Gay marriage vs Gay Rights

[Mr.Canada]

I'm of the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to married as a right. Marriage isn't a right, it's a traditional social institution. 1 woman and 1 man. It's a choice a woman and man make to join together in matrimony. It's not a right as freedom of religion is a right. Gay people don't need to get married in order to survive in fact just the opposite happens doesn't it.

Having said that I'm for gay rights and fully support the gay people of Canada to be afforded the same rights the rest of us enjoy. I don't want to see gay people discriminated against as it pertains to employment, housing, social benefit etc.

How do others feel about this soon to be huge issue?

[msj]

C'mon, you're really some computer program from 1993 or so aren't you?

I mean, I remember writing a paper in college on why gays should be allowed to marry back in the early 90's for a philosophy class.

At that time one could call it a "soon to be huge issue."

Now? Not so much.

It's over.

Gays can marry under civil law and churches can choose to marry them or not at their own discretion.

Get over it.

[punked]

I'm of the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to married as a right. Marriage isn't a right, it's a traditional social institution. 1 woman and 1 man. It's a choice a woman and man make to join together in matrimony. It's not a right as freedom of religion is a right. Gay people don't need to get married in order to survive in fact just the opposite happens doesn't it.

Having said that I'm for gay rights and fully support the gay people of Canada to be afforded the same rights the rest of us enjoy. I don't want to see gay people discriminated against as it pertains to employment, housing, social benefit etc.

How do others feel about this soon to be huge issue?

Here are 12 reasons and responses to same sex marriage: Your reason is number 2. Just becuase Gays can't have their own children does not mean they can not raise children. We need more loving parents in the world who are willing to raise adopted children.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in Canada.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Why are you for Gay rights but not marriage? Why? The definition of marriage has changed 12 times in the last 150 years why not one more? At one time only whites could marry, then the law changed so blacks could marry blacks and eventually so blacks could marry whites. At one time the wife was viewed as the property of the Husband that slowly changed with time. Heck 25 years ago it was ok for a husband to rape a wife in marriage. Polygamy was ok. Why can we change all of this with respect to marriage but somehow you think a clear definition is set in stone? There is none and you look like a bigot for pretending there is.

[August1991]

Gays can marry under civil law and churches can choose to marry them or not at their own discretion.

"At their own discretion?" Huh? Should a church have the right to discriminate purely on the grounds of sexual orientation? How about a civil employee who refuses to conduct a gay marriage?

To be called mayonnaise, it has to have whole eggs.

-----

Why do I sense that this thread will become a long one?

[Nisha89]

Marriage isn't a right, it's a traditional social institution.

Who decided that marriage isn't a right? All individuals are equal before the law. If one couple has the right to do something, why is another couple denied the same right?

Gays can marry under civil law and churches can choose to marry them or not at their own discretion.

I doubt that churches can choose who they can and can't marry. Your idea seems like a simple solution, but now you have a discrimination problem. No institution has a right to deny people equal service because of their sexual preferences.

[msj]

"At their own discretion?" Huh? Should a church have the right to discriminate purely on the grounds of sexual orientation? How about a civil employee who refuses to conduct a gay marriage?

To be called mayonnaise, it has to have whole eggs.

Churches are not forced to marry gays just like they are not forced to allow women to become priests (if the institution so chooses).

The Constitution Act of 1982 has been in effect since what? 1985 or so?

I have yet to see a church challenged on this ground despite it clearly violating section 15.

So why will it be any different for gay marriage?

Hint - it has something to do with section 2.

Why do I sense that this thread will become a long one?

Because people like you and Mr. Canada keep wasting time with non sequiturs?

[msj]

I doubt that churches can choose who they can and can't marry. Your idea seems like a simple solution, but now you have a discrimination problem. No institution has a right to deny people equal service because of their sexual preferences.

I recommend you phone your local Roman Catholic, Baptist, or other such Church and ask them if they will marry two men or two women.

Once again, the solution has already been implemented.

What is funny is that no one has bothered to wonder what would have happened if, say in 1997, a church, let's call it the Harmonious Church, decided that they would start marrying gays.

Of course, the church would have been able to do so but that legal paper work you see they do at the service?

No, that would not have been allowed because that part is the civil part (aka secular state law).

In 1997 it was not lawful for gays to marry (nor were they allowed to be declared common law until, iirc, 2000/2001 where gays were allowed to back date this status to the 1998 calendar year for tax purposes and CPP/OAS purposes).

Then gays were eventually allowed to marry thanks to the courts because, as punked has already sarcastically stated, "[g]ay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities."

[ToadBrother]

I'm of the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to married as a right. Marriage isn't a right, it's a traditional social institution. 1 woman and 1 man. It's a choice a woman and man make to join together in matrimony. It's not a right as freedom of religion is a right. Gay people don't need to get married in order to survive in fact just the opposite happens doesn't it.

