same sex marriage circus

[August1991]

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.

Seinfeld, you claim to be a lawyer then admit you're not. What's the story?

[Gawd, this is an Internet Forum where you can claim what the heck you want. On this forum in particular, just say what you think.]

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.

Sorry to repeat, minority rights should not be decided by majority vote. That's why the US has a Bill of Rights. But ultimately, the measure of civility of any society is how the collective treats an individual - Trudeau's argument, and Harper's too.

[Left for life]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One organization doesn't have a monopoly on what is or isn't a human right.

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One organization doesn't have a monopoly on what is or isn't a human right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin. And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

[Left for life]

Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin.  And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin.  And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it.

There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society.

[Left for life]

Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin.  And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it.

There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously we are or there would be more outrage at the fact that this will likely pass next week, not to mention gay marriage has been allowed in most provinces already by courts decisions. If a majority of people don't have a problem with it then it is acceptable to society. I don't care about traditionalists and religious conservatives who are against gay marriage, they are a minority in Canada.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Neither do you, gays or Paul Martin.  And I'd say Amnesty is certainly more of an authority on it that you, Paul Martin of shacked-up gay people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it.

There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously we are or there would be more outrage at the fact that this will likely pass next week, not to mention gay marriage has been allowed in most provinces already by courts decisions. If a majority of people don't have a problem with it then it is acceptable to society. I don't care about traditionalists and religious conservatives who are against gay marriage, they are a minority in Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't care about minorities?

It may well be that we are ready. But I would've bet the farm it would pass in an OREGON (very lefty) referendum but it didn't.

Just because Canadians don't fight it vigorously doens't mean it is accepted. It MIGHT be, but Canadians don't fight very many things vigorously so its not a great test.

[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".

<{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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is set to be a free vote. Ministers in the cabinet are expected to toe the line, but other government MPs are at liberty to vote as they wish.

[stewgots]

the fourth option is faulty"don't know,don't care",i just don't bloody care,this is just another stupid government smokescreen,detracting us from the "hard issues",that they can't seem to deal with!

[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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a biologically compatible relationship regardless of a person's race. Someone's skin colour and the type of gonads they have are entirely different issues.

[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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a biologically compatible relationship regardless of a person's race. Someone's skin colour and the type of gonads they have are entirely different issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should the state be bothered worrying about what sort of gonads are involved?

[cybercoma]

No one here is denying anyone the right to have a relationship with someone of the same sex. If they're in love, they're in love. What's being denied is the title of marriage because it is not the same type of relationship at all as one between couples of opposite sex. I'm really not sure what's not to understand here.

No one is persecuting gays or telling them they can't have civil unions or live together in loving harmony for the rest of their lives. What they're saying is it's not marriage because it's not between people of opposite sex.

[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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a biologically compatible relationship regardless of a person's race. Someone's skin colour and the type of gonads they have are entirely different issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should the state be bothered worrying about what sort of gonads are involved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because family law that pertains to opposite sex marriage doesn't pertain to same sex couples who have no means of creating offspring.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why should the state be bothered worrying about what sort of gonads are involved?

Because family law that pertains to opposite sex marriage doesn't pertain to same sex couples who have no means of creating offspring.

What a muddle.

First off, our society does not base marriage on reproductive potential. Infertile couples are perfectly free to marry in our society.

Second, you are not even responding to what I asked. I asked about 'what should', you respond with a (incorrect) reference to 'what does'.

Tell me something, CC. If I shoot down every one of your arguments against it, would you EVER admit SSM should be allowed?

[cybercoma]

What a muddle. 

First off, our society does not base marriage on reproductive potential.  Infertile couples are perfectly free to marry in our society. 

Second, you are not even responding to what I asked.  I asked about 'what should', you respond with a (incorrect) reference to 'what does'.

