Polygamy will never be legal. But when it is, you’d better support it.
January 13, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
The Tiger (on this thread) outlines the leftist M.O. on social issues like same-sex marriage and polygamy:
What may rankle with the others — and it’s something I’ll post about now and then — is that the people who support the courts making these changes say that it’ll never happen with polygamy. They are giving unreliable assurances, and saying their interlocutors are just crazy folks.
Which is a tremendously annoying way of sidestepping debate — first, you’re told it’ll never happen; then, when the courts rule and make it so, you’re told that it’s a dead issue and that you’re a bigot for even wanting to question the wisdom handed down from on high.
Supporting homosexual marriages does not force one into a default position of also supporting polygamy.
http://img.waffleimages.com/78.....rriage.gif
Which is a tremendously annoying way of sidestepping debate …
So far, nobody I have seen has ever put forward anything that resembles sound reasoning that draws any kind of semantic line between gay marriage and polygamy.
When someone manages to draw out a coherent line of reasoning (that isn’t just a tirade), maybe they’ll get some kind of debate.
Simply asserting a linkage or progression doesn’t exactly make it exist, does it?
Supporting homosexual marriage does put one in the default position of supporting polygamy because the only thing meaningful about two-person marriage is balanced sexual union between one man and one woman, giving children of that union one father and one mother.
NEVER forget that SSM was justified in Canada’s courts as an “equality right” for gays and lesbians, vis a vis traditional marriage for men and women. Contrary to those court rulings, the reality is that there EXISTS NO SUCH EQUALITY RIGHT; that SSM and traditional marriage are fundamentally different types of human relationship; that “two-person” union is a completely arbitrary qualifier apart from the conditions of sex and making babies between one man and one woman.
Here is the reasoning as I understand it.
1) Striking down the exclusive definition of traditional marriage( 1 man + 1 woman) opens the door to ANY kind of amendment to the definition.
2) Polygamy has a long history as being traditionally accepted in other cultures and therefore is on the table as a new amendment.(other cultures, religions, and traditions being equal under multiculturalism)
3) Same Sex marriage has no tradition.
4) The fundamental traditional definition -man and woman- part of the formula changed which leaves the numbers 1+1 part of the definition without any reasonable chance of being maintained.
5) The goal of the Left was never to give equality to homosexuals, they already, de facto, had all of the legal rights of traditionally married pairs.
6) The primary goal of the Left is to destroy the traditional family as a loyal unit, which commands more fealty and dependence from the individual, and transfer it to the State.(see universal State daycare)
7) The secondary goal of the Left is to destroy the pre-existing culture and grind the faces of those who practice it.
These changes are made through the courts to minimize the political costs to the regime and party making the changes. The Left then claims the changes must be accepted in order to be ‘law abiding’ which matters to Conservatives but is only a posture which the Left strikes to advance it’s agenda.
(ie, You have to respect homosexuals because the Law says so, but homosexuals can parade in the middle of Toronto, obscenely exposed, to flaunt the law and grind the faces of the traditionalist)
If a child can have three legally recognized parents, if the sexual choice of homosexuals must be legally enshrined by the definition of marriage, why not the sexual choice of Bisexuals?(2 men + 2 woman)
There is no hope for maintaining the 1+1 formula, except that larger extended families with more than one spouse would be building LARGER family units with loyalty and dependence on each other, when the Leftist goal is Statism and the destruction of the traditional family.
(cue horror on the part of Leftists)
1) Slippery slope argument - it doesn’t follow that because B is allowed C automatically will be.
2) True.
3) False. It’s been legal in ontario for a bit so to say it has NO tradition is patently false.
4) see 1
5) All the rights _except_ being married, which is discrimitory.
6) got any evidence. I think this qualifies as a *tirade* as mentioned above.
7) see 6
“These changes are made through the courts to minimize the political costs to the regime and party making the changes. ” - false. see bill C-38.
