|
|
 | | From: | Haximus | | Subject: | One interesting statement against polygamy | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:37:13 GMT |
|
|
 | Two same- proponents on this newsgroup have stated it's acceptable to
discriminate against polygamy because it's in the criminal code.
Interesting logic! According to these two proponents it would be
acceptable to discriminate against some homouals, because sodomy
remains in the criminal code of some states.
I always thought morality should dictate law - not the other way! Talk
about putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
| | From: | \The Right One\ | | Subject: | Re: One interesting statement against polygamy | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:17:32 GMT |
|
|
|
"Haximus" wrote in message news:djYId.48174$06.34056@clgrps12...
> Two same- proponents on this newsgroup have stated it's acceptable to
> discriminate against polygamy because it's in the criminal code.
>
> Interesting logic! According to these two proponents it would be
> acceptable to discriminate against some homouals, because sodomy
> remains in the criminal code of some states.
>
> I always thought morality should dictate law - not the other way! Talk
> about putting the cart before the horse.
The liberals have always put the cart before the horse.
It buys them votes.
I don't think morality should dictate law, as some religeous people have
some pretty extreme ideas, but it should be part of the delberations when
passing a law.
There is a problem, when a charter can be used to break moral traditions.
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.
|
|
| | From: | stormwatcher | | Subject: | Re: One interesting statement against polygamy | | Date: | 24 Jan 2005 01:13:20 -0800 |
|
|
| >>Polygamy, not being an issue of minority rights, is not discriminated
against,
>>any more then bank robbery is, by being in the Criminal Code.
Polygamy has not been a minority rights issue....yet. In the USA, the
ACLU is fighting for both same marriage rights and for polygamy
rights. In 5 years, it could be an issue in Canada.
Polygamy laws have not been challenged under the Charter up to the
Supreme Court, and there is nothing in the Charter against polygamy.
The polygamists will wait to see if same marriage becomes the law
of the land before deciding to challenge the discrimination against
themselves. Realistically, how could the Charter deny polygamy?
|
|
| | From: | \The Right One\ | | Subject: | Re: One interesting statement against polygamy | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:23:01 GMT |
|
|
|
"stormwatcher" wrote in message
news:1106558000.485763.31500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>Polygamy, not being an issue of minority rights, is not discriminated
> against,
> >>any more then bank robbery is, by being in the Criminal Code.
>
> Polygamy has not been a minority rights issue....yet. In the USA, the
> ACLU is fighting for both same marriage rights and for polygamy
> rights. In 5 years, it could be an issue in Canada.
>
> Polygamy laws have not been challenged under the Charter up to the
> Supreme Court, and there is nothing in the Charter against polygamy.
>
> The polygamists will wait to see if same marriage becomes the law
> of the land before deciding to challenge the discrimination against
> themselves. Realistically, how could the Charter deny polygamy?
As a matter of fact a fellow in Utah last year, used the same
issue to defend himself in court over polygamy.
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
There are two types of values
in Canada. Moral and Liberal.
>
|
|
| | From: | Dennis G. | | Subject: | Re: One interesting statement against polygamy | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:28:10 GMT |
|
|
| Haximus wrote:
>Two same- proponents on this newsgroup have stated it's acceptable to
>discriminate against polygamy because it's in the criminal code.
>
I don't believe that it is possible to discriminate against polygamy under the
Charter. I would be glad to read any sections of the Charter that you believe
can be used to give polygamy a right.
Polygamy, not being an issue of minority rights, is not discriminated against,
any more then bank robbery is, by being in the Criminal Code.
>Interesting logic! According to these two proponents it would be
>acceptable to discriminate against some homouals, because sodomy
>remains in the criminal code of some states.
>
That is what is called a 'straw argument' or 'strawman'. You attribute a
position to another and then prove 'them' wrong.
There is no discrimination against criminal acts.
>I always thought morality should dictate law - not the other way! Talk
>about putting the cart before the horse.
Of course, morality does determine the law but so does good government, best
practice, and prudent economics.
In the case of marriage, the courts have repeatedly stated that charter
rights apply to everyone without respect to ual orientation.
In the case, of polygamy the law and the courts agree that it is against the
law, including the Charter.
Harper has a problem with that but he knows he would need to use the
'notwithstanding clause' to enforce a parliamentary decision against
marriage.
He knows he is farting in the wind but some people just love that smell.
Dennis
|
|
|
