The Current SSM Bill, Having an Identity

[Guest eureka]

It seems to be hopeless to get through that this is nothing to do with "rights." It is about a redefinition of marriage to change what people had to something else.

I am not hung up on anything, Knn. I amputting out a very simple fact that to change the definition of marriage as proposed is to make its purposes obsolete.

That enriches nobody.

[Grantler]

People that exploit errors for their own benefit...now there is a way to run a society.

I am not saying to separate anything other than the church and state...I am saying right a wrong that occured in 1867.

[willy]

The separation of Church and state occurred not to protect the state but to protect the church.

IMO,

The instance of SSM, is a good example of where we should uncouple marriage from the state.

The state should deal with contracts but not relationships.

The church should deal with marriage. If there is a debate about definition it should happen within the denominations and traditions. The government has no place in sanctifying relationships, and the church can not expect the government to uphold religious beliefs.

This may be a good rant but in practical application we will have the government hands on marriage for a long time to come and I will confess as long as that is the case SSM will come to be and if it is a government institution SSM should be a reality.

[yvestar]

I'm just making some light comments here:

The definition of marriage is not being changed; it is being improved.

My stance still remains where marriage has the theoretical right to a basic identity much like an individual theoretically has.

In the desired advent of marriage differentiation...

...gays and lesbians would now enjoy homosexual marriages...

...while heterosexuals would further enjoy heterosexual marriages.

Is anyone not interested in a logistic compromise to recognize the inherent dignity of two consenting adults (a marriage)?

[August1991]

The definition of marriage is not being changed; it is being improved.

Uh, do you work in marketing? Improved? Do you mean that "marriage" has been upgraded? We're moving past the beta version?

The separation of Church and state occurred not to protect the state but to protect the church.

No, it occurred to protect the individual against the power of the State/Church. Have you ever heard of the Edict of Nantes? Or its revocation?

The state should deal with contracts but not relationships.

In theory, that's what the Liberals have done. They have created the ideas of "religious marriage" and "civil marriage". These are extensions of the ideas of "marriage" and "civil union".

The State has readily conceded (much later than the private sector by the way) that gender is irrelevant in determining a beneficiary for pension benefits. At stake now is word usage.

Gays, Lesbians and Transsexuals want respect. By getting the State to "upgrade" the word "marriage", activists hope popular respect will follow.

[yvestar]

Uh, do you work in marketing? Improved? Do you mean that "marriage" has been upgraded? We're moving past the beta version?

Ah! I'm caught red-handed. I'm not in marketing but I definitely was trying to color the intent of this legislation.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 08:00 PM 

It seems to be hopeless to get through that this is nothing to do with "rights." It is about a redefinition of marriage to change what people had to something else.

I know you like to mimic Harper about "marriage not being a right" but neither the Supreme Court or the federal government is going to agree with you.

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 08:00 PM  I am not hung up on anything, Knn. I am putting out a very simple fact that to change the definition of marriage as proposed is to make its purposes obsolete.

If it were a "simple fact" that having same sex couples marry would make marriage "osbolete", then that should have happened two years when same sex marriages began to take place. You've have shown no evidence that that has been the case.

[Guest eureka]

knn, this may be an idea that is alien to you, but I do not "mimic" Harper: in fact, I have not even been reading what any of the politicians say on this. I do my own thinking.

It appears, from what I read on these fora, that I have put forth many more reasons for opposing SSM than Harper or his "mimics" or the constituency that makes him say what he says, does. It is just a pity that no one here can actually refute them.

Claiming rights is merely hiding behind a buzzword of morality: a false morality.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Claiming rights is merely hiding behind a buzzword of morality: a false morality.

You haven't answered a single one of my arguments as to why I believe this to be a rights issue, even if marriage itself is not a right. So I'll try again.

Group A wants "marriage" to mean X.

Group B wants "marriage" to mean Y.

On what grounds can the government decide which definition to enshrine in law? Even if you believe that the wishes of group B will change the meaning of group A's relationship, you must also recognize that this is reversible. The meaning of group A's relationship also has an affect on the meaning of group B's. The fact that group A currently holds the status quo is not enough, in an equal society, to justify this.

If the government chooses to recognize, in name, the contracts and ceremonies of one group, then it has no choice but to do the same for other groups. Equal benefit under the law.

On the topic of meaning.

Suppose I paint my living room pink, and I now have "the only pink living room on the block." Alas, one of my neighboors sees my living room and likes it. He informs me that he intends to paint his living room pink, and worse, the exact same shade of pink. I tell him he can't do that, as him painting his living room pink will alter the nature of my own living room. How could that be, he replies, your living room will still be just as pink. To which I reply, yes, my room will still be just as pink, but it will no longer be "the only pink living room on the block," and that, therefore, you can't paint yours pink.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 19 2005, 12:38 PM 

It appears, from what I read on these fora, that I have put forth many more reasons for opposing SSM than Harper or his "mimics" or the constituency that makes him say what he says, does. It is just a pity that no one here can actually refute them.  Claiming rights is merely hiding behind a buzzword of morality: a false morality.

eureka, you didn't respond to my question of --

"If it were a "simple fact" that having same sex couples marry would make marriage "osbolete", then that should have happened two years ago when same sex marriages began to take place. You've have shown no evidence that that has been the case."

You might find this article from the U.S. (washington state) interesting:

"...one has to wonder why so few people are standing up to decry the United States’ restrictions on same-sex marriage as Human Rights violations. Homosexuals are certainly human, their sexual preferences seem to fall under the heading of “other status,” and they are being prevented from marrying..."

...HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE?

