[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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?

Nope, that's no different than a straight person wanting to marry more than one person, but she has the right to marry just like everyone else.
.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Nope, that's no different than a straight person wanting to marry more than one person, but she has the right to marry just like everyone else.
.

But what is your justification to say that she can only marry one person?

[Scape]

It would be awesome if all practicing polygamists were Bill Paxton from Big Love but the fact is by the very questionable legal culture of polygamy it attracts more slime like Singer Greene and Frank Harlow because the shadows always attracts creeps like that. Put plainly it's a threat to the fabric of society and allows a haven for predators using the guise of religion to veil their evil deeds.

[Lemmy]

The R. vs Labaye precedent set by the Supreme Court (Montreal orgy club) pretty much established that any activity among consenting adults is okay, so long as no third party is harmed. Presumably the only way to prevent polygamy, on Constitutional grounds, would be to establish that polygamy has negative child welfare issues. I don't see how this law can stand up to a constitutional challenge, so long as the parties involved are consenting.

[BeaverFever]

sure, for decriminalization, but I cant see this a leading to a 5-way joint tax return or one household of 6 spouses and 18 kids getting thousands of dollars in child tax credits. Be interesting to see how it all fleshes out though since the outcojme has the potential to cut across almost the entire spectrum of public policy issues.

[KorbenDeck]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hate to point this out to you, but for there to be consistency in 'separation of church and state' then polygamy must be legalized as a secular state should not be restricting marriage because of a Christian value that calls for monogamy.

Nope people seem to forget this but just because western values come from Christianity does not make them religious values. "Thy shalt not kill" just because it started as Christian does not make it Christian, anymore than saying a Santa Clause is Christian, show me anywhere in the Bible of some fat guy flying around the world with a sled pulled by flying raindeer and giving every child on the planet a toy for Christmas made in his workshop by a bunch of elves.

Purposive interpretation is most likely what the Supreme Court will use, the Charter was intended to give Canada a set a values. If the judges view polygamy as not what the charter was intended for then they could simply say "Nope polygamy is not protected by the Charter" and it would be the end of the discussion. Once the Supreme Court says something it is near impossible to change it, only way to overrule the Supreme Court is to use the NotWithStanding clause, which gives a 5 year window where that right in void in regards to that matter. Then amend the Charter so that what ever the clause was used for is no longer protected. On a matter like Polygamy I am sure that the Federal government could get more than 50% of the provinces support to amend the Charter. No level of government would want polygamy simply because of the amount of laws they would have to change accommodate it. Not to mention it would pretty much throw all past rulings in regards to marriage, divorce and child custody out the window. Affairs would no longer be grounds for divorce, because to deny someone the rights to seek other spouses would then be against their rights (how else are they going to get more wives/husbands?).

Purposive interpretation is also why terrorist go to jail instead of being able to use religious freedoms as justification. Then of course there is Quebec (yeah yeah I know) if any province (other than Alberta) was to get royally pissed off about being forced to allow polygamy, Quebec would be it. Quebec would have no problem with using the notwithstanding, and neither would Alberta.

In the end it will come down to the personal opinion of the judges

[Proculation]

monogamy is NOT normal for a man... we are hard wired to spread our seeds and copulate.

[KorbenDeck]

Proculation Proculation:

monogamy is NOT normal for a man... we are hard wired to spread our seeds and copulate.

So we are hardwired to spread out genes? That may be true but try using that as your defense for rape.

[Lemmy]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

Proculation Proculation:

monogamy is NOT normal for a man... we are hard wired to spread our seeds and copulate.

So we are hardwired to spread out genes? That may be true but try using that as your defense for rape.

FAIL. Rape is, by its very definition, not consentual activity. Polygamy is.

[KorbenDeck]

Lemmy Lemmy:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

Proculation Proculation:

monogamy is NOT normal for a man... we are hard wired to spread our seeds and copulate.

So we are hardwired to spread out genes? That may be true but try using that as your defense for rape.

FAIL. Rape is, by its very definition, not consentual activity. Polygamy is.

A Pastor being forced to perform a gay marriage is not consentual, same with church being forced to let gays use their building. Yet you can force a pastor to do a gay marriage same as you can force a church to let you use their building for it. He is saying that because we are hardwired for it that it should be our right to have sex with whoever we please. In Canada we do let the right of one overrule the right on another

[Brenda]

Yes we can have sex with whomever we please. That IS our right. As long as it's consentual, of course. It's our morals that tell us its wrong once we have given ourselves to that one special person. But if that person consents, what is the issue?

A pastor not wanting to marry you, is a private, or in this case a church issue. Legally, we can marry whomever we want.

[Proculation]

$1:

A Pastor being forced to perform a gay marriage is not consentual, same with church being forced to let gays use their building. Yet you can force a pastor to do a gay marriage same as you can force a church to let you use their building for it. He is saying that because we are hardwired for it that it should be our right to have sex with whoever we please. In Canada we do let the right of one overrule the right on another

I never said we should be able to have sex with whoever we want. But, a man should be able to copulate with multiple consentent women since we are hardwired to reproduce. It's not my girlfriend who will tell me that I can not have sex with another woman ! And she should understand that she can only be pregnant once every 9 months while I can reproduce every day.

[KorbenDeck]

Brenda Brenda:

A pastor not wanting to marry you, is a private, or in this case a church issue. Legally, we can marry whomever we want.

A pastor not wanting to marry you is a religious issue. However he can be forced to perform the marriage. So that is an example of where religious freedom does not hold in Canada. Religious freedom in Canada is not total and absolute (it almost is but not totally). The separation of Church and State which is supposed to mean not having religion in our laws, having polygamous marriages would mean that the separation of Church and State isn't being upheld because now marriage is being defined by religion again and not by law.

[Proculation]

How can a Catholic priest be forced to marry a gay couple ? That's non sense.

[KorbenDeck]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The R. vs Labaye precedent set by the Supreme Court (Montreal orgy club) pretty much established that any activity among consenting adults is okay, so long as no third party is harmed. Presumably the only way to prevent polygamy, on Constitutional grounds, would be to establish that polygamy has negative child welfare issues. I don't see how this law can stand up to a constitutional challenge, so long as the parties involved are consenting.

Third party also counts as society. The Supreme Court could rule that polygamy hurt Canadians Society. Remember the Supreme court does not have to explain their ruling, they just have to give it.