same sex marriage circus

[August1991]

What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions?

Life.

[Leader Circle]

I still say this opens the door for more sexual deviants to make a case for whatever their issues is.

How? What's stopping them from making their case now?

As many have said, the government should stay out of their bedroom & so should the church. What will happen is, the gov't will stay out of it and their will be more polygamists & incest freaks looking for more human rights. And why shouldn't they? They are being persecuted for their beliefs! They were born this way, they can't help it. They should not be oppressed by a bunch of bigots like us straights & gays with all our rights!!!!

SSM legislation doesn't change the Criminal Code. Nor are the prohibitions on incest or polygamy contained therein discriminatory, as they apply equally to all citizens.

In other words, you're comparing apples to plywood.

SSM is leading us down the road to ruin with the Liberal party driving...buckle up!

SSM has been a legal right enjoyed by almost 90 per cent of Canadians fro well over a year now. Yet God has so far failed to smite any of teh provinces and the territory where gay marriage is a fact of life. Is the Almighty simply waiting for the federal government's decsion before the smiting begins?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How long ago was it that homsexuality was a crime? I think anal sex is against the law in Georgia still. So the case will stand for polygamists & incest supporters, eventually in a country like Canada(pushovers) it won't be long. Incest is a stretch, but Polygamy isn't. I think the BC polygamists are starting to gain recognition.

I guess you could say incest is wrong because the offspring is very handicapped & deformed, but what offspring can homsexuals produce??? And if that incestuous relationship is loving & consentual, why is it hurting the institution of marriage???

I am strongly against all of this, but ssm is opening the door!

As far as your trash on God & the Bible, you make light of religious folks saying nothing will come to those who do wrong according to the Bible. This is where I believe you are wrong. They will be punished. You may think it is funny, but you are a person of no faith. Judgement day is coming, I hope you enjoy the end result!!!

[Black Dog]

How long ago was it that homsexuality was a crime? I think anal sex is against the law in Georgia still. So the case will stand for polygamists & incest supporters, eventually in a country like Canada(pushovers) it won't be long

You didn't answer the question: how does the current proposed SSM legislation (which amends the legal definition of marriage from being between "one man and one woman" to "two persons") open the door for recognition of other sexual practices?

The fact is, there's nothing currently stopping any "deviants" from pushing for legal recognition, nor does the SSM legislation before the House carry any provisions which would enable such recognition.

As far as your trash on God & the Bible, you make light of religious folks saying nothing will come to those who do wrong according to the Bible. This is where I believe you are wrong. They will be punished. You may think it is funny, but you are a person of no faith. Judgement day is coming, I hope you enjoy the end result!!!

The Bible contains many prohibitions which are routinely ignored by the vast majority of people, even ardent religious people. Still, God does nothing. So you'll have to excuse me for not taking pronouncements about the divine nature of our impending doom very seriously.

[Leader Circle]

How long ago was it that homsexuality was a crime? I think anal sex is against the law in Georgia still. So the case will stand for polygamists & incest supporters, eventually in a country like Canada(pushovers) it won't be long

You didn't answer the question: how does the current proposed SSM legislation (which amends the legal definition of marriage from being between "one man and one woman" to "two persons") open the door for recognition of other sexual practices?

The fact is, there's nothing currently stopping any "deviants" from pushing for legal recognition, nor does the SSM legislation before the House carry any provisions which would enable such recognition.

As far as your trash on God & the Bible, you make light of religious folks saying nothing will come to those who do wrong according to the Bible. This is where I believe you are wrong. They will be punished. You may think it is funny, but you are a person of no faith. Judgement day is coming, I hope you enjoy the end result!!!

The Bible contains many prohibitions which are routinely ignored by the vast majority of people, even ardent religious people. Still, God does nothing. So you'll have to excuse me for not taking pronouncements about the divine nature of our impending doom very seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An incestuous relationship can be 2 persons can it not??

Answer you question?

[Black Dog]

An incestuous relationship can be 2 persons can it not??

Answer you question?

An incestuous relationship can also be between one man and one woman, can it not? Yet an incestuous relationship like that is still legally prohibited, SSM or no SSM. That's because incest is currently a criminal Code Offense. C-38 does not overturn the Criminal Code. So you still haven't answered the question which is, again:

"how does the current proposed SSM legislation open the door for recognition of other sexual practices?"

[August1991]

How long ago was it that homsexuality was a crime? I think anal sex is against the law in Georgia still. So the case will stand for polygamists & incest supporters, eventually in a country like Canada(pushovers) it won't be long. Incest is a stretch, but Polygamy isn't. I think the BC polygamists are starting to gain recognition.

