Same sex marriage debate
- Thread starter fernie
- Start date
I'm all for it, but I do think the government should drop the concept of a so-called "common law" marriage for both same- and opposite-sex couples.
If two people want to marry let them, if they don't then respect that and stop peeking into their private lives asking who lives with whom.
If two people want to marry let them, if they don't then respect that and stop peeking into their private lives asking who lives with whom.
I think it has more to do with the Income Tax Act than anything else. It's very difficult for a government to legislatate respect. I could see divorce lawyers having a field day over who gets custody of the cats.
Not an issue
I agree with those who have stated that this should not be an issue at all.
Since when do most reasonable people feel the need to tell others who or what kind of relationship they should have?
I would have liked to see a poll option that said something like "I don't see this as an issue at all".
Some religious organizations have been getting bent out-of-shape on this matter because they confuse civil marriage with religious matrimony. These have been two very separate items for quite some time. Many legal (heterosexual) marriages already do not fit the requirements of quite a few religious models. Examples include inter-cultural weddings (where neither partner converts to the other's religion), second mariages (where the previous divorce was not recognized by a Church or other religious body), or common-law civil marriages (where no ceremony at all was performed). All of these (and there are many more) are examples of marriages that some (or all) religions would not recognize within their codes and, for years now, they have managed to survive while others consented to these civil arrangements.
Same-sex marriages are just one more example (of many types) of civil bonds between two people that do not happen to fit into the structure of some religious groups. No one is telling these organizations that they have to encourage any type of matrimony at all, let alone a type that is outside their culture. I just don't understand why they feel the need to get mixed up in matters that don't involve them.
You never see the Catholic Church (for example) protesting that Catholic men can legally enter into a civil marriage with non-Catholic women. Why should they give a flying crap what other, non-Catholics, do? I am always especially amused when the Catholic Church makes the extremely false argument about same-sex couples being unfit to raise children...what does that Church know about the proper treatment of children anyway? Hypocricy does not even begin to define their approach to this subject.
I'm not just picking on th RC Church here, the same (or similar) arguments apply to all the religious busybodies that feel the need to impose their (often antiquated) belief systems on others.
Zog.
I agree with those who have stated that this should not be an issue at all.
Since when do most reasonable people feel the need to tell others who or what kind of relationship they should have?
I would have liked to see a poll option that said something like "I don't see this as an issue at all".
Some religious organizations have been getting bent out-of-shape on this matter because they confuse civil marriage with religious matrimony. These have been two very separate items for quite some time. Many legal (heterosexual) marriages already do not fit the requirements of quite a few religious models. Examples include inter-cultural weddings (where neither partner converts to the other's religion), second mariages (where the previous divorce was not recognized by a Church or other religious body), or common-law civil marriages (where no ceremony at all was performed). All of these (and there are many more) are examples of marriages that some (or all) religions would not recognize within their codes and, for years now, they have managed to survive while others consented to these civil arrangements.
Same-sex marriages are just one more example (of many types) of civil bonds between two people that do not happen to fit into the structure of some religious groups. No one is telling these organizations that they have to encourage any type of matrimony at all, let alone a type that is outside their culture. I just don't understand why they feel the need to get mixed up in matters that don't involve them.
You never see the Catholic Church (for example) protesting that Catholic men can legally enter into a civil marriage with non-Catholic women. Why should they give a flying crap what other, non-Catholics, do? I am always especially amused when the Catholic Church makes the extremely false argument about same-sex couples being unfit to raise children...what does that Church know about the proper treatment of children anyway? Hypocricy does not even begin to define their approach to this subject.
I'm not just picking on th RC Church here, the same (or similar) arguments apply to all the religious busybodies that feel the need to impose their (often antiquated) belief systems on others.
Zog.
This is really a no-brainer here. Back in the 80's Canada changed the Charter of Rights to include those of sexual orientation. They should of changed the laws to reflect that, but politicians being the twits that they are, screwed it up.
Now the courts are, again, forced into a spot where they have to create policy. Thus forcing the politicans to finally get the job done.
As for the religious nay-sayers, it's nothing more than a homophobic knee-jerk reaction which amounts to nothing more than bigotry and intolerance!
Now the courts are, again, forced into a spot where they have to create policy. Thus forcing the politicans to finally get the job done.
As for the religious nay-sayers, it's nothing more than a homophobic knee-jerk reaction which amounts to nothing more than bigotry and intolerance!
