Harper

[RightWinger]

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges?

Who are you to decide?

I see the similarity in all of it. It is not a traditional defintion of marriage, but it is a practised thing just like gay marriage. Where is that line you draw? I would love to know, so that I don't cross it!!!

First, all of our social institutions and laws regarding marriage are set up to deal with two people. It is not a big deal to extend these laws to include gays. Extending them to cover polgamy is not trivial (i.e. how would divorce work).

Second, polygamy is generally a bad deal for the woman and only exists in societies where the rights of women are supressed. Futhermore, these societies have to isolate and expel young men in order to make the polygamous math work out (in old times they would just be killed).

In short, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to make the case that the benefits to allowing polygamy out weigh the social harms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lots of these women do not feel suppressed. Why can't we change the laws on marriage to more than 2 people, if we intend to change it for gays anyway???

Ok then the case is the social harm it does?

Does gays & lesbians cause any social harm towards the public?

Maybe hindering people's religious beliefs or changing the school curriculum to include gay sex studies??? Do you want your children learning how to preform anal sex? with pictures and such? If a school was to include gay sex ed. you would need to explain this. If this isn't proper then why???

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

[willy]

Society decides, through our institutions. I am merely telling you what I think that decision will be. If it were up to me to decide, i'D have civil unions for everyne and no government dfinition of 'marriage' at all

It may be a first but I agree TTS.

Now of all the things that are possible to legislate on in Ottawa is this really what it always has to come down to SSM.

Good and meaningful discussions that we can have:

Victims rights

Parliamentary reform

Provincial rights/separation of powers

Government delivery of services vs. NGOs or private partnerships

Wow all the good disagreements we can have that will actually impact the majority of our lives.

[RightWinger]

Polygamy is an apples to oranges situation.  SSM is a red apples/green apples situation.

Don't you think it is the next thing to face Canadians? And if it does why is their case so apples to oranges?

As I already noted, marriage is a state sanction for a PAiR-bond. Homosexual couples wanted l access to a state sanctioned system which they were denied because of sex discrimnation. Polygamists are ot being denied something otherwise availale on discriminatory grounds. Rather, the relationship which they establish does not meet the state's objectives. Or put another way, the states ojectives for marriage can be met by homosexual couples, but (depending on the objective) not by groups of multiple persons.

Who are you to decide?

Society decides, through our institutions. I am merely telling you what I think that decision will be. If it were up to me to decide, i'D have civil unions for everyne and no government dfinition of 'marriage' at all

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem I see with society deciding is, we are going to let our MP's decide this and as of last week they were basically deadlocked. Also, if it is such and important matter, why not let it be a free vote open to the public? Don't you think the majority of Canadians think it is morally wrong?? Isn't that a democracy?

When we voted in our MP's we never discussed them voting on a same sex marriage issue for us or is that not a right? These same MP's that have voted for SSM bill, are presenting petitions from their constituents against SSM. How must their constituents feel that their rep is voting against their wishes?? Chuck Cadman will let you believe he voted for his constituents, what about the rest?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Don't you think the majority of Canadians think it is morally wrong??

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed.

I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns.

[RightWinger]

Don't you think the majority of Canadians think it is morally wrong??

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed.

I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone listen to sweal, throw your morals out the window and lets get this gay marriage law passed! Brilliant sweal!! And you say I have idiotic posts.

[cdnstiff]

Who cares! Get the SSM bill passed and move on!

This bill is just a diversion from a lot of important issues anyway.

Don't you think the majority of Canadians think it is morally wrong??

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed.

I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone listen to sweal, throw your morals out the window and lets get this gay marriage law passed! Brilliant sweal!! And you say I have idiotic posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Terrible Sweal]

Don't you think the majority of Canadians think it is morally wrong??

I think a small majority of Canadians think it should be allowed.

I also don't think laws should be driven by superstiuous moralistic concerns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone listen to sweal, throw your morals out the window and lets get this gay marriage law passed! Brilliant sweal!! And you say I have idiotic posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. For example ...

[mirror]

Well the jury is in. Here are the results of a Macleans unscientific poll.

The Globe runs unscientific polls on a regular basis, and although they are unscientific they generally provide some kind of an indicator of how Canadians are feeling on the various issues of the day.

Do you think Stephen Harper’s summer on the BBQ circuit has made him more likely to attract votes?

Yes  27%

No  73%

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well the jury is in. Here are the results of a Macleans unscientific poll.

The Globe runs unscientific polls on a regular basis, and although they are unscientific they generally provide some kind of an indicator of how Canadians are feeling on the various issues of the day.

Do you think Stephen Harper’s summer on the BBQ circuit has made him more likely to attract votes?

Yes  27%

No  73%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What BBQ circuit? All I saw all summer was a photo of him looking eight months pregnant and trying to do a poor imitation of Gary Cooper.

[mirror]

Well, here's some good news for Harper, I think.

September 8, 2005

[August1991]

This is standing up to the Yanks, and Canucks like that.

Spake Kinsella.

How sad that he might be right. "Standing up to the Yanks" is like the kid in school making a face while walking back to his seat.

Incidentally, Harper made the point that if the Americans don't respect the dispute settling mechanism, then I guess there's good reason to believe we don't have a dispute settling mechanism.

As to Kinsella's underlying point, cheesy politicians (the kind Kinsella seems to work with) play counter to stereotype. The best politicians say what they'll do and then get elected and try tro do it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

How sad that he might be right. "Standing up to the Yanks" is like the kid in school making a face while walking back to his seat.

Perhaps in Harper's case, (perhaps not) but the 'Yanks' are in serious trouble. Their dollar is 'wearing the Emperor's New Clothes' and they refuse to face the fact that the status quo is soon to change, and they are ill prepared for it.

Incidentally, Harper made the point that if the Americans don't respect the dispute settling mechanism, then I guess there's good reason to believe we don't have a dispute settling mechanism.

The US has always relied on the M-16 as their 'dispute settling mechanism', so perhaps we should be taking our trade elsewhere.

The best politicians say what they'll do and then get elected and try tro do it.

Unfortunately, these types of 'best politicians' are as rare as 'hen's teeth'.