Harper and Gay Rights

[PocketRocket]

Keep in mind, that you can legislate rights for minorities in which case I'm on side, but you cannot legislate how some people feel about their traditions.

I realize this was addressed at SWEAL, and he has replied, but I must answer this small part.

"Feel" about "their traditions" is what you said.

You just made one of my points for me.

To you, this is not a debate about legitimacy, it's simply an emotional argument.

When an argument becomes emotional, or is based on emotions, then logic is either flawed, or plays no part whatsoever in the debate.

It's like when you were a kid playing in the sandbox, and it was "no girls allowed", as if the presence of girls would make the game less fun.

And your parent ruined averything by telling you that you had to let your little sister play, too.

But hey, no one is asking you to allow any homosexuals into YOUR marriage.

They just want their own sandbox to play in, so they won't disturb your game at all

[August1991]

Have you seen the movie "Shrek"????

Two ogres got married and are currently in the process of trying to live happily ever after, despite the best attempts to the contrary of the fairy godmother.

"What", you gasp to yourself, "Ogres can get married now??? I thought ogres do NOT live happily ever after !!!"

But hey, guess what??? It hasn't affected anyone else's marriage.

This argument is wrong on at least two counts.

First, I have a high school diploma. It matters to me who also gets the same high diploma because others use the same credential as I do. If you have a Canadian passport then you should think about who also has a Canadian passport. When you travel abroad, what other Canadian passport holders do affects how you will be treated.

People who currently use the word "married" are affected when its meaning changes.

Second, how rights are accorded to fellow citizens matters to me. That's what citizenship is all about.

"Feel" about "their traditions" is what you said.

You just made one of my points for me.

To you, this is not a debate about legitimacy, it's simply an emotional argument.

And ultimately, that's one of the problems here. One reason gay activists want to use the word "marriage" is to obtain "respectability". They want straights to respect them.

I admire the objective of the gay activists. But I don't think the Charter should be used for that purpose.

IMV, the Charter should be used to protect individuals against the power of the State. I don't think it should be used as an instrument in some social engineering project.

There are people in Canada who don't like gays. They think two men together is unnatural. There are other people who accept gays but don't want them to use the word "marriage".

Well, Canada is a big country and no doubt there are some people who don't like men with beards, don't like WASPs, don't like children, Tories, Jews, women with hairy legs and so on. This is the world we live in. IMV, the government should not get involved in trying to "educate" or "re-educate" these people.

Why should the government not stand up to bigotry? Because when the government meddles with people's moral opinions, a far greater evil than private bigotry is the result.

[Guest eureka]

A very perceptive post, August.

PR. You and I would agree with one thing. That is that your post was asinine. It is remarkable how this topic produces a numbing of minds when all are trying to appear to be on the side of the angels.

I am trying to bring up some points that do not seem to occur to those who have already decided that this is simply a matter of "equal rights." And, believe me, the points I am making will be at play if this does go to the Supreme Court.

Change is not the issue: transmutation is. The Institution of marriage has never changed in its basic sense and never can unless we really do discover how to make men redundant in the reproductive process. There are constants; perhaps not in nature - but do we know that - but certainly in human affairs. Asinine posts are one example of constants.

I won't try to give analogies, though I could think of a hundred. They simply get us to a contest of seeing who can be the cleverest. Marriage, or whatever it has been termed throughout history, is a constant and has always involved man and woman only. Certainly there have been other types of relationships but they have never been thought of as "marriage." The etymology of the word is irrelevant. It was adopted to describe something very specific and encoded into law to ensure the unassailability of the institution.

Inclusive or exclusive is another diversion. Marriage includes all men and all women: it is all- inclusive. To include them in another type of "recreation" is to change the purpose.

It is, to stray to the type of argument that is being presented, like changing the constitution of a swimming club to allow non swimmers to use the shallow end as a bath.

[PocketRocket]

People who currently use the word "married" are affected when its meaning changes.

I could see this, if we stipulated that the word "married" were to mean "bankrupt" or something.

But under the SSM proposal, tell me exactly how this would change YOUR marriage.

Would you no longer feel a commitment to your wife??? Or she to you???

Please just explain how this would change your feelings toward your spouse, because that is what marriage is all about, the relationship between two people.

