Same sex marriage debate

[groo39]

Re: You seem to be refuting your own point...

Gee...that statement would be just as true if the words "Open marriages..." were replaced with "Same sex marriages..."

Pyro.

Nice try, but no -- it's still a hetero couple.

You'd have done better to point out that under the law, swingers could still claim infidelity if they wanted a divorce. In other words, their entire "lifestyle" technically negates their marriage.

*ding* Thank you for playing...

Diving off topic a moment (again):

I knew one whacked-out pair of swingers down south years ago. Very dedicated to each other in any way you could think of, they just acted like randy 15 year olds, coupling in any and all combinations that presented themselves.

It's actually their behavior that convinced me I was better off with a good SP than chasing women at bars...

 

[Pyro]

I see you've proven my point...

Nice try, but no -- it's still a hetero couple.

So there it is. Your entire argument is obviously based on sexual preference since you claim heterosexuality is what makes them different. Because it happens to be against the law to discriminate against anyone for their sexual orientation, your whole argument is illegal.

That's exactly why we must allow same sex marriages. To disallow them is clearly a violation of the Constitution.

Ding. Thank you for playing.

And by the way...

...under the law, swingers could still claim infidelity if they wanted a divorce. In other words, their entire "lifestyle" technically negates their marriage.

...won't cut it either. A divorce is not an annulment. It is a legal termination of a legal marriage. So you've just proven that swingers are legally married...just as same sex couples should have the same right to be.

Pyro.

 

[groo39]

Re: I see you've proven my point...

So there it is. Your entire argument is obviously based on sexual preference since you claim heterosexuality is what makes them different. Because it happens to be against the law to discriminate against anyone for their sexual orientation, your whole argument is illegal.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and it is not illegal. It is illegal to discriminate and repress, but there is nothing in the law that says I have to approve of or encourage behavior that I don't participate in. I consider calling a homosexual union a "marriage" a serious insult to my own heritage and culture. You have no more right to insult my heritage and culture than I do yours, and demanding that I belittle my heritage because you want to use an existing term for a newly recognized legal arrangement is worse than insulting -- it says one minority group's want takes precedence over that of the collective majority.

I don't like it. I don't agree with it. And I will not back down to anyone who thinks that means I'm prejudiced. I am not politically correct. I speak my mind as I see fit, and would happily defend those opinions in any court (though I'd bitch about the legal fees and government hassle like any other good Canuck. *g*)

I have a major issue with all of societies traditions being uprooted and destroyed in pursuit of politically correct terminology.

If the phrase "civil union" or some such isn't good enough for the homosexual community, that's just too damned bad. The minority has rights which have to be respected, but that does not mean the minority doesn't have to respect the majority's right to say "enough, already!"

Somewhere the politicos have made the mistake of presuming that all is ok with the silent majority. What is happening here is that they're learning that the average common citizen does have limits on just how far their willing to bend in the name of "tolerance".

Tolerance does not imply encouragement, nor does it imply acceptance. All it means is that as long as you aren't shoving your personal life in my face, I will treat you with the same respect and dignity as any other co-worker or client. I have no more respect for someone flaunting their homosexuality than a receptionist who dresses like a braless miniskirted tramp in a business environment. If you want respect, act like you deserve it.

It has nothing to do with their personal proclivities, and everything to do with their insulting demand that I not merely accept, but approve their activities.

I tolerate as I am required to by law. The same as I tolerate a sex-offender's right to live somewhere after release. The same as I tolerate Toronto's ethnic communities when they cry "racism" as if they were dealing with southern US cops.

I tolerate them all as whining special interest groups whose sole purpose is not to achieve equality, but to receive special treatment in compensation for their "history" of "trampled rights".

 

[terryman]

Same Sex Marriages

I am all for the same sex marriage. I am a straight male and my view on this is that regardless of someone's sexual orientation, they should be afforded the same rights as anybody else.

The church states that marriage is for Procreation. If this is the way the religious fanatics want it. Then anybody who is straight but not able to have children should not be afforded the same rights as somebody who can have children.

I will admit that I do feel uncomfortable when I see two men holding hands and kissing (women are OK....) but that is "my" problem not theirs.

I say, live and let live. What goes on in their own home is their business, not mine.

 

[Pyro]

No kidding!

two women kissing is more than ok

Especially if they're kissing me!

Pyro the Pig!

 

[Lilith]

As long as everybody is happy. Who are we to judge?

People just want to be themselves.

 

[fernie]

Narrow victory

So the vote was 137 to 132 in support of same sex marriage.

Fernie

 

[Dement Ed]

I think gays should be allowed the marriage ceremony if they so wish to celebrate the occassion. But obviously that shit won't fly with Roman Catholic Churches... I'm happy about that though.

