Same sex marriage debate

[groo39]

Are you joking?

Not at all.

The whole argument for using the name "marriage" for a homosexual civil union or partnership is that it is somehow offensive and discriminatory to insist that the term "marriage" be reserved for a heterosexual monogamous committed relationship.

I have no objections to granting the full legal rights associated with a common-law relationship to a homosexual couple. I just refuse to accept that it is a marriage.

If the use of that word is so important, then clearly the rights of the individual are much more important than was realized in the past. Clearly any exclusion of an individual from a recognized group is unacceptable, if merely insisting on using a different phrase or term is so offensive.

It follows then that any form of exclusion is unacceptable, including the extreme examples I cited. They are silly examples, clearly unacceptable, and intended to show an extreme abuse of the arguments which support the use of the term "marriage" for homosexual unions.

Law is the process of drawing a line that identifies acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and conditions. If no one participated in the unacceptable, there would be no need for the law.

The question is not whether a law will discriminate against some group of people, but whether it is an acceptable level of discrimination. If you listen to the fringe groups that claim any distinction between groups is unacceptable discrimination, then all of our laws are discriminatory. There is always some group labelled "criminals" who do not accept those boundaries defined by law, and who are therefore being discriminated against.

Once all those laws which create subgroups are struck down, all that remains is anarchy.

Clearly that is an unacceptable state for society, and cannot be permitted.

Why, then, is it necessary to insult the majority by calling a homosexual civil union "marriage"? Even a common-law relationship is not called a "marriage"! Why should the meaning of the word be twisted to support the wishes of a very, very small few in society, rather than using a different phrase? Why not instead have the law refer to a "civil union", with marriage and common-law as specific cases of the more generic union?

 

[groo39]

It is shameful that politicians lack the courage to tackle this issue on its truthful basis, rather than hiding behind the skirts of religion.

Politician "A", a known atheist, makes statements about a marriage being between a man and a woman, citing historical examples to support their viewpoint. An animated and potentially heated discussion follows.

Politician "B", a known Roman Catholic, makes the same statements as politician "A". Ignoring the arguments, the media proceeds to tear politician "B" a new arsehole about separation of church and state.

Most people don't think too deeply about the "why" of an instinctive opinion. The specification "man and woman" for marriage has never been codified in Canadian law because there was a general, common concensus as to what the word "marriage" meant.

When you ask someone religious about why they hold a particular viewpoint, they're going to fall back on "God said so" if they haven't spent the time to think about the issue. It's a safe answer, showing they're good little faith-members.

Most will come up with additional reasons if pressed, they just haven't bothered thinking beyond the fact that their religion agrees with their instinct.

 

[zog]

There is NO reason to ban Same sex marriages and EVERY reason to allow them!

Politician "A", a known atheist, makes statements about a marriage being between a man and a woman, citing historical examples to support their viewpoint.

That's all well and good but just because a politician makes a statement and cites some out-of-context historical examples does not make him (or her) right.

I can cite you all kinds of "historical" examples in support of "traditional" marriages where the woman is treated as property. I can also cite "historical" examples of mixed-race marriages being forbidden for many generations in many cultures. History is full of examples where people of differing religious backgrounds were forbidden, by law, to marry. Most of these "traditions" were in effect for far longer than our recent "tradition" of equal partnerships between a man and a woman.

If you extend the "traditional" argument to it's logical conclusion, inter-racial and inter-religious marriages should also be illegal. If you go by historical precedent, women should be subservient to men in marriage. If you go by biblical "tradition", men should be entitled by law to have multiple wives and to buy and sell them as they please. What about the middle ages where, for hundreds of years, women were forced to marry at the age of fourteen or younger? Should we throw away hundreds of years of fuedal tradition just because teenaged girls deserve the opportunity to grow up and choose their own spouse?

Obviously, none of us are seriously advocating a return to these historical traditions. Why? Because we are (or should be) a culture that learns from our past mistakes and strives toward greater equality and fairness. The modern form of marriage would have seemed scandelous to many people as recently as fifty years ago; and it would have seemed sinfull to that generation's grandparents. However, we have come to realize that equality and fairness are an essensial part of our culture. So we now grant equal rights to both spouses (which we didn't in the past) and we allow people to marry outside of religious or racial boundaries which was (not so long ago) forbidden or discouraged.

