First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Oleg Bach]

If you can not or will not breed you are defective - and is a breeder more valuable on on a higher level than a non-breeding creature? I would say so in the natural scheme of things _ am I as a human being more valuable than a homosexual? Of course I would be akin to a bull that can produce more live stock - and the non-breeding bull is eaten. You ask to many questions...and I have to many answers...as for ugly gay people - I do see older gay couples and THEY ARE NOT GIFTED WITH BEAUTY THAT NO ONE WANTS THEM OTHER THAN ANOTHER GAY UGLY PERSON --- AND THAT IS NATURAL God I feel sorry for them...I mean real homely dithering ugly men...no wonder they are gay..what else could they do?

Also: I hear this repeatedly - when we talk about natural intellect...When I insinuated the most are intellectually underdeveloped --- You go on about "Canada having losts of educated people - so where does education and programming of a person fit in with intellect? What makes you think going to school takes an inferiour person and some how makes him intelligent? You are either born stupid or smart.

[Randy Nicholas]

Also: I hear this repeatedly - when we talk about natural intellect...When I insinuated the most are intellectually underdeveloped --- You go on about "Canada having losts of educated people - so where does education and programming of a person fit in with intellect? What makes you think going to school takes an inferiour person and some how makes him intelligent? You are either born stupid or smart.

and you must have been born stupid because that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. and you've said a lot of absurd things.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[Randy Nicholas]

If you can not or will not breed you are defective

says who? Are you holding humanity to the standards of the animal kingdom? you want to be careful there.

- and is a breeder more valuable on on a higher level than a non-breeding creature? I would say so in the natural scheme of things

I could sniff your superiority complex before you ever wrote this sentence, but thank you for making it clear.

_ am I as a human being more valuable than a homosexual? Of course I would be akin to a bull that can produce more live stock - and the non-breeding bull is eaten.

Now we are compared to cows. do I need to point out all the ways in which livestock and humans are different? Really?

You ask to many questions...and I have to many answers...

Actually, I ask questions because your 'answers' are vague and nonsensical. For reference, you mean 'too' when you are describing something as being in excess.

as for ugly gay people - I do see older gay couples and THEY ARE NOT GIFTED WITH BEAUTY THAT NO ONE WANTS THEM OTHER THAN ANOTHER GAY UGLY PERSON --- AND THAT IS NATURAL

Saying things all in caps does not make it true. You are now betraying a willful ignorance. Do you mean that you have met every homosexual, and they are all ugly, or that the few homosexuals you have met are ugly, so they ALL must be? Which is it?

God I feel sorry for them...I mean real homely dithering ugly men...no wonder they are gay..what else could they do?

In my life I've seen many really ugly straight people who have wives. Your argument is baseless, ignorant, and ridiculous. I ask you for fact, you give me diatribe. I think the discussion is over.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[normanchateau]

Well then. Can't wait for you to explain to me why pedophilia is civilized and how it is morally acceptable and should be allowed.

Who said pedophilia is civilized, morally acceptable and should be allowed? What I said was that enlightened legislators created an age of consent, the purpose of which was to prevent the pedophilia which was permitted prior to age of consent legislation. Which word didn't you understand?

[Visionseeker]

LOL, Gotta love this stuff. "Tolerant" and now "reasonable limitation".

The traditional man/woman definition of marriage has been struck down. Those defending the polygamist cause will undeniablly use that to argue their case. And it will be a powerfull argument to put forth.

I do not wish them luck but I believe they'll suceed.

The man/woman definition was struck down because it denied the right of homosexuals to marry. Ergo, marriage law was discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. The man/woman test failed, not the concept of joint partnership as the basis of marriage. That's a different test entirely.

I wish anyone who fights (non-violently) for rights luck whether I agree with their aims or not. For one, it's the civilized thing to do. Further, should a matter of law be resolved against my preconceptions, the written ruling often exposes the logical fallacy upon which my opinion was formed.

IMO, keeping one’s mind open is the best means of adapting to change.

[Smallc]

IMO, keeping one’s mind open is the best means of adapting to change.

Exactly. Our moral values aren't always right...even though we'd like to think they are.

[Visionseeker]

"an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions."

Call me myopic, but I still reject that, even as a nicely worded description.

The state does not 'allow' marriage. Marriage existed long before the state took notice of it.

So did hunting. But you still nead a licence for either endeavour.

