Friday, August 19, 2005

Divorced Father Wants Right to Marry His Daughter

Paul Martin’s federal liberals officially passed a law which redefines marriage. Marriage in Canada is now defined as, “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

The liberals and homosexual advocates adopted this new definition, because they claimed that the 6,000 year old definition we were using until 2003 was discriminatory. They argue that by redefining marriage this way, discrimination is now a thing of the past. Or is it? Consider the scenario found in the comments of an anonymous reader to this blog. He writes,

“I am a 50-year-old divorced father who is very much in love with his 25-year-old daughter and she is deeply in love with me.

Our relationship just started a few years back, shortly after her 23rd birthday.

She and I love each other very much and would also like the right to marry. After all, we fit the criteria established by advocates of SSM - we're two consenting adults and we're not hurting anybody else. As well, I had a vasectomy, and we're not going to be having children.

I look forward to the gay community - and straight people who support SSM - to now champion my cause. Surely, to avoid being accused of hypocrisy, you must do so. You can't argue that my relationship is "morally reprehensible" because that would make you no different than those you attack for not supporting SSM.

And if your argument is that incest is illegal, well so too was homosexuality at one point. And if it were today, would you be arguing that SSM is wrong because homosexuality is illegal? No, you would argue to first change the law making homosexuality legal THEN allowing gays to marry.

If marriage being "one man to one woman" is deemed unconstitutional, then certainly "two people" is exclusionary as well by definition.

If we're in love, we're consenting adults, and we're not hurting anyone else, what's the problem I ask the SSM advocates?

Anyway, I look forward to all the supporters of SSM supporting my cause and applauding me, because I know they don't want to be accused of hypocrisy.

Imagine two gay men getting outraged at people who do not understand or embrace their relationship and then those same two turn to me and tell me my relationship is wrong.”


If you were a supporter of same-sex marriage and you disagree with this father’s position, then you may want to ask yourself just how tolerant and accepting you really are.

24 Comments:

At 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the hell is going on here? I feel totally left out and forgotten.

What about me? Why am I being left out of this debate? Why are homosexuals, heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage, and now you can include those wanting the right to marry their adult children amongst them, leaving me out of this discussion? I feel hurt! I thought we were supposed to be a tolerant, inclusive and progressive society?

My two girlfriends and me are deeply in love and would like the right to marry also. So what about us, huh???

How can heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage, homosexuals who actually benefit from it, and now incestuous couples who want the definition further changed to include them, argue that they should be given the right to marry their respective partners but that my two girlfriends and me shouldn't be granted the same right? Why the lack of a consistent arguing point by these people?

Do you know what it's like every day for my two girlfriends and me to walk down the street, hand-in-hand-in-hand together? We are laughed at -- totally mocked and humiliated, just as gays and lesbians once were, and still are today in some cases.

The best way to change that -- and same-sex marriage advocates would have to agree -- is to have us become full-fledged members of society by expanding the definition of marriage from what they once called the discriminatory "one man to one woman" definition to the newly discriminatory (and now gay accepted), "between two people" definition.

Even though I am not homosexual, I championed the cause of the gay community when they were out there fighting for the right to marry.

At many rallies attended by my two girlfriends and me (was actually three girlfriends a few months back, but the third left over a bed issue -- overcrowding), we had our fists raised high in the air and shouted, "End discrimination NOW!!!” and carried placards that read “Show tolerance toward ‘alternative relationships!!!’"

”Nice sign,” one gay couple told me. ”We thank you and your ‘friends’ for the support.” (He didn’t know the four of us were lovers. He and his boyfriend must have had a ”narrowly-defined definition” of what constitutes a relationship, I suppose.)

My three girlfriends and me marched hand-in-hand-in-hand-in-hand in all the various rallies, demonstrations and protests. Moreover, we seemed welcome by the other demonstrators. They felt the more the merrier, and the bigger the crowd the better. And the more people speaking with one "united" voice, the better it would be to advance their cause. But now, of course, I see in retrospect that me and my two girlfriends (three, I mean ... I still love Gloria too … but she moved to Utah) were used in order to support the gay community’s agenda and that they now have no intention of supporting ours. So much for a "united" voice to change the definition of marriage to include "alternative relationships." What a complete betrayal!

Too often I hear homosexuals -- and heterosexual supporters of same-sex marriage -- argue that the definition as it now stands is now just and does not need further tweaking.

