d_rawk

Cool. It'll be really interesting to see how this evolves!

Haha, yeah, you guys seemed pretty wobbly too. Unfortunately I didn't have the good fortune of seeing either of you at the end of the day.

I hear you might be moving to the area as early as August? That's great, and should provide us with plenty of opportunity to talk. Although just as I'm prone to a shameful bravado, I'm equally plagued by a painful shyness (it's the gemini in me, I think) - so you'll have to grab me by the arm and get the ball rolling.

Ewww. It needs you to set up an account. What happened to meggo's Yahoo gallery?

Anyways, it's throwing up an error page now instead of a request for registration. If it stops doing that, www.bugmenot.com

has a login/password.

Dude, at which school and at what level do you teach Religious Studies? I've been thinking about shifting part of my academic focus in that direction (and have discussed same with StM).

Wish we had had the opportunity to talk a bit at the party - but I was pretty wobbly and couldn't quite recall exactly which mouse it was that was with Deb :blush:

she also insists that next year there be more boytitties. Evidently you've set the bar pretty high.

Yeah, what was that all about? I sort of remember my shirt being peeled up while I was waiting in the beer line. I'm not totally sure how I fared, or even what I was being judged on ...

Great time. You boys at that place sure know how to throw a shindig. Thanks! And everyone was super cool - no incidents other than a few observed jovial beer soakings and that disarmingly handsome idiot crashing into the table while playing with the football

And Velvet was gold cussing up a storm on the mic, for sure.

Happy day, Canada. You're an interesting place full of interesting people. Keep it up babe.

Now let's celebrate!

I change my minor fairly frequently - but I've been a philosophy student, if that counts.

Wasn't aware of Wittgenstein. Seems like he's into language. Neat.

Happy birthday dude! I was gonna say it in German, but it seems people already beat me to it (at least I think they did ...)

You're a hoot and a half, can't wait to cross paths again.

heh, I don't think I'm interested, but maybe I'll click one for you man ... just to see.

(actually, I am sort of curious about what "beer accessories" might be ...)

Oh, PP - I was loving your post, and then you went and broke my heart

3somes"..... puh-lease.... even making that statement is basically just saying "those gays are not as human as ME"

No ... it is saying that those people are as human as everyone else.

well, for one thing, i highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt there are any consentual, happy 3somes where all 3 parties are interested in committing to each other for life. generally 3somes are not equal relationships (or "relationships" at all)

One is reminded of the old argument that suggested homosexuals were incapable of meaningful relationships because all signs pointed to them being unable to remain monogomous or even stay with a single partner for long. That argument, of course, ignored the fact that most homosexual couples had to hide their affections for each other and were dealing with the constant threat of scorn and misunderstanding from everyone around them. As gays and lesbians have become increasingly accepted, and thus able to love each other freely and openly and the barriers that have pretty much *ensured* that their relationships will fail begin to crumble, we are seeing that such arguments had no merit. People need to be given the chance to succeed before we can judge them so harshly for failing.

just find it hard to believe that there would *never* be any jealousy or hurt feelings in a situation like that

Totally agree with you here. Just as I find it hard to believe that there would *never* be any jealousy or hurt feelings in any relationship of any sort (conventional or otherwise).

I love the Google Ads I'm getting for this thread:

Custom Glassware

$0.12 shot glass. $0.44 pint glass

Beer Accessories

Looking for deals on beer stuff?

Quit on your own (!)

Recovery groups, shrinks and

rehabs are part of the

problem.

Guinness - PubGlasses

Large selection of Guinness items

and so forth ...

Haha, brilliant. I'd hate to see it actually happen, but I'd love to see someone vocally promoting it (with feigned earnestness) to make the point.

Right. The primary function of traditional/conventional marriage has to do with the procurement of security. The physiological desire to have one's genes passed on, and a man's related need to know that if he is expending resources on a child that it is in fact his own offspring (observable through the customs of chastity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, the testing for an unbroken hymen prior to the ceremony in many cultures, etc..) and the woman's need to be guaranteed same resources and not be left stuck with child. Marriage is (was) a way, among other things, of encouraging or enforcing monogamy in the face of fleeting carnal instincts to act otherwise.

Binding unions between one man and one woman derive from practical matters. The sentimentality and idea of marrying for love is historically quite new.

But the idea of pairing up (in whatever configuration, in whatever number) for love is a beautiful one, isn't it? And it seems more relevant now than all that other stuff.

So the question is how much any of this relates to where we are now in contemporary society, particularly given a guaranteed social safetynet and the fact that women are no longer, thankfully, at the mercy of men or family for survival.

[edit to add:]

I dunno. But I'm sure there are a number of people in threesomes (for example) who would like the same tax advantages, community recognition, rights to property following a spouses death, custody guarantees, etc.. as the rest of us.

And, as your oprah viewing has demonstrated, there are even people from the same family who, I'm sure, would like access to the same.

I don't think StatsCan has collected any statistics in this particular area, however, so I'm really not sure just how big

And while it might have made sense to offer such incentives exclusively to male-female couples (with the presumption that they would procreate) in an era of un-emancipated women, absence of birth control, and lack of experience demonstrating that single-parent or seperate-parent families could function, it seems to be making less and less sense now. Why should, say, a father and daughter who aren't fucking and not romantically attached but cohabitating be receiving less in the way of an economic break than a married couple who is no longer fucking and no longer romantically attached?

Is it sex? Is it children? What are we on about? What are we trying to do here?

(I'm asking ... I really don't know)

Awesome. Glad you see my point ...

