[Yogi]

There is no legal reason why any # of adults can't co-habitate as spouses. To that end, why not recognize such unions legally as marriage? Personally, it seems that I can't even get along with one wife at a time!

[martin14]

Yogi Yogi:

There is no legal reason why any # of adults can't co-habitate as spouses. To that end, why not recognize such unions legally as marriage? Personally, it seems that I can't even get along with one wife at a time!

Get 2, and get them out twice as fast

[Yogi]

martin14 martin14:

Yogi Yogi:

There is no legal reason why any # of adults can't co-habitate as spouses. To that end, why not recognize such unions legally as marriage? Personally, it seems that I can't even get along with one wife at a time!

Get 2, and get them out twice as fast

Or... They each 'get half of everything', and I get fuck-all!

[martin14]

Yogi Yogi:

martin14 martin14:

Yogi Yogi:

There is no legal reason why any # of adults can't co-habitate as spouses. To that end, why not recognize such unions legally as marriage? Personally, it seems that I can't even get along with one wife at a time!

Get 2, and get them out twice as fast

Or... They each 'get half of everything', and I get fuck-all!

as usual...

[Brenda]

And pay double spousal support...

[Yogi]

Brenda Brenda:

And pay double spousal support...

Ali 'money'; The fuckin you get, for the fuckin you got!

[leewgrant]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

This is an example why church and state should not no co-exist. Religion as an excuse for pedophilia is still pedophilia.

It's the prevailing Christian value of monogamy that restricts marriage to one man and one woman. With gay marriage accepted and legalized in Canada as a Charter freedom there is no justification to restrict polygamous marriages.

I'm sure the courts will determine polygamy to be a charter right. Then it'll force BC to go after the real crime - child abuse.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Comparing polygamy with gay marriage is ...

Perfectly logical. If the argument for gay marriage is that government has no right to restrict marriage based on what is fundamentally a religous value then no form of marriage should be restricted.

I really don't see how the Courts can rule any differently.

As to Scape's opposition, child molestation is illegal under existing laws and any court decision will only allow for polygamy between consenting adults. Given that the scope of the charges specifically addresses polygamy between consenting adults the court will inevitably limit their decision to this form of polygamous marriage while, properly, leaving the idea of child marriages illegal.

[Brenda]

Still raises the question though why all those women are on welfare, while married.

He has a couple of businesses (and his kids work hard, a friend of mine had their house done by them), but he also frauds with his taxes.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

Still raises the question though why all those women are on welfare, while married.

He has a couple of businesses (and his kids work hard, a friend of mine had their house done by them), but he also frauds with his taxes.

Then prosecute him for those crimes, of course.

To be blunt, where things stand right now in Canada (and the US) is that Muslims who are polygamous are not prosecuted for being so and their marriages are tacitly tolerated. Why is not the same being done for everyone else? I'm sure this will come up in the BC case.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Comparing polygamy with gay marriage is ...

Perfectly logical. If the argument for gay marriage is that government has no right to restrict marriage based on what is fundamentally a religous value then no form of marriage should be restricted.

I disagree. To prevent gay people from marrying or forming a "civil union" is akin to preventing someone from marrying because of their race or colour, or because they have green eyes.
I get a lot of flack when I say this, especially from Americans for some reason but, the vast majority of gay people are born that way. They can't help it anymore than you can help what city you were born in.

Besides, the gov't took the religious aspect out of marriage the instant they recognized common-law unions. Gay marriage was legalized here because the previous law was grossly descriminatory. It descriminated against the way a certain segment of the population was born. Plus, it infringed on some of the more basic personal rights that are given to every other COUPLE in the country.
There's a lot more behind the rights for gay people to marry then a lot of people realize.
Having a harem isn't a right, nor should it be. As has been said, if consenting adults wish to participate, then decriminalize it if you want, but for cryin out loud don't legitimize it.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

(edited for space, no offence!)

What if we had a straight man, a bi woman, and a lesbian who wanted to be married? They're born that way, as you say, and given their innate proclivities this kind of union would be fine.

So why should it be restricted or denied legitimacy just because there's three (or more) people involved?

For that matter, why should a union of five men or five women be illegal?

But a union of one man and four women is.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

(edited for space, no offence!)

What if we had a straight man, a bi woman, and a lesbian who wanted to be married? They're born that way, as you say, and given their innate proclivities this kind of union would be fine.

Dear Penthouse Forum Ok seriously here's where I think your argument breaks down. Straight man is making a lifestyle choice at that point. If he wants to get his freak on that's one thing, have fun, but it's not like there's no straight women. He HAS a choice.

Besides, I also happen to believe that bi-sexualism is a lifestyle choice. I don't believe people are born that way.
To me claiming to be bi is eqivalent to claiming you'll fuck anyone and don't care as long as you're gettin' some from somebody. I could be wrong though

[Brenda]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

(edited for space, no offence!)

What if we had a straight man, a bi woman, and a lesbian who wanted to be married? They're born that way, as you say, and given their innate proclivities this kind of union would be fine.

Dear Penthouse Forum Ok seriously here's where I think your argument breaks down. Straight man is making a lifestyle choice at that point. If he wants to get his freak on that's one thing, have fun, but it's not like there's no straight women. He HAS a choice.

Besides, I also happen to believe that bi-sexualism is a lifestyle choice. I don't believe people are born that way.
To me claiming to be bi is eqivalent to claiming you'll fuck anyone and don't care as long as you're gettin' some from somebody. I could be wrong though

Why is HE making a choice and not SHE?
And why is being Bi not just as being born with it as being gay is?

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Dear Penthouse Forum Ok seriously here's where I think your argument breaks down. Straight man is making a lifestyle choice at that point. If he wants to get his freak on that's one thing, have fun, but it's not like there's no straight women. He HAS a choice.

Besides, I also happen to believe that bi-sexualism is a lifestyle choice. I don't believe people are born that way.
To me claiming to be bi is eqivalent to claiming you'll fuck anyone and don't care as long as you're gettin' some from somebody. I could be wrong though

So in this case the straight man is not getting his freak on, but I suppose, arguably, the bisexual woman would be. But where she is bisexual (and born that way) wouldn't she have a right to have two spouses? One male and one female?