The state merely defines what marriage means TO THE STATE, in its role of provisor of some benefits, and arbiter when the (co-signators) are in dispute.

No. The state defines who (age and mental state) and how many can marry (see bigamy). The legalization of divorce prompted the evolution of the administrative and family law questions we grapple with today.

'Legal marriage' is agreement to the terms set out by the state.

Right. On this we agree.

Other arrangements, other terms, are freely available to anyone, in the past, present and future....

If you accept my finishing your last sentence with "which do not enjoy legal recognition or protection." I again agree with you.

I do not believe the state has the right to interfere with three or more people choosing to call themselves a married household, let them do as they please provided they are not encroaching on the rights of others. But by the same token, there is no obligation for the state to afford their claims any legal standing or recognition either.

'Marriage' and 'legal marriage' are not the same thing. Failing to qualify for 'legal marriage', or not wishing to accept the 'legal marriage' (contract) does not mean being disallowed from 'marriage'.

My focus was solely on the question of decriminalization/legality. People can call themselves Ewoks for all I care.

So... 'banning' polygamy is outside the states pervue-- no business in the bedrooms of the nation, etc. It functionally cannot be 'banned', and there is great doubt whether the attempt would even be desireable (except where other laws are broken).

Polygamist relationships are not banned. But beyond the first coupling, they cannot be recognized by the state as contractual unions. Any attempts to have the state recognize a second and concurrent marriage is bigamy and constitutes a violation under the criminal code. So if you want to engage in polygamy, don't involve the state and understand that your unions are not subject to the duties and benefits that legal marriage entails.

[85RZ500]

Molly,

Not different at all. In fact, same.

The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion either. That's also guaranteed in the constitution, and that's the whole argument here.

The state has flip-flopped on that issue so many times since the definition of marriage was changed.

The change was made with the guarantee that people were free to live by their religious teachings.

Many people have been persecuted for doing just that.

It's part of the hypocrisy of the whole issue, a blight on the Liberal party who engineereed it.

[Smallc]

Many people have been persecuted for doing just that.

Where? When?

[85RZ500]

Smallc, it has been in the news many times and those incidents are reported on the net, I've looked them up before and am not going to repeat.

"I run a successfull printing business, a gay group comes in and wants me to print their literature which, because of my religious teachings I find offensive. I decline their business. "

That's just one example, that guy was raked over the coals and there's more like him.

Someone said it's a slippery slope, I agree.

Edited March 26, 2009 by 85RZ500

[85RZ500]

LOL, double post, no delete?

Edited March 26, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Randy Nicholas]

Smallc, it has been in the news many times and those incidents are reported on the net, I've looked them up before and am not going to repeat.

"I run a successfull printing business, a gay group comes in and wants me to print their literature which, because of my religious teachings I find offensive. I decline their business. "

That's just one example, that guy was raked over the coals and there's more like him.

Someone said it's a slippery slope, I agree.

I think if you work with the public you should keep your private views to yourself and bite your tongue. I don't need to be refused service anywhere based on someone's archaic beliefs. He's entitled to his opinion until it affects my life. What if his business is successful because he's the only one in town with a rep for quality? We should say it's okay to make gay people have o go out of town, or across town, to get the same service as straight people? I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. We don't allow people to post "no Blacks" signs anymore. If your services are for the public than they are for the public.

What next, should we allow catholic paramedics to refuse cpr to homosexuals?

One is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, but denying a service, any service, based on a superficial 'offense' is called discrimination and should not be tolerated. If one can't handle encountering people of a different persuasion, than one should get a job where there is no dealing with the public.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[85RZ500]

What next, should we allow catholic paramedics to refuse cpr to homosexuals?

LOL, Hyperboyle balderdash.

And sorry, if someone dosen't want, or appear IMHO to not want my business, I can and will go elsewhere.

Hey they're free to live by their religious beliefs to practice polygamy but not to refuse to print offensive literature.

Gotta love it

[Molly]

Hyperbole?

If that word applies at all, you set the tone. Tit for tat.

[Molly]

Visionseeker... the state doesn't use the same language I do... I'm trying desperately to simplify for clarity....

but I still insist that 'legal marriage' and the vernacular 'marriage' are separate entities, and we two are only swapping nuances. If all marriage law was struck down, ceased to exist, 'marriage' would carry on as ever.