People have always argued that homosexuality is biologically (& ethically, & morally, & aesthetically) wrong as well. And if children were a prerequisite for marriage then ... yadda yadda yadda.

This is going to start coming up, and while it will be ignored or beaten down for awhile, eventually it is going to have to be dealt with. There was a tendency to beat down everybody - even those who had demonstrated in every way to be liberal minded - who suggested that SSM might open the door to polygamy, etc.. and to accuse them of being closet-homophobes. I actually believe that a lot of those people genuinely had no problem with same-sex marriage and had sincerely thought this through and realized that it was going to become indefensible - far down the road - to deny rights to other groups demanding them.

I think those people were correct in their assessment, but I think that they were wrong to believe that that was sufficient grounds to maintain a privledged class based on sexual orientation.

We might have to face the fact that the institution of civil marriage is inherently discriminatory, and we may have to look at what it is specifically that we have been trying to economically (and socially) reward by recognizing marriage on the state level, and recognize and reward those things directly instead.

It doesn't sound very romantic, but then the state isn't in the romance racket to begin with. That is something that has to happen between the individuals themselves.

I'm pretty sure the "erosion of marriage" argument was a correct one, even if most of those who parroted it had little ability to back it up (and didn't really know what they were saying). But I'm not sure it should be any other way, if it means perpetual discrimination and arbitrary concessions to one select priveledged class.

(^-- I'm talking state/civil marriage, not religious marriage. I see no reasons why the various churches shouldn't go about their business as usual)

not meaning to stir the pot, but to provoke discussion (and a reminder that I support same-sex marriage unequivocally) ...

I can understand why a brother and sister shouldn't marry

But what if:

"you are in LOVE and want to share the rest of your lives together with all of the benefits that legal marriage has to offer loving and hard working couples and prove to the world that you are together forever(a real reason)"?

Dammit, eh? We could've started a (presumably non-threatening) pocket bike gang! With insignia on our jackets and a creed and everything ...

motorcycle or scooter.

I was real excited to see that those "pocket bikes" were in the $400-$500 range until I found out they weren't street legal. Boo.

I'm willing to call it a draw if we all agree to disagree.

I'll take that offer. I think you've been a great sport.

I'm not like the cabinet ministers that were forced to vote "yes" by Paul Martin.

They weren't so much forced by Paul Martin as by the Parliamentary convention of cabinet solidarity. They are not simply MPs - they are cabinet members, and as such, make decisions collectively and support them collective despite private opinion.

Not trying to steal Hux's ball. Just putting it up in the air so he can spike it.

Hux, please don't ever leave the board again

if I married my pet budgie how would that affect your commitment to your fiance and/or affect the noble goal you're pursuing?

It would adversely affect the institution of marriage in a way that the marrying of two same sex people does not. (which is why the scare tactic of extending the idea of same-sex marriage to people marrying their pets fails):

As with children, we consider that animals are incapable of consenting to sex (consent being a legal requirement that must be met before we can engage in sexual activity). This is the only justifiable defense for making sex with animals illegal (the fact that we may find the idea terribly troubling and gross is persuasive, but not sufficient - if it was, it would also be sufficient reason to justify laws against homosexual activity on the grounds that it seems "unnatural" and "icky" to a lot of straight people). Neither can they consent to marriage. If they could, it might be possible to say that it is an acceptable practice. And here's where the question of whether same-sex civil marriage might lead to the necessity of extending marriage rights to *any* two (or more?) consenting people, though often misused, actually has some currency.

The idea that there is an inherent wisdom in tradition or custom that can't easily be discerned through rational scrutiny (tradition and custom being formed, as they are, through a slow process of "cumulative growth") isn't necessarily a flawed one. Nor is the idea that well-intentioned policy might have unintended - and unanticipatible - consequences. There's a rich body of work that makes the case pretty convincingly (Edmund Burke, for example).

So I'm not sure that Low_Roller is just copping-out. He could have a strong argument if he really got behind it (no pun intended ) But I wonder when the veneration of tradition, solely for the sake of the comfort of the familiar, becomes simply a misguided attempt to legitimize the political and social status quo and begins to impede, rather than foster, that process of positive "cumulative growth". All traditions are the products of past change, and all traditions are forever changing. It just happens on a longer timeline, so it's more difficult to see. This (equality of rights for gays and lesbians) has been a long time coming - it isn't a sudden jolt except to those who have had their heads in the sand.

Am I not entitled to state my opinion?

Absolutely. And despite it being an unpopular one, hopefully everyone here will discuss it respectfully.

My concern is that in your initial post - as Hux has already pointed out - you seem to have misconstrued (IMO) the bill as a politically motivated one. This trajectory was already set by the charter, the nature of federal "ownership" of civil marriage, the courts, and a Canadian commitment to the values of equality - regardless of whatever accolades or scorn the Liberal Party of Canada may be receiving for having written the specific legislation itself.

ie: bound to happen eventually, regardless of governing party, unless we are to open the country up for another constitutional crisis. (This is not to downplay the work the Liberal Party has done to put together a well-written bill or to see C-38 pass before the house recessed, which was admirable).

If elected, Tory leader Stephen Harper has promised to introduce new legislation reverting marriage to the exclusive domain of opposite-sex couples

Oh, lovely. That's just what we need - for this to become a platform issue in the next election. And the return of folks misguidedly and naively demanding a national referendum on the issue (or worse: treating a federal election as if it were a single-issue referendum), as though subjecting a minority rights issue to the whims and fancy of the majority is somehow an appropriate way to conduct affairs in a liberal democracy.

A lot of otherwise perfectly good days have been ruined by reading the Letters to the Editor pages lately.

(^-- how come the frowny face no work?)