Harper and Gay Rights

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

That makes no sense, at least to me. Civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage is whatever the civil authority says it is.

Consider:

Set A = all cases of two opposite sex persons who have established a 'lifelong' committed intimate partnership

Set B = all cases of two same sex persons who have established a 'lifelong' committed intimate partnership

Presently, marriage for civil purposes equals all cases within Set A who follow the mandated procedures for legal formalization of the partnership. Let's call these people Set C.

The legislation proposes only to change the qualification for Set C to include parties from Set B who follow the mandated procedures for legal formalization. The result:

-Set C continues to exist,

-no-one presently in Set C will be affected,

-no-one in Set A will be affected, and

-no-one aspiring to move from Set A to Set C will be affected.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

That's absurd. Besides, even if marriage were a treaty, nothing about that fact would, in and of itself, preclude the existing parties from agreeing to admit additional parties.

The logical deficiency (discernible so far) in your position, are twofold:

-first, your premises are suspect (what proves that marriage is a treaty in a war);

-second, your conclusion that SSM should be opposed is not established by your premises (even if they are correct).

[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.

Where then, does it say that?

It says it right here, and it also says a lot more. To try and use one wrong to justify another is ridiculous. Eating shelfish is not seen in the eyes of god as an abomination as is homosexuality. It is seen as an unclean food.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/20.html#13

[Newfie Canadian]

While I respect the Bible and those that know it and believe in it (I'm not sure that I believe it in a literal sense), we must remember that it was written a long, long time ago. Using it to make an argument in today's day and age can be a double edged sword.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Lev 20:10

I can't remember ever hearing of people who have affairs being put to death. I haven't even heard a call for it.

My point is there are laws and rules in the Bible, particularly the Old Teastament, that are seen in today's context as a little silly and perhaps outdated.

[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?

It says it right here, and it also says a lot more. To try and use one wrong to justify another is ridiculous. Eating shelfish is not seen in the eyes of god as an abomination as is homosexuality. It is seen as an unclean food.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/20.html#13

Hey, where's you quote from? The one I've got doesn't go into their blood upon them.

[B. Max]

I can't remember ever hearing of people who have affairs being put to death. I haven't even heard a call for it.

I believe it's quite common in most muslum countries.

[B. Max]

Hey, where's you quote from? The one I've got doesn't go into their blood upon them.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/11.html

[brianw]

Canadians don't even have the right to shelter, food or water anymore so how can we talk about having any rights?

[Slavik44]

While we are on the topic of Gay rights and what not, I noticted a new Poll was out on the matter and thought I would let you guys see the results...

Question -  Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to be

legally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a

woman.  Other people think that only marriages between a man and woman

should be legally recognized.  Which of these two opinions, if either, best

reflects your views?

46% Marriage only a man and a woman

45% Allow same-sex couples to marry

5%  Neither

4%  Unsure

Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your

own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federal

MP for that reason?

53% Would not vote against MP

42% Would vote against MP

5%  Undecided

Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should your

Member of Parliament vote based on……[ROTATE]

54% The views in his/her riding

22% His/her personal views

16% His/her official party position

8%  Undecided

[caesar]

What in the heck is the big deal if gays get the same rights as we do. Marriage is NOT sacred; especially these days; divorces are rampant. Let's get on with serious issues and not worry so much about allowing gay people to have the same rights as us. In case you haven't noticed; this is a world wide issue and most civillized countries are giving them equal rights, Big deal. Let's get on with the important issues we need to focus on.

[Clopin]

It seems somewhat juvenile when people express their opinions in a defiant manner instead of trying to back up those opinions with convincing arguments.

Who cares whether an individual agrees with the concept of SSM or not if they don't put forth a sound argument?

Who cares if Tom, Dick AND Harry say they would never see two men or two women as married?

Who's seeking their approval anyway?

Marriage is already equally accessible to all in most of Canada and will soon be to the rest of the nation.

No one lives forever, and the younger generations don't see a problem with the concept. Let those who want to bitch and whine about it do so to their heart's content. For the rest of us with more common sense: either appreciate it or get over it.

[Newfie Canadian]

I believe it's quite common in most muslum countries.

Sorry, since we were talking about the Bible I was assuming we were talking about predominantly Judeo/Christian societies.

[Black Dog]

Eating shelfish is not seen in the eyes of god as an abomination as is homosexuality. It is seen as an unclean food.

