News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Polygamy is not legally permitted in Canada, as the country recognizes only monogamous marriages under the law. The discussion highlights the ongoing debates surrounding marriage equality, particularly regarding same-sex marriage, and the implications of religious definitions versus civil rights. Many argue that marriage should be a civil institution, allowing equal rights for all couples regardless of sexual orientation, while religious institutions can define marriage as they see fit. The conversation also touches on the financial and legal motivations for marriage, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment under the law. Overall, the dialogue reflects a broader societal struggle over the intersection of legal rights and personal beliefs.
  • #271
kathrynag said:
It is not a deteriment. I turned out just fine!

Did you experience any additional bullying because of it?

Edit: Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware than an anecdote does not count as data.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
kathrynag said:
It is not a deteriment. I turned out just fine!

I'm glad. Seriously. Growing up with that type of family structure might be better than a lot of single family environments. That's not really the point IMO.

Our society, in general, does not cherish children as societies of the past. Children used to be (in general) a prized part of a family legacy with a father and mother that stuck it out for better or worse for many reasons uncommon nowadays. Those times are gone, unfortunately, in many respects. A study of broken homes and the children from homes becoming significant leaders in society would be interesting. I'm sure there are exceptions but the stats would be significant towards stable traditional families.

What's that have to do with same sex adoption or marriage? Nothing directly, but simply the state of the society we are in. It is and will be more accepted in the future. But the reality of this is what being "conservative" has trouble accepting. Losing the standards of "family" that once were common. Is it a bad thing? Not in all situations, but a sad circumstance in many peoples opinion.

What happens will happen. I support where my country goes via the Constitution. I support Obama because he will be our president first and foremost (for example). Whether I voted for him or not.

All in all, in civilizations of the past, marriage was respected as a commitment between a man and a woman to maintain a legacy in society. Doesn't mean so much anymore. And I don't see that as a good thing for humanity. Time will tell the story.
 
  • #273
drankin said:
All in all, in civilizations of the past, marriage was respected as a commitment between a man and a woman to maintain a legacy in society. Doesn't mean so much anymore. And I don't see that as a good thing for humanity. Time will tell the story.

I think your attitude is a good one for people approaching this particular issue with a conservative philosophy, drankin. I just wanted to point out that, as discussed earlier in this thread, marriage being particularly between one man and one woman is primarily a standard that comes from the pagan Roman civilization. In civilizations in the rest of the arcs of history - including, notably, all the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism - marriage was just as likely between one man and several women.
⚛​
 
  • #274
CaptainQuasar said:
I think your attitude is a good one for people approaching this particular issue with a conservative philosophy, drankin. I just wanted to point out that, as discussed earlier in this thread, marriage being particularly between one man and one woman is primarily a standard that comes from the pagan Roman civilization. In civilizations in the rest of the arcs of history - including, notably, all the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism - marriage was just as likely between one man and several women.
⚛​


Just to say, as a married man, THOSE MEN WERE CRAZY! One woman is hard enough to please. Insanity!

I don't know what the cultural rules around it were for those cultures but it wasn't common among the common. I think the common folk had the better end of it. :)
 
  • #275
drankin said:
Just to say, as a married man, THOSE MEN WERE CRAZY! One woman is hard enough to please. Insanity!

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/lol.gif Crazy indeed. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/notallthere.gif

drankin said:
I don't know what the cultural rules around it were for those cultures but it wasn't common among the common. I think the common folk had the better end of it. :)

Well certainly, at least for the 19th-century Mormons, the "royalty" or the leaders were the ones with the largest number of wives, Brigham Young with his 55 of them...
⚛​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #276
Arrgh, accidental double post
 
  • #277
NeoDevin said:
From that article I get that a large percentage of people looking to adopt are prevented by the screening processes, and that places with less strict screening processes adopt out more children. The questions that was not answered by the article is this: Are these screening processes unreasonable? Are there valid reasons some of these parents are being turned away? Maybe some of the reasons are silly ones (like say, turning them away because they are homosexuals?). You've now made the point that there are more people (the article doesn't say hetero or homo) who want to adopt than there are children to adopt. It doesn't specify any of the parts of the screening process which prevents these people from adopting. You further make the point that a number of them turn to illegal sources for children, suggesting they're not concerned for the child's welfare at all, and therefore were rightfully turned away from the adoption agency.

