Same Sex Marriage

[someone]

This is a great place for social studies.
Should have learned this stuff long ago.

We have democracies that aren't constitutional.
We have countries who aren't democratic that
have constitutions.

So, what's the big deal about a constitution?

Very interesting question. Places like New Zealand and the UK are quick to argue that they do have constitutions but they are unwritten constitutions. However, in the case of federations, I think that you do need written constitutions to define the powers of the different levels of government. Indeed, I don’t think any independent state would join a federation if its powers were not clearly defined in writing. Of all the countries without written constitutions, I can’t think of one that is a federation (perhaps the argument could be made that the UK is going in that direction but regional legislatures in Northern Ireland and Scotland are so new that I think it is too soon to say).

 

[maxweber]

the *real* issue..

A tradition we received from the Romans via
the European nobility.

There was an orphanage in France that raised the illegitimate children of wealthy nobility and their mistresses. Vivaldi composed for them.

So, which is a bigger problem? Illegitimate children or same-sex unions?

The "bigger problem" is hiring a hack like Vivaldi, I'd say, Get a real musician; get Johann Sebastian Bach!

MW

 

[Mike]

It would appear that you are not alone - today's EKOS poll shows that if the election was held today, the Liberals would win an overwhelming majority. While it appears the progressive vote will go in mass to the Liberals - out of fear I guess at what Harper might do but what was very interesting in this poll was that the Liberals lead all income classes. Both those facts indicate that Canadians are tired already of the Harper gang and this bounce is much more than a post convention bounce. Now if we can only convince the Bloc or the NDP to push a non-confidence motion on the environment.

bbk

Ah yeah Frank Graves and EKOS polls, the Liberals favorites - that company has been in Liberals' pockets for years - every friggin' poll that I've ever seen from them was glowing about Liberals and kicking Tories... and yet, Tories won last election IIRC, before that election EKOS was still saying Liberals were gonna win it.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Don't Liberals win 8 out of 10 elections in Canada?

Just an observation, not a justification.

No, it just feels like that.

 

[frasier]

Don't Liberals win 8 out of 10 elections in Canada?

Just an observation, not a justification.

I would say 10 out of 10, becaise even the "so called Conservatives", are just another shade of liberalism.
A truly conservative prime minister would have a hard time, because the left her controls QC and ON, which represents two thirds of the population. No PM can ever be elected here without QC or ON.

this might change in the future, if demographics shift more to the west...BUT don't hold your breath.

 

[danmand]

I would say 10 out of 10, becaise even the "so called Conservatives", are just another shade of liberalism.
A truly conservative prime minister would have a hard time, because the left her controls QC and ON, which represents two thirds of the population. No PM can ever be elected here without QC or ON.

this might change in the future, if demographics shift more to the west...BUT don't hold your breath.

I can understand that you have problems with the concept of elected politicians representing the will of the people. Does not the american constitution say something like: "of the people, for the people"

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I would say 10 out of 10, becaise even the "so called Conservatives", are just another shade of liberalism.
A truly conservative prime minister would have a hard time, because the left her controls QC and ON, which represents two thirds of the population. No PM can ever be elected here without QC or ON.

this might change in the future, if demographics shift more to the west...BUT don't hold your breath.

Good point.

This wasnt as big an issue shortly after confederation...........when the true conservatives were winning elections.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Originally Posted by WoodPeckr
LOL.
Borat Sagdiyev, the sixth most famous reporter in Kazakhstan along with his sidekick Azamat, agree completely with you on this issue!

I have no idea what this means. But if you are refuting my claim that same sex marriage is not a womens issue, maybe you should offer your view rather than make a reference to a fictional character, that makes little sense

What I meant was that you, Borat and Azamat are all in full agreement that woman's issues are best handled by men completely as is the case in Kazakhstan.
You know women do what they are told and have little rights or say in laws and such....

 

[WoodPeckr]

I can understand that you have problems with the concept of elected politicians representing the will of the people. Does not the american constitution say something like: "of the people, for the people"

That was before Team 'w' neocons took power!
Now as Dubya has stated,
"The US Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper!"

