# SSM, where was Harper?



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Cons seem rather silent now that the motion was defeated 175-123...

Wonder how SINC will blame this on the Liberals...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Cons seem rather silent now that the motion was defeated 175-123...
> 
> Wonder how SINC will blame this on the Liberals...


remember the con credo; "il faltum liberaltum"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Doris Day looked the right twit today when he refused to answer questions....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Doris Day looked the right twit today when he refused to answer questions....


part of that new found "transparency and accountability" we kept hearing about

oooooh, this next election's gonna be fun...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

For all the crying SINC does about crime, maybe he should talk to the Calgary police about getting their priorities in order...


> Homeless man fined for spitting into garbage can
> 
> An itinerant Calgary man has been fined $115 for spitting into a garbage can in a move that advocates for the homeless say borders on bullying.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061207.wspit1207/BNStory/National/home

Wonder how this will be "il faltum liberaltum"?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Of course they're silent. It's done with. Over. Don't dwell on it. Move on.

Harper followed through on an election promise. Now it's done. Time to move onto more serious issues (more serious than the sanctity of SINC's marriage).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> For all the crying SINC does about crime, maybe he should talk to the Calgary police about getting their priorities in order...
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061207.wspit1207/BNStory/National/home
> 
> Wonder how this will be "il faltum liberaltum"?


liberal social programs allowed this homeless man to be on calgary streets


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Due to the incredible rate that Calgary is growing it's had to hire some second rate Cops. You know things are desperate when each cruiser has a 'We need you' bumper sticker on it. Such a shame. It feels more and more like a big city. The Calgary I knew is dead.


----------



## Luc Tremblay (Jul 5, 2005)

Is there a way to see who voted for and against ?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> liberal social programs allowed this homeless man to be on calgary streets


When were the Liberals last in power either in Alberta or Calgary?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Luc Tremblay said:


> Is there a way to see who voted for and against ?


Here you go:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...885&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154



> *How MPs voted*
> 
> A list of how MPs voted Thursday on a Conservative motion to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage, in alphabetical order:
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> When were the Liberals last in power either in Alberta or Calgary?



does it matter?
it's still the Liberals' fault


----------



## Luc Tremblay (Jul 5, 2005)

Thanks, However.

I wish there was a list of the position of every MP for each vote at the house. I saw it in the US, does it exist in Canada?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Cons seem rather silent now that the motion was defeated 175-123...
> 
> Wonder how SINC will blame this on the Liberals...





ArtistSeries said:


> For all the crying SINC does about crime, maybe he should talk to the Calgary police about getting their priorities in order...
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061207.wspit1207/BNStory/National/home
> 
> Wonder how this will be "il faltum liberaltum"?





guytoronto said:


> Of course they're silent. It's done with. Over. Don't dwell on it. Move on.
> 
> Harper followed through on an election promise. Now it's done. Time to move onto more serious issues (more serious than the sanctity of SINC's marriage).


Has it ever occurred to all of you that your intolerance of my opinion makes you the bigots?

Check your mirrors.

And I was far from silent:



SINC said:


> So the vote was won 175 to 123. that means that 41% of MPs still believe the definition of marriage should be changed and I would be willing to bet about the same percentage of Canadians are still against the definition of marriage as it now stands. That being said, the law is the law, but I don't have to like it any more than I like the Youth Criminal Justice Act or photo radar.
> 
> All three laws need change and I will be one Canadian who will continue to work for that change in all three areas. That of course is my right and I will continue to exercise it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Has it ever occurred to all of you that your intolerance of my opinion makes you the bigots?
> 
> Check your mirrors.


:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> :lmao: :lmao:


Glad to see your mirror amuses you.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Luc Tremblay said:


> Thanks, However.
> 
> I wish there was a list of the position of every MP for each vote at the house. I saw it in the US, does it exist in Canada?


I want to see the vote broken down by party.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I want to see the vote broken down by party.


I found a wonderful web pager that did this for the last time but I think it will be a few days yet....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> When were the Liberals last in power either in Alberta or Calgary?


The last time the Liberals were in power at the provincial level was 1917 - 1921.

The last time a federal Liberal MP was elected in Calgary was 1968.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

No doubt it's all their fault.




PenguinBoy said:


> The last time the Liberals were in power at the provincial level was 1917 - 1921.
> 
> The last time a federal Liberal MP was elected in Calgary was 1968.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I want to see the vote broken down by party.


To you really need to know?
NDP and Bloc voted not to go back on basic human right
Libs had a free vote but most voted to withhold basic human rights.

