Social Conservatives

[n_v]

they want to define their own relationships- how is it your business to define them?

None. Just like it is not their business to redefine marriage of a man and woman to include 2 gays or 2 lesbians.

 

[red]

....by legislating political correctness.

sometimes the law has to be changed to protect the rights of individuals

 

[Goober Mcfly]

The way I see it:

Allow same-sex unions by Act of Parliament. Call the union a "Civil Union". Attach any and all rights of traditionally married couples.

If at some point in the future, the cultural climate of Canada sees fit to blur the lines between traditionally married persons and "civilly unified" persons to call them both "married" in the common vernacular, fine.

I just don't think that the government should be ramming it down our throats now.

 

[red]

None. Just like it is not their business to redefine marriage of a man and woman to include 2 gays or 2 lesbians.

if they want to be married- how does it effect you? really- how? will you feel less married? will you leave your wife because, hey- being married is what gays do and you don't want people to think you're gay? I can't understand the hang up

 

[n_v]

so what? what has religion or spirituality got to do with it? equal but separate doesn't work.

Their unions would have the same benefits (tax and others) that current marriages have. That is euquality hich is what they want. For them to encroach on my beliefs is rather arrogant of them!!

 

[Goober Mcfly]

sometimes the law has to be changed to protect the rights of individuals

How are the rights of the individuals being infringed upon? They will be at no disadvantage of traditionally married persons except in title!

This is my entire beef!

 

[n_v]

The way I see it:

Allow same-sex unions by Act of Parliament. Call the union a "Civil Union". Attach any and all rights of traditionally married couples.

If at some point in the future, the cultural climate of Canada sees fit to blur the lines between traditionally married persons and "civilly unified" persons to call them both "married" in the common vernacular, fine.

I just don't think that the government should be ramming it down our throats now.

Well said and I totally concur.

 

[red]

How are the rights of the individuals being infringed upon? They will be at no disadvantage of traditionally married persons except in title!

This is my entire beef!

they want the same right as yourself, assuming you are straight, to have their union called a marriage. that's their beef

 

[red]

Their unions would have the same benefits (tax and others) that current marriages have. That is euquality hich is what they want. For them to encroach on my beliefs is rather arrogant of them!!

how is it encroaching on your beliefs? curious

 

[Goober Mcfly]

But what do they gain by calling their union a marriage? Other than the smug knowledge that they beat the religious folk and are pissing them off.

 

[red]

equality and freedom

 

[Goober Mcfly]

How? Don't dodge the issue this time. Tell me how having a different term for homosexual unions versus heterosexual unions somehow infringes on one groups equality or freedom.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

How? Don't dodge the issue this time. Tell me how having a different term for homosexual unions versus heterosexual unions somehow infringes on one groups equality or freedom.

Or, I could rephrase....

How is your argument any different from requesting that from now on, all homosexuals MUST be referred to as "heterosexuals" because that's what heterosexuals are called?

 

[red]

an article from the economist ( feeling like OTB)

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2459758

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Let me ask you and Goober a question: what is it about the term "marriage" or the concept of marriage that you hold so dear that it should not be extended to include homosexual couples?

From Page 1:

On Tuesday, Harper told reporters that he's aiming for a consensus recognizing traditional marriage without taking away from the rights of same-sex couples.

Sounds good to me. Why not meet in the middle somewhere?

What I object to is the fact that there IS a middle ground which will address everyone's concerns. Each side is just so intent on standing firm that it's becoming a pissing match.

 

[red]

From Page 1:Sounds good to me. Why not meet in the middle somewhere?

What I object to is the fact that there IS a middle ground which will address everyone's concerns. Each side is just so intent on standing firm that it's becoming a pissing match. [/B][/QUOTE]

but the point is- its not your business. if they want to be married- that should be up to them.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

And more power to them, but why call it "marriage"?

You didn't address my last question:

Originally posted by Goober Mcfly
How? Don't dodge the issue this time. Tell me how having a different term for homosexual unions versus heterosexual unions somehow infringes on one groups equality or freedom.

Or, I could rephrase....

How is your argument any different from requesting that from now on, all homosexuals MUST be referred to as "heterosexuals" because that's what heterosexuals are called?

Hmmm?

 

[red]

well - if they want to call themselves heterosexuals- who cares

 

[Goober Mcfly]

But they really aren't heterosexuals now are they red? By definition.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

yyc: There are millions of Canadians who hold the term "marriage" to be sacred. It is their right to believe that, is it not? So I ask, why can there not be a compromise from the pro-gay marriage side to respect those millions of Canadians' beliefs and get exactly the same rights as traditionally married couples, while preserving the "sanctity" of the term "marriage"?

The pro-gay marriage crowd is basically saying that they don't give a fark what the rest of the country thinks. I object to that.