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Originally Posted by WoodPeckr
LOL.
Borat Sagdiyev, the sixth most famous reporter in Kazakhstan along with his sidekick Azamat, agree completely with you on this issue!



What I meant was that you, Borat and Azamat are all in full agreement that woman's issues are best handled by men completely as is the case in Kazakhstan.
You know women do what they are told and have little say in laws and such....

Woody,

You would have been better off not trying to explain yourself.

Because I don't consider same sex marraige solely a women's issue I'm a sexist?

Maybe you can expand on your er...logic and explain to me how 2 men getting married is a women's issue....

 

[Bud Plug]

What bullshit ... The constitution and the Charter were ratified through the democratic process as stated in the constitution itself. There was only one party not onside, and that was the Quebec legislature, but a single legislature not signing on does not make the ratification undemocratic ... and on top of that, the majority of Quebec MPs voted in favour.

I'm not sure what your definition of democracy means, but the process does not mean that everyone has to agree before something is lawful.

The Trudeau Liberals did not have a mandate to repatriate the constitution and create the Charter. It was not even a part of their election platform during the preceeding election. It's been the source of some very significant change considering its a document that no Canadian voter ever voted for or against, even in concept. Practically speaking, there was little that could be done about it after the fact.

Even assuming the document is democratically legitimized through ratification by elected officials, you can be sure they weren't voting on every interpretation of the Charter that's come along since. I don't think the Charter was drafted with the view that Canadian law was oppressive and there needed to be significant changes to Canadian society. The Charter was an attempt to capture Canadian values, not to create a new country from scratch. That the Charter should be the cause of significant social change is not only ironic, it's undemocratic.

That's "apples and oranges" ... what you don't want to do is allow people with low IQs the right to be educated.

Governments are there exactly for helping people to do what is not "optimal" ... do you suggest that blind people, deaf people, handicapped people, should all be barred from having the same rights as everyone else?.

My point about reading comprehension. Nuff said.

Gays are not asking to be treated differently, they are asking to be treated the same .

Yes, they want to be treated the same as people they are different from.

What the hell are you talking about? You are against gay marriage because it might lead to gay divorce? Grow a clue please.

Reading comprehension Pt. 2. Didn't I already address this?

There's only one important right that comes with marriage that does not come from other legislation applying to other forms of union, and that is the right to have your relationship recognized in other countries (ie. by treaty, a married couple in Canada traveling in the USA have to be recognized as married, so if a gay couple has sex in a hotel room in Tennessee, they can't be arrested for some stupid homophobic rule that wouldn't be applied to a hetro married couple.)

Do you really think the marriage issue begins and ends at the travel plans of gay couples? It doesn't. You're wrong that marriage has such a limited legal significance.

Canadians voted for a government that enacted the Charter of Rights, and if you bothered to check, the Charter is considered a good thing by the vast majority of Canadians. The Charter is what limits the power of our politicians, and rightfully so. It's the same document that keeps reasonable people from just saying "fuck it ... let's just ship all the religious freaks out to sea and let them burn each other at the steak."

Yeah, Canadians think the Charter is a great thing, until you tell them how it's used by special interest groups to strike down legislation, or by criminal accuseds to attack crown evidence, and then they don't think it's so wonderful. It's all in how you ask the question.

BTW, I don't think religious freaks were in any danger of being sent out to sea or burnt at the stake even before the Charter.

Obviously not ... you would no doubt teach your children to hate gays, that they are inferior beings, and don't deserve equality, but that's ok as far as you're concerned ... it's teaching children to be respectful of all people, even if they are different, that burns your ass.

I believe homophobics are "not optimal", but unlike homophobs, I still believe that they should be treated equally by our government. They should have equal protection under the law, and they should even be allowed to marry, even though they will no doubt contribute negatively to society.

What a load of crap. You obviously don't understand the difference between hate/fear and disagreement, or you choose not to recognize that there is a difference. Most people who do not agree with the state recognizing gay marriage don't hate or fear gay people or their lifestyle (although I would acknowledge there are some). The sooner this reality gets acknowledged, the sooner there can be some sensible debate. Only a child assumes that when he/she doesn't get what they want that the person responsible must "hate" them.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

The Charter was just another Trudeau ego trip. It's purpose has more to do with Trudeau's desire to leave behind a legacy than anything else.