But the union should be considered a common law relationship. I say this because I believe that before it was considered a common law relationship, partners of a deceased were not entitled to any benefits, support, or a split of assets upon break-up or divorce. It's a pretty rotten deal for the partner that got traded in for a new model. Besides, why should straight men be the only ones to suffer financially from a breakdown in marriage, while the gays continue to be free to fuck and dump anyone they choose?

I don't agree with the lifestyle, and I too get freaked out by them embracing or kissing in public. Once I even caught a glimpse of gay porn on the net, and it disturbed me. It doesn't seem right, yet I admit I tried anal sex with women, and enjoyed it. But gay marriage doesn't affect me, or the way I live my life, so let them live theirs and be happy.

 

[WhOiSyOdAdDy?]

The vote was NOT "in favour" of supporting same sex marriage. The vote was against an Alliance/Reform motion.

It was a very close vote.. 137-132

So many people in theis thread said something like "Live and let live"

I agree with that.. the gays should "Live and let live"... and respect heterosexuals and the traditional definition on marriage.


I do not think that it should be allowed, however if it must be, then it should just be called a "same-sex union" or something, other than marriage

 

[fernie]

The times are changing. I can't believe how many rednecks just don't get it.

Fernie

 

[ocean976124]

Marriage between a man and a woman is as old as society. Its in the best interests of Government to give certain perks to those who are married. However, I don't think these perks are necessarily a "right". I think the government does have the right to choose and discriminate what it believes it is in its best interests to promote and support.
That being said, I think sodomy laws are stupid and two men or women should be allowed to live together and not lose their job or anything. But I fail to see a vested interest for the government to promote it via the special privleges of marriage...

 

[Pyro]

Same sex marriage...another of many variations

There was a time (and this is still true in some cultures) where marriage did not necessarily mean one man and one woman. Some cultures allow men to have more than one wife. Other cultures have communal families with several partners of either sex. In some cultures one was obliged to marry one's cousins. In ancient Egypt, the royal family went through a stage where siblings married to "keep the line pure". All of these options which were (or are) regularly accepted practices are different from what the reform/alliance types are calling the "traditional" definition of marriage. Yet all of these practices are far more radical to our own culture than same-sex marriage. Should we bring back polygamy? Many men in the bible had multiple wives...isn't that about as traditional as you can get?

While we're talking about tradition, let me just say what a complete steaming pile of dog manure the whole "traditional definition" of marriage argument is. This is a linguistic argument which tries to suggest that heterosexual marriage as we know it today is a long-standing tradition that should not be changed. This is crap!

How long ago did women have to promise to "obey" their husband in their wedding vows while the husband did not make any such commitment? Is that the tradition we want to enforce upon our society?

For most of the history of Judeo-Christian culture (from which source our - supposed - traditional marriage comes) women had almost no rights at all. In the bible, they were property and that didn't change until many years later. Heck, women didn't even have the vote in the British Commonwealth until 1918; that's less that 100 years ago! Should we bring back the "traditional" definition of women as chattel? Are we offended by these newfangled laws that give women equal treatment under the law despite the fact that "traditionally" they were property of their fathers and husbands? Give me a break!

The whole concept of "traditional marriage" is bunk because the institution has evolved over time to meet the changing needs and attitudes of each generation. Your marriage is not the same as your parents' marriage and their parents' relationship was different too. We used to be a society that did not value the rights of women and our laws, customs, and marriages reflected our attitudes...but that has changed. Now, we are a culture that has accepted that sexual orientation is not acceptable grounds for discrimination and our laws, customs and marriages should reflect that as well.

Even without introducing same-sex marriages to the conversation, it is obvious that we live in a culture that accepts many forms of the institution. Many legal marriages today are not recognized by every religion and yet they are recognized by the law. Now some smart cookie made an inane comment earlier in this thread that these were "all marriages between a man and a women" and that was why they were acceptable under the law even if the religions didn't agree with them. To that brilliant philosopher I would like to point out that, of course they are marriages between a man and a woman...because the law does not yet recognise any other kind. But you can't argue against a change in the law by pointing out that the change would be illegal under the old law...that's why laws change.

Passing a law that recognised same-sex marriages would give legal standing to people who are already in commited relationships. We are not creating a new phenomenon here...we are merely (belatedly) acknowledging the rights of an existing group of people...rights that are guranteed under our constitution. We already legally recognise a whole array of marriages that sometimes contradict the marriage definitions of certain religions or cultures. There is nothing wrong with this because each religion and culture would continue to be free to accept or reject any marriage it wants. We are talking about the legal rights of the individuals and not the religious rights of non-particpants (which are in no way impacted by the proposed law).

If someone can show me a realistic example of how allowing same-sex marriages would actually hurt anyone (besides offending some people's redneck tendencies - rednecks do not enjoy constitutional protection) then I would consider rethinking my position. But as long as you just don't agree with the practice, your simple solution is not to engage in it yourself and let others do as they please. Just like you might avoid Italian restaurants because you don't like pasta...you don't have to ban pasta for others!

