In response to George Freeman’s outstanding post on same-sex marriage, commenter Bright provides a lovely egalitarian interpretation of marriage. Talk about lowering the bar:
actually, if you had any common sense, you’d realize that nothing distinguishes any married couple regardless of gender, beyond societies decision to treat them so…we’ve never been able to measure love. all we can do, is note the bonds people declare between each other.
I suppose that it would be hard on the basis of this loose definition to find anything bad to say about plural marriages. After all, it’s really hard to go out and collect the empirical evidence necessary to measure “love” in relationships and, anyway, what right do we have to pass judgment on the bonds that these many people have declared for one another? I mean, what difference is there between polygamous and traditional families besides the ways that society has decided to treat them?
I love the fact that someone will appear in the comments to inform us for the gazillionth time that same-sex marriage will not lead to polygamy. Ironic that, given that dumbing down the definition of marriage is a prerequisite for any acceptance of same-sex marriage and, it turns out, polygamous relationships as well.
C wrote:
I’m confused. You use a quote that specifically talks about “any married COUPLE”, and then ask the question ” I mean, what difference is there between polygamous and traditional families besides the ways that society has decided to treat them?”
Now, being unable to count — that really is dumbing down.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 4:10 am | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
“In response to George Freeman’s outstanding post on same-sex marriage…”
Damn. I thought I had been following all of George’s posts on same sex marriage, but I certainly missed the “outstanding” one. Could you provide a link?
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 6:05 am | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
(Sorry, George. You know I didn’t mean it. It’s just that there are some straight lines that are irresistible.)
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 6:47 am | Permalink
cherenkov wrote:
“I love the fact that someone will appear in the comments to inform us for the gazillionth time that same-sex marriage will not lead to polygamy.”
That’s very pro-active of you. “My opinion is the only one that counts. Debate is not welcome here”. Geeze.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 7:22 am | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
“I love the fact that someone will appear in the comments to inform us for the gazillionth time that same-sex marriage will not lead to polygamy. Ironic that, given that dumbing down the definition of marriage is a prerequisite for any acceptance of same-sex marriage and, it turns out, polygamous relationships as well.”
The latest discussion had nothing to do with whether or not polygamy could result from the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Rather, it was focussed on discussing the equivalence of traditional marriage and same-sex marriage of couples. As for re-introducing polygamy into this debate - it was as predictable as the sunrise this morning.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 9:23 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Funny how “… someone will appear in the comments to inform us for the gazillionth time that same-sex marriage will not lead to polygamy.”
Yes, and they won’t say much else; just tell us we are clearly homophobic bigots for even thinking one should be reasonable on this matter.
Rather deadly earnest creatures, don’t you think? :-)
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 9:30 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Clearly Ryan has not been reading very closely, or at least not thinking about that which he was reading. I’ve raised potential for “plural marriages” from the start.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 9:32 am | Permalink
Clay wrote:
The issue of polygamy has always been on the table. Same sex marriage is a separate issue, so regardless of the SSM legislation, polygamy inevitably would have been brought before the courts. Long before same sex marriage was allowed in Canada law enforcement agencies have been avoiding pursuing polygamists in fear of the inevitable challenges that could arise.
Again, there is NO CONNECTION between same sex marriage and polygamy. (Except that someday I might possibly have the right to two or more husbands)
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 10:01 am | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
As we have explained, the new definition of marriage—the arbitrary two persons—makes a successful such court challenge of greater likelihood, so there is an obvious connection.
Hopefully you don’t marry husbands who have fits of passion, jealous of your affections going elsewhere. :-) Pledges of fidelity are harder to maintain the more “persons” that are privy to them. It’s simple mathematics, really: more variables.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 10:12 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
And hopefully you find ANY woman to go on a date with so that you don’t loose hope for your own marriage. Pray to (g)od she is a patient woman, George, because she will need it in order to live with your inability to accept something from another point of view. And as you so rightly point out, men and women are very different.
This leads me to wonder how clearly wrong George’s future dates will be on everything, and how much they clearly won’t understand him, or listen to him? He certainly doesn’t think that anyone here gets it, except, of course, Aaron, who thinks he is outstanding. I wonder if Aaron can get George a date?
Is this a likely scenario for a first date with George?
George: Oh, this is a nice restaurant, don’t you think? It has everything a restaurant should have: food, waiters, washrooms, menues, beer.
Date: Why yes, I do think this is indeed a nice restaurant (smiles).