Having said that I'm for gay rights and fully support the gay people of Canada to be afforded the same rights the rest of us enjoy. I don't want to see gay people discriminated against as it pertains to employment, housing, social benefit etc.

How do others feel about this soon to be huge issue?

You can't have it both ways. Either homosexuals are treated equally in the eyes of the law or they're not.

I have no idea why a civil union should be so offensive. It's not as if any religious notion is being stomped on. After all, common law unions have long been recognized.

[ToadBrother]

Churches are not forced to marry gays just like they are not forced to allow women to become priests (if the institution so chooses).

The Constitution Act of 1982 has been in effect since what? 1985 or so?

I have yet to see a church challenged on this ground despite it clearly violating section 15.

So why will it be any different for gay marriage?

Hint - it has something to do with section 2.

Because people like you and Mr. Canada keep wasting time with non sequiturs?

Let's understand something here. Religious and civil marriages are not necessarily equivalent. It's quite possible for a church to marry two people who cannot be legally married; say brother and sister. By the same token, two people can be married who some churches may not recognize. A religious ceremony still has to have a civil component to be recognized as a marriage. You have to have a marriage license, thus the state is the fundamental authority of who can get legally married.

[msj]

Let's understand something here. Religious and civil marriages are not necessarily equivalent. It's quite possible for a church to marry two people who cannot be legally married; say brother and sister. By the same token, two people can be married who some churches may not recognize. A religious ceremony still has to have a civil component to be recognized as a marriage. You have to have a marriage license, thus the state is the fundamental authority of who can get legally married.

To be legally married in Canada one needs to have that piece of paper called a marriage licence (I think that's what it's officially called - don't tell my wife though ).

So, a Church can "marry" anybody it wants. But if the state doesn't recognize it then the "marriage" is only recognized by those who witnessed it and who accept that kind of marriage.

You know, kind of like those people in Bountiful, BC.

This is legally important in that while common law status makes two people legally the same as a married couple under the Income Tax Act of Canada and for CPP/OAS purposes it does not address other legal issues such as property rights under provincial jurisdiction, for example (among others).

As such, the simplest solution is to extend the "right" of marriage to gays to ensure that they have the same legal status as my wife and I do should we ever divorce or should one of us end up incapacitated in a hospital.

[August1991]

What is funny is that no one has bothered to wonder what would have happened if, say in 1997, a church, let's call it the Harmonious Church, decided that they would start marrying gays.

Of course, the church would have been able to do so but that legal paper work you see they do at the service?

In that sense, we are talking about a long term contract and that's what a marriage amounts to. What are the obligations of the parties? What do the parties receive under specific circumstances?

Gays had this under civil unions, but gays wanted more. They wanted recognition.

At this point, I'm waiting for Black Dog to show up and convince me once again of the logic of gay marriage. (My initial opinion was that the federal Supreme Court was wrong to decide this issue. IMHO, gay marriage should be a provincial jurisdiction.)

And yet... If you have mayonnaise, it's not salad dressing. If salad dressing can be described as mayonnaise, then mayonnaise loses its value. To be mayonnaise, it requires whole eggs.

We can play around with words but words, unless you're an urban leftist, don't change reality. A gay marriage is not a marriage, and salad dressing is not mayonnaise.

[M.Dancer]

Who decided that marriage isn't a right?

It isn't. Marriage is a rite.

[M.Dancer]

I'm of the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to married as a right.

That's nice, you having an opinion I mean....

yawn.....

[Goat Boy©]

If they're dumb enough to get married in today's age, why stop them? I just baffles me that two men would want to get married.

Funny spin off;

Knew two straight guys, both with girlfriends, but they were sharing an apartment. They ended up marrying each other, so they could income split and save money on their taxes.

[WIP]

I'm of the opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to married as a right. Marriage isn't a right, it's a traditional social institution. 1 woman and 1 man. It's a choice a woman and man make to join together in matrimony. It's not a right as freedom of religion is a right. Gay people don't need to get married in order to survive in fact just the opposite happens doesn't it.

Well that begs the question:"does anybody need to get married in order to survive?" Marriage is not a matter of life and death for any party. Marriage may be a traditional social institution, but if you flip through the pages of your Bible, especially where marriage is mentioned in the Old Testament, you don't find marriage referring to some mystical union of male and female -- instead it is nothing more than an exchange of property, where a man raises enough money to buy a wife and pays the bride-price to her father so that he can have her....not a lot different than if he was purchasing an ox, a goat, sheep etc. from the the same man. If he's rich, he could afford to buy lots of wives......doesn't sound so romantic when you discover how brief the history of "traditional marriage" really is.

