Renegade

I guess it depends on if I care that society entitles my car the same rights as a spouse. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think there are two issues which should be separated out. 1. Who should I be allowed to enter a contract with? In my view, any adult should be able to enter a contract with any other adult if both can give informed consent. By definition, children, beasts, inanimate objects are excluded. The contract can include terms which are typically included in a marriage, such as mutual financial commitment, pension obligations, child support obligations, etc. 2. Who can I have a conjugal relationship with and declare a "maritial" relationship with? I think I should be able to have a conjugal relationship and declare maritial status with whomever I choose (provides both parties give informed consent) as I think it is only relevant between those two parties. However, I agree that society as a stake in enforcing point 1 (who I can enter a contract with), and so can dictate definitions in that area.

You are absolutely correct. There is no such legislation, nor should there be. This is my point. Just because society thinks monogamous marriage is "good" it shouldn't legislate it. It should leave it to people to do for themselves what comes naturally. Well before society created rules for it, couples were paring and acting as parents. I'm not sure which legislation you are referring to, but maybe you are reinforcing my point that perhaps there shoud not be legislation in this area at all. You may be right, I'm not sure, however I'm pretty sure that imposing rules on society is not the way to solve this.

I don't really want to sidetrack this thread into a discussion on divorce, however I will say that it is my belief that you cannot legislate a parent making children a priority, or going to church, or being a faithful spouse, or any number of "good" behaviours. Further, the importance of allowing free will, means that you shouldn't even try to should impose general rules to dictate such behaviour.

Actually I wasn't imagining parent-minor child incest. I was talking about adult sibling incest. I think that parent-minor child incest woudl still be probhited for the same reason that pedopehelia is prohibited and I dicussed above. (ie that the child cannot make informed consent). In the case of an adult child, then logic would indicate that yes, than kind of relationship would be permitted.

Yes, it would be open to anyone's interpretation. Different people or religions would interpret it differently. The reason I ask the question is, so what? If I want to declare myself married to my car, should society care? Of course you are right, however in a free society we have a presumption that an adult has free will, and short of violating another's rights, we give him free reign to do as he pleases. IOW, an adult has to presume he is acting a a way which negatively affect others, before society feels compelled to act.

That is true, afterall judges are only human, however the judical process incudes the opportunity to review and appeal which in my view has resulted in reaonably rational rulings. I'm pretty sure that when some of the rulings society now considers "good" first came out, they were considered abysmal by its detractors. I believe the same will be true for more recent rulings. Yes that is true. In my view that is not a bad thing. It two people don't want to be together, they shouldn't have to invent a better reason than incompability.

No, I was completely serious. I think only by examining what seems obvious can we arrive at what (if any) should be the bounds we impose on individuals. BTW, I was not meaning no set of rules at all on human behaviour. I simply was referring to marriage. The behaviour of what is permissable or not is already defined by other laws

You are correct that I base my argument on reason and logic. My reading of the difference is that I have confidence that the courts will base rulings on reason and logic, where you don't seem to have that same confidence. Nothing I've seen in the precedence leads me to believe that future rulings would be anything but rational. As far the progression from what was "forbidden" before into what was tolerable not. I don't have an issue with it if it can be justified rationally. There was a time when divorce was forbidden. There was a time when women voting was forbidden. All of those things we take for granted now. If a position cannot be rationally defended, then it is indefensible and ought to be abandoned.

Munz is right. Incest should be legalized, however I see no reason why Alexander is correct in assuming it is the "forerunner" of pedophilia. The politicans are just as shocked as the other poliiticians were when homosexual marriage was first considered.

Sure, it's your business. Since you are so open in your support of the sames issues, I didn't really think it was a matter of any confidentiality if you actually signed the petition. My only reason for asking was to understand if you so agreed with the issues, were you going to actually do something about it, or have you just been posturing? Yes you did point that out, but there is no requirement in WECC culture that it must be practiced in schools, so you haven't shown that such a restriction actually damaged WECC culture. Personanlly I don't think this is a cultural problem so much as it is a political issue. To sum it up, you will be outnumbered and you don't like it. OK, I understand it as a concern, but given that ethnics are a diverse group, each with a different set of concerns, IMV the kind of socety we will end up with is one which is tolerant to diveresity. I don't have a problem with that, I'm sorry you do. The net result is that WECC culture is given the same consideration as any other culture. Not more prviledged, not less. Personally I think that is the way it should be. I understand you don't, and think that WECC is somehow better than the rest because it is the culture of the majority. I agree, this would be a dangerous precedent and I'm glad it wasn't implemented. However, it woudl be just as dangerous if Catholic Law was make the basis of "legal" statutes in the province. That is why I condemn any religous basis for legal statutes in our society.

Since you would like to add apples and oranges together, why not add the number of tourists visiting Canada, call them immigrants too, and come up with an even bigger number of people who are a burden on Canda. BTW, It wasn't me who first referred them as 'White supremacist group' , I beleive it was Ontario's Hate Crime Unit.

Actually it makes no difference if the children are willing or if it does no harm to them. What makes a differnce is when they are capable of giving informed concent. We can all agree that a newborn doesn't the capacity to consent to anything. We can all agree that a normal 30-year-old adult can. Somewhere inbetween there needs to be a criteria by which we determine when the individual has the capacity to consent. If as you say that there are pedophile groups who are looking to make a case that a child has the same capacity to informed consent as an adult, then they are fighting a losing cause as such a case can never be made. I don't think so. I think that one would have to convince society that a beast has the same capacity as a human adult. If someone could prove that, then yes a beast would be able to vote, be able to be charged with a crime, be able to own property, and yes even be able to marry. So if you think that it is possible to show that a beast has the same cpacity as a human adult then yes I'd be worried. Personally I don't think it is possible to make such a case, so I'm not worried. Any law or rule will always have borderline cases which cause you to examine why the rule is in place to begin with. Personally I think the right way to deal with the situation is to not have a rule at all, and let the adults decide for themselves what their consetual relationship should be. ----------------------------------- Let me ask what may be a stupid question. Why do we need a rule on who is allowed to marry whom? Would caos desend on society if we didn't have such a rule and let people decide for themselves?