In this discussion, as in the discussion of gay marriage, I lament that folks seem to struggle with that separation. (You'd think it would be easier, since 'religious marriage' and 'legal marriage' are easily percieved as two separate entities, a get or an anullment easily acknowledged as no business of the state.)

The state, for instance, is uninterested in who anyone is boinking, or whether they are celibate, so long as other protective laws are not broken. The state only really cares if folks have some sort of mutual dependence agreement that the state might be called upon to mediate (or decide HOW to acknowledge).

Bigamy law, such as it is, really only addresses fraud, whether it is one or both spouses, the state, or anyone else suffering from that fraud. If there's no fraud, then there's no problem. Set up your household(s) as you see fit.

To say that the state neither recognizes nor protects those non-legal-marriage arrangements is false.

There is a constant struggle to determine to what degree a common-law arrangement should be treated as a 'legal marriage'- assumed the same unless proven otherwise, for income tax purposes- basically a one-at-a-time determination of the nature of the agreement----and arrangements that have been put to paper are enforced as written.

[85RZ500]

Visionseeker... the state doesn't use the same language I do... I'm trying desperately to simplify for clarity....

but I still insist that 'legal marriage' and the vernacular 'marriage' are separate entities, and we two are only swapping nuances. If all marriage law was struck down, ceased to exist, 'marriage' would carry on as ever.

Molly I agree that "marriage would carry on as ever"

Now, woud it have to be defined? would parameters need to be set?

Who would you have carry out those funcrions?

[GostHacked]

Two consenting adults marrying one another do not commit a crime. Get over it. If you have a problem with gays get over it. Stop trying to smeer them as being immoral and in the same category as polygamists or child molesters.

Gay marriage is not a crime. I think this is what you are trying to say.

Consenting adults who want to have more then one marriage commit a crime.

You mean more than one marriage at the same time. Otherwise, I can marry, divorce, marry again, divorce, and it is all legal.

Adults who attempt to do have sex with children are committing a crime.

No arguments here.

I am waiting for this Mr. Chateau to start quoting the Bible to justify pedophila and explain how it is civilized and we should allow marriages between adults and children.

I don't think he was saying that the bible justifies it .. he is saying the bible just has no outright statement against it. So it really could be up in the air. Open for interpretation, like everything else in the bible is up for interpretation.

As for those of you who want to equate polygamy to homosexuality, I have news for you, using that absurd and ridiculous connect, then that means no heterosexuals should get married either and we should following this absurd arguement to its logical conclusion suggest anything goes or nothing goes.

I don't know if they can be compared. Maybe treated on an individual basis.

No you can not marry a horse or have sex with it. Get over it.

If I had sex with a horse, I just would not tell anyone. Kind of like how you don't tell your friends you slept with a fat chick, or that you ride a moped. This thread is kind of reminding me of that South Park epp with the Exretme Peta members marrying the animals.

875RZ500

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, all against the law and I would say rightly so.

Can't remember how far back but homosesexual acts were against the law too. That too has changed and rightly so. IMHO what consenting adults legally do in private is non of my concern.

So polygamy, and possibly incest can be between consenting adults. Pedophelia obviously is not between consenting adults. So you are against polygamy and incest, but since the laws have changed for gay marriage, you are saying that it is ok. Your statements kind of contradict each other.

MichaelHrdner

But, then we're back to - what seems to me is - an economic argument. The state can't be obliged to provide additional benefits to a new spouse, yet this is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage.

Same sex marriage CAN be polygamist. But for the most part same sex marriage is the similar to the norm marriage. Two people, two men, two women, or a man and a woman ... two ... polygamy says there are three or more people in the marriage. And why is it up to the state to provide for these people anyways??? For the most part you cannot depend on the state to give you that life. Only you can give yourself that life.

Olegbach

laugh.gif Have you not figured out that we are being incrimentally brought down to a level below animal?

What makes you think we were above that level in the first place??I am not a polygamist... i am a long term menage-a-trois type of guy!!!

This same sex marriage thing is bizarre..sex with the same sex is not sex - by true and real definition..sex means - male and female..

Oral sex is the same for all, genetalia and the mouth.

