News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
  • #101
drankin said:
I heard about this. 70% of voting blacks voted to ban gay marriage in Cali. So gays protested at a white church. I heard an interview of a black man who said it would be interesting to see them protest at their churches but figures they are going the path of least resistance.

But protesting at the Mormon churches is really where the blame lays. By promoting a referendum on gay unions they are the ones that attempted to divide society by making it a question in the first place.

Their self righteous encouragement of this sort of tyranny, a tyranny that seeks to penalize a minority merely for their differences, ironically differences that in California were once denied to blacks up until 1948, is simply antithetical to the fundamental constructs of the Constitution that we all live under. It looks to me like it's their intolerance that has led to this kind of meddling action - attempting to impose their morality on others, not through persuasion or proselytization, but rather by mandate, to deny others fundamental rights that they themselves would choose to enjoy.

As a result if there is any shame in any of this I think a good measure of it should be laid at the feet of these hypocritical Mormons - a sect that historically was itself persecuted and forced on their own westward diaspora by the very kind of intolerance that they are now fomenting toward gays.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Hmm... McCain wins South Dakota easily and a very reasonable pro-life bill gets trounced. Obama wins California easily and a anti-gay marriage passes... Could the association of the two parties with the "social issues" be a lot more complicated than people think? Could there be a lot of Republicans that are pro-choice and a lot of Democrats who are anti-gay marriage? If so what does that say about politics in the US? Interesting questions...
 
  • #103
lot of Republicans that are pro-choice and a lot of Democrats who are anti-gay marriage?
Definitely - a lot of non-religous people vote Republican for economic prinicples and a lot of democrats are religous, especially in the black and mexican communites.

People also think that there are simple good and bad side guys in every issue.
eg. Gays ae oppressed, that's bad - Blacks are oppressed, that's bad - therefore blacks must support gays M'kay.
 
  • #104
mgb_phys said:
Definitely - a lot of non-religous people vote Republican for economic prinicples and a lot of democrats are religous, especially in the black and mexican communites.

People also think that there are simple good and bad side guys in every issue.
eg. Gays ae oppressed, that's bad - Blacks are oppressed, that's bad - therefore blacks must support gays M'kay.

The harder bridge to cross is that which bridges our differences. I think the only way across is the recognition that there but for the current circumstances might go each of us, and for no good reason other than that we may be different. But that is difficult to keep divorced from whatever biases or prejudices we may harbor. And at times we falter.

In theory the Constitution should backstop such expressions of intolerance and insure that the rights of all are equally preserved. Of course given the more recent packing of the court one can only hope that the 14th Amendment's equal application provisions as opposed to the more confederationist approach favored more recently by the politically conservative, will be the principle that prevails.
 
  • #105
Zantra said:
Another point is that blacks tended to favor prop 8, so the same blacks whose high turned out helped Obama also contributed to Prop 8.

see post #70. :smile:
 
  • #106
mgb_phys said:
Definitely - a lot of non-religous people vote Republican for economic prinicples and a lot of democrats are religous, especially in the black and mexican communites.

People also think that there are simple good and bad side guys in every issue.
eg. Gays ae oppressed, that's bad - Blacks are oppressed, that's bad - therefore blacks must support gays M'kay.

This is a good observation. Those in the black community tend to be very family oriented. More so than whites typically (IMO). They tend to feel that gay marriage threatens their idea of family values.
 
  • #107
Did Obama say that he does not support gay marriage in one of the debates? I vaguely remember this as a debate question.
 
  • #108
drankin said:
Did Obama say that he does not support gay marriage in one of the debates? I vaguely remember this as a debate question.

Yes, he said he agreed with McCain on the question of Gay marriage. It was near the end of the third debate.
 
  • #109
drankin said:
This is a good observation. Those in the black community tend to be very family oriented. More so than whites typically (IMO). They tend to feel that gay marriage threatens their idea of family values.

Except of course in the early days of the Republic slaves were not permitted to marry in any legal sense because they were property.

Kind of like the way the blacks would now treat the gays right to be legally married?
 
