Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should really stop trying to impose YOUR opinion on me. It is MY opinion. People who want open marriages should not get married. I'm not going to stop them from getting married if that's what they want to do but don't try and tell me I can't have an opinion on the subject alrighty?
The problem with people holding such opinions is that those people end up voting for the people who WILL try and legislate away someone else's right to marry, or who WILL keep/put laws on the books restricting someone else's behavior.
This is why opinions about what other people do are so dangerous in this country. You're free to hold whatever opinion you wish, but the minute you cast your vote for someone who wishes to push YOUR morality into MY life, your opinion ceases to be just an opinion - it becomes a matter of law, and it begins to infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My having a polyamorous marriage doesn't affect you. My opinions surrounding marriage don't affect you. Yours, however, affect me directly whenever they influence how you vote.
The problem with people holding such opinions is that those people end up voting for the people who WILL try and legislate away someone else's right to marry, or who WILL keep/put laws on the books restricting someone else's behavior.
This is why opinions about what other people do are so dangerous in this country. You're free to hold whatever opinion you wish, but the minute you cast your vote for someone who wishes to push YOUR morality into MY life, your opinion ceases to be just an opinion - it becomes a matter of law, and it begins to infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My having a polyamorous marriage doesn't affect you. My opinions surrounding marriage don't affect you. Yours, however, affect me directly whenever they influence how you vote.
I'm in Canada so you won't have to worryAnyways I seriously doubt that a politician is going to be campaigning against open marriage any time soon. How would that law be enforced anyways LOL.
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we have in a democracy therefore I should be allowed to vote how I want to vote.
By the way don't you think you'd be voting for a candidate that was pro open marriage? Therefore your opinion would also affect others against it would it not
An open relationship has to be agreed upon by two people. If one person wants to fool around with a member of the opposite sex and his/her mates does not, then an affair is the only thing left if the person is going to fool around anyway. At this time in my life, I wouldn't want an open relationship, and I sure wouldn't have an affair. If I would have known when I was 20 years old what I know now, I would have lived my life differently. For me, no sex is as good as the sex that is waiting for me at home.
I'm in Canada so you won't have to worryAnyways I seriously doubt that a politician is going to be campaigning against open marriage any time soon. How would that law be enforced anyways LOL.
The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we have in a democracy therefore I should be allowed to vote how I want to vote.
By the way don't you think you'd be voting for a candidate that was pro open marriage? Therefore your opinion would also affect others against it would it not
The fact that you are in Canada is irrelevant to the point - your vote for a candidate who wishes to place restrictions on another person's consensual behavior, based on morals you and the candidate share, directly affects and restricts the ability of someone to pursue their happiness.
My support of a candidate who feels no such restrictions should be in place does not, in any way affect your relationships, your marriage, your personal freedom to make choices for your own relationship.
Therein lies the difference.
And yes, you should be and are free to vote however you wish... but at least own up to the fact that your opinion is not "just" an opinion. Your opinion influences your vote, your vote influences the rights of others. This is true of all of us, to one degree or another.
As to how such a law would be enforced? Here in the states, adultery is actually illegal in several states. In Michigan where I live, it can get you a life sentence. It's rarely prosecuted, but the fact that it remains on the books is insane.
Canada, like the United States, has laws against polygamy (marriage to multiple people). Saskatchewan has an exception to your federal code. While I think people should be free to marry each other if they so choose, even in multiples, I also recognize that such a change would wreck havoc on our respective social systems - the sheer volume of laws that would have to change to allow for multiple spouses is staggering. Rights of inheritance, insurance, social security, health care... it's a legal nightmare. I think there probably is a middle ground between "totally illegal" and "legal within set parameters in terms of government involvement/benefits/etc." but I don't know what it is.
It'll take a brighter mind than mine to navigate that minefield.
The bottom line is this - when you hold an opinion about how another should be allowed to lead their life, NOT based on harm it causes you but simply based on your own dislike for their choices, and you vote based on that opinion - your opinion ceases to be "just an opinion," and it becomes the basis on which you are, IN FACT, attempting to force another to live based on your personal moral code.
