Polygamy recognized in Canada

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Done.

I'm pretty sure that Jim Prentice is going to cost you $25. Good on you for stepping up and making the bet though. Here's his stance on the issue:

(http://www.jimprentice.ca/Documents/Feb2Statement.htm)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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

You can't? Or you shouldn't?

I've never heard of a law that will charge you for smoking while pregnant.

Whats the big deal anyways? The fetus isn't a human being, right?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

The fetus isn't a human being, right?

I don't know, is it Azure?

[Vulcan]

I'm not against polygamy. The trouble is that most of the polygamists are members of cults who treat their women as chattels and often force underage girls into these relationships. If mature responsible adults wish to get into a multiple marriage, I don't have a lot of misgivings.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I don't know, is it Azure?

Avoiding the question, once again?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Avoiding the question, once again?

I learn from the best.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

It does, its the continued degradation of ours morals, beliefs and customs.

If you dont think it is, thats fine, your entiled to your opinion. And to be frank I hope your right.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It does, its the continued degradation of ours morals, beliefs and customs.

If you dont think it is, thats fine, your entiled to your opinion. And to be frank I hope your right.

So in which period do you think our "moral compass" was pointing in the right direction?

1950? 1900? 1800? 1000?

As far as I'm concerned our "morals" have never been more appropraite than they are right now. If anything, we have come a long way from where we were.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I learn from the best.

Especially with your insults. If you're not answering the question, there is no point in slinging stupid comments back and forth.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So in which period do you think our "moral compass" was pointing in the right direction?

1950? 1900? 1800? 1000?

As far as I'm concerned our "morals" have never been more appropraite than they are right now. If anything, we have come a long way from where we were.

Well let me say that I am glad YOU aren't running the country.
There are many that agree with me and many that agree with you and thats all we are going to get out of this discussion.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually I was thinking it'd be the other way around. The Liberals are going to be looking to show that they aren't all the same, so they can't all be associated with the scandals. The Conservatives on the other hand have an agenda, there's going to be questions of unity in the governing part if they don't all agree. I'm willing to make a bet that no Conservative MPs vote against Harper on this one.

OOO.. the scary Conservative agenda appears once again.

The Liberals have a history of whipping their members into line. The Conservatives (ex-Reformers especially) have a history of wanting/demanding more free votes, where every member can put their own or their constituency's voice and opinion forward.

[White Doors]

The free vote is a red herring. Steven Harper is defintely hoping that it passes, as it would create a firestorm if it did not. He has way more important fish to fry. Myself, I would be all good with it if they just had of called it something else other than marriage.
But I don't see it affecting my life at all.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The free vote is a red herring. Steven Harper is defintely hoping that it passes, as it would create a firestorm if it did not. He has way more important fish to fry. Myself, I would be all good with it if they just had of called it something else other than marriage.
But I don't see it affecting my life at all.

I dont agree with you. I think he is just doing this to get some pressure off of his back from his own caucus. I cannot see how it would pass with the government now. All bloc will vote against it. All NDP will vote against it and I am sure at least half of the liberlas will vote against it.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I dont agree with you. I think he is just doing this to get some pressure off of his back from his own caucus. I cannot see how it would pass with the government now. All bloc will vote against it. All NDP will vote against it and I am sure at least half of the liberlas will vote against it.

That's what I was trying to say. He wants the present legislation to stay the same. I think that's a better way to say it. He also wants to be able to say that he allowed a free vote.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The free vote is a red herring. Steven Harper is defintely hoping that it passes, as it would create a firestorm if it did not. He has way more important fish to fry. Myself, I would be all good with it if they just had of called it something else other than marriage.
But I don't see it affecting my life at all.

If it doesn't affect your life, why do you care what word they use? Sounds like they want the same rights, benefits, and recognition that a marriage provides... seems dumb to make up a word when one already fits... as far as they're concerned... and really, since they're the ones doing what they want, why should anyone else care what they call it?

[White Doors]

I just believe that you can be different AND equal. Same sex IS different than opposite sex marriage.

[Mike F]

Women are different than men, so should our society have found some other "different but equal" way for them to participate in democracy other than giving them the right to vote, recoginzing that that was a right traditionally only given to men?

You personally may be "OK with homosexuality", but by denying homosexuals the right to marry and forcing them to find "something else" you still send the message that something about them is lesser than straight people and not worthy of marriage, perpetuating the negative stereotypes and opinions of them that have lead to things like gay bashing and hate crimes.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Women are different than men, so should our society have found some other "different but equal" way for them to participate in democracy other than giving them the right to vote, recoginzing that that was a right traditionally only given to men?

You personally may be "OK with homosexuality", but by denying homosexuals the right to marry and forcing them to find "something else" you still send the message that something about them is lesser than straight people and not worthy of marriage, perpetuating the negative stereotypes and opinions of them that have lead to things like gay bashing and hate crimes.

I disagree 100%. There is a train of thought in our 'PC' dominated culture that you have to be the SAME to be equal. That's crap. They ARE different and that's ok. Celebrate our differences I say. If you just pretend that there are no differences then you are wasting a great learning opportunity to get to know different people.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If it doesn't affect your life, why do you care what word they use? Sounds like they want the same rights, benefits, and recognition that a marriage provides... seems dumb to make up a word when one already fits... as far as they're concerned... and really, since they're the ones doing what they want, why should anyone else care what they call it?

The traditional definition of marriage is between 1 man and 1 women. Anything else doesnt fit. Now I am not saying they shouldnt have the same rights, they should, but they do not mee the traditional definition of marriage. Make up a new word.. It happens every day.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The traditional definition of marriage is between 1 man and 1 women. Anything else doesnt fit. Now I am not saying they shouldnt have the same rights, they should, but they do not mee the traditional definition of marriage. Make up a new word.. It happens every day.

Change the definition of the word, as Rouge said, it happens every day. "Gay" used to mean "happy". Now it doesn't. Things change.

I don't see how the 'traditional definition' has anything to do with what they want to call it. "Marriage" is in the public domain, and cannot be denied to individuals based on their (ugh) 'traditions'. Marriage is a public good, now.

Golf was 'traditionally' men-only. Does that mean women have to go find their own golf courses to play at... and can they call it golf? Or will they have to call it civil-hard-wiffleball? (they do, after all, start at different tees...)