You ask to many questions...and I have to many answers...as for ugly gay people - I do see older gay couples and THEY ARE NOT GIFTED WITH BEAUTY THAT NO ONE WANTS THEM OTHER THAN ANOTHER GAY UGLY PERSON --- AND THAT IS NATURAL laugh.gif God I feel sorry for them...I mean real homely dithering ugly men...no wonder they are gay..what else could they do? rolleyes.gif

Sometimes I watch a movie, I end up getting a mancrush on a certain actor. Could I be gay?? Those people I have mancrushes on are definately not of the ugly type. I am not ugly either. I could be bisexual.

Homely men are homosexuals?? Georgeous men are not? Ever watch some of those fashion type shows?? I look at some of them .. why the hell are they gay? They could get any woman they want?? It's not a choice in lifestyle. It is simply their lifestyle .. wait .. wrong term I guess this lifestyle. It is what it is. Different, but yet equall at the same time.

85Xr3559d354f96-bv2.1

Smallc, it has been in the news many times and those incidents are reported on the net, I've looked them up before and am not going to repeat.

"I run a successfull printing business, a gay group comes in and wants me to print their literature which, because of my religious teachings I find offensive. I decline their business. "

That's just one example, that guy was raked over the coals and there's more like him.

Someone said it's a slippery slope, I agree.

Usually there is a disclaimer saying that this business has the right to refuse service without explanation. That is allowed in private enterprise. However not acceptable, or allowed when it comes to government..... I could be wrong.

[Randy Nicholas]

LOL, Hyperboyle balderdash.

And sorry, if someone dosen't want, or appear IMHO to not want my business, I can and will go elsewhere.

Hey they're free to live by their religious beliefs to practice polygamy but not to refuse to print offensive literature.

Gotta love it

Yes. You can't see the difference there, can you?

In one case, the person in question is encroaching on someone else's right to enjoy the world free from discrimination.

In the other case, the people in question are not doing anything to harm or encroach on any other person's ability to enjoy the world.

[85RZ500]

Yes. You can't see the difference there, can you?

In one case, the person in question is encroaching on someone else's right to enjoy the world free from discrimination.

In the other case, the people in question are not doing anything to harm or encroach on any other person's ability to enjoy the world.

Sorry randy, you've got it wrong.

Both factions are using freedom of religion to serve their beliefs. The printer has got it right , the polygamists are in the wrong.

LOL, you and I are at opposite ends of this issue, we can agree to disagree.

[Visionseeker]

Visionseeker... the state doesn't use the same language I do... I'm trying desperately to simplify for clarity....

but I still insist that 'legal marriage' and the vernacular 'marriage' are separate entities, and we two are only swapping nuances.

The language of the state is the language of law. The state has specific conditions set-out before it will recognize a marriage and afford it legal standing. Legal and vernacular marriages are absolutely different constructs: one has legal recognition and defined rights and responsibilities while the other is recognized by those who choose to do so and no DEFINED rights and responsibilities.

If all marriage law was struck down, ceased to exist, 'marriage' would carry on as ever.

No, it wouldn't. Marriage isn't the simple act of two (or more) people deciding to shack-up together for a period of time. Marriage is an expressed contractual union where the parties agree to assume the defined rights and responsibilities inherent to the institution. Pair-bonding is a natural inclination that is driven by sexual impulses and mankind’s nature as a social animal. But those same impulses (or rather their waning) are what undermines the permanent nature of that bond.

The institution of (legal) marriage seeks to constrain the natural impulse to terminate such bonds and to instil a measure of stability. IMO it's not very good at it and it only takes a quick look at divorce rates to garner appreciation for such an opinion.

In this discussion, as in the discussion of gay marriage, I lament that folks seem to struggle with that separation. (You'd think it would be easier, since 'religious marriage' and 'legal marriage' are easily percieved as two separate entities, a get or an anullment easily acknowledged as no business of the state.)

Marriage is the purview of the state, full stop. A pair-bond assumed outside the rigours of the state's marriage protocols is not a marriage.

The state, for instance, is uninterested in who anyone is boinking, or whether they are celibate, so long as other protective laws are not broken. The state only really cares if folks have some sort of mutual dependence agreement that the state might be called upon to mediate (or decide HOW to acknowledge).

Yes. Simply put: the state is responsible for ensuring the sanctity of contracts.

Bigamy law, such as it is, really only addresses fraud, whether it is one or both spouses, the state, or anyone else suffering from that fraud. If there's no fraud, then there's no problem. Set up your household(s) as you see fit.