PR. You and I would agree with one thing. That is that your post was asinine.

Why, thank you, EUREKA. That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day.

I'm simply too tired to argue this morning. But in the words of Arnold, "I'll be back".

Have a good day, folks

[August1991]

Please just explain how this would change your feelings toward your spouse, because that is what marriage is all about, the relationship between two people.

If marriage is simply about the relationship between two people, then why do we have this controversy now?

On the contrary, marriage is all about announcing in a very public manner to the community at large that two people are united.

[B. Max]

Now if some asks you if you are married, they will also have to ask if you are married to a man or a woman.

An unintended consequence of promoting more sexual perversion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Now if some asks you if you are married, they will also have to ask if you are married to a man or a woman.

Why is that necessary?

What do you care?

[Shakeyhands]

An unintended consequence of promoting more sexual perversion

Me thinks I see a homophobe.

[B. Max]

An unintended consequence of promoting more sexual perversion

Me thinks I see a homophobe.

There is actually no such thing as a homophob. At least not in the terms you mean. It is actually a misdirected term conjured up by the porn merchants and promoters of filth. It's intention of course, to hang a scary lable on those who would disagree with their bad behavior and otherwise silence any opposition to their agenda. Used correctly, you would have to direct the term at yourself, and also admit to its desired intent.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... It's intention of course, to hang a scary lable on those who would disagree with their bad behavior ...

Who says the behaviour is bad? You?

Please spare us from such drivel, would you.

[B. Max]

... It's intention of course, to hang a scary lable on those who would disagree with their bad behavior ...

Who says the behaviour is bad? You?

Please spare us form such drivel, would you.

Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Not that one needs a bible to know that it is bad and filthy behavior.

[Black Dog]

And ultimately, that's one of the problems here. One reason gay activists want to use the word "marriage" is to obtain "respectability". They want straights to respect them.

I admire the objective of the gay activists. But I don't think the Charter should be used for that purpose.

My impression from talking to members of the gay community on this issue is that equality, not respectability is the issue. They know they won't cahnge many minds and, while it would be nice if gay marriage led to greater tolerance for homosexuality, that's not the crux of the struggle.

I think that P.O.V is reflecte din the legislation.

Change is not the issue: transmutation is. The Institution of marriage has never changed in its basic sense and never can unless we really do discover how to make men redundant in the reproductive process. There are constants; perhaps not in nature - but do we know that - but certainly in human affairs

eureka: I've addressed your points many times and you haven't responded. Wahssamatta? You chicken?

In any case, the abovve statement is ludircrious as it assumes some measure of inmutability of human institutions that does not exist. It's plain wrong. Human institutions are subject to changes of human society. They are are our creations do do with as we please.

In any case: seeing as how you are unable to address the fundamental logical fallacy behind your argument, I fail to see any reason to take you or your position seriously anymore.

here is actually no such thing as a homophob. At least not in the terms you mean. It is actually a misdirected term conjured up by the porn merchants and promoters of filth. It's intention of course, to hang a scary lable on those who would disagree with their bad behavior and otherwise silence any opposition to their agenda. Used correctly, you would have to direct the term at yourself, and also admit to its desired intent.

Fortunately, there's so many othe rlabels that apply in your case: bigot, asshole, ignoramus, throwback, knuckle-dragger...the list is extensive.

[B. Max]

.

Fortunately, there's so many othe rlabels that apply in your case: bigot, asshole, ignoramus, throwback, knuckle-dragger...the list is extensive.

No, those would be indicators of your cesspool intellect.

[Guest eureka]

You know better tham that BD. However, you are putting forth nothing new; simply saying again that it is all about rights.

Let me try you with something different!

It is now said that the genetic difference between man and woman is about the same as between mankind and Chimpanzee. Leaving aside which may be the closer, marriage as now instituted is the joining of two greatly differing beings.

The "marriage" of two homosexuals brings the joining of two beings of the same genetic content.

Where is the equality in that? Should the lion really lie down with the lamb? Or is putting two lions in the same cage, or two lambs, ensuring equality

[PocketRocket]

 

Have you seen the movie "Shrek"????

Two ogres got married and are currently in the process of trying to live happily ever after, despite the best attempts to the contrary of the fairy godmother.