George: Oh, and the menu has exactly what I expect and like. The only thing worth eating, though, is the fish. Do you like fish?
Date: Not really, I prefer chicken.
George: (to himself) oh good, she isn’t a lesbian, they can’t have sex you know (to date) Oh, but it is Friday.
Date: Yes, Friday it is, I think I will have the chicken.
George: Weren’t you listening to me?
Date: Excuse me?
George: You do understand that it is Friday, right? AND everyone knows what that means.
Date: But I don’t like fish, besides, this isn’t the stone ages anymore.
George: So then, you aren’t a lesbian, which is good because they can’t have sex with women, but you still don’t want to eat fish, because that is the best and only dish worth eating here at this perfect restaurant, which I specifically chose to take you to, because it is Friday, and I always bring dates here. This is so frustrating.
Date: What time is it?
George: Why?
Date: Just wondering.
Waiter: Are you ready to order?
George: Two orders of fish please. One for me, and one for the lady, isn’t she pretty and smart? Can you take our picture? No one actually believes that I am here on a date. This will show them, goddamn gay activists ruin everything.
George trys to hand the camera to the Waiter who backs up a bit.
Date: But…
George: (trying to regain his cool) Oh, and a bottle of beer for myself, and some white wine to go with the fish. By the way, do you want one piece of fish or two?
Date: Uh, one, I guess.
Geoerge: Oh good, so you aren’t a polygamist nor a lesbian, excellent.
Waiter and Date look at eachother like “is this guy for real?” Waiter motions towards the back of the restaurant.
Date: Excuse me for a second.
George: (Standing up in order to show to the world how polite he is) Certainly!
Date walks to the back of the restaurant where the waiter lets her out through the back door.
Waiter returns with two plates of fish to find George still waiting.
George: What is taking that woman so long? She looked pretty enough, and she isn’t a lesbian. Doesn’t she understand how perfect this restaurant is and that it is Friday? Is she really that earnest?
Waiter: (rolling his eyes) Enjoy your meals, sir. The lady has left.
George: Excuse me? I can’t eat two plates full of fish, I am NOT a polygamist.
Waiter: So, should I just bring you the bill, then sir?
George: No one understands me, nor listens to me.
Waiter leaves and returns with the bill.
Waiter: See you next week sir?
George: Of course, maybe next time I will find a woman who doesn’t like fish, but will eat it because it is Friday.
Waiter: Yes sir, there is always hope.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 11:00 am | Permalink
bright wrote:
excellent! that’s cool, i’m an unrepentant bar lowerer. i just call it democratization.
and actually, i do see a continuum here, that would include legalizing polygamy at a certain point. sorry, ste… i hope that doesn’t offend you.
the thing is, i’m really trying to stick to a legal ideal. i believe that marriage is a right guaranteed by the first amendment in the united states, though i don’t believe i’ve ever seen that argued. i don’t know what legal loops you canadians are putting marriage through, but at it’s heart, my definition stems from “free association” and that mysterious right to privacy. you should be able to marry whomever you want and be however kinky you wish. now, polygamy would be a huge kettle of fish, and i know i wouldn’t personally choose it… but is there actually a reason it should be illegal? i would never say pedophilia falls in that category. kids are protected from all sorts of aspects of adult society, and i see no reason that should change. but consenting adult permutations of love should all be fair game in my opinion. i’m not lowering the bar. i’m just embiggening my set.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
“Clearly Ryan has not been reading very closely, or at least not thinking about that which he was reading. I’ve raised potential for “plural marriages†from the start.”
Yes, I’ve been reading closely. You raised the following gem for which you found no takers.
“I don’t know what the future holds for it, but I do suspect that polygamy is around the corner.”
But this was more of a digression (charitably speaking) than anything. It didn’t seem to support your main argument and was not responding to arguments being made by others. The discussion thread focussed on the equivalency between the marriages of same sex and heterosexual couples. Therefore, clearly, it was appropriate for me to say that the discussion had nothing to do with polygamy because there was no discussion of it; other than you throwing it into a post and having it thrown back at you as an example of the tactics you employ in debating.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
No offense taken Bright as your intent is clearly different from George’s when bringing up the topic.
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
Canadian Cynic: 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 wrote:
[…] known only to us and all of these empty beer bottles strewn about on the floor.”P.S. “No, we’re not done yet. Why do you […]
Posted on 31-Oct-07 at 2:09 pm | Permalink