Right! "Marry" as you will. Just don't ask the state to recognize it.

To say that the state neither recognizes nor protects those non-legal-marriage arrangements is false.

There is a constant struggle to determine to what degree a common-law arrangement should be treated as a 'legal marriage'- assumed the same unless proven otherwise, for income tax purposes- basically a one-at-a-time determination of the nature of the agreement----and arrangements that have been put to paper are enforced as written.

Look, I understand your confusion with the whole common-law deal. But when someone checks a box on a legal document proclaiming themselves as married (as they can do when filing taxes), they are making a legal pronouncement of commitment that is just as valid as holding a ceremony in front of countless people in a church, court or wherever. In short, they are making it legal.

The real kicker on the common-law front is when the parties of the supposed union disagree (i.e. one says they are married, the other refutes the notion). Should the state be empowered to impose a state of matrimony solely on the basis of one party's say-so in contradiction of the other?

[Molly]

Hey! You don't have to check any box saying 'common law' to be deemed 'married' by CCRA! The state , in effect, presumes to 'impose a state of matrimony' unilaterally, even in the face of denial by BOTH parties!

In circumstances of common-law 'divorce', in which the state is forced to mediate, the state knows two things: first, that there is a co-dependent relationship of some sort; and second, that the two within that relationship did NOT agree to the standard terms of 'legal marriage'. Without a written contract, (or even with one) court time is spent determining what, if any, mutual obligation they HAVE agreed to. (Again I see it purely through the lens of contract law/property law. No different from any other dispute over an unwritten, but established in deeds, agreement.)

Where we have real disagreement (and probably huge miscommunication) is in "Marriage is the perview of the state, full stop."

I disagree entirely. The states role re: marriage lies only in the assumptions of the state, and extends only as far as people, by ommission or comission, choose to involve the state. I say again, marriage existed long before the state provided a default contract, and if all marriage law was stricken from the books, marriage would still exist. The state is a johnny-come-lately to it, describing it only after the fact, recording only for its own ease of function. The legal definition is only meaningful in matters of law, not of life. The nature of any given marriage is determined by the individuals who enter into it- only in part through choosing or rejecting the states standard contracts/agreements.

The state has little interest in the self-determined marital state of citizens, and should have even less.

[85RZ500]

The income tax form has a Marital Status section. It lists six subs with check boxes.

Married, Divorced, Living Common Law,Seperated, Widowed ,Single.... check one.

Common Law seems to be defined differently from province to province but it can be generally said that there is a specified minimum time limit to quallify. Also the issue of children within the "marriage"

There does not appear to be any division of assets specified as in traditional marriage.

Quote: The legal definition of marriage is meaningfull in matters of law, not life. The nature of any given marriage is determined by the individuals who enter into it- only in part through choosing or rejecting the states standard contracts /agreements."

OK, but the unlegal/legal definition is very meaningfull in "life". And yes any get together of two beings could be called marriage, common law, shacking up, whatever.

But for a lot of people tradional marriage means an official ceremony and registration of the union.

And BTW, LOL, the old guard will always think in terms of two people, a woman and a man.

Edited March 27, 2009 by 85RZ500

[85RZ500]

Another double post.

Edited March 27, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Molly]

Tell the story of the boxes to the two women I know who are fuming fury, consider themselves single, and checked the 'single' boxes on their income tax, and yet, in the eyes of CCRA are deemed 'common law', with benefits and costs calculated on that basis.

I tell you, it's darned difficult for (particularly) a woman to have much to do with a man, and not be penalized as though she is married to him. Benefits from such deeming are far less certain.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Molly

[Randy Nicholas]

OK, but the unlegal/legal definition is very meaningfull in "life". And yes any get together of two beings could be called marriage, common law, shacking up, whatever.

But for a lot of people tradional marriage means an official ceremony and registration of the union.

And BTW, LOL, the old guard will always think in terms of two people, a woman and a man.

Why is it that what 'a lot of people' think something means? Does that mean it's correct? Right now, a lot of people believe the earth is 6000 years old, but they're wrong, aren't they?

The point here is that opinions are irrelevant. It doens't matter whether YOU would have a legal polygamist marriage, or whether 'a lot' of people will or not. Nobody is asking you to. You can continue to think of marriage however you like, but you don't get to control other people based solely on your opinion. Because, despite all your fancy talk, that is all you have here.