What kind of hypocrisy is that? Oh, I see how it works now: get your foot in the door (gays) with the support of people like me and then once fully inside, the two of you (gays and heterosexual supporters of SSM) now want to slam the door shut, preventing people like me (as well as that father who wants to marry his adult daughter) from joining the club of those who want nothing more than to marry those they are in love with in "mutually consenting adult relationships."

Well, isn't that just peachy! So much for the "left" advocating on behalf of the rights of minority groups in society! (Aren't we in more need of protection, tolerance and outright acceptance since we're an even tinier minority than the gay community??? And since they’ve now defined marriage as not a value and an institution but as a “right” then you must grant us the same “right,” otherwise you stand guilty of discrimination.)

I fought for gays to have the right to marry so why have they turned their back on me? Why aren't they now fighting for my ”right” to marry my two girlfriends? I am hurt. Moreover, I feel betrayed! Why are homosexuals -- and heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage -- now all of a sudden joined at the hip (no pun intended) with those who opposed same sex marriage by now claiming that marriage should be "defined" to "exclude" others? What kind of hypocrisy is that? You can’t suck and blow at the same time.

I have had many arguments on this issue with a friend of mine, John, who just happens to be gay and who just recently got married. I am astonished by his hypocrisy. And he is unfazed by my accusations of hypocrisy against him, as the following exchange between us clearly indicates...

ME: "Why shouldn't Linda, Cheryl and me have the right to marry -- the same right you now enjoy?"

JOHN: "Because, silly," he says with a mischievous smile, "marriage is between two people, and it's been that way for thousands of years."

See how he fudges the issue? He won’t seem to accept my beef and what it is I’m trying to inject into the debate.

He's a very frustrating person to deal with, hence the smirk on his face after he gave his reply. He's not bothered by accusations of hypocrisy against him. He just laughs.

Anyway, I thought I could count on him to lend some “moral support”, but I guess I was wrong.

It seems to me that the only ones being consistent in this entire debate are those who oppose same-sex marriage. They oppose changing the definition to allow gays and lesbians to marry, blood relatives to marry, and those in polygamous relationships as well. In that regard they are demonstrating their unabashed consistency by holding true to the Judeo-Christian values on which Canada was founded. I respect them for their consistency ... But supporters of same-sex marriage??? Well, that’s another story. I am astonished by their blatant hypocrisy for not championing my cause.

You either keep the definition as is (as it was) or you open it up to include everybody. If not, you must accept the label of hypocrite and wear it proudly.

On that point, I'm perplexed by the reaction I receive from the gay community -- and from non-gays who support gay marriage -- who once criticized opponents of theirs for discrimination but who are now guilty themselves of the very same thing.

Thanks for slamming the door in the faces of my two girlfriends and me.

I hope it brings you "pride"!

 
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi;
Last I heard there are sound medical reasons to prevet incest and fathers having sex with daughters etc. Genetic defects. If any children are born, there will be serious consequnces. All I had to do was walk around downtown Tripoli to see the end result of cousins marrying. Most of the ones I saw were facial disfigurement, but that was the obvious one.

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger Ken Breadner said...

Well, the SSM advocates (and I include myself here) leave procreation out of the picture (and rightly so, since 'traditional' marriage vows make no mention whatsoever of children). So in denying marriage to a father and daughter, it's not kosher to use incest itself as an argument. Nor is it fair to allude to the ever-present 'yecch' factor...that's another common denominator amongst those who are against SSM.
You can't even, in this case, cry foul on the basis of the daughter's minor status, because there isn't one: they're both consenting adults.
So there's only one argument left:
IT'S STILL...AGAINST THE LAW!
This case epitomizes the slippery-slope thinking the anti-SSM zealots warned us against. 'If guys can marry guys, well, then, fathers should marry their daughters! People should marry their dogs!'
But gay marriage and incest or bestiality have NOTHING to do with each other.
So let this father and daughter petition the Supreme Court of Canada and we'll find out if one (surely only one?) case of incest is as important as those of the literally thousands of same-sex couples who are now allowed their full humanity.
(Am aside to the anonymous triad member: YOUR case has a lot more merit, and I for one am on your side. Polygamy is and has been a recognized marital structure in many times and places (as has been same-sex marriage). Parent/offspring incest has never been accepted, except in very rare cases by royal decree--and in those cases, only applied to the royal couple.)

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The essence of the argument made by SSM advocates is this: "If gay and lesbian relationships constitute the love between "two consenting adults" then why shouldn't they be given the right to marry?"

