When bill C-38 was passed into law, allowing same-sex marriage in Canada, I asked around at several blogs: now that the definition of marriage had changed from "... two people of opposite gender..." to just "...two people..." what was to prevent any of the other words from being changed? Why only two people? Why just people? How about siblings? How about with little children?
I summarized this set of questions at this post back in July. I did get one response that would seem to prevent bestiality and pedophilia, the issue of consent (children and animals cannot legally give consent to marriage), but the arguments against allowing polygamy boiled down to this comment:
As for polygamy, I think there are a whole host of legal complications involved in making the marriage contract extend to more than two people that just make it impractical; not to mention the problem of all those underage Mormon fundamentalist brides (see informed consent above).
Conservatives lose on this issue because they really just don't get it. Stupid "slippery slope" arguments about bestiality and paedophilia just prove that point.
Well, so much for that idea.
Now, can someone please explain to me why the slippery slope argument is "stupid"? Because it looks to me like it is, in fact, correct.
(hat tip to Kate at small dead animals)
Technorati Tags: Politics, Canada, Law, Same-sex Marriage
No comments:
Post a Comment