CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 39732
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:50 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?


Being slightly right of center, I guess this slightly applies to me.

I don't support the government interfering with anyone's rights. I'm all for the traditional definition of 'marriage' from a religious perspective, but never felt government should dictate that definition. The government should be in the 'civil union' business, as I consider it in that realm. Two people agree to take on responsibilities as if they were acting as one person - it's a civil contract, and that is what the government should be doing.

The_Doctor The_Doctor:
I see there is no problem if they do it. Not like society will fall apart if a man has two wives.


I have no problem if a woman has two husbands. Or if a husband and wife have a mistress and/or 'pool boy' on the side. It's their issue, not societies' as a whole.

I guess my morality on this is tainted by Robert Heinlein. In his books, he puts forward a sound policy - if the prime purpose of 'marriage' is to care for children, then the loss of one parent in a two parent family is devastating. It would make more sense if two or more women and two or more men 'married' into an extended marriage, then income is increased and the family can absorb the loss of one parent easier from a financial perspective. And the children are afforded greater protection.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:40 pm
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
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.


Bountiful has sparked this.

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a Muslims get off free while whitey takes it...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:41 pm
 


Brenda Brenda:
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.


Yeah. Stupid lack of slavery in Canada... :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:43 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?


Hey, Liberal, try using a narrower brush. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:44 pm
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Brenda Brenda:
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.


Yeah. Stupid lack of slavery in Canada... :roll:

Well, it is the problem, isn't it? As far as I am concerned, church and state should be separated, but hey, who am I? How many laws are build on Christian morality? Remove them all, and ya have a problem :)


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 316
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:45 pm
 


$1:
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.


(what gives you the right to declare which things will or will not ruin society? not like aztec society fell apart when they first started carving up babies to make god bring the crop in, but it was pretty goddam evil, i say.)

but a thought: the whole of society will perhaps not crumble should pederasty ever again flourish in public favor and practice. ..but you can bet i'll be vocal in my protest against that particular religious-based nonsense.

and when it comes time for shias to insert sharia law into our crappy Canadian legal system on account of 'religious freedoms', i'll still be a naysayer. maybe that'll make me an insensitive redneck, but while they start executing gay men for sodomy crimes, i'll still be on the warpath to call down all this religious absurdity and bullshit.

but i'll finish with a question for you: under shia law, an adulterous woman is prescribed to die by stoning, when found guilty. this is religious law, and we're now starting to see that it goes on even in 'moderne' Iran.

do you think this is evil? or perverted or wrong? i sure as shit do and i don't care if that is an offense to that particular sect of islam or its easyliving defenders here at home.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:46 pm
 


Brenda Brenda:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Brenda Brenda:
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.


Yeah. Stupid lack of slavery in Canada... :roll:

Well, it is the problem, isn't it? As far as I am concerned, church and state should be separated, but hey, who am I? How many laws are build on Christian morality? Remove them all, and ya have a problem :)


There are laws that have undermined Christian practises - like slavery. But hey, we could bring those back and stop all this crazy cherry picking.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:49 pm
 


billypilgrim billypilgrim:
$1:
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.


(what gives you the right to declare which things will or will not ruin society? not like aztec society fell apart when they first started carving up babies to make god bring the crop in, but it was pretty goddam evil, i say.)

but a thought: the whole of society will perhaps not crumble should pederasty ever again flourish in public favor and practice. ..but you can bet i'll be vocal in my protest against that particular religious-based nonsense.

and when it comes time for shias to insert sharia law into our crappy Canadian legal system on account of 'religious freedoms', i'll still be a naysayer. maybe that'll make me an insensitive redneck, but while they start executing gay men for sodomy crimes, i'll still be on the warpath to call down all this religious absurdity and bullshit.

but i'll finish with a question for you: under shia law, an adulterous woman is prescribed to die by stoning, when found guilty. this is religious law, and we're now starting to see that it goes on even in 'moderne' Iran.

do you think this is evil? or perverted or wrong? i sure as shit do and i don't care if that is an offense to that particular sect of islam or its easyliving defenders here at home.


