charter.rights Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 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. Discrimination occurs in all segments of society even today but that does not make it legal. However, the right still exists under the Constitution. Supreme Court of Canada is revelaing that one by one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Discrimination occurs in all segments of society even today but that does not make it legal. However, the right still exists under the Constitution. Supreme Court of Canada is revelaing that one by one. Right...wich was exactly my counterpoint. There is discrimination to this day, contrary to the belief that "we receive the same benefit". Any such rights (not benefits) evolve over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Right...wich was exactly my counterpoint. There is discrimination to this day, contrary to the belief that "we receive the same benefit". Any such rights (not benefits) evolve over time. Ah...but "rights" are an individual as well as a collective responsibility. You cannot have any rights unless you are willing to exercise them, which is exactly what gays and lesbians, disabled people and people of colour do. By refusing to abide by the discrimination they have the ability to challenge the offender, and is they do not get satisfaction they can go to the human rights tribunal or sue the offender. We all have the same benefit, regardless of the discrimination and no one can be denied their right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I fully exercise my right of opinion that gays have rights but may not marry as it isn't a right and abortion is murder. I have exercised my rights. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I fully exercise my right of opinion that gays have rights but may not marry as it isn't a right and abortion is murder. I have exercised my rights.Thanks. That's just dumb. You have no right to take the law into your own hands and make such determination. The law has already spoken on both issues and you are absolutely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 That's just dumb.You have no right to take the law into your own hands and make such determination. The law has already spoken on both issues and you are absolutely wrong. While it is true that one does not have the right to take the law into his own hands and I don't think Mr. Canada is suggesting that. He is expressing his opinion. Many a law has been wrong. Laws are no argument for being right or wrong. They are merely an enforcement of the opinion of lawmakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 While it is true that one does not have the right to take the law into his own hands and I don't think Mr. Canada is suggesting that. He is expressing his opinion. Many a law has been wrong. Laws are no argument for being right or wrong. They are merely an enforcement of the opinion of lawmakers. Sure. However the Charter is not wrong. It is the basis of our social contract in Canada and provides the basis for all law. What Mr. Canada was implying is that he could take his feigned rights as permission to continue his racism and homophobia. He can't. It is against the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sure. However the Charter is not wrong. It is the basis of our social contract in Canada and provides the basis for all law. Why do you say the Charter is not wrong? What Mr. Canada was implying is that he could take his feigned rights as permission to continue his racism and homophobia. He can't. It is against the law. He said that gays should have rights but marriage is not a right. Is that homophobic? I myself think that, in law, gays should not be recognized by the state as existing. But neither should heterosexuals or marriage. If two people wish to "play house" well, that is up to them. It is curious that the law today still makes sodomy illegal except between consenting adults. Isn't any type of forced sex considered rape or minimally abuse? The law doesn't say that the sex act between a man and woman is illegal except between consenting adults. Is the law demonstrating a homophobic bias by keeping sodomy illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 No hetro sexual with any dignity would bother getting married at this point in Canadian history - when men marry men and woman - woman - then that means that marriage is offically dead - END OF STORY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sure. However the Charter is not wrong. It is the basis of our social contract in Canada and provides the basis for all law.What Mr. Canada was implying is that he could take his feigned rights as permission to continue his racism and homophobia. He can't. It is against the law. Uh, voicing an opinion on gay issues and abortion is not against the law. You are over-reacting. No need to wrap yourself in the charter and start singing "Oh Canada"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 No hetro sexual with any dignity would bother getting married at this point in Canadian history - when men marry men and woman - woman - then that means that marriage is offically dead - END OF STORY. This is a serious point - The demonic social engineers all over the world are trying to destroy the tribal system (family) - What BIG BROTHER wants is that we have no personal protection of personal support sytems...they want us all vulneralbe and compliant to the international state - so pushing gay marriage is one of the incrimental steps in bringing about the destruction of the tribe and male and female unions ( that create mini-empires) Heaven forbid the power that be have competion from lowly us...so instead they teach our children to have sodomistic sex and avoid the vagina - that creates life and power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 This is a serious point - The demonic social engineers all over the world are trying to destroy the tribal system (family) - What BIG BROTHER wants is that we have no personal protection of personal support sytems...they want us all vulneralbe and compliant to the international state - so pushing gay marriage is one of the incrimental steps in bringing about the destruction of the tribe and male and female unions ( that create mini-empires) Heaven forbid the power that be have competion from lowly us...so instead they teach our children to have sodomistic sex and avoid the vagina - that creates life and power. Marriage is a legal institution and as such no one can discriminate against gays or lesbians for wanting to get married. The Charter prevents anyone from refusing to perform a marriage on a legal basis. Could there be a Charter right to maintain a religious position and refuse to marry gays in a Church on religious grounds? Quite possibly if it were challenged that outcome could be confirmed. However, the institution of marriage is legal for anyone to enter into and the use of the term "marriage" is not exclusive to the Church. IF the Church wants to maintain its intention to refuse to join gays together then they should be looking for a new term to do it with. The term "marriage" is a legal term that makes it open to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Marriage is a legal institution and as such no one can discriminate against gays or lesbians for