  • #110
mgb_phys said:
People also think that there are simple good and bad side guys in every issue.
eg. Gays ae oppressed, that's bad - Blacks are oppressed, that's bad - therefore blacks must support gays M'kay.

Certainly that sort of sympathetic-magic type political reasoning would be invalid, but there can be a stark incongruity in some combinations of political opinions. Like McCain being in favor of the Iraq invasion but declaring "In the 21st century nations do not invade other nations" in response to Russian action in Georgia. Or when people are all against animal cruelty and avoid using inhumane mousetraps but chow down a hamburger with gusto as long as someone else slaughtered the cow.

(I would've come up with a countervailing example specific to something Obama said, for balance, but he is incapable of error. In fact, his farts smell like lilacs. I have this on good authority.)
⚛​
 
  • #111
Homosexual don't deserve to be happy. You see, th-- oh wait, they are people too. Human beings that are just trying to live a happy life and them marrying each other won't affect anybody besides them.

People who are against this because of some vague notion that their marriage will mean less are despicable.

The ultimate irony? Blacks saying that a minority group should be banned from doing something everybody else can do. Not that it's just blacks saying it, but they should see the connection between their own past and what is happening now. You can say fundamentalist Christians are bat**** insane, but these are regular people voting against it. Why?
 
  • #112
mgb_phys said:
People also think that there are simple good and bad side guys in every issue.
eg. Gays ae oppressed, that's bad - Blacks are oppressed, that's bad - therefore blacks must support gays M'kay.

This isn't about oppressed vs. not oppressed. This is about banning a certain group of people from doing something everybody else can do. This is like not letting blacks vote or drink from the same water fountain that whites did. It's stupid.

Look, if I said today "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry." I'd get flamed to hell and maybe even assaulted on the street. Because that position is just bogus. So how do they justify saying "Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry"?
 
  • #113
WarPhalange said:
This isn't about oppressed vs. not oppressed. This is about banning a certain group of people from doing something everybody else can do. This is like not letting blacks vote or drink from the same water fountain that whites did. It's stupid.

Look, if I said today "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry." I'd get flamed to hell and maybe even assaulted on the street. Because that position is just bogus. So how do they justify saying "Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry"?

Because you can't criticize religion. Their religion says being Gay is bad, and marriage is between a man and a woman. The end. I'm write your wong. Argue with me and I'll put my fingers in my ears and scream scripiture at you until I'm blue in the face.


What do I care if two gay people want to get married? What the hell does it matter to me. I don't understand why religious people are so threatened by it. No one said a state merriage means the church has to recognize it.
 
Last edited:
  • #114
They're not allowed to have sex and fun of any kind is frowned upon, so they really have nothing better to do?
 
  • #115
I think the best solution is for all the homosexuals in California to start their own religion, which encourages gay marriage. Then argue it in court on freedom of religion grounds.
 
  • #116
NeoDevin said:
I think the best solution is for all the homosexuals in California to start their own religion, which encourages gay marriage. Then argue it in court on freedom of religion grounds.

The IRS has already stipulated what can be considered a religion and what cannot for tax purposes. There is a long list of requirements in order to be considered a religion, including historical evidence. Gay people will have a tough time declaring their own religion.
 
  • #117
Historical evidence? How did Scientology get past that?
 
  • #118
CaptainQuasar said:
Or when people are all against animal cruelty and avoid using inhumane mousetraps ...

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that fly paper is inhumane too?

As far as I'm concerned with mice it's kill them however you can. If you have to make examples of a few of them along the way, the other mice get the message.

Same with flies.
 
  • #119
WarPhalange said:
This isn't about oppressed vs. not oppressed. This is about banning a certain group of people from doing something everybody else can do.

Whatever you call it, it is an example of the tyranny of some majority against the rights some minority. This is supposed to be what The Constitution should protect against.
 
  • #120
LowlyPion said:
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that fly paper is inhumane too?

As far as I'm concerned with mice it's kill them however you can. If you have to make examples of a few of them along the way, the other mice get the message.

Same with flies.

That's super. Too bad nobody was talking about you.
 
