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% |
01-22-2009, 12:49 AM
|
#41
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
"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.
|
As a real male with a perpetual hard-on I'll say if you can keep a few women happy and their happy about it...great, but you'll never convince me that two guys getting married is the proper thing. this is a frigged up country if someone disagrees.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 01:05 AM
|
#42
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
I guess it must be a frigged up country since most people disagree... Maybe not proper as in the usual, but definitely proper as in, they should have the right.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 03:22 AM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
As a real male with a perpetual hard-on I'll say if you can keep a few women happy and their happy about it...great, but you'll never convince me that two guys getting married is the proper thing. this is a frigged up country if someone disagrees.
|
You might want to consult a physician about your circulation problems. If you don't want to do that I suggest a cold shower or at the very least a google search of the word "priapism".
You'll never convince me that two midgets filling a spare tire with lemon meringue is the proper thing.
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 01-22-2009 at 03:35 AM.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 05:49 AM
|
#44
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
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.
|
This is one of the biggest problems, in addition to marriage to minors due to this same duress.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 05:59 AM
|
#45
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
I don't see anything wrong with it personally. Doesn't float my boat, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless it limits my personal female opportunities!
As for the abuse of power thing - we already have a ton of marriages that are abusive in many ways. There are bound to be some bad setups of all marriages, none are going to produce only perfect situations. As long as everyone is of age and consenting, I don't see the problem. It isn't something that should be made advantageous for any reason, but I don't see the issue in recognizing it.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 06:44 AM
|
#46
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Maybe a poll?
Q: Should polygamy be legalized?
1. Yes, I can't see anything inherently wrong with it.
2. Yes, but with some caveats which I posted below.
3. No, it's wrong because it goes against my religion.
4. No, it's wrong because the harm from abuse for power will far outweigh the benefits for the few that don't.
5. No, it's wrong because it does some other harm to society which I posted below.
6. No, it's wrong for some other reason I posted below.
Any options I can add? Or a different set of questions? Poll will be anonymous to see what people really think.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:03 AM
|
#47
|
In the Sin Bin
|
7. "No, it's wrong because I don't have a dozen chicks hanging off of me."
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:08 AM
|
#48
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
8. Multiple wives is punishment enough!
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:24 AM
|
#49
|
Fearmongerer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
|
The polyamory thing was touched upon by myself in this forum a couple years ago, and it was (IIRC) during the gay marriage "debate" time. The argument then was that it could open the proverbial "can of worms" and as was predicted by some...it has.
Polyamory though is different in that it is a rather basic theory...
Just like if you have a child, you love it, nurture it, etc etc...and then you have another...does that mean the first child is loved any less?? Of course not. That is also the polyamorists theory. In essence, they expouse that their is no finite amount of "love" a person has and that consenting adults should and can share multiple partners.
__________________
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:26 AM
|
#50
|
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
|
What if a woman wanted multiple husbands?
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:27 AM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
What if a woman wanted multiple husbands?
|
go nuts. I really have no idea why anyone would want more than one spouse. What a pain in the ass that would be.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:28 AM
|
#52
|
Norm!
|
As long as the men don't have to make eye contact.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:41 AM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
|
I've heard arguments from both sides.
If the defense is pleading religious persecution, it will inevitably go to the Supreme Court. In order to be struck down by the Charter, the defense must bring significant evidence to prove that the Canadian laws on polygamy are religious in nature, that is, designed to discriminate against Mormons. They would be using the 1986 "Big M Drug Mart" case re. the Lord's Day Act. Indeed, our polygamy law was enacted in the 1890s by the MacDonald government in order to prevent polygamous Mormons from settling in Canada, mainly in Southern Alberta.
The prosecution will have a tough time, but they also have court precedence on their side. A law that discriminates against religious freedom can pass the Oake test if it demonstrates that the law is secular in nature and is designed to protect a certain group of people from another. I can't really remember the case precedent, I think it was a similar case in Ontario, where the court upheld a "secular day of rest law" even though it discriminated in a way towards Orthodox Jews.
