They said that changing the definition of marriage was an equality issue, and would not change the nature of the institution -- but it has.
The opposite-sex component and the procreative potential of the typical marriage is what defined the institution. (Note: typical not universal -- laws are not made for individual situations, but in recognition of the general situation). If recognition of marriage is no longer about couples having and raising their children within a committed unit, then sexual intimacy has to be the defining criteria for marriage.
There are many non-sexual, intimate, co-habitational, committed relationships that still don't qualify as marriages. These relationships provide mutual comfort, support and companionship -- yet are not allowed the special benefits, privileges and status of marriage -- and the only thing absent from these unions is sex.
Peter Worthington wrote yesterday about Veterans who are considering using the new marriage law in order to qualify for survivor benefits in situations where two heterosexual Vets live together in order to share expenses. As it stands now, when one of these people dies, the other must find a way to continue paying the bills alone. They are not entitled to death benefits by virtue of the fact that their relationship is non-conjugal. Some feel uncomfortable with 'marriage' because it implies a sexual relationship -- but one has to wonder -- why should it? Now that we have dispensed with the notion that a couple must be of the opposite gender, why must the government be in the bedroom at all? Why must we insist that the relationship must include sexual intimacy in order to fit the criteria for marriage. Formerly, we were glorifying the special function and role that opposite-sex couples fill through their ability to increase society -- now we are glorifying sexual intercourse.
It is truly discriminatory that the only relationships recognised by the government are those where people are having sex -- I mean, what about those who are paralysed? or impotent? frigid? or ill in some other way that inhibits their ability to express themselves sexually? Does that mean their marriages are invalid? If the government has no place in the bedrooms of the people -- why do they care if the married relationship is platonic?
By making the defining criteria for marriage sexual, rather than procreative, the government has not only changed the institution from a child-centred institution to an adult-centred one -- it has changed it to an institution that is solely defined by sexual intimacy.
When marriage means everything, it means nothing -- but at least if the marriages of non-conjugal couples are allowed -- Vets, family members or friends caring for loved ones would qualify for governmental recognition and support of their relationships.
If not, then it appears that we have created an institution where sex is the reason d'etre.
canadianna
54 comments:
SSM was always about the legitimation of homosexual conduct, despite all the screeching about "equality" and "love" to the contrary.
Now that they have it, they couldn't care less about the legal responsibilities of civil marriage.
But now they find themselves in a legal quandary. Failure to consummate has always been a ground for annulment of a civil marriage, on the basis that the inability to consummate the sexual act rendered the primary aim of marriage--the procreation of children--impossible.
But since procreation is impossible for a homosexual couple, whether or not they can perform any sexual act becomes irrelevant, since there is no purpose to consummation.
Paradoxically, by redefining marriage as a contract based solely on sexual intercourse, the sexual act has become removed from determining the validity of marriage itself.
Actually, conjugality as a legal requirement for marriage died long ago. You can legally marry someone disabled or impotent. For common-law relationships, the defining factor (for insurance companies etc.) is whether you present yourselves to the world as a "romantic" couple.
Basically, all these men have to do is declare themselves to be a committed couple, and live like that for a year or so. (Maybe hard to do for a heterosexual ex-solder...)
You raise some interesting issues. However, it's all bull shit. It is not all based on sex. Allowing homosexuals to marry is about promoting equality and erasing discrimination. Clearly you misunderstand the entire issue. Get a life.
Dear anonymous -- are you suggesting that people who are not having sex can't be in a committed relationship that is just as supportive, nurturing, comforting, etc. as those who are having sex?
You don't like the stance I've taken, so you've dismissed what I've said. You've made no argument to refute the validity of my post. How is it that those who are for same-sex marriage believe same-sex relationships should be treated 'equally' to opposite-sex unions, but then would seek to deny equality to people who live in committed relationships but don't sleep together.
Just because you don't have an argument to support your POV, doesn't mean I don't already have a life.
