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

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT hahahaha...as soon as I read the article in the Toronto Star I knew that Shadowolf would pounce and start a thread...LOL...lame. I suppose it's those awful, immoral gays who are to blame (despite polygamy having nothing to do with homosexuality around the world...it's actually a HETERO issue for the most part).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT it's very unfortunate that some opportunistic proponents of polygamy, or anti gay marriage people, are using the gay marriage issue as somehow eventually leading to or supporting allowing polygamy. That's a whole separate issue. polygamy is illegal...homosexuality is not (anymore, thanks to it being taken off the books some time ago). [quote]The legal term "marriage" can be amended to read a union between two consenting, unrelated (etc) adults. It is illogical to suggest that the door is then opened to amending marriage to include more than two adults. two separate issues folks...it should be obvious. Just because people are pushing for polygamy doesn't mean it's going to happen. I suspect there will be FAR less support, publicly and in the law, to support polygamy in Canada. don't worry...when the gov't fails to address this, our liberal judges will throw it out of court

You're right that they're not related in and of themselves. However, the Lieberals didn't just grant rights to gays (which should have been done) - they eliminated traditional marriage under the law. That move opened the door to other arrangements like polygamy.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf You're right that they're not related in and of themselves. However, the Lieberals didn't just grant rights to gays (which should have been done) - they eliminated traditional marriage under the law. That move opened the door to other arrangements like polygamy.

1 on 1 arrangements and 1 on multi is kinda different... eh.

quote:

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

Dude, you realize that this study was commissioned by the Liberals, right? I could understand your reasoning if it was a Conservative study, but it isn't.

see http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...40&pagenumber=3

(same arguement here)

wtf is going on in this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree wtf is going on in this thread?

Shadowolf is fighting against ur right to have a harem

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree wtf is going on in this thread?

OMG...he is back from the real world...you disappeared on us....a bunch of us thought you got a life and didn't invite us along

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf You're right that they're not related in and of themselves. However, the Lieberals didn't just grant rights to gays (which should have been done) - they eliminated traditional marriage under the law. That move opened the door to other arrangements like polygamy.

amending the law to include same-sex couples does not open the door to polygamy.

There's a wonderful book entitled "Logical Self-Defense" by a couple of professors at the University of Windsor. Pick it up...you would enormously benefit from reading it.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT amending the law to include same-sex couples does not open the door to polygamy. There's a wonderful book entitled "Logical Self-Defense" by a couple of professors at the University of Windsor. Pick it up...you would enormously benefit from reading it.

was it written by a liberal

I always love the phrase 'Traditional Marriage'. It tends to demonstrate a level of ignorance that most people have about the institution of marriage, especially from a global perspective. Most marriage historians - liberal and conservative alike - tend to respond with 'where' and 'when'.

For instance, In the Middle East and in many African cultures, polygamy is 'traditional marriage', especially for the wealthy.

In the Hebrew Testament era, polygamy and concubinage were also considered the norm - Solomon had 300 wives and double the number of concubines (See Kings). If polygamy is so offensive in the eyes of God, why was Soloman such a respected biblical citizen?

Ironically, the Catholic Church gave same-sex relationships its blessing in the early part of its history. While it can't be claimed that this was a marriage ceremony, the Church recognized the spiritual nature of the relatioship.

The Catholic Church also had no official liturgy for marriage until the 12th Century. For a social institution that is supposedly universal and sacred in the eyes of God, it sure took the Church a long time to recognize it.

Medieval Chinese society recognized same-sex relationships. In a ceremony remarkably similar to the Catholics, the bond between male lovers was sanctioned on a spiritual and social level.

Finally, Native American societies also celebrated same-sex relationships with a twist - one of the male partners underwent a ritual in which he became the female partner. This ritual and the circumstances that surround it are the roots of the GLBT term 'two-spirited'.

Even in our own culture, marriage has changed significantly. This institution has shifted dramatically from a patriarchal economic relationship where the main goal of the marriage was to consolidate property and wealth between families and ensure the economic stability of women to an egalitarian relationship where the psychological and emotional needs of the partners are more important.

Of note on what today's social conservatives consider traditional marriage is that in the Victorian era where marriage was supposedly the most moral, the social norm was for both men and women to have the spouse for social mobility and economic stability, while still pursuing outside love interests - this occurred widely and was generally accepted.

The bottom line of this mini-essay is that 'traditional marriage' is an elusive concept that certainly hasn't stopped the past evolution of this social institution, nor should it be the basis of preventing future evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL Shadowolf is fighting against ur right to have a harem

Muslims deserve more than one wife because we work so hard.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced was it written by a liberal

lol, I don't know...if so, it *must* be biased, commie-loving, left-wing propaganda, right?

it's quite a good read...I'd love for some sort of course on logic and argumentation theory to be taught at the high school level (is it now?), even just as an elective.

I think *anyone* who has to write papers at a post-secondary level, even simple opinion pieces, etc. would immensely benefit from a course on logic and reasoning.

