Michael Hardner Posted November 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I'm a homophobe because I support the traditional,and only the traditional form of marriage??? Why do you think that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) Why do you think that ? Well you said that arguements against gay marriage were thinly veiled homophobic rants... I do not support gay marriage therefore I seem to be a homophobe... I guess I'm a "polygaphobe",as well?? Edited November 23, 2010 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Well you said that arguements against gay marriage were thinly veiled homophobic rants... I did not say that all arguments were as such. I said that they existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 I did not say that all arguments were as such. I said that they existed. Sure...If you listen to the "unbiased" opinions of the likes of EGALE.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Sure...If you listen to the "unbiased" opinions of the likes of EGALE.... Are you saying that there are no homophobic anti-gay marriage ads ? Really ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 Are you saying that there are no homophobic anti-gay marriage ads ? Really ? No,but those of us that did not support the legalization of gay marriage doe'nt mean we are homophobes who instinctively hate homosexuals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 I'm a homophobe because I support the traditional,and only the traditional form of marriage??? The traditionaly form of marriage? Thats kinda scary. Traditionally marriages were arranged by parents in order to further themselves socially and financially, and the women were basically the property of their husbands, and couldnt testify against them in court. Traditional marriage is a pretty shitty deal for the women. Luckily... bad traditions are left behind we redefine things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 The traditionaly form of marriage? Thats kinda scary. Traditionally marriages were arranged by parents in order to further themselves socially and financially, and the women were basically the property of their husbands, and couldnt testify against them in court. Traditional marriage is a pretty shitty deal for the women. Luckily... bad traditions are left behind we redefine things. Give it a rest...You know what I'm talking about... By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 Give it a rest...You know what I'm talking about... By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage? No Im just pointing out that marriage as you know it today is NOT the "traditional" version. Its changed... a lot. By the way,that's a little insulting...Are you insinuating I treat my wife( who is a biologically correct woman) as property and keep her is some form of financial bondage? Nope. I dont have any reason to think youre a bad guy and Im sure you treat your wife just fine. But you DONT treat your wife like wifes were treated in "traditional marriage" so using "tradition" as a reason why marriage shouldnt change now is not a compelling or reasonable argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 No Im just pointing out that marriage as you know it today is NOT the "traditional" version. Its changed... a lot. Nope. I dont have any reason to think youre a bad guy and Im sure you treat your wife just fine. But you DONT treat your wife like wifes were treated in "traditional marriage" so using "tradition" as a reason why marriage shouldnt change now is not a compelling or reasonable argument. OK.... The traditional form of marriage being between a man and women with all the modern societal advancements women have made??? Is that acceptable??? My wife comes from a place where polygamy is legal...It's a horrendous idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 No,but those of us that did not support the legalization of gay marriage doe'nt mean we are homophobes who instinctively hate homosexuals... Yeah, but I didn't say that. You keep saying it, but I'm not sure why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 OK.... The traditional form of marriage being between a man and women with all the modern societal advancements women have made??? Is that acceptable??? My wife comes from a place where polygamy is legal...It's a horrendous idea... once I finish considering all the plus sides to polygamy ...the thought of two, three or four mrs wylys berating me for not shoveling the driveway, forgetting to take out the garbage or painting the house again, takes shine off the idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 I contend that you look off into the future perhaps too much. Standing on the corner... gazing off into the future.... Plant your feet and discuss the here and now, my friend. The prolonged indulgence of the visionary mind in time becomes quite useless and not very practical in the here and now..I take your advice seriously my friend..might be time to do some real work in the real here and now..enough soothe saying I suppose..Besides - sometimes visions project and create the present and I would not want to be found guilty in the end of being partly responsible for creating a more nasty world...thanks Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 The prolonged indulgence of the visionary mind in time becomes quite useless and not very practical in the here and now..I take your advice seriously my friend..might be time to do some real work in the real here and now..enough soothe saying I suppose..Besides - sometimes visions project and create the present and I would not want to be found guilty in the end of being partly responsible for creating a more nasty world...thanks Michael. Do you like people ? If so, I heartily recommend the service industry for you. The pay is poor, but the education and self-development is immense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 The problem is that for whatever reason these relationships result in a lot of child abuse, and the child cant consent. If that's the case, the numerous reviews of what's going on in Bountiful have yet to turn up any evidence of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 If that's the case, the numerous reviews of what's going on in Bountiful have yet to turn up any evidence of it.ya there is child sexual abuse going on somewhere in canada every single day, unless someone complains(the victim) there's nothing anyone can do...and it's a seperate issue from polygamy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 ya there is child sexual abuse going on somewhere in canada every single day, unless someone complains(the victim) there's nothing anyone can do...and it's a seperate issue from polygamy... My point is that Bountiful has been investigated a number of times, both by Provincial ministries and by the RCMP. If there is abuse going on, these guys are pretty damned good at hiding it. Pursuing polygamists from these Mormon sects, both in Canada and the US, is very damned hard to do, as evidenced by the fiasco in Arizona last year. The bigger question of polygamy is a tough one. My more social libertarian streak tells me I don't think we have much right to tell people how to live their lives, and certainly monogamy cannot guarantee the safety of children or of wives, so it's not like we can reasonably make that argument. My gut has that "ick factor" reaction, but I don't think that these things should be settled