Same Sex Marriage

[Bud Plug]

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..

Your insistence that my argument is anything other than what I've said offends me, and I treat you as such.

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..

Proof that you can reproduce a written definition, but not apply it in practice. First of all, I've never said that I agree that being able to bear offspring needs to encouraged by the state. I've simply said that it's the only justification for exclusive recognition of heterosexual marriage by the state and that, on those grounds, gay unions are not comparable. As a result, I have not argued for preferential treatment to be given to heterosexual couples based on perceived superiority of intellect, social class and certainly not based on financial resources (same sex couples have higher than average earnings). I've suggested that differential treatment can be justified on the basis of differences in social contribution. That is not elitism as either you or I would define it. You want more veterinarians? You subsidize veterinary tuitions. You want more kids? One way is to encourage heterosexual unions. Simple as that.

By contrast, what I detect in your posts is the notion that your liberal thought is inherently superior and therefore not subject to question. On your posted definition, that is "moral" elitism.

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.

Finally, we join issue! I agree that people have more value than their reproductive capacity. The State encourages all kinds of different behaviours in different ways. It encourages ingenuity by awarding patents. It encourages support of charities by granting tax credits. It encourages home grown businesses by various forms of small business development assistance. It encourages social service by the granting of the Order of Canada, etc. As far as I know, gay people are entitled to seek all of these various forms of incentive offered by the government.

As to the argument that gays are a downtrodden group in need of a helping hand, and therefore "extra" rights or privileges, there is just no support on the facts for this idea. Gays generally enjoy an above average standard of living, and there is very little evidence that they have been excluded from any significant corner of Canadian life - certainly not from the business world, or from politics.

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Being married can either work for you or against you, depending upon your income level and that of your spouse. And no, I'm not going to set out a memorandum explaining how.

That was my point.

My point is that permitting gay unions to be recognized as "marriages" will have unintended results, some of which will cost taxpayers money.

And some of which will save taxpayers money.

The cost of debate has to be measured against these costs.

And savings.

With respect to the division of property and support obligations, I can't see why gay couples should be treated more like married heterosexual spouses than like unmarried co-habiting partners. They seem to have a lot more in common with the latter group.

By permitting gay marriage, by no means are any gays forced to get married. Those who choose to cohabit unmarried would be allowed to do so.

 

[dreamer]

Your insistence that my argument is anything other than what I've said offends me, and I treat you as such

Now you are just being a Bud Plug. Get your own lines.

Proof that you can reproduce a written definition, but not apply it in practice

Again, you are being a Bud Plug. The key to understanding the definition is the words "as in" as in not implying total inclusion.

I've suggested that differential treatment can be justified on the basis of differences in social contribution. That is not elitism as either you or I would define it. You want more veterinarians? You subsidize veterinary tuitions. You want more kids? One way is to encourage heterosexual unions. Simple as that.

No, its not, it is elitism.

Measuring social contribution and granting rights and privileges, in this case the ability to be legally married, is elitism, especially when what is being granted has nothing to do with what one has achieved.

As far as I know, gay people are entitled to seek all of these various forms of incentive offered by the government.

Except, until recently, same sex marriage.

As to the argument that gays are a downtrodden group in need of a helping hand, and therefore "extra" rights or privileges, there is just no support on the facts for this idea. Gays generally enjoy an above average standard of living, and there is very little evidence that they have been excluded from any significant corner of Canadian life - certainly not from the business world, or from politics.

Except, until recently, same sex marriage.

How do you feel about Jewish people?

 

[LancsLad]

Maybe I'm confused, not being a sophisticated and learned lawyer and all but when it says "same sex marriage" I thought it meant you were condemned to the same sex with your spouse for the duration.

 

[danmand]

Maybe I'm confused, not being a sophisticated and learned lawyer and all but when it says "same sex marriage" I thought it meant you were condemned to the same sex with your spouse for the duration.

Well, you are wrong again; What you describe is "marriage with sex", in contrast to the regular kind of marriage.

 

[LancsLad]

Well, you are wrong again; What you describe is "marriage with sex", in contrast to the regular kind of marriage.

I get unlimited sex while technically married, just none of it with my wife.

 

[Alexis696969]

Yes it literally sucks that woman have no say on this issue.

 

[Bud Plug]

How do you feel about Jewish people?

That depends. Are you Jewish? If so, I know how I feel about one Jewish person.

 

[dreamer]

That depends. Are you Jewish? If so, I know how I feel about one Jewish person.

Actually no

btw, I could care less how you feel about me. You are what you write.