  • #121
LowlyPion said:
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that fly paper is inhumane too?

As far as I'm concerned with mice it's kill them however you can. If you have to make examples of a few of them along the way, the other mice get the message.

Same with flies.

Uh... you're excused. So yeah, if you don't mind killing mice at your whim you're probably not the kind of person I'm talking about there, since I described someone who avoids killing mice.

[EDIT] High five, WarPhalange. [PLAIN]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/expressive/oath.gif[RIGHT][SIZE="6"]⚛[/RIGHT][/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
WarPhalange said:
Historical evidence? How did Scientology get past that?

Ask the IRS.
 
  • #123
Well as long as no one is suggesting that killing mice is somehow inhumane, then that would be a big never mind.
 
  • #124
The people I was describing consider killing mice inhumane, or for whatever reason are unwilling to be directly responsible for killing them.
⚛​
 
  • #125
NeoDevin said:
I think the best solution is for all the homosexuals in California to start their own religion, which encourages gay marriage. Then argue it in court on freedom of religion grounds.
Just out of curiosity, what is everyone's opinion of polygamy...?

For reference, you may want to read up on Reynolds v United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
 
  • #126
It has never made sense to me that the federal government was able to prohibit Mormon polygamy and now that I've read about Reynolds v United States there it makes even less sense to me. The court's primary argument was "well that's the way it worked in England"?

I mean, theoretically a Muslim guy with several wives (allowed in Islam, though not very common I guess) or a coven of female Wiccans who decide they like the idea and decide to all get married to the same guy (as far as I know, not a Wiccan practice but it wouldn't be prohibited in general), or anyone else, could form a legal contract that would grant them all the same privileges with each other that a marriage confers, right? So like the current situation it appears to be a meaningless symbolic turf war over the word "marriage" alone.

So as above I would advocate the nuclear option: complete disestablishment of marriage as a civil institution. Leave marriage for churches and make it all civil unions, just a standardized legal contract, on the government side.
⚛​
 
  • #127
CaptainQuasar said:
It has never made sense to me that the federal government was able to prohibit Mormon polygamy and now that I've read about Reynolds v United States there it makes even less sense to me. The court's primary argument was "well that's the way it worked in England"?

Not exactly. I'd say the primary fulcrum for Reynolds was the separation of state and religion as regards to religious belief, and that insofar as religious belief would translate into action, then that action, no matter how consistent with religious belief it may be, is still subject to regulation by the state. The reference to English Law is merely a nod to the origins of the statutes against bigamy, and to put it within the context that the law itself had origins that entirely predated the establishment of the Mormon belief and did not represent any ex post facto statute that could be viewed as specifically discriminatory against Mormon practice.
 
  • #128
Math Is Hard said:
see post #70. :smile:

Sorry..this thread grew so quickly that I just skimmed
 
  • #129
Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
CaptainQuasar said:
So as above I would advocate the nuclear option: complete disestablishment of marriage as a civil institution. Leave marriage for churches and make it all civil unions, just a standardized legal contract, on the government side.
⚛​
Follow-up question: why don't gay marriage advocates try for the nuclear option? It seems to me it would be easier to get passed.
 
  • #131
russ_watters said:
Follow-up question: why don't gay marriage advocates try for the nuclear option? It seems to me it would be easier to get passed.

I don't think it would be. Most people like the idea of marriage and it being between a man and a woman like it always has been. Same sex marriage seems to be a new idea. At least I've never heard of any historical accounts of marriage being established in a culture between people of the same gender.
 
  • #132
That's because it wouldn't make sense since you can't pass on your family line that way.

Getting married out of love is a fairly new concept, actually.
 
  • #133
WarPhalange said:
Getting married out of love is a fairly new concept, actually.
I don't know about that. I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

Still, by separating the state from the concept of marriage as opposed to changing the definition of marriage, I would think it would be easier to pass such laws. Dunno, though. But that begs another question: are gays just looking for tax breaks and help with their insurance policies, or do they really want to elbow-in on the concept of marriage itself?
 