"What", you gasp to yourself, "Ogres can get married now??? I thought ogres do NOT live happily ever after !!!"

But hey, guess what??? It hasn't affected anyone else's marriage.

This argument is wrong on at least two counts.

Do tell. Oh wait, looking a bit further on, it seems you did tell:)

First, I have a high school diploma.

Congratulations, your mother must have been so proud. I know mine was.

It matters to me who also gets the same high diploma because others use the same credential as I do.  If you have a Canadian passport then you should think about who also has a Canadian passport.  When you travel abroad, what other Canadian passport holders do affects how you will be treated.

Agreed, but this hardly relates to SSM. After all, do you think that people are going to start doubting the validity of your marriage simply bcause someone who is gay has also claimed rights to that word???

People who currently use the word "married" are affected when its meaning changes.

You and your compatriots keep saying that, but no one ever seems to present a convincing argument as to HOW they are affected, nor HOW the meaning has changed. The meaning remains the same, ie; two people who have plighted their troth for life. The argument is not over the MEANING but rather WHO should be entitled to the use of the "M" word itself.

So, if you please, tell me HOW hetero marriages would be adversely affected, rather than repeating the same old tired, traditional blather.

Second, how rights are accorded to fellow citizens matters to me.  That's what citizenship is all about.

I agree. And it seems silly to me that there is all this bother simply because a small, disenfranchised minority wants to be able to say "Hey, I'm married, and this is my spouse".

"Feel" about "their traditions" is what you said.

You just made one of my points for me.

To you, this is not a debate about legitimacy, it's simply an emotional argument.

And ultimately, that's one of the problems here. One reason gay activists want to use the word "marriage" is to obtain "respectability". They want straights to respect them.

It could be argued that something everybody wants is the respect of their fellow man, but I don't know if "respectability" is the issue here. Commonlaw marriage is now legally recognized. A friend of mine who let his girlfriend move in with him for a couple years found that out the hard way when they broke up. He used to own a house. Not any more, although she is quite comfortable living in it now.

I admire the objective of the gay activists.  But I don't think the Charter should be used for that purpose.

Well, someone has to use it for something.

IMV, the Charter should be used to protect individuals against the power of the State.  I don't think it should be used as an instrument in some social engineering project.

Like anything else, it's a tool. But in this we agree. I don't feel the charter need to be invlved at all. But then, I don't believe this should even be an issue. IMV, live and let live is a great way to run things. The Golden Rule, if you will. But, some of us believe we should tell others how to run their own lives, "for their own good" of course.

And now, many of us are telling gays that they can live together, but they cannot use the "M" word, because that will somehow hurt the rest of us.

But as I stated earlier, no one has, as yet, pointed out HOW it would hurt us.

  There are people in Canada who don't like gays.  They think two men together is unnatural.  There are other people who accept gays but don't want them to use the word "marriage". 

And that is the whole point of my statement above.

Well, Canada is a big country and no doubt there are some people who don't like men with beards, don't like WASPs, don't like children, Tories,  Jews, women with hairy legs and so on.  This is the world we live in.  IMV, the government should not get involved in trying to "educate" or "re-educate" these people.

I agree. There will always be people with bigotted opinions. We are all entitled to our own stupid opinion. You, me, everyone. But I do not try to force my opinion on anyone else. I do not try to force my beliefs or lifestyle on anyone else.

But, gays ARE having someone else's views forced on them when a large portion of the population is saying "You cannot use the word "marriage" to describe your lifelong commitment to each other".

Which way do you want it, AUGY, can't have it both ways.

Why should the government not stand up to bigotry?  Because when the government meddles with people's moral opinions, a far greater evil than private bigotry is the result.

The government, like you and I, are free to voice an opinion on bigotry. You are free to say you disagree with SSM. But to actually try to prevent it is forcing your view on loifestyle on the gay population, which in your own words, is wrong.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Who says the behaviour is bad? You?

Please spare us form such drivel, would you.

Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that.

Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all.

Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is now said that the genetic difference between man and woman is about the same as between mankind and Chimpanzee. Leaving aside which may be the closer, marriage as now instituted is the joining of two greatly differing beings.

The "marriage" of two homosexuals brings the joining of two beings of the same genetic content.