Anonymous, whoever you are, you should get a life... or the courage to come out of your little closet and declare yourself to the world.
Sorry for the rant, C.
Cheers.
Actually it's all about sexual perversion and the legitimizing of sodomy as a normal marital relationship....most of all it's about political power.
Procreation, the primary reason for marriage... ha. You should tell all those infertile people in Canada that their marriage is invalid.
As for war veterans who want to claim benefits using marriage... if they are willing to call each other spouses, I don't see how it is any of your business.
Stay out of other people's bedrooms.
Another Anonymous (who is living in the 21st century, not the dark ages)
Are you trying to say that, prior to SSM, marriages for any couples who could not have children were invalid?
I happen to know plenty of seniors (widows and widowers), some of whom were even married in the RC church, who would beg to differ with you.
Marriage is a committment between people who love each other. It is not based on procreation or sexual intimacy.
Also, prior to SSM, there were many "marriages of convenience" among artistocrats, which, contrary to my views on marriage, were not frowned upon by religious organisations, even though adultery was part and parcel of the arrangement.
You missed the boat on this one.
loyalist said:
**SSM was always about the legitimation of homosexual conduct, despite all the screeching about "equality" and "love" to the contrary.
Now that they have it, they couldn't care less about the legal responsibilities of civil marriage.**
The 'they' you are talking about is me, and your last statement is complete bull.
If I get married - something that I never expected would be possible - you can be damned certain that I care about the legal responsibilities of civil marriage.
As for heterosexual vets getting married, what exactly is the problem with that? Marriages of convenience have been around for time immemorial.
Marriage doesn't replace therapy. If you lacked self esteem, dignity and a feeling of equality before marriage, you will afterwards. In fact, it will probably be worse.
Anon: A tad bit touchy today are we. What's with the instant name calling? Canadianna runs a fair debate driven site; if you can't argue logically at least save us the disgust of watching you demean yourself with base name calling.
Canadianna: I believe that SSM is all about securing the Toronto and Vancouver core votes. The libs are gambling that swing voters will not swing (pardon the pun) because of SSM. It just goes to show how much the Libs take the electorate for granted.
Some conservative blogs are arguing that running on a repeal of SSM in the next election will kill the CPC; I'm not so sure. Like I've said before, the Libs have pissed in everyone's cornflakes on this one, especially their beloved "ethnic" block.
As far as "marriage" requirements, it varies from province to province. In Saskatchewan, after two years of living common law, you are essential married. All laws in regards to marriage apply, and are even extended to step-kids in some regards. When you check off "common law" on your income tax return, in Sask you are married. It will be very easy for men, whether they "boink" or not, to get common law status in Sask., and by extention, Federal status. And, all government employees, even teachers, can extend benefits to common law spouses after only one year. The only thing protected and pro-rated, as far as I know, are pensions.
As far as Veteran's pensions, I'm not sure that common law relationships qualify a surviving partner? It'd be interesting to look into.
The liberals gambled that if they pushed forward on a few issues that morally anger the Alliance NeoCon faction that currently runs the Conservative party... that the conservative response would be so immature, bigoted and unstatesmen like that they would repulse all but the most right wing voters.
It wasn't much of a gamble though. Like betting on a favorite, except that they won big time.
Apparently we have a few people who don't know how to read -- 2nd anonymous -- Whether you like it or not, the procreative aspect of marriage was the primary purpose of marriage, your dismissive 'ha' notwithstanding.
I said that now that SSM is law, benefits should be extended to Vets and other platonic relationships precisely because what goes on in the bedroom is not the business of the state. Did you read the post? Why are you writing as though I said something different.
