Harper and Gay Rights

[I miss Reagan]

As for equal rights, if one group is allowed certain rights that otehrs are not, that's inequality.

But see if you abandoned your emotional loyalty to this, you'd see that this argument is flawed, because as Jason Kenny pointed out Gays do in fact have equal rights. Gays are not forced to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different fountains, be disenfranchised etc. This is about special rights not equal rights.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No, civil marriage as it exists today is a special privlege the state confers on persons who form couples that qualify. Right now only opposite sex couples qualify because the law grants them the privlege (NOT right) to marry. however, because "everyone" has the right to equal benefit of the law, it is impermissible for the state to grant the privilege of civil marriage only to persons who's couplehood involves persons of a spcific gender.

So: two important points:

1. the right involved is not a right to mrriage, but a right to equal treatment at law

2. the concept of discrimination based on the gender of someone's choice of spouse could sustain the call to allow SSM, without even going into sexual orientation.

[I miss Reagan]

hmmm interesting. The best argument I've heard so far (no name calling). The only problem with "equal treatment under the law" is allowing gay marriage still doesn't give everyone equal treatment under the law. Polygamists will still not be allowed to marry, brothers and sisters (even adopted) will not be allowed to marry etc. Parliament certainly wouldn't give incestuous couples and polygamists equal treatment. So it still remains a special rights issue.

[Guest eureka]

And so the temperature rises!

We could get a little Marcusian abou this and discuss libidinal rationality. Then we could see how that "logically" does lead to the abolition of monogamy.

We could consider then whether bisexuals would be discriminated against under the new definition because they are not allowed to marry both a man and a woman.

And so say all of us.

[B. Max]

And so the temperature rises!

We could get a little Marcusian abou this and discuss libidinal rationality. Then we could see how that "logically" does lead to the abolition of monogamy.

We could consider then whether bisexuals would be discriminated against under the new definition because they are not allowed to marry both a man and a woman.

And so say all of us.

Maybe it is time you woke up.

http://www.article8.org/AffectsYou.htm

[Guest eureka]

B. Max, while I in no way support your reasons for opposition, you may, if you excise the, what Hugo would call, cognitive dissonance from your brain, understand that I also oppose SSM. You might realise the the post you attack was an opposition: it was one that brougght in yet another level.

[Black Dog]

The majority of Blacks oppose gay marriage. Care to point out the tokenism?

1. Even if the majority of African Americans oppose gay marriage, that doesn't change the fact that not allwoing gays to marry is an equality issue. the tokenism comes from youi trotting out these black community people as though they a) speak for everyone in their constituency and their opinion is somehow more valid because of their skin colour.

But see if you abandoned your emotional loyalty to this, you'd see that this argument is flawed, because as Jason Kenny pointed out Gays do in fact have equal rights. Gays are not forced to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different fountains, be disenfranchised etc. This is about special rights not equal rights.

Can heterosexuals marry a person of their choosing? Yes. Can homosexuals? No. Then it's not a question of "special" rights.

The only problem with "equal treatment under the law" is allowing gay marriage still doesn't give everyone equal treatment under the law. Polygamists will still not be allowed to marry, brothers and sisters (even adopted) will not be allowed to marry etc. Parliament certainly wouldn't give incestuous couples and polygamists equal treatment. So it still remains a special rights issue.

You don't understand anything about the law, do you?

Polygamy, incest etc. are currently criminal offenses. That means they are universally prohibited activities. Everyone is equal because no one is allowed to engage in such activities.

If the law allowed some people to have multiple spouses or marry their sisters, but forbade others, then it would be an equality issue.

Inequality under the law can therefore be described as when state sanction is not uniformly applied. As is the case with the current definition of marriage.

Then we could see how that "logically" does lead to the abolition of monogamy.

How (and this is another question all you gay marriage opponents have neglected to answer) does changing the definition of marriage from "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" to "the union of two people to the exclusion of all others" impact monogamy?

We could consider then whether bisexuals would be discriminated against under the new definition because they are not allowed to marry both a man and a woman.

Um, bisexuals are no more predisposed to polyamory than anyone else. Just because someone enjoys both men and women doesn't mean they want both at the same time.

[knn]

Harper and Polls...(click here)

[I miss Reagan]

1. Even if the majority of African Americans oppose gay marriage, that doesn't change the fact that not allwoing gays to marry is an equality issue. the tokenism comes from youi trotting out these black community people as though they a) speak for everyone in their constituency and  their opinion is somehow more valid because of their skin colour.

