And so it begins: Same-sex marriage law tabled federally in Canada

[Ben Kenobi]

Seriously, to some of the "religious", nothing less than an explicit message from God would satisfy them.

We live in a democratic society. The authority of parliament supercedes my personal desires, and the desires of the religious.

That being said, if the majority of Canada is uphappy with their elected officials, they do have a say at the polling booth.

I think this is the type of issue that can only cost a politican votes since no matter which side you choose, the other side will probably make a point of voting against you for a long long time.

Which is why the only winner is:

Mssr Chretien.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because we also protect the rights of women, where they are usually exploited in polygamous relationships.

That whole argument is bull****.

We already have polygamy here in Canada. This will only serve to futher entrench their legitimacy. Why, if marriage is merely a contract between two people, should said contract be restricted to only two people?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Why, if marriage is merely a contract between two people, should said contract be restricted to only two people?

This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it.

[DaShi]

"Canada is a country where minorities are protected."

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by DaShi
"Canada is a country where minorities are protected."

Who is considered a minority there. I have worked with a few canadian nurses and all seem to have a severe distaste for native american indians

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Voltaire
This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it.

Poligamy is supported by the state through welfare.

How is gay marriage?

ACK!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Voltaire
This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it.

I have no problem with two people of the same sex marrying. I do have a problem with the idea of polygamy due to inbreeding and the birth defects that come with that. As iahve stated before i stood up for my best friend in a holy union. I dont see what the fuss is about as far as two people that love each other be allowed to be married. Regardless of whether they are the same sex.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

Who is considered a minority there. I have worked with a few canadian nurses and all seem to have a severe distaste for native american indians

Don't question them! They're better than us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Odin
I head on MPR last night that Catholic priests are telling their congegations to oppose this, time for you canucks to take the RCC's tax-exempt status away (you guys have that, I am assuming)...

Why?

Originally posted by Pekka
There will be hard opposion. We will see. I predict, it will get leveled. Sorry Asher.

I fear you may be correct. At the very least, this will not be a cakewalk. Some traditional areas of Liberal support may bolt to the Tories over it. There is nothing that interests a Liberal like power.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Voltaire
This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it.

Maybe you can explain that there is no harm to the girls that are married off at 15 and 16 to lechers in closed communities where the nubiles are raised for the explicit purpose.

Do you have a clue about the shoes other people walk in, or does it have to be represented in a computer game before you can visualise it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

Who is considered a minority there. I have worked with a few canadian nurses and all seem to have a severe distaste for native american indians

Perhaps there's a reason those crackers moved to the US?

[Ben Kenobi]

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it.

You will probably get your wish, the way things are going right now.

Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes.

Thank you. So the slippery slope argument is very valid, despite Asher's protestations to the contrary.

[Alexander's Horse]

let the gays marry - I don't have to believe it

[Ben Kenobi]

I dont see what the fuss is about as far as two people that love each other be allowed to be married.

Just because I love someone doesn't mean I should marry them. Marriage is much more than just love, and while love is a big part, that's not all there is to it.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


We already have polygamy here in Canada. This will only serve to futher entrench their legitimacy. Why, if marriage is merely a contract between two people, should said contract be restricted to only two people?

Funny, the only Member of Parliament saying that Polygamy should be legal is CONSERVATIVE MP Jim Abbot.

MP defends polygamy
OTTAWA -- Cranbrook Conservative MP Jim Abbott, whose riding includes the controversial commune of Bountiful, says the polygamists there have a democratic right to practise plural marriage.

The link is here, but the article is subscriber only.