Noel -- did you read the post? What I'm saying is that unless sex is the defining criteria for marriage -- which most people, including SS couples say it is not -- then the mutual comfort, support and companionship that non-sexual cohabitating partners share is just as validly 'marriage' as any sexual coupling. If you read the post -- which you obviously didn't -- you simply skimmed and assumed you found something to pounce on -- I also said: The opposite-sex component and the procreative potential of the typical marriage is what defined the institution. (Note: typical not universal -- laws are not made for individual situations, but in recognition of the general situation). if you inferred from that statement that the marriages of infertile couples were or are invalid -- you had better brush up on you reading comprehension.
valiantmauz - I agree, and I'm glad that you do.
Nadine - you defend same-sex marriage as being about equality, but then you can't believe that people who are in a non-sexual relationship can provide support, comfort and companionship for each other -- I'm not talking casual, college-roommates here, as I'm sure casual couples wouldn't want to be involved in something where a committment is essential. But for adults who for whatever reason, are not married and choose to cohabitate with another adult and live as a family -- don't tell me you think that kind of relationship is invalid? What makes it invalid -- lack of sex? Lack of romantic love? Well, as we all know, romantic love is hardly a surety of a good marriage -- and what difference does it make to the government? What difference does it make to you? Why should they have to pretend they're gay or having sex in order to benefit from each other's pensions or medical plans?
And, precisely which benefits of marriage are not available to common law couples? I've heard that before, and I'd love to know.
Your comments about gay sex are irrelevant. Who cares? The point is that it isn't the state's business whether two people are having sex or how they're doing it. If two men (or two women)choose to be married, and it is known that they are not gay and will not be having sex -- the government doesn't have a right to check it out or deny them marriage because of it -- but neither should they have to pretend they are homosexual in order to receive health benefits from work etc. If this is about equality, it must be about about equality across the board --- or else it is about the validation of homosexual sex -- which is very different from the arguments we heard while the issue was being debated.
I wholeheartedly concur with you, Canadianna.
I wish to add that what has happened with Paul Martin's Bill C-38 is that the institution of marriage has effectively been opened up completely. We will be seeing significant changes in our society the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes, certainly in mine. It's like Pandora's Box. Paul Martin ignored all warnings and opened it wide.
The consequences are both unpredictable and ominous. We are entering unexplored territory. No one knows what lies ahead for the future of Canadian society now. As with liberalized divorce laws, which practically transformed marriage into a zippered garment, this latest Liberal experiment-without-a-hypothesis will have profound ramifications not only for the institution but also for what kind of country Canada will be in the future.
Stephen: First up will be polygamy. The same arguements in support of SSM, can be applied to polygamy. Who to say, that three adults, who chose to do so freely, should not marry. People get married for all sorts of reasons, not just love, so how can anyone argue away polygamy. It's a lawyers dream civilrights case.
Could very well be, Debris. The unthinkable already came to pass. We cannot rule anything out now. Not even a lowering of the age of consent for marriage.
History has seen societies over the millenia fall into the abyss of full-out, hedonistic, devil-may-care decadence and themselves come to an end as they were known. Wars and invasions were the result, as societies increasingly did away with all kinds of codes of conduct which originally were implemented for the good of societies as wholes.
That which was essential to the survival of those extinct societies was ignored and vacuums were created into which unscrupulous opportunists often forced their way, taking countless lives, abolishing all "rights" previously so obliviously savored by the sitting-duck masses, who never dreamt of such barbarism ever happening in their utopian paradises.
anna...great post...you put your opinions out there and let us in the trenches argue over them...that's why I like this site so much.
ndp nadine..(deep breath)..I must say I agree with some of your response.There is NO reason why our vets should have to worry about anything in their golden years.it is just a slap in the face to them.As to your comment that "I'm sure these men would be more accepting of a lesbian daughter than a gay son." I agree whole heartedly.These guys are missing something in their own life.
On a different note,does any one think it kind of sorry that in some provinces,couples who have been married for 10's of years are getting divorced,just so that they can still live together,but they get better CCP and health care if they are divorced,not married??
