| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Legalize Polygamy; Say the Canadians | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 13 2006, 07:53 AM (249 Views) | |
| George K | Jan 13 2006, 07:53 AM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
(Anyone want to comment?) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...2.wpolygamy0112 Legalize polygamy, study urges By DEAN BEEBY Thursday, January 12, 2006 Posted at 6:47 PM EST Canadian Press Ottawa — A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships. “Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. “The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.” The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada. The paper by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., argues that Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy serves no useful purpose and in any case is rarely prosecuted. Instead, Canadian laws should be changed to better accommodate the problems of women in polygamous marriages, providing them clearer spousal support and inheritance rights. Currently, there's a hodgepodge of legislation across the provinces, some of which — Ontario, for example — give limited recognition to foreign polygamous marriages for the purposes of spousal support. Some jurisdictions provide no relief at all. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jan 13 2006, 07:54 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Isn't polygami itself punishment enough for polygami? |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Jan 13 2006, 07:56 AM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
:lol: |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 13 2006, 08:02 AM Post #4 |
|
Finally
|
I think that it was Oscar Wilde who said that Bigamy is one wife too many. Monogamy is the same thing. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Jan 13 2006, 08:02 AM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I thought the lefties on this board told 89th he was nuts for thinking this was the next step after gay marriage. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 13 2006, 08:16 AM Post #6 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This why we must retain the notwithstanding clause in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If immigrants and their progeny want polygamy they can go back to where they came and poliginate all they want there. |
![]() |
|
| maple | Jan 13 2006, 09:00 AM Post #7 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Agree. I wonder how are they admited in the country in the first place. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 13 2006, 09:03 AM Post #8 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Like all legal immigrants- they make application either as independents or through family sponsorships. A few may be bonafide refugees. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 13 2006, 09:21 AM Post #9 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So why not let any sort of corporation of individuals adopt? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 13 2006, 09:35 AM Post #10 |
|
MAMIL
|
Nobody ever asked me my views on any number of topics when I applied for residency in Canada. They seemed most interested in whether I was an undiscosed bankrupt or had venereal disease. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 13 2006, 09:37 AM Post #11 |
|
Yes, they did. He shoots...he scores! ![]() Was the article before about the woman and the dolphin, fake? Otherwise, we now have homosexuality, bestiality, and now polygamy. Just wait for incest marriage and then IT's corporate-adoption...
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 13 2006, 10:01 AM Post #12 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
And?????? Don't leave us hanging! |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 13 2006, 10:06 AM Post #13 |
|
MAMIL
|
I'm now a Canadian citizen. Read into that what you will.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 13 2006, 10:06 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Bestiality is usually defined in terms animal-human sex. The somewhat bizarre occurance of a woman 'marrying' (is it "mariage" in words only? -It doesn't seem to have any legal consequences) does not appear to have a sexual basis, so is this really bestiality? The arguments these academics are making for polygamous marriage seem to me to have no relation to same-sex marriage they appear to be arguments based purely on outcomes: I.e. criminalising it doesn't help those who are harmed by it. Now perhaps that's a reasonable argument perhaps it's not, but what has it got to do with same-sex marriage? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 13 2006, 10:13 AM Post #15 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
edit. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 13 2006, 10:21 AM Post #16 |
|
MAMIL
|
THey're all at it! Now it's the Chechens! Could this be the beginning of the end? Has Kenny unintentionally started the apocalypse? What next, Scotsmen wearing skirts? French people being unfaithful? English dentistry voted worlds finest? Stay tuned, more at Ten. Chechens propose polygamy |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Jan 13 2006, 10:31 AM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think you're naive if you think there is not an agenda pushed here - one that has little to do w/protecting the wives of foreign potentates. The relationship between gay marriage and polygamy is simply that we seem to be on a slippery slope in a handbasket and it's getting hotter.
|
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 13 2006, 10:35 AM Post #18 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Once the law has divorced itself from the natural order (such as that a child is the product of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN) and from the duty of the State to promote common sense applications of healthy social order (such as that a child has an intrinsic right to a stable parental environment), then all is subject to whim. The argument against say, dolphin-human or bonobo-human bestiality is valiantly attempted on the grounds of parity (that these lower animals have at most the capacity of a 4 to 8 year old human). Of course, that is a distinction without real substance since the metric is of a human standard judging an adult of its own species by which it should rightly be judged qua dolphin or bonobo. If you do not admit to the particularity of the human being in the hierarchy of living organisms, then why judge the morality or ethics or social acceptance of bestiality on human standards? BTW, virtually all civilization determine the validity or nullity of marriage based on consummation, so if you are arguing this is not necessarily a sexual relationship then it is not really a marriage and the courts should not have allowed her to marry the dolphin. It is an interesting ethical consideration -- consummation is given as the intent to procreate, which is why marriage is primarily established as a legal construct. There are other reasons as well, and I appreciate that in the past other posters have disagreed with me on this. We can revisit the arguments if necessary. But the core of the argument is that marriage is a natural institution of one man and one woman for furtherance of society through propagation and education of children in a stable environment. Civil law ought to uphold this for its very survival. For better or worse we no longer live in tribal consciousness, and the polygamous societies are often quite unjust not only to women but to the men who cannot afford or do not have the power to have a wife. Once the divorce is made -- such as preferentially allowing singles or homosexual couples to adopt (except that there should be a dearth of heterosexual married couples ready and willing to adopt -- which there is NOT) -- then the state is no longer upholding its duty to promote the common good. There is also no real distinction to be made between allowing polygamous "families" to adopt or any other free will corporation such as a commune or Walmart. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| maple | Jan 13 2006, 11:40 AM Post #19 |
|
Junior Carp
|
True, but they asked for your marrital status and your spouse had to file an application as well. I suppose they would have denied access if you applied with more than 1 spouse. The article says "Although the Bountiful case raises immediate issues, Canada is also faced with a rising tide of immigration from Africa and the Middle East, where polygamy is legally and religiously sanctioned. Immigration officers can refuse entry to individuals practising polygamy." The case that prompted the debate seems to be of local origin, not immigration caused (at least originating from where I would expect it). However this is not encouraging:
|
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 13 2006, 11:43 AM Post #20 |
|
What he said: ![]() Also, what would you call a marriage between a woman and a dolphin then? A hydrozoophilia-driven marriage? |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 13 2006, 11:52 AM Post #21 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
[edit] I didn't see Maple's post and link. Sorry. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










10:58 AM Jul 11