Cons had a few higher ministers vote to not revisit the issue and all others seemed to have obeyed the Harper message. 

And the Con spin machine is now trying to get tracktion for Dion's mother being French. 
SINC is still angry at the Libs over this instead of seeing that Harper really was a chicken on this issue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Has it ever occurred to all of you that your intolerance of my opinion makes you the bigots?


Is there another Con lie that you'd like to try and foster here instead of facing the truth?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ouch!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The complete list

http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2006/12/7/2557243.html


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

As far as I'm concerned this is another campaign promise fulfilled. The Conservatives said they would open the debate again, and they did. It was voted down, end of story.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

modsuperstar said:


> As far as I'm concerned this is another campaign promise fulfilled. The Conservatives said they would open the debate again, and they did. It was voted down, end of story.



the people with income trusts might not be so happy about harper and his campaign promises


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

When did Harper promise to ignore his "accountability" promise and put a gag order on his entire caucus?

When did Harper promise to ignore his "accountability" promise and apoint only Conservative judges at every level possible? At least the Liberals chose from every political stripe when making such appointments.




modsuperstar said:


> As far as I'm concerned this is another campaign promise fulfilled. The Conservatives said they would open the debate again, and they did. It was voted down, end of story.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

modsuperstar said:


> As far as I'm concerned this is another campaign promise fulfilled. The Conservatives said they would open the debate again, and they did. It was voted down, end of story.


"Promise made. Promise kept." They could make the promise knowing it would never pass The House. All they're doing is creating a check list of "Promise Made. Promise Kept." for the next election so that they can trot it out and give a quantitative accounting. Perhaps they should dwell on a qualitative accounting instead.

We're going to hear "Promise made. Promise kept." ad naseum during the next election. Blah.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> To you really need to know?


Yes, I like to know how people voted.



ArtistSeries said:


> And the Con spin machine is now trying to get tracktion for Dion's mother being French.
> SINC is still angry at the Libs over this instead of seeing that Harper really was a chicken on this issue.


You're derailing this thread. It seems the media and the NDP were the ones questioning his dual citizenship, not the Cons. If you have seen otherwise, I would be interested to know.

It doesn't bother me that he is a dual citizen.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> You're derailing this thread.


ArtistSeries derailing a thread by attacking the Conservatives? No! Come on! Really? I can't imagine!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I believe this is the result that Harper was looking for:


> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to be permanently closed.


source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061208.wxsamesex08/BNStory/National/home

This way he can put a close on this issue that, IMO, has been blown *way* out of proportion and wasted far too much time.

I also believe that this whole debacle could have been handled better in the first place - rather than presenting the issue as an "all or nothing" proposition, a compromise position could have been reached a long time ago, with "Civil Unions" as has been done in the UK and other countries. I believe that SSM was presented the way it was to intentionally polarize the population, and to allow the Liberals and NDP to paint themselves as crusaders for "social justice", unlike the "scary" social conservatives.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> I believe that SSM was presented the way it was to intentionally polarize the population, and to allow the Liberals and NDP to paint themselves as crusaders for "social justice", unlike the "scary" social conservatives.


I believe you are incorrect.
Why?
Because the solution was mandated by the courts not the Liberals. The courts were very specific that "civil unions" wasn't good enough, that equal means equal not "separate but equal". You can pretend this is the fault of the Liberals but it is just scapegoating. Although personally I think this was the correct outcome. Now every Canadian can see who the intolerant MPs are and many are Liberals like Allan Tonks. Almost all the Conservative MPs voted to re-open the whole issue. They ARE "scary social conservatives" and bigots to boot.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> I also believe that this whole debacle could have been handled better in the first place - rather than presenting the issue as an "all or nothing" proposition, a compromise position could have been reached a long time ago, with "Civil Unions" as has been done in the UK and other countries.


Ya. Nothing like telling somebody "We know you deserve the same rights, but we're not ready just yet to make everything fair and equal. We'll give you "Civil Union" for now."


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

martman said:


> I believe you are incorrect.
> Why?
> Because the solution was mandated by the courts not the Liberals.


In hindsight, perhaps this should have been dealt with *before* it went as far as a court challenge.


guytoronto said:


> Ya. Nothing like telling somebody "We know you deserve the same rights, but we're not ready just yet to make everything fair and equal. We'll give you "Civil Union" for now."


This sounds pretty fair and equal to me


> Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as civilly married heterosexual couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[1] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You are right. It is absolutely fair.

Listen, while we're at it, what religion are you? Oh, could you please put this armband on. Most of the people are are not your religion, and we just need to make it clear you are not one of us.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Almost all the Conservative MPs voted to re-open the whole issue. They ARE "scary social conservatives" and bigots to boot.