And loyalist,gays all ready had all the rights of civil marriage,at least in Alberta,as long as they lived together and identified themselves as a couple for at least 1 year.As to consummating a marriage,by the time one finds out one's partner cannot perform sexually,and they don't stand by them and get help,the "marriage"had no hope anyways.
"If two men (or two women)choose to be married, and it is known that they are not gay and will not be having sex -- the government doesn't have a right to check it out or deny them marriage because of it"
Until SSM passed they could be denied marriage. Now they can marry, gay or not. C38 isn't concerned about whether you're gay, het, bi or asexual. All it does is allow two people of the same gender to marry.
I don't understand where you're getting this from.
@debris trail
And why should we prevent polygamous marriages? It won't be long before some Mormons have a go at that one... after all, it's in the bible. Then we'll see who's going to support their religious freedoms.
I can bet it won't be the CPC.
Noel, Canadianna's gist is that essentially marriage is currently based on sexual activity.
You may be correct in that people of the same sex who are straight can now marry. The gov't will not ask if they're homo or hetero. All the gov't cares is that they're the same sex and they might be having sex or might not.
But if it's not about having sex, then why can't a brother and sister who choose to live together in a mutually dependent, comforting, loving arrangement without having sex, enjoy the equal right of marriage simply because of the way they were born? If, as the gay community claims, it's not about sex, but about the other stuff, then why discriminate?
Why stop at SSM? That would then be discrimination against those who live in relationships and not have sex. Why not let these people get married also, regardless of celibacy?
As some like to ask, who is it going to hurt? Perhaps it'll anger the SS couples who want to have exclusive domain over marriage based on the fact that they have sex? Wonder if that's the case...
For the record, I favor returning the institution of marriage to its original intent: an institution available to a couple capable of procreation, one man and one woman, so as to structure the family unit as best as possible in the interests of the children of such a couple. It's as simple as that. Not hard to understand. This is a fundamental responsibility of the state: to act in the interests of society as a whole. Failing that, the state ultimately fails.
It's about the interests of all children of society and by extension society as a whole. Individuals should ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them, after all, right?
Okay Stephen..I'll bite.."by extension society as a whole".
And how does this figure into the sum of the parts are greater than the whole??(And BTW...how are things in my home province??)
@stephen
"...why can't a brother and sister who choose to live together in a mutually dependent, comforting, loving arrangement without having sex, enjoy the equal right of marriage simply because of the way they were born?"
What prevented them before C38?
Responding to Stephen McAllister:
I have no issue with any two people who want to get married, same-sex/opposite-sex, straight or gay. Same-sex hetero vets who choose to marry to gain benefits are fine by me, and given the age of most vets, the scenario is likely to be few and far between. As I stated previously, a marriage of convenience is open to both straight and gay couples.
The argument that many anti-SSM advocates like to throw out to counter "the fertility question" is that laws are made for the general populace, not the exception; as in: don't bring up infertile couples to refute the procreative basis of marriage.
Well why can't I use the same defence here? Don't bring up the oddball occurences of celibate, straight, same-sex couples to refute the right of "legitimate" gay couples to wed and form a family.
From what I have read (not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination) there are no instances of the government investigating the sex lives of any couple to determine if their marriage is legitimate - with the sole exception of immigration applications.
I am surprised that no one on the right has brought up the real possibility that two straight people of the same sex will marry to obtain Canadian citizenship. This is one valid "abuse" of SSM I can think of, barring scare-mongering about polygamy and bestiality.
Even so, the same potential of "abuse" applies equally to opposite sex marriages.
Noel -- Where I'm getting what from?
Yes, I realise that same-sex non-conjugal people can marry in order to attain financial benefits, but certainly that wasn't the intent of Bill C 38 -- nor was it the intent of my post -- Did you read it?
My point is that people who do not want to be married, who are not a 'couple' per se, should be allowed the same benefits as married couples.