I have no issue with same-sex civil unions, civil partnerships, common-law relationships, etc. My sole issue is the attempt by a minority to redefine common language to suit their will instead of accepting that they are a minority and do not have the right to dictate terms to the rest of society.
I've known many gays and lesbians over the years, some overt and stereotypically flamboyant, but mostly just regular people other than their sexual orientation. The "regular people" homosexuals often seem to find their more aggressively flamboyant peers embarassing, with a couple of them commenting that the flamboyant extroverts make it impossible to be accepted as "normal" when they behave so outrageously.
I'm even open to the idea of same-sex adoption, though I have some concerns and discomforts about the idea.
Marriage is by definition the union of male and female to breed and raise a family. The whining of a few politically-correct extremists does not change the meaning of a concept which has been part of society for thousands of years, nor should it be allowed to. Use any other term you want for a legally-recognized same-sex committed relationship, but it is not a marriage.
I've known many gays and lesbians over the years, some overt and stereotypically flamboyant, but mostly just regular people other than their sexual orientation. The "regular people" homosexuals often seem to find their more aggressively flamboyant peers embarassing, with a couple of them commenting that the flamboyant extroverts make it impossible to be accepted as "normal" when they behave so outrageously.
I'm even open to the idea of same-sex adoption, though I have some concerns and discomforts about the idea.
Marriage is by definition the union of male and female to breed and raise a family. The whining of a few politically-correct extremists does not change the meaning of a concept which has been part of society for thousands of years, nor should it be allowed to. Use any other term you want for a legally-recognized same-sex committed relationship, but it is not a marriage.
I support legal recognition for same-sex unions. I also hope that Parliament will not do violence to the English and French languages by referring to these unions as "marriage". While Parliament is sovereign and able to change laws, said laws should be expressed using recognised terms in the English and French languages as such terms are understood the world over.
However, that is just my own linguistic quibbling. IMHO, fundamental rights of equality before the law are more important than conforming to the desires of this amateur lexicographer.
However, that is just my own linguistic quibbling. IMHO, fundamental rights of equality before the law are more important than conforming to the desires of this amateur lexicographer.
I respectfully disagree...
I would personally define a marriage as the commitment made between two people who love each other to share their lives together and form an exclusive sexual partnership. The benefits of recognizing such a union under the law is that it would extend legal protection to each partner and any children in the event that the relationship ends or one of the partners dies. Obviously, my definition would not apply to everyone; especially all the married folks on this site who hobby. But it is a valid definition for me and for many others.
Same-sex marriages are just another (perhaps less commonly considered until recently) variation on the theme.
It is true that many religions do not support homosexuality and some even rate homosexual behaviour as sinful. Does that mean that civil, same-sex marriages should not exist? Of course not, for the same reason that people who cheat on their spouses (adultery is deemed a sin too, you know) are still married.
It has long been true that the civil definition of marriage is quite different from the many religious definitions available. For this reason, any objection to same-sex marriages on religious grounds is invalid and hypocritical since civil marriage has always been different from a religious union. Remember, there it wasn't that long ago that certain inter-racial marriages were illegal in parts of North America...at the time, many argued that this was a good and natural law but, of course, they were wrong then too.
I have two questions for those that continue to be opposed to the concept of same-sex marriages:
The only reason to prevent the law from changing is to reduce the freedoms and equality of the people that would benefit. There is absolutely no down-side to passing this law.
So why is it even an issue?
Zog.
This is only one definition of marriage. For example:groo39 said:
- There are many married couples who have no desire or intention of "breeding" and yet they are still married.
- For a variety of reasons, many married couples are incapable of having children of their own and choose to adopt instead. This does not reduce or invalidate the value of their marriage.
- Many religious definitions of "marriage" include conditions about the religious attributes of both partners. Yet mixed marriages that would not be recognized by some religions still exist.
- Many religious definitions of marriage require that a particular rite or protocol be observed; and yet civil marriages that do not comply with religious ceremionial requirements continue to be widespread.
- Many definitions of marriage require that some sort of (civil or religious) procedure be performed. Yet common-lay marriages exist where no ceremony or document-signing ever occurred.
- Many people would argue that partners who marry should be in love and have the intent of remaining together for the rest of their lives. However, marriages of convenience (whether you agree with them or not) happen frequently and, if they are done right, there is no violation of the law.
I would personally define a marriage as the commitment made between two people who love each other to share their lives together and form an exclusive sexual partnership. The benefits of recognizing such a union under the law is that it would extend legal protection to each partner and any children in the event that the relationship ends or one of the partners dies. Obviously, my definition would not apply to everyone; especially all the married folks on this site who hobby. But it is a valid definition for me and for many others.
Same-sex marriages are just another (perhaps less commonly considered until recently) variation on the theme.
It is true that many religions do not support homosexuality and some even rate homosexual behaviour as sinful. Does that mean that civil, same-sex marriages should not exist? Of course not, for the same reason that people who cheat on their spouses (adultery is deemed a sin too, you know) are still married.
It has long been true that the civil definition of marriage is quite different from the many religious definitions available. For this reason, any objection to same-sex marriages on religious grounds is invalid and hypocritical since civil marriage has always been different from a religious union. Remember, there it wasn't that long ago that certain inter-racial marriages were illegal in parts of North America...at the time, many argued that this was a good and natural law but, of course, they were wrong then too.
I have two questions for those that continue to be opposed to the concept of same-sex marriages:
- Why do you accept that other civil marriages that do not fit with conventional mainstream tradition (such as "open" marriages, mixed marriages, common-law marriages, and marriages of convenience) are valid but you are not willing to accept same-sex marriages?
- Why does any straight person care enough to deny homosexual couples the benefits and recognition of marriage under the law? No one is forcing you to participate in the institution, it's just an option being made available to consenting adults who want to do it.
The only reason to prevent the law from changing is to reduce the freedoms and equality of the people that would benefit. There is absolutely no down-side to passing this law.
So why is it even an issue?
Zog.
Why is it an issue, Zog? The religious groups are making it one. That's is the sad point of it. How many more atrocities are going to be committed in the name of the Almighty? Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the "Second Comming", He or She would come down from on high and give them all a good smack on the back of the head and say "Smarten up! This is not what I was preaching" 
Unlike many of the bleeding heart Liberals on this board, I for one don’t believe that there is any need for two people of the same sex to actually be legally married.
Gay couples should be able to live and do what ever they want in the personal and private lives but I don’t like the way in which they and the general public jump on the band wagon and try to force society to change laws to accommodate certain lifestyles.
The tax laws, benefit laws and common laws have all been changed to accommodate this lifestyle, why do they need to push the envelope simply for public recognition, which it appears this group seeks more than anything else.
Gay couples should be able to live and do what ever they want in the personal and private lives but I don’t like the way in which they and the general public jump on the band wagon and try to force society to change laws to accommodate certain lifestyles.
The tax laws, benefit laws and common laws have all been changed to accommodate this lifestyle, why do they need to push the envelope simply for public recognition, which it appears this group seeks more than anything else.
Please!
I don't know that all the laws are in place to protect same-sex couples.
Clearly, there is a need to recognize matrimonial relationships between same-sex couples. But even if there wasn't a need, why not allow it anyway? There's absolutely no down-side or other reason not to allow it.
If you don't agree with it personally, don't get married to someone of the same sex. But, for crying out lound, why not let people who want to enter into same-sex marriages do so? What is the value in oppressing a significant group of people for no reason??
Zog.
Who are you, or anyone else, for that matter, do decide what other people do or don't need? Being in support of fairness and against oppression is not a symptom of "bleeding heart" liberalism. It is, in fact, the sign of a fair and open mind.The Real Deal said:
I don't know that all the laws are in place to protect same-sex couples.
- If one partner dies without a will, the surviving member of the couple does not automatically have a spousal claim to the estate. This can be a problem if there was shared property which was legally in one partner's name. Couples in a legally recognized marriage automatically get these rights.
- Even if the partner who dies does have a will, that person's family, who may even have previously disowned him (or her) for their sexual orientation, often have a legal claim to contest the will and reclaim the property because the partner has no legal status.
- If the partner who dies is a custodial parent of a child that was being raised by the couple, the surviving parent has no legal claim to custody and the children often end up getting shuffled into the foster-parent system of assigned to a relative who does not have an actual parental relationship with the child. Imagine the trauma to a child who first loses one parent and then is taken away from the other for no good reason. Imagine the pain this would also cause to the surviving parent who has just lost their loved-one and is now loosing their child as well!
Clearly, there is a need to recognize matrimonial relationships between same-sex couples. But even if there wasn't a need, why not allow it anyway? There's absolutely no down-side or other reason not to allow it.
