Gay marriage vs Gay Rights

[WIP]

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.

I would say that the tax structure doesn't do enough to encourage marriage, since most married people do better by filing their taxes separately than filling out a joint return.

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

Considering that the world is overpopulated now, and the rate that we are using up the earth's resources will make a controlled decline in population preferable to a massive die off, anybody who is not contributing to an increase in population is doing a good thing!

[msj]

I would say that the tax structure doesn't do enough to encourage marriage, since most married people do better by filing their taxes separately than filling out a joint return.

If a couple is married or common law, then they must disclose this information in the appropriate section of their T1 return.

The reasons why couples should declare are (amongst others):

- Spousal roll over of assets (tax free) on the death of one partner.

- May be able to claim certain tax credits (spousal, transfer of disability tax credit, education, medical expense etc).

- Pension splitting (both for CPP and for the pension splitting rules that came into effect for 2007)

- Spousal RRSP contributions

- various others that I can't think of right now because I'm tired from shoveling snow...

Reason why it sucks to be a couple for tax purposes:

- Family income leads to claw back/loss of benefits - Child tax benefit, GST, Provincial tax credits etc.

- Only one principal residence exemption can be claimed per couple (unlike gay couples who could claim a tax free sale for each individual's residence - this was lost in 2001 when gays were forced to declare themselves as common law if they qualify as being in a conjugal relationship).

- Rollover of goodwill on transfer of a business (relationship disallows any deduction)

- Attribution rules

- Joint liability

- Superficial loss rules

- Child care expenses (where applicable)

- various others ....

[Pliny]

Sacraments have no meaning in law or outside the doors of your church;

Agreed but it seems important to the gay community for some reason though.

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.

I am not against a monogamous union of same sex couples. I am against the confusion of calling it "marriage".

It does invite confusion you must admit. I was calling msj's wife a guy in my last post. I don't know if I should apologize or not. They may both be offended but if I do then it admits to a bias against same sex couples as though there is something wrong with that. Oh me! Oh my!

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.

The traditionalists made the same arguments regarding homosexuality about disease, male prostitution, predatory sex.

Your argument against polygamy is more about Islamicism, which shapes their society, than polygamy.

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.

Polygamy will clear the bar for the same reason any alternate lifestyle clears the bar. As soon as the term marriage becomes irrelevant in society and only exists for the purposes of the State, people will do what they want. There is no law against a man living in the same home as two or three women. We don't have to call that polygamy we can call it....ummm.. got any suggestions or is it just another alternate lifestyle? Will polygamists demand it be called "marriage" and the State recognize it legally as such? The State can do nothing about it until it is called "marriage". The arrangement of several people living communally may be out of economic necessity given proper circumstance and may not have anything polygamous about it - or maybe it will.

It was Turdeau that said the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation but I notice he still maintained the differentiation from a tax and spend perspective. And now here is the government decreeing what marriage should be defined as.

[Black Dog]

I am not against a monogamous union of same sex couples. I am against the confusion of calling it "marriage".

It does invite confusion you must admit. I was calling msj's wife a guy in my last post. I don't know if I should apologize or not. They may both be offended but if I do then it admits to a bias against same sex couples as though there is something wrong with that. Oh me! Oh my!

I can see why it would be confusing for some people. And by some people, I mean the kind easily distracted by shiny objects and brightly coloured bits of string.

[guyser]

I can see why it would be confusing for some people. And by some people, I mean the kind easily distracted by shiny objects and brightly coloured bits of string.

There are Homer Simpsons among us?

I am against the confusion of calling it "marriage".

It does invite confusion you must admit.

I have the same problem when people ask me if I want cake. It should only be called cake if it is dark chocolate double layer cake. Everything else should get a new name.

[Progressive Tory]

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?

I heard a comedian do a bit once. He said that 'Gays should be able to marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?'

I believe that they want to marry for the same reason that heterosexual couples want to marry. To show their commitment, to raise families, financial benefits, healthcare. The grandson I'm raising has a very rare genetic disorder (his mother, our daughter, was adopted so I don't carry the gene) and there is only one other child in our city of about 150,000 with the same disability. The boys are about the same age and often get together for playdates. He is being raised by two moms and you would not find more loving parents. They support him in everything.