I guess you could say incest is wrong because the offspring is very handicapped & deformed, but what offspring can homsexuals produce??? And if that incestuous relationship is loving & consentual, why is it hurting the institution of marriage???

I am strongly against all of this, but ssm is opening the door!

As far as your trash on God & the Bible, you make light of religious folks saying nothing will come to those who do wrong according to the Bible. This is where I believe you are wrong. They will be punished. You may think it is funny, but you are a person of no faith. Judgement day is coming, I hope you enjoy the end result!!!

Truly weird post that has nothing really to do with gays having the right to marry but it nevertheless raises an important point. How do we define a "family"?

This is relevant because the State typically deals with individuals through their family. If you die, there are State pension survivor benefits for a spouse and any dependents. How do we define these people? Definitions of a dependent have gone through many changes in teh past few decades.

Two elderly sisters who care for one another are treated by the State as two anonymous individuals. If one of the sisters dies, this changes the material situation of the other - as much if not more than the death of an estranged parent changes the material situation of an adolescent child. Yet the State treats the two very differently.

I am more concerned by the potential gold-digging all this new legislation invites. I suspect we will see increasing claims to be treated "equally" to obtain various entitlements.

[Melanie_]

SatanHarper, in one post you threaten the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the next you are coming out against incest. Hmm, its been a while, but it seems to me the story goes that after the fall of S & G Lot fathered sons on both (maybe three?) of his daughters, and God seemed OK with this. Oh, and didn't he offer them up to be gang raped as well? God seemed OK with this, too - Lot was a righteous man in God's eyes. Perhaps as long as only heterosexuals are engaging in incest and rape, its not such a bad thing??

I am not trying to incite a religious debate (it has already been incited) or disrespect people's beliefs. But it is a sore point with me that the fate of S & G is held up as something that homosexuals deserved, but these other pieces of the story are conveniently ignored.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why do gays want to marry?  "Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman.  If you want to change the definition of words, why don't we also change the definition of the word "heterosexual" to also include people who have sex with people of the same sex?  It's the same thing.

I have no problem with gay people.  I just don't understand why any self respecting gay person would want to try to act not-gay.  By definition, the gay lifestyle is a different lifestyle.  Gay people should celebrate that and embrace their own definitions and traditions instead of attempting to hijack existing traditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the word "Lifestyle" intimates they made a choice to be this way, they didn't it happened at birth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually you're wrong. Ever heard of "queer theory". It's body of academic thought put forth by GAY academics. Most "queer theorists" (GAY people, activists) oppose gay marriage on the basis that is will erode the more promiscuous lifestyles often found in the gay community. To paraphrase: "We don't WANT to be like traditional married couples, we like our LIFESTYLE being different, it's what sets us apart as a unique group in society."

So, to correct you: Sure, gay people are born gay, but there is still a lifestyle with which many leaders of the gay community identify; one which is different than that of the traditional marriage.

[Melanie_]

Same sex marriage...old hat.....let's get to the fun stuff, "plural"  marriage as those who do it call it, now that's what marriage is all about. Who's in favour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only a man would suggest it! Believe me, one husband is trouble enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Second thoughts... I would get to be the Bossy First Wife! I would never have to wash a dish again, or do laundry, or vaccuum.... All those other wives would have to get jobs, too, and I could sit at home all day eating bonbons and watching Oprah. Or perhaps posting on Internet forums....

[Leader Circle]

SatanHarper, in one post you threaten the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the next you are coming out against incest. Hmm, its been a while, but it seems to me the story goes that after the fall of S & G Lot fathered sons on both (maybe three?) of his daughters, and God seemed OK with this. Oh, and didn't he offer them up to be gang raped as well? God seemed OK with this, too - Lot was a righteous man in God's eyes. Perhaps as long as only heterosexuals are engaging in incest and rape, its not such a bad thing??

I am not trying to incite a religious debate (it has already been incited) or disrespect people's beliefs. But it is a sore point with me that the fate of S & G is held up as something that homosexuals deserved, but these other pieces of the story are conveniently ignored.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am playing the devil's advocate. I am against ssm & incest, all I am saying is what does ssm open the door to. Everyone likes to come back with incest is illegal and so was homosexuality at one time. The more you give in, the more they will take. It is a never ending story. You have to find a place to put your foot down and ssm is it!

Like Aaron Tippen sings "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

We will bow to anyone with a voice and ssm is no different. How many homosexuals or bisexuals in Canada? Last I heard there were less than 1%. That means 300,000 people are deciding the fate of the defintion of marriage. It is wrong!

It makes me mad to see that we cannot do anything because we have a screwed up so-called democracy that does not allow us to make a difference. We are ran by corruption!