Uh...nice try.

Can heterosexuals marry a person of their choosing? Yes. Can homosexuals? No. Then it's not a question of "special" rights.

Can heterosexuals marry a person of their choosing? Only if it is someone of the opposite sex. Can homosexuals? Only if it is someone of the opposite sex.

Completely equal.

You don't understand anything about the law, do you?

Disparaging and throwing personal insults at those you disagree with only highlights your intolerance and severely limits the credibility of your arguments .

Polygamy, incest etc. are currently criminal offenses. That means they are universally prohibited activities. Everyone is equal because no one is allowed to engage in such activities.

Weak and illogical arguement as homosexual marriage is currently illegal.

"Parliament as recently as 1999 affirmed by a vote of 216 to 55 that the definition of marriage was between a man and woman 'to the exclusion of all others'."

If the law allowed some people to have multiple spouses or marry their sisters, but forbade others, then it would be an equality issue.

Do you read what you post? Basically you're making my argument for me. If the law allowed some people to marry those of the same sex, but forbade others, then it would be an equality issue. Great point!

[Black Dog]

Can heterosexuals marry a person of their choosing? Only if it is someone of the opposite sex. Can homosexuals? Only if it is someone of the opposite sex.

Completely equal.

So we're back to the segregationist logic "colored people can marry someone of their choosing, so long as they are the same color".

You still haven't answered why thi sargument is any different from your gay marriage argument.

Weak and illogical arguement as homosexual marriage is currently illegal.

"Parliament as recently as 1999 affirmed by a vote of 216 to 55 that the definition of marriage was between a man and woman 'to the exclusion of all others'."

Actually, gay marriage is already legal in Canada: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland/Labrador and the Yukon Territory all recognize gay unions. The Supreme Court Reference noted that these lower court decisions in these juridstictions effectively changed the law because the government had not appealed the rulings.

Basically you're making my argument for me. If the law allowed some people to marry those of the same sex, but forbade others, then it would be an equality issue. Great point!

"A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying people in same-sex relationships access to that most basic of institution violates their dignity."

"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for granted. Same-sex couples do not; they are denied access to this institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation."

"Preventing same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual couples."

-Ontario Court of Appeal ruling 2003-JUN-10

[knn]

I miss Reagan  Posted: Feb 15 2005, 02:09 PM 

...Weak and illogical arguement as homosexual marriage is currently illegal...

Do you ever read anything that might bring you up to date on a subject which you seem to know nothing about?

Same sex marriage is currently LEGAL in seven provinces and one territory. That's covers 87% of Canada's total population, who have the right to a same sex marriage. Even if the current federal bill is defeated, those LAWS will not change! You are so out of it.

Your rantings about all sorts of issues which have NOTHING to do with the proposed bill is astounding. Have you read any of the Court's rulings; or even any LEGAL position on what this is all about. Obviously not!

[I miss Reagan]

You still haven't answered why thi sargument is any different from your gay marriage argument.

Yes I have, you just didn't like the answer.

Actually, gay marriage is already legal in Canada

Not where you and I live. And until activist judges changed the law, it wasn't legal anywhere else either.

[Guest eureka]

At the present time, in my opinion, the SSM's in the seven provinces would not stand up to a Court challenge.

The provinces do not have the power to say what marriage is: they have only jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage.

That is why the Federal Government is debating the issue. It is for that level to decide what marriage is.

[Black Dog]

Yes I have, you just didn't like the answer

Uh..no.

This was your "answer":

You are comparing a visible minority who suffered hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination for how they looked to people who prefer sex with people of their same gender and spining it into an equal rights issue. (Not surprising from one who calls the US a police state and quite often calls conservatives "fascists")

It's offensive that you use the injustices commited against woman and blacks as a political tool. Most blacks agree that this kind of argument diminishes their own triumphs over inequality.

So you avoided the question. And you're still avoiding it.

Not where you and I live. And until activist judges changed the law, it wasn't legal anywhere else either.

I see: when proven wrong (again), just invoke "activist judges"!

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 15 2005, 02:52 PM 

The provinces do not have the power to say what marriage is: they have only jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. That is why the Federal Government is debating the issue. It is for that level to decide what marriage is. 

