ST Alpha - "Here's where I fell during the debate up here." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 185

In response to "nwbr: I'm not saying "If you aren't a supporter, you're a bigot!". if it comes off that way I apologise. it's probably d/t the fact I'm pissed off...." by dogbert183

Here's where I fell during the debate up here.

Posted by Name Withheld By Request (aka BlueKopo) Nov 4 '08, 22:30

I really think it's ridiculous to believe that there won't be another legal challenge down the line to recognize multiple partner marriage (probably out of the swinging community in Montreal) and I cannot see a logic that says we could change the definition on gender, but all of a sudden number was going to be a valid sticking point. (And before anyone suggests that multi-partner marriage is obviously a dodge...well, ask yourself where gay marriage was on the radar in 1998.)

Now the potential for multiple partner marriages has legitimate public policy ramifications should that come through the pipeline.

So...I could completely understand that there would be an argument to maintaining a definition of marriage that remained man/woman and then create a separate vehicle for same sex marriage. That way legal controls are maintained on spousal benefits and such.

I understood the argument, even if it didn't sway me.

Responses:

Then vote against multi-partner marriage when it comes up. - ty97 Nov 4, 22:32 22
- What would be the legal argument preventing a further broading of the term if the first broadening is acceptable? (Plus... - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:35 10
  - Vote on the issue at hand, don't color it with a possible future issue. - ty97 Nov 4, 22:39 7
    - Choices have consequences ty. It's the "think of the now and who cares about the future ramifications" that guided the Bush presidency. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:43 6
      - Certainly they do, and you could dig 5 layers down into possible consequences. - ty97 Nov 4, 22:53 3
        
        Why is it so hard to say, "We want the word too?" - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:57 2
        
        We want fairness. Not a word. - musubi Nov 4, 23:00 1
        
        He can. -- nm - Dr.Vermin, pundit Nov 4, 23:05
      - PS: Why do we call the genders different words if we're all equal anyhow? - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:47 1
        
        good grief. -- nm - citizen b. Nov 4, 22:48
  - What's the legal argument for different gender polygamy? - musubi Nov 4, 22:38 1
    - Well, previously, it would have been that it didn't fit the Canadian definition of marriage, that being two people of opposite gender. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:41
- That's like not having a car because it increases the chance of carjacking. (nm) - musubi Nov 4, 22:34 10
  - Ethicist - and certainly no religious righty nut - Margaret Somerville argues that children have the right to a mixed gender upbringing. -- (link) - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:37 9
    - I've read it before, and to put it nicely, I think she's full of it. (nm) - musubi Nov 4, 22:42 8
      - thank you. that link didn't work for me, but i was wondering if that was one of those pieces. - citizen b. Nov 4, 22:46
      - And as a supporter of SSM, that's perfectly your right, but it doesn't cancel out the argument as unworthy of discussion. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:44 6
        
        It does because it's used as smokescreen for bigotry. - musubi Nov 4, 22:48 5
        
        And this exact attitude is why 8 passes tonight. Instead of arguing the policy, you argue a person's right to disagree with you. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:50 4
        
        I've pointed out the logical flaws with the Sommervilles P.O.V., you're the one who brought up silly "right to disagree" arguements. - musubi Nov 4, 22:58 3
        
        No. Because she has a rebuttal for the "married couples without kids" argument. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 23:05
        
        It's the arrogance and intellectual laziness of dismissing all varying opinions as 'bigotry' that prevents you from appealing to your opponents. - Dr.Vermin, pundit Nov 4, 23:03 1
        
        I'm still waiting for a logical reasoning that doesn't use illogical exteremes like protecting procreation, polygamy or marrying animals. - musubi Nov 4, 23:07

Post a message top

Here's where I fell during the debate up here.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.