|
HUGE HUGE HUGE case ruling potential in Canada
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article1335056/
Personally I think the BC supreme court really has no choice but to strike down the law under religious freedom, as I don't think a legally civil practice should be criminalized..
The catholic encylopedia states from English Law
" among those acts injurious to public morality by which the State or community generally is injured,"
But why is it injurious.. revered biblical figures had multiple wives
I can't see the moral issue with a man or woman having multiple lovers? People out of wedlock have sex all the time, and it isn't illegal. If gay marriage is allowed, then why the hell should bigamy a same sex act (usually) not be?
goes on to state
"against the general order of society, and against the law of the Gospel, by which one man and one woman are to be united."
However - how does this account for religious freedom? or even cultural - beleif and conscience
Although among many nations plurality of wives or polygamy has been legally recognized
--------
Personally I think the court has no real choice but to make polygamy legal in Canada - I'd be suprised even if this happened
but frankly the courts really don't have authentic reasonable grounds to call it fundamental justice - as time immemorable doesn't come into play on this one. |
LOL.
I love how before homosexuals got the right to marry. The argument from the anti-crowd was "But if Homos can get married, then polygamy won't be far behind!" to which the pro-crown said "Nonsense, polygamy is entirely different, that'll never happen."
And now the polygamy crowd is going "Well if the homos can get married, we should be able to as well!".
Oh it's funny how things work sometimes. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
im against polygamy due to family law and taxation issues. its just a nightmare of new regulation and legislation and time spent that could be better directed elsewhere.
i also kinda object to people using religious belief as an excuse to indulge in anything they damned well please. why can i become a bigamist if that's my religous belief, but not because i want all the chores done? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
instead of forming corporations as a tax shelter maybe people will form a civil union among many instead? maybe it can be called a "multifamily"?
Why not just extend taxation benifits to whole families (those willing members of a family) rather than just spouses to even it out... and let friends form "financial unions"
then there would be no grounds for complaint with the system for unfairness. |
these kinds of ideas are always nice until you actually look at the necessary steps that must be made to fulfill them. nothing you have mentioned answered my central problem with polygamy. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| the problem is the colossal amount of legal infrastructure that would be needed to cater to polygamist relationships, particularly in the family law court and the tax office. both being prohibitively expensive and time-consuming compared to the benefits that would be gained. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Jesus, there's enough legal issues with just two people...
Are we f*kin' serious about this?? :wtf: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
So I should suppose any minority group is not valued enough to spend time on. hmmmm?! |
useless non-sequitur and im done with your nonsense. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
useless non-sequitur and im done with your nonsense. |
are you??? :) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
yeah cause a court case has never involved more than two people before.
|
I was referring to marriage issues between two people in court there Einstein ;)
| quote: |
So I should suppose any minority group is not valued enough to spend time on. hmmmm?!
frankly I digress that is really what the law should focus on to bring a workable society,.. providing for minorities rights of their cultures which do not infringe the rights of the majority. |
This country kowtows enough to minorities already as it is and special laws for minorities aren't needed when the current ones have been working just fine for everyone else.
If some minority doesn't like what the majority already has to deal with in the realm of current law then I humbly suggest deal with it or don't let the door hit on the way out... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
are you??? :) |
hahaha laz! yeah i am. nothing i hate more than wishy-washy, try-hard, self-taught intellectualism when people get simple facts wrong. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
just saying I thought I saw you today.. but I'm geussing you wern't in downtown toronto on around bloor/college st today eh. someone who looked like you anyway.. pretty sure it was bloor. sorta around little italy. |
Not today but I was down at College & Yonge on Monday...
Picked up the 'Cities and Knights' expansion for Settlers of Catan. :D |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Not today but I was down at College & Yonge on Monday...
Picked up the 'Cities and Knights' expansion for Settlers of Catan. :D |
+1 have yet to play the expansion though.
...
My gut is against polygamy and my own logical reasoning thinks that it could be a real nightmare in practice. All of a sudden life becomes constantly political as each spouse needs to be considered and interacted with. Of course there's the patriarcal model to balance that but I'm pretty against that type of thing.
I must say polygamy does seem to have a angle where real pricks simply get no women because a spouse might choose to be number 3 or 4 to a good partner over being number one to an ass. |
|
|
|
|
