Marriage and Incest

[Renegade]

I'm not sure what "capicity" or "concent" means.

Jbg, I apologize for my hasty response and poor spelling. I should have realized that not everyone has the mental capacity to infer the meaning of words despite obvious misspellings. In future I will endeavour to run my responses directed to you, through a spell check first. For your benefit, I have corrected my post. Hopefully it is enough so that you understand the intent of my response and are able to articulate a coherent one of your own.

[jbg]

As far as the animals go though, I'm quite sure they understand what penetration by a sexual organ feels like and with their ample hooves or teetch could quite effectively stop it from happening.

Jbg, I apologize for my hasty response and poor spelling. I should have realized that not everyone has the mental capacity to infer the meaning of words despite obvious misspellings. In future I will endeavour to run my responses directed to you, through a spell check first. For your benefit, I have corrected my post. Hopefully it is enough so that you understand the intent of my response and are able to articulate a coherent one of your own.

I'm sorry if I sometimes mention spelling errors. When someone writes a post in a manner that shows, perhaps, that they were not functioning at their best levels, I point it out. I had real problems understanding where you were going.

What about the balance of my post, which I quoted above?

[Renegade]

As far as the animals go though, I'm quite sure they understand what penetration by a sexual organ feels like and with their ample hooves or teetch could quite effectively stop it from happening.

To accept that animal's consent, it is not sufficient to assume that passivity to the act implies consent. It must also be shown that the animal has the capacity to understand the implications of the act and what they are consenting to. For the same reason we have laws on statutory rape. In general we deem 12-year olds not to understand the implication of the act they are involved in, so despite their apparent consent, participation in the act is prohibited.

[Renegade]

Why have laws in the first place then? By that logic car thieves are going to feel discriminated against because thier right to steal cars is being infringed upon.

The laws are there in part, to protect individual rights. Car thieves don't have the right to steal cars. Individual car owners do have the right to have their property protected. Individuals in society do not have the right to prohibit behaviour which they find disgusting oblivious to the rights of those affected.

Why should the majority be punished all the time? We have rights to an orderly society too.

Please explain how incest or polygamy "punishes" the majority. Please explain what an "orderly society" means.

Of course laws are discriminatory, they are discriminatory to those that don't follow them. Our society decided that incest was wrong and against the law. IOW if you are incest you don't fit into our society which means you either go to jail or leave (putting it bluntly). The minorities who feel oppressed should be grateful that they are even allowed to be in Canada and even allowed to complain, this is granted due to the benevolence of the majority. If someone doesn't fit in to society, maybe it's time that that person left to where he is tolerated.

This is your definition of society. It is not mine, and I would guess it not the definition that most of the Western world would agree to. It is remarkably consistent with the definition a society like Iran uses.

Basically what you are saying is that the minorities should be grateful for the level of tolerance shown by the majority and at the majority’s whim. The Charter is in place to keep exactly that kind of attitude in check.

[blueblood]

The laws are there in part, to protect individual rights. Car thieves don't have the right to steal cars. Individual car owners do have the right to have their property protected. Individuals in society do not have the right to prohibit behaviour which they find disgusting oblivious to the rights of those affected.

We outlaw pedophelia, it's disgusting. Even though a 14 yr. old might want to get with a 25 yr. old badly, it's still outlawed. Iranians think that if a woman gets raped she is to get stoned to death. No, laws are the rules of society, follow them or go to jail/leave. The majority of Canadians brought in gun control, it's a law, we all have to follow it. The majority decides I don't have a right to property, that's the law I follow it.

Please explain how incest or polygamy "punishes" the majority. Please explain what an "orderly society" means

We have a right not to be disgusted, those relationships are often manipulated and oppressive. Also children born to incest are unhealthy. The charter was meant as protection, not to be abused in this way. An orderly society is one that follows the laws that govern it, oh guess what that includes incest and polygamy.

This is your definition of society. It is not mine, and I would guess it not the definition that most of the Western world would agree to. It is remarkably consistent with the definition a society like Iran uses.

Basically what you are saying is that the minorities should be grateful for the level of tolerance shown by the majority and at the majority’s whim. The Charter is in place to keep exactly that kind of attitude in check.

What the charter is suppossed to undermine democracy? A key pillar of democracy is majority rules, which is my view. We shouldn't be under a dictatorship ruled by a piece of paper. You are damn rights minorities should be grateful, the majority decided to have a society that welcomed them, they could have easily said we want a different society. Your definition of society is consistent with a society like Lenin's and Trotsky's ideal country.

[Renegade]

We outlaw pedophelia, it's disgusting. Even though a 14 yr. old might want to get with a 25 yr. old badly, it's still outlawed.

We don't outlaw pedophelia because it is disgusting. We outlaw it because the 14 yr old is presumed not to have the capacity to understand the implications of consent. See my response to jbg.

Iranians think that if a woman gets raped she is to get stoned to death.

Exactly. And that's the kind of society you want?

No, laws are the rules of society, follow them or go to jail/leave. The majority of Canadians brought in gun control, it's a law, we all have to follow it. The majority decides I don't have a right to property, that's the law I follow it.

Laws are not without limits. That's why some laws when challenged are deemed unconstitutional despite what the majority decides. See the law on homosexual marriage as an example.

