Gay marriage vs Gay Rights

[Mr.Canada]

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?

Marriage isn't a human right, period. As much as they try to say it is, it just isn't. It's a traditional social institution.

[BC_chick]

Marriage isn't a human right, period. As much as they try to say it is, it just isn't. It's a traditional social institution.

Marriage is also a legally binding contract. Read the constitution, no law can be discriminatory. As such, marriage is a right... according to the Canadian constitution anyway.

[Mr.Canada]

Marriage is also a legally binding contract. Read the constitution, no law can be discriminatory. As such, marriage is a right... according to the Canadian constitution anyway.

Then why aren't Churches being dragged to tribunals over Human Rights violations for refusing to marry?

Marriage is not a Human Right as laid out by the UN so knock it off.

[Smallc]

Then why aren't Churches being dragged to tribunals over Human Rights violations for refusing to marry?

Marriage is not a Human Right as laid out by the UN so knock it off.

1. That's also convered in the constitution.

2. We aren't goverened by the UN. There's no reason we can't add to the list of rights.

[msj]

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.

If you are going to bother to post in a thread then please take the time to read some of the posts.

I am clearly for gay marriage as my posts above clearly show.

[August1991]

For all intents, a civil union accomplished the same as a marriage. Both were respected identically as a long term family contract.

Gays wanted to appropriate the word "marriage" which, until the Supreme Court decision, was a word reserved for opposite sex couples. Salad dressing wanted to be called mayonnaise. Why? Well this logic is appropriated from the victim-ideology of black Americans: If "community activists" can change the words people use to describe things, then this will change the way people view things.

Here's the theory: If gays can marry like everyone else, then everyone will think of gays as ordinary. If people no longer refer to negroes but rather blacks or African-American, this will change how everyone views blacks.

IOW, if we change words, we can change reality. The North American Left is obsessed with symbols and confuses a change in symbol for a change in reality.

-----

Reality has its own way of changing and I suspect that changing perceptions has little to do with real changes.

Edited December 28, 2008 by August1991

[msj]

Then why aren't Churches being dragged to tribunals over Human Rights violations for refusing to marry?

As I have already pointed out in another post above - certain Churches (or is it just one Church?) are not forced to allow women to be priests despite this violating section 15 of the Constitution Act of 1982 (aka Canada's Constitution).

Why?

Hint - check out section 2.

This is why churches will not be forced to marry gays.

Gays get all of the legal recognition from the civil part of marriage (in fact, all married people do).

They can get that intangible feeling (or "religious feeling") from inviting their friends and family to the ceremony of their choosing. They will not be able to get certain religious orders to marry them and/or bless them.

Sure, some gays may be disappointed to miss out on a good 2 hour long Catholic wedding but that's life in a pragmatic, compromised society.

[msj]

For all intents, a civil union accomplished the same as a marriage. Both were respected identically as a long term family contract.

By "civil union" do you mean common law or being married in front of a justice of the peace?

My wife and I were married before a justice and we are considered married.

Why should it be different if our names were Jane and Jane rather than John and Jane?

Gays wanted to appropriate the word "marriage" which, until the Supreme Court decision, was a word reserved for opposite sex couples. Salad dressing wanted to be called mayonnaise. Why? Well this logic is appropriated from the victim-ideology of black Americans: If "community activists" can change the words people use to describe things, then this will change the way people view things.

Your mayonnaise analogy is just plain ridiculous.

A vinagarette is a salad dressing just like ranch dressing is (note that ranch dressing can include mayonnaise in it - doesn't have to but often does).

Marriage is a civil union which is a marriage. BFD.

Here's the theory: If gays can marry like everyone else, then everyone will think of gays as ordinary. If people no longer refer to negroes but rather blacks or African-American, this will change how everyone views blacks.

IOW, if we change words, we can change reality. The North American Left is obsessed with symbols and confuses a change in symbol for a change in reality.

-----

Reality has its own way of changing and I suspect that changing perceptions has little to do with real changes.

Sure, language may or may not be powerful.

But the fact remains - marriage is marriage.

Whether it is two people of the same gender or different genders doesn't change the beauty of two people coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other.

I'm not willing to differentiate this just because one couple is Adam and Steve while the other is Adam and Eve.

One is no more special, nor less ordinary, that they deserve a separate name for what is, in the end, the exact same thing - marriage.

[WIP]

For all intents, a civil union accomplished the same as a marriage. Both were respected identically as a long term family contract.

If a civil union guaranteed the same rights as marriage, why would gay couples seek marriage rather than settling for civil union?

Gays wanted to appropriate the word "marriage" which, until the Supreme Court decision, was a word reserved for opposite sex couples.