Puh-lease. By this logic you can support bestiality!

[B. Max]

Who says the behaviour is bad? You?

Please spare us form such drivel, would you.

Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that.

Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all.

Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway.

Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say.

[Guest eureka]

You certainly could support bestiality using that logic without all the other qualifiers. I am sure that the proponents would like to think it could be supported when they are faced with a fundamental question that they cannot answer.

However, let it enter your thinking. Supply me with an answer to why an institution that brings together two very different but complementary beings would not be changed if it should become an instutution that also brings together two beings who are the same and are not complementary.

[August1991]

That's nonsense, eureka. A marriage is a contract and as Black Dog pointed out elsewhere, animals are not witting parties to a contract.

Harper has suggested that gays use a civil union and enjoy all the same benefits and obligations as straights who alone can use the word marriage.

That is the issue before us.

[Black Dog]

You know better tham that BD. However, you are putting forth nothing new; simply saying again that it is all about rights.

A position you've yet to refute, given that your argument against it is based on flawed, circular logic.

Just saying an argument i sinvalid isn't enough: you need to show why the argument saying that denying a certain segment of the population the same legal rights and privileges is not discriminatory or an equality issue.

It is now said that the genetic difference between man and woman is about the same as between mankind and Chimpanzee. Leaving aside which may be the closer, marriage as now instituted is the joining of two greatly differing beings.

The "marriage" of two homosexuals brings the joining of two beings of the same genetic content.

Where is the equality in that? Should the lion really lie down with the lamb? Or is putting two lions in the same cage, or two lambs, ensuring equality

But how is that relevant? How does the genetic differences or similarities between genders have any bearing on the actual substance of marriage and the civil laws governing it?

You're still basically saying "marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what marriage is". In other words: the gender of the participants the of paramount defining characteristic of marriage. But you haven't given any reason why that is beyond the self-evident fact that the genders are different. Well whop-dee-doo. That same lgic could also be applied to mixed-race marriages, but I doubt you'd call for an end to those. Therefore it seems your selection of gender (as oppossed to race, or hair colour) as the defining characteristic of marriage is completely arbitrary.

Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say.

The same book of the Bible most often cited as proof of the divine condemnation of homosexuality also forbids eating shellfish. Tell me, B. max, since thou art so holy, have you ever eaten a prawn?

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. -Lev. 11: 9-12

[Guest eureka]

You are more or less correct in that I am saying "marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what it is."

I am also saying, though, that you cannot change that without ridding the world of marriage. All the talk of rights does not alter the reality that to change in the way proposed is to end marriage and replace it with something else.

My argument about the differences in the sexes and their complementary nature is at the heart of this. Rights is no more than a convenient emotive excuse to avoid the hatd question. Marriage is the peace treaty in the "war" of the sexes. Homosexuals are neutrals in that war.

My argument is not circular or fallacious. It is quite direct and all I do is point out the contradictions.

Not nonsense at all, August. Bestiality is not my wish and colour of skin is an entirely different question.

[Black Dog]

You are more or less correct in that I am saying "marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what it is

And that's just circular logic which, last I checked, was a fallacy.

I am also saying, though, that you cannot change that without ridding the world of marriage. All the talk of rights does not alter the reality that to change in the way proposed is to end marriage and replace it with something else.

My argument about the differences in the sexes and their complementary nature is at the heart of this. Rights is no more than a convenient emotive excuse to avoid the hatd question. Marriage is the peace treaty in the "war" of the sexes. Homosexuals are neutrals in that war

I'll ask again: why is the gender of the participants the single most important factor in defining marriage?

You keep harping on the alleged differences between the genders but haven't once said why this matters.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Who says the behaviour is bad? You?

Please spare us form such drivel, would you.

Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that.

Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all.

Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway.

Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say.

Where then, does it say that?

[The Terrible Sweal]

However, let it enter your thinking. Supply me with an answer to why an institution that brings together two very different but complementary beings would not be changed if it should become an instutution that also brings together two beings who are the same and are not complementary.

But there is no question the legislation will change civil marriage.

The questions are:

i) given the reasons tendered FOR making the change, what are the reasons for NOT making the change?

and

ii) evaluating both sets of reasons, for and against, what are the more persuasive from the point of view of public policy?