I'm not here advocating that old Vets who have no desire to walk down the aisle with another man should have to, or that they should be 'allowed' to check off the 'spouse' box on their income tax -- I'm saying that they shouldn't have to -- that their relationships, despite the lack of sexual intimacy -- are based on mutual comfort, companionship, support etc. and are as deserving of the same recognition and support from government as marriage.
You've obviously missed the point here, Noel. I thought you at least understood what we were talking about. Nowhere did I say that these people should go through with sham marriages or make false claims on their income tax forms(claiming a common law spouse when one is simply cohabitating with a 'roommate'). These people (old friends, close family members -- anyone with a mutually supportive relationship) should be entitled to the same benefits as marriage because besides the sex, their relationships are the same --and to deny them the benefits of marriage because they aren't doing it is discrimination -- get it now, Noel?
Noel M said...
@stephen
"...why can't a brother and sister who choose to live together in a mutually dependent, comforting, loving arrangement without having sex, enjoy the equal right of marriage simply because of the way they were born?"
What prevented them before C38?
You are joking, I hope. You can't seriously be that ignorant.
Noel -- Where I'm getting what from?
Yes, I realise that same-sex non-conjugal people can marry in order to attain financial benefits, but certainly that wasn't the intent of Bill C 38 -- nor was it the intent of my post -- Did you read it?
My point is that people who do not want to be married, who are not a 'couple' per se, should be allowed the same benefits as married couples.
I'm not here advocating that old Vets who have no desire to walk down the aisle with another man should have to, or that they should be 'allowed' to check off the 'spouse' box on their income tax -- I'm saying that they shouldn't have to -- that their relationships, despite the lack of sexual intimacy -- are based on mutual comfort, companionship, support etc. and are as deserving of the same recognition and support from government as marriage.
Agreed.
There SHOULD BE a legal way for a non-conjugal pairing to make a long-term committment to mutual support, that is not marriage. Nor should streght people have to masquerade as a romantic couple to obtain the right to look after one another.
You'll get no argument from me on this point.
Wow- a lot of people want a piece of me. I'm flattered by the attention I get for just $0.02
I'd like to answer all q's, but unfortunately cannot, so I'll simply put out one blanket answer: We can agree or agree to disagree.
One of these days I will have to look into getting my own blog...
As I live in NB, it's late and I must rest up for the next day's work. BTW, justthinkin', it's wet right now. Humid tomorrow. Feel homesick?
Noel M:
The Prohibited Degrees of Marriage Act, which is still in force and amended by C-38, bans consangineous marriage.
But why should the ban remain in force for homosexuals related by blood? They can't produce and offspring, let alone the genetically defective ones which the Act was passed to prevent.
And if there is no difference in law between a normal union and a homosexual union, then shouldn't consangineous heterosexual couples also be permitted to marry?
If genetically defective offspring are the problem, there's always contraception to prevent them, and abortion on demand at any time to catch the mistakes before they're born, no?
Great post again! Amazing how many 'anonymous' bloggers failed reading comprehension I. And are so sensitive and caring about the feelings of others with whom they disagree!
But your point is absolutely spot-on. Current laws protecting society against the known dangers of consangineous, beastial, incestual and under-the-age-of-consent sexual union relationships (even with babies) - shudder - will all now be subject to civil challenge and potential revocation in Canadian - and other - courts.
Where this leads is unknowable. What it will cost in human suffering is inestimatable. All for political gain from some of the scuzziest politicians in history. Have they no shame?
Historically, this could end up being Canada's darkest hour. Maybe it's time to bring back the "tar and feather" custom for politicians and charlatans.
@canadianna
"You are joking, I hope. You can't seriously be that ignorant."
A simple rhetorical question to point out that nothing else relating to marriage has changed, except to allow two people of the same gender.
I don't know why you're trying to make this change "all about sex". The law has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. It's only related to gender.
