Just to show you that Canadian conservatives can be just as silly as American ones: PM threatens snap election.
I've never been a big fan of the "slippery slope" argument on gay marriage. Whatever problems there may be with gay marriage, it's still (in theory) a union between two equals. The same is not true for polygamy, bestiality, or any of the other roads people say marriage may go if gay marriage is allowed. That's a pretty sharp dividing line, and a pretty easy place to stop a slide down a slope if you will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Call me reasonable, but doesn't the traditional definition of marriage seem like the sharp dividing line here? Once you change that, polygamy seems a given--there's not even a slope there. A union between three consenting adults? Why not? I'm not sure I'm against polygamy (or gay marriage), but it's silly to claim that there's an essential difference, except that one group has a well-organized lobby (and larger bloc of social opinion) on its side. If marriage can be made to include people of the same sex, it can easily be changed to include more than two people. And I'd say that historically there's much broader support for polygamy than gay marriage.
I think I have to agree with Anonymous here. The problem seems mainly to be a contextual one. We tend to associate polygamy with societies that have traditionally subjugated women (such as we find in some Muslim countries -- or, using more extreme examples, in cults such as have provided fodder for sensational movies-of-the-week), and therefore assume that polygamy is by definition a union between unequal parties. Some Muslims themselves would say that this isn't so, which is certainly up for debate, but not all polygamous relationships are unequal. On the other hand, some gay relationships, like some straight relationships, *are* unions of unequal partners. I think those lobbying for polygamy to have equal consideration as gay marriage have a good case, if not necessarily a politically correct one.
That's not to say that Stephen Harper isn't silly. Or Paul Martin, for that matter. But my favourite in this article was the ever-laughable Jack Layton, whose statement was tantamount to saying: "If you believe in freedom, you'll curtail your MPs' ability to vote freely." Buh?
Beyond the fact that I find it very interesting how quickly people are willing to compare gay marriage to polygamy or worse, I think that the promotion of monogomous relationships has a role to play in why gay marriage ought to be allowed and the others not. At least that would seem like a conservative argument to make. For me marriage is about two people who are in love and want to share a life together under a social and legal contract that provides very specific concrete benefits. It is also about fighting bigotry against classes of people. furthermore, unless anyone has ever argued for polygamy as a biological/genetic trait, I think the difference ought to be obvious. despite what conservatives seem to think, it is highly unlikely that young men, say, just choose to be gay. they are gay. Just as I am straight. It is who I am. Can anyone similarly argue for polygamy? God knows heterosexuals have made enough of a mockery of marriage. Now many of them want to keep people who seem genuinely committed to the idea from partaking. Lots of people are on the wrong side of history onm this one, and I plan to remember names.
Post a Comment