Will Canada Abolish Marriage ?

[tomahawk6]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp

Perhaps the change in government might put the brakes to this nonsense. This may not be fair but I sense that Canadian values have been steadily eroded from 40 years ago. The left in the US is attempting to impliment the same agenda. They cannot get legislation passed so they use leftist judges in the judiciary to erode US values which is why the dem's have been fighting Bush's nominee's for the federal judiciary.

 

[muffin]

I think the author of this article is missing the point of the study.

It is not to say that polygamy is right or wrong, it is provide more resources to women and their in polygamous relationships. It is more of a womens' rights thing than an abolish marriage thing as the original article would suggest.

"Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women," says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act."

Quoted from: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137066011866&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

I also find the following point quite valid:

Chief author Martha Bailey says criminalizing polygamy, typically a marriage involving one man and several wives, serves no good purpose and prosecutions could do damage to the women and children in such relationships.

"Why criminalize the behaviour?" she said in an interview. "We don't criminalize adultery.

(same source)

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with ploygamy, or the definition of marriage or anything else - I am simply stating that I believe the intent of the study seem misrepresented by Mr. Kurtz.

muffin

 

[tomahawk6]

When you decriminalize a behavior society is saying that said behavior is ok. The law was created to protect the rights of women. By removing the law removes protections for women.
If polygamy is outlawed then drugs can be legalized along with sex with minors. Once society lowers its values then where does it stop ? I hate wearing a seat belt. I dont like the government telling me I must wear one. If gay marriage and polygamy is legal where is the moral authority to require seatbelt wear ?

 

[Trinity]

I really would like to be involved in this conversation..

But what i find troubling is this slippery slope of an argument/explanation
you are providing. 

I can't follow having gay marriage the same as a moral society not wearing
their seat belts.

When you decriminalize a behavior society is saying that said behavior is ok 

Being gay is not a crime.  If gay marriage isn't available in the US then its not criminal.  I don't think there
is a law that says if two men/women marry another they will be sent to jail. There is a law saying if you have more than one wife.

You are mixing your examples to suit your suition and poorly at that. 

We're not talking about pologamy, or seat belt laws or drugs.
(mind you i didn't read the article, so i might be out of my lane)

Address the issue of gay marriage.  Not Canada is eroding or leftists are doing this.
You're dancing all around the issue and trying to look legit. 

Finally.. a society changing its values doesn't mean its lowering them. Maybe it means
they're making them equal.  Its a democracy, which means things change. 

I have no doubt I'm going to get flammed in response.  But until you address what
about gay marriage is distasteful and wrong as opposed and how it is morally
offensive and how that IS going to lead to a moral decay.. you're just spouting off
rhetoric for the sake of getting this off you chest or picking a fight.


edit - btw.. now reviewing the original link and the second link..

Who do i trust more.. the rantings of one man or the two studies done
by university professors.  hrm........  and the second article address your
moral issue of degrading society and allowing other offensive behaviors. So
i dont' even need to explain it..  feel free to read.

 

[fir_na_tine]

Well put Trinity.

Heaven forbid we allow equal rights in Canada of all places.

 

[48Highlander]

Government shouldn't even BE in the marriage business.  We've already decided that what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors is no business of the state.  So forget all this nonsense.  Allow people to get married under whatever terms they wish, and let the government perform the only role it should have jurisdiction over - contract enforcement.  If I want to get married to 2 gay men, 3 lezbians, and 6 heterosexual midgets, that's my decision.  We draw up a contract, have whatever sort of ceremony we chose, and live hapily ever after.  If any party breaks the terms of the contract, THEN the government gets involved in it's role as arbitrator.

Far from being immoral or destructive to the fabric of our society, such a system could be highly beneficial.  Marriage on a contract basis would allow couples to have a "trial marriage" after which they could part without going through the trouble of a divorce.