“(ie, You have to respect homosexuals because the Law says so, but homosexuals can parade in the middle of Toronto, obscenely exposed, to flaunt the law and grind the faces of the traditionalist)” - such is life in a free society.
Polygamy has a much stronger historical (and religious) claim than does same-sex marriage.
I did and do support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and I’m not at all hostile to extending recognition to polygamous marriages between adults of sound mind.
I just happened to notice how the argument goes with respect to ‘discovering’ new rights in the Charter.
And so I understand and sympathize with social conservatives’ procedural concerns. After all, what is democracy if not procedural wrangling? The arguments of those with the position I ultimately would support (were there referenda or were I a backbench MP) have been extraordinarily disingenuous.
Incidentally, Tom, C-38 would be a sounder argument had it preceded those court cases (and therefore made them superfluous). It did not, and the arguments for its adoption did not.
I think the evidence out of Utah, of Mormon polygamous sects banishing young men from their families so as not to compete with their fathers—or some other head honcho—for the women, is reason enough NOT to permit polygamy. It readily becomes a human “society” (in the classic sense of the term) that exploits or destroys women and young males; not to mention the kooky cults that are legitimized by its legality.
As for Tom’s point about slippery slopes, the rationale behind SSM is the slippery slope. What Speller and I have pointed out is that very FACT! And it is a fact that proponents of SSM cannot reasonably avoid! Once you reduce marriage to a union between two persons, regardless of sex, the number of persons privy to any one union becomes completely arbitrary. There is nothing significant about the number two apart from the traditional context of one man and one woman having sex, potentially making babies. Two men or two women, while they can have “sexual” relations, can’t actually even have sex, let alone make babies.
Your point 5—All the rights _except_ being married, which is discrimitory—is redundant.
Of course traditional marriage was discriminatory! It is a unique form of human relationship that SSM can NEVER equal in REALITY. What is your point?
I think the evidence out of Utah, of Mormon polygamous sects banishing young men from their families so as not to compete with their fathers—or some other head honcho—for the women, is reason enough NOT to permit polygamy.
In general I agree - I have yet to see a model of polygamy that does not ultimately degenerate into a tribal hierarchy.
What Speller and I have pointed out is that very FACT! And it is a fact that proponents of SSM cannot reasonably avoid! Once you reduce marriage to a union between two persons, regardless of sex, the number of persons privy to any one union becomes completely arbitrary.
I disagree, that is not fact, it is supposition on your part. You may assert that, but you are still asserting a slippery slope based on a supposition.
The strongest argument against polygamy is what you started with as an opening argument - namely that its history shows it degenerating into a pseudo-tribal structure. (Which arguably would violate the presumption of individual equality that is pervasive in the Charter of Rights)
Two men or two women, while they can have “sexual” relations, can’t actually even have sex, let alone make babies.
Erm - actually, the specific term you want to use here is ‘coitus’ - which specifically refers to male/female vaginal sex.
However, that’s way off topic here - unless you intend to define marriage specifically as being about procreation and the production of children. In which case you better be prepared to declare invalid any marriage which cannot produce offspring.
The slippery slope rationale for SSM, which entails polygamy, is a fact BECAUSE the number two applies to umpteen human relationships, rendering it a completely arbitrary qualifier for marriage. If this is a supposition, explain how it does not hold true.
Second, sex is sex. With the exception of freak accidents of nature, human beings are born either male or female. Only one male and one female can actually engage in the act of coitus, potentially leading to procreation, which is what sex is for, by nature. Everything else is just getting your jollies, which can be very nice or it can be degrading, either way, it’s not sex; granted it does fall under common perceptions of sexual relations. Bill Clinton fully understood this point and he wasn’t just splitting hairs! :-)
Sex is not way off topic on the SSM debate. It is the very reason why SSM cannot reasonably be an equality right. On one hand, as feminists have long argued, men and women are different. One sex does not lack the capacity for reason but they certainly arrive at reason from different physiological experiences of reality. In other words, it means something different to be a man than to be a woman, experientially. And since our sex is not something any of us can choose, it is something we MUST react to in how we consciously live out our lives; gender being the traditional “way” to best react in any given society.