"My point is that people who do not want to be married, who are not a 'couple' per se, should be allowed the same benefits as married couples."
I have no argument with that statement, but I fail to see how that has anything at all to do with C38. You're talking about other legislation here, like the Income Tax, Canada Pension, Old Age Security.
BTW, I don't know why anyone would want the same benefits as married couples. Tax-wise, you are far better off as two single people.
The OP shows why the government should butt out of marriage altogether; the civil union / religious marriage split was the proper path to follow. But the hysteria on both sides muddied the issue.
Noel -- What the C 38 does is highlight the fact that sexual intercourse is the defining factor with regard to government recognition of committed relationships. Prior to C 38, the government and society, supported marriage as a procreative and society sustaining institution.
That is not the case anymore. Therefore -- the only thing that differentiates marriage from a co-habitating, platonic couple, is sex -- if the government won't give them joint benefits, or if their company won't -- without them walking down the aisle or checking off 'spouse' and forcing them to live a lie --- the only reason they will not receive them is because they are not sleeping together.
If you can't get your head around it by now Noel, give up.
@arabian knight
Not ignoring you, just didn't think your question was a serious one... thought you were joking.
Socially backwards? No, just a little slower.
Perhaps you would prefer that we be more like Russia...
"DEPUTIES OF THE Russian parliament are discussing the possibility of introducing criminal responsibility for homosexual activities. Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, known for his blunt talk and radical views, believes that death penalty would be the most appropriate punishment. The question arose during a debate on a proposed law against pederasty."
...by Pravda.ru staff (translated from Russian by Dmitry Sudakov)
Kinda sounds like some of the right wingers I've read. Perhaps someone could propose it at the next CPC policy convention...
>
Looks like Alberta
may use the Not Withstanding clause to ensure those opposed to same sex marriage will not have to conduct ceremonies.
Pale...relax...Ralphie will just roll over again and do nothing...an earthworm has more backbone!
I think you defeat your own argument with your comment about "typical not universal". Marriage is still "typically" about two people wanting to live together and have a family. That they are not universally heterosexual makes no difference.
I'd really like to see someone predict the consequences of establishing SSM. What, exactly, is everyone afraid of?
Mike said:
"I'd really like to see someone predict the consequences of establishing SSM. What, exactly, is everyone afraid of?"
Mike, there have been negative consequences already due to SSM. I read somewhere recently, forget where, that in the Netherlands, opposite sex couples are increasingly abandoning marriage like never before. Apparently due to the fact that marriage is no longer special to them and therefore irrelevant. Their state failed in its duty to protect society as a whole and took a huge, unnecessary gamble. Imagine the effect on the lives of children. The more this happens, the more children will suffer from instability of family life, harming them for life. The consequences for society as a whole are obvious to the thinking person.
Why in the hell shouldn't people fear the very real prospect of their society accelerating down the road to decline and ruination?
Given this real-world evidence, and given that what "progressives" offer in defence of SSM is merely rhetoric about "equality" and "human rights", which are actually not written anywhere as far as I know, plus where, precisely, is it written in stone or whatever, that having sex whatever way we wish is a "human right"? If, therefore, sexual preference is not established properly as a "human right", then how can one argue that SSM is a "human right", particularly since neither is marriage? After all, if one studies the Charter, one will find neither sexual orientation nor marriage.
I truly don't wish to offend those who disagree, but I'm simply stating the TRUTH, which, btw, seems to be a crime to speak, almost!
I just care about the children and the future well-being of society at large. After all, don't "progressives" realize that the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few or the one?
I read somewhere recently, forget where, that in the Netherlands, opposite sex couples are increasingly abandoning marriage like never before. Apparently due to the fact that marriage is no longer special to them and therefore irrelevant.
Yes, I've heard this several times. So your prediction for Canada is fewer marriages, more shacking up, more children without two parents of the opposite sex. Can you offer me a time frame for this?
