Renegade

I agree. So, can't you see how dangerous and abusive it can be to have a religious ideology be the driving force for laws in a country? Is not a secular state which promotes tolerance the best way to ensure rights are respected? You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"?

linkI find it humourously ironic that Leafless, who in other threads, advocates an interpretation of law based upon “Christian” principles, simply because of a Christian majority in Canada, condemns Saudia Arabia for doing exactly what he is advocating. Could it be that the only difference is that Saudi Arabia has a Muslim majority and not a Christian one?

Me? why would you say that?

oops. ** duplicate post

I have no idea. All such societies would be equally wrong. No, banning such travel would certainly make our society not free. We each have the option to not travel to Saudia Arabia if we choose not to. Banning travel to Saudia Arabia imposes that restriction on everyone without regard to an individuals right to determine for himself. BTW, should we ban all the commercial traffic or just the air? How about those oil tankers, should we ban them too and refuse to accept Saudi oil? I indeed feel strongly for a free society. Our society, while not free, is freer than Saudia Arabia. I suspect that I would advocate for a freer society than one you are wiling to permit. Your definition of society is exceeding simplistic. In fact there is no one "society" we belong to. We each are part of a multitude of societies. Our city, our province, our country, our church, our professions, our soccer team, even the human race are all societies we belong to. Yes, each has a common interest and sometimes the interests of each of the societies conflict. No group of individuals is so homogenous that they have every interest in common, so your statement that a society is "something you apparently are not part of in certain areas" is most curious. Let me ask you something, if the people of Saudia Arabia have a common interest, and that interest is their religion. If they decide that to best preserve and promote that common religion, there should be no tolerance of another religion within Saudia Arabia, should they be permitted to do so? Why or why not?

Of course it is! Saudia Arabia is well known for its religious intolerance as are many other countries. Having acknowledged that, what should other countries do? Not fly there? Embargo them? Violate their laws? I await your solution. BTW, what possible difference does it make what SOCIETY I originate from?

Rue, I'm sure you are dead right. When someone wants to define laws only within the context of their own personal morality, they have no response to challenges which transends their own narrow view of the world. In one area I think Leafless is right, and it is somewhat disquieting: There are more people who are like Leafless in their attitude than we are aware. It takes a long time for attitudes to change, and many like Leafless will cling to their attitudes despite the irrationality of their argument.

Leafless, who exactly are you faulting here? 1. Saudia Arabia for having a policy of religious intolerance? 2. The airline for following the law in Saudia Arabia? 3. The stewardess for being unaware of the laws of the country she was flying to?

1. Polititicians should not be giving themselves raises. Their pay should be set by an external party or linked to an objective measurement. 2. Any pay raise should not start until the next election. Obviously the argument that it is necessary to attract qualified canidates doesn't appy to the current term, so the salary adjustment shouldn't either.

When there is no legal need to distinguish between "dog" and "cat" then the law uses a word which applies to both. For example, if the government passes a law forbidding cruelty to animals, should they distinguish between cruelty to dogs vs cruelty to cats? Obviously not. I'm still waiting for a response to my challenge to you to demonstrate the legal difference between OSM and SSM. I suspect you have no adequate response and so you choose to ignore the challenge. If you are going to let the state define the term for legal purposes, they you are at their whim when they choose to redefine it according to societal norms.

Leafless, you fail to answer the question I put to you. You simply restate your position that there is a "legal difference is relating to the biological difference". Here is what I am asking: What is that legal difference? IOW, how is a couple with opposite genders, treated differently than one with common genders? Are there legal privleges or diffrentiations allowed one couple which is not allowed another? Irrelevant to the issue. rant. Try addressing the question instead of devoting your energy to ranting. By now we are all quite aware of your pet peeves. As I already said, if you are considering government part of the "legal community" you refer to, then you are correct that they bear responsibility for the legal framework of SSM. The rest of the "legal community" ie the lawyers and judges are simply operating within that legal framework and interpret it.

There is no legal significance to the biological functions of the couples. If you think there is, maybe you can explain what the legal distincition is between one couple who has the capacity to bear children and another which doesn't. And what part is that? Judges and lawyers (ie the legal community) do not write laws. They simply interpret them. While the government who writes laws, is part of the "legal system", they are not who I commonly think of when I refer to the "legal community".

