Liberals introduce same sex legislation
- Thread starter red
- Start date
I agree, good for them.
Has anyone done a poll to see what the people think, down here (insert anti-American rant here) all 11 of the anti-Gay marriage referendums passed (many by a 70/30 margin).
OTB
Has anyone done a poll to see what the people think, down here (insert anti-American rant here) all 11 of the anti-Gay marriage referendums passed (many by a 70/30 margin).
OTB
Exactly.yychobbyist said:
If the liberals force an election as some sort of referendum on gay marriage, I will vote for the Conservatives, not because I am against gay marriage because I am actually all for it, but because they are wasting tax dollars and putting the gov't out of commission for lack of a good reason.
If the Conservatives somehow bring down the gov't over gay marriage, I will vote for the liberals.
Only 2 countries in the world have legalized same sex marriage. Personally, I am against it for the following reasons:
1) If its an equality right then it would be inevitable that religious insitutions would have to perform these marriages (all its takes is one gay couple who are Catholic to take the Catholic church to court over refusal to marry). Equality rights trump freedom of religion.
2) Homosexuals comprise approx 5% of the population of Canada and the majority of them have no interest in being married anyway. It should not be an issue right now with the health care crisis we are facing.
3) In my mind marriage is not a human right, its a privilege and a responsibility. The gay community has not earned that privilege because of the unusually high incidents of promiscuous behavior which has spawned HIV infections and such.
4) Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are simply not equal for the simple fact that one can reproduce, the other cannot.
5) Generally(and I mean generally) a child is better off with the love of two parents who are of the opposite sex.
6) It is hard enough for heterosexual couples to adopt with strict screening process and long waiting lists. By letting homosexual couples marry it will just make it harder for them.
7) Marriage,as an institution, is rooted in deep tradition throughout the natural course of history. Some things should just never change, this being no exception.
1) If its an equality right then it would be inevitable that religious insitutions would have to perform these marriages (all its takes is one gay couple who are Catholic to take the Catholic church to court over refusal to marry). Equality rights trump freedom of religion.
2) Homosexuals comprise approx 5% of the population of Canada and the majority of them have no interest in being married anyway. It should not be an issue right now with the health care crisis we are facing.
3) In my mind marriage is not a human right, its a privilege and a responsibility. The gay community has not earned that privilege because of the unusually high incidents of promiscuous behavior which has spawned HIV infections and such.
4) Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are simply not equal for the simple fact that one can reproduce, the other cannot.
5) Generally(and I mean generally) a child is better off with the love of two parents who are of the opposite sex.
6) It is hard enough for heterosexual couples to adopt with strict screening process and long waiting lists. By letting homosexual couples marry it will just make it harder for them.
7) Marriage,as an institution, is rooted in deep tradition throughout the natural course of history. Some things should just never change, this being no exception.
K Douglas, I agree with you 100%.
Despite the government stating that Churches do not have to perform a same sex wedding, you know damn well it won't be long before someone challenges that. I hear this talk about rights and freedoms, what about the right not to perform homosexual weddings? What about the right to not recognize a homosexual union as a marriage?
If homosexuals want to live together as a couple, fine. I don't think it's right, but if they so choose, fine. But do not call it marriage, because it simply is not a marriage. End of story.
Despite the government stating that Churches do not have to perform a same sex wedding, you know damn well it won't be long before someone challenges that. I hear this talk about rights and freedoms, what about the right not to perform homosexual weddings? What about the right to not recognize a homosexual union as a marriage?
If homosexuals want to live together as a couple, fine. I don't think it's right, but if they so choose, fine. But do not call it marriage, because it simply is not a marriage. End of story.
Re:re:#4 - No I don't believe married couples who cannot reproduce naturally through intercourse have any less of a marriage, hence the need for adoption or IVF. However, this is the exception - most heterosexual couples can reproduce without aid. ALL homosexual couples need IVF or adoption to have kids. And how many of the women in these relationships know who the donor of the sperm is? That should be of concern.yychobbyist said:
Re:re:#5 - Let me rephrase. A child is better off with a FATHER & MOTHER who love them and nurture them and are there for them throughout everything throughout their lives.
Re:re:#7 - You argue apples and oranges. Women were deprived of a basic human right that directly affected their lives. They also comprised half of the population. Gays are not being deprived if they are allowed civil unions with all the spousal benefit entitlements. They just don't get to call themselves married. Plus they only comprise 5% of the population not 50%. Big difference.
Let me end this by saying some things are never meant to change. To do so would be a threat to the evolution of society.
tounge firmly in cheek
So, what do the people think? With KKKanada being a single party democracy I'm curious on what the lowly people think of Gay marriage. Certainly there must be poll data - I'm sure at least half of KKKanadians have phones by now.
OTB
So, what do the people think? With KKKanada being a single party democracy I'm curious on what the lowly people think of Gay marriage. Certainly there must be poll data - I'm sure at least half of KKKanadians have phones by now.
OTB
This is the best I could come up with:onthebottom said:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491
On whether or not this should be an election issue:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2541
*Cockpunches OTB*
From Mr. Fang's link
Toronto, ON --As the Supreme Court of Canada issues its opinion on the federal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage today, a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue
Toronto, ON --As the Supreme Court of Canada issues its opinion on the federal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage today, a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue
I have no problem with the Same sex unions. On the bright side lawers will have a new source of income from the breakups. LOL
Something that worries some people is gay couples adopting young children.
That is also a hard topic for some people..
Something that worries some people is gay couples adopting young children.
That is also a hard topic for some people..
Thanks,Cardinal Fang said:
Looks like your numbers are not that different from ours - 60/40 against marriage, 70/30 in favor of civil unions.
Bitch slaps CF
OTB
Yo Don,DonQuixote said:Attorneys will get to handle the pre-nup and divorce. Great for business. Plus,
there's the Reception and the profit for caterers as well as the outfits. Imagine
two brides in white satin dresses walking down the aisle! My attitude is why do
they get off by not having all the expenses of a union while we heteros get hosed?
As for adopting children, that will always be a facts and circumstances situation.
I don't buy the argument that the children need a father and mother. Having practiced
law for 30 years I can tell you many ugly stories about child molestation by ste-fathers
and boy friends. Enough to make your skin crawl. Either the person is decent or a
jerk. Gender neutral. Studies have been done in the States that shows there are
no lasting injuries to the children. I've also read stories where one of the parents has
a sex change after the divorce with no lasting damage to the children.
Lets get real folks, there's no such thing a normal when it comes to we human beings.
Don
I can't wait until it is legal to have a herim...
If we included the referendum on the next federal ballot, it could be used to force the next gov't to use the notwithstanding clause because any attempt to get around this issue will apparently only end up back in the supreme court. If Martin can get this through with a free vote and a minority gov't, the people will have had their say. I agree that a referendum is no way to decide an issue involving individual rights, especially with the courts looming over the whole thing anyway.red said:
There you go.. You ruined a perfectly good dream..of polygamy.DonQuixote said:If you read the bible literally, harems or polygamy, is OK.
But, who would want more than one wife? Who could afford them?
Who could handle the stress?
Come on, get real. One doesn't lead to the other. That's convoluted thinking.
