Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and IRA
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Re: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
I agree .....I am against homosexual marriage but I would not mind if homosexuals were given civil unions, or something to that effect. Marriage should be kept as a institution of one male and one female as tradition guides us......I am also worried about polygamists, beastiality, and other roads we simply need not go down. If we give homosexuals the right to marriage then what is stopping us from letting polygamists live their lifestyle on our soil. We have to draw the line somewhere, a country that stands for everything, inevitabley ends up standing for nothing.
I agree .....I am against homosexual marriage but I would not mind if homosexuals were given civil unions, or something to that effect. Marriage should be kept as a institution of one male and one female as tradition guides us......I am also worried about polygamists, beastiality, and other roads we simply need not go down. If we give homosexuals the right to marriage then what is stopping us from letting polygamists live their lifestyle on our soil. We have to draw the line somewhere, a country that stands for everything, inevitabley ends up standing for nothing.
RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
the difficulty with tradition is that societies evolve and commonly outgrow said "traditions".
Modern society now considers women equal; modern society no longer condons slavery; modern society no longer practices racial segregation; etc, yet these also were traditions at one time.
Polygamy/Polyandry: fine. it does not harm anybody and just like homosexual marriage does not degrade a hetrosexual marriage.
Beastiality: now this is where you lose credibility. Marriage is being argued to be inclusive of partners who are consentual. Animals are not in a position to consent and as such this is a non-sequiter.
the difficulty with tradition is that societies evolve and commonly outgrow said "traditions".
Modern society now considers women equal; modern society no longer condons slavery; modern society no longer practices racial segregation; etc, yet these also were traditions at one time.
Polygamy/Polyandry: fine. it does not harm anybody and just like homosexual marriage does not degrade a hetrosexual marriage.
Beastiality: now this is where you lose credibility. Marriage is being argued to be inclusive of partners who are consentual. Animals are not in a position to consent and as such this is a non-sequiter.
Polygamy in Canada
In my opinion, polygamy is no more a big deal than is same-sex marriage. If someone wants to marry more than one person, and everyone involved gives their consent to the matter, then I would not feel right in blocking them from doing so, particularly when their religious convictions would lead them to believe that doing so is correct.
If one religion advocates against same-sex marriage in respect of the protection of religious rights, then would the same not be obligated to advocate for polygamous marriages on the same principle?
:arrow: Polygamous Proposal
I would propose that:
Each occurrence of the term "marriage" herein is to be construed and interpreted as referring to marriage exclusively for civil purposes, as set forth in the Civil Marriage Act.
(a) A marriage is a lawful union between two or more persons, to the exclusion of all others.
(b) No religious institution or official shall be compelled to perform any marriage that would be contrary to one's religious convictions or beliefs, or against any religious teaching or interpretation thereof.
(c) Where a marriage shall be comprised of more than two persons, each person involved therein shall then be required to select one "primary spouse", and to specify an order of precendence of spouses, before any to or removal from the marriage is to be considered legal.
(d) In respect of medical decisions, taxes, and any matter brought before the Government of Canada, the primary spouse for a person shall be used for the purpose of calculating taxes and, where a primary spouse is incapacited or has left the marriage, then the next spouse on the order of precendece shall be used.
(e) Pursuant to Section (d) of this proposal, for purposes before the law, insofar as legislative measures, such as those for taxation shall be concerned, spouses other than one's self and one's primary spouse shall be ignored.
(f) Each and every person entered into the same marriage may have selected a different primary spouse.
In my opinion, polygamy is no more a big deal than is same-sex marriage. If someone wants to marry more than one person, and everyone involved gives their consent to the matter, then I would not feel right in blocking them from doing so, particularly when their religious convictions would lead them to believe that doing so is correct.
If one religion advocates against same-sex marriage in respect of the protection of religious rights, then would the same not be obligated to advocate for polygamous marriages on the same principle?
:arrow: Polygamous Proposal
I would propose that:
Each occurrence of the term "marriage" herein is to be construed and interpreted as referring to marriage exclusively for civil purposes, as set forth in the Civil Marriage Act.
(a) A marriage is a lawful union between two or more persons, to the exclusion of all others.
(b) No religious institution or official shall be compelled to perform any marriage that would be contrary to one's religious convictions or beliefs, or against any religious teaching or interpretation thereof.
(c) Where a marriage shall be comprised of more than two persons, each person involved therein shall then be required to select one "primary spouse", and to specify an order of precendence of spouses, before any to or removal from the marriage is to be considered legal.
(d) In respect of medical decisions, taxes, and any matter brought before the Government of Canada, the primary spouse for a person shall be used for the purpose of calculating taxes and, where a primary spouse is incapacited or has left the marriage, then the next spouse on the order of precendece shall be used.