At any rate, I heard today that the Canadian Oxford Dictionary has amended their definition of marriage for the next edition to exclude references to the genders of the participants. So even the dictionary has caught up with the present...only the law (and some people's thinking) remains sadly behind the times.

Pyro the (heteroporcine) Pig.

 

[Pyro]

Re: The next few steps of the saga.....

Yeah, most of this is extremely sarcastic (well, the part of having multiple spouses is likely a serious option, come to think of it), it kinda illustrates the "slippery slope" theory that comes along with such issues. If you give rights to one thing that never had them before, how do you justify not giving the same recognition to related types down the chain

I appreciate your sense of humour but your point is not completely well-taken.

First of all, we are not suddenly assigning rights to a "thing that never had them before". Homosexual orientation is protected from discrimination by the constitution. People who are homosexual in orientation already have the right to equal treatment. That is why the courts ruled that the existing marriage law is invalid and that is why we need a new law that is consistent with the constitution.

Much as I love my pets, I live in a country where animals rights are not enshrined in the constitution and so I have to accept that my dog and I are not governed by the same laws. On the other hand, my gay neighbour and I are both human and deserve equal treatment.

The constitution is higher than any one law. If a law violates the constitution, it must be changed. This is a core basis of our legal and judicial systems.

Obviously, I favour same-sex marriages being legal. I do so from a moral and ethical perspective. However, even if you forget about the ethical and moral issues (on which many of us will never agree) same-sex marriages should also be allwed by the law for strictly legal and procedural reasons.

The argument here should not be about passing a law that allows (among other things) same-sex marriages. This has to happen because our constitution requires it. It's that simple. If same-sex marriages are really such a bad thing, the only correct way to address that issue is to amend the constitution. I don't think we should (of course) but that's the only legally and procedurally correct approach.

The constitution sets a standard that all laws should follow. If we allow ourselves to only follow our constitution when we feel like it, then we undermine our entire system of government. Now that would be a slippery slope!

Pyro the (human) Pig.

 

[groo39]

Pyro, I like your arguments and I can't fault any of them. None of them changes the fact that approving the use of the term "marriage" to label a same-sex union is an outragous insult to my own heritage. But then you toss in this gem:

besides offending some people's redneck tendencies

If it's "redneck" for me to feel insulted, so be it. I guess that also means I need to be a racist, trade my car for a half ton, and swap my TV for a shotgun. I'll have to call up all the gay, black, hispanic, asian, east indian, first nations, lesbian, etc. friends that I've had over the decades and let them know that it was all a mistake. It turns out I really am a redneck after all because I'm offended at calling a homosexual union a "marriage". I now regret all the fun times we've had together and can never speak to them again.

Fernie says that "rednecks don't get it", so apparently Pyro's use of the label isn't unique. Others out there feel only rednecks adamantly oppose homosexual "marriage".

Throwing the inflammatory labels will get some people riled up at the offense, and might even get the spluttering badly enough that they can't respond to your other points. What a pity some sound reasoning had to be discredited by the name calling.

I am not religious. My offense at the use of the term "marriage" for a homosexual union stems from centuries of middle-european traditions, in lands where religion was actually outlawed for many, many years. I find theology interesting, believe there is a God, but find organized religion a laughable sham of politics and mass manipulation with an excess of greed.

So much for the claims that people can only object on religious grounds.

Think I'm going to start a fringe group that demanding the right to call ourselves "first nations" because it's not fair that only amerinds can get treaty benefits. Then we're going to demand the right to call ourselves "black" or "hispanic" or "asian" because it's not fair that only visible minorities are eligable for certain financial programs.

You can't have it both ways. If any and all forms of discrimination and isolation are illegal, then I want all the barriers dropped. No more treaty status. No more mother's allowance. No more restricting scholarships or business financing based on the origins or heritage of the applicant. No more age discrimination that says a 12 year old can't buy a bottle of whiskey. No more pension plans, either, because it's age discrimination to not allow me to retire right now if I choose to suck at the CPP teat before it goes dry.

The very nature of law itself is discriminatory. It says that the will of this majority who approved the law is more important than the will of the minority.

We must abolish all law and resort to total anarchy. It's the only way to achieve a truly non-discriminatory society!

 

[ocean976124]

Of course most of the history of multiple wives was amongst the royalty not the common man. Secondly, one can certainly point out exceptions to one man- one woman marriages, but when we look at world history they are just that: exceptions.
Especially since this is the western world, our tradition goes back atleast 2000 years.
Ancient Rome and Greece actively practiced and accepted homosexual activity, yet it was not considered to be the same as heterosexual marriage.
Yes heterosexual marriage does have some black eyes on its history. However tinkering with the understanding of the relationship between a husband and wife is a far cry from doing away with a husband and wife.
And getting back to the priveleges of marriage, the government gives certain groups of people breaks all the time depending on what it deems in its best interests. I still see no great benefit for the government or society for homosexual unions to be recognized and given benefits by the government.

