Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject: POLIGAMY IN CANADA Reply with quote

October 9, 2009

Dear BC Premier Gordon Campbell,

I would like to offer support in your efforts to bring polygamists to Canadian justice.

Essentially, polygamy is a violation of Canadian criminal law. Here in Canada, we understand the ratio between males and females is 1:1 and we believe every individual has the right to feel it has a realistic chance for lifelong monogamous intimacy with the opposite sex.

This is a Canadian value and it is derived from the notion in giving the less fortunate an enhanced opportunity to be equal to others. A marriage between two persons breeds optimum social stability and human rights equality in a society.

A polygamy defence based on religious beliefs does not hold any weight in this country. This would be equivalent in allowing radical Muslims to kill non-believers in Allah.

Of course, we cannot allow infringements of Canadian criminal laws to happen unless it truly violates an individual human right. However, this violation is not apparent considering our system in separation of Church and State when the latter would in this case rule over the other in a humanist approach.

Regards,

Yves Villeneuve
Sudbury, ON

cc: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the judge threw out the charge. Big "surprise."

But the judiciary isn't activist in this country. Oh nooooooo :roll: I wonder how long the pompous, blustering fat ass sat in his office desperately searching for a legal way to throw the charge out?

Why bother with elections in this country? We should simply hand the keys over to the the law society and newspapers and let it go.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:06 pm    Post subject: Re: POLIGAMY IN CANADA Reply with quote

YvesVilleneuve wrote:
October 9, 2009

Dear BC Premier Gordon Campbell,

I would like to offer support in your efforts to bring polygamists to Canadian justice.

Essentially, polygamy is a violation of Canadian criminal law. Here in Canada, we understand the ratio between males and females is 1:1 and we believe every individual has the right to feel it has a realistic chance for lifelong monogamous intimacy with the opposite sex.

This is a Canadian value and it is derived from the notion in giving the less fortunate an enhanced opportunity to be equal to others. A marriage between two persons breeds optimum social stability and human rights equality in a society.

A polygamy defence based on religious beliefs does not hold any weight in this country. This would be equivalent in allowing radical Muslims to kill non-believers in Allah.

Of course, we cannot allow infringements of Canadian criminal laws to happen unless it truly violates an individual human right. However, this violation is not apparent considering our system in separation of Church and State when the latter would in this case rule over the other in a humanist approach.

Regards,

Yves Villeneuve
Sudbury, ON

cc: Prime Minister Stephen Harper

I'm with you, point for point, except one. It's none of your business (or mine) whether the lifelong monogamous intimacy is opposite sex or same sex.

Here's a couple more logical arguments to your arsenal as well. Marriage, as a legal contract, deals with sensitive legal issues like survivorship benefits, power of attorney and next of kin responsibilities. Polygamy would make the potential for legal disputes much higher and the likelihood of resolutions low. Examples?

Which wife gets the death benefits from an insurance policy if a polygamous husband is killed? Would benefits be prorated by duration of marriage?

Should a spouse be rendered incapable of managing their own affairs through age, disease or circumstance, does the rest of the polygamous spousal group make decisions through committee? What legal power prevents one of the group from making arbitrary decisions and/or signing on behalf of the group without the consent of the rest of the group?

If a spouse is braindead and there are disputes in the polygamous group as to whether to pull the plug or not, who makes the final decision?

What it all comes down to is this: real human rights (by that I mean the self-evident ones like freedom of speech) are based on the individual, not the committee. That means recognizing the value of the individual, not as part of a family or cultural or religious group, but as an individual who is capable and responsible for their choice of destiny.

-Mac
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YvesVilleneuve!! How DARE you question the boundless wisdom of your betters in the judiciary? You're simply an ordinary citizen for krise sake!

Don't you know that if they didn't find a way to throw the charge of polygamy out then the accused in that case would have certainly been found guilty?

And if THAT happened then it's almost certain that many uneducated rabble might start questioning SSM again?

We simply cannot have the rabble hordes questioning the proclamations of the rulers of this country (also known as the SCOC).

No!! The legal community and the judiciary have worked too long & too hard to build a power base in this country to have it chipped away at by the likes of you peasant :wink:
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject: Re: POLIGAMY IN CANADA Reply with quote

Mac, your right it makes no difference if the marriage is heterosexual or homosexual. I guess I was trying to convey the traditional notion of two persons forming a marriage is rooted in the global and Canadian heterosexual male to heterosexual female ratio and simply because you are homosexual does not allow you to have more than one spouse.

The definition and legal implications of civil marriage extends to everyone. However, I still have my issue of civil marriage needing to be properly defined to recognize sexual attraction as the most primitive and primary criteria in the selection of a spouse.

As far as I'm aware there is no recognized religion preaching several homosexual spouses per person therefore homosexual polygamy would not be legal based on these fictional religious beliefs.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Re: POLIGAMY IN CANADA Reply with quote

YvesVilleneuve wrote:
Mac, your right it makes no difference if the marriage is heterosexual or homosexual. I guess I was trying to convey the traditional notion of two persons forming a marriage is rooted in the global and Canadian heterosexual male to heterosexual female ratio and simply because you are homosexual does not allow you to have more than one spouse.

The definition and legal implications of civil marriage extends to everyone. However, I still have my issue of civil marriage needing to be properly defined to recognize sexual attraction as the most primitive and primary criteria in the selection of a spouse.

As far as I'm aware there is no recognized religion preaching several homosexual spouses per person therefore homosexual polygamy would not be legal based on these fictional religious beliefs.