 

[Bud Plug]

Again, you are being a Bud Plug. The key to understanding the definition is the words "as in" as in not implying total inclusion.

Well, I tried to help you. I guess that's why I never got into teaching.

Measuring social contribution and granting rights and privileges, in this case the ability to be legally married......

That's exactly the way I would like it to be, in principle - you get special rights and status if you make a special contribution. Whether having kids is a worthy contribution is, as I've stated, subject to debate.

I just don't think much good ever comes from delusion. Apples are not oranges, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Bud Plug]

Actually no

btw, I could care less how you feel about me. You are what you write.

I'm hoping you're right.

 

[slowpoke]

...I've suggested that differential treatment can be justified on the basis of differences in social contribution. That is not elitism as either you or I would define it. You want more veterinarians? You subsidize veterinary tuitions. You want more kids? One way is to encourage heterosexual unions. Simple as that....

Gays can become veterinarians so subsidizing veterinary tuitions is fair insofar as that subsidy is available to any and all groups, minorities etc. ie: it doesn't discriminate against any group because of race, colour, religion, gender, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION etc. But gays can't reproduce without outside help. So your differential treatment of gays because they can't have children is discrimination against gays because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is clearly defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The whole notion of differential treatment based on social contribution is bogus anyway. If you employ that approach as your guiding principle for allocating benefits to Canadians, you'll need some kind of a means test or social contribution index for each and every group, minority etc. How about a social contribution calculation on our tax returns? Really lazy welfare recipients don't contribute anything so they'd be so low on the social contributions scale that we could probably take away their rights to marry or vote or whatever... It is much simpler and more consistent to treat each and every Canadian equally - regardless of their social contribution, or lack thereof.

 

[Bud Plug]

Gays can become veterinarians so subsidizing veterinary tuitions is fair insofar as that subsidy is available to any and all groups, minorities etc. ie: it doesn't discriminate against any group because of race, colour, religion, gender, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION etc. But gays can't reproduce without outside help. So your differential treatment of gays because they can't have children is discrimination against gays because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is clearly defined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ever heard of a circular argument? This debate is about whether the government should introduce legislation relying upon the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter to circumvent court interpretations of s.15 (which you generally refer to). The answer to that question can't be found in s. 15 itself.

The whole notion of differential treatment based on social contribution is bogus anyway. If you employ that approach as your guiding principle for allocating benefits to Canadians, you'll need some kind of a means test or social contribution index for each and every group, minority etc. How about a social contribution calculation on our tax returns? Really lazy welfare recipients don't contribute anything so they'd be so low on the social contributions scale that we could probably take away their rights to marry or vote or whatever... It is much simpler and more consistent to treat each and every Canadian equally - regardless of their social contribution, or lack thereof.

Ridiculous. Political support is all that is needed to assess what beneficial contributions should be recognized by the State. You have far too much faith in "systems" if you think the results would be any more "fair" if there were standards established.

As to your other point (to use that term loosely), I have not said that the only valid purpose of government is to encourage supposedly positive contributions. Of course, there are other reasons to justify distributions to other groups, such as crime reduction, etc.

You've strayed off the rails here quite a bit.

 

[woolf]

"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...

So then you are saying that I can't use my Ontario drivers license anywhere but Ontario? Obviously that's not correct.

Same concept here. I'm not suggesting that my Ontario drivers license gives me a right to drive at Ontario speed limits in Texas, it just means that I can drive in Texas following their driving rules, standards and laws.

Canada and the USA has an agreement to recognize marriages performed in the others jurisdictions ... of course recognition applies only to laws concerning married people ... so for instance they couldn't be arrested for having sex, unless that sex was also outlawed between married hetros ... so in a state where oral sex might be ok, but anal sex might be against the law, the fact that they are married would give them protection to perform oral sex but if anal sex were outlawed between straight couples then that law would still have to be "obeyed".

The lack of knowledge concerning laws, constitutions, and the democratic process by right wingers is amazing ... some of them actually believe that because THEY don't like the democratic process the law was created under that this means the law doesn't apply, and at the same time think that a law that they like, doesn't even require that it be understood completely, and that it should mean what they believe it should mean ... even if it doesn't.

It's like debating with two year olds ... "who cares what the facts are, I want things done 'my way' and I'll plug my ears and hold my breath until I turn purple until you get tired of trying to reason with me and just give up."

 

[woolf]

Ridiculous. Political support is all that is needed to assess what beneficial contributions should be recognized by the State.

And that is BS as well ... that's why we have constitutions and Charters, so that "political support" does not over ride human rights.