Maybe for rhetorical effect, but no, it's not a true oxymoron. The words "open" and "marriage" are not inherently contradictory. Your beliefs and morals may make them personally contradictory, but that doesn't change their own inherent relationship to each other.
By the way don't you think you'd be voting for a candidate that was pro open marriage? Therefore your opinion would also affect others against it would it not
Not is he sucked on other issues no i won't. I vote on the total package, i'm pretty liberal with things and i didn't vote for obama because i didn't feel he could do the best job.....well typically no senators ever do a good job in the office....but that's another story. And i wouldn't vote for someone because they said I'm for open marriage.
The fact that you are in Canada is irrelevant to the point - your vote for a candidate who wishes to place restrictions on another person's consensual behavior, based on morals you and the candidate share, directly affects and restricts the ability of someone to pursue their happiness.
My support of a candidate who feels no such restrictions should be in place does not, in any way affect your relationships, your marriage, your personal freedom to make choices for your own relationship.
Therein lies the difference.
And yes, you should be and are free to vote however you wish... but at least own up to the fact that your opinion is not "just" an opinion. Your opinion influences your vote, your vote influences the rights of others. This is true of all of us, to one degree or another.
As to how such a law would be enforced? Here in the states, adultery is actually illegal in several states. In Michigan where I live, it can get you a life sentence. It's rarely prosecuted, but the fact that it remains on the books is insane.
Canada, like the United States, has laws against polygamy (marriage to multiple people). Saskatchewan has an exception to your federal code. While I think people should be free to marry each other if they so choose, even in multiples, I also recognize that such a change would wreck havoc on our respective social systems - the sheer volume of laws that would have to change to allow for multiple spouses is staggering. Rights of inheritance, insurance, social security, health care... it's a legal nightmare. I think there probably is a middle ground between "totally illegal" and "legal within set parameters in terms of government involvement/benefits/etc." but I don't know what it is.
It'll take a brighter mind than mine to navigate that minefield.
The bottom line is this - when you hold an opinion about how another should be allowed to lead their life, NOT based on harm it causes you but simply based on your own dislike for their choices, and you vote based on that opinion - your opinion ceases to be "just an opinion," and it becomes the basis on which you are, IN FACT, attempting to force another to live based on your personal moral code.
The fact that you are in Canada is irrelevant to the point - your vote for a candidate who wishes to place restrictions on another person's consensual behavior, based on morals you and the candidate share, directly affects and restricts the ability of someone to pursue their happiness.
My support of a candidate who feels no such restrictions should be in place does not, in any way affect your relationships, your marriage, your personal freedom to make choices for your own relationship.
Therein lies the difference.
And yes, you should be and are free to vote however you wish... but at least own up to the fact that your opinion is not "just" an opinion. Your opinion influences your vote, your vote influences the rights of others. This is true of all of us, to one degree or another.
As to how such a law would be enforced? Here in the states, adultery is actually illegal in several states. In Michigan where I live, it can get you a life sentence. It's rarely prosecuted, but the fact that it remains on the books is insane.
Canada, like the United States, has laws against polygamy (marriage to multiple people). Saskatchewan has an exception to your federal code. While I think people should be free to marry each other if they so choose, even in multiples, I also recognize that such a change would wreck havoc on our respective social systems - the sheer volume of laws that would have to change to allow for multiple spouses is staggering. Rights of inheritance, insurance, social security, health care... it's a legal nightmare. I think there probably is a middle ground between "totally illegal" and "legal within set parameters in terms of government involvement/benefits/etc." but I don't know what it is.
It'll take a brighter mind than mine to navigate that minefield.
The bottom line is this - when you hold an opinion about how another should be allowed to lead their life, NOT based on harm it causes you but simply based on your own dislike for their choices, and you vote based on that opinion - your opinion ceases to be "just an opinion," and it becomes the basis on which you are, IN FACT, attempting to force another to live based on your personal moral code.
The subject here is not POLYGAMY it is open marriage and there is no way a law against open marriage could be enforced. As if anyone is going to go to jail for adultery
So now I'm not allowed to have any opinions because it might affect how I vote oh boy..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyways I seriously doubt that a politician is going to be campaigning against open marriage any time soon. How would that law be enforced anyways LOL.
.
