CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:28 pm
 


ASLplease ASLplease:
It would be wrong and imoral for a government to refuse an imigrant the import of his 20 wives and 42 children.

It would violate the concept of universal medicare, if we started to raise a person's rates by counting dependants.


Hey sweet, another opportunity for a stupid Muslim's are bad inference.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:01 pm
 


The_Doctor The_Doctor:
I know someone who is in a relationship with a husband and wife. I have no issues with it. It's not my problem.

I don't give a shit who messes around and lives with whom. However, legitimizing polygamy just opens the door for all kinds of abuse. If we accept another culture's polygamy laws what's gonna be next? Accepting marriages of children?
If the case of polygamy is argued on the basis or religious freedom, then it's not much of a stretch to argue that one can marry a 12 year old based on that same religious belief. Unfortunately, polygamy just isn't as simple as more than two consenting ADULTS living together as a unit.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:35 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
The_Doctor The_Doctor:
I know someone who is in a relationship with a husband and wife. I have no issues with it. It's not my problem.

I don't give a shit who messes around and lives with whom. However, legitimizing polygamy just opens the door for all kinds of abuse. If we accept another culture's polygamy laws what's gonna be next? Accepting marriages of children?
If the case of polygamy is argued on the basis or religious freedom, then it's not much of a stretch to argue that one can marry a 12 year old based on that same religious belief. Unfortunately, polygamy just isn't as simple as more than two consenting ADULTS living together as a unit.


Diagree... vehemently. Firstly, this isn't accepting another culture's polygamy laws - it's analyzing and potentialy accepting a part of Canadian culture that has been tucked away out of the light for years. Secondly, it is my opinion that the abuses you point out occur because it has been hidden away and ignored and considered a Pandora's Box that no one wanted to touch. Legalize it and bring it into the limelight and those abuses are likely to go away because it will no longer be hidden away nor considered such an untouchable topic..


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:48 am
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
GreenTiger GreenTiger:
THey better watch it or some "unidentified" groups are going to want to inject Sharia LAw into the Charter of Rights.


How is that relevent?

This is a challange to remove Christian morality from the law not pave the way to introduce Islamic morality.

Can you guys from the south not post in a thread without bringing up your bogeyman favourite whipping boy?


He does have a point. I remember reading in the NP how some potential immigrants from countries where polygamy is tolerated more than in other countries have been discouraged to come to Canada because of the 'one wife only' rule. This doesn’t only apply in Islamic cultures but some African societies allow polygamy.

Remember the case where the Afghani guy killed his first wife with his second wife being an accomplice (the first wife immigrated to Canada pretending to be his ‘cousin’ and took up the role of ‘Aunt’)?

Some polygamists get through the net besides the 'Bountiful' lot.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/top ... story.html

These are some of the issues the Blessed Supreme Court Justices will have to consider with their vast intellectual capabilities being stretched to the full.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:52 am
 


The moment you remove Christian morality from the law (thus the foundations on which this country is built), you open the door to any other morality, and lack foundation, which would make the whole country collapse.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:04 pm
 


Polygamy is to me where 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are going to meet an important test.

By rights, liberals would be expected to defend this lifestyle as it is counter to the established and traditional norms they typically rail against.

But then they're against it because polygyny is, by nature, patriarchal and it is also a patent rejection of feminism, which itself is a religious icon to most liberals.

But then the liberals are in a quandary because by opposing polygamy they are setting the foundation for a renewed opposition to gay marriage.

Because, as I love to point out, if you say that marriage is between one man and one woman because of family and social needs, then what happens when three or more gays or lesbians want to be married? Will you put five gay men in jail because they have a common household? If not, then how do you propose to claim equal treatment under the law for heterosexuals?

Hate to tell you, kids, but you all popped open Pandora's Box with gay marriage by arguing that no one had a right to dictate who and how you love.

So stop trying to shit on the polygamists because of who and how they love. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:27 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Polygamy is to me where 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are going to meet an important test.

By rights, liberals would be expected to defend this lifestyle as it is counter to the established and traditional norms they typically rail against.

But then they're against it because polygyny is, by nature, patriarchal and it is also a patent rejection of feminism, which itself is a religious icon to most liberals.

But then the liberals are in a quandary because by opposing polygamy they are setting the foundation for a renewed opposition to gay marriage.

Because, as I love to point out, if you say that marriage is between one man and one woman because of family and social needs, then what happens when three or more gays or lesbians want to be married? Will you put five gay men in jail because they have a common household? If not, then how do you propose to claim equal treatment under the law for heterosexuals?

Hate to tell you, kids, but you all popped open Pandora's Box with gay marriage by arguing that no one had a right to dictate who and how you love.

So stop trying to shit on the polygamists because of who and how they love. [B-o]


An bullshit, Bart. Who cares what adults do. We already have laws against bigamy - that covers it, just prosecute anybody who gets legally married to more than one person by lying. But as far as adults making non-traditional living arrangements, that's up to them. They are just limited to one legal spouse.

I think we need to get rid of the common law marriage provisions - if you want to be married, get married. Otherwise there are no legal rights or benefits from living with somebody for a length of time. Women who want legal protection are just going to get off their asses and make the guy marry them or tell him to take a hike.

