Group sex okayed by Supreme Court of Canada

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

Yeah, so your wife enjoys the company of old, chubby, hairy men?? I keed

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!

Oh wait, I am chubby and hairy! HA! And the ladies love me! Well, one at least...

[transplant99]

Your own personal moral issues aside Tranny, what are your arguments?

Who said I was arguing against it?

I am merely pointing out that, as was suggested when the gay marriage thing was made law, it would open a can of worms.

That appears to be the case.

I personally dont believe their should be multiple marriages but thats only because I think it takes everything you have to make a single marriage work properly. That is something that is neither provable in a court room or necessarliy applicable to everyone. Merely my own experience.

[Calgary Flames]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!

Oh wait, I am chubby and hairy! HA! And the ladies love me! Well, one at least...

If only Nighttime Chubby Mexican Fireplace Arm Guy could get in on that action.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm sure someone could make a legit argument that polygamy is harmful to society so I don't know that it would stand up to this "test".

Well, I would like to see this legit argument, if it is not too much to ask. What difference does it make to you whether some other guy has one wife or fifteen? Well I guess you could say that leaves you with less women to choose from, but I am affraid that is not a legit argument

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I'm glad the courts ruled the way they did, the government has no business in the bedrooms, unless someones rights are being abused.

If you look at some of those polygymous sects (Hope BC etc.), you find examples of extreme pressure for young women...errr....girls being coerced into marrying older men. that ain't cool.

But if Dick, Jane and Mary all want to be together, there is nothing stopping it now. Legal recognition of that relationship would be a huge legal task IMO, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

BTW, the argument that same sex marriage is a slippery slope leading to polygamy...bestiality...pedophelia....plauges of locusts etc. really bugs me. {not putting words in your mouth T99, just commenting on the general sentiment}

Same-sex marriage is only about removing the last gender based rule in marriage. Changing the law so that 2+ people can be married is completely seperate IMO.
________
PrisscumXXX

[transplant99]

BTW, the argument that same sex marriage is a slippery slope leading to polygamy...bestiality...pedophelia....plauges of locusts etc. really bugs me. {not putting words in your mouth T99, just commenting on the general sentiment}

Not that same sex marriages are leading the way down the path...but the ruling that allowed it.

It appears that is indeed the case.....or this is merely coincidence. Im leaning to the former.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

If only Nighttime Chubby Mexican Fireplace Arm Guy could get in on that action.

Man you guys and your Fireplace Arm Guy. You all need help...

[Lurch]

So I assume multiple marriages are next on the agenda?

Seriously...how could they deny that too? Consenting adults can engage with multiple adults sexuallly....but not marry said people if they so choose?

The slippery slope is being realized...and very quickly.

Slippery slope arguments wrt society are completely without logical grounds. Society exists, and always has, at some point on a 'slope'. The very act of establishing a society, implementing laws, etc puts you on a slope between anarchy and absolute dictatorship. As an example, self-defense is an acceptable reason for killing someone. Is this not the first step on the 'slippery slope' to wholesale killings? Or at the other end, once you establish one law that limits people's behaviour, what is stopping the slippery slope from ending up at absolute lack of personal freedom?

Just as a final point, I don't think that the foolishness of these arguments are limited to social conservatives. Clowns like the ACLU seem to think any tiny infringement on perceived rights will ultimately lead to government control of every aspect of their life via the exact same slippery slope argument.

[transplant99]

So i take it you disagree that the same-sex law led to this decision?

That's fine, I don't see it your way.

This doesn't affect me one way or another, but the argument remains legitimate.

Where does this end?

[Lurch]

So i take it you disagree that the same-sex law led to this decision?

That's fine, I don't see it your way.

This doesn't affect me one way or another, but the argument remains legitimate.

Where does this end?

Is this even a serious question? Are you asking at what point will society stop evolving and old people everywhere will be able to stop saying "things were better when I was young"? Generally, I would say that Canadian society is becoming more open and diverse, and I think this move is likely to be ongoing for a while yet. Doubtless at some point there will be a 'cultural retraction' where social conservatives gain the upper hand, such as is ongoing in the US.

My guess is that polygamy won't be state sponsored for economic reasons, i.e. there will be strong resistance to paying benefits for multiple spouses. This is not to say that polygamous marriages might not eventually become part of Canadian society, just that I don't believe the economic benefits of marriage will be extended beyond a single spouse.

I think you are clearly mistaking cause and effect - recent changes in law reflect changes in social mores while your position seems to be that the laws dictate the mores. 50 years ago, a gay bathhouse could not have existed in the public eye b/c society would not have tolerated it. Today, the large majority of society looks the other way and mouths the words "I'm offended" at worst, but few would take any real action. Like it or not, our society is in flux and changes in law merely reflect this.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by fotze

Ever since this ruling came out, my dog has started looking HOTTTTT!!!! Goddamn lefty unelected judges, before I know I'll be humping my toaster.

Lol, nice.

Though, your dog isn't, and can never be, a consenting adult. If consenting adults want to get married, have sex, and do whatever they like in their own home (with as many people as they like), I don't see how it makes a difference in the way I choose to live my life.

