Ontario Judge Rules 3 Parents on Birth Certificate

[Riverwind]

Sometimes it take the courts to do what the government doesn't have the stomach for. The government and electorate will come around.

The Bountiful case is not really a case that will likely make the break though because there are way too many allegations of coercion and statutory rape. You would have to find a group of adults in a polygamous relationship where there is zero doubt that all participants are there voluntarily and are not subject to emotional or physical coercion.

That said, I doubt that we will ever see a coersion free polygamous relationship between concenting adults because I believe humans are biologically predisposed towads pair bonds so polygamy always requires some sort coersion to overcome that natural disposition.

[Renegade]

The Bountiful case is not really a case that will likely make the break though because there are way too many allegations of coercion and statutory rape. You would have to find a group of adults in a polygamous relationship where there is zero doubt that all participants are there voluntarily and are not subject to emotional or physical coercion.

I really don't know the details of the Bountiful case, but you may be right. Where coercion is involved, it is not a good case to bring forward as a test case.

That said, I doubt that we will ever see a coersion free polygamous relationship between concenting adults because I believe humans are biologically predisposed towads pair bonds so polygamy always requires some sort coersion to overcome that natural disposition.

I disagree. Humans are biologically predisposed to opposite-sex bonding as well, and while that might be true of the vast majority, it is not true of all. Same with polygamy. There will likely be a few for who it is the right family arrangement without coercion involved.

[jdobbin]

You mean the same government and electorate who opposed SSM and in 1999 passed an motion affirming that marriage was only between man and woman. That same government, a couple of years later came around to the conclusion that yes indeed that SSM should be permitted.

Sometimes it take the courts to do what the government doesn't have the stomach for. The government and electorate will come around.

The government can initiate a non-withstanding clause any time for any law if they feel they actually have support for that decision.

Same sex marriage was difficult to argue with since even private companies were starting to recognize the relationships.

No one is recognizing the relationships in Bountiful. Underage marriage, kidnapping, coercion and violence is what is being investigated. You'll have to show me how Canadians would come to accept that.

[Riverwind]

I disagree. Humans are biologically predisposed to opposite-sex bonding as well, and while that might be true of the vast majority, it is not true of all. Same with polygamy. There will likely be a few for who it is the right family arrangement without coercion involved.

Gays lived together as pairs long before society got around to recognizing their relationships. I have never heard of adults living a non-coersive polygamous marriage-like relationship. Even people I know who lived in hippy communes in the 60s still had pair bonds even if they had sexual relationships with other members of the commune. So I do not think there is a hidden minority of people who want polygamous marriage-like relationships.

[Renegade]

I have never heard of adults living a non-coersive polygamous marriage-like relationship. Even people I know who lived in hippy communes in the 60s still had pair bonds even if they had sexual relationships with other members of the commune. So I do not think there is a hidden minority of people who want polygamous marriage-like relationships.

Poligamy has been around for centuries and is accepted in a variety of religions and cultures. It is only relatively recently it has been banned in Western Society.

Do you really believe that all of those relationships spanning different religions across centuries have all been coercive?

[Riverwind]

Do you really believe that all of those relationships spanning different religions across centuries have all been coercive?

Yes. There are no examples in history where polygamy is not based on a powerful man imposing his will on many women within a patriarchal society. It is no coincidence that societies that allow polygamy are also societies where women have few rights.

That said, the hippy experiments in the 60s came closer to non-coercive polygamy, however, these experiments did not stand the test of time which tells me that there is something fundamental about humans that makes non-coercive polygamy undesireable.

[Renegade]

The government can initiate a non-withstanding clause any time for any law if they feel they actually have support for that decision.

Yes, of course they could. But there is tremendous public sentiment against use of the clause.

Same sex marriage was difficult to argue with since even private companies were starting to recognize the relationships.

Yes, but it was not very long ago that even private companies did not recognize same-sex relationships. Challenges started in the 90s and in the space of 15 years they came to be accepted. I agree that attitudes have not come around yet, but IMV most of the public's sentiment is not based upon rational logic.

No one is recognizing the relationships in Bountiful. Underage marriage, kidnapping, coercion and violence is what is being investigated. You'll have to show me how Canadians would come to accept that.

I agree. As I've said I don't know much about Bountiful, and I couldn't hold it up as a family structure worthy of recognition. I am only argueing for polygomy on a abstract level.

[Renegade]

Do you really believe that all of those relationships spanning different religions across centuries have all been coercive?

Yes. There are no examples in history where polygamy is not based on a powerful man imposing his will on many women within a patriarchal society. It is no coincidence that societies that allow polygamy are also societies where women have few rights.