(e) Pursuant to Section (d) of this proposal, for purposes before the law, insofar as legislative measures, such as those for taxation shall be concerned, spouses other than one's self and one's primary spouse shall be ignored.
(f) Each and every person entered into the same marriage may have selected a different primary spouse.
RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
Personally, I don't care if it's "ew." Just because it were to be permitted wouldn't mean that I'd have to marry more than one person. I don't believe in that. But people of other religions do, so I don't see a problem with polygamous marriages on that basis.
Personally, I don't care if it's "ew." Just because it were to be permitted wouldn't mean that I'd have to marry more than one person. I don't believe in that. But people of other religions do, so I don't see a problem with polygamous marriages on that basis.
Re: RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons,
There are people in other cultures who think marrying their 12 year old niece is acceptable.
There are people in other cultures who think stoning a raped woman to death is acceptable.
There are people in other cultures who think torturing prisoners is acceptable.
This is Canada. We have an existing culture and I see no need to alter our culture to accommodate some of the more amoral people in our society.
FiveParadox said:
There are people in other cultures who think marrying their 12 year old niece is acceptable.
There are people in other cultures who think stoning a raped woman to death is acceptable.
There are people in other cultures who think torturing prisoners is acceptable.
This is Canada. We have an existing culture and I see no need to alter our culture to accommodate some of the more amoral people in our society.
RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
People could well have said the same thing about same-sex marriage; in fact, many people did. Would you endeavour to say that I, in fact, am immoral?
People could well have said the same thing about same-sex marriage; in fact, many people did. Would you endeavour to say that I, in fact, am immoral?
Re: RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons,
I realize you enjoy drafting legislative language on this board, and let me be clear - I've no problem with same-sex marriages, so long as various faiths are not compelled by law to perform same. The SCOC has ruled correctly on that issue imo.
As stated previously, I draw the line at polygamy.
FiveParadox said:
I realize you enjoy drafting legislative language on this board, and let me be clear - I've no problem with same-sex marriages, so long as various faiths are not compelled by law to perform same. The SCOC has ruled correctly on that issue imo.
As stated previously, I draw the line at polygamy.
Re: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
Government should not be involved in peoples bedrooms, as far as I'm concerned. Civil Union should be used as a generic term for all. Leave the specific terms up to the individuals, and religious groups.
FiveParadox, I think your proposal is actually quite well written, and I think would work.
Edit: so long as none of this interferes with current law. ie, adults marrying children, women getting stoned etc. in otherwords, things that could physically hurt society.
Government should not be involved in peoples bedrooms, as far as I'm concerned. Civil Union should be used as a generic term for all. Leave the specific terms up to the individuals, and religious groups.
FiveParadox, I think your proposal is actually quite well written, and I think would work.
Edit: so long as none of this interferes with current law. ie, adults marrying children, women getting stoned etc. in otherwords, things that could physically hurt society.
Legislative Language
Well, I do love legislative language, as anyone in any Forum on this board probably knows by now.
Nevertheless, perhaps I should have reworded the terms "marriage," above, to be more in tune with my proposal earlier in this board; that is, marriage would remain entirely within the jurisdiction of religious institutions, and that civil unions be issued on a non-discrminatory basis (as legislated).
So, I would urge you, Citizen, with all due respect, reading in the term "civil union" wherever the word "marriage" may have been found, to reconsider my arguments above; would it affect you if persons were to marry more than one person concurrently?
Well, I do love legislative language, as anyone in any Forum on this board probably knows by now.
Nevertheless, perhaps I should have reworded the terms "marriage," above, to be more in tune with my proposal earlier in this board; that is, marriage would remain entirely within the jurisdiction of religious institutions, and that civil unions be issued on a non-discrminatory basis (as legislated).
So, I would urge you, Citizen, with all due respect, reading in the term "civil union" wherever the word "marriage" may have been found, to reconsider my arguments above; would it affect you if persons were to marry more than one person concurrently?
Re: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
To the extent that people may be harmed, government should indeed be involved in matters such as this and others. Polygamous relationships are dysfunctional imo. I see no benefit of legalizing same other than to appease the amoral in our society.
nomore said:
To the extent that people may be harmed, government should indeed be involved in matters such as this and others. Polygamous relationships are dysfunctional imo. I see no benefit of legalizing same other than to appease the amoral in our society.
RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons, and
Any type of relationship can be dysfunctional.