Image

The Sharia law and the buggery arguments... oh very good.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5233
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:50 pm
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Brenda Brenda:
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.


Yeah. Stupid lack of slavery in Canada... :roll:

hey, say what you will about it but...
Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:01 pm
 


Image

Gotta love them Biblical morals...


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 316
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:05 pm
 


[quote="GunnairImage

The Sharia law and the buggery arguments... oh very good.[/quote]

Image

..keep your head in the sand, gunnair, i'm sure it'll be ok..


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
I have no problem if a woman has two husbands. Or if a husband and wife have a mistress and/or 'pool boy' on the side. It's their issue, not societies' as a whole.

I guess my morality on this is tainted by Robert Heinlein. In his books, he puts forward a sound policy - if the prime purpose of 'marriage' is to care for children, then the loss of one parent in a two parent family is devastating. It would make more sense if two or more women and two or more men 'married' into an extended marriage, then income is increased and the family can absorb the loss of one parent easier from a financial perspective. And the children are afforded greater protection.


Gotta agree with you here. For the sake of "Civil Unions," a person should be allowed as many as they want however, the benefits of multiple civil unions don't multiply for any one person beyond the benefits gained from the initial civil union. A man with 3 wives would get same income tax benefits as a man with 1 wife, etc.

However, I also respect the church's right to refuse to marry someone for whom the act of marriage is against the church's morals.

Further, the support of the children is the reason why we developed as a social species who banded together in family groups. It wasn't just one parent, but all the adolescents that cared for the children. And 100 000 years ago we didn't exactly follow the construct of monogamous relationships or the concept of marriage.

While I personally find the concept have having more than one life partner a little weird (and I'd hate to bear witness to all the estrogen-induced fights), I have no problem with a spouse bringing home another woman that'll stick around for awhile. I can't say the same thing for if another man was brought home; but, thats my feelings, and if a woman doesn't agree to only extra girls then there is the option of no extra's at all. 2 women in the bedroom isn't a requirement for a loving relationship, if anything it'll destroy one. If the girlfriend isn't absolutely cool with it and the boyfriend is a douche bag about it, things go south real quick.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:57 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
I agree that the government has no place in the bedrooms of Canadians, but this could be a Pandora's Box. First, we don't want the legalization of polygamy to become a child-exploitation issue. We know from the American experience that polygamous cults frequently practise ritualized child sexual abuse. I think any ruling in favour of legalized polygamy needs to come with a strict and clear division between consentual polygamy and the type of cult behaviour practised at certain locations in Utah, Texas and Arizona. The polygamy portrayed on reality tv is very different from what the reality is in many polygamous communities.


Do we really have to hash this out? Sex with children is already illegal under statutory rape law, and has nothing to do with anything that should be called polygamy. Real polygamy is something that happens between three or more consenting adults, without coercion.

$1:
Secondly, if we're going to fundamentally alter the legal definiton of marriage, we need to figure out how this will affect things such as immigration and spousal benefits. I have no problem with consenting adults entering into a polygamous relationship, but if I'm a co-worker and spousal medical plans are extended to multiple spouses, that effectively means I'll be subsidizing my co-workers' medical plans. I don't think I should be expected to contribute the same to a joint-benefit plan as someone that has 5 or 10 times the beneficiaries as I. And with immigration, does this mean that a single immigrant would be able to 'import' 20 family members? There's a lot of considerations yet to be made. It's a much larger issue than bedroom freedom.


I"m sure these things will be debated to death.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:59 pm
 


billypilgrim billypilgrim:
[quote="GunnairImage

The Sharia law and the buggery arguments... oh very good.


Image

..keep your head in the sand, gunnair, i'm sure it'll be ok..[/quote]

Image

By all means, keep yours up your ass...


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:07 pm
 


andyt andyt:
We should make a clean distinction between bigamy, which is marrying more than one person, and polygamy, which is more than two people living together. And we should raise the age of marriage to 18.


Bigamy and polygamy, within a monogamous legal framework, mean exactly the same thing. Without the monogamous legal framework, bigamy is an irrelevant term when it comes to polygamy, and is only relevant to monogamous marriages.


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




 
     
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.