Trudy Govier's "A Practical Study of Argument" is another good one for anyone who may be interested...she teaches/taught at the U. of Calgary...damnit, I think she's a dirty liberal or socialist too. oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by nacarter ...

great post with interesting points.

it's funny that in gays seeking the right to marry, it's somehow been twisted into a gays. vs. the Church issue in some people's minds...when, as you point out, the Church hardly has exclusive domain over marriage, particularly in a multi-cultural society such as ours and in relation to the global village.

quote:

Originally posted by nacarter I always love the phrase 'Traditional Marriage'. It tends to demonstrate a level of ignorance that most people have about the institution of marriage, especially from a global perspective. Most marriage historians - liberal and conservative alike - tend to respond with 'where' and 'when'. For instance, In the Middle East and in many African cultures, polygamy is 'traditional marriage', especially for the wealthy. In the Hebrew Testament era, polygamy and concubinage were also considered the norm - Solomon had 300 wives and double the number of concubines (See Kings). If polygamy is so offensive in the eyes of God, why was Soloman such a respected biblical citizen?

I'm pretty sure that the answer to "where" would be "here, in North America", and the answer to "when" would be "after becoming independent nations". Any other definition seems irrelevant.

Believe it or not, tradition is not religion, and I find it rather ignorant to be painting anyone who opposes gay marriage as some religious zealot and opponent of progress. To me it's a moot point - I've stated my position several times on here that the state should just get out of the business of marriage altogether and just perform civil unions - for everyone. Still, maybe people who talk about "tradition" are just talking about the tried-and-true systems that were in place during the industrial revolution, when society made the most actual progress?

Something to think about perhaps.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Once you destroy the traditional family, you open the door to all sorts of perversions. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=236336 Polygamy, of course, is being used to court the Muslim vote in Toronto. LIEBERALS OUT NOW!!

Is there any limit to how fucking ignorant you can be. Personally I think you are gay, and your rambling bigotry is nothing but a cover for your latent homosexuality. You probably would rather not see happily married same sex couples because you feel threatened personally by it because you are insecure with your own sexuality. If that was not the case, then why the fuck would you care.
May'be you should go watch the movie Brokeback Mountain, but then again you are so closed minded you probably wouldn't go anyway. I really can't see how my same sex marriage affects anyone in society other than ourselves. We've lasted longer than most "straight" couples and have never committed infidelity. The biggest threat to "family values" is the fact that 50% of heterosexual marriages END IN DIVORCE. And I will bet you that NONE OF THOSE DIVORCES WERE CAUSED BY GAYS.
Since you are preaching "family values" ( which has really become a polite code word for I am a bigot - I hate gays ) then tell us - do you practice what you preach?
1) Have you had premarital sex
2) Are you married
3) Have you ever has sex without the purpose of creation

My guess is that you are just another hippocrat who is using a website about music to spread your bigoted and neo fasciast views, and loves to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. Go fuck yourself & die.

There is NO RELATION BETWEEN SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND POLYGAMY. POLYGAMY DISRESPECTS WOMEN and that is why I am against it! Seriously, if you really love someone, you wouldn't cheat on them, so I do not consider Polygamy a valid relationship.

quote:

Originally posted by Shamen DJ's There is NO RELATION BETWEEN SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND POLYGAMY. POLYGAMY DISRESPECTS WOMEN and that is why I am against it! Seriously, if you really love someone, you wouldn't cheat on them, so I do not consider Polygamy a valid relationship.

So you can't love more then one person????

Besides....many people believe that love and sex are completely independent of each other.....I don't....but I know many that do.

I don't think the argument that polygamy disrespects women is any more valid than the argument that porn disrespects women. If a woman wants to marry a man who already has one wife, then obviously she doesn't have a problem with it or find it disrespectful.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't think the argument that polygamy disrespects women is any more valid than the argument that porn disrespects women. If a woman wants to marry a man who already has one wife, then obviously she doesn't have a problem with it or find it disrespectful.

or doesn't know

that dirty man

Man Marries HORSE

warning some NSFW banners on the page

haha only the USA

quote:

Originally posted by Shamen DJ's There is NO RELATION BETWEEN SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND POLYGAMY. POLYGAMY DISRESPECTS WOMEN and that is why I am against it! Seriously, if you really love someone, you wouldn't cheat on them, so I do not consider Polygamy a valid relationship.

There is almost no substantitive link between the practices themselves. There is, however, an institutional/procedural link: getting rid of the traditional definition of marriage is a prerequisite to both.

When the Lieberals brought in Bill C-38 (which eliminated traditional marriage), the obvious intent was to bring in gay "marriage." However, now that the definition of marriage has been altered based on a "rights" argument, other practices will have to also be legalized (such as polygamy). Polygamist groups will bring a Charter challenge, and would likely win.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar 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]

+1

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf 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.