You may not like the fact that human rights of groups you don't agree with are protected, but the fact remains that they ARE protected. All your whining about how "unfair" fairness is doesn't change a thing ... go get yourself the required support needed to abolish the Charter and the constitution and do something about it ... until then arguing that the laws don't apply because you don't like them are simply childish nonsense.

 

[Bud Plug]

And that is BS as well ... that's why we have constitutions and Charters, so that "political support" does not over ride human rights.

You may not like the fact that human rights of groups you don't agree with are protected, but the fact remains that they ARE protected. All your whining about how "unfair" fairness is doesn't change a thing ... go get yourself the required support needed to abolish the Charter and the constitution and do something about it ... until then arguing that the laws don't apply because you don't like them are simply childish nonsense.

Everyone, seemingly, wants to forget that the notwithstanding clause is every bit as much a part of the Charter as s. 15. It is there for the express purpose of overriding the effect of other provisions of the Charter. It is an important reason that the Charter was able to be ratified.

There is no need to abolish the Charter as a whole.

As to your last comment, it's "childish" to attribute an argument to someone in a debate which was never made (again, it makes me question the reading comprehension level on this board). I never argued that any laws "don't apply". The courts have ruled on the definition of marriage. I think they got it wrong, but there's nowhere to appeal. This debate is about the use of the notwithstanding clause.

 

[Bud Plug]

Canada and the USA has an agreement to recognize marriages performed in the others jurisdictions ...

Wrong. Even States in the US do not have to recognize the marriage laws of other States (see The Defense of Marriage Act).

The lack of knowledge concerning laws, constitutions, and the democratic process by right wingers is amazing ...

Left wingers too, apparently (or do you consider yourself a centericeman?).

 

[woolf]

Actually, the DOMA applies to cases between US states, territories, possessions, etc ... the treaty between Canada and the USA, which recognizes marriages performed in each others jurisdiction, still applies, does not fall under the DOMA, and as far as I know has not been challenged ... you have an example of A Canadian gay couple not having their marriage recognized legally upheld?

 

[dreamer]

Well, I tried to help you. I guess that's why I never got into teaching.

I do not need your help. You are the one who is confused and tried to take a definition and apply it narrowly to fit your argument. The definition is not restricted to the "as in" examples.

That's exactly the way I would like it to be, in principle - you get special rights and status if you make a special contribution. Whether having kids is a worthy contribution is, as I've stated, subject to debate.

and I disagree with this concept, it is elitism

I just don't think much good ever comes from delusion. Apples are not oranges, no matter how you slice it.

There is no delusion in treating everyone equally, whether they are an apple or an orange

 

[slowpoke]

Ever heard of a circular argument? This debate is about whether the government should introduce legislation relying upon the "notwithstanding" clause of the Charter to circumvent court interpretations of s.15 (which you generally refer to). The answer to that question can't be found in s. 15 itself.



Ridiculous. Political support is all that is needed to assess what beneficial contributions should be recognized by the State. You have far too much faith in "systems" if you think the results would be any more "fair" if there were standards established.

As to your other point (to use that term loosely), I have not said that the only valid purpose of government is to encourage supposedly positive contributions. Of course, there are other reasons to justify distributions to other groups, such as crime reduction, etc.

You've strayed off the rails here quite a bit.

Notwithstanding your preoccupation with the notwithstanding clause, my observation was really quite simple and linear. I also can't recall suggesting that "the only valid purpose of government is to encourage supposedly positive contributions". Those are your words - not mine. I simply disagree with your assertion "that differential treatment [of Canadians or groups of Canadians] can be justified on the basis of differences in social contribution". It is an unacceptable model for allocating benefits to Canadians.

Your statement may have been part of a larger argument but my disagreement is quite specifically directed at the statement itself, not the "whole fabric" you've wrapped yourself in. If your assertion has any validity, it should be able to stand on its own as well. Encouraging the desired behaviour from all Canadians is a common government practice ie: education is to be encouraged so students can deduct tuitions. And so on. But these encouragements are available to all. The examples you've used don't specifically address the sexual orientation issue. This is your most recent batch of examples:

"The State encourages all kinds of different behaviours in different ways. It encourages ingenuity by awarding patents. It encourages support of charities by granting tax credits. It encourages home grown businesses by various forms of small business development assistance. It encourages social service by the granting of the Order of Canada, etc. As far as I know, gay people are entitled to seek all of these various forms of incentive offered by the government."

As you've said, the above examples apply to all Canadians. So where are your examples of "differential treatment" based on race, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc.? If this differential treatment can so easily be applied to any one of these groups but not all, there must be a few examples.