by subjective gut instincts. If there is a sound, rational, objective reason to ban polygamy, then let's hear it. But child and spousal abuse don't really cut the mustard; first of all because they seem predicated mainly on what these polygamous Mormom sects do, and not on the wider question of whether all polygamous relationships must lead to that place. To maintain a ban on entire kind of marriage because of allegations (unproven in the Bountiful case) of child abuse against one group of polygamists seems quite wrongheaded. Let's put this another way. If polygamy were allowed, does that mean we stop pursuing spousal assault and child abuse, forced marriages of those below any reasonable age of consent, that sort of thing? I doubt it. These things happen in monogamous families, as well, and where there the Crown has some hope of demonstrating wrongdoing and achieving a conviction, cases against people who perpetrate these sorts of things can be built. Quite frankly, legalizing these unions is not exactly going to alter the situation all that much. Polygamy was never all that common even in the cultures where it was accepted. For most men, it's never been all that economically feasible to keep multiple wives, and as often as not it has been wealthier members of those societies who have practiced it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 If that's the case, the numerous reviews of what's going on in Bountiful have yet to turn up any evidence of it. What about the two women who escaped? "We are not individuals, we are not persons," Jensen says. "Our hearts and souls are killed before we even get a chance to know ourselves." While not all children are subject to physical and sexual abuse, Jensen says that all -- boys and girls -- are victims of mental abuse. The goal, she says, is to make sure they are "empty vessels, so that righteous brothers could fill you up and lead you to exaltation. "This is not a religion," says Jensen, who managed to avoid marriage to her "assigned" 60-year-old husband when she was 16, and married a young man from another sect after the family had moved to Arizona. It even goes beyond polygamy... to the whole idea of arranged marriage. Minors being "assigned" to 60 year old husbands isnt acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 (edited) What about the two women who escaped? And no charges were laid, because no evidence was found to support them. Bountiful has been under the microscope several times now. The last attempt by the Crown to drag these guys to court lead to a very strong rebuke by the presiding judge. It was a blatant abuse of process. Even with all the circumstantial evidence, enough questions have been raised about the validity of statements made by former members of the community to demonstrate the impossibility of conviction. It even goes beyond polygamy... to the whole idea of arranged marriage. Minors being "assigned" to 60 year old husbands isnt acceptable. I'll agree, to the point that a minor is being forced into a marriage and being forced into the conjugal relations that go along with. But a promise of marriage is not marriage. There are arranged marriages among other social groups in Canada, and providing both parties have the power to end the arrangement prior to the actual act of matrimony itself, it isn't incompatible with Canadian law. Again, you're invoking things that are not simply the province of a few Mormon sect weirdos in southern BC. Edited November 24, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 CBC Story My take is that it is religious freedom, and this option needs to be permitted. Seriously? What religion requires polygamy? Not Christianity, that's for sure. This comes from a bunch of law students, who want to take marriage apart for ideological reasons. In other words, it is a part of a conscious program to destroy the family on the basis that forming one endows those married with rights that other people don't have! Example: Married people do not have to testify against each other in court. The study points out that unmarried people do not have this right. They actually propose that unmarried people get to choose someone who can't testify against them, simply to remove this heinous bit of discrimination. Martha Bailey, Queen's University law professor and chief author of the now infamous report advocating the decriminalization of polygamy, played an important organizing role in the Beyond Conjugality project (translation: the "Abolish Marriage" project). In 2004, Bailey published an article, "Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada," arguing that, after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians would be able to turn their attention to the more urgent business of abolishing marriage itself. (That article is the source of items #2, #3, and #4 above.) So it is hardly surprising that Bailey has now called for the decriminalization of polygamy. What's that you say? How does legalizing polygamous marriage advance the cause of abolishing marriage? Canadians, I'm going to have to spell it out for you in a way that Martha Bailey and her friends on the Law Commission of Canada will not. The plan It's like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what Bailey and her friends really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners. The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country's liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by Bailey's polygamy report, even though the judicial elite's intentions had been completely public for five years. (Granted, these intentions were telegraphed in a semi-incomprehensible intellectual gibberish, with the really scary stuff hidden in footnotes.) If it were merely a matter of a few thousand so-called "Mormon fundamentalists," legalized polygamy wouldn't stand a chance in Canada. Even the addition of Canada's rapidly growing Muslim immigrant population wouldn't create a winning pro-polygamy coalition (although pressure from Canada's Muslims does matter). It's the many and powerful legal elites (including judges)--the ones who see marriage itself as an outdated and oppressive patriarchal institution who make decriminalizing polygamy something to worry about. What's that you say? You still don't understand how a bunch of liberal-feminist elites could even think about supporting an "oppressively patriarchal" institution like polygamy? I guess you still just don't get it. Read Bailey's report and you will see that she does not endorse traditional "patriarchal" polygamy. Bailey's whole point is that Canada can decriminalize polygamy without endorsing what "fundamentalist Mormons" or Islamic immigrants actually do. But why would Bailey favor that? Simple. Canada's antipolygamy laws stand in the way of Bailey's true goal: the creation of a modern, secular, "non-patriarchal" relationship system that would allow for marriage-like unions in any combination of number or gender. That would mean the effective abolition of marriage. But to get to the postmodern version of multi-partner unions, Canada's old-fashioned anti-polygamy laws have got to go. This is from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+conspiracy+to+abolish+marriage%3A+Martha+Bailey+and+the+Law+Reform...-a0151394664 If you want to look at the report, it's can be tracked down at: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/beyond_conjugality.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.