Sex means that human relationships between one man and one woman, two men, or two women are fundamentally unique relative to each other. Sex is a physiological fact of existence! But when it came to SSM, Canada’s courts forgot to take sex seriously! They forgot the very reason sex was enshrined as an equality right in the Charter, that being because it matters in human relationships. They preferred instead what had been read into the Charter in Vriend: the dogma of sexual orientation.
Second, only one man and one woman can actually have sex, and this makes the relationship between one man and one woman fundamentally unique to relations between two men or two women. How on earth is a SSM supposed to be consummated? It can’t be, not unless we reduce what it means to have “sex” and consummate a marriage to every form of physical intimacy beyond a handshake.
Marriage has everything to do with stable families where children are PRODUCED and therefore RAISED, giving them balanced exposure to men (a father) and women (a mother). Where a couple cannot produce children, stable heterosexual couples remain ideal parents for adopted children because of this ideal of balance. This is the ideal! And it is by our ideals that any of us judge correct courses of action, so they matter and are worth arguing about.
SSM impossibly measures up as an equality right in Canada; so impossible that the arbitrariness of how it is justified has left the door to polygamy wide open—in the courts, anyway. That said, and as the SSM issue demonstrates, jurisprudence often lacks common sense rationale and consistency, so it remains to be seen what the courts will actually do! :-)
Way to go 5 Tom 14-Jan-07 at 5:20 pm ,
You were the fish I was trolling for.
Slippery Slope Argument from 1991:
If the Vriend Decision from the Supreme Court Stands it will lead to Gay marriage.
say Conservatives
Nope!
say the Communists
That’s a slippery slope argument, there isn’t going to be any homosexual marriage.
Scroll forward 15 years:>>>>>>
“1. In 1981 the Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution explicitly decided in a vote of 22 - 2 to exclude the expression “sexual orientation” from the Charter of Rights. This was later endorsed by Parliament when it approved the Charter of Rights without the phrase “sexual orientation”.
2. In 1995 in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan and Nesbit case held that sexual orientation should be included or “read-in” to the equality section (S.15) of the Charter on the grounds that it was “analogous” to the other protected rights listed in that section (i.e. race, sex, ethnicity, etc.).
This so-called “analogous ground” doctrine is not a part of the Charter. It is a creation of the Court used to increase its own power beyond what was originally intended.
3. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Alberta legislature to include the term “sexual orientation” in its human rights legislation.
Another important point about this case, which, significantly, has been overlooked by the media, is the fact that the intended purpose of the Charter is to protect individuals from the state or government. On the other hand, the purpose of the provincial human rights legislation is to protect the rights of individuals from violation by another individual. In the Vriend decision, however, the Supreme Court of Canada has grandly concluded that so-called “Charter principles” or Charter interpretations, must also apply to the relationships between private people in provincial legislation.
Perhaps this case was best summed up by Professor Ted Morton of the Political Science Department at the University of Calgary, when he called the Vriend decision (Ottawa Citizen, April 3, 1998) “facile legalism”. Professor Morton went on to say:
… the one minority the court is prepared to protect are those favoured by the social left. Why not unborn children, why not smokers and gun owners? There are more restrictions on smokers and gun owners in Alberta than there are on homosexuals. There is a political bias. This minorities game can be played left, right and centre and the court plays it right down the left lane.”
excerpt from>
http://www.realwomenca.com/new.....cle_1.html
Speller sez:
Gay Marriage is a reality now forced upon us and those who argued it would come because of various SCC rulings, and particularly the Vriend Decision, were accused of slippery slope argument.
My Bottom Line is do Conservatives actually credit disingenuous Lefties with good faith any more?
I HOPE NOT.