I guess the 'slippery slope' that 'began' with Gay Marriage will certainly lead, eventually, to Polygamy... if enough people make it an issue to bring it out of the extreme backwoods of political battlegrounds.

Consenting adults should be able to do what they want, as long as they're not directly harming other people around them. Dogs (no matter how hot) can never be a consenting human over the age of 18.

Got any pictures of yer dog?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Well, I would like to see this legit argument, if it is not too much to ask. What difference does it make to you whether some other guy has one wife or fifteen? Well I guess you could say that leaves you with less women to choose from, but I am affraid that is not a legit argument

Actually I don't really care either so I don't know what the legit argument would be.

[hah]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...so I wonder when the first CalgaryPuck orgy will be organized? Im sure glad im not near Calgary! LOL

Right after Cowpersons' C.P. screening of Brokeback Mountain.

[Thunderball]

I may not be 100% on this, but the main force behind the slippery slope argument comes from the Charter.

The charter clearly states that the country cannot grant rights to one group without granting equal rights to the other. The argument then is, since they granted gay marriage, other associations can come forward and say that they demand equal rights... So... gay marriage, group sex, group marriage, polyandry, polygyny, recognition of bestiality... its a logical progression. Don't forget, not long ago, the thought of gay marriage was reprehensible, now about half of Canadians are for it.

Frankly, I think this ruling was a waste of time. People who wanted to engage in group sex were gonna do it, they didn't need a public thumbs up. It feels like we're getting buttered up for polygamy to me. Judges should be focusing on real laws (ie: whats with rape only being punishable by a scant few years??) and not stuff like this. Social agendas should not be the top priority of the government branches.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I may not be 100% on this, but the main force behind the slippery slope argument comes from the Charter.

The charter clearly states that the country cannot grant rights to one group without granting equal rights to the other. The argument then is, since they granted gay marriage, other associations can come forward and say that they demand equal rights... So... gay marriage, group sex, group marriage, polyandry, polygyny, recognition of bestiality... its a logical progression. Don't forget, not long ago, the thought of gay marriage was reprehensible, now about half of Canadians are for it.

Frankly, I think this ruling was a waste of time. People who wanted to engage in group sex were gonna do it, they didn't need a public thumbs up. It feels like we're getting buttered up for polygamy to me. Judges should be focusing on real laws (ie: whats with rape only being punishable by a scant few years??) and not stuff like this. Social agendas should not be the top priority of the government branches.

I basically agree with everything you say, though I'll reiterate my point from my above post; I don't think bestiality is part of the 'natural progression of the slippery slope'.

All of these groups/people are 'consenting adults'. I don't think we're going to see a man allowed to dominate his little harem of 12-14 year old girls as his 'wives'. It's all about consenting adults doing what they like. Animals are like children; they do not have the capacity of mind or intelligent maturity to 'make their own choice' when it comes to sexual practises. Legalized bestiality is not something I see happening. Polygamy... probably down the road, again, if enough people decide that's the best way for them to get down.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So i take it you disagree that the same-sex law led to this decision?

That's fine, I don't see it your way.

This doesn't affect me one way or another, but the argument remains legitimate.

Where does this end?

I honestly think that this case would have been heard and decided the same way two years ago.

Just my opinion.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

recognition of bestiality...

It will never be recognized. No way to prove consent.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It will never be recognized. No way to prove consent.

In the eyes of the law, animals have limited to no rights... so it would be the right of the consenting adult to use these animals to the way they desire, while proving it does not constitute cruelty, which is a truly awful way to look at it.

And Agamemnon... the age of consent in Canada is 14... so legally, a guy could have a harem of 14 year old women.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

In the eyes of the law, animals have limited to no rights...

Really? I could have sworn it was illegal to beat one's dog/animal, but I'm not sure... I'll have to look it up.

I'm fairly sure you couldn't, say, drag your dog out into the backyard and beat it to death. It does have _some_ rights. But I can't back this up... yet.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Who said I was arguing against it?

I am merely pointing out that, as was suggested when the gay marriage thing was made law, it would open a can of worms.

That appears to be the case.

I personally dont believe their should be multiple marriages but thats only because I think it takes everything you have to make a single marriage work properly. That is something that is neither provable in a court room or necessarliy applicable to everyone. Merely my own experience.

Just checking in from vacation to say:

From reading the reports on the case, I think it is safe to say that this ruling has nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with the gay marriage ruling.

The gay marriage ruling was based on the fact that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against, and therefore cannot be denied rights granted to heyerosexuals.

This ruling has nothing to do with discrimination, but involved a determination of how we define 'indecency' under our laws -- this court just said that to be indecent there must be harm, and since consentual swinging in private causes no harm it is not indecent.

Neither ruling opens the door for polygamy or bestiality. Neither group is one which cannot be discriminated against, and neither practice (IIRC) is illegal on the grounds that it is indecent.

However, as I've said before, polygamy is knocking at the door due to the fact that it is a part of the religious practices of some groups, and the Charter protects freedom of religion. So if you're worried about the legalization of polygamy, blame those pesky groups who demanded the right to practice religion free from government intervention.