Announcement

**Giancarlo** · February 2, 2005, 05:56

Bringing polygamy into the gay marriage debate isn't valid. Gay marriage is between two individuals, thus invalidating the polygamy issue as relevant to this debate. And I'm going to bed. Good night.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 2, 2005, 05:57

Would it make a difference?

Sure it would. Two being one flesh and all.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 2, 2005, 05:59

Oh give me a break... so gay people are somehow responsible for the continued disintegration of marriage?

No more so than the folks who elevate common law relationships on par with marriage, and the folks who treat marriage as a business contract.

You are acting so ridiculous. If anything allowing gay couples to get married would help marriage. You are the one suffering from severe denial.

How would it help marriage Fez?

**joncha** · February 2, 2005, 05:59

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Sure it would. Two being one flesh and all.

References to your religion have no bearing on my marriage.

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:01

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It's a valid concern for two reasons.

First is the impending recognition in Europe of the polygamy rights for Muslims, and the subsequent demand from Muslims here for similar recognition.

They have a pretty good argument from the Charter, with respect to their section 2 rights, to freedom to practice their religion.

Of course, they could counter your argument by saying that so long as the women freely choose to enter their religion, and to marry them, that this will prevent the concerns over the equality of women.

The second is what I was referring to, the folks out in Bountiful, BC. They openly engage in polygamy, and have yet to face any consequences from the provincial government.

Two words. Say what?!

Recognition in Europe of Polygamy? Where?

Freedom to practice religion? I'm sure there is something, somewhere, that recognises slavery in some religion. Don't mean Jack ****.

Unless the forces of Bountiful can throw a cloak over the eyes of the SCoC and have them ignore the impact on women, there is no way in Hell any court in this country is gonna rule that Polygamy is protected by the Charter, despite the RCMP being wussies and thinking they might.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 2, 2005, 06:02

Bringing polygamy into the gay marriage debate isn't valid. Gay marriage is between two individuals, thus invalidating the polygamy issue as relevant to this debate.

I have recieved conflicting points here in this thread to my earlier question. Some say it ought to be permitted, and others say that it should not.

But both agree that these issues are connected, even though they disagree on most everything else.

Why should marriage be between two individuals Fez? You cannot be an individual, and one with your partner at the same time.

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:03

Bull**** I agree they are connected! They have zero, ZERO, to do with each other.

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:06

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I have recieved conflicting points here in this thread to my earlier question. Some say it ought to be permitted, and others say that it should not.

But both agree that these issues are connected, even though they disagree on most everything else.

Why should marriage be between two individuals Fez? You cannot be an individual, and one with your partner at the same time.

Do you agree that homosexuals should enjoy the benefits of civil unions? That means rights to property, default powers of attourney, shared pensions etc.

Do you?

**Ben Kenobi** · February 2, 2005, 06:06

Polygamist Muslims are already enjoying special dispensations in Ireland and the U.K. that are not (yet) available here.

From Kay's article in the National post.

there is no way in Hell any court in this country is gonna rule that Polygamy is protected by the Charter, despite the RCMP being wussies and thinking they might.

They don't have to.

All they have to do is to say the same things they are doing now, that many people have structured their lives around this arrangement, and let things go from there.

A law unenforced might as well, not be a law at all.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 2, 2005, 06:08

Do you agree that homosexuals should enjoy the benefits of civil unions? That means rights to property, default powers of attourney, shared pensions etc.

Do you?

Do I? Considering that up until 1999 they didn't, no I don't.

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:10

Are you aware that the majority of those opposed to marriage favour civil unions?

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:14

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They don't have to.

All they have to do is to say the same things they are doing now, that many people have structured their lives around this arrangement, and let things go from there.

A law unenforced might as well, not be a law at all.

I agree that Bountiful should be burned, then every single nail should be pulled out of every single board, and no two stones left connected. That town should be razed as thoroughly as any town has every been razed.

However, the gutlessness of the Province of BC and the RCMP over Bountiful is not the deciding point of national policy and law, and nor should it be.

**Alexander's Horse** · February 2, 2005, 06:34

whats wrong with polygamy anyway?

**notyoueither** · February 2, 2005, 06:37

Aside from the usual exploitation of women in overly patriarchal societies? Not much.

**KrazyHorse** · February 2, 2005, 06:51

...and the fact that I can barely deal with one woman nagging me at a time?

Announcement

And so it begins: Same-sex marriage law tabled federally in Canada

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment