Hot Pink List
Toronto Escorts

Gay Marriage

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
So, anyways, I've honestly been wrestling with how I feel on this matter. I've come to the conclusion, like (I gather) a majority of Canadians, that I am for gay civil unions, but against redefining "marriage".

We had an interesting discussion here a few months ago regarding this very issue. I read an interesting article in the London Free Press by Salim Mansur about this, which reflects my opinions very nicely.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/London/Salim_Mansur/2005/02/16/932114.html

The position adopted by the Liberal party as the government of Canada, in pushing ahead with Bill C-38 on same-sex marriage, is based upon the argument for equality.

It has taken the view that denial of same-sex marriage is a violation of section 15, dealing with equality provisions, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The remedy proposed, to be debated in Parliament, is redefining traditional marriage between a man and a woman to mean "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Among the many difficulties with that position, apart from the wisdom of wrecking a traditional institution that is not of its creation, is the narrowly enabling manner in which the Liberals use the meaning of equality to offer a dubious remedy.

We learned from experience of the last century how parties on the left and the right appealed to the idea of equality in legitimating their contrary political objectives in organizing society.

It is undeniable that the pursuit of equality as good in itself is desired by all, yet it is also undeniable that there remains a difference, for instance, between formal and substantive equality.

Formal equality is about denying some existing inequality of treatment, such as slavery or colonialism, that subverts the idea -- as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 -- of all human beings being "free and equal in dignity and rights."

Formal equality is about equal opportunity in society for all individuals, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, faith, or physical or mental disability, under the rule of law.

Substantive equality is about distributive justice pursued as policy by state authority to arrive at an equal outcome or result among individuals or different groups of people with varying capabilities and characteristics.

Inevitably, as history illustrates, the resulting equality is effected by coercive or authoritarian means at the disposal of the state. Yet in pursuing an equal outcome, uniformly grave wrong is done to people individually or in groups.

In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Liberal party is fixated with the pursuit of substantive equality, regardless of what it must break to effect an equal outcome in the meaning of marriage.

The traditional institution of marriage derives its legitimacy, apart from the sort of special status given it by most religions, from how nature works. Its common sense meaning of union between opposite sexes rests on the natural order of living matter, and not the edicts of states, passing fashions of public opinion or the manipulation of living cells in a petri dish.

Formal equality among sexes, and their sexual preferences, is not invalidated by traditional marriage, unless it can be shown this institution by some mechanism has cast a veto on whatever arrangement homosexual and lesbian couples seek for recognizing their union by the state.

This is not the case. Most defenders of traditional marriage are not opposed to the state working out a legal arrangement by which unions of homosexual and lesbian couples are duly recognized and protected, if this is what section 15 of the charter requires.

But the Liberal party has not convincingly explained, nor can it, why it must hollow out the traditional meaning of marriage in pursuing the goal of substantive equality between the union of homosexual and lesbian couples, and the union of a man and a woman in traditional marriage.

This is why the remedy offered -- redefining marriage to suit the political needs of the Liberal party elite and fashionable tastes of influential lib-left opinion makers in society -- is spurned by a majority of Canadians, out of common sense and not bigotry.
Lucid, non-flaming thoughts anyone?
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
I have been struggeling with this issue as well. Ideologically i have no issue with gays wanting to have a legal status as a couple. Same sex partner benefits are being offered by some companies already. If we allow "common law marriage" why not allow gay marriage?
Churches and religous institutions however should not be forced to recognize or peform gay marriages.
I think it is more of moral issue, than it is a legal issue.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
I believe that if you honestly believe that we are all equal than it should be just that. Not just lip service, not seperate but equal, but simply equal. Traditional marriages change throughout history and this is another example of it.

No one's traditional marriage is diminished by allowing two loving people of the same sex to enter into marriage. The institution of marriage is not going to fail as a result. No one is forcing Churches to preform these marriages. The sky is not going to fall. Life will go on as always.

Live and let live.
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
0
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
Is this really a problem of the State or one of the Church?

In the old days (hundreds of years ago) it could be successfully argued that the Church was the State. So powerful and influential was the Church and religious teachings that kings would bow to their wishes. In those days, it was the Church who ultimately decreed what contituted marriage and what acceptable sexual behaviour was.

Today of course all this has changed. But the definition of marriage is strongly rooted in the tradition put forth by the Church so many centuries ago. Is that a reason to keep it so? Is the world still flat?

The concepts of formal vs substantial equality are well stated in the article. But again, is it really a case of being equal? Let's take the case of the provincial transfer payments. McGuinty is arguing that Ontario pays a lot and gets not much back. He's right - Ontario does pay a lot but in order "to be equal" the federal government pays the less wealthy provinces from Ontario's share. Is this equal? No. Is it fair? Yes.