From the careful wording of your message, I got the impression you were looking at a logic-based argument against polygamy rather than a religion-based argument which is why I pointed out what I did and offered extra ammunition for you.

When you come down to it, marriage (in and of itself) is not a human right; it is a human ambition. Different aspects of marriage touch upon human rights but marriage itself is optional. Even if you're looking at marriage as sanctified by the church, it's still not a human right. Folks can choose to do so or choose to avoid doing so.

-Mac
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, civil marriage is not an individual human right. I would say civil marriage is the right of two consenting adults (and in my view with same sexual orientation, but that is a slightly different topic)

Take care,
Yves
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that marriage is a social institution whose breadth falls within the purview of the legislator. But the reality is that courts look at it as a "human right". If it were left up to Parliament SSM would not be law today. The only reason the bill legalizing SSM passed Parliament is because the courts had already made the decision. Martin/Cotler used Parliament as a rubber stamp.

In the SSM debate social conservatives made an error in arguing that marriage was something "created" by religion. Because then it does because a constitutional issue. And this argument of course will be advanced by proponents of polygamy should the issue ever get to the SCOC.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
I believe that marriage is a social institution whose breadth falls within the purview of the legislator. But the reality is that courts look at it as a "human right". If it were left up to Parliament SSM would not be law today. The only reason the bill legalizing SSM passed Parliament is because the courts had already made the decision. Martin/Cotler used Parliament as a rubber stamp.

In the SSM debate social conservatives made an error in arguing that marriage was something "created" by religion. Because then it does because a constitutional issue. And this argument of course will be advanced by proponents of polygamy should the issue ever get to the SCOC.

This is why it is important to those who oppose polygamy to focus on the legal and logical aspects as oppose to the religious aspect since that is a losing tactic.

Since I view marriage as being a civil arrangement with certain rights and obligations, it's hard for me to see any advantage for the state in allowing polygamy but I can certainly see the disadvantages... as described above...

-Mac
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Since I view marriage as being a civil arrangement with certain rights and obligations, it's hard for me to see any advantage for the state in allowing polygamy but I can certainly see the disadvantages... as described above...

-Mac


I agree. Given the proclivity of Canadians for not remaining married polygamous unions, and their dissolution, would cause all sorts of social problems.

But it is not realistic to keep this purely as a social issue when it is the religions in Canada that permit polygamy that will be involved in litigation.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
I agree. Given the proclivity of Canadians for not remaining married polygamous unions, and their dissolution, would cause all sorts of social problems.

But it is not realistic to keep this purely as a social issue when it is the religions in Canada that permit polygamy that will be involved in litigation.

Although I don't have confirmation of this, I suspect Muslim families who want to be polygamous tend to work around the law by having one civil marriage and all other marriages are religious only under sharia law. Likewise, their dissolution would be handled under sharia law. Since they've sought no recognition under civil law, they get no protection from it either.

Yes, folks, sharia law is alive and well in Canada but our secular government does not recognize or allow any weight to religious law whether it be canon law or sharia law. So-cons should keep that in mind when they complain that our country isn't secular. It's another door they might not want to open since it would be difficult to control who walks through it...

-Mac
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Mac - the logical part of managing polygamous marriages is replete with all sorts of legal conundrums! As irrelevant as the religious considerations are - there is a place for these points...anyone who believes in polygamy ought to consider this reasoning from the life of Job:

After suffering sevenfold pain for seven years Job was restored to strength. With his three friends he returned to the city, and the inhabitants made a festival in his honor and unto the glory of God. All his former friends joined him again, and he resumed his old occupation, the care of the poor, for which he obtained the means from the people around. He said to them, "Give me, each one of you, a sheep for the clothing of the poor, and four silver or gold drachmas for their other needs." The Lord blessed Job, and in a few days his wealth had increased to double the substance he had owned before misfortune overtook him. Zitidos having died during the years of his trials, he married a second wife, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and she bore him seven sons and three daughters. He had never had more than one wife at a time, for he was wont to say, "If it had been intended that Adam should have ten wives, God would have given them to him. Only one wife was bestowed upon him, whereby God indicated that he was to have but one, and therefore one wife suffices for me, too." [Aggadah, Vol. 2, Chapter 3]
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quoting Leviticus didn't prevent the legalization of SSM; I doubt Job will help stop polygamy. :(
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is pretty much a done deal. I just hope all the people who worked so hard for it, or assumed that whatever issue did not affect them, enjoy living in a society in decline.

PS. If you enjoy schadenfreude, then the silver lining in the social conservative cloud is that you get to see people reaping what they sow. The bad part is that they got to take you down with them.
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
It is pretty much a done deal. I just hope all the people who worked so hard for it, or assumed that whatever issue did not affect them, enjoy living in a society in decline.
PS. If you enjoy schadenfreude, then the silver lining in the social conservative cloud is that you get to see people reaping what they sow. The bad part is that they got to take you down with them.


Hear hear. I've pretty much given up on politics in Canada. I don't plan to vote federally and probably not provincially. There is simply no point. The parties are essentially indistinguishable from one another. You need to go to a paint store & look at color swatches to differ between the shades of red.

I think the best bet is to hunker down & do what people have been doing for thousands of years. When faced with a ruling elite that has no interest in your concerns then ignore the ruling elite & concentrate on things closer to home.

The CPC has come a full circle and has returned to the old PC party and bears no resemblance to the old Reform party whatsoever. The old PC party has had two former leaders that supported the Liberals so that alone should be a pretty good indication of the color of THAT wing of the present party.

Politics will not slow the decline of our society. It will will a "progressive climb" downwards.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


POLIGAMY IN CANADA

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB