[ShepherdsDog]

It's actually called polyandry.

[Lemmy]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

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.

I agree, which is what I said in my 1st post. Likely "society", though, would have be some tangible thing, like "child welfare". The Supreme Court certainly does explain its rulings. Ratio decendi is an important aspect of any Supreme Court ruling and the full text of all cases, including the court's explanation of how they arrived at their decisions, can be found on the Supreme Court's website.

[Brenda]

As far as "child welfare" goes.. Doesn't it take a community to raise kids, not just one family?

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

As far as "child welfare" goes.. Doesn't it take a community to raise kids, not just one family?

I think so. The question is whether polygamous relationships, as PART of the larger community, put child welfare at risk. One could argue, the presence of many "parents" within the household creates an environment of "community" that is MORE beneficial to children than a 1 or 2 parent family. I'm not saying I necessarily buy such an argument, but I still think the Supreme Court will order the law against polygamy struck down if it hears such a case.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

As far as "child welfare" goes.. Doesn't it take a community to raise kids, not just one family?

Feel free to invite a social worker into your home to help raise your kids and then come back and tell us what you think of the experience.

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

As far as "child welfare" goes.. Doesn't it take a community to raise kids, not just one family?

Feel free to invite a social worker into your home to help raise your kids and then come back and tell us what you think of the experience.

What does a social worker have to do with this?

It's not my idea anyway, but it is the idea of society, right?

[KorbenDeck]

Lemmy Lemmy:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

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.

I agree, which is what I said in my 1st post. Likely "society", though, would have be some tangible thing, like "child welfare". The Supreme Court certainly does explain its rulings. Ratio decendi is an important aspect of any Supreme Court ruling and the full text of all cases, including the court's explanation of how they arrived at their decisions, can be found on the Supreme Court's website.

There are many cases where they do not give an explanation. That's why in a lot of news articles it says something along the lines as "As is traditional the Supreme Court has not explained their decision."

I was thinking about the child welfare, and I can see things getting VERY complex in a divorce. As we have all said the children would have more than 2 parents, if that is the case then if a divorce were to happen, then legally every person in the marriage would equally be responsible for the children. Which basically means in a divorce a it would be possible for someone who isn't biologically related to the child to end up getting custody.

Society could easily be something like "Canadian Society" as I have said Canada and most of the world of that matter is based on family units of 2 parents and then children. Including countries like Korea, China, and Japan which are about as secular as you can get. I am sure that the Supreme Court will find a reason to limit religious freedoms on this matter.

Like I said, I oppose the idea of making it legal simply because it is to easy to abuse.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

What does a social worker have to do with this?

Because when you give in to the idea that 'the community' has a voice in raising your child then the child is no longer yours, but the states' and the state will have a right to send in social workers to make sure you are not mishandling their property.

Brenda Brenda:

It's not my idea anyway, but it is the idea of society, right?

Lots of bad ideas have the been the idea of 'society' and that does not make it right.

[Brenda]

Hehehe, I can't wait for Donny to see this thread

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Osmond???

[CanadianJeff]

I think it's clear all the problems that come up. Some of them have already been addressed here such as child rights and the ideas of inbreeding and minimizing our gene pool.

I don't think personally there is any question why we don't allow polygamy. The very survival of our species relies on the spreading of DNA and the evolution of intelligence.

To use the argument that to allow gay couples to marry is to open marriage to all parties also means that we should allow incest of couples, arranged marriage, etc. Yet we don't because we understand the harm involved the violation of freedom in some cases.

We have every right to use common sense when making rulings in regards to laws that have a large impact on our society.

I would argue that common sense has at times in our history overridden our charter of rights.

[Guy_Fawkes]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I think it's clear all the problems that come up. Some of them have already been addressed here such as child rights and the ideas of inbreeding and minimizing our gene pool.

I don't think personally there is any question why we don't allow polygamy. The very survival of our species relies on the spreading of DNA and the evolution of intelligence.

To use the argument that to allow gay couples to marry is to open marriage to all parties also means that we should allow incest of couples, arranged marriage, etc. Yet we don't because we understand the harm involved the violation of freedom in some cases.

We have every right to use common sense when making rulings in regards to laws that have a large impact on our society.

I would argue that common sense has at times in our history overridden our charter of rights.

What does incesnt have to do with polygamy?

[Gunnair]

Proculation Proculation:

Personnaly, polygamy (like gay marriage) doesn't hurt anyone. It is done consentually. What's the problem ? Sorry girls: we are made like that. That's nature. You don't like it ? Well marry with a man who believes in monogamy and let other people live their life !

Huh. How liberal, yet if the dude is black and the chick is white, then you think it's not on.

Interesting...

[Brenda]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Proculation Proculation:

Personnaly, polygamy (like gay marriage) doesn't hurt anyone. It is done consentually. What's the problem ? Sorry girls: we are made like that. That's nature. You don't like it ? Well marry with a man who believes in monogamy and let other people live their life !

Huh. How liberal, yet if the dude is black and the chick is white, then you think it's not on.

Interesting...

No no, he'd fuck her none the less. Just not marry her or reproduce. In his case, a black girl, btw...

[Gunnair]

Brenda Brenda:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Proculation Proculation:

Personnaly, polygamy (like gay marriage) doesn't hurt anyone. It is done consentually. What's the problem ? Sorry girls: we are made like that. That's nature. You don't like it ? Well marry with a man who believes in monogamy and let other people live their life !

Huh. How liberal, yet if the dude is black and the chick is white, then you think it's not on.

Interesting...

No no, he'd fuck her none the less. Just not marry her or reproduce. In his case, a black girl, btw...

Riiiight. Forgot that...

The differences are subtle.