They go to Church and sign Bible stories to the little seven year old (both children are deaf and can't speak). They are accepted everywhere.

We need to break down the barriers and remove sex from the equation. We don't ask heterosexual couples about their sexual practices, because it's none of our business.

Kudos that you are so open minded. That is very commendable.

[WIP]

Agreed but it seems important to the gay community for some reason though.

Because it's can be an expensive, time-consuming process acquiring all of the rights that come with marriage....and let's not forget, we're talking about "civil marriage," no one is saying that your church (whatever it is) has to marry anyone they don't want to. They can set whatever rules they want for marriage in their church, and they do.... if you're not a Catholic, you can't get married in the Catholic Church without becoming a Catholic.

I am not against a monogamous union of same sex couples. I am against the confusion of calling it "marriage".

It does invite confusion you must admit. I was calling msj's wife a guy in my last post. I don't know if I should apologize or not. They may both be offended but if I do then it admits to a bias against same sex couples as though there is something wrong with that. Oh me! Oh my!

Why does this sound like the "some of my best friends are black" defense? Who cares whether it's called marriage or civil union if it's referring to the same thing? But, I don't believe your difficulty is with the word marriage if you can make that last statement. If you are biased against same-sex couples, then there is something wrong with that! You are disparaging people because of something they don't have a choice about -- the choice is how to deal with it, and if they want to marry someone of the same sex, that's a hell of a lot better than the old way of going into a sham marriage and leading a secret gay life on the side, or until the wife finds out.

The traditionalists made the same arguments regarding homosexuality about disease, male prostitution, predatory sex.

So, how does refusing to recognize same-sex unions reduce those STD problems? If that was the concern, the traditionalists would be all for allowing homosexuals the opportunity to form stable, long term relationships.

Your argument against polygamy is more about Islamicism, which shapes their society, than polygamy.

And if we do a breakdown of the Muslim World we find that the most modern states such as Tunisia and Turkey ban polygamy, and the most backward traditionalist Muslim countries allow it and even encourage it.

Polygamy will clear the bar for the same reason any alternate lifestyle clears the bar. As soon as the term marriage becomes irrelevant in society and only exists for the purposes of the State, people will do what they want. There is no law against a man living in the same home as two or three women. We don't have to call that polygamy we can call it....ummm.. got any suggestions or is it just another alternate lifestyle?

And if they all just happen to be living in the same house, there is no legal recognition for whatever relationship exists. The guy is not going to be able to deduct the three women on his taxes, sign them up as beneficiaries on his employer's group insurance coverage etc...so who cares what they call it?

Will polygamists demand it be called "marriage" and the State recognize it legally as such? The State can do nothing about it until it is called "marriage". The arrangement of several people living communally may be out of economic necessity given proper circumstance and may not have anything polygamous about it - or maybe it will.

So, your against gay marriage, but you sound awfully damn understanding towards polygamy for some reason. The difference between the two is that plural marriage is a clear matter of personal choice and not based on the inner nature of the participants.

The reason why traditional societies sanctioned polygamy was because the continual wars and skirmishes left an unbalanced population with more women than men. In modern times, where the numbers are equal, allowing wealthier men of status the opportunity to have more wives means that many low status men have to do without. This is how the FLDS Mormons create this ugly situation of the "Lost Boys" - young men who are excommunicated from the community for frivolous reasons simply because the elders know they have to cull the herd to maintain a surplus of brides. In the MiddleEast, especially Saudi Arabia, the rich old men have all the women so young men from poor communities have virtually no chance of getting married later in life, and that's why the government was so anxious to send them off to Afghanistan and elsewhere, to keep them from becoming a destabilizing force at home.

IN Canada, the Bountiful Community has been examined and all of the headaches associated with allowing groups like this to function provide enough evidence to demonstrate that polygamy is a detrimental institution and should not be allowed.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/06624...0683-4_7_e.html

[Pliny]

Because it's can be an expensive, time-consuming process acquiring all of the rights that come with marriage....and let's not forget, we're talking about "civil marriage," no one is saying that your church (whatever it is) has to marry anyone they don't want to. They can set whatever rules they want for marriage in their church, and they do.... if you're not a Catholic, you can't get married in the Catholic Church without becoming a Catholic.