Incest being "illegal" is a strawman argument made by you because homosexuality itself was once illegal. And if it still was, are you going to have us believe that you would not be in support of the concept of SSM? Of course not! You would still be supportive of their "right" to marry by first arguing for homosexuality to be made legal. So don't use something being "illegal" as your argument against it. It exposes hypocrisy of the worst kind.

In essence, what we have here is the SSM advocates being hoist upon their own petard, having been forced to ackowledge the inconsistency in their arguments, but being unable to do so.

 
At 12:46 PM, Blogger Michael said...

And that is not the only hypocritical comment that Mr. Breadner made.

"So let this father and daughter petition the Supreme Court of Canada and we'll find out if one (surely only one?) case of incest is as important as those of the literally thousands of same-sex couples who are now allowed their full humanity."

SSM advocates argue for judicial activism, because the majority in a democracy should not be allowed to deny the minority the right to do as they please. In this case the minority is not big enough in the mind our moraly relative friend (or is it?). I think you would be surprised how many family members would come out of the closet if it was not for the intolerance and lack of education that opponants of incest...well you know how this argument goes.

 
At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More hypocrisy by Mr Breadner.

He is hoisting SSM over consentual adult incest, regarding rights of their "full humanity"....as he described the meaning of SSM to gays.

So this is equal?

I suppose like 'hate crimes' legislation, right?

Citing illegality of incest is another hypocrisy. Plenty of illegal gay marriages made the news down in the US.....

Does Ken Breadner impune those marriages too?

NOPE!

Frank.

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last I heard there are sound medical reasons to prevet incest and fathers having sex with daughters etc.

Well, wait until you see the children produced from a male SSM.

Horny Toad

We're straight, we're great and we can pro-create!

 
At 9:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Proud" 50-year-old papa here.

Me and my daughter/girlfriend are not going to procreate. We don't want children. In fact, I had a vasectomy.

So tossing aside your non sequitur argument and red herrings if I can for a moment, come up with one good reason why - and using consistency in argument to do so - my daughter and me (two "mutually-consenting adults" in love and who aren't hurting anybody else, including you) should be denied the right to marry.

Is it because you're ... intolerant of a relationship you do not understand or accept and that you're not effected by because it's a relationship that doesn't involve you? Isn't that one of the same arguments supporters of SSM used against opponesnts? Hmmm.

One line I heard from the SSM supporters was related to Paul Martin, who of course, as PM, spearheaded the drive to legalize gay marriage.

"Do you think that by allowing same-sex marriage that Paul Martin is suddenly going to wake up the next day and want to marry another man? No, of course not! He is who he is, and allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry isn't going to change that. He is who he is and will still be married to his wife the next day."

My argument is similar:

"Do you think that by allowing incestuous marriage that Paul Martin is suddenly going to wake up the next day and want to marry one of his children? No, of course not! He is who he is, and allowing incestuous couples the right to marry isn't going to change that. He is who he is and will still be married to his wife the next day."

I don't know if you have any children (the person to whom I'm addressing) but if you do, does changing the laws mean that YOU are going to want to marry one of your children? No, of course not! You are who you are, so the changing the laws doesn't effect you..

Why are you allowing an anti-incest bias taint your comments? You must be intolerant.

It's a relationship you have no intent on pursuing so why do you want to affect the happiness of others, particularily me and my daughter who are two "mutually-consenting adults" in a "loving" relationship?

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hark!....the sound of crickets on the Liberal side of the fence.

It's too soon for this battle isn't it?

Frank

 
At 9:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Last I heard there are sound medical reasons to prevet incest and fathers having sex with daughters etc.

Well, wait until you see the children produced from a male SSM.

Horny Toad

We're straight, we're great and we can pro-create!"


Sorry if I misread your post (at least I think I misread it). Upon a second glance, it appears you are (I think) opposed to SSM as well as incestuous marriage.

If this is the case then I apologize. In fact, I commend you for your unabashed consistency, believing that marriage - if not open to everybody - should remain the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples - the very laws and principles Canada was founded upon.

It's the SSM advocates I take issue with, specifically for their inconsistency in argument.

Anyway, my apologies if I read your post wrong. It was the first point you made that initiated my typing.

Cheers!

 
At 10:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This case epitomizes the slippery-slope thinking the anti-SSM zealots warned us against. 'If guys can marry guys, well, then, fathers should marry their daughters! People should marry their dogs! But gay marriage and incest or bestiality have NOTHING to do with each other." - Ken Breadner

Notice how he "inserts" "BEASTIALITY" into the debate, attepting to mislead other readers about what's being discussed her, attepting to make the argument against him seem extreme and ridiculous.