A relatively small fraction of the parents wanting to adopt are considered suitable for children. If we remove silly restrictions (like preventing homosexuals from adopting), then we would have a higher fraction of parents considered suitable (or if those numbers don't include homosexuals, it gives us a bigger pool to choose from).

Do you have even a single article or study which directly supports your assertion that having same sex parents is a detriment to children? By directly I mean one that doesn't take a few unfounded leaps of faith to apply to the issue, like the studies on bullying of homosexual children.
Did you read the article?? Do you have data to support your assertion I bolded above?

Sadly, the gap between supply and demand in adoption isn't surprising. The Listening to Parents project, which I founded, has studied the experience of people adopting children from foster care since 2002. We have found that for every 1,000 people who call a public child welfare agency seeking to adopt, only 36 do so. Far too many parents we have interviewed describe the agencies they dealt with as bureaucratic and unwelcoming. Far too many agencies view their primary response in adoption as screening out "bad" parents rather than recruiting good ones.

Contrast two of the locations we studied for a 2005 report: In San Jose, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was invited to an information meeting designed to inform prospective parents about the children available and to get parents into the training program. In Miami, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was required to fill out a two-page questionnaire, over the phone, that included sensitive personal and financial information. Those who "passed" the call were invited to an information meeting that began with an announcement that all attendees would be fingerprinted at the front of the room. Is it any wonder that a prospective parent in San Jose was 12 times more likely to adopt than a prospective parent in Miami?

It is, of course, important that those responsible for arranging adoptions secure safe, appropriate homes for children. And many agencies have improved their procedures. But too many public child welfare agencies still serve as barriers rather than as roads to adoption. If we could remove the barriers, the demand for adoption would better match the supply -- and every waiting child in America could have a family.
I think you missed the author's point. These people are not being screened out they are being put off adopting by the high-handed bureaucracy.

Because someone refuses to divulge personal financial information over the phone or refuses to be publicly fingerprinted means they drop out but it doesn't mean they have been deemed unsuitable parents as you claim.btw Of the 3 areas mentioned in the article, in San Jose and Boston being gay is not a disqualifier.

Here's the full report the article was based on http://www.hks.harvard.edu/socpol/listening_to_parents.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #278
Sadly, the gap between supply and demand in adoption isn't surprising. The Listening to Parents project, which I founded, has studied the experience of people adopting children from foster care since 2002. We have found that for every 1,000 people who call a public child welfare agency seeking to adopt, only 36 do so. Far too many parents we have interviewed describe the agencies they dealt with as bureaucratic and unwelcoming. Far too many agencies view their primary response in adoption as screening out "bad" parents rather than recruiting good ones.

Contrast two of the locations we studied for a 2005 report: In San Jose, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was invited to an information meeting designed to inform prospective parents about the children available and to get parents into the training program. In Miami, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was required to fill out a two-page questionnaire, over the phone, that included sensitive personal and financial information. Those who "passed" the call were invited to an information meeting that began with an announcement that all attendees would be fingerprinted at the front of the room. Is it any wonder that a prospective parent in San Jose was 12 times more likely to adopt than a prospective parent in Miami?

It is, of course, important that those responsible for arranging adoptions secure safe, appropriate homes for children. And many agencies have improved their procedures. But too many public child welfare agencies still serve as barriers rather than as roads to adoption. If we could remove the barriers, the demand for adoption would better match the supply -- and every waiting child in America could have a family.

Presumably those who didn't "pass" the call were deemed unsuitable.
 
  • #279
NeoDevin said:
Presumably those who didn't "pass" the call were deemed unsuitable.

It's quite easy to look up adoption stats. Unfortunately wading through them to find specific data is quite difficult. I think that the last time I made a search with the keywords "homosexual" and "adoption" all I could find were gay porn and dating sites.
At any rate, it's always been the way that infants are preferred and most couples will only adopt infants. Due to this the screening process is made very daunting and rigorous and even those that pass it wind up on a very long waiting list because there are not enough infants up for adoption to meet demand (as Art points out). To avoid this many parents now adopt from foriegn countries.
Those children stuck in foster care were not placed there as infants and allowing or not allowing homosexuals to adopt is unlikely to change their numbers in any significant way.
I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I'm just pointing out that adoption statistics will make a poor arguement.
 
  • #280
NeoDevin said:
Did you experience any additional bullying because of it?