Appropriating a word!! For real? It's just about using the word "marriage?" That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Salad dressing wanted to be called mayonnaise. Why? Well this logic is appropriated from the victim-ideology of black Americans: If "community activists" can change the words people use to describe things, then this will change the way people view things.

No wonder blacks are distrustful. Your rightwing heroes like Rudy Giuliani and brainless talking head Sarah Palin tried to imply that "community organizers in poor, inner city neighbourhoods are identical to "community activists;" this is actually a good example of misusing words for propaganda purposes. But after community organizer - Barack Obama organized a campaign that knocked off Hillary Clinton's organization, and went on to organize their way to bringing record numbers of campaign donations and volunteers, not many are denigrating the term now.

Here's the theory: If gays can marry like everyone else, then everyone will think of gays as ordinary. If people no longer refer to negroes but rather blacks or African-American, this will change how everyone views blacks.

So, that's why the Right fights against gay marriage - to prevent their acceptance by society. Is the better objective to keep them hated, despised and in the closet?

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Not sure what you mean by this....government provides a legal/civil framework with contract law, which has included discriminatory regulation with marriage licenses.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Here's the theory: If gays can marry like everyone else, then everyone will think of gays as ordinary. If people no longer refer to negroes but rather blacks or African-American, this will change how everyone views blacks.

IOW, if we change words, we can change reality. The North American Left is obsessed with symbols and confuses a change in symbol for a change in reality.

This misses the mark....the African American "black and proud" movement was a direct result of the US civil rights struggle and had little to do with "everyone's" view. Physical attributes long regarded with self hate were rejected in favor of pride and worth.

"Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud" - James Brown (1968)

So called gay rights activists mimic these former efforts, in what is essentially another civil rights issue.

[Mr.Canada]

1. That's also convered in the constitution.

2. We aren't goverened by the UN. There's no reason we can't add to the list of rights.

1. Lol. You people twist things to suit your needs so that the left can impose their views on all of society. Anyone who disagrees with your pov is labeled a homophobe, racist, fascist etc.

2. Oh really. Who brought the Nazi's and Slobovic to trial? The tooth fairy?

[Smallc]

ummmm ok. Don't know what that has to do with section 2 of the charter, but carry on.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Smallc

[Mr.Canada]

ummmm ok. Don't know what that has to do with section 2 of the charter, but carry on.

Marriage isn't a basic human right. It's a traditional social institution and/or one of the seven sacraments. One doesn't need to be married in order to live, therefore it isn't a basic human right as laid out by the UN for the ENTIRE world to abide by.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

As I have already told you, we aren't governed by the UN. The declaration is a framework and there's nothing saying that we can't add to it. Even if we were to follow simply the declaration, article 7 could be used to cover this issue.

[Pliny]

But the fact remains - marriage is marriage.

The fact remains that marriage is morphing into something other than the dictionary definition or what it has traditionally been understood to be.

Whether it is two people of the same gender or different genders doesn't change the beauty of two people coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other.

It seems that the word marriage must change definition to include two people of the same gender in order for there to be the "beauty of two people coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other." Couldn't there be a different word, maybe more appropriate, more beautiful, to describe the beauty of two people of the same gender coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other?

I'm not willing to differentiate this just because one couple is Adam and Steve while the other is Adam and Eve.

I'm certain if a marriage involved you yourself, you would make the differentiation. If you thought they were the same thing, as you suggest they are, then you should also not make the differentiation in your own marriage or indeed in your own bed partners.

One is no more special, nor less ordinary, that they deserve a separate name for what is, in the end, the exact same thing - marriage.

I suspect the dictionary definition will change to include same sex unions regardless of it's historic and traditional sense. If we are to save the planet, homosexuality and abortion must, after all, become not only accepted, but popular and widely practiced. Don't you agree?

Edited December 28, 2008 by Pliny

[moderateamericain]

If you are going to bother to post in a thread then please take the time to read some of the posts.

I am clearly for gay marriage as my posts above clearly show.

So sorry MSJ I was not targeting you specifically, you were just the last post and i forgot to delete the quote you part of it. Laziness on my part.

[Mr.Canada]

So sorry MSJ I was not targeting you specifically, you were just the last post and i forgot to delete the quote you part of it. Laziness on my part.

Not surprising coming from the secular socialists, laziness.

Marriage isn't a basic human right it's a holy sacrament at most and a traditional social institution at least. I guess polygamy is next as a human right eh guys?

I think the goal of the secular socialists is to degrade society and to make everything traditional a joke until we have no culture or any identity at all. Once anyone disagrees with any of their agenda will be labeled. For example homophobe, racist, Nazi, fascist, etc.

Keep an eye on them people, they're a cunning bunch.

