View Poll Results: Should polygamy be legal
|
Yes, I can't see anything inherently wrong with it.
|
|
42 |
33.87% |
Yes, but with some caveats which I posted below.
|
|
25 |
20.16% |
No, it's wrong because it goes against my religion.
|
|
8 |
6.45% |
No, it's wrong because the abuse of power will far outweigh the benefits for the few that don't.
|
|
38 |
30.65% |
No, it's wrong because it does some other harm to society which I posted below.
|
|
7 |
5.65% |
No, it's wrong for some other reason I posted below.
|
|
4 |
3.23% |
01-21-2009, 11:05 PM
|
#1
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Now world wide!
|
Polygamists argue gay marriage defence
There have been a couple of threads that have touched on this issue, but they're either slightly off-point or pretty old, so I'll take my fataing chances with starting a new thread.
Polygamy is coming to the forefront of Canadian hot-button issues in 2009 and, predictably, they're looking to arguments which proved successful for gay marriage to justify their position.
The AP Article by Jeremy Hainsworth
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.
"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.
Suffredine said the case is also about religious persecution.
I think they have a point. What do you think?
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:11 PM
|
#2
|
Lifetime In Suspension
|
If gays can marry then why not have polygamy? Well, if cars can go 120 mph, why can't I stab a hobo?
I see as much correlation between the first argument as the second. I'm surely not as intellectual or nearly as articulate in voicing my opinions as most of the CP, but that's just off. 1/1 is still the same ratio. If they present an argument that poses a 1/1 ratio of human to human, I'll agree with them. No real reason why, doesn't bother me any what people chose to do or who they want to marry.
To be somewhat serious, what are the arguments against polygamy other than your standard bible "one man one woman" argument? I could see potential abuse issues, as in my uninformed and off the cuff opinion the only polygamist stuff I can think of is Branch Dividian and stuff like that. Who knows.
Ok, someone go ahead and start the gay marriage argument.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:12 PM
|
#3
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I think it's a valid argument, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clarkey For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:12 PM
|
#4
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
|
I'm against it, guys like brad pitt will get lots of women screwing up the ratio for us regular joes.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:13 PM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
|
what I don't get is that if these guys just started pumping out kids with these women without actually going through a ceremony, the government wouldn't care and we'd just consider him another dead beat dad.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:13 PM
|
#6
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
im not really suprised by this...figured it would happen eventually after gay marriage was allowed. i hope it doesnt get allowed, but thats my opinion, i also had hoped they wouldnt allow gay marriage...
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, and HITMEN!
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:15 PM
|
#7
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
I think they have a point as well.
In the past you could probably make a case that polygamy was about male control and ownership of women, so that would be a reason against it I guess.
But women are equal now (well supposedly, speaking ideal situation), so that shouldn't be an issue (at least not a systemic issue, individual relationships can be about power and control in a 1:1 relationship, nothing we can legislate to protect against that beyond restricting violence).
So yeah, I have the same question. What would be wrong with polygamy if it's between consenting groups of adults?
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:16 PM
|
#8
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
i would never choose to have more than one wife, but if consenting adults want to have civil unions so be it. call it marriage, i see no problem.
if a religion is against it they dont have to perform the marriage ceremonies.
its of no one business and of no threat to my marriage.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:17 PM
|
#9
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
i hope it doesnt get allowed, but thats my opinion,
|
Why?
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:18 PM
|
#10
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If gays can marry then why not have polygamy? Well, if cars can go 120 mph, why can't I stab a hobo?
|
ahah
That one made me laugh pretty hard.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:18 PM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moscow, ID
|
ResAlien is right, gay marriage is completely irrelevant and sets no precedent for polygamy.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:20 PM
|
#12
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sec 216
|
Any man brave enough to try and please more than one woman can go right ahead in my books.
I can hardly get one girl to date me, let alone 2 or 3 or 10 to marry me.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:22 PM
|
#13
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 30 minutes from the Red Mile
|
I don't see what the problem is if polygamy tickles your fancy and you can afford it. Some guy named Hefner has been doing it for 30+ years and it seems to work out just fine, instead of "wives" they're just labelled "bunnies" that's all.
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:23 PM
|
#14
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I think they have a point as well.
In the past you could probably make a case that polygamy was about male control and ownership of women, so that would be a reason against it I guess.
But women are equal now (well supposedly, speaking ideal situation), so that shouldn't be an issue (at least not a systemic issue, individual relationships can be about power and control in a 1:1 relationship, nothing we can legislate to protect against that beyond restricting violence).
So yeah, I have the same question. What would be wrong with polygamy if it's between consenting groups of adults?
|
See I would agree, but I just can't in certain points.
It seems that the groups that are doing polygamist marriages are groups where the men are definitely in the position of power and near ownership. These marriages are also usually arranged by the church leaders or community leaders to me that puts these woman into a position no better then that of slave. How much pressure was exerted on these young girls to marry these creepy old men?
It also seems that there is quite a bit of control exerted over these woman.
I think that the government has made a mistake in these charges and should have focused on the underage marriage issues.
There's almost no way that this isn't going to open some supreme court intervention at some point.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:23 PM
|
#15
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Wait, what? So we're not allowed to stab hobos? Since when?
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:24 PM
|
#16
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incinerator
I don't see what the problem is if polygamy tickles your fancy and you can afford it. Some guy named Hefner has been doing it for 30+ years and it seems to work out just fine, instead of "wives" they're just labelled "bunnies" that's all.
|
Except that Hef has never married these woman.
Plus this isn't two way choice, the men in these communities have the choice, the woman are chosen for the men. They don't have a true say.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:25 PM
|
#17
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Wait, what? So we're not allowed to stab hobos? Since when?
|
Well thats kinda a gray area Locke. We're not allowed to stab hobos, but heck how can you stop yourself, its like eating candy, once you stab one you have to keep making a trip to skid row.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:30 PM
|
#18
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why?
|
...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine. my point of view is that God made marriage as a thing for a man and a wife, in certain ways men and women fit together (not just in a physical sense). what complicates it is that people want to get married because they get financial benefits and society is more accepting of married people. why does a gay couple need to get married? i still think guys having sex together is not what God intended, but if they want to then thats what they want to do. why get married? same thing with marrying multiple partners, why marriage? cant they just commit to the other person? isnt marriage a commitment to one other person? a guy is supposed to just have sex with his wife, not other women(or men). same thing the other way around. again, my opinion/beliefs here.
the argument of course is that people should be allowed to do what they want...come up with a new term or something for a permanent(how permanent is marriage nowadays tho) union that isnt marriage but essentially the same thing. if people want to get married, who is the governement to stop them as consenting adults, as was stated by another poster. its a valid argument, which is why im not going to protest it or something, but i would still vote against it. i hope that makes sense.
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, and HITMEN!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to calgaryrocks For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:35 PM
|
#19
|
Lifetime In Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...first off its my opinion, so you are welcome to state your own, but there is no need to attack mine.
|
Did I miss something or is a single word post that says "Why?" now an attack? I'm sure you were ready with the lengthy post anticipating the inevitable aggravated response to your first comment, especially ending that post with that sentence and leaving the "...". I mean, that's just hanging the bait out there. Fair enough, but dude, at least wait til someone takes a real shot at you.
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-21-2009, 11:36 PM
|
#20
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
i know it wasnt an attack, just a question. just being preventitive, maybe too much, sure. but i expected it may turn into some kind of religious argument or something like that.
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, and HITMEN!
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:14 AM.
|
|