This really depends upon the cultural background. Even in western culture equal partnership in marriage is a relatively new concept. 100 years ago the model for monogamous marriage was the man at the head-of-the-household and the woman in an unequal relationship. The change in the role and options available to women is what changed monogamous marriage into a more equal partnership. In many religions and cultures today, monogamous marriage is not an equal partnership. That doesn't mean it is that it is polygamous marriage that is the cause. It is entirely possible that the religion that these groups suscribe to, preach male dominance and female subservience. If you accept that it is even possible, that a polygamous marriage doesn't necessarily result in a relationship where one parties rights are being violated then it should be permitted just as monogamous marriages are.

Then why bother to quote it? Did you sign the petition? Why or why not? I am willing to debate or accept positions based upon evidence. You present no evidence except anecdotal evidence which is as good as no evidence at all. There are points on immigration which I acutally agree with you on. For example, I agree that Canada doesn't "need" as many immigrants as it takes and can and should cut back on the number. I agree that the many times the standard of immigrants accepted is too low. I agree that the immigration system needs radical change. However what I don't agree with you on, and you have presented no evidence of, is that WECC culture is in peril because of immigration. And, what I mean by culture is language, religion, and the ability to celebrate traditions.

Actually even your cite has enough command of the English language to call them "temporary foreign workers" rather than "Temporary immigrant workers". Does your defence of WECC culture go so far as to require that Canadians use English terms properly?

Hey Leafless, it was you who felt that White English Christian Canadian Culture was being destroyed and that an essential part of the culture was the language. I'm just doing you a favour by protecting proper use of the Queen's English so that the Canadian Majority language isn't further degraded. ..You're welcome. Moi, halt free speech?? never. I don't have the power nor do I want to stop you from posting whatever drivel you want to. In my view, the more you post, the more it illustrates how ridiculous your position is. It was YOU who suggested that you were going to stop posting in the thread, not me. So post, or don't post, it is up to you. Actually as far as I know there is no rule banning racists. You are free to be a racist if you want to be one. You are free to quote racist white-supremacist groups as you have already done. In fact I support free speech, so I support your right to be as racist as you like without being banned.

How is it different with monogamy?

So is this guy. Is it legal to put up a billboard with his face? That would probably contrevene hate laws as it could be interpreted to be promoting violence against an identifable group or person.

Sure, what exactly is an adult is up for debate, however the implications are beyond maritial consent. An "adult" can vote, and "adult" can be held accountable for his/her crimes, an "adult" has both the rights and priviledges that designation infers. As far as beasts, you'ed have to show that a beast has the same capability to make informed decisions as an adult. Good luck with that. Sure, anything is acceptable as far as sexuality goes so long as it doesn't violate another person's rights. Offending someone's sensibilites about what is "right" or "wrong" is qute permissable.

The billlboard should be permitted as free speech. Nothing in the English text advocates violence or hate, or violates libel laws. The Arabic text is not shown, nor can I read it so I can't comment on whether it trangresses.

Er, it wasn't me who made the statement. It was your friend Leafless, who you expressed 110% support for, who made the statement. What's one more incorrect statement of fact in the sea of mistatemetns made so far.

Really it has got very little to do with with politicians. Adults who have informed consent can choose any type of relationship between themselves. I'm confident that the SCC will uphold that. However any relationship whether monogamous or polygamous that involves a child will be disallowed because the child cannot be presumed to be freely consenting in the same way an adult can.

Nonsense. An 8-year old girl cannot be presumed to give informed consent, however an adult can. You can only have marriage between consenting adults.

First, it is not only adult immigrants who are admitted. The number of immigrants includes families with kids, who presumably will stay as one unit. Second, didn't you just finish telling me how immigrants will cram 4-5 adults in an apartment or have many share a house. If that is true, then there is no additional pressure on housing, is there? Unfortunate that you have been beaten by technology. I have no such issues. Spelling errors are mostly my own. Why thank-you. Nice to have a title to something. Yeah, sure I do Leafless. You better go find some "White guys" who can give you English lessons, so you can get better command of what you claim is your mother tongue, because I sure won't. Come back when you understand how to use words like "spokesman" and "immigrant" in proper context. Tiill then if you don't post anymore, I will enjoy the silence. Silence free of racism, bigotry, intolerance, and WECC superiority.

This is what you have posted as your rebuttal???????. ROTFLMAO.. Really, Leafless, I have to thank you for one of the BEST laughs I've had all year, and I'm even going to tell you why. That petition and point of view was endorsed by exactly 222 people. That makes it 0.0007% of Canada's population. They would be laughed out if they tried to present a petition and could only garner that small percentage of support. The creator of the petition is Melissa Guille, and evidence that she is the originator is here: 222 Total Signatures. Melissa Guille, is the head of the Canadian Heritage Alliance, head of a white supremacist group. Don't believe me? See here: Canadian Heritage Alliance Moreover, regarding their website content: What better way to demonstrate that you are not racist than to quote material originating from a racist white-supremacist group, eh Leafless?? ROTFLMAO X 2. Again, thank-you. I haven't laughed so hard in years.