At least, I think that would make more sense

 

[tomahawk6]

You may be right as to my poor use of the seatbelt law. I guess I was seeing the legalization of polygamy laws and recent attempts to legalize drugs as bad policy which hurts the moral fabric of society. If those two crimes are legal what else will become legal ? Finally if the state says that polygamy and drugs are legal then why should any laws be obeyed ? Why not let the voters decide instead of the judges ?

George Washington said in his Farewell Address of 1796:

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government."

 

[Trinity]

Government shouldn't even BE in the marriage business.  We've already decided that what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors is no business of the state.  So forget all this nonsense.  Allow people to get married under whatever terms they wish, and let the government perform the only role it should have jurisdiction over - contract enforcement.  If I want to get married to 2 gay men, 3 lezbians, and 6 heterosexual midgets, that's my decision.  We draw up a contract, have whatever sort of ceremony we chose, and live hapily ever after.  If any party breaks the terms of the contract, THEN the government gets involved in it's role as arbitrator.

Far from being immoral or destructive to the fabric of our society, such a system could be highly beneficial.  Marriage on a contract basis would allow couples to have a "trial marriage" after which they could part without going through the trouble of a divorce.

umm.. Marriage is a legal contract.... (by todays standards)

Oringally is was a contract between families... um.. pre Jesus
Christianity and other religions took over (i'm guessing at dates here people) 800 - 1500 AD

yeah.. huge gap.. sorry i have no idea when to pin when religion got into the marriage business

On the basis of a contract, I agree with you 48
On my theological principles and understanding of Grace and God I can't agree with more than
two people, but i can agree with same sex.

Is that fair for me to disagree with you and not state my argument of grace.  NOT AT ALL.

Problem is.. I can't sufficently do so.  Its a long involved theory and years of my study and practice.

Anyone who is interested can look up Rowan Williams and this theology of grace

(i've spent 15 minutes looking for a specific book to leave as a reference and i can't find the title)

google Rowan Williams  and same sex  and theology.. trust me..... plenty of documents


NOW... i'm not hiding behind religion.  This is a theory that works for me.  There are others who
hate this theory and believe in others. 


Find what theory/truth/religion/non religion, etc. works for you.
Practice what works for you.  Be YOU.  I don't want to convert you nor do
am I delusional to think I could. 

In the end.. we'll find out who's right.  And I bet none of us are even close to being right.
Only two people you need to be true to 
1) God
2) yourself

everything else.. is an experience on the journey. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Being gay is not a crime.

In some places it is.

People fond of passing laws against this or mandating that seem rarely to pause to think about the implications of worshipping "concensus".

 

[a_majoor]

My take on the article is that the author takes issue with the idea of slipping some really fundamental social changes under the radar in the guise of studies, commissions and eventually legislation from the bench. If any of these ideas has merit, then let their proponents come out and say so, have a long and loud public debate on the issue (not the CBC sort of debate where a token conservative is invited at the last minute to fill a space on the eleven person panel); and put it to a referendum.

I am against the gay marriage "law" not because I am morally opposed, but because it was simply forced upon all Canadians without their consent. Unlike a lot of Canadians, I believe in government deriving its power from the "Consent of the Governed", not the "Will of the PMO", and having some unelected and unaccountable oligarchy dictating law and morality is more attuned to some ancient, agrarian, slave owning society rather than a 21rst century liberal democracy.

 

[Trinity]

>Being gay is not a crime.

In some places it is.

People fond of passing laws against this or mandating that seem rarely to pause to think about the implications of worshipping "concensus".

Let me clarify..

Being gay in CANADA... is not a crime.

Sallows - Please... as you stated.. tell the "implications of worshipping concensus"
I'd love to hear your points on this.

amajoor - correct me if I'm wrong.. but it was the Supreme Court of Canada, not a PMO that made
the decision.  the court making law may not be pretty, but it is legal. 
edit - I agree.. it would be nice to see a vote on it.  The Parliament is doing a free vote.  Technically they
are our representatives.. so would be the spoke voice of the people.  I know a vote by all of Canadians
would be preferential but then why have elected officials in the first place.  But I hear you.  A vote
would have been much better than a court judgement.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm sure if the US south had the chance to vote years ago to abolish slavery it would be a different story.  Sometimes the people don't know what's good for them.

