Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[LadyC]

Am I making my point any clearer???

No, actually, you're not. What you've clarified is that you've bought into the fear-mongering rhetoric surrounding this issue. Allowing a same sex couple to marry has nothing to do with paedophilia or incest... or even polygamy, although the last is less of a reach.

One more time.... from a human rights standpoint only, why should SSMs be illegal?

 

[LadyC]

Am I making my point any clearer???

No, actually, you're not. What you've clarified is that you've bought into the fear-mongering rhetoric surrounding this issue. Allowing a same sex couple to marry has nothing to do with paedophilia or incest... or even polygamy, although the last is less of a reach.

One more time.... from a human rights standpoint only, why should SSMs be illegal?

 

[LadyC]

Am I making my point any clearer???

No, actually, you're not. What you've clarified is that you've bought into the fear-mongering rhetoric surrounding this issue. Allowing a same sex couple to marry has nothing to do with paedophilia or incest... or even polygamy, although the last is less of a reach.

One more time.... from a human rights standpoint only, why should SSMs be illegal?

 

[tibear]

LadyC,

From a human rights standpoint, SSM should be legal. I'm not argueing that point.

Again, my point is that from a human rights standpoint what is preventing the other relationships from being recognized just as SSM's are??

We all agree that all of these relationships have different moral levels however, the government hasn't talked about legalizing SSM based on the morality of the relationships but rather from a human rights standpoint.

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

 

[tibear]

LadyC,

From a human rights standpoint, SSM should be legal. I'm not argueing that point.

Again, my point is that from a human rights standpoint what is preventing the other relationships from being recognized just as SSM's are??

We all agree that all of these relationships have different moral levels however, the government hasn't talked about legalizing SSM based on the morality of the relationships but rather from a human rights standpoint.

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

 

[tibear]

LadyC,

From a human rights standpoint, SSM should be legal. I'm not argueing that point.

Again, my point is that from a human rights standpoint what is preventing the other relationships from being recognized just as SSM's are??

We all agree that all of these relationships have different moral levels however, the government hasn't talked about legalizing SSM based on the morality of the relationships but rather from a human rights standpoint.

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

 

[LadyC]

I plan to cross that bridge when and if I get to it.

I repeat... those are separate issues, and have nothing to do with same sex marriages. They should never have been brought into the debate.

 

[LadyC]

I plan to cross that bridge when and if I get to it.

I repeat... those are separate issues, and have nothing to do with same sex marriages. They should never have been brought into the debate.

 

[LadyC]

I plan to cross that bridge when and if I get to it.

I repeat... those are separate issues, and have nothing to do with same sex marriages. They should never have been brought into the debate.

 

[tibear]

I'm confused. Please explain to me the difference between SSM and polygamy, adult incest and teen paedophilia. All of these relationships are currently illegal from the federal law perspective and currently the SSM is looking to change the law by using the Charter of Rights.

I'm not talking about the acts or one partner's authority over the other or whatever. I'm talking about consenting adults(or teens) who fully know what they are doing and want to have their relationships legally recognized by the government.

It's a simple question and so far nobody has been willing to even attempt an answer. So far everyone on this forum has said that I'm crazy to even put the relationships into the same sentence(Everyone but Reverend who has openly stated he doesn't have a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want), if that's the case then please show me where the error is in my question.

 

[tibear]

I'm confused. Please explain to me the difference between SSM and polygamy, adult incest and teen paedophilia. All of these relationships are currently illegal from the federal law perspective and currently the SSM is looking to change the law by using the Charter of Rights.

I'm not talking about the acts or one partner's authority over the other or whatever. I'm talking about consenting adults(or teens) who fully know what they are doing and want to have their relationships legally recognized by the government.

It's a simple question and so far nobody has been willing to even attempt an answer. So far everyone on this forum has said that I'm crazy to even put the relationships into the same sentence(Everyone but Reverend who has openly stated he doesn't have a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want), if that's the case then please show me where the error is in my question.

 

[tibear]

I'm confused. Please explain to me the difference between SSM and polygamy, adult incest and teen paedophilia. All of these relationships are currently illegal from the federal law perspective and currently the SSM is looking to change the law by using the Charter of Rights.

