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

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Odin
SpencerH, The US was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, and many of the founders were Deists.

I was really refering to the pilgrims than founders, but in any case, is your position that because Jefferson and Franklin et al are considered to be deists today that the laws they proposed and enacted weren't founded upon christian beliefs? I'd love to see evidence that shows a US laws connection to hindu, moslem, or some other belief system than christian. Or perhaps you'd argue that our marriage and morality laws are secular in nature?

[St Leo]

The marriage laws are moderately Christian in origin, but the overall legal system is of Pagan Anglo-Saxon descent. Clearing away pollution and making bits consistent with the spirit of the thing is a good idea.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by notyoueither Maybe you can explain that there is no harm to the girls that are married off at 15 and 16 to lechers in closed communities where the nubiles are raised for the explicit purpose.

Do you have a clue about the shoes other people walk in, or does it have to be represented in a computer game before you can visualise it?

I wouldn't count the first case as consensual. The girls are pressured by their closed communities to enter into such relations. But what is wrong with it is 3 or more consenting fully informed adults decide on doing it? If orgies are ok, then why not a legal arrangement between 3 or more people?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi You will probably get your wish, the way things are going right now.

If only thing went my way more often.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Thank you. So the slippery slope argument is very valid, despite Asher's protestations to the contrary.

Indeed. The problem with both sides of the debate is that they see where the slippery slope leads as something bad. The slope is valid, which means we should allow polygamy.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I find it funny BK still persistently tries to find a connection between polygamy and gay marriage. None exists, but it is so sad to see him go down that road of shame.

If any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal status, then why not more than two? I still don't see why the many supporters of gay marriage are opposed to polygamy, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Voltaire
If any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal status, then why not more than two? I still don't see why the many supporters of gay marriage are opposed to polygamy, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

It does at least have an historical/cultural connection to the word "marriage" unlike the proposed new definition.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Voltaire
If any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal status, then why not more than two? I still don't see why the many supporters of gay marriage are opposed to polygamy, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

In minds eye the basis of polygamy is based on the fact that men are the ones allowed to have mulitple wives were as the woman has only one. Not that this would make a difference. The idea of the children that are born out of these relationships are related and can end up marrying each other. Then you have cases of inbreeding and deformities in these children that come from these relationships.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski In minds eye the basis of polygamy is based on the fact that men are the ones allowed to have mulitple wives were as the woman has only one. Not that this would make a difference. The idea of the children that are born out of these relationships are related and can end up marrying each other. Then you have cases of inbreeding and deformities in these children that come from these relationships.

I took polygamy in the sense of allowing multiple spouses, for both men and women. And I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that children born out of these relationships are not considered siblings and hence can marry each other? How does this come about?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
The idea of the children that are born out of these relationships are related and can end up marrying each other. Then you have cases of inbreeding and deformities in these children that come from these relationships.

I gotta say I'm a little confused by this. If we assume the rule of thumb now is you can't interbreed with members of your own family, then why would it be different if your family had a situation with multiple wives (or husbands)? It seems to me it's identical to a guy breeding with his step-sister.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Voltaire
I took polygamy in the sense of allowing multiple spouses, for both men and women. And I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that children born out of these relationships are not considered siblings and hence can marry each other? How does this come about?

In all recorded instances of polygamy recorded, it is the man that is allowed more then one wife. The laws do not include women. In closed communties the girls are born from the same father and married to one of the other wives sons, when they are old enough. This is where inbreeding occurs.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I gotta say I'm a little confused by this. If we assume the rule of thumb now is you can't interbreed with members of your own family, then why would it be different if your family had a situation with multiple wives (or husbands)? It seems to me it's identical to a guy breeding with his step-sister.

In the cases were the people are step related there is no blood or genetic relationship.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

In all recorded instances of polygamy recorded, it is the man that is allowed more then one wife. The laws do not include women. In closed communties the girls are born from the same father and married to one of the other wives sons, when they are old enough. This is where inbreeding occurs.

Our proposed legislation deals with "persons" not gender specifics. One can not assume that polygamy in any future legal sense would be restricted to single husband and multiple wives. On the contrary it would have to apply equally to both genders.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

In all recorded instances of polygamy recorded, it is the man that is allowed more then one wife. The laws do not include women. In closed communties the girls are born from the same father and married to one of the other wives sons, when they are old enough. This is where inbreeding occurs.

Not quite. There's plenty of documented polyandrical (multiple husbands) situations. It's reasonably common in Tibet, Nepal and Sri Lanka, among a few other places.

As for the idea of closed communes with rules as to who you can and cannot marry, you're right that that would (should) be a problem. But the practice of polygamy in and of itself needn't allow that.

[Last Conformist]

Here around, half-siblings are strictly off-limits as marriage partners*. Isn't that the case over in North America too.

* It occurs to me I do not know whether this also applies to civil unions.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

In the cases were the people are step related there is no blood or genetic relationship.

Sorry, I was thinking about the subset of step siblings where they share one parent but not both.