[newbie]

Everyone likes to come back with incest is illegal and so was homosexuality at one time. The more you give in, the more they will take. It is a never ending story. You have to find a place to put your foot down and ssm is it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So by that logic anything that is now illegal will one day become legal?

Like Aaron Tippen sings "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So how about human rights?

[newbie]

  "Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to get picky or anything but my Webster's dictionary includes the following as one definition for marriage: Any close or intimate union. Kinda blurs the "is" part of your argument.

[newbie]

double post

[Leader Circle]

Everyone likes to come back with incest is illegal and so was homosexuality at one time. The more you give in, the more they will take. It is a never ending story. You have to find a place to put your foot down and ssm is it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So by that logic anything that is now illegal will one day become legal?

Like Aaron Tippen sings "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So how about human rights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, many will become legal. Like marijuana, it will be legal. There can be a case made for lots of it I'm sure.

I stand for human rights, I stop at immoral needs of a few people. They have their cake(civil unions) now they want to eat it too!!!

Greed and notority is the main force driving these people. Soon these same people will want freedom of religion struck down, because religious beliefs(most of them) infringe on their "human rights". Did anyone notice the pro gay protestors asking for taxes on churches??

These people are the ruination of family values and religious freedom. Many of these people are pure evil.

No stopping this steam roller now. C-48 is through, C-38 is to follow next week. The only way this will get overturned is if the Canadian people open their eyes and vote in a majority Conservative gov't. That doesn't seem to promising at this point. Welcome to Canada.

On a side note I found funny, I saw a pro-smoking sign that says: "Welcome to Ontario, where you can marry a fag, just can't smoke one!"

Kinda funny, but rude at the same time.

[Guest eureka]

Another reason to throw out your Websters and get a good dictionary!

The legal definition of marriage in most of the world, and, for the moment, in Canada, is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Some courts have ruled that the definition is discriminatory.

Marriage in the other sense refers to the oft used term to describe the coming together of say two complementary businesses.

The definition may be about to change in Canada but not in most other countries. How the dictionaries do deal with that will be interesting to see.

[Black Dog]

Actually you're wrong. Ever heard of "queer theory". It's body of academic thought put forth by GAY academics. Most "queer theorists" (GAY people, activists) oppose gay marriage on the basis that is will erode the more promiscuous lifestyles often found in the gay community. To paraphrase: "We don't WANT to be like traditional married couples, we like our LIFESTYLE being different, it's what sets us apart as a unique group in society."

So, to correct you: Sure, gay people are born gay, but there is still a lifestyle with which many leaders of the gay community identify; one which is different than that of the traditional marriage.

And homosexuals are not a monolithic group.

Greed and notority is the main force driving these people. Soon these same people will want freedom of religion struck down, because religious beliefs(most of them) infringe on their "human rights". Did anyone notice the pro gay protestors asking for taxes on churches??

These people are the ruination of family values and religious freedom. Many of these people are pure evil.

Still can't answer a simple question. Given that your whole argument to this point has hinged on the concept of a"slippery slope", your abject failure to clarify how the current SSM legislation would lead to such things as incest, polygamy etc. betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. In other words, you an't defend it on logical or rational or even legal grounds, so you flail about wildly.

As for the above, religious freedom is legally protected in this country, The tax issue come sdown to teh idea that churches that are acting as political lobbies are no longer charitable organizations and should be treated no different from any other lobby group, tax-wise.

"Pure evil"?

[August1991]

Actually you're wrong. Ever heard of "queer theory". It's body of academic thought put forth by GAY academics. Most "queer theorists" (GAY people, activists) oppose gay marriage on the basis that is will erode the more promiscuous lifestyles often found in the gay community. To paraphrase: "We don't WANT to be like traditional married couples, we like our LIFESTYLE being different, it's what sets us apart as a unique group in society."

Let me argue as BD and say that I know numerous heterosexuals who are dead set against marriage. There are nudist heterosexuals, and clubs for echangistes (wife-swapping) in Montreal. Having a mistress or a petite amie is a time-honoured practice in some countries. So, Seinfeld, what's your point?

As to the notion that gay marriage will encourage polygamy, incest or bestiality... I'm struck by the constant sexual connotations in these discussions. Sorry, but getting naked has nothing to do with gay marriage. In the eyes of most gays I think, the issue is respect. The significant fact for others is that two people want to care for one another.

So at most, one could argue that same sex marriage might open the door to a broader redefinition of what constitutes a family. I think that makes sense (and it's happening anyway). People help each other in a variety of ways and, for example, write wills to reflect their wishes. It makes sense for the State to be flexible on this issue.