The situation in Bountiful could be addressed by charging the men with statutory sexual abuse or whatever it's called now. They are in a position of authority over those girls, and so are not legally allowed to have sex with them if they are under 18. I fail to understand why the govt doesn't go after them on this.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 316
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:42 pm
 


modern polygamy: the perversion of religions of perversion.

were it not for the really bad press it would generate, these very same men would also appeal that they be allowed to trade slaves and conduct auto-da-fe's...'cause that's what they did in abraham's time.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:47 pm
 


billypilgrim billypilgrim:
modern polygamy: the perversion of religions of perversion.

were it not for the really bad press it would generate, these very same men would also appeal that they be allowed to trade slaves and conduct auto-da-fe's...'cause that's what they did in abraham's time.


What you're forgetting is the polygamy laws also ensnare polyamorists - ie adults with no religious agenda who want to be in a relationship with more than one person at a time. While they're not usually prosecuted, it makes no sense to have a law and then only selectively enforce it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:59 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Hate to tell you, kids, but you all popped open Pandora's Box with gay marriage by arguing that no one had a right to dictate who and how you love.
[B-o]

Bart, are ppl prohibited from marrying because of their skin colour? Race? Genetic diseases? Mental/emotional issues? But yet you claim we opened a "Pandora's box" with gay marriage cuz it was ruled to be unconstitutional to prohibit someone from "marrying" because of the WAY THEY WERE BORN!!
I'd hardly call being given the same rights as EVERYONE else a Pandora's Box.
That's just as stupid as if I were to say that giving Black ppl equality in the US was a mistake.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 316
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:02 pm
 


andyt andyt:
billypilgrim billypilgrim:
modern polygamy: the perversion of religions of perversion.

were it not for the really bad press it would generate, these very same men would also appeal that they be allowed to trade slaves and conduct auto-da-fe's...'cause that's what they did in abraham's time.


What you're forgetting is the polygamy laws also ensnare polyamorists - ie adults with no religious agenda who want to be in a relationship with more than one person at a time. While they're not usually prosecuted, it makes no sense to have a law and then only selectively enforce it.


agreed. suffice it to say though, polyamorists certainly are not likely to claim any divine rights to force sexual relationships upon young teens. they're just people who want to be with more than one partner, and good for them. they are so different from polygamists that it's not even a similar argument, but you are right: one law could nag them both. ..and that would be dumb. they should be going after the scheister bastards who hide behind the religion of abraham to condone their abuses against girls and women.

religious freedom my ass. :roll: more like "plausible legal case which protects divine permission for men to rape and abuse and psychologically cripple young women." ..but i guess it sounds better to call it a "charter rights violation."


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 337
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:33 pm
 


I have a question for conservatives. Why do you hate government interfering with your lives yet support the government interfering the lives of other people because of our own religious beliefs?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:51 pm
 


PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
I don't give a shit who messes around and lives with whom. However, legitimizing polygamy just opens the door for all kinds of abuse. If we accept another culture's polygamy laws what's gonna be next? Accepting marriages of children?
If the case of polygamy is argued on the basis or religious freedom, then it's not much of a stretch to argue that one can marry a 12 year old based on that same religious belief. Unfortunately, polygamy just isn't as simple as more than two consenting ADULTS living together as a unit.

We already allow "another culture's" right to marry children: French culture. In all provinces, save Quebec, you must be 18 years of age to marry or 16 with parental consent. In Quebec, you can be married at age 14. That's straight out of the old French Catholic tradition. If we're going to allow polygamous marriages, we also need to be investigating these marriages to ensure that it isn't a child being coerced into the marriage by the cult church elders. Just as the Charter does not protect my religious freedom to perform baby sacrifices, marriage rights must also be limited when they infringe on child welfare. I agree with allowing polygamous marriages, provided they are truly consenting adults.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 316
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:57 pm
 


The_Doctor The_Doctor:
I have a question for conservatives. Why do you hate government interfering with your lives yet support the government interfering the lives of other people because of our own religious beliefs?


because a man's right to religion (in this case it's some crazy mormon mutation) should not supercede women's rights to be protected from perverted religious charlatans. these scheister bastards would throw a child off a cliff if they thought they heard 'angels' tell them to.. they should be watched closely for child pornography, not pandered to by way of wasted legal process.

i see no difference between this issue and the burka issue, btw.

.. and these comments are not borne of my conservative religious beliefs, but rather my happy lack of ANY religious beliefs.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 337
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:23 pm
 


billypilgrim billypilgrim:
The_Doctor The_Doctor:
I have a question for conservatives. Why do you hate government interfering with your lives yet support the government interfering the lives of other people because of our own religious beliefs?


because a man's right to religion (in this case it's some crazy mormon mutation) should not supercede women's rights to be protected from perverted religious charlatans. these scheister bastards would throw a child off a cliff if they thought they heard 'angels' tell them to.. they should be watched closely for child pornography, not pandered to by way of wasted legal process.

i see no difference between this issue and the burka issue, btw.

.. and these comments are not borne of my conservative religious beliefs, but rather my happy lack of ANY religious beliefs.


What gives you the right to say that their religion is perverted or evil? I consider myself a secular Buddhist. I see there is no problem if they do it. Not like society will fall apart if a man has two wives.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.