 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
How can marriage between two adults who respect each other, and who want to share the rest of their lives with each other in ways that only married people can, be an obliteration of the 'original meaning of marriage', but some hill-billies who want to run a concubine ranch with 5 of their friends and have 49 teenage, ignorant, practically enslaved, wives is not?
|
They both do. Both obliterate the ideal of a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.
quote:
Do you really think that same-sex couples get married for financial reasons alone?
|
No, but one of the unintended consequences is that marriage can be perfectly valid as an economic contract without any reference to conjugal love. The whole point of keeping marriage between a man and a woman emphasises this point. Between two people, does not.
quote:
in what way is a civil marriage between same sex couples less meaningful than 'the original'?
|
Ah, but this is not the point. In rewording the definition to persons, one loses the connection between conjugal love and marriage. How would one, under the new definition prevent two old ladies from getting married to each other, because it is cheaper for them tax wise? This has nothing to do with whether one is same-sex or not, but rather with the application of the term person, to replace 'man and woman'.
quote:
What is 'the original' as far as civil marriages is concerned?
|
Between a man and a woman.
quote:
In what way is any civil marriage not 'just a contract made for financial reasons?'
|
Back to the point of conjugality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
It seems you are retreating to the 'it was that way last week, so that's the way it should be next week' defence. really, shouldn't things move along from time to time? You know, from serfdom, to freemen, to electors?
Isn't conjugal just another word for married? What gives? Don't you have more than word games?
quote:
No, but one of the unintended consequences is that marriage can be perfectly valid as an economic contract without any reference to conjugal love. The whole point of keeping marriage between a man and a woman emphasises this point. Between two people, does not. |
What? Women don't marry men for money? Men don't marry women just for sex? People don't get married just for citizenship? Wake up, Ben. It's a big wide world out there, and using the argument that same sex couples might not hold marriage up to the same 'high standard' that mixed sex people do doesn't cut it. You need something more.
People should be free to f*ck up. That is their right. Society should decide what to do with them when they do so, but should not disallow them the choices.
quote:
Ah, but this is not the point. In rewording the definition to persons, one loses the connection between conjugal love and marriage. How would one, under the new definition prevent two old ladies from getting married to each other, because it is cheaper for them tax wise? This has nothing to do with whether one is same-sex or not, but rather with the application of the term person, to replace 'man and woman'. |
That's absurd. What stops an old man and an old lady from doing the same for tax purposes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flinx
|
 |
Toronto, ON CANADA
Nov 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
On the topic of PR, and as Flinx helpfully pointed out, that we can do it legislatively and not constitutionally...
Damn, there's that constitution thingy. PEI is assured of such and such number of seats, and Quebec too, but on a different formula. [Did anyone ever say we weren't building on solid bed rock?]
How do you jive the Greens getting 15% of the vote in PEI when PEI gets 4 seats? Do you throw out the 15% in PEI because they didn't rate a seat there? Do you transfer that 15% elsewhere? Wouldn't that be a constitutional foul?
Take Quebec. The BQ gets 50% of the vote there. They get a certain number of set seats and then enough to bring them up (or down?) to 50% of 75 (75 guaranteed seats to Quebec).
How could that work? Can anyone direct me to where this has been thought out as can be applied to Canada? |
The only arguments I have ever heard for the undemocratic appointing of MP's from lists drawn-up by party insiders is that you can do it without changing how things work in the voting booth today and/or the Germans do it that way.
In the Canadian context, a multi-member single transferable vote system (as used in Ireland and the Australian Senate) would be much more functional and would address the ‘democratic deficit’ issues raised. Standard 3-member ridings with a few 4-member ridings to achieve provincial totals, in my opinion, would work best.
This system uses a single preferential ballot where you rank each candidate according to your preferences (1, 2, 3… etc). In a 3-member riding a candidate would need 25%+1 of the vote to be elected (20%+1 in a 4-member riding). Votes are transferred away from the last placed candidate to the next surviving candidate on each ballot until 3 (or 4) candidates are elected. Excess votes are also transferred away from candidates with more than the required 25%+1 (20%+1) number; the details of this process are technical, but that is Elections Canada’s issue not the voters.