If you don't agree with it personally, don't get married to someone of the same sex. But, for crying out lound, why not let people who want to enter into same-sex marriages do so? What is the value in oppressing a significant group of people for no reason??
Zog.
Re: Please!
Well first of all, I'm a memebr of the voting public with an opinion.
What I get from this statement is “for crying out loud” how dare you speak out against same sex marriages.
Another example of why people keep their opinions to themselves.
Your response is to be expected, people that feel their opinion is right with this topic eventually resort to referring to people with the opposite opinion with things like racists, homophobic, neanderthals, narrow minded. Although you haven’t, the undertone is there with the whole, I’m right, you’re wrong attitude for speaking out.
I guess the ministers that are currently meeting in North Bay to intervene their own party leader on this issue must be crazy then if it’s such a no brainer!
zog said:
Well first of all, I'm a memebr of the voting public with an opinion.
zog said:
What I get from this statement is “for crying out loud” how dare you speak out against same sex marriages.
Another example of why people keep their opinions to themselves.
Your response is to be expected, people that feel their opinion is right with this topic eventually resort to referring to people with the opposite opinion with things like racists, homophobic, neanderthals, narrow minded. Although you haven’t, the undertone is there with the whole, I’m right, you’re wrong attitude for speaking out.
I guess the ministers that are currently meeting in North Bay to intervene their own party leader on this issue must be crazy then if it’s such a no brainer!
The reason is that the all the conflict over this is happening is because the politicians have procastinated to point where the Supreme Court was forced into a position to make policy. This decision was based on the changes that were made to the Charter of Rights back in the 80's, one of the things that Law and Justice is based on.
Yes, the Supreme Court is not there to create policy but to determinie was is just what is just and fair under the law. But there are numerous times that they are forced into that position of making policy because the politicans didn't have the balls to make changes in the law to reflect the changes they made to the Charter. WHY? Because they knew that all the religious yahoos would throw a homophobic tissy over this. And these people want to get re-elected again.
But has of the nay-sayers even looked at the proposed changes? There are three parts that are considered in this:
1. That the definition of marriage to be change to include same sex relationships.
2. That these changes are complainant with the Charter of Rights.
3. And the religious leaders do not feel that they are obligated to perform a same sex marriage because of the religious dogma that they have to follow.
The changes that are being proposed say that yes, gay marriages are ok; yes, religious leaders are not obligated to perform such marriages if their religion dictates them not to. I think this covers all the bases. The religious nay-sayers don't have anything to worry about because they are not forced to marry them because of these constitutional changes. As far as I'm concerned it's all a homophobic knee-jerk reaction. I think as a society we should leave ignorance and bigotry behind.
Yes, the Supreme Court is not there to create policy but to determinie was is just what is just and fair under the law. But there are numerous times that they are forced into that position of making policy because the politicans didn't have the balls to make changes in the law to reflect the changes they made to the Charter. WHY? Because they knew that all the religious yahoos would throw a homophobic tissy over this. And these people want to get re-elected again.
But has of the nay-sayers even looked at the proposed changes? There are three parts that are considered in this:
1. That the definition of marriage to be change to include same sex relationships.
2. That these changes are complainant with the Charter of Rights.
3. And the religious leaders do not feel that they are obligated to perform a same sex marriage because of the religious dogma that they have to follow.
The changes that are being proposed say that yes, gay marriages are ok; yes, religious leaders are not obligated to perform such marriages if their religion dictates them not to. I think this covers all the bases. The religious nay-sayers don't have anything to worry about because they are not forced to marry them because of these constitutional changes. As far as I'm concerned it's all a homophobic knee-jerk reaction. I think as a society we should leave ignorance and bigotry behind.
I find it interesting that I am the one of the only ones that actually weighed in with opinion opposed to same sex marriages.
According to the current poll results, there is actually less than 10% difference between those opposing and those supporting the topic.
Why do people have an opinion but aren’t willing to stand up for their opinion?
I guess being a closet voter suits the other 22 people that voted the same as me. Obviously in my opinion I’m not alone yet I seem to be standing alone with regards to voicing it
According to the current poll results, there is actually less than 10% difference between those opposing and those supporting the topic.
Why do people have an opinion but aren’t willing to stand up for their opinion?
I guess being a closet voter suits the other 22 people that voted the same as me. Obviously in my opinion I’m not alone yet I seem to be standing alone with regards to voicing it
Interesting response...but where are the arguments?
The same applies to "The Real Deal"'s position against same sex marriages. Certainly, he is very outspoken in his objection to the concept; there is no doubt as to where he stands. I guess he should be admired for being willing to state his beliefs, the more so since they are a minority position. However, nowhere in his posts is there any response to the reasoned questions that have been asked of him.
It has been stated by several contributors that there are good reasons FOR same sex marriages and that there are no valid reasons AGAINST the proposed legislation.
"Zog" (and others above) has shown how allowing same sex marriages would provide positive benefits to members of the Gay community and their families. These qualify as valid and reasoned arguments in favour of the same sex marriage proposition.
In contrast, the posts that have been against the proposition have not produced any valid reasons why the proposition would be harmful.
To assist those who wish to make a reasoned argument for the negative, I will ask the questions that have been implied by many before me:
- What is wrong with same-sex mariages?
- What is the negative impact to you or society to allowing Gays to marry?
- What justification is there for denying Homosexual couples the right to marry?
Since we are talking about CIVIL marriage, religious arguments would not be valid responses to these questions.
Though my position in favour of allowing Gays to marry (if they so choose) is obviously quite clear from the content of my post, I do respect the rights of others to hold dissenting opinions. However, my respect is reserved for those who can make clear, cogent, and non-attacking arguments to support their position. I don't see the value of posting a passionate diatribe that attacks other members of TERB, implies that they are playing the race card, but fails to raise any valid points in support of the argument.
It's all well and good to be outspoken against a proposition; it's actually quite easy to do if you have some time on your hands. It's a great deal more difficult to make a reasoned argument in support of a position.
"The Real Deal" has accomplished the first part: we all know where he stands. However, he has completely avoided the second, more difficult, component: he has made no attempt to give us valid reasons why he opposes the proposition and supports the status quo.
In our free society (at least we claim to have one) laws should serve to protect and benefit the public, not oppress them. I have not yet seen a single argument that shows how banning same sex marriages will protect or benefit this society.
I understand that many people are opposed to Homosexuality in all forms on religious or (personal) ethics grounds. These people have a right to hold those views but they DO NOT have the right to attempt to impose them on others. Just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle choices or preferences is NO REASON to stop them form following their chosen path. Only if there is a good and valid reason why that choice is somehow harmful to others is there justification for restricting the activiity under the law.
Here's an example. I believe that pedophiles should not be permitted to practice their proclivities with underage children. I find pedophilia to be vile and disgusting behaviour; however, my personal opinion alone (however strongly held) IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS for making pedophilia illegal. On the other hand, it can be shown quite clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, that pedophiles produce real (and often irreversable) damage to their victims. Now THAT is a valid argument against the practice. If this was a thread about pedophilia, I would list a number of proofs in support of this argument but, since I'm already well off on a tangent, I'll trust that you all get the idea.
What I would like to see here is SOME KIND of real and logical reasoning for why it is harmfull or otherwise undesireable to allow same sex couples to have their commitment to each other recognised by the law.
Who knows, if there ARE valid reasons, perhaps I will come to change my perspective. I can promise you one thing, though:
You'll never change my mind when you subtract from your credibility by attacking the other posters and do not add to your credibilitty by introducing worthwhile arguments in your favour.
Pyro.
What if I was of the "opinion" that black people should sit at the back of the bus, Asians should not be allowed into Canadian Universities, Jews should be forced to wear yellow armbands, and Moslems should be locked up to prevent terrorism? True, I would have the right to express my views but, when push came to shove, I could not possibly provide a valid justification for any of these "opinions".The Real Deal said:
The same applies to "The Real Deal"'s position against same sex marriages. Certainly, he is very outspoken in his objection to the concept; there is no doubt as to where he stands. I guess he should be admired for being willing to state his beliefs, the more so since they are a minority position. However, nowhere in his posts is there any response to the reasoned questions that have been asked of him.
It has been stated by several contributors that there are good reasons FOR same sex marriages and that there are no valid reasons AGAINST the proposed legislation.
"Zog" (and others above) has shown how allowing same sex marriages would provide positive benefits to members of the Gay community and their families. These qualify as valid and reasoned arguments in favour of the same sex marriage proposition.
In contrast, the posts that have been against the proposition have not produced any valid reasons why the proposition would be harmful.
To assist those who wish to make a reasoned argument for the negative, I will ask the questions that have been implied by many before me:
- What is wrong with same-sex mariages?
- What is the negative impact to you or society to allowing Gays to marry?
- What justification is there for denying Homosexual couples the right to marry?
Since we are talking about CIVIL marriage, religious arguments would not be valid responses to these questions.
Though my position in favour of allowing Gays to marry (if they so choose) is obviously quite clear from the content of my post, I do respect the rights of others to hold dissenting opinions. However, my respect is reserved for those who can make clear, cogent, and non-attacking arguments to support their position. I don't see the value of posting a passionate diatribe that attacks other members of TERB, implies that they are playing the race card, but fails to raise any valid points in support of the argument.
It's all well and good to be outspoken against a proposition; it's actually quite easy to do if you have some time on your hands. It's a great deal more difficult to make a reasoned argument in support of a position.
"The Real Deal" has accomplished the first part: we all know where he stands. However, he has completely avoided the second, more difficult, component: he has made no attempt to give us valid reasons why he opposes the proposition and supports the status quo.
In our free society (at least we claim to have one) laws should serve to protect and benefit the public, not oppress them. I have not yet seen a single argument that shows how banning same sex marriages will protect or benefit this society.
I understand that many people are opposed to Homosexuality in all forms on religious or (personal) ethics grounds. These people have a right to hold those views but they DO NOT have the right to attempt to impose them on others. Just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle choices or preferences is NO REASON to stop them form following their chosen path. Only if there is a good and valid reason why that choice is somehow harmful to others is there justification for restricting the activiity under the law.
Here's an example. I believe that pedophiles should not be permitted to practice their proclivities with underage children. I find pedophilia to be vile and disgusting behaviour; however, my personal opinion alone (however strongly held) IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS for making pedophilia illegal. On the other hand, it can be shown quite clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, that pedophiles produce real (and often irreversable) damage to their victims. Now THAT is a valid argument against the practice. If this was a thread about pedophilia, I would list a number of proofs in support of this argument but, since I'm already well off on a tangent, I'll trust that you all get the idea.
What I would like to see here is SOME KIND of real and logical reasoning for why it is harmfull or otherwise undesireable to allow same sex couples to have their commitment to each other recognised by the law.
Who knows, if there ARE valid reasons, perhaps I will come to change my perspective. I can promise you one thing, though:
You'll never change my mind when you subtract from your credibility by attacking the other posters and do not add to your credibilitty by introducing worthwhile arguments in your favour.
Pyro.
For the record I have no problem with adoption by same sex couples.
I am willing to stand up and be counted as one opposed to “Same Sex Marriages”, not because I am homophobic but rather simply because I believe that is what a marriage is. It is a “form” of a civil union, a union of man and women that is called “marriage”. I have no problem with homosexuals participating in civil unions of their own kind, with the same benefits that go along with heterosexual unions, just give it another name. Although to be honest, rather than extend them the same rights as heterosexual unions, I’d rather they just removed things like tax benefits that are extended to married couples. I feel that “1 plus 1 equals 2,” not “1 plus 1 is greater than 2”. We’re all supposed to be equal after all.
Taken to its extreme let me ask you this? While we are changing the meaning of the word “marriage” why is it I cannot refer to myself as married? Just because I’m single should not preclude me from declaring myself married too no? What about my rights as an individual? Why is it we only worry about collective rights (something I refuse to recognize). Now you’re going to tell me that that idea is stupid and that it requires two people. Well for some of us, the fact that the union should include a man and a women is just as important as having it include two people. Changing the definition to include same sex couples, to me, makes as much sense as including individuals as well. It is a “WORD”…deal with it. While we are at it why exclude animals?
Question: When a man takes it upon himself to touch a women’s chest he would be charged with sexual assault although if he were to do the same thing to another man, the charge would be simply assault. But what if the perpetrator is gay? Should he not be charged with the more serious charge of sexual assault if he takes it upon himself to touch a man’s chest? I can only assume that those who endorse same sex marriages would also extend equality or criminal matters to homosexuals as well.
Just my thoughts. I can live with whatever is decided. I only hope that it is a free vote within parliament because I don’t recall this issue (a very important one for a great many people) being mentioned at any time prior to, or leading up to the previous election.
Max.
