Liberals popularity rising

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 24 2005, 03:57 PM
The problem with siblings getting married is that incest can lead to genetic disorders should they procreate. In priciple I'm not opposed to anything between two or more consenting adults, but there's larger issues with incestuous relationships.

Not all "incestuous relationships" would have genetic disorder issues or even possibilities.

Two brothers marry? Or two sisters?

The door is wide open for that arguement right now. It COULD happen.

Edit, or Father/son, Mother/daughter. I hate to think of the twisted individuals that could exploit their own and cover it all up by marrying them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 24 2005, 03:08 PM
I am even more certain that Liberals, in their politically driven image of not wanting to harm the feelings of any one particular group, completely fudged this thing up to the point that it has become a very polarizing issue in Canada.

It's not a polarizing issue in Canada. It's not an issue for the vast majority of the citizens. Millions I'm sure don't even know that it's legal.

It's not on the news, it's not in the paper, it's not water-cooler conversation, it's a non-event for everyone save those directly affected by it.

The only time I ever hear about it is on this message board.

The title of this thread is "Liberals popularity rising". What does that tell you?
If it was a big issue and the majority of Canadians (as you've suggested) were up in arms over this, wouldn't the Liberals be, you know, less popular for doing it?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Oct 24 2005, 03:20 PM
Not all "incestuous relationships" would have genetic disorder issues or even possibilities.

Two brothers marry? Or two sisters?

The door is wide open for that arguement right now. It COULD happen.

Edit, or Father/son, Mother/daughter. I hate to think of the twisted individuals that could exploit their own and cover it all up by marrying them.

No, that argument is NOT available.

The "hook" onto which the legal argument for gay marriage was attached was the fact that people in Canada have a RIGHT not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.

No such right exists for incest, beasteality, etc. In fact incest and beasteality are illegal.

Honestly, Shawnsky, T99 and the rest of you taking up that argument have no business accusing anyone else of being fearmongerers if you're going to make ridiculous arguments like this.

Is legalizing gay marriage going to lead to people clamouring for the legalization of incestuous marriages?

Let me ask you this: Did the legalization of homosexual acts lead to a big push to legalize incestuous acts? Beasteality?

If the slope is so slippery, why has nothing slid down in 50 years?

In reality, the only "deviant" lifestyle that is in any "danger" of having to be recognized is polygamy, and the legal "hook" for that argument is Freedom of Religion. So if you want to blame something for opening the doors to immorality, blame those stupid people who demanded the right to practice Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam free of gov't control.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 24 2005, 04:48 PM
No such right exists for incest, beasteality, etc. In fact incest and beasteality are illegal.

And just how long ago was homosexuality illegal? You even noted such in your post. It WAS illegal.

Now it isn't.

Try to close your eyes to it as much as you like, this possibility IS in the future. And maybe not too distant at that. All it takes is for one "couple" to challenge the law, and the courts could side with them. Laws evolve.

Now if that were the case I assume that you would fight for their rights to be married as well. Correct?

[Resolute 14]

Really, there are three issues down the slope that anti-gay activists often bring up: incest, bestiality, polygamy. All three are illegal.

Beastiality, for the obvious reason that it is animal abuse.

The other two, aside from being seriously creepy, why are they illegal? 50 years ago, homosexuality was seriously creepy and illegal as well.

As Shawnski says, times and laws evolve. In these cases, obviously slower, as it is extremely likely that there are not nearly as many practitioners of incest or polygamy as there are homosexuals, and quite frankly, society would mistreat such people, just as it did homosexuals in the past.

Regardless, it is a valid argument, by what right do you, or anyone have to discriminate against two, or more, adults for their choice of partner(s)?

I do not see why you get to pick and choose how far down this path you get to go.

[WCE]

I do not see why you get to pick and choose how far down this path you get to go

Why should Heterosexuals get the right to marry than? Why should they be picked?

If it is procreation, should the infirtile not get to walk down your path?

If it's the preservation of the family unit, should those who get divorced be banned from walking down your path again?

[Azure]

Originally posted by DementedReality@Oct 23 2005, 10:34 PM
why do you care about other peoples relationships ? i fail to see how it effects anyone else but them and why its anyone else's business.

it has no bearing on economy, safety of the citizens, nor the enviroment. why should it be of the governments concerns to legislate?

if its against your religion, fine, dont support a religion that doesnt share your values. but if its simply to do with your religion, its none of your business.

really, why even waste energy caring about other people's relationship structure ?

dr

What business does that government have at all with the whole issue of marriage?

[Shawnski]

And Mike, I am going to demonstrate how, with the current gay marriage legislation in place, that yes, as of right now, some of my above combinations are arguable in a court of law.

Yes, incest is illegal. But how does the law define incest?

Under

PART V SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT (Criminal Code)

155. (1) Every one commits incest who, knowing that another person is by blood relationship his or her parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild, as the case may be, has sexual intercourse with that person.

So, the definition of sexual intercourse represents the interactions of a man and a woman only (see copulation, coitus, penis/vagina). This little tidbit is paramount in the argument.

The reason "incest" is illegal is the chance of reproduction with genetic side effects. There can be no such side effects in a male/male or female/female situation. Bill C-38 specifically changed the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act in order to specifically address this male/male and female/female possibility by changing this clause:

Clause 13: Existing text of subsection 2(2):
(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related
(a) lineally by consanguinity or adoption;
(b) as brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by the half-blood; or
© as brother and sister by adoption.