Who's talking about bestiality? Me and my daughter are people (human beings) just as heterosexual and homosexuals are.

"So let this father and daughter petition the Supreme Court of Canada and we'll find out if one (surely only one?) case of incest is as important as those of the literally thousands of same-sex couples who are now allowed their full humanity."

I'm not asking you to support my relationship in terms of petitioning the government to amend the laws. I'm just asking if you - and people like you - if you would support, from a purely argumentative standpoint, my decision to pursure this in court. And if not, why? (And don't use that tired and worn out excuse that incest is "illegal" because you'll be forced to state whether or not you'd support SSM if homosexuality was illegal - which is was at one time. If your argument against incestuous marriage is that it's something is "currently" illegal then where did your support to "legalize" SSM begin?)

"Parent/offspring incest has never been accepted"

Define "accepted."

And keep in mind as you do that society's "tolerance" of homosexual relationships, and the affirmation and legalization of same-sex marriage, are not the same thing. One may be accepted by the public while the other is not. Don't blur the lines between the two.

Are you saying that because homosexual "relationships" are accepted to the public (including me ... I have no problem with homosexual relationships. People can do what they want) that you are also saying that, by extension, the public must also be in support of SSM? The vast majority of the public - I feel - accepts homosexual relationships. But to suggest that because they do that they also must approve of the changing of the laws to allow for SSM is simply misleading. To suggest such puts you on very shaky ground.

 
At 7:46 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

The hate, intolerance and discrimination practiced by the gay community against other minority groups involved in alternative relationships must come to an end!

People such as me and my 25-year-old daughter and girlfriend of 2 years, who are in an alternative relationship want nothing more than the same rights as other Canadains, and that includes equal marriage recognition.

 
At 7:49 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Visit my blog for more details on how we can fight this discrimination by the gay community.

Equal Marriage Recognition For All

Burt.

 
At 7:35 PM, Blogger Ken Breadner said...

I've been challenged to define 'accepted' as regards incest..

Codified. In law. Anywhere. At any time. Please provide references.

Homosexuality was illegal for no good reason. There are a limited number of homosexuals and contrary to some right-wing posturing I've heard, they don't recruit.
Incest is self-limiting in that there is an age-old taboo against it. I'm tempted to say that taboo is genetic; at any rate, it takes a whole lot of will to overcome it in most individuals.
I will concede I have no good arguments against incestuous marriage that won't immediately be turned on me--especially since many respondents seem to believe that same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage are somehow on par, a supposition I disagree with and do not understand.
I will admit, further, that incest is outside my realm of experience and far, far outside my realm of comfort. So I will say again: please do take your case to whatever court will hear it. I do not support your right to marry, but I do support your right to pursue your goal.

 
At 10:21 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Ken, you're missing the point!

If Jenna and me (my 25-year-old daughter/girlfriend of 2 years) are "mutually-consenting adults" in a loving and committed relationship," that does NOT impede or effect the relationship YOU are involved in, then why would YOU, Ken, not say that we should have the right to marry?

If my daughter and me got married, KEN, how would your relationship change with his partner? It wouldn't, would it?

I mean, by virtue of being opposed to incest, that would then mean that changes to the law wouldn't effect you because you wouldn't take advantage of such changes. Correct?

Wasn't that the same argument that was used by SSM supporters?

"Gay marriage only effects gay couples," they said, "because only gay people want to marry other gay people."

Does that sound familiar, Ken? It should. It was used all the time by the gay community.

Do you agree with that observation or disagree, Ken? (Be consistent, KEN!)

Tell me, KEN, Would changing the laws to allow Jenna and me, who are two-mutually consenting adults who are in a loving and commintted relationship mean that you, KEN, are going to want to marry one of your children, assuming you have any?

No, of course not! By virtue of you being opposed, you would not marry your adult children.

Think about it, KEN! The only people who would want to take advantage of changes to the laws would be people like Jenna and me who WANT to marry each other and who are mutually consenting adults in a loving and comminted relationship.

Ken, you've been exposed for the hypocrite you deny being.

Peeps, Ken's a guy who criticized people on the right for attempting to "define" what is and isn't marriage. Now Ken is defining what is and isn't marriage.

Ken criticized the right for attempting to set the goal posts, now Ken is wants to set the goalposts.