That's a pretty strong accusation to make. I wouldn't throw out such terms just because somebody doesn't hold the same viewpoint as me.

About 50% of Canada believes in the traditional definition of marriage. Does that make at least half our population bigoted?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

No, it just tells us how many of them are ignorant.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep ignorant or bigoted take your pick. Some people still think nurse is a woman and doctor a man. 
Equal is equal.

Instead floundering about in a lost cause swamp get the legislation changed to lose marriage entirely from the legal books and deal with what all such joinings of affairs are in law - a civil union.
Corporation has no gender
Civil union has no gender
Both have bodies of law attached to them.

If THAT was what the RR was on about - they'd get my support in a heartbeat.
But it's not....what it IS about is bigotry. 

WHY am I not hearing "everyone civil union under law"......*please explain this phenomena??*


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> You are right. It is absolutely fair.
> 
> Listen, while we're at it, what religion are you? Oh, could you please put this armband on. Most of the people are are not your religion, and we just need to make it clear you are not one of us.


Nothing about armbands, and it seems as though equal rights and privileges are being provided for all.



> That has angered some Christian groups, who argue marriage is being undermined, but some gay rights groups say they do not go far enough.


source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3584285.stm

When both sides are ~slightly~ p*ssed off it's probably a sign of a reasonable compromise.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PenB - why do you not support civil union for ALL??
Please enlighten us...............


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Yes, I like to know how people voted.
> 
> You're derailing this thread.  It seems the media and the NDP were the ones questioning his dual citizenship, not the Cons. If you have seen otherwise, I would be interested to know.
> 
> It doesn't bother me that he is a dual citizen.



you should have heard Bill Carrol's call in show on CFRB (neo con flagship radio station in Toronto)

Carrol argued "what if canada and france went to war with each other?"

Carrol failed to mention AB PC leadership hopeful Morton's being born in the U.S.

plus during Dion's interview with CBC's Mansbridge the other night, Dion stated that he would renounce his French citizenship, if he was elected PM


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> PenB - why do you not support civil union for ALL??
> Please enlighten us...............


I haven't really given it a whole lot of thought - it might be a reasonable solution. Perhaps folks that wanted a church marriage could have one, and those that didn't could just go down to the registry office, but legally the end state would be the same. In a way this would be sort of similar to what we have today, in that both clergy and J of P can perform "marriages".

Unfortunately, now that both sides have dug their heels in over semantics, there will be no pleasing everyone^W anyone...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - it's the obvious solution and perhaps you do not realize it but NOT embracing that solution is one of the most puzzling aspects and WHY many get branded with bigotry.

Support civil for all in legalese and leave marriage out in the "social realm" and it all goes away.
If it doesn't it's pretty clear it's espousing inequality not common sense.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> That has angered some Christian groups, who argue marriage is being undermined


Hey, Christian groups! News flash!

*Britney Spears - Two Marriages Down...how many to go?*
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=b3cf5cd7-517b-4dbf-a01d-5d6a73dff246
http://www.ecanadanow.com/uncategorized/2006/12/04/britney-spears-warns-ex-to-watch-what-he-says/

*Canadian Stats on Divorce:
*http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsCAN.shtml
1998 - Total divorces granted: 69,088

*Instant Wedding!*
http://www.crystalweddingchapel.com/index.asp?URL=http://www.crystalweddingchapel.com/main.asp
The Crystal Wedding Chapel is the home of the “Canada's 1st Drive-Thru” Wedding Chapel, "VEGAS STYLE!!"

News flash! Marriage was undermined a long time ago.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, Christian groups! News flash!


Interesting how only Christians get singled out for accusations of bigotry.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah very interesting....one wonders why that might be?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> That's a pretty strong accusation to make. I wouldn't throw out such terms just because somebody doesn't hold the same viewpoint as me.
> 
> About 50% of Canada believes in the traditional definition of marriage. Does that make at least half our population bigoted?


Why yes it does. And I'll add that the population has been MORE bigoted in the past! Remember Women had to fight for suffrage. Blacks used to be slaves and Native Canadians were locked into residential schools. I have NO PROBLEM pointing out this issue of bigotry and applying the term to large swaths of the Canadian population. Just because a large group of people think it is ok to discriminate against gays doesn't mean they aren't bigots. 

Also I don't trust your numbers.


> Web site logo
> SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
> CANADIAN POLLS DURING 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Interesting how only Christians get singled out for accusations of bigotry.