Tell me something, CC.  If I shoot down every one of your arguments against it, would you EVER admit SSM should be allowed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why am I required to agree with it? By calling it the same thing as a heterosexual marriage you cheapen the whole purpose for heterosexual marriage which is to build a foundation for family. No matter how hard you try, two sperm cells were not designed to create another human being; whereas science could possibly make someone who is infertile fertile some day.

Tell you what. Why don't we ban marriage altogether? Why should anyone have something known as a "legal" marraige? What's the purpose of it? People can live together and have whatever religious ceremonies they want to show their commitment to one another; however, they state will always recognize them as individuals.

[JerrySeinfeld]

the fourth option is faulty"don't know,don't care",i just don't bloody care,this is just another stupid government smokescreen,detracting us from the "hard issues",that they can't seem to deal with!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NICE POST!

I was actually doing the math and based upon the 1% assumption, we are probably talking about a few hundred gay marriage ceremonies every year.

It IS such a smokescreen.

As a small c conservative I'd like to see the CPC drop this issue and start talking about things that matter to Canadians. Health care...taxes...taxes...and yes...TAXES. We pay alot of money every year to this central government. We work hard to take care of the ones we love and close to HALF of our money goes to Ottawa. We'd like to ensure that this money is actually being confiscated for a good reason.

My mother is very VERY ill,yet the public system continually asks her to wait for treatment. It makes me sick that people in this country would rather see people die than to comprimise their ideology of equal health care.

Harper et al are falling right into the Liberal trap: small time social issue are dominating over the issues sthat really matter.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What a muddle. 

First off, our society does not base marriage on reproductive potential.  Infertile couples are perfectly free to marry in our society. 

Second, you are not even responding to what I asked.  I asked about 'what should', you respond with a (incorrect) reference to 'what does'.

Tell me something, CC.  If I shoot down every one of your arguments against it, would you EVER admit SSM should be allowed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why am I required to agree with it?

You're answer is No, then?

By calling it the same thing as a heterosexual marriage you cheapen the whole purpose for heterosexual marriage which is to build a foundation for family. 

Since reproduction as a motve has been dispensed with, your idea that SSM cheapens marriage seems to lack any sensible content.

Tell you what.  Why don't we ban marriage altogether?  Why should anyone have something known as a "legal" marraige?  What's the purpose of it?  People can live together and have whatever religious ceremonies they want to show their commitment to one another; however, they state will always recognize them as individuals.

How about instead the state provides any two willing people with a civil union and leaves 'marriage' to whatever religions or cults want to define it for their participants?

[Guest eureka]

Why don't we just do away with any idea for committed relationships. Why not "Fre Love" without any obligations. Promiscuous sexuality and no pretence that it is all about something nobler.

There would be no need for any benefits to accrue to unions. There could simply be an "equalization" payment to all citizens.

[Black Dog]

cybercoma  Jun 24 2005, 10:17 PM 

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.

That still doesn't answer the very basic question of why the gender of the participants is essential to marriage being marriage. Clearly, in light of the decreasing importanc eof the "traditional" family in society, it is not.

Put it another way: same sex partnerships already meet the same standards as marriage, save for the gender one.

The right to marry a partner of one's choosing is far more essential to marriage than the gender of the participants.

SatanHarper  Jun 25 2005, 12:30 AM 

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?

If there's a case to be made for polygamy or even incest (surely what consenting adults do behind closed doors is not society's business?), then anyone wanting to make that case can do so now, SSM or no SSM. The Same Sex Marriage bill doesn't make those practices legal, nor does it "open the door". I've asked how it does, and you've failed to show how this particular legislation does so. This proposed legislation doesn't offer any other group any remedies they don't already have. It deals with gay marriage and gay marriage only.

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.

Are you a firtune teller? A psychic? Because you're trying to predict the future here, based on the assumption that any and all legal protections can be abandoned at will. That's not the case. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right, and it's in the state's best interests to ensure that any church, temple, mosque or what have you that does not wish to sanctify gay marriage does not have to. There's plenty of religious institutions that will.

