Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
They don't have to right now. They can be considered common-law couples, and get most of the same benefits. Traditional sensibility and biology typically hold them back too. However, once you allow for polygamy, which is a slam-dunk the moment anyone challenges some of these polygamists (at least, thats what the BC Attorney General intimated), its a whole new game.
I'm not necessarily opposed to any of this. I'm saying when you take biology and traditional sensibility out of the equation, as is clearly the case with SSM... you can not dismiss the claims that will likely come from the previously considered "lunatic fringe." Its not a slippery slope argument when you consider the wording of the charter. Plus, its not that it will happen, its that we have opened the door for it to potentially happen, a door that was previously bolted shut by biology and traditional sensibility.
|
Polygamy is already legal as long as you only marry one of the women. The others can just live with you. Same Sex marriage doesn't open the door for this at all. The biology argument actually works better for polygamy then it does for monogomy. More male seed is spread and the women are cared for. From a strictly biological stand point polygamy is quite common in animals.
As well the use of the term "traditional Sensability" seems to me to be a term resistant to change. It goes along the lines of women shouldn't vote, children should be seen and not heard, 10% of your income should go to the church, the king gets to sleep with a new bride first. All kinds of outdated cultural norms can be defended with the term traditional sensability.
Anyways all of these slippery slope issues is just more reason that the government should get out of the marriage buisness.