Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 14 2004, 12:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 14 2004, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 09:50 PM
Perhaps you weren't paying attention. No one has disproved the slippery slope theory when it comes to legal precedent. Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.
|
Here you go: the Federal Human Rights Commission, addressing the gay marriage issue, states flat out that that the justification for legalizing gay marriage wouldn't apply for polygamy:
This Committee has also heard arguments that a change in the legislation would prompt unions of various sorts, including polygamy and others. The reason we see the ban on same-sex civil marriages as discrimination is because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is included in our Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as unlawful because Parliament chose to include it in the legislation. Canadian human rights law has not extended the definition of sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions
And even if you ignored this, the fact that it's been 40 years since we legalized gay sex and no one has challanged the incest or polygamy laws in court is proof enough that it's not naive to assume that it won't happen with gay marriage.
Now would you please drop this stupid argument. [/b][/quote]
Thank you for bringing up that source... but it doesn't solve anything except state where we stand today. All one has to do is challenge the definition of sexual orientation... which has clearly been done before to include bisexuality and homosexuality, cause you know that wasn't around since day 1. We are creating a roadmap to irreversible change. Step one, challenge the definition of sexual orientation...remember, you only need one ultra-liberal (liberal as in free thinking, not the political party) judge to say so once, and suddenly, this statement that "Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions" becomes as irrelevant as "women are not persons" stated many moons ago. Next, you follow the gays to demand legal marriage... and there's precedence all the way down the line. Thats why this needs to be put in perspective.
The reason no one has challenged polygamy is because the government is scared of it and are letting it slide for now. Polygamy is being quietly tolerated, but you know they are licking their lips at the idea of gays getting this... here's some bedtime reading on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html
Note this paragraph:
"It soon became evident that the BC government would not proceed with charges. The government concluded that if charges were laid against the polygamists, they would raise the issue of their religious freedom as a defense under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end, the BC government was afraid they would lose such a challenge says BC Attorney General, Geoff Plant."
But yeah, I'm out in outer space here... they are afraid to bring this to life, cause they know they will lose this one, and the definitions will be changed, just like I've been saying. Now, once the gays are allowed to marry, thats gonna seriously tip the scales in the polygamist favor, and don't try to pretend it won't. Every piece of legislation helps, especially one where a minority group demands special rights and gets it. Technically, according to the Charter, it would be illegal for the government to grant special privledges to one group and not another.
Incest is something that god willing, will never be legalized or decriminalized. But, who knows... we go down this road, get gays and polygamists married... maybe the brothers and uncles might get ideas and form associations. Just because it won't happen within 10 minutes of gay marriage approving doesn't mean it won't happen as a direct or indirect result of it down the line. The population might be staunchly opposed to it, 99% to 1%, but politicians and lawmakers have to adhere to the charter...