  • #134
I think that they want to be treated the same as everyone else. I just think they're going about it the wrong way. Whether the nuclear option would be easier to achieve or not, I think that it would cause less strife and discord and long-term damage because religious people at least perceive a change in the definition of civil marriage as infringing on their turf.

(I also think that on the part of some sectors of the gay community, accepting something other than gay marriage would be seen as giving into discrimination, the way that "segregated but equal" was not a resolution for blacks being second-class citizens.)
⚛​
 
Last edited:
  • #135
drankin said:
I don't think it would be. Most people like the idea of marriage and it being between a man and a woman like it always has been. Same sex marriage seems to be a new idea. At least I've never heard of any historical accounts of marriage being established in a culture between people of the same gender.

There at least seem to have been some types of formal homosexual relationships in history, like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos" relationship of Classical Greece.
⚛​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
russ_watters said:
I don't know about that. I would say that the bond formed between any two higher level animals due to their biological predisposition to procreate is what we call "love" and marriage is just a human formalization of that bond.

I don't know what you just said (sorry, it's morning), but let me explain: Until recently marriages were largely arranged and people stuck to each other because they were told to. It's still like that in places.

Still, by separating the state from the concept of marriage as opposed to changing the definition of marriage, I would think it would be easier to pass such laws. Dunno, though. But that begs another question: are gays just looking for tax breaks and help with their insurance policies, or do they really want to elbow-in on the concept of marriage itself?

If marriage is the ultimate expression of love between two people, then yes, I'd say they'd like to be able to show their love for each other like anybody else.
 
  • #137
Zantra said:
Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.
I agree but with some hope, sooner or later organized religion(s) will be the targets. Put them under the eye of the media and public.
I would find it interesting to watch an Organized religion to have to account for all monies and properties and be transparent in the teachings and proofs of these teachings.
The Vatican's got to be worth a pretty penny these days. Were they hit hard by the stock crash? If organized religion is into stocks, do they have the ultimate inside trader knowledge? How are some of these BIG new worship houses being built. Did they get a sub-prime on that property?
Some day people will ask questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
drankin said:
Most people like the idea of marriage and it being between a man and a woman like it always has been.

And most white people in the pre-Civil War South liked the idea of slavery too. That's the way it had been for them as well. But that didn't make it right.

The fact of the matter is that it is absurd that the state would get into the business of defining words like marriage and that in meddling with such definitions in the law would thereby seek to treat some people differently than others. It is absurd that people would cleave to their personal definition of marriage to the exclusion of others.

At least society has moved from treating homosexuality as disease. But the remaining steps to acceptance, that this is the way some people are, and that as people under the law they are as equally entitled to all rights and enjoyments as any other that might find comfort in the arms of the opposite sex, have yet to be made.

The United States is a Nation of people. Whites blacks and colors in between, men women and genders in between, Atheists and believers of all faiths - equal under the law. The Constitution is supposed to be a big tent that accommodates many factions and at the same time offers protection from tyranny to all factions from the others.

The purloining of this idea of "marriage", kidnapping it to keep it exclusive to "their" idea of the word, such that one faction would deny the other of the rights and equal application under the law they would expect to enjoy, is antithetical then to the original idea of the Nation.
 
  • #139
I don't think priests should be allowed to perform gay weddings - it's a quesion of public decency and safety.

I know many people here have a liberal 'live and let live' attitude. But these people dressing up in their strange outfits, with their unbelievable statements on sexuality and their own bizarre sexual behaviour. They claim that only a small minority are guilty of sexually abusing small boys but allowing them to perform in public only encourages them.
 
  • #140
WarPhalange said:
I don't know what you just said (sorry, it's morning), but let me explain: Until recently marriages were largely arranged and people stuck to each other because they were told to. It's still like that in places.
True. That was the only way to protect women and children's rights. Prior to the invention of life insurance, a lot of cultures had rules on which relative had to care for the wife if the husband died, too. Nowadays, you have welfare, alimony, and child support, plus women have jobs outside the home. If you want to strengthen the bonds of marriage in the traditional "A man's home is his castle" sort of way, do away with those, too. (Actually, alimony has gotten a lot harder to get in a world where both sexes are expected to hold down a job.)



