Polygamy

[Cartman]

I thought that some people might find this interesting. The BC gov't will not touch this one.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html

[The Terrible Sweal]

This story raises an interesting question. To what extent can society allow 'religious freedom' to mean freedom for some people to oppress their co-religionists? Is it okay to allow some children to be raised ignorant to preserve the religious freedom of the parents? Indeed, is religious freedom of children compatible with being raised in any one faith?

[Cartman]

I think it is interesting that the BC gov't believes that they may lose a court challenge to these folks. I wonder what will happen the next time a man is caught with two wives? Will he be able to legitimately claim that this is persecution considering these folks are ignored for the same behaviour?

[I miss Reagan]

Same sex marriage has opened this pandora's box now we're going to have to live with the consequences. Aside from instances where 14 year olds are forced to marry, there is no argument or case to be made. The courts seem to have decided that anyone can marry anyone or anything.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The courts have certainly not decided that anyone can marry anyone or anything. Are social conservatives still peddling this old chestnut? The courts said that same gender did not count as a basis to prevent two people from marrying. That, quite specifically,l was it.

Now, the question whether on the same arguments other relationships can be acceptable in matrimony has not been considered by the courts. Personally, I think the government could easily defend marriage as a thing between two rather than more people if it wanted to.

[I miss Reagan]

The courts have decided that they can change the definition of marriage. They've decided they can infringe upon a word that many people hold sacred. A balanced approach would have been to allow 'civil unions' with the exact same rights. But unfortunately they had to throw it right in the face of religion makeing the interpretation of a word subjective. You can't have it both ways. If consenting adults want to marry more than one person that is their right under the charter is it not?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The courts have decided that they can change the definition of marriage.

The courts have supervision of the interpretation of the laws of the country. Obviously this includes the LEGAL definintion of marriage.

They've decided they can infringe upon a word that many people hold sacred.

Or they have decided that your definition of sacred can't infringe upon the law.

A balanced approach would have been to allow 'civil unions'  with the exact same rights.

How would that be so much better, really? What's in a word?

But unfortunately they had to throw it right in the face of religion makeing the interpretation of a word subjective.

The court would have no business concerning itself with the interpretations religions happen to put on words the law also uses.

You can't have it both ways.  If consenting adults want to marry more than one person that is their right under the charter is it not?

You are positing a false dichotomy/category selection. The right for two persons of the same sex to paticipate in an institution government provides for two persons of opposite sexs is not so easily equated with multiple partners.

[Black Dog]

The courts have decided that they can change the definition of marriage. They've decided they can infringe upon a word that many people hold sacred. A balanced approach would have been to allow 'civil unions' with the exact same rights. But unfortunately they had to throw it right in the face of religion makeing the interpretation of a word subjective. You can't have it both ways. If consenting adults want to marry more than one person that is their right under the charter is it not?

So what? If two, three or 12 consenting adults decide they want to get married, why should we care?

As for the old "they should make them exactly the same as marriages, but just call them civil unions", do you think that would stick or that people would make the distinction?

"You are invited to the civil unioingg of...."

"We just got civil unioned!"

Nah.

[I miss Reagan]

The courts have supervision of the interpretation of the laws of the country. Obviously this includes the LEGAL definintion of marriage.

The courts decided the change the legal definition of marriage. Unfortunate that we're losing the separation of powers here don't ya think?

So what? If two, three or 12 consenting adults decide they want to get married, why should we care?

That's a good point. Why should we care? If our definition of marriage is dynamic why can't it be changed?

[Cartman]

Are there any lawyers here? I would really like to know if a defense against polygamy charges could be supported by the inaction of the BC government on this issue.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I can't wait for the day that I can marry my sister, or brother, or mother, or father. Maybe in the future I can legally have sex with a 12 year old girl, after all, are'nt gay rights groups advocating for the lowering of the age of consent.

I think theirs something wrong with that, not to a left winger, but to people with some morals who don't believe in living in a sewer.

When you start institutionalizing sexual liberation, it creates an epidemic of problems. If your gay, and you want to have anal sex, or fist another mans anus in the privacy of your own home then go ahead. Just don't force society to believe that that lifestyle is moral and healthy. Because it ain't, the Atlanta Centre for Disease Control says so.

