Same Sex Marriage comments

Anonymous made a comment about the logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument in this post about same sex marriage.

I take the point, but it does not change my point.

If we change the definition of marriage from that of one man and one woman, a tradition that has lasted a few thousand years, we open it up to other changes. Is this an argument for or against it?

It is neither.

However, people should be aware that the decision to open up the definition of marriage will lead to more challenges. Does anyone think that the new definition of marriage as between two persons will last another 1000 years?

The point of the matter is not how some judge interprets the Charter. Those guys were appointed by a person, a person who had a certain agenda and certain ideas about what was right and wrong. Give me the opportunity to appoint all the Supremes and I could give you just about any society you could imagine. Note that most dictatorships wrap themselves in the cloak of "the people" or "democracy" to justify their actions. Even China and North Korea call themselves "Peoples' Republic" or "Democratic Republic".

The point about this debate is what kind of society we want in Canada.

Do we want a society where everyone is completely equal and our culture is a homogeneous, boring mush? Or should Canadian culture be based on the roots of our Western and British/French culture.

If I want to marry a guy, why not go to Sweden? If I want more than 1 wife, move to Saudi Arabia. If I want a society where hard drugs are legal, live in Holland.

We need to decide what it is to be Canadian (and I do not mean it is a beer commercial) and stand up for that.

Otherwise, we will constantly be pulled at from various interest groups and small radical minorities will end up defining what a Canadian is.