Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brass
Was watching the news the other day and saw the Canadian politician bickering start even with an ocean's separation...
Harper says we are on our way to promoting polygamy with the passing of gay marriage...
|
Yup, you may think that we Canadians are a bunch of post-smokin' homo-lovin' peaceniks (Thanks to Rick Mercer for tjhat phrase), but really we ain't.
No sir, we can't have us no fags marryin' each other up here, or anywhere. It just aint natural. Next think you know, they'll be tellin' me that cars pollute the ozones or sumthin.' sheesh.
Anyway, I can't continue typing that anymore, so I'll respond as best I can.
Steven Harper's logical fallacy that polygamy follows gay marriage is meant to demonstrate his view on gay marriage by raising a sense of fear about it. It's a desperate move, and is completely illogical and even nonsensical.
Gay marriage will change nothing, and the "traditional definition" is a crutch for those who don't wish to face change. Strangely, the definition that they refer to was also changed from an earlier one, and that one was the re-writing of of yet an earlier one. These various definitions include such things as multiple wives, the inclusion of religious elements, and the strict enforcement of marriage under the law, NOT under religious tenet.
So, what do we do with this "definition?" Maybe, we just change it so that two people who love each other can get married, regarldess of age, gender, or the ability to procreate. If a church, ANY church, wished to not take part, it is their right to not marry any two indivuduals, just as they can deny two people marriage under their doctrine now if they wish. Only the law need recognize the marriage.
Why is that so difficult? Why is that so immoral? Why will that lead to decline in social or societal morality? How can that lead, in any way to polygamy?
It's time that the majority stopped stepping on the human righs of a minority based strictly on moral imperatives that aren't even accepted by everyone, or even in the same way.
Should I even mention that our Supreme Court has even said that to deny marriage to same-sex couples is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What more do we need to debate?
Harper should hang his head in shame, and Martin should stop being so wishy-washy. Laurel and Hardy look like better legislaters right now.
Peace,
Pierre