The problem is actually that society in the past enforced the wholesale condemnation of homosexuality. Probably from a lack of understanding of it. And from the concept that it often gained participation out of deceit, naivety or coercion from those who were not inclined- heterosexually this is often termed rape. But men who have been raped by other men are even less likely to come forward and lay charges than women who are raped. I have seen cases of boys and teens being homosexually abused by their elders but I have never seen a case of rape being brought by one man against another. Because I haven't seen one doesn't mean one can't be found.

I am of the opinion that two adults, or three, or however many, may engage in whatever sexual practices they consensually agree to engage in. If sexual practices were empirically placed on a bell curve I wouldn't find homosexuality as the norm or "average" practice of human beings. S & M would not be in the norm either, I don't believe. I think the norm would be found to be a non-coercive act between the two genders. Therefore, I don't think of homosexuality as being normal. Nor do I find it suited to the basic purpose of sex - procreation. If anyone understood why it exists then we could create or uncreate homosexuals or heterosexuals at will. If no one understood why it exists we could only mold homosexuality or heterosexuality but not create or uncreate it.

If, on that empirical bell curve of sexual activity, homosexuality were the norm or became the norm, and I have not suggested it couldn't be, for we increasingly find in today's society that it is ideologically more responsible socially to be "gay", and from that it could then eventually become the norm. I don't think it would naturally occur to become the "norm". It would have to be socially engineered to become the norm. If we don't understand anything about our bodies or behavior then as individuals we can be told what is expected of us. We could be made to feel abnormal if we experience negative feelings about homosexuality - and indeed we are expected to feel that way.

Why does this sound like the "some of my best friends are black" defense? Who cares whether it's called marriage or civil union if it's referring to the same thing?

The homosexual community cares. They want to call it "marriage". Until the term is accepted as including same-sex unions the debate will rage. When it is accepted the homosexual community will be getting "married" and a new term will be made to describe a heterosexual union. The more things change the more they stay the same.

But, I don't believe your difficulty is with the word marriage if you can make that last statement. If you are biased against same-sex couples, then there is something wrong with that!

Of course, just the fact of being heterosexual makes me biased even if I proclaim I am not. Does the fact you are heterosexually married make you biased against other women? It probably places you in that position. It actually forces you to demonstrate your bias - your preference. If you don't you could be in trouble with your wife. Is there something wrong with that?

You are disparaging people because of something they don't have a choice about -- the choice is how to deal with it, and if they want to marry someone of the same sex, that's a hell of a lot better than the old way of going into a sham marriage and leading a secret gay life on the side, or until the wife finds out.

Here you disparage gays because you imply that if they did have a choice they would of course opt for being heterosexual. You infer there is nothing they can do about their "sexual preferences" and in doing so you so much as proclaim there is something wrong with their genes or hormones or chemical makeup whereas I do not think there is anything wrong with their genes, hormones or chemical makeup. I know it is not the "norm" and that is all I claim to know. Because it isn't the norm doesn't make it wrong. It makes it different and I doubt I would ever understand it. If my not being gay is disparaging to the gay community then I guess it

will just have to be their loss.

So, how does refusing to recognize same-sex unions reduce those STD problems? If that was the concern, the traditionalists would be all for allowing homosexuals the opportunity to form stable, long term relationships.

For their own safety they should form stable long term relationships but marriage is not defined as "a union to prevent the spread of STDs".

And if we do a breakdown of the Muslim World we find that the most modern states such as Tunisia and Turkey ban polygamy, and the most backward traditionalist Muslim countries allow it and even encourage it.

I don't know about Tunisia but I do know that Turkey is not a theocratic State although there are many Muslims there. Polygamy is not any more a problem here than homosexuality is a problem there. Your description of polygamy and it's consequences are their description of homosexuality and it's consequences.