 
At 11:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually - as a side note, the concerns about genetic defects from consanguous marriage is greatly overstated. Probably 80% of all marriages on earth up until modern times were between at the least, remote cousins, and often, between close cousins.

Pure breeds of horses, cattle, dogs have all been established by multiple generational close inbreeding, and continue to do the same amongst descendants.

So, while there are serious societal issues relating to family dynamics that can result from marrying one's kin, the medical aspect of producing children with genetic defects it is only of a slightly elevated concern.

 
At 11:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken doesn't think that incestuous marriage and SSM are "somehow on par".

But he clearly thinks that SSM and hetero marriage are on par.

Huh?

"Incest is self-limiting in that there is an age old taboo against it".

So how is this unlike homosexuality?

Furthermore there is also something self-limiting about gay sex.....which is unlike hetero-sex.

"I will concede I have no good arguments against incestuous marriage....."

This is what you told opponents of SSM....just change the "incestuous" word.

Maybe I'm just quirky, but I couldn't live with so much inconsistency within my moral fibre.

Matrimony has now been re-defined to logically include consentual incestual marriage.

Thank you for your contributions to society.

Frank.

 
At 7:14 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Ken, what about a 25-year-old son wanting to marry his 50-year-old father? Since they can't reproduce, that removes the "inbreeding card" you want to play.

So why would you want to deny them the right to marry? Why would you want to deny them their "full humanity"? Pardoxically, they're a gay couple, so Ken would be denying gay marriage to them.

Ken would say something like this...

"Yes, they can't produce children, and yes they're mutually consenting adults, and yes they aren't hurting me, in that I would not marry my adult son or father, but I still don't approve morally of their relationship, therefore I don't think they should have the right to marry."

That seems to be okay.

But this is not...

"Yes, they can't produce children, and yes they're mutually consenting adults, and yes they aren't hurting me, in that i would not marry somone of the same sex, but I still don't approve morally of their relationship, therefore I don't think they should have the right to marry."

Ken labels these remarks as hateful, intolerant and discriminitory.

No, Ken's no a hypocrite *rolls eyes*

Here's the mission statement from CANADIANS FOR EQUAL MARRIAGE ... a site which advocated gay marriage but does not reply to my e-mail, demanding to know why they aren't supporting my call for equality.

"For many Canadians, marriage is a profoundly meaningful way to demonstrate love and commitment. Denying anyone that right is simply not fair."

Did you catch that? "Denying anyone that right...."

Do they, and Ken, believe in in equality or ... "selective equality"? (oxymoron)

 
At 7:32 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Hmmm. I've discovered something interesting.

Insect is illegal under the criminal code. Correct?

Well, since the Charter now recognizes gays as having the right to marry, then wouldn't the criminal code, outlawing incest for an adult son-father couple (a gay couple be definition), be in violation of the Charter in this instance?

Doesn't the Charter supercede all?

Hmmm. I think we may have something here.

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger Michael said...

You are just catching on now? It has always been about the Charter Stupid. lol.

 
At 4:44 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

ACCESSING KEN BREADNER'S EXCLUSIVE MARRIAGE CLUB, AND THE MARRIAGE CEREMONIES TAKING PLACE FROM WITHIN

"Tear ... down ... these ... walls, Mr. Gorb... I mean, Mr. Breadner!"

The pain my foot once felt as a result of the vice-like grip from the door being closed on it (the door handle being held by Ken Breadner from the inside) appears to be easing as Ken is slowly losing his grip - not from his will or effort to keep the door closed (allowing only heterosexual and homosexual couples to wed inside), but because his grip (vis-a-vis his arguments opposed to allowing an adult son-father "gay marriage") seems to be tenuous at best.

"Just a moment," I say to the polygamist couple standing behind me, who are also eager to enter Ken Breadner's "Exclusive Marriage Club", "I'm almost through the door!"

"KEN!" I shout, with my body half way through the door (arm flailing, leg kicking), "It's no use fighting! Let go of the handle and let me (us) inside! End this hypocrisy NOW!!!"

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger Ken Breadner said...