[moderateamericain]

Not surprising coming from the secular socialists, laziness.

Marriage isn't a basic human right it's a holy sacrament at most and a traditional social institution at least. I guess polygamy is next as a human right eh guys?

I think the goal of the secular socialists is to degrade society and to make everything traditional a joke until we have no culture or any identity at all. Once anyone disagrees with any of their agenda will be labeled. For example homophobe, racist, Nazi, fascist, etc.

Keep an eye on them people, they're a cunning bunch.

A cheap shot Mr. Canada. But hey thats okay. You don't actually know me. In the United States we have seperation of church and state. So marriage here has certain laws attatched to it that effect the standard of living of people. Be it what you put on your W-2 for tax season or for Insurance purposes. The fact that Traditional Marriage is a sacred institution for you does not mean it is necessarily for someone else. Part of being a Republican and Conservative is knowing how to limit government interference in social issues. My question to you is, How is Gay Marriage effecting your standard of living? If you don't like gay Marriage, don't go the wedding. Join a religion that does not allow gay Marriage in there congregation. And please refrain from the strawman arguments about polagmy or beastiality, because that is Intellectually lazy.

[Mr.Canada]

A cheap shot Mr. Canada. But hey thats okay. You don't actually know me. In the United States we have seperation of church and state. So marriage here has certain laws attatched to it that effect the standard of living of people. Be it what you put on your W-2 for tax season or for Insurance purposes. The fact that Traditional Marriage is a sacred institution for you does not mean it is necessarily for someone else. Part of being a Republican and Conservative is knowing how to limit government interference in social issues. My question to you is, How is Gay Marriage effecting your standard of living? If you don't like gay Marriage, don't go the wedding. Join a religion that does not allow gay Marriage in there congregation. And please refrain from the strawman arguments about polagmy or beastiality, because that is Intellectually lazy.

The socialists are never content. After they've won one thing they find something else to whine about and hammer society with until it gives in. It truly seems like they hate everything that founded this country and want to change everything. It makes me sad.

[moderateamericain]

The socialists are never content. After they've won one thing they find something else to whine about and hammer society with until it gives in. It truly seems like they hate everything that founded this country and want to change everything. It makes me sad.

What saddens me is the change in the meaning of being a republican. Its not about dictating lifestyle and morals its about limiting government and keeping a strong economy. Morals were never associated with being a republican or a democrat thats a product of polerization. Its not about whats best anymore its whats going to get the greatest emotional response. Emotional response does not equate to Reason.

[msj]

The fact remains that marriage is morphing into something other than the dictionary definition or what it has traditionally been understood to be.

Definitions change, life goes on. C'est la vie.

It seems that the word marriage must change definition to include two people of the same gender in order for there to be the "beauty of two people coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other." Couldn't there be a different word, maybe more appropriate, more beautiful, to describe the beauty of two people of the same gender coming together in front of others to dedicate themselves to each other?

Sure, I suppose we could come up with a word that would mean the same thing as marriage but be for same-gendered relationships.

Oh, wait, we already have a word for that - "marriage."

How silly.

Maybe religious institutions should have gotten a copyright on the word ....

I'm certain if a marriage involved you yourself, you would make the differentiation. If you thought they were the same thing, as you suggest they are, then you should also not make the differentiation in your own marriage or indeed in your own bed partners.

I am married. My wife and I have been married for many years now.

I have also been to a gay marriage. Was better than my marriage but that's because my wife and I had a very small ceremony and a small reception (being broke students and all).

As for my bed partner, obviously it's my wife and no other.

But why do you traditionalists have to make such a big deal about who one sleeps with?

I suspect the dictionary definition will change to include same sex unions regardless of it's historic and traditional sense. If we are to save the planet, homosexuality and abortion must, after all, become not only accepted, but popular and widely practiced. Don't you agree?

Not sure why you must link abortion to homosexuality. Presumably gays don't have abortions at the rate that us hetero's do.

Presumably if one could identify a gay gene then people like you would prefer to abort those fetuses.

See, I can make up all kinds of BS just for fun, too.

[Pliny]

Definitions change, life goes on. C'est la vie.

Yes, definitions change and yes life goes on.

Sure, I suppose we could come up with a word that would mean the same thing as marriage but be for same-gendered relationships.

Oh, wait, we already have a word for that - "marriage."

How silly.

You have changed the definition to what you think it should be but you will have to argue the point for awhile until it achieves common usage. If Webster were gay your new definition would find it's way into the dictionary much faster.

But the real problem with the word didn't start with gays and lesbians. It started morphing with the increased authority of the State to determine, for purposes of taxation and favour, what the definition of marriage was. It unfairly gave benefit to married persons. The clamour then became to be considered married and receive the benefits from the State. The State really started the disintegration of the traditional definition society held.