wanting to get married. The Charter prevents anyone from refusing to perform a marriage on a legal basis. This is false.....the Charter does not preclude marriage "discrimination" prescribed by law, as is the case with minors, the mentally incompetent, close familial relations (e.g. siblings), and other circumstances wherein a marriage license would not be granted. IF the Church wants to maintain its intention to refuse to join gays together then they should be looking for a new term to do it with. The term "marriage" is a legal term that makes it open to anyone. Nope...see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 This is false.....the Charter does not preclude marriage "discrimination" prescribed by law, as is the case with minors, the mentally incompetent, close familial relations (e.g. siblings), and other circumstances wherein a marriage license would not be granted. Well, technically, it all depends on how the court interprets it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 This is false.....the Charter does not preclude marriage "discrimination" prescribed by law, as is the case with minors, the mentally incompetent, close familial relations (e.g. siblings), and other circumstances wherein a marriage license would not be granted.Nope...see above. You cannot discriminate on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." One cannot justify or reasonably limit gays and lesbians from marrying. However, in the case of the others you cited, we can reasonably limit the extent of the application of the Charter since those other circumstances would make it difficult to obtain confirmed consent to marry. In the case of "close familial relations" it is possible to marry a cousin or close relative as long as the parties have made an informed consent..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) You cannot discriminate on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Good..we are back to reality. One cannot justify or reasonably limit gays and lesbians from marrying. But it is done by law in the case of polygamists, for instance, regardless of GLBT status. However, in the case of the others you cited, we can reasonably limit the extent of the application of the Charter since those other circumstances would make it difficult to obtain confirmed consent to marry. In the case of "close familial relations" it is possible to marry a cousin or close relative as long as the parties have made an informed consent..... Really? I can marry my one-eyed sister from Saskatoon (in any province)? Amazing! The larger point is that government can and does discriminate when it comes to marriage. Edited January 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You cannot discriminate on the basis of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Shoe me in the Charter where marriage is a right. If you can't then your point is just hot air. One cannot justify or reasonably limit gays and lesbians from marrying. We have freedom of religion in this country and that is in the Charter as a matter of fact. If it is against ones religion to partake in homosexuality then the a religious group sure can. However, in the case of the others you cited, we can reasonably limit the extent of the application of the Charter since those other circumstances would make it difficult to obtain confirmed consent to marry. In the case of "close familial relations" it is possible to marry a cousin or close relative as long as the parties have made an informed consent..... Now you're just being silly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Shoe me in the Charter where marriage is a right. If you are under the impression that in Canada Anything that isn't explicitly permitted is forbbiden, then you have the wrong country in mind. In any case, it is not that marriage is a right per se, but the choice to marry is a right. If couple A can marry, then couple B must also have the right to be married. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 The civil marriage act http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...3341&file=4 including.... The right to refuse to marry... 3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. And the prohibition against certain unions... Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act Loi sur le mariage (degrés prohibés) 1990, ch. 46 13. Subsection 2(2) of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act is replaced by the following: 13. Le paragraphe 2(2) de la Loi sur le mariage (degrés prohibés) est remplacé par ce qui suit : Prohibition (2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption. (2) Est prohibé le mariage entre personnes ayant des liens de parenté, notamment par adoption, en ligne directe ou en ligne collatérale s’il s’agit du frère et de la soeur ou du demi-frère et de la demi-soeur. Prohibition 14. Subsection 3(2) of the Act is replaced by the following: 14. Le paragraphe 3(2) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit : Marriage void (2) A marriage between persons who are related in the manner described in subsection 2(2) is void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 If it is against ones religion to partake in homosexuality then the a religious group sure can. and if its against your religion for homosexuals to marry, then they can go marry some other place.. I could care less if a religion restricts homosexual marriage, that's their problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Thanks M.Dancer for that info. I see gay marriage to be a minor issue, to be honest I don't really care what homosexuals do as long as I don't have to look at it and since I don't live very close to the city I don't have to, thank God. I also noticed a section where any religion isn't forced to marry these homosexuals so I'm well protected. Good enough for me. As long as the homosexuals stay happy with what they have and don't push for more it doesn't concern me. Case closed for this white hetro male. Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 So does that mean one can marry their brother, or sister, or parent, or grandparent in Canada? I want to make that movie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Thanks M.Dancer for that info. I see gay marriage to be a minor issue, to be honest I don't really care what homosexuals do as long as I don't have to look at it and since I don't live very close to the city I don't have to, thank God.I also noticed a section where any religion isn't forced to marry these homosexuals so I'm well protected. Good enough for me. As long as the homosexuals stay happy with what they have and don't push for more it doesn't concern me. Case closed for this white hetro male. Thanks again. I don't think anybody ever forced Christians or whatever to marry homosexuals.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I don't think anybody ever forced Christians or whatever to marry homosexuals.. Why is the emphasis on sexual preference or behaviours? Technically, it's about gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 So does that mean one can marry their brother, or sister, or parent, or grandparent in Canada?I want to make that movie! Whats stopping a heterosexual Christian from performing incest? Oh yeah, nothing.. It was in the bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.