What a load! I'm sick of radical fundamentalist Christians insisting on calling themselves generically "Christian". None of the Christians in my family espouse anything that these radicals keep putting out as "Christians". Radical Fundamentalist Christians don't speak for the vast majority of Christians but they keep representing themselves as the voice of Christianity. Well they aren't and it is offensive to the vast majority of moderate Christians when they pretend to be. Christianity has been hijacked by the intolerants just like Islam and the Islamists. We know that Osama is not the voice of most of Islam and Fallwell is not the voice of most Christians.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah very interesting....one wonders why that might be?


Give VD a two by clue....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, Christian groups! News flash!
> 
> *Britney Spears - Two Marriages Down...how many to go?*
> http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=b3cf5cd7-517b-4dbf-a01d-5d6a73dff246
> ...


Its no news flash to me and I agree with you 100%! Its just going deeper in the swamp with each passing year.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Why yes it does. And I'll add that the population has been MORE bigoted in the past! Remember Women had to fight for suffrage. Blacks used to be slaves and Native Canadians were locked into residential schools. I have NO PROBLEM pointing out this issue of bigotry and applying the term to large swaths of the Canadian population. Just because a large group of people think it is ok to discriminate against gays doesn't mean they aren't bigots.
> 
> Also I don't trust your numbers.


Just in case you have forgotten, or simply don't know, there were no blacks enslaved in Canada. It is a bad example and factually wrong to lump that accusation in with the rest when referring to Canadians.

Seems to me there is too much "Americanization" creeping in here.




martman said:


> What a load! I'm sick of radical fundamentalist Christians insisting on calling themselves generically "Christian". None of the Christians in my family espouse anything that these radicals keep putting out as "Christians". Radical Fundamentalist Christians don't speak for the vast majority of Christians but they keep representing themselves as the voice of Christianity. Well they aren't and it is offensive to the vast majority of moderate Christians when they pretend to be. Christianity has been hijacked by the intolerants just like Islam and the Islamists. We know that Osama is not the voice of most of Islam and Fallwell is not the voice of most Christians.


Fine.

And for the record, I am just as sick and tired of your rants against religion or believers whose views are contrary to yours. You in fact are the one who could be accused of demonstrating real bigotry with this type of post.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

one can hope 

•••••

Strange silence about the obvious solution to this issue.
PenB at least was open enough to admit he hadn't though about civil union for all.
Not a peep from the dinosaurs tho.
Odd that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Just in case you have forgotten, or simply don't know, there were no blacks enslaved in Canada.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Just in case you have forgotten, or simply don't know, there were no blacks enslaved in Canada. It is a bad example and factually wrong to lump that accusation in with the rest when referring to Canadians.
> 
> Seems to me there is too much "Americanization" creeping in here.





> Black people have lived in Canada since the beginnings of transatlantic settlement. A few came as explorers, more came as slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries


http://www.africanaonline.com/slavery_canada.htm



> One must realize that "the African Slave Trade" was not only a segment of U.S. History, but it also played a part in Canadian History. However, unlike our U.S. counterparts, who have recorded the history of slavery through documentaries, books and the T.V. Mini Series "Roots", little has been written with regards to slavery in Canada.
> 
> Canadians did not refer to the term "slave", as it was potentially controversial with the United States, and therefore referred to the term "servant." A popular impression that the first slaves in Canada were introduced into the Maritimes Provinces by the Loyalists, in 1783, is false. Historical records indicated that slavery was established in Quebec, by the French, through a royal mandate issued by Louis XIV in 1689.
> 
> ...


http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html

and from the gov.on.ca website;


> In the aftermath of the American Revolution black people came to Ontario as the slaves of loyalists and as members of loyalist regiments.
> 
> Over the following decades slavery was gradually abolished. Black people became settlers and served in the militia during the War of 1812 and the 1837 Rebellion.
> 
> ...


http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/exhibits/black_history/index.html

=========================

do i need to quote more?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

SINC said:


> Just in case you have forgotten, or simply don't know, there were no blacks enslaved in Canada. It is a bad example and factually wrong to lump that accusation in with the rest when referring to Canadians.


SINC, are you really THAT ignorant?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> You in fact are the one who could be accused of demonstrating real bigotry with this type of post.


You have failed to show ANY bigotry in my statement. If you are going to make such accusations you need to back them up. Since I said nothing bigoted you are wrong.

I won't bother with the slavery issue as many have already chimed in.

Could you be any more ignorant?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Strange silence about the obvious solution to this issue.
> PenB at least was open enough to admit he hadn't though about civil union for all.
> Not a peep from the dinosaurs tho.
> Odd that.


