Polygamy recognized in Canada

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks for that.

I dont trust the courts as much as you I guess.

If you seriously even think for a minute that the courts would ever consider legalizing the marriage of children and adults, I'd really hate to live in your world.

I'd probably have a heart attack.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You can do a search and see this topic has come up a few times; a number of them before the last federal election.

And since this is going to come up for a free vote this fall, I'm sure it will be dabated a few more times.

I know that. But I'm not starting the argument.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If you seriously even think for a minute that the courts would ever consider legalizing the marriage of children and adults, I'd really hate to live in your world.

I'd probably have a heart attack.

Ok??? Where, tell me where I said the marriage of children and adults. By the way it is legal now with the permission of the parent of the child. Down to a certain age.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

If you seriously even think for a minute that the courts would ever consider legalizing the marriage of children and adults, I'd really hate to live in your world.

I'd probably have a heart attack.

Whats wrong with it?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Just for fun, and for a little clarification, I'll ask this one simple question:

Same-sex marriage should be

A) legal
B) illegal

I'm notorious for getting "owned" in same-sex debates, but I feel like saying something stupid anyway. Regarding your question, I think the answer is

C) None of the above.

Something that is a contradiction in terms, namely gay marriage, can be neither legal nor illegal because it doesn't exist. Of course, it exists now by the authority of the powers that be, but without the legislated re-definition of a centuries-old word, your original question is nonsense. It should have been:

Q: The government has the authority to re-define the word "marriage":

A) Yes
B) No

Since the answer is evidently "Yes," then they can also take out the provision of "2 people to the exclusion of all others." I'd wager that there will be a Charter challenge very soon, and the government will lose because it's already admitted (through legislation) that marriage is no longer fundamentally about promoting procreation and stable households*, but is simply a declaration of love between adults.

A committed gay couple should indeed be able to obtain the same benefits as a married straight couple in terms of pensions, taxes, legal powers, etc. I see no reason to deny those rights. Nor do I see any reason to deny those rights to a 3- or 4-person group with the same commitments to each other. The way the government has gone about doing that for gay couples, though--by toying with the definition of marriage--opens up a can of worms for other groups (polygamists) who use the term in a non-standard way.

I didn't intend to write this much**...just wanted to make a comment about your multiple choice question. Not really sure if it's on topic. Sorry if not.

*Stipulation: I've heard all the arguments about sterile couples, those who don't want to have kids, etc. Agreed...having kids is not a requirement of a traditional marriage either, but the institution developed around the concept of procreation so they're fundamentally entwined. Until now.

**I didn't intend to write this much because I don't want to get deep into this debate again. This is therefore a drive-by posting for the moment. I might check back in next week.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok??? Where, tell me where I said the marriage of children and adults. By the way it is legal now with the permission of the parent of the child. Down to a certain age.

The only thing I am worried about is if Polygamy is legallized, do we start down a slippery slope where since Polygamists claim that they have a right to marry as many people as they want, are the Kiddy Ticklers going to come out and say it is their right to view whatever they want.

Thats what I am worried about.

That and if you were implying sex with children I would argue the same thing. I beleive it is 16 or 14 years old (I'm not sure) the legal age of consent. I strongly doubt it will ever be lowered in our life time.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Something that is a contradiction in terms, namely gay marriage, can be neither legal nor illegal because it doesn't exist. Of course, it exists now by the authority of the powers that be, but without the legislated re-definition of a centuries-old word, your original question is nonsense. It should have been:

Christian society is not the only culture in the world. Marriage exsists all over the world in multiple forms, some cultures allow gay marriage, some cultures multiple female partners and others still multiple male partners.

Marriage is not universally defined as a union between one man and one woman, therefore your assessment of the word is bunk.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why is it "wrong" to marry your mom, dad, brother, sister?

Because of recessive genetic diseases.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Because of recessive genetic diseases.

And that makes it wrong? Or physically harmful?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That and if you were implying sex with children I would argue the same thing. I beleive it is 16 or 14 years old (I'm not sure) the legal age of consent. I strongly doubt it will ever be lowered in our life time.

You need to read the words in the post. I said they would argue that it is their right to VIEW child porn. I didnt say marry, I didnt say have sex.

And just so you know it took the Conservatives to introduce a bill to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16. The liberals shot it down.

They again plan on introducing the legistlation agian now that they form the government.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

And that makes it wrong? Or physically harmful?

Yep, for same reason you can't abuse alcohol/drugs while you are pregnant.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You need to read the words in the post. I said they would argue that it is their right to VIEW child porn. I didnt say marry, I didnt say have sex.

And just so you know it took the Conservatives to introduce a bill to increase the age of consent from 14 to 16. The liberals shot it down.

They again plan on introducing the legistlation agian now that they form the government.

What the heck does Polygamy have to do with letting people look at pictures of nude children?

Stay on topic at least in the same sentance.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Christian society is not the only culture in the world. Marriage exsists all over the world in multiple forms, some cultures allow gay marriage, some cultures multiple female partners and others still multiple male partners.

Marriage is not universally defined as a union between one man and one woman, therefore your assessment of the word is bunk.

Definition of words change throughout societies and cultures. So as Canadian we use the definition of the word that we have used always. Not the definition that Pakistan uses or any other country.

We dont change the definition of words when new phenomanom arise, we make NEW worlds for it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What the heck does Polygamy have to do with letting people look at pictures of nude children?

Stay on topic at least in the same sentance.

Holy cow buddy. Are you drunk?????

My original post was that I was afraid it would be a slippery slope.

Are your Mom and Dad brother and sister?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Holy cow buddy. Are you drunk?????

My original post was that I was afraid it would be a slippery slope.

Are your Mom and Dad brother and sister?

It could only be a slippery slope if the 2 items were even remotely related. How the heck are "viewing child porn and people having more than one wife/husband" even remotely related.

WOW.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It could only be a slippery slope if the 2 items were even remotely related. How the heck are "viewing child porn and people having more than one wife/husband" even remotely related.

WOW.

It comes down to these "inherent" rights that these groups proclaim to have. If you argue that the have a "right" to marry as many people as they want, then they will argue they have a "right" to marry whoever they want, they will then argue they have the "right" to view any material do to freedom of press, beliefs whatever.

It's a slippery slope. I am not saying it WILL happen I just dont have a lot of trust in the courts that it Won't happen.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Definition of words change throughout societies and cultures. So as Canadian we use the definition of the word that we have used always. Not the definition that Pakistan uses or any other country.

We dont change the definition of words when new phenomanom arise, we make NEW worlds for it.

The English language changes every day. The particular word we are discussing has itself meant different things at different times.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The English language changes every day. The particular word we are discussing has itself meant different things at different times.

Thats why there are hundreds of words added every year to the dictionary.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It comes down to these "inherent" rights that these groups proclaim to have. If you argue that the have a "right" to marry as many people as they want, then they will argue they have a "right" to marry whoever they want, they will then argue they have the "right" to view any material do to freedom of press, beliefs whatever.

It's a slippery slope. I am not saying it WILL happen I just dont have a lot of trust in the courts that it Won't happen.

No.

That argument would have just as much creditiblity if you had said "Polygamy would increase the chance of murder being legal".

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thats why there are hundreds of words added every year to the dictionary.

So what are you trying to say? That the definition of existing words doesn't change? If you are, you are wrong.