Having said that I'm for gay rights and fully support the gay people of Canada to be afforded the same rights the rest of us enjoy. I don't want to see gay people discriminated against as it pertains to employment, housing, social benefit etc.

How do others feel about this soon to be huge issue?

If you say you're for gay rights, you don't get to pick and choose which rights you'll allow them from the list that we enjoy. There are literally hundreds of rights conferred to couples through marriage that would cost thousands of dollars for lawyers to achieve separately. Let's take one example that I heard over the weekend from a lesbian co-host of an internet radio program I pick up on my podcast list:

Joint parental rights of children - if a man or woman marries someone with children from a previous marriage, they automatically assume the shared rights and obligations of custody of the children. Since the host of the show lives in Texas, she had to pay more than $4,000 out of pocket to go through the procedure of legally adopting the children of her lesbian spouse. Other issues mentioned include: having next-of-kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions, insurance coverage, tax credits, child support in case of divorce.

These might not be life and death issues (though some of them could be), but they are far from frivolous concerns either.

[madmax]

If they're dumb enough to get married in today's age, why stop them? I just baffles me that two men would want to get married.

I wouldn't be laughing as hard as I am now, if your handle wasn't GOAT BOY.

[Oleg Bach]

Family= ONE male + ONE female + one offspring. Anything less or more is not family nor is a union that does not or can not produce a child a marriage. "Biological mother" Vs mother (care giver) ---sorry there is only one mother - the biological mother....only one father....the real father...all esle is social engineering and insidious deception. There should not be gay rights - THERE SHOULD ONLY BE REAL AND TRUE HUMAN RIGHTS. If you are a human you are entiled to protection....end of story...moving on.

[Smallc]

Family= ONE male + ONE female + one offspring.

I guess that my parents had 2 too many children....

[Melanie_]

Here are 12 reasons and responses to same sex marriage: Your reason is number 2. Just becuase Gays can't have their own children does not mean they can not raise children. We need more loving parents in the world who are willing to raise adopted children.

Great list, punked. Can I borrow it to use elsewhere? Is it yours, or is it from another source?

[msj]

In that sense, we are talking about a long term contract and that's what a marriage amounts to. What are the obligations of the parties? What do the parties receive under specific circumstances?

Gays had this under civil unions, but gays wanted more. They wanted recognition.

I suppose some gays wanted what my wife and I already have - to be recognized as married under the law (and to enjoy/suffer the full benefits/costs under the applicable federal and provincial laws).

Some may want to be recognized under god, or maybe the FSM, or IPU, but they will have to see if their chosen cult allows for gay marriage at that transcendent level.

Of course, in order to be married in Canada, one only needs the civil certificate. The religious ceremony is exactly that - ceremony. If you believe in god then it's important for you to be recognized under god etc....

My wife and I had a nice religious free marriage ceremony. Everyone considers us married despite having no children.

Must be the wedding rings we have.

Why did we get married?

I suppose she gets more legal rights to my business interest should we divorce (common law rights still are not the same as full blown marriage rights but this gets into such technical details that only lawyers can follow along) and maybe we are more committed to each other thanks to the little ceremony. I know that should one of us end up in the hospital then it's better that we are married (if only because the mother-in-law is one crazy ...).

No doubt people treat us differently - we noticed that right away. Family/friends now think of us as committed even though we don't think we are any more committed than when we were common law. But who knows, maybe we feel more committed because people see us that way....

However, why people feel the need to prevent gay people from enjoying what my wife and I enjoy is beyond me.

[eyeball]

However, why people feel the need to prevent gay people from enjoying what my wife and I enjoy is beyond me.

It sounds like its more beneath you, actually.

[msj]

It sounds like its more beneath you, actually.

The religious part - sure. Religion ain't our thing which is our right in a free and secular country.

The other parts (whether legalistic or intangible) - no.

[moderateamericain]

The religious part - sure. Religion ain't our thing which is our right in a free and secular country.

The other parts (whether legalistic or intangible) - no.

Its not the part of the US or Canadian Government to regulate lifestyle. Gays do not infringe on your rights, so why bother to dictate lifestyle. How does Gay Marriage hurt you? I may be pretty conservative but part of being conservative is knowing that its not up to us to decide how people choose to live there lives, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

[bush_cheney2004]

Its not the part of the US or Canadian Government to regulate lifestyle....

But they do at many public and private levels of "lifestyle" choices. In fact, it is the very framework of government regulation, contract law, benefits, and entitlements that are at stake. Otherwise it wouldn't make any difference.

[moderateamericain]

But they do at many public and private levels of "lifestyle" choices. In fact, it is the very framework of government regulation, contract law, benefits, and entitlements that are at stake. Otherwise it wouldn't make any difference.

Explain to me how Gay Marriage would Impinge most of those.