The claim, of course, makes the very common error of mistaking correlation for causation. Just because A & B go together, doesn't mean one causes the other. All the claims about SSM destroying Dutch marriage never seem to consider a third cause.
And for the record, I don't think SSM is a human right, per se. And I also think you're entirely free to speak your mind. You're just falling into that pattern of mistaking vigourous disagreement for persecution.
Mike said:
"You're just falling into that pattern of mistaking vigourous disagreement for persecution."
Mike, that's false. It's the other way around. When conservatives disagree that we should be allowing SSM, the gay community claims we're persecuting them. I certainly do NOT think that just because you have different beliefs, I'm therefore persecuted. It would be highly illogical. What is persecution is firing someone for refusing to conduct an SSM on the basis of the Charter guarantee of freedom of religious belief. One should not be forced to perform acts that are contrary to one's religion. I don't see where you get the belief that I feel persecuted by you simply because you disagree.
Time frame is irrelevant. It is selfish only to think of oneself and not of future generations one may be affecting negatively with devil-may-care hedonism. It is plainly wrong to acquire pleasure for oneself at the possible expense of those who will have to deal with the consequences thereof in the future of society as a whole.
It is irrelevant whether SSM is or is not the direct cause of the sudden decline in the demand to get married. The fact that the two happened simultaneously, though no proven causality exists, is enough to give one pause for thought and to reconsider this dangerous, unnecessary experiment- without-a-hypothesis.
Why in the world does the left consider SSM and sexuality in general to be the most important issue of the present day? What of the piss-poor state of Canadian health care? What of the real, growing, imminent threat of a terrorist attack of indeterminate type and magnitude? What of the obvious threat of the increasingly wealthy and militarily powerful Chinese Communist tyrants starting WWIII? What is our government doing, if anything, wrt these issues? I personally see them making them worse!
Why does the left wish to take these very dangerous risks on behalf of the rest of humanity? Is their idealogy such that they must do everything their unseen leaders dictate, without question? Are the members of the left falsely deifying mere mortals who may have malevolent intentions?
Mike, that's false. It's the other way around. When conservatives disagree that we should be allowing SSM, the gay community claims we're persecuting them.
Sure, they do it too, and it's not really any more justifiable. It's a very common thing.
Time frame is irrelevant.
I only mean for the purposes of prediction. Will the negative effects of SSM take effect immediately, or are we looking at problems a few generations down the road?
Why in the world does the left consider SSM and sexuality in general to be the most important issue of the present day?
To be fair, I had a discussion about this very topic with a conservative friend of mine. I was making the opposite claim - that conservatives blow the issue of SSM far out of proportion. Ultimately, my friend and I decided that our sources were highly selective. It looks like everyone is obsessed with SSM because that's what the media focusses on.
Why does the left wish to take these very dangerous risks on behalf of the rest of humanity?
And this is why I'm asking for predictions. You think it's a "dangerous risk," and I'd like to know what, exactly, the danger is.
Is their idealogy such that they must do everything their unseen leaders dictate, without question?
Well, just let me pull out my copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Leftism and check.
Well, Mike, if you cannot foresee the future based on an analysis of current realities and an understanding, borne of a-posteriori knowledge, of how things do indeed work, then I'm afraid I cannot help you. Foresight is something that one must learn and learn willingly and with genuine interest.
The point I have been trying to make is: we shouldn't be messing with an institution that has proven over millenia to work, and work well, for society. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. You just might destroy it. And if society depends on the institution as it always had been, then society is in trouble.
Therefore, when all things are said and considered, I conclude that we should NOT have done this SSM thing.
As for the conservatives making a big deal out of SSM, it's only because it's being imposed on their society without their democratic consent, such a huge, unpredictable thing. It's simply unnecessary. Period.
Mike, I'm pleased that you have a sense of humor. But consider the possibility that the left is indeed like a cult, a religion even, one which compels adherents to do things simply because they're told and are conditioned to never question instructions.