 

[48Highlander]

On the basis of a contract, I agree with you 48
On my theological principles and understanding of Grace and God I can't agree with more than
two people, but i can agree with same sex.

Well, you being a Christian padre, I'm surprised you'd even accept same-sex marriage, but hey, that's great.  I'm not saying I expect you or anyone else to accept all different sorts of marriages, but the point is, it's really none of your busines WHAT kind of marriage people get into.  I certainly wouldn't expect a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim church to marry two homosexuals, or to endorce a polygamous marriage.  At the same time, marriages don't require religions, so if homosexuals want to get married, they can do it without the blessing of the church.  Ditto for polygamous arrangements.  Most importantly, the government shouldn't either endorse or forbid ANY type of marriage, because the government has no business dictating what sorts of relationships people engage in.  Bringing the government into it only clouds the issue and creates discrimination based on what types of relationships are "legal" or "illegal".  SO like I said, keep them out of it.  If 2, 3, or 20 people want a formalized relationship of some sort, they can figure out a contract and the government can enforce that contract like it would any other.

 

[Trinity]

Just an FYI

Many clergy of many denominations....

support same sex marriage.

Being christian doesn't mean being anti gay marriage.
i've always supported it (even in the closet for a while) when it wasn't popular

pardon the pun  (snicker)

 

[GO!!!]

I'm eagerly awaiting a constitutional challenge in Canada against the criminality of polygamous marriage - just so I can hear the left trotting out all of the same excuses against it that the right used against gay marriage.

Add the spectre of accusations of racism being made against all opponents of it - it should be a good scrap!

On a more serious note, in the opinion of the posters here, is there any good reason for polygamy to remain illegal in Canada?

As a useful tool, I tried subsituting "polygamy" for "gay marriage" in a number of statements - just to see...

If (5) people love each other - why should'nt they be permitted to marry?

Any argument against polygamy is just as easily dismissed as the arguments against gay marriage.

 

[tomahawk6]

"Bigamy was recognized as an offense by the early English ecclesiastical courts, which considered it an affront to the marriage Sacrament. Parliament enacted a statute in 1604 that made bigamy a felony cognizable in the English common law courts."

http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/

In the US most of the people are God fearing folk who exercise their religion of choice. Bigamy is not condoned by the bible hence the reason for the laws banning bigamy. In Europe where we see a steady erosion of traditional values there is a correlation with a decline of religion and church attendance.

 

[GO!!!]

Sodomy and buggery were also crimes according to the English ecclesiastical courts, but Toronto has a parade every year where thousands of men feel the need to simulate both on city streets.

The bible also had some rather strong words against homosexuality, but I fear that Canada will simply allow any behaviour, as long as 1) an activist supreme court judge allows it, or 2) the perpetrators of the behaviour bleat that they are being discriminated against long and loud enough.

What do you think the result in family court will be when I divorce my wife for being a selfish, closed minded redneck, for refusing the addition of a sister-wife to our home?

If gay marriage is legal, polygamy is legal too. It is just a matter of time. This is the "slippery slope" that tomahawk speaks of, and the left pretends does not exist.

 

[midgetcop]

I am against the gay marriage "law" not because I am morally opposed, but because it was simply forced upon all Canadians without their consent. Unlike a lot of Canadians, I believe in government deriving its power from the "Consent of the Governed", not the "Will of the PMO", and having some unelected and unaccountable oligarchy dictating law and morality is more attuned to some ancient, agrarian, slave owning society rather than a 21rst century liberal democracy.

Interesting. I didn't realize that *all* Canadians were being forced into gay marriage...?

???

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Midgetcop,
There is a precedent for that, when Massachusetts ordered everyone to gay marry in 2004. See the story here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
Bart

 

[GO!!!]

Interesting. I didn't realize that *all* Canadians were being forced into gay marriage...?

???

We are being forced to tolerate it - and that is bad enough - however, I am recruiting my first platoon of wives, send your picture and info.