[Guest eureka]

Neither of your questions have any merit. The analogies being drawn have about as much validity as to say that the sands on certain beaches are redder than others and it is unfair to sunbathers not to be able to distinguish the degree of their sunburn because it appears less red on one beach than another. Therefore, we must shift the sands.

Marriage is the union of man and woman: it is that whether it is civil or religious. To change it at the whim of a political process or trend is to say that traditional marriage no longer exists. It really is rather simple.

The question is whether marriage must be abolished and replaced with something that is different but will retain the name of the extinct institution.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Marriage is the union of man and woman: it is that whether it is civil or religious. To change it at the whim of a political process or trend is to say that traditional marriage no longer exists. It really is rather simple.

You've conveniently ignored every question that I've asked you on this. You've never responded to an argument that questions your view on this. And you've yet to offer a single argument as to why this "simple" fact is correct. You've simply said, over and over, that this is the way it is because this is the way it is. You do not seem to think that the status quo requires justification. I, and many others, believe that the status quo is in need of justification as much as any other belief. Otherwise, it is merely an appeal to authority, and whats worse, an authority that excluded (and seems to wish to continue excluding) entire groups of society from participation.

The pink room analogy I used above served its purpose. The fact that one person used the term marriage to describe their relationship in no way implies that another should be prevented from using that term. Likewise, the fact that I currently have "the only pink room" in no way implies that you should be prevented from painting your room whatever color you so choose.

If a homosexual marriage alters the meaning of a heterosexual marriage, a second pink room certianly affects the meaning of "the only pink room."

The question is: why is preventing homosexuals from getting married regarded as acceptable, while preventing someone from painting their room pink regarded as unacceptable?

[knn]

eureka Posted on Feb 19 2005, 03:32 PM

Neither of your questions have any merit.

The analogies being drawn have about as much validity as to say that the sands on certain beaches are redder than others and it is unfair to sunbathers not to be able to distinguish the degree of their sunburn because it appears less red on one beach than another. Therefore, we must shift the sands.

More than likely, you have no answer. Babbling on about the sands on the beach hardly addresses real people or real issues!

You were the one who stated that changing the definition of marriage would make "marriage obsolete." I merely asked why it hadn't?

Why hadn't marriage become "obsolute" when thousands of same sex marriages have already taken place over the last two years? Why haven't those thousands of same sex marriages across the country even put a dent in destroying marriage. Nothing changed.

Your "analogy" about "sands on the beach" is ludicrous.

[Guest eureka]

I sometimes wonder whether one side of your brains is shutting down over this question(?). The justification for the status quo - in the definition - is just what I have been saying.

As for the arguments, I have posted more in support of keeping marriage as marriage than all the supporters of SSM together. Go back and read them. I have even taken this into grounds that none of the disputants here or in the outside world have yet thought of. You do nothing but say this is about "equal rights. That is patently false.

knn. can you take nothing in. My "analogy" about sands was obviously absurd and meant to be so. It was a response to the "painted room" absurdity.

Trudeau, I think you have more about you than to really believe that you can trap me with such an amateurish debating technique as those silly alternatives.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, you've completely refrained from answering any difficult posed you, and you've failed to respond to a single argument that contradicts your view.

If the painted room anaology is so absurd, please tell me why. Obviously you think that people have a right to alter the status quo on some occasions, and not on others. Perhaps provide a list of conditions in which it is acceptable.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 20 2005, 12:35 AM 

knn... It was a response to the "painted room" absurdity.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I made no comment or reference to "the painted room". Where did I post that? Your logic is extremely flawed.

[Guest eureka]

See what I mean! I am the one who has been posing the difficult questions and there has been no answer except to say it is about rights. You don't answer the question as to what happens to the rights of those who adhere to the definition of marriage as it is.

Don't make foolish statements about what I say of the status quo. Status Quo is not a bad word. It is, in many things, a tried and true basis for something. Change is only justified when it can benefit society.

That you have not proven: not at all. You parrot the same false line that it is about equality of rights when it is not that either.

This is about trendiness; about what used to be called political correctness. It would be almost amusing if it were not sad, to see all those who would get very heated about an accusation of political correctness jumping on this bandwagon

[I Miss Trudeau]

Status Quo is not a bad word.

Not always, no. But you need to be able to justify it when it is called into question.

Excluding blacks from participation in society was a "tried and true" method. Yet you don't seem to mind that "trendy" turn of events.

Just saying "thats the way it is!" is not an argument. Not at all. If you truly think that it is, then I think this thread is as good as dead.

As regards these questions you've posed to proponents, please post them in a single message. I've gone back over all 3 threads on this subject and can't find a single unanswered question (except those posed to you).

[Guest eureka]

I will say this just once and then I am finished with the ridiculous turn this so-called discussion has taken. It is those who would change the "status quo" who must provide the rationale; not the reverse.

The fact, Trudeau, that you cannot see the questions I have posed is all the evidence needed that you cannot sustain a debate with these implications. Forever trying to tell me that this is a question of equal rights is not an argument.

The kind of circling around that now brings in colour to the debate is for children. The inability to see that this issue has no connection to all the "analogies" that are brought in disqualifies the blind one from participation. His or her rights are not equal to the task.

[knn]

I love this letter to the editor in today’s paper from a 76 year old woman. Years of wisdom, logic, and plain, old-fashioned common sense wins out every time.

Quote -- "Hard to understand what the fuss is about."

Same-sex marriage.

"I'm sorry but I just don't get it. I am a 76-year-old heterosexual woman married many years and I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. If two women or two men want to make a commitment and declare their love for each other, what is the problem? I can't for the life of me see that as a threat to me or my husband. In fact, if they want to invite us to the wedding, we will be the first to wish them joy and throw the confetti."