I'm not talking about the acts or one partner's authority over the other or whatever. I'm talking about consenting adults(or teens) who fully know what they are doing and want to have their relationships legally recognized by the government.

It's a simple question and so far nobody has been willing to even attempt an answer. So far everyone on this forum has said that I'm crazy to even put the relationships into the same sentence(Everyone but Reverend who has openly stated he doesn't have a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want), if that's the case then please show me where the error is in my question.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

One does not get to decide whether or not they are gay, tibear. SSM involves two consenting adults. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia.

I'm not sure why these concepts are so hard for you to understand or why you keep trying to equate any sort of sex that you consider abnormal with SSM.

SSM marriage is a human rights issue involving protecting a minority. Polygamy and incest are issues of rights and freedoms about a lifestyle choice. Paedophilia is illegal and a sign of mental illness(es). The only connection between these issues seems to be in your mind.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

One does not get to decide whether or not they are gay, tibear. SSM involves two consenting adults. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia.

I'm not sure why these concepts are so hard for you to understand or why you keep trying to equate any sort of sex that you consider abnormal with SSM.

SSM marriage is a human rights issue involving protecting a minority. Polygamy and incest are issues of rights and freedoms about a lifestyle choice. Paedophilia is illegal and a sign of mental illness(es). The only connection between these issues seems to be in your mind.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

One does not get to decide whether or not they are gay, tibear. SSM involves two consenting adults. Being gay has nothing to do with paedophilia.

I'm not sure why these concepts are so hard for you to understand or why you keep trying to equate any sort of sex that you consider abnormal with SSM.

SSM marriage is a human rights issue involving protecting a minority. Polygamy and incest are issues of rights and freedoms about a lifestyle choice. Paedophilia is illegal and a sign of mental illness(es). The only connection between these issues seems to be in your mind.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

Polygamy, incest and pedophilia are indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada:

Polygamy
293. (1) Every one who

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

(i) any form of polygamy, or

(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.

Incest
155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Defence
(3) No accused shall be determined by a court to be guilty of an offence under this section if the accused was under restraint, duress or fear of the person with whom the accused had the sexual intercourse at the time the sexual intercourse occurred.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42053.html

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity. Granting equal rights to same sex couples' desire to marry is a natural extension of our progressive society.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

Polygamy, incest and pedophilia are indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada:

Polygamy
293. (1) Every one who

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

(i) any form of polygamy, or

(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.

Incest
155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Defence
(3) No accused shall be determined by a court to be guilty of an offence under this section if the accused was under restraint, duress or fear of the person with whom the accused had the sexual intercourse at the time the sexual intercourse occurred.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42053.html

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity. Granting equal rights to same sex couples' desire to marry is a natural extension of our progressive society.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

So again, when polygamists or teen paedophiles come forward and ask for their human rights protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms how are you going to respond??

Polygamy, incest and pedophilia are indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada:

Polygamy
293. (1) Every one who

(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into

(i) any form of polygamy, or

(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,

whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or

(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.

Incest
155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits incest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Defence
(3) No accused shall be determined by a court to be guilty of an offence under this section if the accused was under restraint, duress or fear of the person with whom the accused had the sexual intercourse at the time the sexual intercourse occurred.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42053.html

That is where the line is drawn. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criminal offense to engage in homosexual activity. Granting equal rights to same sex couples' desire to marry is a natural extension of our progressive society.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

...and then there's this...

Bestiality
160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of fourteen years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of fourteen years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.

...so that should take care of the people wanting to marry their pets, as it would not be possible to legally consummate the marriage without breaking the law...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

...and then there's this...

Bestiality
160. (1) Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Compelling the commission of bestiality
(2) Every person who compels another to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Bestiality in presence of or by child
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), every person who, in the presence of a person under the age of fourteen years, commits bestiality or who incites a person under the age of fourteen years to commit bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 160; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.

...so that should take care of the people wanting to marry their pets, as it would not be possible to legally consummate the marriage without breaking the law...