I am willing to stand up and be counted as one opposed to “Same Sex Marriages”, not because I am homophobic but rather simply because I believe that is what a marriage is. It is a “form” of a civil union, a union of man and women that is called “marriage”. I have no problem with homosexuals participating in civil unions of their own kind, with the same benefits that go along with heterosexual unions, just give it another name. Although to be honest, rather than extend them the same rights as heterosexual unions, I’d rather they just removed things like tax benefits that are extended to married couples. I feel that “1 plus 1 equals 2,” not “1 plus 1 is greater than 2”. We’re all supposed to be equal after all.
Taken to its extreme let me ask you this? While we are changing the meaning of the word “marriage” why is it I cannot refer to myself as married? Just because I’m single should not preclude me from declaring myself married too no? What about my rights as an individual? Why is it we only worry about collective rights (something I refuse to recognize). Now you’re going to tell me that that idea is stupid and that it requires two people. Well for some of us, the fact that the union should include a man and a women is just as important as having it include two people. Changing the definition to include same sex couples, to me, makes as much sense as including individuals as well. It is a “WORD”…deal with it. While we are at it why exclude animals?
Question: When a man takes it upon himself to touch a women’s chest he would be charged with sexual assault although if he were to do the same thing to another man, the charge would be simply assault. But what if the perpetrator is gay? Should he not be charged with the more serious charge of sexual assault if he takes it upon himself to touch a man’s chest? I can only assume that those who endorse same sex marriages would also extend equality or criminal matters to homosexuals as well.
Just my thoughts. I can live with whatever is decided. I only hope that it is a free vote within parliament because I don’t recall this issue (a very important one for a great many people) being mentioned at any time prior to, or leading up to the previous election.
Max.
An interesting discussion, and both Zog and Trelaw make a great deal of logical common sense - my congratulations! I have been instinctively in favour of same-sex marriages (closet wobbly liberal that I am), but their contributions have given me sound, articulate reasons to back up my left-of-centre inclinations.
My thanks to them!
My thanks to them!
Re: I respectfully disagree...
I presume you mean racially or religiously mixed marriages. The only objections to such marriages are cultural/religious, not really moral. Even the ever-rigid Catholic church has workarounds to allow such marriages.
Common-law exists primarily as legal protection. As the common-law couples I know don't refer to each other as wife or husband, I'm not even sure the word "marriage" applies to the relationship. It's more a legal civil union than an official marriage.
Marriages of convenience are a sham. They're just abuse of an institution to get around immigration laws. We'd be better off finding some way of allowing individuals to immigrate without having to resort to such "loopholes".
I don't deny the legal rights of such a union to homosexual couples -- far from it. Call it a civil union, call it a commitment, call it whatever you want except marriage, and provide those who have entered that union with the same legal rights as a married or common-law couple.
When you say "...it's just an option...", you disrespect an institution that many people in this nation still hold sacred, regardless of their religious beliefs, and despite the outrageous divorce rate. There is nothing in establishing a legal civil union of some sort for homosexuals which should require insulting those who respect the existing institution of marriage.
Open marriages are an oddity, but if a couple would rather presume they're both messing around than perpetually guilt each other for cheating, I don't really have a problem with it. Not a lifestyle I'd choose, but they are still a couple that may or may not have children.zog said:
I presume you mean racially or religiously mixed marriages. The only objections to such marriages are cultural/religious, not really moral. Even the ever-rigid Catholic church has workarounds to allow such marriages.
Common-law exists primarily as legal protection. As the common-law couples I know don't refer to each other as wife or husband, I'm not even sure the word "marriage" applies to the relationship. It's more a legal civil union than an official marriage.
Marriages of convenience are a sham. They're just abuse of an institution to get around immigration laws. We'd be better off finding some way of allowing individuals to immigrate without having to resort to such "loopholes".
I don't deny the legal rights of such a union to homosexual couples -- far from it. Call it a civil union, call it a commitment, call it whatever you want except marriage, and provide those who have entered that union with the same legal rights as a married or common-law couple.
When you say "...it's just an option...", you disrespect an institution that many people in this nation still hold sacred, regardless of their religious beliefs, and despite the outrageous divorce rate. There is nothing in establishing a legal civil union of some sort for homosexuals which should require insulting those who respect the existing institution of marriage.
You seem to be refuting your own point...
Pyro.
Gee...that statement would be just as true if the words "Open marriages..." were replaced with "Same sex marriages..."groo39 said:
Pyro.