How is changing a word a solution?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

comprehab said:


> SINC, are you really THAT ignorant?


Mea culpa, I had never before been aware of that. I always thought we were a haven for escaped slaves. Statement retracted. Learned something new today though.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Mea culpa, I had never before been aware of that. I always thought we were a haven for escaped slaves. Statement retracted. Learned something new today though.


We were a haven after the end of slavery in the British empire so you aren't wrong about that exactly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> How is changing a word a solution?


You MUST be joking .......may I simply turn that about......


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You MUST be joking .......may I simply turn that about......


Seriously. How is that a solution? It's still not going to make to no side happy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Who the hell cares about happy - the point is EQUAL.

Make all such unions civil and leave the marriage term outside the legal arena.
Just as corporation is unisex so is civil union.

Are you telling me the goal is to embed marriage as a religious term in law and with restrictions as to who may partake???


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Who the hell cares about happy - the point is EQUAL.
> 
> Make all such unions civil and leave the marriage term outside the legal arena.
> Just as corporation is unisex so is civil union.
> ...


I like the solution we now have. This is EQUAL. 

You haven't told me the benefit of changing the name. Changing the name to civil union is only going to anger the religious side even more.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Government, in the ideal, should have no role in such terminology. It is simply a matter of contractual obligation and meaning. If one wants further spiritual and/or personal meaning, that's for religious recognition and up to free religion. That's the ideal.

Realistically, government is involved, so what we've got is reasonable. Marriage, as a term that government should have no involvement in, is dispensed equally...until polyamorous couples challenge it. Tick tock.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh I like the solution we have now as well but I'm just curious if ALL gets changed to civil union which I think it should why there is objection to it from the RRs.

Beej sort of convolutedly is that point I think.

It's a contract between two persons that may also involve children and has a body of law governing those contracts.

We have term corporation.
We need a similar term civil union to take debate out of the legal rights arena.
I still want to know specifically why that should be an issue with the RR.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej sort of convolutedly is that point I think.
> 
> It's a contract between two persons that may also involve children and has a body of law governing those contracts.
> 
> ...


The presumed exclusion of such things as polygamy is a cultural artifact (strange, given the true heritage). Yes, the existing examples are undesirable, but that is not a good argument. There is no rational reason to limit marriage to 2, when taken in the context of fully aware and free adults. 

What is the rational and secular basis for 2? Aside from being insane for wanting 2 spouses.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree and that will be a challenge upcoming. How is Utah dealing with it??
I think if no one complains they turn a blind eye.

If you think about it there are already "extended family" issues with grand parents and ex's that the law has to deal with.

Incest prohibitions have a medical basis even if slight.....multiple spouses?? - some cultures the kids belong to the community with no familial affiliation. It takes a village done up right.

Maybe like pure partnerships the way to prevent it is to make the contractual basis very risky.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Incest prohibitions have a medical basis even if slight


Now you're getting into truly messy future issues.

Setting aside the "figure of authority" issue, which is relevant and can be dealt with on its own...

The standard problem with incest is genetic. Now, if genetics could demonstrate than an incestuous coupling (and generational extensional thereof) has less risk of deformity than an allowed non-incentuous one, where are we? 

Heinlein, for all his weirdness and dull style, at least demanded that readers think. What is the rational basis for many of our current practices? If genetics gets to the point that it can say unrelated coupling A is more likely to produce unwanted mutation than incestuous coupling B, then WTF? 

We are just beginning to face the real moral challenges of science, and I think it is a good thing. The old tax cut versus spend more issues were getting dull.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Many more as well.....the challenge of engineered and sex chosen births are here and right now there are likely MORE kids with three or four or more parent figures than with two. ( divorce, merged or integrated families , half brothers and sisters etc )

It's one reason I'd like to see more parallel in family law with corporate law where complexity is the norm rather than the exception.

BTW have you read the unexpurgated Stranger?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Are people who oppose polyamorous (right word?) "marriage" bigots? 

That label has been tossed about freely recently. Time to really understand liberalism. Note: no capital "L".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I think it could be argued that it is religious discrimination. I think there are issues with women's rights in most current (at least in N America) forms of paligamy (polandry is far more rare) so I am very much in favour of the current restrictions. Still I think it is a likely future issue especially with all the Muslims comming to Canada. I hope the status quo holds but I'm willing to keep a somewhat open mind. Who knows maybe I'll be a dinosaur with oudated and bigoted opinions!:lmao: 
Only time will tell.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and the consequences.


----------