So, your against gay marriage, but you sound awfully damn understanding towards polygamy for some reason. The difference between the two is that plural marriage is a clear matter of personal choice and not based on the inner nature of the participants.

Gays can come up with whatever term they want to describe the union of persons of the same sex. Marriage is not that word, at least not yet. It may become that word but somehow we will still have to eventually invent some easy way to determine whether your spouse is male or female. Guessing will never become acceptable.

So you are saying that if homosexuals had the choice they would not choose to be homosexual. Those poor fellows, victims of circumstance, they just don't have a choice. A very patronizing position, in my estimation.

The reason why traditional societies sanctioned polygamy was because the continual wars and skirmishes left an unbalanced population with more women than men. In modern times, where the numbers are equal, allowing wealthier men of status the opportunity to have more wives means that many low status men have to do without. This is how the FLDS Mormons create this ugly situation of the "Lost Boys" - young men who are excommunicated from the community for frivolous reasons simply because the elders know they have to cull the herd to maintain a surplus of brides. In the MiddleEast, especially Saudi Arabia, the rich old men have all the women so young men from poor communities have virtually no chance of getting married later in life, and that's why the government was so anxious to send them off to Afghanistan and elsewhere, to keep them from becoming a destabilizing force at home.

Well, you have it all figured out. If it is socially and economically necessary or beneficial then polygamy will be the norm. If circumstance makes monogamy necessary then it will be the norm.

Unfortunately, gays will always be gays, they have no choice, poor dears. After all, your message is quite clear, if there were a choice, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?

IN Canada, the Bountiful Community has been examined and all of the headaches associated with allowing groups like this to function provide enough evidence to demonstrate that polygamy is a detrimental institution and should not be allowed.

I don't think it should be sanctioned as an institution by the State any more than marriage should be sanctioned as an institution by the State. The State should not determine what is socially or morally acceptable, in my view.

It should just protect the sanctity of person and property against aggression.

[Oleg Bach]

No such thing as homosexuality....it is just lazy maleness.....do your duty for gods sake..... but.........just plain debauched....more homos in a luxuriou society than a dark primative poor one.

[charter.rights]

No such thing as homosexuality....it is just lazy maleness.....do your duty for gods sake..... but.........just plain debauched....more homos in a luxuriou society than a dark primative poor one.

The last guy that was as homophobic as you make yourself out to be turned out to be a gay in denial. Now he is happily married to another guy.

Make sure you invite us all to your coming out party...k?

Edited January 1, 2009 by charter.rights

[msj]

Agreed but it seems important to the gay community for some reason though.

I suppose sacraments would be important to gays with a religious bent - and why shouldn't they be?

But gays have as much right to be married as any other couple in our society.

Surely some churches are, or will soon start, performing same gendered marriages allowing most gays to not only marry officially under the state (i.e. officially be married) but to marry under "God."

Granted, the brand of "God" may still be an issue - Catholics aren't going to be performing gay marriages any time soon, for example.

I am not against a monogamous union of same sex couples. I am against the confusion of calling it "marriage".

It does invite confusion you must admit. I was calling msj's wife a guy in my last post. I don't know if I should apologize or not. They may both be offended but if I do then it admits to a bias against same sex couples as though there is something wrong with that. Oh me! Oh my!

At the time I just assumed you were purposefully being childish and/or rude like so many others here on Maple Leaf Forums.

After all, in post # 10 I wrote: "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."

In post #20 I wrote: "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)."

and also wrote this in the same post:

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.

In post #33 I wrote: " 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?"

And, finally, in post #47 I wrote: "Presumably gays don't have abortions at the rate that us hetero's do. " [bolded for emphasis]

No wonder you are so confused about using the word "marriage" for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages - it appears to be related to a lack of comprehension on your part.

[WIP]

The problem is actually that society in the past enforced the wholesale condemnation of homosexuality. Probably from a lack of understanding of it.

