Let the Flame War Begin
A few weeks back, I was involved with some discussions in the comments of Angry in the Great White North, Tory Blue, Small Dead Animals, and Being American in T.O. about same-sex marriage.
Specifically, I asked on all four blogs (variations of the below, this was the comment I posted at SDA):
"Can anyone suggest to me any reason that polygamous marriage, adult-child marriage, and man-dog marriage should remain illegal in Canada? ... any reason, that is, that was not used and declared invalid by the Supreme Court and the government in the arguments against same sex marriage?"
Some of the responses I got were:
(1) homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality/polygamy are not the same thing
(2) that's silly! it would never happen
(3) such a suggestion is bigoted
(4) marriage is a right
Now, I was posting my question as a hypothetical, since I did not think that bill C-38 had been thought through well at all. I honestly wanted to know what could legally prevent bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy.
The only response I got that met the criteria I had set (not already considered and discarded by the Government of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada in the fight against same-sex marriage) was from J. Bielecki, commenting at AGWN, that pedophilia and bestiality would remain illegal based upon "legal consent" arguments. J. Bielecki further stirred the pot, however, by bringing the question of incestuous marriages into the fray.
Well, I'm going to take on the other arguments listed above first. "They are not the same thing" is an invalid argument, as proponents of traditional marriage (correctly) used that to argue against the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the definition of marriage. This has obviously been declared invalid, since we know that C-38 has passed.
The "that's silly" argument is also invalid. Silly laws get passed all the time. C-38 is an example.
The cries of "bigot!" are unfounded. I asked what remained to prevent these other relationship forms from being included in the definition of marriage. If anything, I was pointing out that the restrictions had all been lifted. After all, if we can change the law from "two people of opposite gender" to just "two people", then we can surely change the word "two"... any word at all in fact.
The idea that marriage is a right is false. If marriage is a right, then governments cannot grant divorces, and the divorce laws must be repealed. Fact is, only individuals have rights, not any group of two or more people. If one could marry oneself, then marriage would be a right.
And now, we find that even J. Bielecki's good argument is going to be smashed as well. In the wake of the passage of C-38, we find that animal marriages are on the horizon. (hat tip to Aizlynne at Exposed Agenda)
So, to my (*ahem* select few) readers, I pose this challenge: come up with an argument against polygamist, pedophiliac, bestial, or incestuous marriages that would stand up in the Supreme Court of Canada. By that I mean, any argument that has not already been considered and ruled irrelevant in the battle against same-sex marriage.
Honestly, I don't think that any argument against these things, no matter how common-sense or grounded in law they are, will stand. I think that Canada has passed a point of no return on the slippery slope, and that any form of depravity of which one can conceive will inevitably be protected by the force of law.
Prove me wrong.
update: Fidelis argues against same-sex marriage based on aesthetics.
Technorati Tags: politics, Canada, Same-sex Marriage
15 comments:
I can't prove it wrong.
The truth is there is no way to stop poligamy from coming next. It's only a matter of time.
Conservative people tend to think in absolutes. This proves frustrating to them often because many things in existence are not absolute.
Defining marriage as a union between two people or, a union between a man and a woman are arbitrary positions.
The definition was changed to allow same sex marriage because a significant and growing number of people in Canada wanted it changed... essentially.
Is there an absolute reason why polygamy will never be allowed in Canada... no there is not.
However, public opinion would have to significantly change from what it is now before any elected official would dare to even consider allowing it.
There are no absolutes on this issue but the chances of it happening with in our life time, I wager, are very small.
If I were you I’d relax on this issue unless you enjoy worrying about unlikely scenarios… or unless you are trying to get some closure somehow on this same sex marriage issue.
OK, this didn't post on the main part of the blog the first time, I'll try again.
Anonymous:
I am only 36 years old. In my lifetime, homosexuality has gone from being illegal, to being considered a mental illness, to being considered a lifestyle choice, to now being equated to heterosexual marriage. Actuarial tables suggest I will live another 40 years. Do you really believe that polygamy is unlikely to be protected by law in that time?
Heck, polygamy is not nearly as big a step in law as homosexuality. I predict that the citizens of Bountiful BC will launch a legal challenge on the issue in less than 2 years. And, they would win; public opinion would have nothing to do with it. After all, the will of the majority (cf the vote in the House of Commons in 1999 reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage) was ignored on the same-sex marriage issue.
There is an absolute on this issue: either it will happen or it will not. Either/or, there is no room for a "sorta".
You can act like it is a small minority of people who are in favor of allowing same sex marriage, but that is naive. By many accounts... it is half the population. (I'll dig up some references to recent polls if you like, I guess.)
More telling though is the rate at which support for same sex marriage is increasing over the past few decades. As older more conservative people cycle out of the voting pool and younger more liberal people cycle in, support will only continue to grow.
Support for polygamy, however, as far as I've ever heard is not really growing in the general populous. (I don’t have numbers to back this up, but in all my life, I’ve never met anyone who supports polygamy.)
I suspect is a group of fringe religious people launch a challenge, they will have trouble even getting it to the supreme count let alone having it considered seriously.
anonymous:
It is not a popularity contest. It is a matter of law. Since Canadian law was foolishly changed on this matter, the floodgates are open. Show me any reason why polygamy, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or incest would not be allowed. "Only a tiny minority supports it" is an irrelevant argument; the law is not a popularity contest.
Face it, there is nothing to stop it. Proponents of these various depravities can point to C-38 and argue on the principle of "equality under the law".
A my friend but it is a popularity contest when you get right down to it. If enough people are behind a particular issue it will eventually get changed into law. Deny it all you want but that is how representation by population works. It is the will of the people.
Mark Steyn has argued very intelligently that SSM will usher in polygamy in the very least. The arguements used to support SSM are the identical ones to support polygamy. Just wait for it!
And... let's not forget that polygamy has been an accepted practice and is so in many parts of the world and under a number of religions.
The whole reason the people in Bountiful have never been charged with poligamy, is precisely so they won't have grounds to challenge the existing laws. Now that marriage has been changed to include same-sex couples . . . who knows. The Bountiful groups might just take this opportunity to champion their cause.
I have argued at great length during the SSM debate that once SSM marriage was allowed there would be no principled basis in law, or publc policy, to deny polygamous or polyandrous marriages. The Bountiful culy will be first in line. Of course, I could be wrong about this and a Muslim could launch court action.
The first provincial court to strike down provisions against such marriages will be B.C. The rest will follow. The argument that there is insufficient public support is laughable given what happened withn the SSM revolution.
We have not added a group (homosexuals) to traditional marriage in Canada; we have tranformed the institution into something new and quite different.
A. Hermit:
Please explain why the "slippery slope" argument is incorrect.
Age of consent will prevent most pedophiliac relationships (depending on what you consider pedophilia).
And it won't be Bountiful that brings a legal challenge on polygamy... it will be an immigrant family of Muslims or some other religion which allows polygamy. They'll argue that their culture and religion are being oppressed by canadian social mores.
Yes, There is an argument ... polygamy is not politically correct.
Since when has that ever stopped anything, anonymous? So it isn't politically correct; as Ian mentioned, nether is discrimination against the Muslim religion politically correct. Is that what the creation of law has come down to - choices between more-or-less politically correct options?
I will admit that since I wrote this, my prediction that polygamy would become law in Canada has not come to pass within the alloted two years. However, the political situation in Canada has also changed over the last two years, and Canada has had a Conservative government. I will have to amend my prediction to "within two years of the election of a Liberal (or NDP) government".
Post a Comment