The only way that the federal government could stop same sex marriages would be for them to use the "notwithstanding clause", carving out an exception to the Charter of Rights; something not even the Conservatives are willing to do.

[Clopin]

One of the porblems with using the notwithstanding clause is that it could imply that the conservatives actually concede to the fact that gay and lesbian couples should have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

essentially, invoking the notwithstanding clause means they're saying: 'notwithstanding' the fact that same-sex couples are guaranteed full equality under the Canadian Charter, they are going to be denied the same right to marry as is excercised by heterosexual couples nonetheless.

As for giving gay men the right to marry women.. lol... it's a joke. And anyone who uses that as an argument is simply insulting their own intelligence.

Anyone seen the Larry King interview of the former wife of Rock Hudson?

let's have men marry women they have absolutely no attraction to and no intention of having sexual relations with.. then they can come and tell us what it's like to live such a life.

Is it ok to live a lie and marry someone you're not attracted to sexually? If you honestly think yes, and believe that a marriage need not involve a sexual context, then your argument might deserve a sporting chance. But if you believe marriage includes a sexual aspect, then the argument goes nowhere.

[I miss Reagan]

Clopin,

You're missing the point. The point is that gays have the same rights as everyone else already. Nobody is forcing gay men to marry women.

[Shakeyhands]

Posted by I miss Regan

Not where you and I live. And until activist judges changed the law, it wasn't legal anywhere else either.

IMR, I have heard this label on a few Conservative programs and seen it on some right wing websites. And even having heard it and seen it, i am still not sure what an 'activist' judge is. Is an activist judge one that doesn't discriminate against those who may be different or something???

Please explain.

(I think I made have heard O'Reilly use it in an intelli... er sentence once but I am not sure...and it still didn't make any sense to me)

[Guest eureka]

knn. Not really. The only time that the federal government could use the "notwithstanding clause" is when the SCC rules that a federal law that offends against certain sections of the Charter is unconstitutional. That has not yet happened.

We will have to see what happens with the new Bill if it passes Parliament.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Clopin,

You're missing the point. The point is that gays have the same rights as everyone else already. Nobody is forcing gay men to marry women.

So in your estimation, if the laws only permitted homosexual marriage and not heterosexual marriage, all would be well?

[Clopin]

Clopin,

You're missing the point.  The point is that gays have the same rights as everyone else already.  Nobody is forcing gay men to marry women.

you're right, no one is forcing them to marry women, but since it's not in their capacity to make a marriage with a woman work, they are forced out of marriage altogether.

[August1991]

you're right, no one is forcing them to marry women, but since it's not in their capacity to make a marriage with a woman work, they are forced out of marriage altogether.

I guess that's the idea.

The word "marriage" would be reserved for a union between a man and a woman only. Two men would not be allowed to use the word.

But then, men are not allowed to use the word "wife" either.

We are in fact in the world of symbols and gays want symbolic respect hoping that the real thing will follow.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The word "marriage" would be reserved for a union between a man and a woman only.  Two men would not be allowed to use the word.

Why? And Why not?

But then, men are not allowed to use the word "wife" either.

If someone wants to refer to themself as wife, or husband, or chewbacca, let them. What do you care?

We are in fact in the world of symbols and gays want symbolic respect hoping that the real thing will follow.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head as to why civil union is unacceptable. Believe it or not, some people do respect gays. I guess you're not one of them.

[knn]

Parliament can ensure that no religious body will have its charitable status challenged because of its beliefs or practices regarding them. Parliament could ensure that beliefs and practices regarding marriage will not affect the eligibility of a church, synagogue, temple or religious organization to receive federal funds, for example, federal funds for seniors' housing or for immigration projects run by a church.

Parliament could ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Broadcasting Act are not interpreted in a way that would prevent the expression of religious beliefs regarding marriage.

Should the bill survive second reading, we will propose amendments in areas like these to ensure that in all areas subject to federal jurisdiction nobody will be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices regarding marriage.

- Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper wants to create a world in which Religion would have dominance over all areas that fall under the government’s domain, whether it be human rights, broadcasting, taxpayers revenue, getting a passport, or filing your income tax!

In other words, Stephen Harper would create a theocratic state, in which “religious rights” would trump both the individual’s rights and the state’s rights. Madness!

[August1991]

Bump.

For better or worse.