Black Dog

Eliminate Quebec and support for SSM still enjoys a majority of support in Ontario, BC, and Atlantic Canada. What does that leave us with? The majority of Canadians in the majority of the most populous regions support SSM. I've also always found it interesting that oppossition is strongest among the aged and the less-educated.

Maybe, maybe not. But there's nothing saying that, once we open the door to SSM, we cannot shut it again for other practices. I'd like to see how the Conservatives will pull off invalidating all the current gay marriages and still try to present themselves as the party of small government.

Actually oil ain't getting any cheaper. That's exactly what he does. Klein pushes policies that harm the "severely normal" Albertans under the guise of helping them (take electricity deregulation as a prime example). the problems with Alberta are institutional.

That's right....its just excuses...Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia...where would they be without the machinations of the western powers? What about Haiti? nosir. No western internevtion in their affairs. No sirree bob. Give me a break. Trans: "I see nozink..."

And it won't change because its simply not in the west's best interests to build successful states. Educated people tend to want things like self-determination, ownership of their own resources, and an equal voice. Things that aren't in the "national interest" of the wealthy nations. You didn't challenge my assertion that we (the west) have been largely facilitating the screwing, so I assume you accept it. That has me wondering why you think we'd suddenly stop the screwing and give them an actual helping hand. What your peddling is the same self-serving, paternalistic crap that Kipling and the rest of the imperialists spouted a century past. Then as now, it made a great cover story, but in reality it was the source of the problem.

Lookee here.

That still doesn't answer the very basic question of why the gender of the participants is essential to marriage being marriage. Clearly, in light of the decreasing importanc eof the "traditional" family in society, it is not. Put it another way: same sex partnerships already meet the same standards as marriage, save for the gender one. The right to marry a partner of one's choosing is far more essential to marriage than the gender of the participants. If there's a case to be made for polygamy or even incest (surely what consenting adults do behind closed doors is not society's business?), then anyone wanting to make that case can do so now, SSM or no SSM. The Same Sex Marriage bill doesn't make those practices legal, nor does it "open the door". I've asked how it does, and you've failed to show how this particular legislation does so. This proposed legislation doesn't offer any other group any remedies they don't already have. It deals with gay marriage and gay marriage only. Are you a firtune teller? A psychic? Because you're trying to predict the future here, based on the assumption that any and all legal protections can be abandoned at will. That's not the case. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right, and it's in the state's best interests to ensure that any church, temple, mosque or what have you that does not wish to sanctify gay marriage does not have to. There's plenty of religious institutions that will. Because we're dealing with a legal definition which, as I pointed out earlier, can and do change all the time. As for the rest, I'll give Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative, a say: Link.

A question worth asking if the premise was, in fact, true. The colonialism hangover still haunts the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Thank goodness we have the Conservatives to teach us all about respectful and rational public discourse. ex-Conservative candidate calls Layton a "National Socialist"

Are you familiar with Hannah Arndt?

Fair enough. My big beef with a lot of anti-SSM folks is their inability to back up their claims. Look at how many times I asked the late, unlamented SatanHarper the same question and was not once afforded an answer. By all means, stand by your views, just be prepared to defend their merits. This also applies to the pro-SSM types who's first resort is the "bigot defense". I can see however, why pro-SSM types get fed up: it can't be hard to maintain a level of respect when you have groups like Focus on the Family and such who actively demonize gays, call homosexuality "perverse" and "evil", equate it with crimes like bestiality or incest, and other assertions. When the bigots are the vanguard of the anti-SSM movement, its no surprise that the rest might get tarred with the same brush.

So? Legal definitions change all the time to reflect changes in society. A now-departed poster was using the example of the past criminalization of homosexuality as evidence that we're headed to hell in a hand basket. I'd say its a better demonstration of the law's ability to change and adapt to the realities of the society they govern. Ditto the "persons case" of 1929. So "changing the definition of X" is commonplace and, indeed, necessary.

And homosexuals are not a monolithic group. Still can't answer a simple question. Given that your whole argument to this point has hinged on the concept of a"slippery slope", your abject failure to clarify how the current SSM legislation would lead to such things as incest, polygamy etc. betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. In other words, you an't defend it on logical or rational or even legal grounds, so you flail about wildly. As for the above, religious freedom is legally protected in this country, The tax issue come sdown to teh idea that churches that are acting as political lobbies are no longer charitable organizations and should be treated no different from any other lobby group, tax-wise. "Pure evil"?