JerrySeinfeld  Jun 25 2005, 02:44 PM 

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

Because we're dealing with a legal definition which, as I pointed out earlier, can and do change all the time.

As for the rest, I'll give Andrew Sullivan, a gay conservative, a say:

...the rules of marriage have changed beyond recognition in the West over the past few thousand years. For 800 years after Christ, for goodness' sake, the church didn't even celebrate marriage! For over a thousand years in the West, arranged marriages were common, as were marriages between minors and adults. For hundreds of years, slaves could not marry at all, women were the legal property of their husbands, blacks could not marry whites, Christians could not marry Jews, divorce was illegal, and so on and on. Were all these changes the result of people "making up" the rules for themselves against thousands of years of tradition? Did they all represent a choice between order and the abandonment of all moral limits? Of course not. Each of them was the result of social change, of people looking at the institution and asking if reform made sense or did not.

Link.

[Shakeyhands]

I find this very interesting. This is a very similar situation as the budget debate, with agreement between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc does that not represent a fair majority of Canadians represented? Limiting debate that amounts to a fillibuster is ok in my books...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

He says if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois have thrown their support behind it, the proposed law making same-sex marriage legal across the country is almost assured passage some time this week.

Members of Parliament are debating the final stages of Bill C-38 in an extended sitting of the House of Commons.

Parliament was to start its summer break last week, but the minority Liberal government succeeded in extending the sitting to pass a budget amendment and put the same-sex marriage bill to its final Commons test.

The bill establishing the Civil Marriage Act could pass before the weekend.

MacKay told CBC Newsworld he believes the Liberals will try to invoke closure on debate, with the co-operation of the NDP and Bloc.

[THELIBERAL]

Did any of you Conservatives notice the outcome of the poll here?

61% in favor of gay marriage!

I just don't see the argument against it! Sorry but this will have absolutely no effect on my marriage IF IT did then my views would probably change!

It is interesting I have to admit to watch the bigots try in vain to cover up their bigotry over this issue!

It just the definition that bothers them????? Yeah right!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Did any of you Conservatives notice the outcome of the poll here?

61% in favor of gay marriage!

I just don't see the argument against it! Sorry but this will have absolutely no effect on my marriage IF IT did then my views would probably change!

It is interesting I have to admit to watch the bigots try in vain to cover up their bigotry over this issue!

It just the definition that bothers them????? Yeah right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The poll is hardly scientific.

[Leader Circle]

As I have said before, if ssm is truly a matter of national interest(as has been called by Liberals), why not have a referendum? I am sure, if Canadians were asked the question, according to the rules of the Clarity Act, they would lose this debate for ssm. Canada is not ready for this. Also, as was said above, the Libs, NDP & Bloc MP's do not represent all the opinions of their constituents. Some are for it because of how they feel not how all their constituents feel!!!

So for them to have a free vote is kinda silly. The vote will go for how they feel. The same is also true for those against ssm, many of their constituents will be for ssm.

As for you Blackdog,

You are right(as much as I hate to say it), in a round about way. Nothing is stopping incestuous people or polygamists from making a case, but it opens the door by setting a precedent for them. They will have another ruling to follow. It gives strength to many other minority causes.

That was all I was saying.

It does seem inevitable that this will become law, I just see a major backlash from the religious right and from John Q Canadian when it actually does make law. If the Conservatives become the gov't in the next election, I think they will be pressured to appeal this and we'll be back into the debate again! I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

[THELIBERAL]

RE::The poll is hardly scientific.

What poll is when it goes against your beliefs!

[Leader Circle]

RE::The poll is hardly scientific.

What poll is when it goes against your beliefs!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly enjoy stirring shit don't you THETROLL, I mean LIBERAL.

In a heavy left forum, these results should be higher. Must be some lefties with morals. Who would have thought????