[JerrySeinfeld]

  "Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to get picky or anything but my Webster's dictionary includes the following as one definition for marriage: Any close or intimate union. Kinda blurs the "is" part of your argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If marriage already included Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because Gays and Paul Martin want to CHANGE the definition of marriage.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let's put it this way: not all who oppose SSM are bigots, but all bigots oppose SSM.

Put it this way, anyone who opposes equality of rights among people must tender some sort of intelligible reason for the position, or they should expect to be measured by the fact that they lack it.

[August1991]

Let's put it this way: not all who oppose SSM are bigots, but all bigots oppose SSM.

Put it this way, anyone who opposes equality of rights among people must tender some sort of intelligible reason for the position, or they should expect to be measured by the fact that they lack it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here we go. How do you define "rights"? If I'm stupid and ugly and you are beautiful and smart, do we have "equality of rights"?

But Sweal, I'll stick with the Kimmy-Norway-Denmark argument because it shows the absurdity of the "bigot" claim most obviously. Should we instruct our Ambassador in Copenhagen to insist that the Danish government provide immediately an intelligible reason for its bigotry otherwise we will impose a complete embargo against Carlsberg beer?

[Black Dog]

If marriage already included Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because Gays and Paul Martin want to CHANGE the definition of marriage.

So? Legal definitions change all the time to reflect changes in society. A now-departed poster was using the example of the past criminalization of homosexuality as evidence that we're headed to hell in a hand basket. I'd say its a better demonstration of the law's ability to change and adapt to the realities of the society they govern. Ditto the "persons case" of 1929. So "changing the definition of X" is commonplace and, indeed, necessary.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If marriage already included Gays we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because Gays and Paul Martin want to CHANGE the definition of marriage.

So? Legal definitions change all the time to reflect changes in society. A now-departed poster was using the example of the past criminalization of homosexuality as evidence that we're headed to hell in a hand basket. I'd say its a better demonstration of the law's ability to change and adapt to the realities of the society they govern. Ditto the "persons case" of 1929. So "changing the definition of X" is commonplace and, indeed, necessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair point. Actually I am kind of changing my mind here as we debate. I think I am truly in favor of allowing gays to marry. I think my main problem all along here is that I don't think it's philosphically wrong to oppose it and I don't like to see people get railroaded by being called names for expressing their views.

[Black Dog]

Fair point. Actually I am kind of changing my mind here as we debate. I think I am truly in favor of allowing gays to marry. I think my main problem all along here is that I don't think it's philosphically wrong to oppose it and I don't like to see people get railroaded by being called names for expressing their views.

Fair enough. My big beef with a lot of anti-SSM folks is their inability to back up their claims. Look at how many times I asked the late, unlamented SatanHarper the same question and was not once afforded an answer. By all means, stand by your views, just be prepared to defend their merits. This also applies to the pro-SSM types who's first resort is the "bigot defense".

I can see however, why pro-SSM types get fed up: it can't be hard to maintain a level of respect when you have groups like Focus on the Family and such who actively demonize gays, call homosexuality "perverse" and "evil", equate it with crimes like bestiality or incest, and other assertions. When the bigots are the vanguard of the anti-SSM movement, its no surprise that the rest might get tarred with the same brush.

[newbie]

Another reason to throw out your Websters and get a good dictionary!

The legal definition of marriage in most of the world, and, for the moment, in Canada, is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Some courts have ruled that the definition is discriminatory.

Marriage in the other sense refers to the oft used term to describe the coming together of say two complementary businesses.

The definition may be about to change in Canada but not in most other countries. How the dictionaries do deal with that will be interesting to see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I simply gave another definition to the word as given by Webster. I thought it might create a little levity to this otherwise mean-spirited debate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let's put it this way: not all who oppose SSM are bigots, but all bigots oppose SSM.

Put it this way, anyone who opposes equality of rights among people must tender some sort of intelligible reason for the position, or they should expect to be measured by the fact that they lack it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here we go. How do you define "rights"? If I'm stupid and ugly and you are beautiful and smart, do we have "equality of rights"?

I don't think your hypotheticalization is particlarly relevant here. We are dealing with a right to equal treatment by the state. If the state were making its laws apply differentially to people based on their physical beauty, I would object to that too.

But Sweal, I'll stick with the Kimmy-Norway-Denmark argument because it shows the absurdity of the "bigot" claim most obviously.  Should we instruct our Ambassador in Copenhagen to insist that the Danish government provide immediately an intelligible reason for its bigotry otherwise we will impose a  complete embargo against Carlsberg beer?

Since we have no information about what the laws or rules of these countries, I think that is an absurd question.