The Liberals stacked the court with judges who gave them polical donations, financed the individual challenges such as Vriend and Nesbit from the ground up with tax payers money, then claimed they had to bring in legislation that would square their government with SCC ruling which they jury rigged to make an end run around democracy and the responsibility of promoting and executing their hidden agenda.
Bad faith.
And, by golly, it does look like a slippery slope to those who cannot hold all of the conspiracy in their heads at once and collate the information.
Fortunately for the Polygamists, they have large extended families and can afford to promote their own sexual revolution on their own dime.
The only question remains, will the corrupt Liberal appointed judges rule against the Leftist agenda and empower groups of anti-Statist rightwing/center interest?
“6) The primary goal of the Left is to destroy the traditional family as a loyal unit, which commands more fealty and dependence from the individual, and transfer it to the State.(see universal State daycare)
7) The secondary goal of the Left is to destroy the pre-existing culture and grind the faces of those who practice it.”
Honestly, blanket statements are ignorant no matter what side of the political spectrum. Were these goals published in the Lefty Manifesto? Could you give me a page reference so I could look it up? Oh wait, maybe that was found on http://www.PrimaryAndSecondaryLeftistGoals.com that is where I saw it. That’s right, never mind.
The slippery slope fallacy is to argue that B *must* follow from A, when in fact the consequence is only possible rather than necessary. To argue that B *may* follow from A, or IOW that A removes one barrier to B being realized, is not a slippery slope fallacy.
There have been two recent changes in Canada which have each removed one barrier to the realization of polymarriage.
First, the principle underlying marriage was shifted from child rearing to the sexual expression of consenting adults. The argument for SSM was made on the basis of equal rights. Everyone already had the equal right to marry one person of opposite gender. In order to make an “equal right” argument, an inequality had to be demonstrated: it was necessary for the equal right to be founded on sexual expression. Now sexual expression is the basis of marriage. However, we have only secured the right for monogamous heterosexuals and homosexuals. We have done nothing to secure the right for bisexuals or polyamorous heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The second change is that a child may have more than two parents.
Whether or not some groups might abuse polymarriage is not a sufficient objection. People already abuse traditional and same-sex marriage. When someone finally comes knocking at the court door for polymarriage, I doubt there will be any objections satisfactory as “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
“Honestly, blanket statements are ignorant no matter what side of the political spectrum.”
Nice blanket statement. Pretty ignorant too.
LOL
8oP
because the only thing meaningful about two-person marriage is balanced sexual union between one man and one woman
I’ll have to inform my wife that every other part of our relationship beyond our procreation attempts is meaningless. Splendid! Finally, and indisputable argument for more fishing time…
Nope!
say the Communists
That’s a slippery slope argument, there isn’t going to be any homosexual marriage.
A few serious questions.
1) Actual communists, or do you mean anyone that doesn’t share a inward focused ideology?
2)Myself included, SSM supporters I know have advocated for SSM since Christ was a cowboy. We HOPED it would one day help pave the way for complete and equal consideration for gays, including marriage.
Can you provide anything to support your claim that gay-friendly progressives organized to ensure that the mainstream didn’t believe this decision would lead to gay marriage?
I ask only because, you know, you’re wrong and stuff.
But I see how it helps you make your argument, and if bible thumpin’, fire-breathin’ conservatives have proven one thing, it’s that they don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument.
As for the Vriend decision, here’s a taste for people who don’t recall the hateful backlash from religious groups:
“I don’t want to hear one, I don’t want to see one, I don’t want to smell one.” This tirade was first heard on an Edmonton radio talk show during the week of limbo and was repeated a number of times on CBC radio as an example of the reaction of (some) Albertans to the Supreme Court decision.
Links were made between gay and lesbians and paedophilia by members of the religious right and government ministers, including the premier.
The fervour of the hatred was a wake up call to many Albertans who did become involved by expressing their support for the Supreme Court decision.
http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAN.....filax.html
Polygamy will never be legal. But when it is, youÂ’ 20-01-07, 1:00 pm @ The Politic