Legalizing polygamous relationships is not something many are persuing, but something that may eventually become legal due to a charter challenge. As it is now, people can freely choose to live in any arrangement they desire. "it is only a piece of paper", but it is a piece of paper that grants certian "rights", and as such the challenge may eventually come. When viewing this area we need to look at this objectively. There is no amorality to polygamy/polyandry. Actually, when looked at in practice outside of reclusive religious groups it tends to show the individuals to have a greater sexual awareness than found in the western traditional monogamous relationship. So long as the relationships are concentual and no laws that protect individuals is being violated then there is nothing to "judge" about these relationships.
It is important to remember people may be harmed in any relationship. The government should only be interested in addressing this harm, not in the structure of the relationships between consenting adults.
Any type of relationship can be dysfunctional.
Legalizing polygamous relationships is not something many are persuing, but something that may eventually become legal due to a charter challenge. As it is now, people can freely choose to live in any arrangement they desire. "it is only a piece of paper", but it is a piece of paper that grants certian "rights", and as such the challenge may eventually come. When viewing this area we need to look at this objectively. There is no amorality to polygamy/polyandry. Actually, when looked at in practice outside of reclusive religious groups it tends to show the individuals to have a greater sexual awareness than found in the western traditional monogamous relationship. So long as the relationships are concentual and no laws that protect individuals is being violated then there is nothing to "judge" about these relationships.
It is important to remember people may be harmed in any relationship. The government should only be interested in addressing this harm, not in the structure of the relationships between consenting adults.
Re: RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons,
Clearly I'm not as "liberal" as some of you people are.
Using your logic, there should be no reason why you would not support the legalization of adult/child marriages (or civil unions), so long as the child can verbalize his/her consent.
the caracal kid said:
Clearly I'm not as "liberal" as some of you people are.
Using your logic, there should be no reason why you would not support the legalization of adult/child marriages (or civil unions), so long as the child can verbalize his/her consent.
Re: RE: Harper's "Firewall Letter" ; USA Neo-Cons,
Just to clairify, I am not Politically Liberal. However, I just firmly beleive in the more traditional role of government, in which there is less government control on peoples lives, and choices.
Citizen said:
Just to clairify, I am not Politically Liberal. However, I just firmly beleive in the more traditional role of government, in which there is less government control on peoples lives, and choices.
Child Marriage
In the situation that you suggest, Citizen, there is a risk of such a relationship breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, depending upon the age of the child; furthermore, marriage (or civil unions, whatever the term) is generally believe to be an institution exclusive to consenting adults; that much, at least, I would think is relatively without debate.
In the situation that you suggest, Citizen, there is a risk of such a relationship breaching the Criminal Code of Canada, depending upon the age of the child; furthermore, marriage (or civil unions, whatever the term) is generally believe to be an institution exclusive to consenting adults; that much, at least, I would think is relatively without debate.
Re: Child Marriage
Your proposal would also likely breach the Criminal Code.
294. Every one who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 258.
It would appear both scenarios would require an amendment.
You've argued that polygamy is part of certain cultures. So are some of the scenarios I've posted earlier.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. To have legislation passed that would permit polygamy in this country would necessitate the door being opened to other amoral cultural values.
FiveParadox said:
Your proposal would also likely breach the Criminal Code.
294. Every one who
(a) solemnizes or pretends to solemnize a marriage without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, or
(b) procures a person to solemnize a marriage knowing that he is not lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 258.
It would appear both scenarios would require an amendment.
You've argued that polygamy is part of certain cultures. So are some of the scenarios I've posted earlier.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. To have legislation passed that would permit polygamy in this country would necessitate the door being opened to other amoral cultural values.
Same-sex Marriage
I can see that this is a topic on which we are going to continue to disagree, Citizen. Oh well; makes for a lively debate, eh?
In my opinion, I see nothing "immoral" about polygamy; personally, referring to someone's religion (such as one that would support polygame as a religious convicton) as "immoral" is unacceptable (I do not reference your comments specifically, Citizen, but rather in general — no offense is intended).
I can see that this is a topic on which we are going to continue to disagree, Citizen. Oh well; makes for a lively debate, eh?
In my opinion, I see nothing "immoral" about polygamy; personally, referring to someone's religion (such as one that would support polygame as a religious convicton) as "immoral" is unacceptable (I do not reference your comments specifically, Citizen, but rather in general — no offense is intended).
Re: Same-sex Marriage
Not at all.
I have every right to refer to anything I consider immoral as such, be it polygamous marriage, SSM, homosexuality itself, or heterosexuality.
This is a continuing problem..........my opinion is just that, and it is mine to express. That is liberty. I do not have to appeal to anyone else's sensibilities.
FiveParadox said:
Not at all.
I have every right to refer to anything I consider immoral as such, be it polygamous marriage, SSM, homosexuality itself, or heterosexuality.
This is a continuing problem..........my opinion is just that, and it is mine to express. That is liberty. I do not have to appeal to anyone else's sensibilities.