Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Everyone should watch "the lost boys" documentary on CBC and think about if that started to become more prevelent in society what would be the macro result. It's all about control. Sometimes a society must reaffirm why we do things the way we do things and resist the urge to get into moral equivilency arguements on all issues that automatically devolve into
"everyone do what you feel like as long as everyone involved gives consent." The ultimate problem is that in morman sects and Islamic polygamous relationships I'd find it really hard for the women who have been indoctirnated in these faiths (That incidently are about iscolation, domination and control) could even possibly give 'informed' consent. Consent yes, but you can't tell me a 15 year old girl who has been iscolated from common society that is forced into an arranged marriage in which she has to share her 60 year old husband with 5 other wives isn't in a lot of ways pschycologically forced into it.
This isn't an opportunity for "What might be right for some, might be wrong for others, the world marches to the beat of different drum" reasoning.
|
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
However, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written by a Socialist, specifically, one of the Utopian Socialist variety. This has handcuffed our judiciary into accepting things that society finds unnerving but tolerable (like SSM), but also keeps the door open for things that are downright shocking and distasteful. Polygamy appears set to be the first of these. All in the name of multiculturalism, freedom, liberty and justice. I'm still waiting for Sharia Law to be an approved form of dispute resolution... since disapproval of it on rational and humanistic lines constitutes discrimination, intolerance and racism.
A good (albeit geeky) analogy is that our legal system is more Star Trek: The Next Generation than Star Trek: The Original Series. Picard viewed Peace and the Prime Directive as sacrosanct, and had to make some very dubious decisions to uphold those, even when common sense and morality said it was the wrong decision. The cost of upsetting the balance wasn't worth appeasing some fringe people. Kirk viewed Peace and the Prime Directive as important, but not more important than doing the right thing. He'd often make decisions that showed total disregard for the host society because they were so clearly flawed. He even risked war to defend what was right. That view was the cost of upsetting the balance was worth it.