[Black Dog]

I can't wait for the day that I can marry my sister, or brother, or mother, or father. Maybe in the future I can legally have sex with a 12 year old girl, after all, are'nt gay rights groups advocating for the lowering of the age of consent.

I think theirs something wrong with that, not to a left winger, but to people with some morals who don't believe in living in a sewer.

Nice to see you're still a moron and still trotting out the same b.s.

What does this have to do with polygamy, anyway?

When you start institutionalizing sexual liberation, it creates an epidemic of problems. If your gay, and you want to have anal sex, or fist another mans anus in the privacy of your own home then go ahead. Just don't force society to believe that that lifestyle is moral and healthy. Because it ain't, the Atlanta Centre for Disease Control says so.

Newsflash: such behaviours aren't limited to homosexuals (indeed, not all homosexuals even engage in such practices).

[The Terrible Sweal]

The courts have supervision of the interpretation of the laws of the country. Obviously this includes the LEGAL definintion of marriage.

The courts decided the change the legal definition of marriage. Unfortunate that we're losing the separation of powers here don't ya think?

It seems to me that the separation of powers is functioning in good balance.

[Hugo]

Personally, it's my view that the government has no role in the cultural, social or religious life of its people. If a relationship is abusive or exploitative, then government must step in to protect, but other than that, why is it any of the government's business?

If everyone is happy with their situation and nobody is being abused or exploited, let them get along with it. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it making society fall apart.

This idea of government giving blessing to some unions and not to others smacks of statism and too much governmental influence in areas of our culture that government should reflect rather than dictate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Good point. My personal policy solution would be for the goverment to cease defining 'marriage' at all and simply define a civil union that any two adult people could sign up for, for home economics reasons, basically. (Say a daughter lives with her eldery mother. Neither sees any prospect of marriage. Why shouldn't they be able to access the tax advantages provided to married people?)

Various churches could conduct whatever rituals they specify for 'marriage', and then those 'married' people could simply register with the government for a civil union.

Basically, the government should be neutral as to whichever two people decide to participate in the statutory-domestic-partnering regime.

[Hugo]

I would go even further and say that even giving benefits to married or "civilly united" people is discriminatory. Single people are still citizens, so if you are giving benefits or tax cuts, give them to everyone.

The only exception I can see is children, but marriage does not equal children. It is right that benefits be given to children because, unlike adults, they cannot provide for themselves in our society. With that being said, I would give benefits to children in trust to the primary caregiver, whomever that may be. These benefits can supplement the incomes of caregivers who have forsaken careers to raise children, to provide for education, or whatever.

To those who'd see this as a kind of welfare, it isn't. It is an investment in our future, to create well-educated, well-adjusted future citizens.

Other than tax breaks or supplements for children I cannot see how extra perks for married people is fair.

[The Terrible Sweal]

To be both effective in the goal and fair to childless citizens, the government should provide the benefits directly to children rather than indirectly through discriminatory tax practices. Policies such as comprehensive health insurance up to age 18, universal paid tuition (up to four years max), high quality schools and personal development opportunities...

[Black Dog]

Other than tax breaks or supplements for children I cannot see how extra perks for married people is fair.

I agree.

Marriage for all or marriage for none.

Would that extend to couples who adopt?

[Alliance Fanatic]

Nice to see you're still a moron and still trotting out the same b.s.

What does this have to do with polygamy, anyway?

Nice to see your still a prick, who probably in the future will be behind the progressive movement to take away child porn laws. When you tamper with an institution that has been around for thousands of years, and an institution which 100,000 people were willing to fight and die for then it is an issue. Canadian's died for a country were the family was valued, not one were sick pricks like your self want to destroy every single institution, and make Canada simply a nation made up of a nation of freeloaders.

Say Blackdog, have you gotten your welfare check from the government yet.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files...es/Diseases.pdf

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, with the marijuana the government provided you.

I bet your just one of those rich snobs who has'nt had to get a real job and realize that everything costs money, or you freeload off the government.