No doubt! And since we are dealing with the root causes of our sexual attractions, this is something we feel whether we like it or not, and I don't believe that you can change something that is part of our basic instincts. Neuroscientists are finding many genetic and hormonal triggers during infancy and childhood that seem to influence our sexual preferences -- it seems likely that there are many different factors involved in determining sexual orientation, and that could explain why there is a scale from 100% heterosexual through somewhat bisexual to bisexual -- mostly gay, and totally homosexual in attraction. And this is part of the reason why you see such a wide range of numbers tossed around about how many homosexuals are out there -- there are likely more bisexuals somewhere in between, than there are true homosexuals.

Speaking of society condemning things they don't understand: part of the reason I don't accept (even a little) the position that traditional condemnation of something must be for valid reasons is because I am one of the 10% of the population who are lefthanded. I was fortunate to start school just after public schoolboards were given new directives in 1960 to stop trying to force lefthanded children to write and print with their right hands like everyone else. One of my older brothers wasn't so fortunate; so when he started school in the 50's, the teacher would slap his hand every time he got caught picking up a pen or pencil with his left hand. The fallout from forced righthandedness, which also included playing games and sports on the playground was that this attempt to re-mold him as righthander was the likely source for his coordination problems later in life. I was able to excel in sports because I wasn't forced to do it like the other 90% of the kids I went to school with.

But even the problems my older brother experienced were petty compared to times past, when church authorities determined that lefthanders were servants of the Devil. So, if you got caught using your left hand, you were on your way to being burned at the stake for being in league with satan.....so much for tradition!

I am of the opinion that two adults, or three, or however many, may engage in whatever sexual practices they consensually agree to engage in. If sexual practices were empirically placed on a bell curve I wouldn't find homosexuality as the norm or "average" practice of human beings. S & M would not be in the norm either, I don't believe.

And I am talking about sexual orientation, not sexual practices! There are guys who will do anything for money, and there are men who are gay and in denial, and try to hide their real sexual orientation, and think they will be normal if they pretend they are straight and do it with women -- but the act likely never lasts forever.

I think the norm would be found to be a non-coercive act between the two genders. Therefore, I don't think of homosexuality as being normal. Nor do I find it suited to the basic purpose of sex - procreation. If anyone understood why it exists then we could create or uncreate homosexuals or heterosexuals at will. If no one understood why it exists we could only mold homosexuality or heterosexuality but not create or uncreate it.

And, if we're going by what the majority of people do, lefthandedness isn't normal either -- but it is for 10% of the population, like me!

If, on that empirical bell curve of sexual activity, homosexuality were the norm or became the norm, and I have not suggested it couldn't be, for we increasingly find in today's society that it is ideologically more responsible socially to be "gay", and from that it could then eventually become the norm. I don't think it would naturally occur to become the "norm". It would have to be socially engineered to become the norm. If we don't understand anything about our bodies or behavior then as individuals we can be told what is expected of us. We could be made to feel abnormal if we experience negative feelings about homosexuality - and indeed we are expected to feel that way.

This makes no sense at all! What is considered socially responsible, is to allow people to be true to their inner nature and live their lives in the way that makes them happy. That should be the norm, not condemning people out of ignorance because they have different wishes or desires than the majority of people.

Forty years ago, those same arguments were made by people who were displeased by the esthetics of seeing inter-racial couples walking down the street. Why is it acceptable for someone to have negative feelings about a gay couple anymore than it is about feeling negative about inter-racial couples....and no doubt, many people still do. But they recognize that they cannot express their revulsion openly without condemnation or reprisal. The question remains: why do you feel it is normal to have negative feelings about homosexuals?

The homosexual community cares. They want to call it "marriage". Until the term is accepted as including same-sex unions the debate will rage. When it is accepted the homosexual community will be getting "married" and a new term will be made to describe a heterosexual union. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Well then, just call it "traditional marriage." I still don't get why this is important.

Of course, just the fact of being heterosexual makes me biased even if I proclaim I am not. Does the fact you are heterosexually married make you biased against other women? It probably places you in that position. It actually forces you to demonstrate your bias - your preference. If you don't you could be in trouble with your wife. Is there something wrong with that?