First, it is not the Canadian legal community who chose the word, it is the government who wrote the word marriage into legislation. Second, yes they could have used a designation, such as "civil union" which applies to any union regardless of the gender of the two parties. From a legal and legslative perspective, there is no reason to distinguish between the gender of the parties so logically it makes no sense to have different words for different permutations of genders. It is unfortunate the word "marriage" was chosen as it seems to raise the hackles of the religiously intolerant minority, but it was a written into legislation at time before its implications were forseen.

The term "experience rating" means rates based on insurers' experience, not mine. So your contention is that insurers' experience is that straights have a more "conservative lifestyle" over gays and this affects their driving risk. Also you contend that by allowing gays to be married, it would increase the overall risk of the "married" group of drivers. Did I get that right? So if it is really their "gayness" which impacts their driving risk, why is it that insurance companies do not provide differentiated rates based upon whether you are gay or straight, regardless of if you are married or not?

Can you please be specifc on what "experience" you have had to led you to draw this conclusion? Also, assuming you are correct on actuarial statistics, how do you know that it is not the stabilization influence of marriage which causes a lower claim rate? How do you know that gay married couples also wouldn't also have a lower claim rate? If you are correct and the lack of a "conservative lifestyle" is the differentiating factor, why would the auto insurance companies not provide differentiated rates between opposite sex marriages and ssm?

That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted. With a bank, if I am not happy with the terms I can walk across the street to a different bank, or arrange financing through a multitude of other means. IOW the barrier of swiching provider is quite low. For a society there is no easy way to switch without incurring significant costs and penalties.

In Hong Kong it is actually the banks that issue currency under authority of the government body. Without government currency, and assuming the government didn't stop it, the banks would step in and create and issue currency which would be the defacto legal tender. Notes and Coins of Hong Kong

Leafless, I see you have not responded to what I posted in #303. Does that mean you have conceded the points, or simply that you have no response?

Because the legislation that was tabled would've taken the legal rights 'marriage' gives a couple away from homosexual couples. And sure, it's great that you'd like to change the definition to civil union for all couples, but that was never one of the recommendations in the house. If you're suggesting that we should've started with the gays (since they have less of a voice in parliament, being the minority of Canadians) then eventually moved on to heterosexual marriage, I'd suggest you're way too optimistic. Changing the definition of marriage for heterosexuals to 'civil union' as recognized by the government would be several times more unpopular than recognizing homosexual marriages. Chances are it wouldn't end up happening and the same-sex couples would be left in the dark. Please, just raise your consciousness a bit. The government already has civil unions for all couples. They're afforded all the benefits that two people who decide to live their lives together should: it's called marriage. Playing the semantics game, to get around legal equality for all people is not cool. I agree with geoffery's proposal as the way forward that makes the most sense. There is a lot of sensitivity around the word "marriage". Further I would say that most hetrosexual married couples would not want the government to dictate who is "married" and who is not, and it should be the couples who self-declare that they are married or have their church declare them married on their behalf. Of course despite their declarations they are not entitiled to the legal benefits of a civil union unless they have that civil union formalized by the state. BTW, France has a similar system in that the state formalization is separate from any religious one.

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes. It is hard for me to believe that you seriously put that out there as a justification. Can you explain what it is about the more conservative lifestyle which makes them better drivers?

cybercoma, will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for who? If it is their own actions which result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themselves, they have a right to be concerned, and can take action to prevent it. If they are concerened that someone elses private actions will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themseles, then no, it is not perfectly reasonable.

As long as we have a charter. This isn't really about SSM anymore. It is about how you don't have faith in the charter to protect your rights, and if that is true, you shouldn't just fear for your religious rights, you should fear for all rights. Many may not respect the part of religious tradition which discrimminates, however if asked I would bet that the vast majority would support the right of "freedom of religion" and the separation of church and state. So, what would you put your faith in, if not the charter? What exactly will make you comfortable that your right to freedom of religion will not be violated?

As socialist statement as has ever been seen!!!

This is a baseless fear. Churches already discrimminate today, yet are not prosecuted for it. In the Catholic church only men can become priest. I don't see a movement to force the Church to change. The same church forbids its priest to marry. There is no legal reprecussions forcing the Church to give "equal rights" to its "emplolyees".

I'll tell you why. (At least as characterisized by the pro status-quo side). If you gave farmers a choice, they would do what is best in their financial interest, meaning when the market price is higher, they will sell through the market. When the CWB price is higher they will sell through the CWB. That means that the CWB, when they misestimate prices, will be in situations where they must buy wheat at higher prices and resell it at lower prices. At some point they will go bankrupt, so they only option for the CWB to survive is to FORCE all farmers to sell through it.