ascan wrote:
You need the support of politicians to change things; politicians will estimate the likely net gain in votes for backing a minority issue before making a decision. That's a flaw of our democratic system. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if politicians had integrity, but few do. I accept that allowing gay marriage isn't the end of the world, so to speak, but these kind of things are cumulative. Also, even in liberal Canada there is not overwhelming support,
Neither is there overwhelming opposition, like there is in the USA. Polls here have shown that more Canadians support it than oppose it. If more Canadians support it than oppose it, it's not a minority issue.
ascan wrote:
Do you really think it's ethically acceptable that a minority force their view on everyone else? They win by default because in cahoots with the politicians they manipulate the system to their advantage: most people know they have to accept certain party policies they don't agree with, and for example they may accept gay marriage if the party in question is going to reduce their taxes.
That's interesting... the party that promises to reduce taxes here
opposes gay marriage. They tried to turn it into a major election issue. The response from Canadians in general was a collective yawn. Now, if Canadians in general were opposed to the idea, they'd make sure it wouldn't happen. This is why, for instance, it's not happening in the USA -- Americans are generally opposed to the idea. If things worked the way you said they did, the USA would be enacting legislation in favour of gay marriage in spite of Americans' wishes. So your assertion of how things work doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
ascan wrote:
It's all carefully calculated and has little to do with what's fair, ethical or free. Of course, in the UK it's not much better, and minorities ride roughshod over the rest of us, as politicians bend to their almost every whim. And there's more: political correctness is then used to prevent debate, and to silence dissent. So, even if people did feel strongly against gay marriage they daren't speak-out as they'd risk losing their job, or being arrested for a "hate" crime. So much for freedom and deomocracy!
I will concede that things may be different in the UK than they are here, since I don't know enough about UK politics to make a real judgment.
ascan wrote:
Xenon wrote:
And your comment about changing the definition of marriage as being something central to our society for "hundreds of years" is invalid. The definition of marriage 50 years ago is different than it is now. The definition 100 years ago was different than it was 50 years ago.
Like I said, I accept things change, but some things are central to a definition. Marriage, historically, is within a context of a man and woman raising kids as a family. You can change the laws regarding how that partnership works with regard divorce etc., but you're still left with what is obviously marriage. To use an example: you can develop an aircraft from a biplane to a swept-wing jet, yet it's still basically an aircraft. If you cut the wings off and make it float it's no longer an aircraft; it's a boat. That's what you're doing with marriage. Call it a civil partnership if you want; but not marriage. It's very clearly not.
Two people setting up a partnership based on a conjugal relationship sounds like "marriage" to me. The only difference between a "civil partnership" (as you put it) and "marriage" is the name. If a civil partnership has all the same benefits of marriage, why not call it that? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
ascan wrote:
Xenon wrote:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is effectively no public support for the idea of allowing multiple-partner marriages.
Not yet, though I'm sure someone could drum-up support from the Mormons and Muslims.
Theoretically, they could. In reality, they aren't. Let's deal with real-world issues rather than paranoid fantasies, shall we?
ascan wrote:
Politicians need to maximise capital from the gay marriage thing first! But you've accepted the principle, just stated you believe that the current conditions aren't conducive to change. So, I'd like to know: where would you draw that line in the sand? Are you happy to let minority groups get what they want ad infinitum? You yourself have stated that marriage is for two people. Why do you believe that?
I have posted elsewhere that I have no problem with the idea of "group marriages". If society started moving in that direction (which I don't foresee happening), I won't oppose it. But as I said before, it's not going to happen, and you're being alarmist about a danger that just isn't there. "Gay marriage" didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. As I've explained earlier (which you seem to have ignored), gay marriage is the end product of a few decades of the gay rights movement. Steps along the way have included companies giving benefits to same-sex spouses the way they already had been doing to opposite-sex spouses. There is no equivalent movement on the polygamy front. None. At all. Which is why I can't take the "next thing it will be group marriage" arguments seriously -- it has about as much chance of happening in the next 50 years as does Elvis becoming King of England.
As for letting minority groups get what they want, I take it on a case-by-case basis. I support gay marriage because I support gay rights, and because allowing same-sex marriages is simply extending the same rights to gays that the straight people have. On the other hand, if for example a religious minority wants to be exempt from some law because of their religion, I will oppose it.
_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips
Last edited by Xenon on 21 May 2007, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
21 May 2007, 5:24 am