Are you serious? Marriage doesn't make you biased against other women. I don't know how long you've been married, but if you're a normal guy, you probably come across all kinds of women you'd love to jump in the sack with, if the opportunity arose. The only thing that makes a long marriage last is to think with your head, instead of your balls....especially when you are hitting middle age and beyond, there is nothing that strokes the ego quite as much as finding a younger woman who has taken an interest in you. But, for most of us, honesty will likely kill off any chance of crossing the line between fantasy and reality. As soon as I say: "I'm married, and I got three kids at home," that usually takes care of any chance of trouble.

You disparage gays because you imply that if they did have a choice they would of course opt for being heterosexual.

The situation may change in the future, but the persecution and isolation of homosexuals by most of society makes the religious argument that they are homosexuals because they are "choosing to sin" totally laughable! Why would anyone choose to be part of a persecuted minority, if it was a free choice?

You infer there is nothing they can do about their "sexual preferences" and in doing so you so much as proclaim there is something wrong with their genes or hormones or chemical makeup whereas I do not think there is anything wrong with their genes, hormones or chemical makeup. I know it is not the "norm" and that is all I claim to know.

No more than my lefthandedness means there is something wrong with my genes or chemical makeup! After years of reading negative statistics about being lefthanded, such as three year shorter lifespan than average and being more injury prone (no doubt because nearly every stupid tool and appliance is designed for righthanders), someone noticed that lefthanders represent a much larger than the statistical average in sports and many creative fields, so making a division between normal and abnormal is way too simplistic. The real story is that there may be disadvantages with being lefthanded, but there are also clear advantages, like pitching and swinging a baseball bat.

In much the same way, as gays come out of the closet in greater numbers, the statisticians are noticing that they represent significantly larger numbers in many creative fields, although it is not known whether this is coming from a natural advantage, or from the mere fact that their life experiences may provide them with the outsider's perspective, that is often an advantage for problem-solving. Nevertheless, I think it is more likely that homosexuals have advantages in some areas over the general population, and this is why that gay minority is always present in the population, throughout history......just like lefthanders!

I don't know about Tunisia but I do know that Turkey is not a theocratic State although there are many Muslims there. Polygamy is not any more a problem here than homosexuality is a problem there. Your description of polygamy and it's consequences are their description of homosexuality and it's consequences.

Nonsense! Polygamy is a choice, not an inherent behaviour of a minority in the population. Polygamy is used by the dominant members of a community to maximize their power and produce the most offspring, denying lower status males the opportunity to have children. If no controls are put on them, the polygamists would outbreed the general population, and that's why they are a threat to a democratic society -- you cannot maintain a society with any semblance of equality if you allow an institution that exaggerates the existing gaps between the social classes. This is an institution that will turn a modern, secular democratic state back into a feudal tyranny, just like it has in the Muslim states that have embraced it. Gay marriage on the other hand, will always be an institution practiced by a minority; and from the European examples, even gay couples who have or adopt children, find the children growing up to be straight, so the fear that they are creating future generations of homosexuals is alarmist nonsense.

I don't think it should be sanctioned as an institution by the State any more than marriage should be sanctioned as an institution by the State. The State should not determine what is socially or morally acceptable, in my view.

It should just protect the sanctity of person and property against aggression.

And now you're sounding like the leftwing moral relativists; but the state has a duty to get involved where situations arise that threaten the social order. Right now, it seems like the Canadian government doesn't have the stones to take on the FLDS or Muslim polygamists, but someone will have to at some future date or they'll be fighting over who gets to run what's left of this country.

[WIP]

The last guy that was as homophobic as you make yourself out to be turned out to be a gay in denial. Now he is happily married to another guy.

Make sure you invite us all to your coming out party...k?

Interesting, I've been wondering about this sort of thing since summer, when a friend at work asked me for help to fix his computer. It seems that this guy, who is always on a rant about fags and homosexuals whenever the chance arrives, took his crusade to a gay forum for some reason, so that he could abuse them online. Unfortunately, he is almost a total computer illiterate who didn't have a good firewall or antivirus software set up on his computer, and he was panicked because someone on the forum had apparently infected his computer with a screensaver virus, and he was afraid that his wife would find out and start asking questions.