[Hugo]

Would that extend to couples who adopt?

Absolutely. Whomever is the primary caregiver. That would be he or she who has the charge of caring for a child, be it a biological parent, grandparent, aunt or uncle, adoptive parent, foster parent or any other alternative. The idea should be that the child is receiving the benefit, not the adult, but that the caregiver will take the benefit in trust because the child is of diminished responsibility. Therefore, the child carries the benefit. Adopt the child, receive the benefit. It seems only fair.

[Cartman]

Dr. Gisela L.P. Macphail,a physician at the University of Calgary in Canada,...warned the Calgary school district against promoting homosexual behavior among school children because of the serious health risks.

TAKE ACTION! The next time your school officials are promoting homosexuality among children, provide

them with a copy of this report. Distribute this to churches, political leaders, school officials, businessmen

who are being urged to promote homosexuality. For additional updates on homosexual issues,

go to the Traditional Values Coalition web site: www.traditionalvalues.org. TVC office: 139 C Street, SE,

Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-8570; fax: 202-546-6403; email: [email protected]

Wow!! Did anyone else read that link?

Alliance, I think that when schools include homosexuality into the curriculum, they are not trying to promote the lifestyle (or gay sex) to straight students, they are trying to reduce the stigma and high suicide rates amongst homosexuals. Do you think that these curriculums (which include stories like "Ashley's Mums" etc.) will hurt straight students? Are you not confident that teachers can competently accomplish this task?

I agree that sex education should explain ALL of the risks about sex including "homosexual sex". But should we not focus on risky behaviours rather than risky individuals? They should have compared the risks (rate of disease transmission) b/w both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[Cartman]

When you tamper with an institution that has been around for thousands of years, and an institution which 100,000 people were willing to fight and die for then it is an issue. Canadian's died for a country were the family was valued

Regardless of what the government and churches do, I doubt that this institution will fade away any time soon. I don't think you need to worry about that.

Of these people who died in war for Canada, I suspect that some were "serial monogamists" and that some were even gay.

[Greg]

Cut the "Moron" and the "Prick" comments out. You wouldn't want your mothers to see you talking like that.

Remember,

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them

Greg

Admin

[Black Dog]

Nice to see your still a prick, who probably in the future will be behind the progressive movement to take away child porn laws. When you tamper with an institution that has been around for thousands of years, and an institution which 100,000 people were willing to fight and die for then it is an issue. Canadian's died for a country were the family was valued, not one were sick pricks like your self want to destroy every single institution, and make Canada simply a nation made up of a nation of freeloaders.

I may be a prick, but I'm not an idiot.

As far as I'm aware thousands of people haven't fought and died for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, the Nazis were virulently anti-homosexual and were also very focused on perserving "traditional values" (the "Traditional Values Coalition" would fit in nicely with the Nazis).

Of course, you don't have an argument. That's why you always trot out the same fallacious garbage.

Say Blackdog, have you gotten your welfare check from the government yet. 

Naw, it's late this month, so I'm gonna have to go down to the school yard and sell heroin to the kiddies. Hey, the homosexual agenda doesn't pay for itself.

[Cartman]

I know that this is about polygamy and that I am going off topic, but I thought that people might find this description of "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads" interesting. I viewed it on Amazon. Any thoughts?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...product-details

From School Library Journal

PreSchool-Grade 2-The message that all people are basically the same whatever their skin color or sexual orientation is a worthy one, but this book, despite its cheerful pictures, is too didactic to have much appeal. In rhyming text, two children discuss a boy's two blue dads. He points out that, aside from their color, they are the same as other fathers-they work, play, and laugh. His friend wonders how they got that way and offers numerous explanations, but he tells her that they are blue simply because they are. The only trouble with the situation is that they are hard to see against the sky. "But except for that problem,/our life is routine,/and they're just like all other dads-/black, white, or green." And when the girl declares that she has never seen a green dad, a new child appears, stating that her two fathers are both green. Children young enough to take the tale at face value will probably think it is silly (since people are neither blue nor green), while older readers would be better served by a straightforward presentation of the subject matter.