same sex marriage circus

[cybercoma]

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}>

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.

This will go for all men and women.

There's your equality.

[Riverwind]

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

What about men and woman who get married with no intention of having children? Many older people getting married for the second time are way past their child bearing years so they could not even claim that is their intention. Do we need another type of marriage for them? How about gays or lesbians that have children from previous relationships and now want to create a family with their same-sex partner? Is that another category?

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union..

What about gays an lesbians that don't have sex? They just want to have a long term committed realtionship - something that definately has a social purpose in our society.

[Leader Circle]

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"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How much more do I need to clarify black dog? If Canada is willing to change it laws on gays, it may also change laws for things like polygamy & incest if the case is proven to say these people have their human rights oppressed. You say incest is illegal, well so was homosexuality at one time I'm sure. We are an evolving bunch of monkeys aren't we?

Now, for your other argument "religious freedom is legally protected in this country"..... This is true, but the definition of marriage was also "legally protected".

That has come to an end, due to the ranting of a couple thousand vocal homosexuals & some law degrees! So, what is gonna stop these flamers from striking back at the church and getting the freedom of religion or other freedoms revoked? They have proved they have the stroke, now they will use it, because sure as shit, Canada won't stop them! It is opening Pandora's box, because these same people causing this grief want to run this country.

I say lets get a referendum going and change the name of the house of commons to the house of homosexual domination!!! Blackdog I am sure you'll sign on for this!!!

[Guest eureka]

I really did not want to go through this again since the "change" in definition is a foregone conclusion now.

However, I maintain that there has been no rational response at all to what I raised as an objection to "Gay" Marriage. The fallback to the position of "equality Roghts" is flawed since there is, again, no solid confirmation that this is a question of equality or that it is a "right" that has been withheld.

To claim it as a right is to assume the conclusion. There is now no doubt that homosexuality is an inborn characteristic - at least I think it is. That makes homosexuals different than heterosexuals and deserving of an accommodation that is relevant to the difference. That accommodation should not include the scrapping of an institution that fits the characteristics of heterosexuals and replacing it with a one size fits all blanket that denies the right of heterosexuals to the continuation of the institution that is designed only for heterosexuals.

It is a bit like the idea that is so common now that men only clubs are a denial of the equality of women yet, women because they are different than men should be able to continue with women only clubs.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.

This will go for all men and women.

There's your equality.

Bumf.

Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

[mona]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

Canada is full of a bunch of pushover pussies.

When will we take a stand on ANYTHING?

I think I will start the constitutional right to marry your pets!

What a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SatanHarper: you're right this, country is going to the dogs. The conservatives who can't get over the fact that everyone has the right to love! the homosexual community wants to marry is the same reason the heterosexual community does: to tell the world that they love their partner and that they want to spend the rest of their lives with them. I don't see that as a crime. Gay people are humans just like me (I reluctantly say "and you") and it is a human right to love and be loved. Don't take their right to companionship away.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's true. And unfortunate for us thinking free-enterprisers. What is less known is that there are MPs from all parties who have actively spoken out against gay marriage and abortion. I read about an ND MP from the maritimes who was a catholic priest who I believe was espousing the criminalization of homosexuality and abortion. We all know there are Liberal MPs who oppose these things too. It just seems like whenever a CONSERVATIVE MP does it everyone in Ontario starts pointing fingers: "see? SEE? I TOLD you they are all redneckk bigots!!" Painting everyone with the same brush. It's prejudice. If I told you I saw three first nations people drinking drunk on the street and that "all aboriginal people are like that" you'd call me a bigot. But if a Liberal sees three Cons say something and says "they're all like that" he's a hero. Go figure.

[cybercoma]

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.

This will go for all men and women.

There's your equality.

Bumf.

Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No you see, this is not marriage. It's discrimination because it's not the same thing at all. Gay couples want to be the same as heterosexual couples, when for obvious reasons they're not.

[cybercoma]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

Canada is full of a bunch of pushover pussies.

When will we take a stand on ANYTHING?

I think I will start the constitutional right to marry your pets!

What a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SatanHarper: you're right this, country is going to the dogs. The conservatives who can't get over the fact that everyone has the right to love! the homosexual community wants to marry is the same reason the heterosexual community does: to tell the world that they love their partner and that they want to spend the rest of their lives with them. I don't see that as a crime. Gay people are humans just like me (I reluctantly say "and you") and it is a human right to love and be loved. Don't take their right to companionship away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but who's denying them companionship? Care to fear-monger some more? I don't recall the Conservative Party of Canada trying to pass a bill to imprison people for seeking the companionship of a same sex partner. Nice try.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.

This will go for all men and women.

There's your equality.

Bumf.

Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No you see, this is not marriage. It's discrimination because it's not the same thing at all. Gay couples want to be the same as heterosexual couples, when for obvious reasons they're not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're missing a very obvious point. Gay couples AREN'T the same as heterosexual couples. They are HOMOSEXUAL couples.

My question is: why don't we enact a law changing the deifinition of the word "HETEROSEXUAL". It's equally as absurd.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We all know there are Liberal MPs who oppose these things too.  It just seems like whenever a CONSERVATIVE MP does it everyone in Ontario starts pointing fingers: "see?  SEE?  I TOLD you they are all redneckk bigots!!"  Painting everyone with the same brush.  It's prejudice. 

It is universally acknowledged that there are people in the Conservative party who are not social conservatives. But as between al te parties, the so-cons are more represneted in the Conservative party, and the Conservative party's policies are the ones most influenced and influencable by social conservatism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.

If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.

This will go for all men and women.

There's your equality.

Bumf.

Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No you see, this is not marriage.

