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

But why should the Catholic churches receive special tax credit in the first place??? If all religions are treated equally, theres nothing the government can do to favor one over another. I am a homosexual and i personally dont give a CRAP if some churches refuse to recognize my same sex marriage. I just want my right to marry! (I wouldnt waste my stupid time trying to get an anti-gay priest to conduct my marriage, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! ) Some church still dont allow female priests, right? I dont see any feminists suing the churches for discrimination. I dont see any churches FORCED to premit re-marriage and divorces have been happenning for what, 40 years?? I am so SICK and TIRED of this baseless fear and argument. It looks as if there is really no real argument to oppose same sex marriage.

*Sigh*, realwannabe, that was the whole issue and the reason we are discussing this.In the past, the State did not do this. It treated a union/contract between two people of the same sex differently from a union/contract between two people of different sexes. Apparently, in the future, both situations will be treated by the State identically - including the use of the word "marriage". Now then, in the past, the Christian Heritage Savings Coop may have refused to open a joint account for you and me because we were the same sex, but the Bank of Montreal across the street wanted our bucks and probably would have done it. Can the Christian Heritage Savings Coop continue to refuse us (and admittedly lose the extra business we bring)? But why are we talking about the banks? I rather you say what you are really trying to say and made it relevant to this discussion of same sex marriage. The bank have always been allowed to have whatever policies they wish to have, if some private companies want to stand on their principals and only accept "straight" customers, thats their business and they CAN do that. (or can they? I dont care frankly, because that is so off topic its not even funny) Now i know you are trying to imply something else with this example, i am just not sure what exactly. Churches would not have to be forced to marry same sex couples, people will continue to hold onto their discriminatory beliefs but in a matter of public institutions regulated by the government, discrimination cannot be continued and allowed because we see this as a "right" issue and homosexuals are included as part of the civil society. There are many things that are legal and that the churches do not agree with , and thats too bad. This has been the direction of the modern society for the past 100 years.

Allowing same sex marriage IS protecing minorities from the majority. It does so by allowing same sex couples to share the same rights and responsibilites as any heterosexual married couples. The state defines the definition of marriage, and it has a responsibility to treat all its citizen equally so that the Charter can be uphold.

You've lost me here. The State has the right to imprison you; no other institution has that power. The State does not provide legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. A Bill of Rights should ideally stop the State from infringing on an individual's rights. That is exactly the issue. Gays want to get married and say they are married. The State at present is saying no to them. The State is discriminating between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Should you have the right to refuse to work for an employer because she's a woman? What Bill of rights? Are we talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedom here? Pierre Trudeau made the constitutional amendment and gave Canadians the Charter. The Charter gives us right and protection from the state. THe state has a right to imprison me only if i am found guilty. If i am not found guilty and if my civil liberties were not properly recognised during the time of the arrest and the time before i was found guilty, the state has no right to imprsion me. The state is not saying no to same sex marriage, the state is say yes to same sex marriage. And same sex marriage is already legal in most of Canada. I already said what i do in my private is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. This has to do with the human rights code which is of provinal jurisdiction and it has nothing to do with the Charter because the government is not the source of discrimination here so it doesnt apply to same sex marriage, which is a federal responsibility. you are comparing apple to oranges really. You guys keep repeating how the churches would be forced to perform wedding, the Supreme court already very clearly said it wont, and you guys still keep pushing on this meaningless and baseless argument , get a grip. Priests ARE already having the liberty not to marry a divorced couple , why wouldnt they have the liberty not to marry a same sex couple at the private of their own churches? Thats like saying allowing same sex couples to get married will force heterosexual familes to open their homes to queer couples. Its totally stupid If there is anything REAL you want to add, please do it. I sincerely dont know what you are trying to get at at all here, please help me out.

And Marriage is a right. Canada is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsm in which Article 16 states: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Notice Canada agrees that getting married is considered a matter of right. Nevermind that the U.N doesnt consider same sex marriage. NEVERTHELESS.

Duh, because the state belongs to the public. The state provides legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. It represents everyone, i only represent myself. What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. The action of the state always go beyond itself and has far reaching consquences on all citizens. How ridiculous.

Well in my riding, there is no chance in hell that the Conservatives or the NDP could ever win it. I waste my vote every election voting for the NDP, so your single riding is not representative of the whole picture here compared to the real numbers, (they do mean something) And i dont think free trade should have happened. But anyways, I support a form of MMP, where some seats will still be perserved for FPTP and some seats will be conducted using PR so there would be greater and more fair representation of seats for the actual votes. FPTP encourages strategic voting and increases voters' apathy, people should not have to vote in fear or feel like they cant vote for their true perferences because of the "wasted votes" factor. FPTP is absolutley not perfect and something should be done. Only France, U.S, India and Britain still use FPTP, all other countries have adopted some form of PR into their electoral systems.

Governning party often gets less than 50 percent of the votes and therefore cannot produce any legislation that is representative of the will of the people. You talk about pro and cons , but it seems you are only interested in talking about the pro of the FPTP, so you are not that different.

And just because people file a lawsuit , it doesnt mean they will win. Priests have been refusing to marry couples who have had divorces for years.

Marriage may not be a basic human right, but the principle of equality under the law is universally recognized. And that's the issue here. Through the instituition of marriage, heterosexuals are entitled to legal benefits and privileges, not afforded to gays by virtue of their sexual orientation. That's pure discrimination. So what? You could also say that the state treats single people differently than married people - in effect, discriminating against them. You can obviously also say the state, using various means and rights tests, treats natives differently than everyone else, treats minorities differently than the majority, treats the poor differently than the rich, or the middle class, or even the working poor. Why is it if you are a poor man on welfare the state will pay all your medical bills, your prescriptions, eyeglasses, your legal bills, the whole shebang, but if you are a dirt poor person who works for a living the state will treat you much much less generously? Discrimination, obviously. Why does the state pay for all the drug bills of seniors, even rich seniors, but not for anyone else - except those on welfare, that is? More discrimination. This society is built on discrimination of various kinds, and discrimination is incorporated into government. We might as well admit it. Discrimination , of course, exists. But the matter is always determinnig if benefits of certain discrimination outweights the disadvantages. Car insurance discriminates males over females for example by charging males more. And the Charter does allow the state to practise discrminiation if it is within reasonable limit and the benefits outweights the disadvantages of violating a certain right or that limiting a right is pressing and substantial. I have yet to see any substantial reason why we should limit the rights of homosexuals to marriage, if one can give a substantial argument, than maybe we shouldnt allow same sex marriage. But this is not the case. Btw, all the discriminations you mentioned involve money, the Charter never promises economic justice or equality.