If marriage is the ultimate expression of love between two people, then yes, I'd say they'd like to be able to show their love for each other like anybody else.
That part means a lot to the couple involved, but it's irrelevant as far as the government should be concerned. The only reason to have any marriage laws is so the next generation isn't left in the desert to starve.
 
  • #141
Zantra said:
Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.


This was a good commentary. It sums up my views completely.

What is it to these people if gay people can get civil marriages? Their church does not have to recognize it. They don't have to recognize it. How would civil gay marriages affect any religion's definition of marriage? They don't have to even be involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some people want separation of church and state, but they only want it to apply to church's other than their own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
Interestingly enough, Elton John "came out" in favor of the "nuclear option" today:
In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.
 
  • #143
WarPhalange said:
I don't know what you just said (sorry, it's morning), but let me explain: Until recently marriages were largely arranged and people stuck to each other because they were told to. It's still like that in places.
Arranged marriages are unnatural. My point was that humans, left to their own devices, would tend to make partnerships of a form that we now consider "marriage" just like other animals do. And arranged or not, the biological purpose is procreation.
If marriage is the ultimate expression of love between two people, then yes, I'd say they'd like to be able to show their love for each other like anybody else.
In that case, Proposition 8 was correctly shot down: There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone. If you want to hold a ceremony pledging your love for another person before your friends and family and whatever God you worship, there is nothing in current law preventing it.
 
  • #144
Zantra said:
Kenneth Oberman Commentary:



I think this sums up my overall view on the subject. It's not about what you believe, it's about live and let live- it's about doing unto others as you'd you have them do unto you. So much for love thy neighbor. That is one of greatest contradictions/hypocrisies of religion. 70 years ago it was Jews. 30 years ago it was blacks. The human condition never improves- it only seems to morph into different forms of intolerence. 30 years from now I'm guessing we'll still be going through this same song and dance about some segment of the people: the next target of organized religion and small-minded, fearful bigots. If nothing else, human beings are predictable.
So where do you stand on the polygamy issue?

The video is pretty much just an emotional response to something he doesn't try to understand (at least he admits it). It's evident in his tone of voice and the way he quivers when he talks. One quote in particular:
These people want the same chance at permanence and happiness...they want what you want, a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
How in the world does the passage of Prop 8 prevent people from living happily with their partner?!

For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
russ_watters said:
I agree. By calling it "marriage", it makes people think they are trying to hijack the institution.

I'd say the only people trying to hijack the word "marriage" are those looking to narrowly define it to meet their own prejudicial social agenda.
 
  • #146
russ_watters said:
In that case, Proposition 8 was correctly shot down: There is no need to get a piece of paper from the government to confirm that you love someone.

Except of course Prop 8 was passed.
Wikipedia said:
Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

There is no motivation that I can see other than spitefulness by social conservatives that sought to forward the proposition in the first place.
 
  • #147
LowlyPion said:
I'd say the only people trying to hijack the word "marriage" are those looking to narrowly define it to meet their own prejudicial social agenda.
I agree, religions have no right to the term and no right to dictate what the legal definition of marriage is.
 
  • #148
russ_watters said:
For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?

The reasons for bigamy laws flows from the issues of property and responsibility for children and inheritance.

If you want to sort out the spaghetti of family law and probate issues that would attend any legalization of polygamous marriages feel free to volunteer and offer up some solutions. There are some screwball voters in California and Utah that might find that appealing.
 
  • #149
Evo said:
I agree, religions have no right to the term and no right to dictate what the legal definition of marriage is.

In these economic times it is a mystery to me how it is they would be devoting resources to even stirring up the pot on the issue. There seems so much more to be done that would be more fruitful than trying to source such spitefulness.
 
  • #150
For that matter, how can we deny those who want two wives the chance to live happily with their partners?
So gays can't marry cos the bible says no - and you can't have two wives although the bible says yes?

Just out of interest - does the bible say anything about leaving the toilet seat up?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top