To that end, I think the question of gay marriage is not essentially one of equality so much as one of building and maintaining a fair and just society.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
Goober Mcfly said:

Ah yes. The slippery slope. And lets not forget that if this passes than people will be able to marry their pets (somewhere YYC is cheering), polygamy will be made legal, children will be able to marry and....did I miss anything?

Damn it Goober! You've outed us!
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
0
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
Goober Mcfly said:
I don't think the State will force (or even can force) any Church to perform any act it doesn't want to. The Church, particularly Roman Catholic, is exclusionary by it's very nature. That's why alternatives have sprung up over the years - Lutheran, Anglican, Protestant ...

The various religions will continue along on their merry way preaching whatever it is they want to. Their flocks will continue to grow and ebb and grow again over the years. Gay marriage will evenutally be recognized and the world will continue turning.
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Cardinal Fang said:
Ah yes. The slippery slope. And lets not forget that if this passes than people will be able to marry their pets (somewhere YYC is cheering), polygamy will be made legal, children will be able to marry and....did I miss anything?
Nice hyperbole, Chicken Little.

It's stupid to say that the logical next step is legalized bestiality (sorry YYC), polygamy (dammit) and kiddie marriages. But a logical next step for the gay/lesbian extremists is to attack the church, using most of the same arguments they're using now.

Once again, I believe that an equal civil union with all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage is the best solution. If you honestly think that there is no such thing as "different but equal", try going into a ladies change room in a health club, or a ladies washroom.
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
Goober Mcfly said:
But a logical next step for the gay/lesbian extremists is to attack the church, using most of the same arguments they're using now.
Logical but highly unlikely given that the Supreme Court has upheld freedom of religion as it pertains to what Churchs can and cannot do within their organizations.

Goober Mcfly said:
Once again, I believe that an equal civil union with all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage is the best solution.
If you honestly believe that "civil unions" are the same then why don't we all just call marriages civil unions?

Goober Mcfly said:
If you honestly think that there is no such thing as "different but equal", try going into a ladies change room in a health club, or a ladies washroom.
Harper? Is that you again?

:D
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
I have better hair.
Cardinal Fang said:
If you honestly believe that "civil unions" are the same then why don't we all just call marriages civil unions?
They are. But marriages are a form of civil union between a man and a woman. Why not invent another term to define the civil union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman? Why is the term "marriage" so important for you?
 

wrong hole

huh...
May 4, 2003
4,891
0
0
25 malbury lane
I like gay marriages.....they're cool

it's only monkeys that want a seperate term for gay marriages....it's saying...we'll give you the right(by law) but we won't support it by spirit (by isolating you with a different term ....therefore always making you feel like a second class citizen)
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
If this legislation goes through, they should also abolish:

- public funding of the Catholic School system
- entrance fees to anything
- private clubs
- restrooms and changerooms for each sex

because they all infringe on equal rights.

</Chicken Little>
 

Cardinal Fang

Bazinga Bitches
Feb 14, 2002
6,576
467
83
I'm right here
www.vatican.va
Goober Mcfly said:
If this legislation goes through, they should also abolish:

- public funding of the Catholic School system
- entrance fees to anything
- private clubs
- restrooms and changerooms for each sex

because they all infringe on equal rights.

</Chicken Little>
1. Yes.
2. I'm all for it if it reduces the V.I.P. charges in Strip Clubs.
3. Good. They would never let me in, those black-balling BASTARDS!
4. They already done that in some clubs.
 

wrong hole

huh...
May 4, 2003
4,891
0
0
25 malbury lane
Goober Mcfly said:
If this legislation goes through, they should also abolish:

- public funding of the Catholic School system
- entrance fees to anything
- private clubs
- restrooms and changerooms for each sex

because they all infringe on equal rights.
</Chicken Little>
I agree with abolishing public funding of any religious schools(catholic, islamic, jewish, polish)

I have no clue about what you are getting at in terms of "entrance fees" unless you are refering to the cost of a quarter to enter your bum(Goober's Mystical Funland Ride)

Private Clubs have nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation....it's all about the elizabethan class system...unless you are talking about that golf course where women are not permitted....I agree...it s/b abolished

restrooms and changerooms s/b unisex but unfortunately....our race does not have the maturity for that yet....I mean when a girl farts....some dude is going to giggle like a little school girl
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Views like that make me think wrong hole may be a tulip-eating dutch midget. Who's with me?
 
Toronto Escorts