Civil marriage is whatever the duly constitued civil authority says it is.

... Gay couples want to be the same as heterosexual couples, when for obvious reasons they're not.

You say "obvious reasons". I say I don't find them obvious at all, and I doubt they constitute anything resembling reasonable. But hey, I'll keep an open mind ... what are your 'reasons'?

[cybercoma]

You see, a gay couple has partners of the same sex, a heterosexual couple are partners of opposite sex. Different things. I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned.

[The Terrible Sweal]

My question is:  why don't we enact a law changing the deifinition of the word "HETEROSEXUAL".  It's equally as absurd.

What is absurd is that comment.

It would be absurd to enact laws changing the definition of heterosexual because the word has no legal status. By contrast, changing the LEGAL definition of marriage is an appropriately legal exercise.

You claim to be a lawyer, but I frankly doubt it if you need to be instructed on this basic sort of thing.

[Riverwind]

You see, a gay couple has partners of the same sex, a heterosexual couple are partners of opposite sex.  Different things.  I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned.

A mixed race couple are partners with different races, same race couple are partners of the same race. Different things. I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned too.

At one point in time it was considered immoral for a white person to marry a black person (considered against the laws of nature and an abominiation). It don't see any difference between the racial bigotry of the past and the gay bigotry that SSM opponents seem to have.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You see, a gay couple has partners of the same sex, a heterosexual couple are partners of opposite sex.  Different things.  I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that really the best you can muster? That's not a reason. By this logic if someone asks you why a dog barks you would answer 'because it barks'. Why is the sky blue? You'd answer 'because the sky is blue.'

Try again. I'll even help. Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is?

[JerrySeinfeld]

You see, a gay couple has partners of the same sex, a heterosexual couple are partners of opposite sex.  Different things.  I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that really the best you can muster? That's not a reason. By this logic if someone asks you why a dog barks you would answer 'because it barks'. Why is the sky blue? You'd answer 'because the sky is blue.'

Try again. I'll even help. Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You answered your own question. You are asking why it's different. Because it is. Think about it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

My question is:  why don't we enact a law changing the deifinition of the word "HETEROSEXUAL".  It's equally as absurd.

What is absurd is that comment.

It would be absurd to enact laws changing the definition of heterosexual because the word has no legal status. By contrast, changing the LEGAL definition of marriage is an appropriately legal exercise.

You claim to be a lawyer, but I frankly doubt it if you need to be instructed on this basic sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I spoke as a lawyer in a quote meant to be a joke about same sex divorce. "I am lawyer and I'm all for SSM...we'll make a killing!!!" I am NOT a lawyer thank god.

Gay people can't get married: they're GAY!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Oh boy. If the level of rationality on exhibit in the two prior posts is an example of conservative thinking, then 'thinking' is an overly generous term for it.

P.S. Will any SSM opponent even try to defend you position? Answer just one question:

Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is?

If you can't or won't answer this question, then your position is not only worthless, it is ridiculous.

[Big Blue Machine]

For me, same sex is a clash inside me. On one hand, I'm catholic and have been brought up with the notion of man and woman marriage only. I support that view. But it's a question of rights, if you know what I mean. People should have the right to marry, wheter their sexual style. I'm not against gays. In fact, I have a very talented and fun music talent who has a male "partner".

[JerrySeinfeld]

Oh boy.  If the level of rationality on exhibit in the two prior posts is an example of conservative thinking, then 'thinking' is an overly generous term for it.

P.S.  Will any SSM opponent even try to defend you position?  Answer just one question: 

Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is?

If you can't or won't answer this question, then your position is not only worthless, it is ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am pro SSM so I am the wrong one to ask. I am just here for the debate. I luv to question conventional wisdom. More Canadians should do the same. This country's government just continuously railroads things thru and we just take it. We are an annoyingly passive society and I think it's healthy to shake up the debate.

Good question, though. The simple answer is that society's laws tend to reflect societal values and as those values change over time, so too the laws will tend to change. It's partly the reason we have a jury system. Many times in history, juries have set case law by refusing to convict someone who has blatantly broken the "law" and hence the law changes. Some societies see polygamy as normal. And their laws reflect that. The change in laws is a very gradual process that happens over time as values change.

The question before us is this: "Are we ready to accept same sex unions as marriages". The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding. Presumably the house members will vote to represent their constituents and we will once and for all have the answer as to whether we are ready as a society to do what only two other countries on the globe have done.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding.

You mean "as the Martin government is providing".

[JerrySeinfeld]

The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding.

You mean "as the Martin government is providing".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it a free vote? I wasn't aware. If so, then I am with Martin on this one. See how easy it is to drop your partisan colours and see the world for what it is?

[August1991]

The question before us is this: "Are we ready to accept same sex unions as marriages". The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding. Presumably the house members will vote to represent their constituents and we will once and for all have the answer as to whether we are ready as a society to do what only two other countries on the globe have done.

Seinfeld, should the rights of a minority be decided by majority vote? Think what that means.

Civilized countries have thought this idea through. And the answer? Harper is merely Trudeau. The ultimate measure of civilization is how a majority treats a minority.

Edited June 25, 2005 by August1991

[JerrySeinfeld]

The question before us is this: "Are we ready to accept same sex unions as marriages". The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding. Presumably the house members will vote to represent their constituents and we will once and for all have the answer as to whether we are ready as a society to do what only two other countries on the globe have done.

Seinfeld, should the rights of a minority be decided by majority vote? Think what that means.

Civilized countries have thought this idea through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much a Pauly has tried to make it into one, it is not a human rights issue. Marriage is not a human right, ask Amnesty.