Iowa legalizes gay marriage...
posted by GayandRight @ 10:28 AM
GayandRight
My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)
Friday, April 03, 2009
GayandRight
My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)
Contributors
Previous Posts
- They keep threatening to sue....
- Why is Spain so anti-Israel???
- Apartheid in Israel...a Druze says no....
- The return of Westergaard....
- Entertainment banned at Saudi charitable events....
- Anti-semitic incidents in Canada in 2008...
- Think this mother will get jail time???
- Yemenis holding Dutch couple hostage...
- Isn't this apartheid???
- The trigger-happy New York Times....
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
10 Comments:
With all due respect, Fred,
Do you also support the redefinition of marriage to include polygamous relationships?
no.
Please explain why we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples but not polygamous relationships. If marriage is a fluid concept that changes with public opinion, shouldn't a liberal society grant whatever consensual living arrangement that people desire?
Marriage has always changed...just check your history...in many ways...from age, to property, to race, religion, etc.
In fact, one could say that polygamy has more history than not....
But, same-sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Years ago, we decided that gay couples should have the same right as straight couples...and ultimately, the Courts said if there is to be no discrimination against gays, then they should not have to wait for 2 years to be considered a 'union'...as it was initially.
And, might I add that polygamous affairs have been tolerated by this state for how many decades?
fred
Fred:
Good points. Here's a few counterpoints:
"Years ago, we decided that gay couples should have the same right as straight couples" - decided by a judge on constitutional grounds against the will of the majority at that time. How can polygamy be declared unconstitutional, even if it is against the will of the majority at this time?
Polygamous affairs have been tolerated by the state much longer than gay affairs. Adultery was never part of Canadian criminal code unless committed "in the home of a child", repealed in 1985. Today, any immigrant that comes with more than one wife has the marriage(s) recognized by the state. Some polygamous marriages in Ontario are even being tolerated. Birth certificates are now allowed to have more than two parents on them. Polygamous relationships have existed in BC for decades.
As you say, Marriage has always changed. You haven't given me anything to say that it can't change to include polygamy.
Don't get me wrong - I abhor the concept of polygamy. I simply see that the same arguments used to legalize gay marriage can be used to further redefine marriage to include other "forms".
Thanks for respectfully discussing this.
I'm not saying that marriage can't change to allow polygamy. What I am saying is that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. Just as changing the law to allow different races to marry has nothing to do with polygamy.
Should polygamy be legalized in Canada (and I doubt it), it will be for entirely different reasons than that of same-sex marriage.
fred
Fred says, "I'm not saying that marriage can't change to allow polygamy. What I am saying is that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy."
Point taken, and I agree. Similarly, I would say that heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
The reason I bring up polygamy is this: the only way to guarantee that polygamy and other forms of "marriage" (e.g. bestiality) do not become legal is to restrict the definition of marriage to its religious and historical origins.
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, marriage was between one man and one woman. It spoke nothing of inter-racial marriages or gender rights, since marriage was instituted before the fall into sin (which brought inequality, gender roles, and racial tension).
From a historical point of view, despite the variations between cultures, marriage has always remained heterosexual worldwide throughout history. Some cultures put additional requirements, such as race or religion, but those were more characteristics of a culture than it was of the institution of marriage.
Of course, marriage will always change...as it has. In early Christian times, marriage was more of an economic family affair with arranged marriages for economic reasons.
Now, that has changed totally.
So, our legal and cultural definitions of marriage have continually changed...and they will in the future.
The fact that same-sex marriage is now legal (and acceptable culturally) has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy will fall or rise on its own merits.
Even if polygamy is ruled legal (and I doubt that will happen), the rulings will have nothing in common with same-sex marriage. The reasoning will be different, and the laws used to support it (or not) will be different. In other words, same-sex marriage will not lead to legalized polygamy.
That being said, I am totally unsure why you bring this up. Same-sex marriage is now legal, and Canada cannot go back.
fred
"That being said, I am totally unsure why you bring this up. Same-sex marriage is now legal, and Canada cannot go back."
That's a matter of opinion. Sometimes social experiments can be reversed.
The reason I bring it up is this: With BC now facing a court challenge to the law prohibiting polygamy, part of their argument is along the same rationale that was used in gay marriage.
When gay marriage was legalized, some of those who opposed it suggested that it would destroy marriage as we know it. If the definition can be changed once, then it will be changed again and again to suit any special interest group.
I'm just reminding those who celebrate the advancement of gay marriage to be careful what you wish for.
I stress that I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable or offended. I have a lot of respect for you and your blog is a great place for Israeli perspective. I simply do not have many opportunities to speak openly with gay people about this issue.
Sorry, link didn't work.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1457860
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home