Would we be having this debate at all if the State had not first redefined marriage and meddled in the bedrooms of the nation? Probably not.

Maybe religious institutions should have gotten a copyright on the word ....

Copyright laws would not have allowed that.

I am married. My wife and I have been married for many years now.

Congratulations on keeping your "marriage" working for many years.

I have also been to a gay marriage. Was better than my marriage but that's because my wife and I had a very small ceremony and a small reception (being broke students and all).

As for my bed partner, obviously it's my wife and no other.

Does he post here as well?

But why do you traditionalists have to make such a big deal about who one sleeps with?

Would your wife not really make a big deal with whom you slept? I realize he isn't a traditionalist.

Not sure why you must link abortion to homosexuality. Presumably gays don't have abortions at the rate that us hetero's do.

Good one. The link is they both contribute to negative population growth.

Presumably if one could identify a gay gene then people like you would prefer to abort those fetuses.

You presume a lot. There is a problem with identifying a gay gene or anything else that doesn't exist.

See, I can make up all kinds of BS just for fun, too.

I don't know about your claim to have made it up yourself. It doesn't appear to be original.

[msj]

You have changed the definition to what you think it should be but you will have to argue the point for awhile until it achieves common usage. If Webster were gay your new definition would find it's way into the dictionary much faster.

But the real problem with the word didn't start with gays and lesbians. It started morphing with the increased authority of the State to determine, for purposes of taxation and favour, what the definition of marriage was. It unfairly gave benefit to married persons. The clamour then became to be considered married and receive the benefits from the State. The State really started the disintegration of the traditional definition society held.

Would we be having this debate at all if the State had not first redefined marriage and meddled in the bedrooms of the nation? Probably not.

Fair enough. I'm all for a major look at the tax system. Until then, we live with what we got.

You are forgetting about the costs of being married - gays were able to claim GST tax credits and PST tax credits (in BC, for example) since both individuals were not considered married nor common law (the tax system considered their individual incomes rather than combing them together as family income).

Both individuals could claim the principal residence exemption on two separate houses whereas the rest of us could only claim one.

So, forcing gay couples to claim common law status is a victory for those like me who want to see them enjoy the benefits, and share the same costs, under the tax system that my wife and I have been enjoying/suffering over the years.

Giving them marriage is just the next logical extension (to extend to them the same property rights which are under provincial jurisdiction).

Congratulations on keeping your "marriage" working for many years.

Does he post here as well?

Would your wife not really make a big deal with whom you slept? I realize he isn't a traditionalist.

'fraid my wife is a good old woman (well not that old) and I'm a good old man (no, make that a hard man that's good to find).

People consider us married probably because they see our rings.

If those people only knew that we don't have children then, gasp, I'm sure they wouldn't think of us as "that nice married couple" as people say.

Good one. The link is they both contribute to negative population growth.

Sure they do.

My wife and I not breeding our own little brood also contributes to population decline.

If it's such a problem then I'm sure people can start screwing with intent again...

[WIP]

Not surprising coming from the secular socialists, laziness.

Marriage isn't a basic human right it's a holy sacrament at most and a traditional social institution at least. I guess polygamy is next as a human right eh guys?

Sacraments have no meaning in law or outside the doors of your church; it is a civil right if the government allows one group of people (us) to get married with few restrictions (I'm sure I would not have been allowed to marry my sister), but issues a blanket rejection of another group (same-sex couples) with no more compelling reason than it's against tradition. Before you can reject gay marriage, you should have to demonstrate in clear, unequivocal terms that there will be harm to society by recognizing same-sex unions that afterall, have existed throughout history in spite of persecution from religious zealots trying to stamp out sin.

As for polygamy -- we went over this a few months ago, but there are studies conducted of polygamous communities like the FLDS Mormons in Utah and Arizona, and the Bountiful community in B.C. -- child brides, surplus males (the lost boys), diseases related to interbreeding, overpopulation. On a larger scale, the Islamic nations that sanction polygamy are among the poorest countries, most overpopulated, have large underclasses of illiterate, destitute and jobless people, including street beggars, street prostitutes and robbers, have the highest rates of pandemic diseases, oppressive and autocratic governments etc.. .. so, allowing same-sex marriage does not automatically open the door to other forms of marriage. They should all be considered individually. Polygamy will never clear the bar as long as society isn't afraid of examining the evidence.

If the issue comes up again, I'm sure there will be a few moral relativists who are afraid of making any moral judgments about the practices of others, but personal freedom isn't an absolute value, and very few people are tolerant enough to let everything go, even where there is clearly damage being done.