children in many polygamous marriages is well documented - abuse, poverty, coercion, health problems - and the limit to religious freedom would be considered "reasonable," as allowed under Section 1 of the charter.

Although the Bountiful case raises immediate issues, Canada is also faced with a rising tide of immigration from Africa and the Middle East, where polygamy is legally and religiously sanctioned. Immigration officers can refuse entry to individuals practising polygamy.

Bailey said Canada should nevertheless offer some recognition to polygamous marriages that are legally valid in foreign countries to help protect women's rights here.

Another paper for the project, by the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, urges British Columbia to proceed immediately with a prosecution in Bountiful.

"Based on the harms associated with polygamy as it is practised in Bountiful, there do not appear to be any alternatives to prosecution, however difficult it may be."

This is nonsense.

Typical conservative "justice critics" taking that lovely walk down slippery slope lane.

quote:

Originally posted by Time2Burn This is nonsense. Typical conservative "justice critics" taking that lovely walk down slippery slope lane.

Open your eyes before you fall down that slope:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00938.htm

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Open your eyes before you fall down that slope: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00938.htm

I fail to understand what the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has to do with opening my eyes.

this is a liberal comissioned study that came back with these results. Not a conservative one. And i hate to say it but this is yet another example of how opening one door can lead to the opening of 10 others. Its the same arguement ive used with the smoking debate amongst others. Give in a little and they will demand even more.

I happen to support same sex marriage but i can see how this will lead to other things that i do not support such as polygamy.

What Would Tyler Durden Do?

quote:

Originally posted by Time2Burn I fail to understand what the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has to do with opening my eyes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/...arriage.ruling/

Less than two years later, the beastiality bill was proposed.

The same process is happening in Canada.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.