But it says right there:

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.

Sorry, since we were talking about the Bible I was assuming we were talking about predominantly Judeo/Christian societies.

But you see, people like B. Max consider places where gays, fornicators and adulterers get put to death model societies.

[Guest eureka]

As I said earlier, I had stayed away from this debate because it is nothing but a name calling riot for many participants: notably on the side of the proponents.

The little gem from Clopin summarizes the "debate." Any who do not agree with him are "bithching and whining." They are also expressing opinions in a "defiant manner instead of backing up opinions with convincing arguments."

Even the proven intelligent debaters here can see no further than their own bias on this subject. They call facts fallacies and premises as faulty if they are not our premises.

What will be will be.

[The Terrible Sweal]

While we are on the topic of Gay rights and what not, I noticted a new Poll was out on the matter and thought I would let you guys see the results...

Question -  Some people think that same-sex couples should be allowed to be

legally married and be recognized like couples made up of a man and a

woman.  Other people think that only marriages between a man and woman

should be legally recognized.  Which of these two opinions, if either, best

reflects your views?

46% Marriage only a man and a woman

45% Allow same-sex couples to marry

5%   Neither

4%   Unsure

Question - If your local Member of Parliament had views different from your

own on the issue of same-sex marriages, would you vote against your federal

MP for that reason?

53% Would not vote against MP

42% Would vote against MP

5%   Undecided

Question - Thinking of the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage should your

Member of Parliament vote based on……[ROTATE]

54% The views in his/her riding

22% His/her personal views

16% His/her official party position

8%  Undecided

Who's poll is that? I detect a slight conservative slant to the questions.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As I said earlier, I had stayed away from this debate because it is nothing but a name calling riot for many participants: notably on the side of the proponents.

The little gem from Clopin summarizes the "debate." Any who do not agree with him are "bithching and whining." They are also expressing opinions in a "defiant manner instead of backing up opinions with convincing arguments."

Even the proven intelligent debaters here can see no further than their own bias on this subject. They call facts fallacies and premises as faulty if they are not our premises.

What will be will be.

You appear to have overlooked my post about sets of persons and their qualification and effect on marriage.

I would be interested in knowing why that has failed to convince you.

[Black Dog]

The little gem from Clopin summarizes the "debate." Any who do not agree with him are "bithching and whining." They are also expressing opinions in a "defiant manner instead of backing up opinions with convincing arguments."

Even the proven intelligent debaters here can see no further than their own bias on this subject. They call facts fallacies and premises as faulty if they are not our premises.

But your initial premise, in spite of your protests to the contrary, is a fallacy. It's not a matter of opinion, but of commonly accepted principles of logic. You cannot just say "marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what marriage is" and not expect to have such an absolutist and logically unsound statement challenged.

You need to provide a "why".

[Clopin]

It seems I'm out of bounds when I say that opponents are being defiant and have no sound argument.. but it's perfectly legitimate to say proponents have no substance to their arguments.

Not only that, a bogus genetic argument is brought into the picture. I suggest some of us pick up an 8th grade Bio book to learn the basics of genetics, just learn the significance of phenotypes and their relation to the genome. Let’s also make sure we avoid getting our information from GeneticsForTheRighteous.com before we speak of scientific findings with any authority.

Any source that claims genetic differences between a male and female of a species is comparable to the difference between, not only different species, but a different genus altogether is, at best, a questionable one.

[Guest eureka]

Terrible Sweal!

Your sets do not deal with the nomenclature or with the effects of that. Marriage is now, as defined, a joining of two persons of the opposite sex.. However it is sliced, your sets change that definition and marriage becomes something else. If hmosexual unions should be called civil unions thn I hear of nobody objecting - other than outright kooks. But civil marriage still does not avoid the change of an institution.

Black Dog!

How is it fallacious to say that marriage is what it is because it is? Marriage is what it is and the proposal is to change the institution to something else. There is nothing fallacious, illogical, or circular in that.

Clopin! you should be a little more circumspect in your opinions. The kind of certainty you express that brooks no contrary view (or information) sets you up for a hard fall when you get into debate with people who know how to debate.

I suggest you pick up some information that goes beyond your favoured source from your Grade 8 studies - I hope you have gone a little further than that.