The fix was easy, I just ran a different antivirus program that identified and quarantined the problem, and I gave him my word that I wouldn't tell anyone at work about it; but I've been wondering about this guy ever since then, since he couldn't give me much of an answer for why he felt so driven to take his hatred of homosexuals onto a gay forum.

[Michael Hardner]

After participating in dozens and dozens of threads on gay marriage, I read this one and it strikes me as the first thread I've ever read that really feels like we're debating a dead issue.

And it is a dead issue.

On December 6, 2006, the government brought in a motion asking if the issue of same-sex marriage should be re-opened to support the traditional definition of marriage. This motion was defeated the next day in a vote of 175 (nays) to 123 (yeas). Prime Minister Stephen Harper afterwards told reporters that he "[didn't] see reopening this question in the future".[37]

Wikipedia - Same Sex Marriage in Canada

Of course, we can and will debate it for decades to come. But we're debating history now.

[Mr.Canada]

Slavery used to be law too so I'm sure it was a dead issue as well when people started rallying against it yet we no longer have slavery do we.

The pendulum is swinging to the left atm but it will come back to the right very very soon.

[Shakeyhands]

I have to wonder, with all the real issues we have in this country, why some feel the need constantly bring up issues that are a)dead and b ) of absolutely no effect on the personally, astounds me.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[Mr.Canada]

I have to wonder, with all the real issues we have in this country, why some feel the need constantly bring up issues that are a)dead and b ) of absolutely no effect on the personally, astounds me.

As I said slavery used to be law a dead issue but we never gave up on it.

[WIP]

After participating in dozens and dozens of threads on gay marriage, I read this one and it strikes me as the first thread I've ever read that really feels like we're debating a dead issue.

And it is a dead issue.

Wikipedia - Same Sex Marriage in Canada

It would be a big mistake to assume that any issue is settled as long as there is a religious right out there trying to turn back the clock to the middle ages. Whether it's gay rights, abortion or evolution, they just keep recycling their propaganda to new generations of parishoners, so you never know if any of these issues are settled.

[Mr.Canada]

It would be a big mistake to assume that any issue is settled as long as there is a religious right out there trying to turn back the clock to the middle ages. Whether it's gay rights, abortion or evolution, they just keep recycling their propaganda to new generations of parishoners, so you never know if any of these issues are settled.

Protecting unborn children from harm is going back to the middle ages? Hrm...Gays are citizens of the country so they already have the same rights as everyone else, the problem comes in when they want special rights.

[Peter F]

Protecting unborn children from harm is going back to the middle ages? Hrm...Gays are citizens of the country so they already have the same rights as everyone else, the problem comes in when they want special rights.

Yes, that special right is reserved for others.

[charter.rights]

Protecting unborn children from harm is going back to the middle ages? Hrm...Gays are citizens of the country so they already have the same rights as everyone else, the problem comes in when they want special rights.

That is no only incorrect, it is a ridiculous assertion.

Gays and Lesbians are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. Nothing is special about it. We all have the right not to be discriminated against by people like you for your sexual orientation.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Gays and Lesbians are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. Nothing is special about it. We all have the right not to be discriminated against by people like you for your sexual orientation.

Except when it comes to the Charter of Rights, Section 15, which dropped specific language for sexual orientation. The rest, as they say, is left to "interpretation" and Charter Politics.

[charter.rights]

Except when it comes to the Charter of Rights, Section 15, which dropped specific language for sexual orientation. The rest, as they say, is left to "interpretation" and Charter Politics.

"Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...."

All of us receive the same benefit and homophobes cannot hide behind the law or their discrimination to single out one segment of our society.

[Mr.Canada]

"Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...."

All of us receive the same benefit and homophobes cannot hide behind the law or their discrimination to single out one segment of our society.

Ah yes, I must agree with every facet of the socialist agenda lest I be labeled...typical.

So I guess polygamists can make the same claim right?

[bush_cheney2004]

...All of us receive the same benefit and homophobes cannot hide behind the law or their discrimination to single out one segment of our society.

Nope...there are several examples of legal "descrimination" that existed before and long after 1982 (e.g. women in Canadian Forces)....to this day. In the case of sexual orientation, draft Section 15 language was stricken because Canada was not ready to protect all "segments" of society.