Furthermore, the prosecution can also point towards the fact that Mormons were never banned from entering Canada. At no point, did the law discriminate against Mormons. The law explicitly bans polygamous relationships, alot of which at the time happened to Mormon. It can be argued that this was, essentially, secular in nature.
As for where I stand, polygamy is a crime against women. It may not have direct effects, but I believe that it does stand as a sign of long-term social degradation. In my mind it has nothing to do with gay marriage or the equality rights inherent in a marriage. Occasionally, women and men will enter into mutually beneficial polygamous relationships, almost solely because of environment scarcity. The collective relationship brings economic advantages.
However, the vast majority of polygamous relationships, certainly in the case of Blackmore, are strictly about power and harem-building. They are intrinsically unequal in regards to women who are treated, essentially, as property.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:44 AM
|
#54
|
In the Sin Bin
|
The Mormon Church itself does not condone polygamy. That would also make the defence's case a little more challenging in that regard.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:44 AM
|
#55
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
The polyamory thing was touched upon by myself in this forum a couple years ago, and it was (IIRC) during the gay marriage "debate" time. The argument then was that it could open the proverbial "can of worms" and as was predicted by some...it has..
|
And I believe the counter-argument was, so what?
If we want to stop this slippery slope we should take Marriage away from couples of the opposite sex, no? Ever since couples of the opposite sex have been able to get married the gays have wanted it as well.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:45 AM
|
#56
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I laugh at how it's always the old well as long as it's consenting adults then who cares. Or some utopian argument. When in reality it's always some Kentucky Hillbilly like inbreeding coupled with abuse of women and children. Got zero to do with some guy attracting multiple women. Zero to do with some loving relationship.
Just people suffering because of some arsehole. But yeah let's legitimize it. Anybody who has actually been married knows how difficult a one on one marriage is. So compound the problems and who will suffer?
Yeah I'm good with it as long as it does not harm me these days is considered being tolerant. To me it's just the ultimate me first and who cares about the rest abrogation of responsibility.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyFlame For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-22-2009, 08:51 AM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
And I believe the counter-argument was, so what?
If we want to stop this slippery slope we should take Marriage away from couples of the opposite sex, no? Ever since couples of the opposite sex have been able to get married the gays have wanted it as well.
|
It's a lot more complicated than that, but yeah, from a civil rights perspective, it's pretty hard to argue that some monogamous couples get full tax/legal benefits and other monogamous couples don't strictly based on the combination of genitalia.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 09:05 AM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame
I laugh at how it's always the old well as long as it's consenting adults then who cares. Or some utopian argument. When in reality it's always some Kentucky Hillbilly like inbreeding coupled with abuse of women and children. Got zero to do with some guy attracting multiple women. Zero to do with some loving relationship.
Just people suffering because of some arsehole. But yeah let's legitimize it. Anybody who has actually been married knows how difficult a one on one marriage is. So compound the problems and who will suffer?
Yeah I'm good with it as long as it does not harm me these days is considered being tolerant. To me it's just the ultimate me first and who cares about the rest abrogation of responsibility.
|
and you could make the same argument about a lot of so-called conventional marriages. There's always going to be losers out there controlling or abusing women.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 09:09 AM
|
#59
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by habernac
and you could make the same argument about a lot of so-called conventional marriages. There's always going to be losers out there controlling or abusing women.
|
Followed yep shortly by there are conventional marriages where there are problems so let's give some jerk the right to abuse women and children. Spare me.
So let her get on the phone and call the cops and charge the dufus. Not let some ultimate loser do it to multiple women and children at once.
|
|
|
01-22-2009, 09:10 AM
|
#60
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by habernac
and you could make the same argument about a lot of so-called conventional marriages. There's always going to be losers out there controlling or abusing women.
|
But we have pretty tight domestic laws to deal with them. A lot of people are concerned about the long-term effects of legal polygamy. Ie. Women are essentially property.
|
|
|
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 05:55 AM.
|
|