Edit: Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware than an anecdote does not count as data.

No, I did not experience any bullying because of it. i told peopleand they were just fine with it. Never had any problems. Sure kids didn't understand at first, but I just had to explain, so they would understand.
 
  • #281
kathrynag said:
No, I did not experience any bullying because of it. i told peopleand they were just fine with it. Never had any problems. Sure kids didn't understand at first, but I just had to explain, so they would understand.

a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.
 
  • #282
TheStatutoryApe said:
a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.

Well, I'm 19. I know both of my mom's parents were not accepting at first, but they accepted it after some time.
I am female.
I lived in Ohio for a very short time, then lived in Florida for 8 years, and now am in Vermont.
 
  • #283
Sic 'em California.
Salon said:
California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

Nov 24th, 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO -- California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #284
LowlyPion said:
Sic 'em California.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html



I just wanted to comment that although I don't agree, I understand people's positions on marriage being solely between a man and a woman. I do concede that it is their right to those beliefs. But I live in America, where everyone has a right to choice. In a land separated by church and state, in a land where my sworn enemy may advocate his position without fear of reprisal, and practice his lifestyle freely, even if I think that lifestyle is wrong. I also fear the alternative, which exists today still in many countries around the world.

So where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is invalid, maybe protestants are wrong. We could get rid of those Mormons- they believe in polygamy, so they need to go. And the Buddhists- they don't believe in the "true God". In fact, those atheists might as well not marry anymore either-they don't believe in God, why should they be entitled to a religious ceremony?

Sound pretty extreme,unfair, and biased yet? Well then you've just gotten a glimpse of what it's like to look through a different pair of eyes for a change. This issue isn't about redefining marriage. It's about separate but equal. It's about 2 drinking fountains and 3 bathrooms- men, women, and blacks. I'm sure many African Americans are offended by comparisons being drawn between this and slavery, and that's unfortunate-but I understand it's because of the deeply rooted religious beliefs many African Americans hold. But although they may choose not to see it, this is an issue of equality- and even if you're against homosexuality, equality is something to value, particularly if you're African American or any other minority in America.We still haven't learned from our past mistakes- and that is troubling.

Seperate but equal is a slippery slope, and if we start drawing lines, it's only a matter of time before this line comes to your doorstep. At some point you've fallen on someone's unfavorable list- everyone in their lives has encountered differing opinions. Yet we discussed, disagreed, shook hands, and moved on. Afterwards we didn't always see the other viewpoint, and maybe we shook our heads a little, but nothing was infringed, and no one was harmed. Yet here we stand debating yet another issue of relative unimportance in comparison to the rest of the universe. So at some point we either stop drawing lines, or before long there will be no one left to draw them. Just one straight, white middle-aged, upper middle class, American, Catholic male screaming his vitriol at nothing,clutching his Bible in one hand, Starbucks coffee in another, and waiting to die. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either equality applies to all, in all situations, or it is not true equality. For true equality there need to be no lines. the criteria for rights are that they don't affect the well-being of others, and this does not. That addresses the pologamy/pedophila argument.

For those who are against gay marriage, I would encourage you to truly ponder exactly why you oppose it- and see if it truly comes to you as an issue that personally affects you, or just a belief that hoimosexuals shouldn't marry. If it's the latter, then I hope you consider that carefully-who has the right to control someone else's life, weather we agree with them or not? For the religious folks, I am sorry, but I must go to this well again, because it has merit and meaning:

First they came…

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up


I try to keep my politics to a minimum on this board, as this isn't really the place for it in my view, but I do on occasion comment, and this is one of those occasions. My apologies to those who had to read this long post :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #285
Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ
 
  • #286
Ivan Seeking said:
Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ


This was hilarious. The full version is here:

http://www.funnyordie.com/
 
  • #287
Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM
 
  • #288
LowlyPion said:
Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM


Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?
 
  • #289
Zantra said:
Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?

This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA
 
  • #290
LowlyPion said:
This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.


I like how they call these people anarchists.
 
