CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53454
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:53 am
 


martin14 martin14:
It needs to be said, Bart called this a couple of years ago, and everyone

pooo poooed him. :lol: :lol:


Ahh! Not everyone! I still think it's a logical progression to the State getting out of the business of telling us what our morals should be.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15594
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:14 pm
 


I can't imagine even wanting to be in a marriage with a man who has other wives. A different way of life that's for sure.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:16 pm
 


Strutz Strutz:
I can't imagine even wanting to be in a marriage with a man who has other wives. A different way of life that's for sure.


Plenty of women are in polygamous relationships. The husband has a mistress and the wife may even know about it.

Oddly, the illicit relationship of a man and his mistress is "no one's business" but the man who takes responsibility for the multiple women he boinks is a problem. One of other posters pointed this out to me some years ago and it remains a valid point.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:34 pm
 


In the Utah tradition it's not a woman who's a willing participant. It's usually an adolescent or teenage girl who's been browbeaten her entire life, physically abused, and raised in a cult environment that gets married off to a filthy old pervert who either controls the cult himself or is in good with the "church" leadership. There is no legitimate freedom of choice going on here. It's fucking religion-based mind control and a quasi-legitimized rape of children going on and nothing else.

Anyone who believes otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. They should smarten up too and quit taking their information on this issue from the disgusting sort of letters some swinger types sent in to Penthouse Forum. :evil:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:43 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
In the Utah tradition it's not a woman who's a willing participant. It's usually an adolescent or teenage girl who's been browbeaten her entire life, physically abused, and raised in a cult environment that gets married off to a filthy old pervert who either controls the cult himself or is in good with the "church" leadership. There is no legitimate freedom of choice going on here. It's fucking religion-based mind control and a quasi-legitimized rape of children going on and nothing else.

Anyone who believes otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. They should smarten up too and quit taking their information on this issue from the disgusting sort of letters some swinger types sent in to Penthouse Forum. :evil:


That's a bit of a misnomer. While the FLDS (cult) is definitely the public face of polygamy the anecdotal understanding is that it's still traditional Mormon (LDS) families that are the silent majority of polygamy in Utah.

Outside of Utah it's the more secular or pagan folks who are the repesentatives of poly. Google any large city near to you with the term 'polyamory' and be prepared for some surprises.

The California Department of Public Health within the last couple years estimated that as many as 16,000 polygamous households existed in California. Most of these are not going to be Mormon and none of them will be FLDS because those folks stick to their colonies in Utah, Arizona, and Texas.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:49 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
andyt andyt:
What's religion got to do with it. Somebody wants to shack up with more than one person, who cares? Just don't call it marriage, bigamy is still illegal


IMHO the legalization of gay marriage ended the social reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman and now all bets are off. Whatever combination of people who want to marry at this point should be 100% legal.

I say that because if five gay guys wanted to marry each other I have not one doubt that the courts would rule in their favor.


I'll just point out that Polygamy, especially in Utah, was a thing long before anyone would even admit to being Gay.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:20 pm
 


Polygamy like homosexuality has been around forever, the main difference being that polygamy was an accepted arrangement from the get go. There was no societal stigma attached to it, until Christianity took root in Western societies. But, as I pointed out already, it was usually something practiced by the wealthy and powerful, sometimes as a way of cementing political power, but usually as a way of expressing status.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:05 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Polygamy like homosexuality has been around forever, the main difference being that polygamy was an accepted arrangement from the get go. There was no societal stigma attached to it, until Christianity took root in Western societies. But, as I pointed out already, it was usually something practiced by the wealthy and powerful, sometimes as a way of cementing political power, but usually as a way of expressing status.


In fairness, some guys are just wired for it and it also has its appeal for a minority of women. Whatever. I don't see any reason to limit it anymore and I also believe that legalizing it will help to prevent abuses like we see with the FLDS cult.


Offline
News Moderator
News Moderator
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19516

Warnings: (-20%)
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:08 pm
 


So - if a man has 5 wives and kicks the bucket, do they all get full widows benefits or do they split one death benefit between them?

Bet they haven't thought about that one yet.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:38 pm
 


wildrosegirl wildrosegirl:
So - if a man has 5 wives and kicks the bucket, do they all get full widows benefits or do they split one death benefit between them?

Bet they haven't thought about that one yet.


To some extent they have.

Some guy who dies with a wife and four ex-wives is likely also on the hook for death benefits. I'm sure there's a body of law that can be readily adapated to handle this eventuality.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:54 pm
 


martin14 martin14:
peck420 peck420:
Quite frankly, we are seeing a repeat of the early homosexual movement replayed by the polygamists...I expect the same end result in a decade or two.

Next up will be incestuous relationships.



They will use the exact same arguments, and get the exact same result.


It needs to be said, Bart called this a couple of years ago, and everyone

pooo poooed him. :lol: :lol:


Hardly. It makes sense that bit by bit, society pushes back on the nanny state. In this case, Bart was lamenting the big nanny state shrinking a bit, just like a bunch of other anti-big government types that are also happy its driving the morals bus...you know, the same big government driving the morals bus that's spying like hell on its citizenry?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:55 pm
 


peck420 peck420:
So...it can be changed one way but not another?

I think that you have forgotten that same sex marriage was fought under the argument of consenting adults wanting equal rights, regardless of sexual orientation, not due to sexual orientation.

The argument for polygamy will be the same.

Also, we already have existing laws that allow for multiple guardians over a single child...so that will become a legal non-issue.

We already have existing rules for multiple divorces (just not concurrent multiple divorces) so that will be a minor issue at best.

There is a reason that he BC Supreme Court was forced to use detrimental affects on women and children in 2011. That was all they could come up with, in the legal sense.

But, now that experts are claiming that the detrimental affects are caused by polygamy's illegality, that is going to become a much harder defense to use.

As for dependency, there is no current limit on the number of dependents I can have...if they did, how would they deal with traditional marriages with a large number of children, so that is a non issue.

Don't get me wrong...I am not a huge fan of polygamy, but, it is no different that any other marriage...if it does not involve me, who am I to judge, and who am I to enforce legislation counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As long as they adhere to consensual adult legalities...it is none of my business.


$1:
As long as they adhere to consensual adult legalities...it is none of my business


The most important part.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:02 pm
 


Speaking of the "nanny state", I'm saving up my goats to buy another wife, right now as a matter of fact.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:13 pm
 


Lots of sturm und drang over nothing. this ruling just puts utah in line with the other 49 states. no slippery slope to see here folks, move along.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:22 pm
 


I didn't know that polygamy WASN'T legal in Utah. I'm sure that is has been widespread, there since Brigham Young wheeled in that Conestoga of his with the blacked out windows.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.