That said, the hippy experiments in the 60s came closer to non-coercive polygamy, however, these experiments did not stand the test of time which tells mean that there is something fundamental about humans that makes non-coercive polygamy undesireable.

There have been numerious examples of well-off men with both wives and mistresses. IMV those have been nothing but disguised polygamy structured to suit the accepted norm. You can argue that the men were powerful and rich, and by virtue of their power and wealth the women were coerced, but IMV I don't see that as coercion. The women willingly concented to the arrangement and in many cases was beneficial for all parties.

[Renegade]

Yes. There are no examples in history where polygamy is not based on a powerful man imposing his will on many women within a patriarchal society.

If you believe that all polygamy is based on coervciveness, they you would also have to explain how polyandry exists. How did a women coerce multiple husbands to marry and stay married?

Polyandry has occurred in Tibet (see Polyandry in Tibet), the Canadian Arctic, Zanskar, Nepal, Ladakh, Toda of South India, Nairs of Kerala, the Nymba, Nishi and Sri Lanka. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, China (especially Yunnan- the Mosuo people), and in some Subsaharan African and American indigenous communities (notably the Surui of northwestern Brazil). The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, also practiced it until their disappearance. In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law.

Polyandry

[Riverwind]

There have been numerous examples of well-off men with both wives and mistresses. IMV those have been nothing but disguised polygamy structured to suit the accepted norm.

No, that is not polygamy in the sense we are talking about - that is one man with multiple pair bonds. The woman involved may have consented to the situation for economic reasons but I have never heard of situation where they considered each other 'family'.

[Renegade]

There have been numerous examples of well-off men with both wives and mistresses. IMV those have been nothing but disguised polygamy structured to suit the accepted norm.

No, that is not polygamy in the sense we are talking about - that is one man with multiple pair bonds. The woman involved may have consented to the situation for economic reasons but I have never heard of situation where they considered each other 'family'.

Polygamy has a number of variations. I don't see this one as any more or less valid than others. In some polygamy relationships each woman has a relationship with the man, but not to each other. In others, it can be one communal family.

We do not need government intervention into deciding what kind of relationships "recognized" and which are not. That should be a choice individuals make for themselves.

[sharkman]

Polygamy has a number of variations. I don't see this one as any more or less valid than others. In some polygamy relationships each woman has a relationship with the man, but not to each other. In others, it can be one communal family.

We do not need government intervention into deciding what kind of relationships "recognized" and which are not. That should be a choice individuals make for themselves.

Oh, but we do need government intervention on legal definitions of the foundational components of our society. At least that's what gays and poyligamists and others want. They want new definitions that include them. Then other groups will be emboldened to lobby for changes favourable to them. It never ends once you start. And with left kook judges scrutinizing everything not with a legal compass, but with activism based on whether the person in question FEELS somehow wronged, there is no doubt that the definition of marriage will continue to broaden.

Meanwhile, my wife and I may recant our marriage vows and go into the woods somewhere and make our own private vows with our own definitions, hoping that some actiivist doesn't get wind of it and sue us for wrongful uninclusiveness. Because the present marriage contract is worth less and less.

This new ruling, whether it meant to or not, has given new traction to legalizing the poyligamist relationship. Broadening the definition of parent so the second mother can feel better about her gay issues only makes it closer to the multi partner thing.

[Renegade]

Oh, but we do need government intervention on legal definitions of the foundational components of our society.

Is that what you think too? If so why? Why is marriage not just a contract between two or more individuals?

Then other groups will be emboldened to lobby for changes favourable to them. It never ends once you start.

What other groups? Didn't government already start by trying to define what marriage was, and it left it open to challenges from people with different viewpoints?

Meanwhile, my wife and I may recant our marriage vows and go into the woods somewhere and make our own private vows with our own definitions, hoping that some actiivist doesn't get wind of it and sue us for wrongful uninclusiveness. Because the present marriage contract is worth less and less.

Isn't the best way for you to decide what your obligations are toward each other, and for you to decide whom you will marry, and not have the state dictate that to you?

This new ruling, whether it meant to or not, has given new traction to legalizing the poyligamist relationship. Broadening the definition of parent so the second mother can feel better about her gay issues only makes it closer to the multi partner thing.

Great. We're moving forward then.

[sharkman]

Well, hopefully we can go ahead and move forward eventually to rescind all these backward judgements and evolve marriage to the point of 2 people of the opposite sex, others can go into the woods and make up whatever vows they please.

[Renegade]

Well, hopefully we can go ahead and move forward eventually to rescind all these backward judgements and evolve marriage to the point of 2 people of the opposite sex, others can go into the woods and make up whatever vows they please.

Why make the exception for the 2 people of opposite sex? Why can't they run into the woods and make up whatever vows they please as well?