A human being cannot have a consentual sexual relationship with an animal,therefore making beastiality rape, so
it should remain illegal. Bestiality has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. Anyone that can't have a relationship with a mature consenting adult ( human ) needs serious professional help. I'm offended that anyone, liberal or conservative would make any connection between the two.

quote:

Originally posted by nacarter I always love the phrase 'Traditional Marriage'. It tends to demonstrate a level of ignorance that most people have about the institution of marriage, especially from a global perspective. Most marriage historians - liberal and conservative alike - tend to respond with 'where' and 'when'. For instance, In the Middle East and in many African cultures, polygamy is 'traditional marriage', especially for the wealthy. In the Hebrew Testament era, polygamy and concubinage were also considered the norm - Solomon had 300 wives and double the number of concubines (See Kings). If polygamy is so offensive in the eyes of God, why was Soloman such a respected biblical citizen? Ironically, the Catholic Church gave same-sex relationships its blessing in the early part of its history. While it can't be claimed that this was a marriage ceremony, the Church recognized the spiritual nature of the relatioship. The Catholic Church also had no official liturgy for marriage until the 12th Century. For a social institution that is supposedly universal and sacred in the eyes of God, it sure took the Church a long time to recognize it. Medieval Chinese society recognized same-sex relationships. In a ceremony remarkably similar to the Catholics, the bond between male lovers was sanctioned on a spiritual and social level. Finally, Native American societies also celebrated same-sex relationships with a twist - one of the male partners underwent a ritual in which he became the female partner. This ritual and the circumstances that surround it are the roots of the GLBT term 'two-spirited'. Even in our own culture, marriage has changed significantly. This institution has shifted dramatically from a patriarchal economic relationship where the main goal of the marriage was to consolidate property and wealth between families and ensure the economic stability of women to an egalitarian relationship where the psychological and emotional needs of the partners are more important. Of note on what today's social conservatives consider traditional marriage is that in the Victorian era where marriage was supposedly the most moral, the social norm was for both men and women to have the spouse for social mobility and economic stability, while still pursuing outside love interests - this occurred widely and was generally accepted. The bottom line of this mini-essay is that 'traditional marriage' is an elusive concept that certainly hasn't stopped the past evolution of this social institution, nor should it be the basis of preventing future evolution.

Very interesting. Polygamy is also considered traditional marriage by many in modern day Utah, unfortunately there is a terrible history of child abuse within those sects. Unfortunately the "family values" coalitions have largely ignored that. Many male youth have even been kicked out of those sects and end up living on the street when they
become old enough to compete for the women in the more extremist mormon sects. There are groups specifically dedicated to helping those youth.

quote:

Originally posted by nacarter I always love the phrase 'Traditional Marriage'. It tends to demonstrate a level of ignorance that most people have about the institution of marriage, especially from a global perspective. Most marriage historians - liberal and conservative alike - tend to respond with 'where' and 'when'. For instance, In the Middle East and in many African cultures, polygamy is 'traditional marriage', especially for the wealthy. In the Hebrew Testament era, polygamy and concubinage were also considered the norm - Solomon had 300 wives and double the number of concubines (See Kings). If polygamy is so offensive in the eyes of God, why was Soloman such a respected biblical citizen? Ironically, the Catholic Church gave same-sex relationships its blessing in the early part of its history. While it can't be claimed that this was a marriage ceremony, the Church recognized the spiritual nature of the relatioship. The Catholic Church also had no official liturgy for marriage until the 12th Century. For a social institution that is supposedly universal and sacred in the eyes of God, it sure took the Church a long time to recognize it. Medieval Chinese society recognized same-sex relationships. In a ceremony remarkably similar to the Catholics, the bond between male lovers was sanctioned on a spiritual and social level. Finally, Native American societies also celebrated same-sex relationships with a twist - one of the male partners underwent a ritual in which he became the female partner. This ritual and the circumstances that surround it are the roots of the GLBT term 'two-spirited'. Even in our own culture, marriage has changed significantly. This institution has shifted dramatically from a patriarchal economic relationship where the main goal of the marriage was to consolidate property and wealth between families and ensure the economic stability of women to an egalitarian relationship where the psychological and emotional needs of the partners are more important. Of note on what today's social conservatives consider traditional marriage is that in the Victorian era where marriage was supposedly the most moral, the social norm was for both men and women to have the spouse for social mobility and economic stability, while still pursuing outside love interests - this occurred widely and was generally accepted. The bottom line of this mini-essay is that 'traditional marriage' is an elusive concept that certainly hasn't stopped the past evolution of this social institution, nor should it be the basis of preventing future evolution.

I will truly feel sorry for the children born of a polygamous relationship.
This Western society can't even handle all the problems with the children of a monogamous one; why complicate it in the name of liberal 'progression' (seems more like an oxymoron in this case).
I wonder if these same people fighting for polygamy will be the same ones that conveniently ignore the problems they are about to unleash. I'm not going to hold my breath because I'm pretty sure I know what that answer is going to be...

There needs to be serious, nation-wide open debate about this and not something a non-elected court pushes down our throats because of one individual case; this effects us ALL...

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