Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Same Sex Marriage is Not a Slippery Slope, You Dope

An Anonymous poster was trying to convince people of something he obviously knows nothing about and is parroting the "slippery slope" cliche from lame "talking points".
""Same Sex Marriage has not destroyed the Canadian social order or resulted in the collapse of our culture"........yet. It's a slippery slope, now the Justice dept recommends legalizing polygamy, what's next, beastiality?"

What's scary is that there are people actually talking like that. I wonder what's it like to give your brain over for someone else to speak through it?

How does gay marriage bring about laws favouring polygamy, or animal cruelty? We have laws against child marriage, which is the biggest strike against polygamist places like Bountiful B.C., and laws against harming animals which by law can't consent to abuse since they aren't possessions so much as minors of a pet owner or rancher. It's as nutty to say that a change in the tax law leads to pro-beastiality laws, as it is to say gay marriage rights leads to pro-beastiality laws.

Stop saying everything's a slippery slope as if it's a bad thing. You know what else was a slippery slope? Women getting the vote. That lead to women MLAs, and then women's rights regarding property in cases of divorce, which lead to more divorces, which lead to fewer women feeling trapped and unhappy in dangerous or unpleasant homes. And you can't have women running off from their men, now can you? The law HAS to protect us fragile men from that!

"Using your 'doesnt hurt anyone reasoning', how would me having two wives that I can love honor and support, hurt anyone. I can already live common law with a whole housefull, so why not marriage. I see a parallel between [Same Sex Marriage] and polygamy."

To that I'd say that polygamy doesn't hurt consenting adults obviously. The key is that they all are consenting to the multi-person relationship. Although there is no mainstream Canadian church that will marry polygamists, I don't think it's super-important for Canada to have a law banning it. It just doesn't have to require its marriage commissioners perform X-way marriages. If 3 people want to marry, then they'll just have to do it the sensible way and get married in a triangle to create as many legal partnerships to a maximum sum total of 100% legal responsibility to every one they are married to. A-B B-C C-A would all get legally married for a 3-way marriage, and there'd be 3 Marriage Commissioner's fees due, so the government wins. You could legally require the partners to draw a diagram of their legal partnerships, which ought to deter the lazy or mathematically incompetent ones anyway.

The downside to removing the law barring it, is it gives the legal system one less reason to deny potential creeps access to Canada, and one less way to throw the book at cults like the famous one in Bountiful B.C. Polygamy is good for the male [assuming multiple wives is the standard fare, and not multiple husbands] but bad for a populous society. The reason the Church got involved in marriage about 1000 years ago was to control the population: If only married people can have a legitimate child, then it can deny marriage to people it doesn't want producing children.

Does Canada want one man to feel free to marry 4 women who could in theory produce 15 children each with him? The implications of one man with 60 children could be profound in several ways. The political system alone could be hijacked legitimately in some ways through his influence on his children, just as an example. We also tend to loathe deadbeat Dads, and how is one man going to feed and care for 60 children to a standard we accept as "loving".

I think even though the idea of polygamy makes most of us uneasy, most of the uneasiness is our own fault for being unfamiliar with it because it's just not a part of our society. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and isn't normal in many places, for various reasons. Many people for instance get squeamish at women breastfeeding their babies in public, when to react badly to that sight is just senseless ignorance/prudishness. Is our squeamishness about polygamy based in reality [It's a real threat to our offspring?], or prudishness [We hear everyone say it's disgusting, so we don't analyse why it would be?]?

Rural policing is getting more expensive according to the RCMP. The price of gas has gone up, but the money that Rural Municipalities get hasn't I'd be quite certain to say. I know my hometown has a dispute right now with Sask. Justice for the policing bill they get. They are billing the community for twice as many residents as there actually are, because they are billing based on a faulty or old census. It's not hard to do a head count and that's what the village did and paid for that number of people instead. For the roughly 10 hours of policing a year that the village gets it doesn't seem fair to be overbilled by more than two times their fair expense.

There was some snow and cold weather -10C in Yorkton today. Tomorrow I'm planning on driving up to Quill Lake which is about 2 hours away, so I'm hoping for good roads after it stops snowing tonight.

Haloscan |


At 5:16 p.m., Blogger rob said...

strong argument my friend, you have my vote...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home