Calls for arrest of "any American who undermines that war". And who will be the arbiter of what is "acceptable" dissent and treason. O'Reilly, I assume.

You mean the places where the Liberals currently have almost zero support as it is?

An incestuous relationship can also be between one man and one woman, can it not? Yet an incestuous relationship like that is still legally prohibited, SSM or no SSM. That's because incest is currently a criminal Code Offense. C-38 does not overturn the Criminal Code. So you still haven't answered the question which is, again: "how does the current proposed SSM legislation open the door for recognition of other sexual practices?"

You didn't answer the question: how does the current proposed SSM legislation (which amends the legal definition of marriage from being between "one man and one woman" to "two persons") open the door for recognition of other sexual practices? The fact is, there's nothing currently stopping any "deviants" from pushing for legal recognition, nor does the SSM legislation before the House carry any provisions which would enable such recognition. The Bible contains many prohibitions which are routinely ignored by the vast majority of people, even ardent religious people. Still, God does nothing. So you'll have to excuse me for not taking pronouncements about the divine nature of our impending doom very seriously.

How? What's stopping them from making their case now? SSM legislation doesn't change the Criminal Code. Nor are the prohibitions on incest or polygamy contained therein discriminatory, as they apply equally to all citizens. In other words, you're comparing apples to plywood. SSM has been a legal right enjoyed by almost 90 per cent of Canadians fro well over a year now. Yet God has so far failed to smite any of teh provinces and the territory where gay marriage is a fact of life. Is the Almighty simply waiting for the federal government's decsion before the smiting begins?

ne're mind.

Let's put it this way: not all who oppose SSM are bigots, but all bigots oppose SSM.

What you mean is that you dissaprove of and dismiss the answers they have supplied. That's not quite the same thing. Which answers neither question.

It is circular because it begs the question "why is marriage between a man and a woman?" I gues sthe question is, why can't we redefine words? We do it all the time (see my previous example re: "the persons case"). If the current definition of marriage is a legal partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals (male and female), does changing the gender reference change the nature of the relationship? You would have to show why the gender of the participants is an essential element of the partnership. But saying the gender is essential because that's the way it's always been is fallacious. First: the current SSM legislation change sthe civil definition of marriage, not the religious definition. If amrriag eis soley a religious term, what'sit doing in Canadian law? Second: marriage has changed many times throughout history. the one man/one woman definition is not universal (For example, polygamy and, in some societies, polyandry were and are practiced by many societies areound the world). It will give them the right to marry and solemnize their relationships. You don't have to like it, but then, it doesn't really affect you.

Rights are philosophical constructs, but I think the classic Cartesian utterance "I think therefore I am" is evidence of the existence of rights: I can conceive of rights, therefore, rights exist. As for pragmatism: pah. I read your arguments on the subject: they corkscrew about wildly without landing on anything substansial. Certainly there was no accusation that you supported the Holocaust: simply that your amoral view of rights (or the non-existence thereof) can be used to justify crimes like the extermination of Europe's Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, etc. By stating that rights are not an intrinsic to human existence but rather something that can be conferred upon or revoked by others at will, you are saying that our rights and, therefore, our persons are essentially the property of someone else and thus any decision by that party to abrogate our rights is morally justifiable. Thus the Nazis, since they did not view the Jews as having rights, were justified in trying to exerminate them. Such a viwpoint is antithetical to the humanist ideals which are the bedrock of our civilization and which hold that all men are born with rights.

I know I get tired of hearing hysterical pronouncments about how not legalizing same sex marriage will jeapordize all marriages; lead to rampant outbreaks of bestiality, incest and polygamy; and inevitably lead to the breakdown of society itself. Oh wait. Sorry, those are arguments advanced by same sex marriage opponnents. No fanaticism or self-righteousness there, nosiree. As for self-importance, what could be more pompous, persumptuous and self-aggrandizing than those who claim to know the mind of God? But hey, god forbid a bunch of people who have been traditionally marginalized, ridiculed, ghettoized, abused and discriminated against actually take a strong stand on an issue that matters to them. And if they must, can't they do it quietly so as not to upset our delicate sensibilities?

No kidding. I mean, first it was the Chinese. Then women. Now this outrage. My god, what do these minorities think this is? A democracy? I've pointed out before the argument that the word marriage has always meant "man and woman" is circular. As I said then: Also: I was on a roll that day. What is the legal definition of a partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals of the same gender called?