 

[RTRD]

Actually...

"There's only one important right that comes with marriage that does not come from other legislation applying to other forms of union, and that is the right to have your relationship recognized in other countries (ie. by treaty, a married couple in Canada traveling in the USA have to be recognized as married, so if a gay couple has sex in a hotel room in Tennessee, they can't be arrested for some stupid homophobic rule that wouldn't be applied to a hetro married couple.)"

This would not be the case.

Local laws would apply. Just as the fact that it is legal to possess canibus in some countries does not provided the right to posesses it in others, or, more relevantly...just because a country permits marriage to minors does not mean local laws could / would recognize a marriage between a 33 year old man and a 13 year old girl.

In this case our hypothetical homosexuals would not have their marriage recognized. Period. Thus, they would be wise to educate themselves in regards to local laws before engaging in illegal activity...just as the rest of us do, whether we are with those laws or not.

BTW...what you are describing could / would not happen, ever since the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law that was along this framework. But I know it is easy for some people to stereotype and disparge others with a broad brush....sort of like the way some people stereotype and disparge homosexuals (Bigotry against homosexuals - bad. Bigotry against Americans - good.)

For the record, I could not care less what two adults do in private...

 

[danmand]

The Charter was just another Trudeau ego trip. It's purpose has more to do with Trudeau's desire to leave behind a legacy than anything else.

I like to think that most canadians want Canada to be recognized as a truly independent country with its own constitution/charter of rights.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I like to think that most canadians want Canada to be recognized as a truly independent country with its own constitution/charter of rights.

Then why don't we get rid of the GG and our association with the Queen (sorry Lancslad). The Queen is a figurehead that is still technically our Head of State.

To me, that would go a lot further in demonstrating our independance.

 

[danmand]

Then why don't we get rid of the GG and our association with the Queen (sorry Lancslad). The Queen is a figurehead that is still technically our Head of State.

To me, that would go a lot further in demonstrating our independance.

Absolutely, any party arguing that will have my vote.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Woody,

You would have been better off not trying to explain yourself.

Because I don't consider same sex marraige solely a women's issue I'm a sexist?

Maybe you can expand on your er...logic and explain to me how 2 men getting married is a women's issue....

lookey,
Perhaps you should expand your, er... mind.
Women are involved also.
There's more to this issue than just a couple of gay guys who like to pack fudge, toot each other's flute and gaze upon each other's, er..... anoose, as Borat would say......

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

lookey,
Perhaps you should expand your, er... mind.
Women are involved also.
There's more to this issue than just a couple of gay guys who like to pack fudge, toot each other's flute and gaze upon each other's, er..... anoose, as Borat would say......

I never said women are not involved too, I merely stated that same sex marriage is not soley a "women's issue". Alternatively it's not a "man's issue" either.

By the way, the Borat references are getting a little old.

 

[dreamer]

And yet you don't. Nuff said

When I read arguments against same sex marriage using concepts as "in the best interest" and "what is optimum" and how certain groups can be treated differently because they are different, I just sit back and wonder.

If you are against it for moral reasons say so, do not try and hide it by doing truly bogus economical analysis.

Your whole concept about normality offends me, and I treat you as such.

Wrong, and ironic. You see, I consider you to be a moral elitist because you consider your views to be beyond debate. That's the real definition of elitism.

Really, and I thought I was just an arrogant boor.

You do not even realize that what you write is elitism.

Do I actually have to post a definition of elitism for you. I think I do.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources

Trust me, I understand your position that there is no gain to society to grant the same legal rights and privileges to same sex couples because they do not reproduce and thus do not contribute to society as heterosexual couples. That is ok if you define your value to society as only the ability or willingness to reproduce. Sorry, but I think people have much more value that just that.

 

[Never Compromised]

Woolfe raises no intelligent point and your no smarter for agreeing with him. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and god. Not between a man and a man, not between a woman and a woman, not between a man and his pig. I'm not anti-gay, but Iam anti-gay-marriage.

And if you do not believe in a God? Or you believe in many gods?

Sorry, in a modern world, I don't see a covenant between God and a couple.