|
|
| w_ashley |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article1335056/
Personally I think the BC supreme court really has no choice but to strike down the law under religious freedom, as I don't think a legally civil practice should be criminalized..
The catholic encylopedia states from English Law
" among those acts injurious to public morality by which the State or community generally is injured,"
But why is it injurious.. revered biblical figures had multiple wives
I can't see the moral issue with a man or woman having multiple lovers? People out of wedlock have sex all the time, and it isn't illegal. If gay marriage is allowed, then why the hell should bigamy a same sex act (usually) not be?
goes on to state
"against the general order of society, and against the law of the Gospel, by which one man and one woman are to be united."
However - how does this account for religious freedom? or even cultural - beleif and conscience
Although among many nations plurality of wives or polygamy has been legally recognized
--------
Personally I think the court has no real choice but to make polygamy legal in Canada - I'd be suprised even if this happened
but frankly the courts really don't have authentic reasonable grounds to call it fundamental justice - as time immemorable doesn't come into play on this one. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by w_ashley
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article1335056/
Personally I think the BC supreme court really has no choice but to strike down the law under religious freedom, as I don't think a legally civil practice should be criminalized..
The catholic encylopedia states from English Law
" among those acts injurious to public morality by which the State or community generally is injured,"
But why is it injurious.. revered biblical figures had multiple wives
I can't see the moral issue with a man or woman having multiple lovers? People out of wedlock have sex all the time, and it isn't illegal. If gay marriage is allowed, then why the hell should bigamy a same sex act (usually) not be?
goes on to state
"against the general order of society, and against the law of the Gospel, by which one man and one woman are to be united."
However - how does this account for religious freedom? or even cultural - beleif and conscience
Although among many nations plurality of wives or polygamy has been legally recognized
--------
Personally I think the court has no real choice but to make polygamy legal in Canada - I'd be suprised even if this happened
but frankly the courts really don't have authentic reasonable grounds to call it fundamental justice - as time immemorable doesn't come into play on this one. |
LOL.
I love how before homosexuals got the right to marry. The argument from the anti-crowd was "But if Homos can get married, then polygamy won't be far behind!" to which the pro-crown said "Nonsense, polygamy is entirely different, that'll never happen."
And now the polygamy crowd is going "Well if the homos can get married, we should be able to as well!".
Oh it's funny how things work sometimes. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
im against polygamy due to family law and taxation issues. its just a nightmare of new regulation and legislation and time spent that could be better directed elsewhere.
i also kinda object to people using religious belief as an excuse to indulge in anything they damned well please. why can i become a bigamist if that's my religous belief, but not because i want all the chores done? |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im against polygamy due to family law and taxation issues. its just a nightmare of new regulation and legislation and time spent that could be better directed elsewhere.
i also kinda object to people using religious belief as an excuse to indulge in anything they damned well please. why can i become a bigamist if that's my religous belief, but not because i want all the chores done? |
instead of forming corporations as a tax shelter maybe people will form a civil union among many instead? maybe it can be called a "multifamily"?
Why not just extend taxation benifits to whole families (those willing members of a family) rather than just spouses to even it out... and let friends form "financial unions"
then there would be no grounds for complaint with the system for unfairness. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im against polygamy due to family law and taxation issues. its just a nightmare of new regulation and legislation and time spent that could be better directed elsewhere.
i also kinda object to people using religious belief as an excuse to indulge in anything they damned well please. why can i become a bigamist if that's my religous belief, but not because i want all the chores done? |
hire a maid and hooker.. bigamy is something else entirely.. it is a serious enterprise.
Prostitution is legal in canada and so is maids.. and both could be tax deductable. (entertainment expenses, and misc. buisness expenses /cleaning/upkeep/services) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by w_ashley
instead of forming corporations as a tax shelter maybe people will form a civil union among many instead? maybe it can be called a "multifamily"?
Why not just extend taxation benifits to whole families (those willing members of a family) rather than just spouses to even it out... and let friends form "financial unions"
then there would be no grounds for complaint with the system for unfairness. |
these kinds of ideas are always nice until you actually look at the necessary steps that must be made to fulfill them. nothing you have mentioned answered my central problem with polygamy. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
these kinds of ideas are always nice until you actually look at the necessary steps that must be made to fulfill them. nothing you have mentioned answered my central problem with polygamy. |
what was the problem again? Judge goes down with ye.. government goes oh. and then people marry, and everyone lives happily ever after.
there is only one line for spouse.
but I have two spouses... OK we'll ad an extra line.
or how is this.. for every additional spouse fill out this extra form and attach it and add it to lines xxx xxxx xxx
there all done. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| the problem is the colossal amount of legal infrastructure that would be needed to cater to polygamist relationships, particularly in the family law court and the tax office. both being prohibitively expensive and time-consuming compared to the benefits that would be gained. |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