Only recently a study was released that said exactly what I did. It concluded that there was between 1 and 2% difference in the genetic makeup of male and female. I think it was from Johns Hopkins but I really do not try to remember such things, They are useful only for entertainment purposes.

It may be a little beyond your scope,but the differences do not have to be in those things that differentiate humans from animal species.

As an aside, today while out for some time, I asked five people at different places, people I knew to be publicly in favour of SSM, for their views. I don't discuss this with anyone as a rule so they had no idea of mine.

Two admitted that they privately opposed the change. As I have suspected, the opposition is much stronger than polls suggest. These two who are, I think, representative of a considerable segment of the population, publicly acquiesce because they are intimidated by the raucousness of the other side and are afraid of the labels with which they might be tagged. They do not want to be thought of as denying "equality."

[Black Dog]

How is it fallacious to say that marriage is what it is because it is? Marriage is what it is and the proposal is to change the institution to something else. There is nothing fallacious, illogical, or circular in that.

It's fallacious because because simply assuming that the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. I don't think this is too difficult a concept to get one's head around, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you'd cling to this assertion.

The same reasoning has been used in legal arguments (such as by the Attorney General of Canada's appeal of the Ontario gay marriage ruling) and has been rejected.

[August1991]

It's fallacious because because simply assuming that the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

Mayonnaise contains whole eggs. If it doesn't contain whole eggs, it's not mayonnaise.

Is it hard to wrap your head around that concept?

The same reasoning has been used in legal arguments (such as by the Attorney General of Canada's appeal of the Ontario gay marriage ruling) and has been rejected.

That's because the Courts decided to redefine marriage.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Terrible Sweal!

Your sets do not deal with the nomenclature or with the effects of that. Marriage is now, as defined, a joining of two persons of the opposite sex.. However it is sliced, your sets change that definition and marriage becomes something else.

Actually, my post addresses nomenclature by specifying that I am talking about civil marriage (i.e. that kind which exists as a legally-mandated condition). As such, the nomenclature exists as the government may create it.

As pointed out, I agree that the rules of civil marriage are going to change. What I don't grasp is:

1) what it is about the proposed change that makes it a change of essence (as you seem to believe), rather than a change of detail, (as it seems to me). After all, a man named Bob may say one day that he is a bricklayer. Then when he gets a different job, he will say he's a chef. He still remains a man named Bob.

2) even assuming that the change is one 'of essence', what realistic negative outcome arises from it?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Mayonnaise contains whole eggs. If it doesn't contain whole eggs, it's not mayonnaise.

Who is the God of Mayonaisse that can deny Miracle Whip users their right to free expression?

You say 'mayonaisse is what it is and only what it is'. I say that 'civil mayonaisse' can include edible oil products. If I am the legitimate civil authority, then civil mayonnaise is whatever I say it is.

Now, if you have public policy reasons why only egg mayonaise should be so defined, feel free to put them forth.

[Black Dog]

Mayonnaise contains whole eggs. If it doesn't contain whole eggs, it's not mayonnaise.

Is it hard to wrap your head around that concept?

That's a bullshit analogy because its easy enough to prove that mayo, by definition, includes eggs. You can successfully argue that mayo made without eggs is not mayo, but something else all together simply because eggs are demonstrably essential to the flavour, consitency, colour and texture of mayo.

However, I've yet to see (and not for want of asking) a reason why the gender of the participants is integral or even relevant to the marriage contract.

Why is the legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two persons of the same sex fundamentally different from a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two persons of the opposite sex?

That's because the Courts decided to redefine marriage

No, it's been rejected because it's bad logic.

[I miss Reagan]

You can successfully argue that mayo made without eggs is not mayo, but something else all together simply because eggs are demonstrably essential to the flavour, consitency, colour and texture of mayo.

I think you just made August's argument for him. A male and a female are essential to the flavor, consistency, and texture of marriage. Anything else is not marriage.

However, I've yet to see (and not for want of asking) a reason why the gender of the participants is integral or even relevant to the marriage contract.

No, you just don't like the answers.

Why is the legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two persons of the same sex fundamentally different from a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two persons of the opposite sex?

Likewise, why is the consensual, and contractual relationship between an incestual brother and sister fundamentally different from a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship between two unrelated persons of the opposite sex?

Mayo without eggs is not mayo. It may tase good, it may even be better for you but it isn't mayo. A union other than a man and a woman is not marriage.