Posted on 02/18/2005 12:52:10 PM PST by longtermmemmory
Fox new just reported that the Canadian Prime Minister is NOT going to allow liberal party members a free vote. This, in parlementary forms of goverment, menas that other liberal party members may not break rank and vote their concience. It their system, unless a free vote is allowed, the party members HAVE to tow the party line. A free vote WAS promised...
Fox is reporting that there are now enough votes to allow for marriage based on recreational sex of two adults alone. They will ATTEMPT to limit marriage to two "people".
The FNC story is also corrected from a PRIOR mistake they made. They MISREPORTED that this will not affect the USA. It does because a US citizen is permitted to obtain a spousal visa based on a foreign marriage. The 1996 DOMA precludes this but it ALREADY under attack in federal courts based on denial of a visa.
Why would fox make such a sloppy mistake unless somebody wants homosexual marriage in the USA in their research department (do reporters have researchers?)
ping
Not allowing people to vote whichever way they feel? And Canada calls itself a democracy?
Really?
As I understand it, and as it has been reported in Canada for months, Paul Martin was only imposing a "two-line whip".
That means that the cabinet would have to vote for the legislation, but that the Liberal backbenchers were free to vote against it.
If he's changed his position on this, then he must have been expecting to lose the vote (at least 1/3 of the Liberal backbenchers are on record as opposing SSM).
That is what I am seeing.
He was ok with an open vote as long as he thought he could strongarm a win. Now that it is apparent he would loose, he is pulling the promise of an open vote.
Typical left. (he must have hired Saddams election coordinator)
I don't like any of it, but frankly, polygamy is not as morally offensive as "gay" marriage.
Abraham, David, Solomon...they were polygamous.
Not saying "That's good!"
But I am saying that it does not stand in the same place as Sodom and Gemorrah.
And actually, if we think about it, polygamy is normal among almost a billion people in the world. This is not some sort of freak show out of nowhere. Gay marriage is.
How curious, then, that advocates of libertinism are so willing to fight to the death for same sex marriage, but unwilling to entertain a concept of RELIGIOUS tolerance (towards Middle Eastern Muslims and old-line Mormons) for polygamy.
The best answer is: none of the above.
But if you've GOTTA have some strange marriage law, it would seem to me that polygamy has more rationality, religion and history behind it than gay marriage, which is nothing but a strange modern political confection aimed at getting benefits and compelling recognition.
Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Polygamy is less radical than homosexual marriage because it is based on the complementary nature of the sexes, just as monogamy is. Polygamy is not group marriage. Several people of one sex are each married to one person of the opposite sex.
If marriage is redefined to include homosexual couplings, I see no logical reason to continue to outlaw polygamy.
both of you are dancing around a single point.
Homosexual marriage is ONLY about recreational sex between adults. It is removing children from marraige and turning marrige into an adult only activity.
This is what the ABA model divorce code seeks to do. (I wonder if Sandra DAy, will now look to canadian law for marriage rules)
Society rewards the insititution not the individual. I do not agree with legalizing polygamy but I do see your points IF it is argued in the context of a society maximizing the production of future natural born citizens.
It is not my intent to argue that polygamy should be legalized.
Please post links that state that Paul Marting will not allow free votes in Parliament. I don't believe that this story is accurate.
Sorry, the left won't care about polygamy, but they are all for polyamory, so that groups of people of any sex can marry. That is the logical result of the abandonment of the traditional definition of marriage.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Will it be illegal in this brave new world of ours for a man to marry his son?
Also, it is currently not legal for a brother to marry his sister, but is it still illegal for them to shack up as boyfriend and girlfriend?
How about shacking up with pets?
"Polygamy is less radical than homosexual marriage"
Pretty tough to apply a rating at the best of times but if I really attempted to, I think I would argue the other way.
Gay marriage preserves the definition of "spouse" (one single lifetime partner) while polygamy does not.
Gay marriage allows for clearly defined marital environments while polygamy does not. Read: an adoption agency background-checking the family environment has a very distinct set of candidacy. In the case of polygamy - "well, I know he's a nutcase but he's not really the child's direct elder. He's sort of twice-removed..."
Polygamy promotes social blur. It is much more likely that you do your father's sister's cousin's auntie's daughter in a polygamic environment than in an arena that's gay/lesbian yet committed to a single lifetime partner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.