realwannabe

yes, ' we ' have had the right to adoption for a long time. It has nothing to do with marriage. Persons with disabilities are still persons.

the exact definition of marriage is marriage. Any kind of compromise is not debatable , just like anyone should be recognised as a person, you dont go find another name to describe a "person" marriage is the ultimate to me, any thing other than marriage is NOT marriage and is NOT equal. it is really as simple as that.

no i dont feel proud that my sexuality is more distinct than others. I dont think theres anything to be proud of, i dont think my homosexuality is that unique or special that it would require another set of insititution to recognise it. I also dont think i am in any way more superior or inferior than heterosexual.

Merry Love and Happiness day everyone!

It's hard not to place it on an inferior level. The foundation of marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman to live together as one. Why? In order to bear and raise children. You can make all the excuses you want about people in old age getting married or people who are barren. It doesn't matter. The foundation of marriage is two people commiting to the raising of children. And clearly gay marriage has no such intent or plan. Gay people want to get married more as a symbolic thing than anything else. Marriage is alot of different things for alot of different people, one thing we can agree on is that it is about love and gay couples can be as loving and as committed as any heterosexual couples.

and you treating your wives as property and beating your wives would definiately violates the equality right for women established in the charter and the criminal code. Please get a grip.

yes , lets have real democray, which means making sure minority right is not up to the tyranny of the majority. Let the GAY mps to vote on the same sex legislation as it only concerns homosexual couples.

Liberal would not have a majority government either if we have PR. The whole dynamic would change, you cant say whats going to happen. Actually it would be good for Alberta, because right now, FPTP is favoring the Liberals.

The idea that homosexual couples are not necessarily entitled to marriage as long as they have the same rights is like saying women do not necessarily have to be considered as a ¡§person¡¨ as long as they have the same rights as men. The underlying idea always implies a level of hierarchy and discrimination, in my opinion. It¡¦s common to read opponents of same sex marriage (those who argue anything but ¡§marriage¡¨ for homosexuals) argued that they are appalled and ashamed that their marriage is considered equal to gay relationships. Civil Union is constructed on the foundation of inferiority, and that¡¦s how I interpreted it and I am adamantly opposed to that. t.

It means that the First past the post system is corrupted.

funny , the support for Liberals didnt dropped due to SSM, neither did the NDP. The liberal and NDP combined together constitute a 58 percent majority of Canadians. And the BQ is left leanning too, good job. The Conservatives is dying. NDP plus BQ plus Green - all relatively left leanning parties, constitute 34 percent of the voters. WOW. That suppressed the Conservative.

Same sex marriage is no where near the reality? Tell that to the 3000 same sex couples who were LEGALLY MARRIED throughout the 6 provinces and 1 terrority which already have their traditional definition of marriage struck down by the courts. You get real.

In terms of civil union: Well, I am of the position that civil union cant stand the test of the Charter. The high court states in its decision that ' Marriage and civil unions are two distinct ways in which couples can express their commitment and structure their legal obligations. Civil unions are a relationship short of marriage and are, therefore, provincially regulated. ' And what about other countries and states that already have legalised same sex marriage? They will surely recognise the legal status of these same sex married Canadian couples. And i also heard that some counties in New York recognize legally married same sex couples. Marriage is the only word that has legal meanning in this world, most countries might not recognise it. But one thing for sure, civil union is worthless outside of Canada whereas Marriage has more legal power. The chance that a Canadian marriage will be recognized in a foreign country is a lot greater than the likelihood that a Canadian civil union would be.

A fraction of a fraction of a percent. Most agencies are reluctant to give children to a gay couple as it has been statistically proven that children are better off with an opposite sex family. This is all nonsense. The majority of Canadians would support gay civil unions, but do not support gay marriage. And matters of responsibility can be attended to. As for international recognition - spare me - nations which do not recognize gay marriage are not going to recognize ours, whatever we choose to call it. Any sources on that children under heterosexual family are better off than children raised in a same sex household? I like to see that. Only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of homosexual family have children? I like to see a source for that again. But so homosexual families do have children , right? Good. I am a homosexual, i want to get married and I want to have children and i have many homosexual friends that also want children and want to get married. I dont see myself as a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the homosexual population. The majority of Canadians do not support WHAT? 57 percent of Canadians do not see same sex marriage as a threat to heterosexual family. According to most major polls, a slight majority of Canadians DO support same sex marriages, at the very least, it is evenly split. So dont tell me the "silent" majority do not support same sex marriage. Thats just propaganda.

oh oh oh. Where do i begin? Homosexual couples already won the right to adoption for a looooooooooong time. So they can and DO have children. I am not about to convince you why once again the churches wont be forced to perform gay marriage since they are not forced to perform re-marriage either. I have already had this argument many times, so i will just copy and paste my previous arguments. One thing i will respond to is the slippery slope argument Also, the charter considers sexual orientation as a possible basis for discrimination. For example, a persons colout, creed, religion, race, sex, or any other constitutionall protected attribute can be considered a ground for discrimination. Whereas people are not naturally inclined to have polygamous relationship, and the charter does not consider discrimination for marriage can be based on numbers, or amily relationships, or species Civil union does not work because: But civil union is not a federal responsibility, the federal government would have no power over that and there would be no point of this discussion. Only marriage is recognized by other countries, not civil unions. Only marriage is recognized by the constitution as a federal responsibility, not civil unions. Every province will have to pass their own seperate laws to have that achieved. This could take forever since it might not even be possible to have all provinces to agree on this issue and define civil union in the exact same way as other provinces. And this is a moot point anyways, because most of the provinces have already had their marriage definitions changed to include homosexual couples. Nothing the House of Common can do can change that really since it gave up its right to appeal