Same-Sex Marriage: Canada, Europe and the United States

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GP
If we are going to expand marriage to mean man with man, why not expand it to include larger groupings? What is magic with the concept of 2?

No idea, to be frank. I suppose we need a slow pace to achieve that though.

heck, why even have marriage? What is magic about a married couple over a relationship?

Symbolic strength. Marriage remains the highest level of involvement in a relationship, and hsould prove there is no turning back. It is an important step for couples. Besides, the official acknowledgment of marriage eases quite a few things for the administrators.

[blackice]

WOW THANKS FOR OPENING MY EYES TO THE BLOODY OBVIOUS.

Still trying to figure out why you love that guy? Let alone promote a place that does not agree with your life choices?

Yes thankfully Canada has so many Klien clones, we are now the proud holders of eigth best place to live....
Yes true hero's, worth the worship...

1.5 million povery kids and we pass laws about gay marriage first and fast. Yup we certainly have our priorities in the right place....

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Still trying to figure out why you love that guy?

1) I don't love the guy, I hate all politicians
2) He can run the province to keep it booming, and that's what I care about most. He's granted gays' domestic partnerships the same rights as straight couples, he just doesn't want marriage to be permitted for religious reasons.

I don't agree with him, but I'm not really that upset about it either.

1.5 million povery kids and we pass laws about gay marriage first and fast. Yup we certainly have our priorities in the right place....

Hey, you've got a point.
Why don't we legislate anti-poverty laws? That'll solve the problem. Blackice for Prime Minister!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by GP
If we are going to expand marriage to mean man with man, why not expand it to include larger groupings? What is magic with the concept of 2?

No magic involved.

Do you mean to say that you really can't see the difference between, say, extending the vote to women and blacks versus allowing people to vote multiple times?

They are two completely different issues. Gay people are NOT asking for the right to practice polygamy, they want to exercise the right to marriage equally, in the same manner as everyone else. They are not asking that marriage be changed, they are asking that they no longer be singled out and prohibited from marrying at all.

If you want to argue that polygamy should be legal, you should start a new thread so it won't be confused with the very different issue of same-sex marriage.

[mindseye]

1.5 million povery kids and we pass laws about gay marriage first and fast. Yup we certainly have our priorities in the right place....

How about letting gay couples marry and adopt some of those kids?

Since you are clearly very concerned about childhood poverty, I am sure you would approve of this, right?

[monolith94]

"As far as tax benifits go for marrage, the government plans on dropping them. The feds want out and have wanted out of tax benifits for marriage for some time now. This fast track to the change of the law endorses this and opens the door wide open for the change."

No way is this going to happen... Canada has a declining birthrate already - no way are they going to encourage to an even greater extent young adults remaining single and not having children.
They don't want the problem Spain has - in Spain they're PAYING people to get married, they've got bus tours for women of the city to go out to the country, looking for love...

[TCO]

Originally posted by mindseye


No magic involved.

Do you mean to say that you really can't see the difference between, say, extending the vote to women and blacks versus allowing people to vote multiple times?

They are two completely different issues. Gay people are NOT asking for the right to practice polygamy, they want to exercise the right to marriage equally, in the same manner as everyone else. They are not asking that marriage be changed, they are asking that they no longer be singled out and prohibited from marrying at all.

If you want to argue that polygamy should be legal, you should start a new thread so it won't be confused with the very different issue of same-sex marriage.

But what is magic about two. I'm not proposing double voting. But if we assume that the taboo (silly or not) of marriage being a male/femal mating ritual, why not say that groups can be married? I mean if 3 people genuinely love each other, what's the harm? It is victimless. Why is your taboo about the number so much stronger than your taboo about the sex?

And that thing about multiple voting has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm not worried about gays getting extra partners or something.

I'm just asking a more fundamental question. What is marriage?

If you want to take an opposite tack, what about couples that marry when they have no chance of children. Should that be marriage?

Just try to think and play along for a second.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think you can maintain the same level of love and commitement for more than one person

however, obviously the prefered level of love and commitment rarely exists in the first place

as such, pragmatically, there is no reason not to

I would still want state support of smaller unions though since I think that those are on the whole more stable (which is arguably always good thing, but inarguably always a good thing if there is children in the relationship)

Jon Miller

[mindseye]

Originally posted by GP
Why is your taboo about the number so much stronger than your taboo about the sex?

I never said it was stronger. Re-read my post: I said it was a completely different issue, as different as universal suffrage is from multiple voting.

Originally posted by GP
And that thing about multiple voting has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I tried to answer your question by direct analogy with the right to vote. I didn't realize you would have such a hard time understanding the concept of analogy, I'll try to "dumb down" my response for you:

ANALOGY: an argument that makes its case by comparison with a similar situation

Right to Vote <-> Right to Marriage
* existing law: one vote per person <-> existing law: one spouse per person
* historically some groups denied right to vote <-> historically some groups denied right to marry
* women & blacks sought right to vote <-> gays seek right to marry
* women/blacks did not ask for more than one vote per person, only sought equality <-> gays not asking for more than one spouse per marriage, only seeking equality
* multiple voting is a different and unrelated issue to universal suffrage <-> polygamy is a different and unrelated issue to same-sex marriage


Can you understand the analogy more clearly now? I hope so, I don't think I can explain it any more simply.