Choice theory has proven that it is impossible to aggregate people choices using a formula and get a rational result 100% of the time. With first-past-the-post you get ‘vote splitting’ where the combined votes of two candidates on one side of an issue are much greater than the votes cast for the winning candidate who is on the other side of the issue. With a preferential ballot controversy can arise in a few cases when everyone’s second choice gets eliminated because s/he has the fewest first choice votes; this occurs very infrequently when electing multiple candidates.
Some features of the MM-STV:- Every MP directly elected by the voter. No party insider process puts people on a list in an order you may not like.
- Independents/non-party affiliated candidates can run and be elected. What happens if you vote for an independent under a mixed member list-PR system?
- Because more than one MP is elected in each riding, Parties can/will run more than one candidate. Incumbent MP and/or leader appointed star and/or riding association selected candidate can all appear on the ballot and the voters will choose.
- Parties which can get 25% support will elect candidates (no Liberal shut-out in Alberta and no Conservative shut-out in Ontario). Parties which cannot get 25% support will not elect candidates (No Italy or Israel with 25 parties in a fractured parliament).
- No vote-splitting. No need to ‘strategically’ vote for your second choice to stop another candidate from winning; if your first choice does not win, your vote is automatically transferred to your second choice.
- Because there are usually multiple candidates for each major political party, voters can preferentially vote on issues within a party or across party lines e.g. women/men or pro-choice/pro-life. When support is very strong for one party, ballots cast initially for other parties will be transferred, and will influence which candidate gets elected e.g. in a hypothetical riding with 50%/50% Liberal/Conservative support, the third candidate elected will either be a conservative Liberal or a liberal Conservative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Isn't conjugal just another word for married?
|
Conjugal is a more tactful way to put the marital act, which implies a relationship beyond that of financial need.
quote:
What? Women don't marry men for money? Men don't marry women just for sex?
|
True, but at least under the old definition, the ideal could be still seen. Now, you lose this under the new definition. Why would, for example, an unconsummated marriage be considered grounds for divorce?
quote:
using the argument that same sex couples might not hold marriage up to the same 'high standard' that mixed sex people do doesn't cut it.
|
Again, not my argument. By changing the definition to 'two persons' irrespective of gender, you lose the assumption that this relationship is to be a conjugal one. Nothing to do with homosexuals, but rather, an unintended consequence in the change of definition.
quote:
People should be free to f*ck up. That is their right. Society should decide what to do with them when they do so, but should not disallow them the choices.
|
So? That does nothing to combat my point. I am not saying that people should be prevented for marrying someone for money, but rather, that the older meaning of marriage will become lost with the change, that marriage is supposed to be something more than just a contract.
quote:
That's absurd. What stops an old man and an old lady from doing the same for tax purposes?
|
If they are married? Nothing. If they are not, then they cannot.
quote:
So, if it's only the money they're after...
|
Not my point... I've made not a single reference to homosexuals apart from heterosexuals in the context of this argument.
quote:
Tax forms are private. Nobody would know any better.
|
Marriage is not a private institution. There must be some kind of public declaration and confirmation in order to establish a legal marriage.
quote:
Really, Ben, do you think this is just about filthy lucre?
|
No, this is why I used the term 'unintended'.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 06-07-2004 at 07:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but at least under the old definition, the ideal could be still seen. Now, you lose this under the new definition. Why would, for example, an unconsummated marriage be considered grounds for divorce?
Again, not my argument. By changing the definition to 'two persons' irrespective of gender, you lose the assumption that this relationship is to be a conjugal one. Nothing to do with homosexuals, but rather, an unintended consequence in the change of definition. |
Hmmm. I becomes clearer. Your moat is based on sex. Specifically the act between a man and woman with few or none of the tantric variations thereof. You think that marriage is, was, and always should be about missionary style sex. Sorry to be a bit more blunt than 'conjugal'.
I agree that procreation is a good thing, but I also think that there is room for relationships based on mutual love, trust, and companionship. It seems I have faith that the little bunnies in many of us will keep the race going, even if a few hares hole up together.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2004 08:16
Now that I didn't expect. 
).
|