  • #291
Legal aspects of prop 8:

CaptainQuasar said:
The reason this hasn't come before the courts before is because there were never laws permitting gay marriage until recently, so there were never laws banning it. Opponents of gay marriage may have started something they really won't like the end of; if a SCOTUS ruling was to strike down the ban it would be a justification for gay marriage to be permitted nationwide.
It's not that recent. Courts in Hawaii declared same-sex marriage legal back in 1993. The Federal government passed a law against same sex marriage back in September 21, 1996, almost 12 years ago: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to accept any cases regarding these laws. As it stands right now, regardless of the laws in individual states, same sex marriage won't be recognized by the Federal government. This affects things like federal income taxes, or a foreigner becoming a citizen by marrying a US citizen.

Seperation of church and state in the USA originally applied to the federal government, not individual states, some of which had official religions in the early days of the USA, and up until the late 1960's, many states had blue laws (no liquor sales on Sundays, business had to be closed one day a week, ...). The point of the first amendment was freedom of beliefs (opinions), but not behaviors (actions), at pointed out in this letter from Jefferson:

legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

So far the legal analysis of prop 8 seems to indicate it should hold as a valid amendment, but it initially goes before the same court that decided 4 to 3 to legalize same sex marriage. My guess is that prop 8's survival is 50:50 at this point (if not overturned, perhaps another amendment vote in a few years). However I doubt the the Federal law is going to be overturned anytime soon, since it's been around for 12 years.
 
  • #292
More Prop 8 news for those who are interested...
Proposition 8 proponents filed a lawsuit today seeking to nullify 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June and November this year. The brief filed with the court was co-written by Pepperdine's law school dean Kenneth Star, who also was the former independent counsel that investigated President Bill Clinton. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," it read.

Attorney General Jerry Brown promptly responded to the filing in a statement this evening. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

source


It's quite encouraging (depending on your camp I suppose) to see that the man responsible for defending the proposition is stating it is unconstitutional.

In somewhat related news...
From Hollywood's perspective, there's a cloud over Barack Obama's inaugural. Now the question is whether the weather that day will simply be overcast or stormy.

Obama's selection of Orange County mega-pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in has hit liberal Hollywood in one of its sorest spots: the passage of Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, which Warren strongly supported. In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia.

Reaction in the entertainment industry -- where interestingly, Warren has his own powerful ties -- has been swift, angry and bitter. (And nothing undermines a good party quite like disappointment and hurt.)
cont...
 
  • #293
OK. So he's British. But still ...
Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7928563.stm
 
  • #294
the analasys of the court proceedings so far I heard this morning is not so encouraging. the attourney for the gay couples is arguing that prop 8 ought to be invalidated because it is not an amendment (which can be voted on by the people) but rather a revision (which must be voted on by the legislature). the logic here is that since the California constitution states all persons are to be treated equally an amendment to ban gay marriage necessarily revises this clause.
apparently the judges were not so impressed with the arguement. the judges seemed to be of the opinion that it only banned the use of the label "marriage" but did not ban any of the legal aspects which are supposedly all cover by a domestic partnership and so does not appear to be an infringement on any fundamental rights. the attourney was challenged to explain why this would be the case and apparently only stated that it makes homosexuals second class citizens which is more or less a restatement of the idea that it infringes on fundamental rights and again the judges didn't seem impressed.
 
  • #295
Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.
Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)
 
  • #296
Kenneth Star argued that if the majority of the people decide so, rights up to and including freedom of speech rights could be limited. :mad:
 
  • #297
mgb_phys said:
Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)
It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally. The legally defined meaning of a single word can change the meaning and specification of a law or contract significantly. I'm not sure what the law here says about domestic partnerships but if there are any laws that specify application to marriage or married couples it obviously would not apply to any couple whose legal relationship is not defined as "marriage". Even if California law specifies that as far as the government is concerned "domestic partnership" and "marriage" are equivilant for the governments purposes this would not cover private persons, businesses, and organizations. Services, policies, and contracts can specify clauses that pretain to "married" couples and then deny contractual rights and services to those that are not legally defined as "married".
It's unfortunate that their attourney did not make such an arguement.
 
  • #298
TheStatutoryApe said:
It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally.
I agree - it's like having a civil rights amendment that says 'blacks aren't really people' but we won't persecute you!
My point was that Brown is criticizing California for doing exactly what his own party did in not allowing the word 'marriage'.
 
  • #300
Well, maybe Obama having Warren give the invocation at the Inaugural paid a little dividend in tolerance?
Warren waver on Prop 8 stuns leaders
Stance about-face at issue
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Saturday, April 11, 2009

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/11/warren-waver-stuns-leaders/?xid=rss-page