With this one:

13. Subsection 2(2) of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act is replaced by the following:
(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption.

Now, this change goes into uncharted waters. No longer can Clause 13.2 be supported by the "incest"/genetic anomalies argument, therefore it can be challenged in court for many reasons INCLUDING sexual orientation.

And you might ask how many might really do this? Well, you might be surprised. First, there are some really strange people in this world, but that aside, there is a single reason anyone does anything. Money. There are a LOT of "life partners" out there in brother/brother, sister/sister, father/son or mother/daughter combinations that for tax purposes alone (or other monetary benefits), might chose this route.

The door IS open for a serious challenge IF anyone sees this as a loophole. And hey, if I can see it, someone else will.

[Hakan]

Gay marriage leads to bestiality and bigamy?

Is that where does the slippery slope begins?

Without heterosexual marriage, gays and lesbians wouldn't have the idea to get married in the first place. So maybe marriage itself is the problem that leads to bigamy, incest and bestiality and all those concerned about those moral wrongs should be diverting their energies towards banning marriage as a whole?

Oh wait... that wont do will it?

Neither will your bullshinguard slippery slope arguments then.

:roll:

[transplant99]

Honestly, Shawnsky, T99 and the rest of you taking up that argument have no business accusing anyone else of being fearmongerers if you're going to make ridiculous arguments like this.

You'd be dangerous if you could read and comprehend.

Its not my argument...its from the side that your not on.

I just happen to understand that both sides have valid arguments, something you are clearly unable to do.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Oct 24 2005, 06:00 PM
And Mike, I am going to demonstrate how, with the current gay marriage legislation in place, that yes, as of right now, some of my above combinations are arguable in a court of law.

Now, this change goes into uncharted waters. No longer can Clause 13.2 be supported by the "incest"/genetic anomalies argument, therefore it can be challenged in court for many reasons INCLUDING sexual orientation.

What exactly are you saying?

Are you saying that because there isn't a good reason underlying the law it is open to be challanged? That because brother-brother/sister-sister sex doesn't count as incest (which I'm not sold on, but will let pass for the sake of argument), then there's no good reason to prohibit incestuous marriages and so it's challangable?

If that's the case then you'll be in for a rude awakening when I tell you that Parliament doesn't need reasons or logic to make laws. Section 91(27) of the Constitution give Parliament the power to make criminal law and 91(26) the power to make laws regarding marriage and divorce -- period. End of discussion. No qualifications.

So long as Parliament validly enacts a law under one of it's Constitutionally mandated heads of power there's only one thing you can do to challange it, and that is to find some way to say it vilates a Charter guarantee. And given that opposite sex incestuous marriages are illegal, you can't challange it as discriminitory.

So unless you can find some other Charter ground under which to challange the the prohibition of incestuous marriages, you're out of luck and are still just fearmongering.

[WCE]

I talked to someone I know tonight who is on the opposite side of the fence from me on this issue.

He told me that gay marriage would be bad because two men or two women cannot establish the needed relationships with children in order for a healthy upbringing...And gay marriage would increase the number of children adopted by gay couples.

Is this another common thought amongst those who also champion the slippery slope argument?

So we as a society have no quams about not restricting the rights to procreate for crack whores, dead beats, the incompetent, the improvrished, the racists,the wife beaters, the zealots, the uncaring or those of us who are unfit...

But two men cannot raise a healthy child?

Maybe the real problems of society are easier to fade away from with an easier target? Not sure.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 24 2005, 08:18 PM
What exactly are you saying?

Are you saying that because there isn't a good reason underlying the law it is open to be challanged? That because brother-brother/sister-sister sex doesn't count as incest (which I'm not sold on, but will let pass for the sake of argument), then there's no good reason to prohibit incestuous marriages and so it's challangable?

It is quite straight forward.

The inclusion of male/male or female/female relationships is clearly outside the current legal definitions of "incest". Based on Charter Rights, by saying these relationships are in fact incestual could be a violation based on sexual orientation as they are arguably NOT incestual by law.

Regardless of your foot down, "end of discussion" tantrum, NO ONE can say how this would be viewed if it goes to the Supreme Court, so save me your pathetic theatrics.

And given that opposite sex incestuous marriages are illegal, you can't challange it as discriminitory.

So any activity that is "illegal" cannot be challenged as discriminitory? What the hell is the Charter of Rights all about if it isn't to "protect" the people (rightly or wrongly) from laws or practices deemed "illegal"?

If the Government of Canada made a law saying it was illegal to have gays ONLY allowed to marry other gay people, would that not be something to be challenged? Geezus man. The whole point of this is that an existing "law" has now been opened for discussion and possible challenge based ON the implementation of Bill C-38.

The ONLY way that a law cannot be evaluated by the Charter is if the Notwithstanding Clause is involked. All others are fair game.

you're out of luck and are still just fearmongering.

Quite interesting that you have once again used the fearmongering BS.

Like TS, I am just showing the issue, I am not taking a side. I do this type of thing for a living (look for loopholes needing to be closed, follow processes trees to absolute completion, etc). All I am saying here is that under the current legislation, yes, one would have to be either blind or brainwashed to think that the possibility does NOT exist.

EVERYTHING is possible, until all options to MAKE IT POSSIBLE have been tried, and have failed. This one seems clear enough that a high-school law student could see the possibilities. Why cannot you?