Except I don't think your view of "current realities" is an accurate one. Insisting that X causes Y just because they appear together is just bad method.
Sure, marriage has been around for a "millenia." A really long time, at least. Except its nature has been in constant flux - it used to be nothing more than an economic exchange. "Traditional marriage" doesn't really exist. It appears to me that this is just one more change.
Is "the Left" a cult? I don't see any value in following that line of thought. Any ideological/religious group is open to the exact same criticism, including the Right. What, you think there aren't a huge number of conservatives who are conservative just because their parents and pastors are?
The Left/Right distinction is only a lazy shortcut. It's really much more complicated than that.
Mike, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
"Why stop at SSM? That would then be discrimination against those who live in relationships and not have sex. Why not let these people get married also, regardless of celibacy?"
In the case of the vets, if they want the same rights and responsiblities, they should get married. There is nothing stopping them.
Gina is bang on this regard.
Canadianna - I've read your fine post "it's all about sex," and find it (non-sexually) stimulating. I have a different position, but I think you add clarity to the discussion and would hope I could come near equalling that quality. Because of your clarity, I can appreciate and value much of what you say, and find points of contact with my own view - so a discussion would be possible.
But for now, I can't even get to all the comments you've acquired, just on this one blog entry (53, I think by the moment's count). I hope to do that in the near future ... and then may get back to you.
Again, keep on bloggin', Lady!
owlb -- I've been to your site many times, but I don't see a place to comment.
Well, let's see. . . .
If marriage is intended primarily but not exclusively to regulate reproduction, but people who are infertile or who choose not to have children can still be legally married, then what exactly is the problem?
A person who has no genitalia at all can legally marry, so why shouldn't people, of whatever genital sort, get married and choose not to use them?
A couple I know are currently lesbians, but one of them is in the process of acquiring male genitalia, so soon they will be a heterosexual couple. That should make mixed-genital fans happy.
How I do wish, myself, that the State would get its nose out of people's genitals, though. Doesn't it have anything better to worry about?
Just a question related to the new definition of "marriage". So if common -law kicks in after a certain amount of time together, are all roommates now married(common -law) after living together for a set period of time?? What impact does this have on someones ability to lay claim to a room-mates assets??
So again my question to those who know more than I, is how does the new definition of common law marriage now impact society??? Did sexually relationship have to be proven for a common-law claim to be valid??? Do people living with a room-mate(s) have to worry about being in a common-law (married)relationship.
Yours is an interesting question. Common law is based on the assumption of sexual intimacy. If two roommates were to part after the the time-frame in which a relationship was considered common law, I suppose one of them would be obliged to prove that the relationship was conjugal, while the other would have to attempt to prove the opposite.
Just doing things together -- hosting parties, arriving places together, hanging out together -- while not engaged in a sexual relationship with someone else -- might be enough to establish 'couplehood', but who knows? I doubt it will become an issue to a lot of people, but I suppose it is a consideration when considering sharing expenses with anyone.
So the central argument of the SSM proponents is that if the opponents cannot conclusively demonstrate that there will be some "harm", therefore SSM must be the law.
I'm afraid that won't work.
So there hasn't been any proof beyond a reasonable doubt that society as a whole will be harmed. Nor has there been conclusive proof offered, however, that there will not be any harm.
So neither side has concrete proof of harm or no-harm. What then?
Then the onus of proof falls solely upon the proponents of SSM, those who so strongly, emotionally argue for it. They argue no proof of harm is given; yet they give no proof of no-harm either. Yet they are convinced they should prevail, regardless of the common-sense risk awareness of such unprecedented, unproven interference with the very foundation of society.
Therefore, the passing of the SSM law is not justified in light of the unknown dangers and their magnitudes for society as a whole in the long run. It must, therefore, be repealed and the original proven-to-work-across-the-planet-since-time-immemorial institution restored.
Post a Comment