We have a right not to be disgusted,

You have no such right. Show me some basis upon which you claim this right.

those relationships are often manipulated and oppressive.

Possibly, but so are many other relationships in our society which we don't ban.

Also children born to incest are unhealthy.

See my response to Remiel.

The charter was meant as protection, not to be abused in this way. An orderly society is one that follows the laws that govern it, oh guess what that includes incest and polygamy.

Yes, the charter protects rights, even those you are disgusted by. It would seem that any protections for behaviour which you do not agree with are called "abuse" of the Charter.

What the charter is suppossed to undermine democracy? A key pillar of democracy is majority rules, which is my view. We shouldn't be under a dictatorship ruled by a piece of paper. You are damn rights minorities should be grateful, the majority decided to have a society that welcomed them, they could have easily said we want a different society. Your definition of society is consistent with a society like Lenin's and Trotsky's ideal country.

Yes the charter is meant to undermine democracy when democracy infringes on the rights of individuals. That is exactly what the charter is for. Do you think that the majority should have the right to dictate the religion of the minority? Do you think that the majority should have the right to sell the minority into slavery, or perhaps just exterminate them in a "final" solution. Hmm, I seem to have heard someone else who also had that viewpoint.

My definition of society is one which respects individual liberties and rights. I would hardly call that consistent with Lenin's or Trotsky's.

[blueblood]

You have no such right. Show me some basis upon which you claim this right.

Right to freedom of thought and expression. I have a right to be disgusted and speak out about it.

Yes the charter is meant to undermine democracy when democracy infringes on the rights of individuals. That is exactly what the charter is for. Do you think that the majority should have the right to dictate the religion of the minority? Do you think that the majority should have the right to sell the minority into slavery, or perhaps just exterminate them in a "final" solution. Hmm, I seem to have heard someone else who also had that viewpoint.

My definition of society is one which respects individual liberties and rights. I would hardly call that consistent with Lenin's or Trotsky's.

The majority has the right to do what it sees fit that's a perk of being in charge, also being in charge means that they should exercise responsibility. Fortunately we live in a society where the majority has a good head on it's shoulders. I can safely say the Majority of Canada would not condone slavery or extermination or dictating religion. Fear mongering is just childish. Does the minority have the right to undermine democracy? Sorry I like true democracy, not a dictatorship.

As far as your nazi argument, the majority of the world said that was unacceptable and put a stop to it. They took away the nazi's right as a country/government to exist. That's another example of a majority imposing it's will over a minority. Should the rest of the world have said oh the nazi's are a facist minority, it's their country they have this right and that right to do what they want?

[Renegade]

I have a right to be disgusted ...

Of course you do. But you have just contradicted yourself (within an hour). Didn't you previously say this:

We have a right not to be disgusted

You have a right to free speech. Your free speech right doesn't give you the right to probhit behaviour you speak about.

The majority has the right to do what it sees fit that's a perk of being in charge, also being in charge means that they should exercise responsibility. Fortunately we live in a society where the majority has a good head on it's shoulders. I can safely say the Majority of Canada would not condone slavery or extermination or dictating religion. Fear mongering is just childish.

The majority doesn't have unlimited rights to do as it pleases as a "perk". That "perk" is limited by the Charter of rights. Even if the majority did not have the good sense, and condoned slavery, the charter would prevent that law from being upheld. You refuse to believe that. It makes no difference to me whether you do or don't. What's important is that the Canadian system governmental and court system is structered that way.

Does the minority have the right to undermine democracy?

Yes, when it infringes on a set of guaranteed rights. You have still failed to answer on how incest or polygamy affects YOU. If the only effect is to make you feel disgusted. Then go ahead. Feel disgusted. Express it. Shout at the top of your lungs how disgusted you are. That is your right. However, it should not be your right to throw someone in jail for consentual behaviour.

Sorry I like true democracy, not a dictatorship.

Sorry you don't like it, but it is that way in virtually every democracy.

As far as your nazi argument, the majority of the world said that was unacceptable and put a stop to it. They took away the nazi's right as a country/government to exist. That's another example of a majority imposing it's will over a minority. Should the rest of the world have said oh the nazi's are a facist minority, it's their country they have this right and that right to do what they want?

Nonsense. Are you saying WWII was an example of democracy in action? If you are, it is clear that you know nothing either about the war or democracy, or the motivations of the countries involved.

[Mad_Michael]

Michael Coren was talking about an incest case on his show the other night when he asked the panel whether it should be legal or not. He says people might be able to challenge the law (re: SSM redefinition of marriage)

The new and revised definition means that any two people can qualify for marriage. So that really could cover polygamy and incest ... Wonder when we'll get the first challenge.

Michael Coren is entitled to his own hatemongering opinions. I will defend his right to be a hatemonger.

But Michael Coren's fantasies and delusions about incest, polygamy or beastiality are beyond consideration.

The law is unequivical on that point. There is no room for such interpretations as the law stands.

Either way, it doesn't matter anyway. This is just a rhetorical canard used to leverage opposition.

For example, Canada ought not to sent troops to Afghanistan because to do so means Canada will be sending troops to every country on the planet and become an Imperialist warmongering nation. This is the same reasoning as Michael Coren is applying here to suggest that legalised polygamy, incest and/or bestiality is on its way by legalising same-sex marriage.