ST Alpha - "What would be the legal argument preventing a further broading of the term if the first broadening is acceptable? (Plus..." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 185

In response to "Then vote against multi-partner marriage when it comes up." by ty97

What would be the legal argument preventing a further broading of the term if the first broadening is acceptable? (Plus...

Posted by Name Withheld By Request (aka BlueKopo) Nov 4 '08, 22:35

(...Even when my party was 75%/25% against SSM, it was almost 100% in favour of completely and universally extending all spousal benefits and rights to adoption, wills, etc. The homosexual community was just as hung up on the word marriage as those who opposed it.)

Responses:

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

Post a message top

What would be the legal argument preventing a further broading of the term if the first broadening is acceptable? (Plus...

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.