I'll travel down your slippery slope, then: tell me where the line should be drawn. I've always despised slippery slope arguments; they're a rhetorical fallacy. But a large crowd of people are trying to push me down this particular slippery slope. Sorry. I won't go.
I've conceded your points. I've offered my qualified support--sure, go ahead, fight your case and let better legal minds than mine settle it. But people here seem to want me to come out in favour of screwing daughters--(and notice, I do NOT say 'procreating')-- and I WON'T DO IT.
Opponents of same-sex marriage (and usually they're more against gay men marrying than lesbians, but anyway) tend to focus on how disgusting/unnatural they find homosexual acts. Some people have evolved to the point where they can accept in other people something they find disgusting. I'm not at that point with incest yet, thank you very much. I remain convinced that any parent would shudder at the mere thought of it. Ask any child who is NOT related to you to imagine having sex with his/her own parent and watch the reaction.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't particularly care to find out.
So, 50-year old dad and your Electra, go in peace and fight your case, just as the gays had to. And if you win, I'll accept your right to marry--more than Michael and his ilk can say about the done deal of SSM. Fair?

 
At 11:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Ken.

Just be prepared to live with the "slippery slope" terrority, of our new defintion of marriage. Because you are right about one thing....it is a done deal.

As it appears and by your own admission, that even you will be appalled by a further re-defining of marriage.

You fancy yourself "evolved" by reflection of your SSM beliefs. Instead of your self-congratulatory accolading, you ought to have better examined the documentation you supported in the name of SSM.

The very definition of SSM, has left an open door to what you refuse to admit.

You don't have to support incestual marriage....only understand that your support for SSM, will spawn ideas that you'll find reprehensible.

Stubborness is all you have to offer, when people that you prefer to ridicule, as those lower than you in the evolutionary chain are only trying to point out the obvious problems with SSM.

You think the 'bigot-card' and walk away thinking that you've thought.

Frank.

 
At 7:55 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"I'll travel down your slippery slope, then: tell me where the line should be drawn." - Ken Breadner

First of all, Ken, let me state something for you because you seem to be lost … I thought you would have picked up on it already, but apparently you haven't.

In case you haven't noticed, my whole shtick is to act as an agent provocateur. I don't actually support marriage recognition for incest, just as I don't for gay and polygamous relationships.

Um, I think Mike and Frank picked up on that already. I think they're bright enough to see the point I'm trying to illustrate with my remarks.

Like Michael and Frank, I am consistent in that I believe that marriage should be defined as one man to one woman, plain and simple!

"But a large crowd of people are trying to push me down this particular slippery slope. Sorry. I won't go." - Ken Breadner

It's not a slippery slope argument. It wouldn't matter if there is only ONE incestuos couple in Canada seeking the "right" to marry, it's about a consistent line of argument, one that you don't seem to have.

All good debates require exploring hypotheticals. You have to answer the "what-ifs?" and not simply dismiss it as something that is not going to happen.

"Some people have evolved to the point where they can accept in other people something they find disgusting" - Ken Breadner

This is perhaps Ken's most misleading statement.

What does Ken mean by "accept"?

Ken, what's being debated here is "marriage recognition". Canadians accept gay relationships. In fact, I'm sure 99.9% of Canadians do, myself included.

You seem to be suggesting that if society accepts/allows/tolerates (pick any word you want) gay relationships that by extension it also accepts SSM as well. Homosexuals can do what they want. A gay man could have 10 boyfriends if he wants. I really couldn't care less.

Canadians can "accept" gay relationships but it does not mean they want to elevate it to marriage status and what exactly defines marriage is what's being debated here, not gay relationships per se.

And I have the majority of Canadians on my side. Roughly 2/3 would have supported "civil union" recognition as a compromise. That, by the way, was the CPC position as well. SSM is supported by only a minority of Canadians.

But I know, Ken. On things you support, such as SSM, we must guard against the tyranny of the majority by ensuring we protect minority rights. But on things you oppose, such as incest, you want to refer to the majority by saying, "...and watch their [horrified] reaction" and "society just doesn't accept that" and "it's taboo!"

"Ask any child who is NOT related to you to imagine having sex with his/her own parent and watch the reaction." - Ken Breadner

Again, a highly manipulative point by Ken. Notice how he uses "child" in the context he does, when what we're talking about here is a mutaully-consenting adult daughter-father relationship. Besides, what do the opinions of those who find incest gross have to do with anything? The only people who would take advantage of a further redfining of marriage would be those couples involved in such relationships.

"…if you win, I'll accept your right to marry--more than Michael and his ilk can say about the done deal of SSM. Fair?" - Ken Breadner

Ken unwittingly exposes his own hypocrisy with this statement.

Michael doesn't support SSM, or marriage recognition for incestous couples. He is consistent. You, Ken, are not. You support one but not the other.

Ken really needs to take a step back to think before hitting "Publish." If he did, he might spot the illogical nature of his remarks before we can point them out for him.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home