In fact, variations of the same arguments we are hearing against same-sex marriages today were used in the American South when laws forbidding inter-racial marriage were struck down...should those laws be reinstated because they violate "tradition". Some of these same arguments were even in use to argue that women should not have the vote...less that one hundred years ago.

I'm a big fan of tradition when it makes sense. But I don't believe that tradition should come ahead of justice and equality to all humans. It was right to break tradition and extend the vote to non-whites. It was right to break tradition and extend the vote to women. It was right to break tradition and allow couples of mixed "race" to marry. Similarly it is right to abandon past oppressive laws and allow same-sex marriages to take place.

It is clear that there are some people that are personally uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle and that these people are trying to impose their own views on the general population. They look for (what appear to be) scholarly arguments in their attempts to win their argument. However, at the end of the day, there is no valid reason to withold the benefits of marriage from any sincere and loving adult couple.

Religious organizations and other cultural groups are already free to reject any marriage with which they disagree. Those couples that do not conform to the guidelines of a religious group have to look elsewhere to have their commitment recognized. However, the state exists to serve every citizen equally and without bias. No Canadian should ever feel that his or her gender, colour, background, country of origin, or sexual orientation, prevents them from enjoying the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians.

While I don't suggest that religions should be asked to accept marriages they don't support (and neither does the proposed law), I do believe that the state must extend equal and unbiased rights to each and every law abiding citizen.

The Constitution supports this point of view and the courts have correctly acknowledged this fact. There is nothing else to do but to accept the reality of the situation and make the laws legal within our system.

For those people who would prefer to live in a country where one group's opinions and lifestyle are imposed on others, there are a number of middle-eastern countries that practice Sharia law that might be right up your alley.

In Canada, we are by law protected from discrimination. If you don't like it, don't stay here. I'm sick of people looking to make exceptions to the constitution because they have personal issues with something that is, really, none of their business!

Zog.

 

[WhOiSyOdAdDy?]

Re: There is NO reason to ban Same sex marriages and EVERY reason to allow them!

I'm a big fan of tradition when it makes sense. But I don't believe that tradition should come ahead of justice and equality to all humans. It was right to break tradition and extend the vote to non-whites. It was right to break tradition and extend the vote to women. It was right to break tradition and allow couples of mixed "race" to marry. Similarly it is right to abandon past oppressive laws and allow same-sex marriages to take place

I disagree

 

[Pyro]

Fair enough...but why?

I disagree

I don't. I think that "Zog" made some excellent points; and not just because I agree with them. "Zog" is one of the more articulate members of TERB and his points are well defined and logically stated. Even if you don't agree with him in your gut, you have to admit that what he is saying makes sense. There have been others who have also made excellent points in favour of this issue but, stranegly, no valid arguments against have yet come up.

The key to a productive discussion is to give reasons for one's beliefs rather than just stating one's opinion.

I respect people who have thought their beliefs through in a logical and fair fashion, even if I don't agree with their conclusions.

However, it's hard to respect those who rant against something but cannot come up with any logical arguments to support their position or even give any valid refutations for excellent points raised by their opponents.

Obviously, I favour allowing same-sex marriages and I have been very clear about my opinion on this board. However, I am disappointed that I have not seen any serious discussion from the other side. I have no direct personal stake in this issue as I do not have any inclination to participate in a marriage (same-sex or otherwise). I believe as I do because I have thought the issue through and the arguments in favour seem to be quite clear. I am still waiting to hear actual reasoned arguments against! I always make every effort to be open-minded and I will change my thinking when I see valid reasons to do so.

So this is the challenge. All of you who think that there are realistic, fair, legal, and valid reasons for banning same sex marriages, state your reasons in a clear and scholarly fashion. If I can't refute them with logic and common sense, I'll take them seriously. Who knows...I may even modify my point-of-view; it has happened before. After all ... I never claim to know everything ... just a fair bit.

Pyro.