 

[djk]

Is it unconstitutional to deny Muslims and Mormons the right to practice polygamy?

Cheers,

-djk

 

[fernie]

Pyro, I like your arguments and I can't fault any of them. None of them changes the fact that approving the use of the term "marriage" to label a same-sex union is an outragous insult to my own heritage. But then you toss in this gem:

besides offending some people's redneck tendencies

If it's "redneck" for me to feel insulted, so be it. I guess that also means I need to be a racist, trade my car for a half ton, and swap my TV for a shotgun. I'll have to call up all the gay, black, hispanic, asian, east indian, first nations, lesbian, etc. friends that I've had over the decades and let them know that it was all a mistake. It turns out I really am a redneck after all because I'm offended at calling a homosexual union a "marriage". I now regret all the fun times we've had together and can never speak to them again.

Fernie says that "rednecks don't get it", so apparently Pyro's use of the label isn't unique. Others out there feel only rednecks adamantly oppose homosexual "marriage".

Throwing the inflammatory labels will get some people riled up at the offense, and might even get the spluttering badly enough that they can't respond to your other points. What a pity some sound reasoning had to be discredited by the name calling.

I am not religious. My offense at the use of the term "marriage" for a homosexual union stems from centuries of middle-european traditions, in lands where religion was actually outlawed for many, many years. I find theology interesting, believe there is a God, but find organized religion a laughable sham of politics and mass manipulation with an excess of greed.

So much for the claims that people can only object on religious grounds.

The redneck comment of mine was in reponse to WIYD who proudly lives on REDNECK BLVD (as noted in his "location").

Fernie

 

[Bud Plug]

I could care less about gay relationships. I also don't care whether any of you have a dog or a cat at home. But I'm not about to start saying that both cats and dogs are cats.

This issue isn't about property division and support. Gay couples could do this already with a contract. You don't need a statute to agree (stupidly) to surrender half your property to someone, even if that person cheated on you or even abused you.

This isn't about the Income Tax act, or any other "money or benefits" statute. In fact, being married is a disadvantage under those pieces of legislation (disentitles you to certain tax credits, etc). A number, if not all, spousal-related benefits (i.e. survivor's pension under CPP) are already available to same-sex spouses.

What really underlines this point is that, when you listen to EGALE's representatives, it's clear that gays do not want the statutory family law rules to automatically apply to all gay couples - gays want the option of whether to marry and make them apply. If this were the result, gays would have options heterosexual males would kill for! Imagine if you could avoid property division and spousal support by simply refusing to marry! Interestingly, currently many gay people who are sued (under the common law) for support and property division raise the defence that the relationship didn't carry the expectation of such obligations.

No, this debate is about an issue which will never die - self esteem. The entire life of every gay person I have ever met has been spent seeking approval (first from themselves and later from everyone else) and validation of their sexuality and lifestyle. Many people suffer from this same problem, both gay and straight, but it is a particular problem for gays who know that many disapprove of them and some of whom have doubts about themselves. Those of you who, like I, have gay family members and a great deal of contact with gays will know what I'm talking about. All this litigation and political activism might be worth it if you could actually pour in self esteem from the outside, which of course you can't.

As a result, it's not worth it to start calling black=white and upsetting all the religious folks if no worthwhile result can be achieved. Therefore, I don't support same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, it's offensive to me that almost the entire side of the public debate (as opposed to this board) is being carried by religious persons. I want no part of their reasoning, even by association. It is shameful that politicians lack the courage to tackle this issue on its truthful basis, rather than hiding behind the skirts of religion.

 

[hedway]

Gays should have the right to be just as miserable as other heterosexual married couples.

 

[ocean976124]

My problem with liberalism is that it is highly inconsistent. On the one hand it wants to say discrimination is wrong and thus homosexuals should get their marriage recognized by the government. On the other hand they (at least in the US) want affirmative action, which no matter what its good intentions are, is nothing more than a form of reverse discrimination.
In the end liberalism fails in its goals because it never addresses anything at its roots. It always seeks the easy solution, which never works long term.
There has no argument from the left that shows any intrinsic government interest in recognizing homosexual marriages. The government should not be used for social morality (whether secular or religious). It should simply uphold basic rights and encourage what is good for the whole.
Homosexuals have the basic right to live commited lives together under the same roof. However, receiving special privileges from the government requires some sort of vested interest for the government. The left has never provided a single shred of anything that would argue what homosexual marriages would contribute to society...