Marriage Scenarios

[Scotchneat]

Objectively, marriage is just a legal construct. If you want it to be a "union blessed by God" or whatever else, that's your business. You could make the mission statement of your company "Serve Lord Jesus", but that wouldn't make legally incorporated companies in general servants of Christ.

Those arguing against "homosexual marriage" have to fall back on the slippery slope argument, because the majority of peole don't consider homosexuality to be wrong. Given the premise that homosexuality is okay, you have to accept that homosexuals can marry, unless someone throws a curve ball ie Yes, people can choose to be homosexuals (provided they keep it to themselves....) and being a homosexual doesn't make a person a bad person per se (but they tend to be bad people) However,

marriage is different (it's either religious or quasi-religious) and if gays can marry then marriage won't be different anymore and that's bad because the fact that marriage is different separates us from the animals and civilization as we know it will collapse...

I think that most people realize that marriage is not different (ie like any construct it has no inherent nature), however, they haven't thought it through, so the "sky will fall in" arguments tend to be effective. The problem is that the sky won't fall in, gays will marry and not much will change as a result.

That's not to say that it is trivial. Like discrimination of any kind, the fact that gays are prevented from marrying is offensive to human dignity. However, civilization will carry on as before albeit being a little more just.

[dnsfurlan]

Scotchneat,

Marriage is a social value, as well as a religious institution. You don't have to belong to a religion to believe that something like traditional marriage is good for society. You brought up religion, I didn't.

You also seemed to be obsessed with this slippery slope argument. Again, its not the only one being used here. Why are you trying to frame the debate on your own terms?

Also, just because homosexuality can be accepted doesn't mean you have to accept homosexual marriages. Current society tolerates alternative lifestyles. It doesn't mean we have to recognize them as marriages.

If most people think as you do then why the need for the courts. A referendum would do just fine, wouldn't it?

And where is the terrible injustice in excluding homosexual relationships from the definition of marriage? Doesn't dignity come from within? All people have all the same rights in this country. If people want to get married, they can find someone of the opposite sex to get married to. If people want to chose something else, where is the indignity in that?

Now, I know that the argument can be turned the other way around. That is, what is the harm in allowing gay marriage? It won't detract from heterosexual marriage, right?

Well, I think it comes from a continuing erosion of the traditional family and of traditional values. Furthermore, what exacerbates the debate is the attempt to have the courts define what marriage is. If your cause is just, your arguments well reasoned, and the people as open to your views as you say, then there shouldn't be any severe obstacles on the road to a democratic changing of the values set by society, should there be? However, with the way this thing is going down, its as though the people on your side are afraid of debating the issue. You just want to ram it through the courts, don't you?

And, even though it is certainly not the only argument, you have not addressed the slippery slope argument. If we allow homosexual relationships into marriage, what else needs to be let in? Instead of complaining about this specific line of reasoning, why not address it? How will the slippery slope be avoided?

[Scotchneat]

You can go the social (quasi-religious) if you want but marriage is not a value. Bernardo and Homolka were married, did that make them good people?

Marriage is a legal vehicle which can produce positive result for society just as incorporated companies can produce positive results. However, the positive results apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexual ie people take better care of themselves physically and mentally, it creates a stable environment to raise children etc.

You seem to be bothered by gays using the courts to have gay marriage recognized. We have constitutional government which means that not everything is up to the whims of the legislatures. Basic rights under the constitution are ruled on by the courts.

Do you really want a referendum on gay marriage? What if you lose? It will be a big set back for religious folk like yourself (I assume you are religious, otherwise why would you care?).

But in any case, it is offensive to human dignity that gays are denied the right to marry, because marriage confers benefits (parental rights, survival benefits, tax etc.) on the married couple. Why shouldn't homosexuals have those benefits, if homosexuality is acceptable. Do you only tolerate homosexuals as long as you don't have to see them as normal people ie people having full rights under the law?

As for the slippery slope, there is no slippery slope. I am suppose to think "gays today, next a 40 year old man will be marrying a five year old girl!" . People will still have families for better or worse etc. Basically , nothing will change except we'll have a more tolerant society.

[FastNed]

Hi Scotchneat & all -

Marriage is a Judeo-Christian religious concept and relationship. If I have Googled correctly, this is year 5764 in the Jewish calendar so we have had this as a religious concept and relationship for at least six thousand years. While the acceptance of homosexuality has varied at different times and places, marriage has always been something for a man and woman only. I suggest that traditional marriage is an essential part of our lives, our culture and our civilization. Let us not be too quick to discard six thousand years of a relationship which has worked well.

Our Laws acknowledge this relationship in many ways; real estate, pensions, health insurance, inheritance law are the main ones mentioned and each would be changed with Gay marriage. There are massive religious, social and economic considerations involved with this issue but the majority of debate has centered around the concept of "Rights" with little or no discussion of the legal consequences and financial costs of such a change. There must be such a discussion.

I do not see any justification for any Court, in Canada or America, to suddenly discover a Charter right , Human right, Civil right or Constitutional right to gay marriage which contradicts some six thousand years of tradition and law.

Gay people are said to be somewhere between 3 and 10 percent of our population and that is a substantial number. If gay people wish a legal relationship equivalent to marriage then the legislative process should be used to achieve this end. Each jurisdiction (State or Province) has a different body of interrelated laws in all of the areas mentioned above and these interrelationships must be considered. Should a Gay "common-law marriage" be allowed or mandated in "common-law" jurisdictions? If my memory is correct, if a man and woman spend a week-end together in Florida, that can be sufficient to establish a "common-law marriage". What about "community property" jurisdictions? When a married person inherits property, their partner automatically has an interest (often 50%) in that inheritance, should this be extended to gay marriage? There are many significant legal issues which are not being discussed or considered and they should be, before the fact not after!

[Ronda]

But in any case, it is offensive to human dignity that gays are denied the right to marry, because marriage confers benefits (parental rights, survival benefits, tax etc.) on the married couple.

They can marry. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not related to them, not already married, etc. etc.

If I want to marry, I can. If I want to marry my brother, tough. Ditto for my sister. Why is that so hard to grasp??

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if there was a law that said "HOMOSEXUALS AND/OR BISEXUALS MAY NOT MARRY!" I would be all for striking it down as discrimination. However, changing the rules to incorporate a person's personal choice of partner is not the same thing. Changing the definition of marriage is a different matter. If marriage "discriminates" against gays because they are only attracted to same sex partners, does it discriminate against bisexuals half the time??

This is where your slippery slope argument comes into being. There are polygamists who immigrate here and have to leave their "excess" wives back at home, with the children conceived of that union, in order to live here. Is that discrimination??

What if I want to marry a couple other people as well as my husband because they have a good benefits package? You may have heard the term "Friends with benefits"... That's about to turn into a much more literal term.

[Scotchneat]

I meant that it is discrimination that homosexuals cannot marry other homosexuals. The reason that it is discrimination is that the legal definition of marriage is not just the "union of a man and a woman" , it is a "man and woman living together and having conjugal relations ie sex" . So I can live with a woman ie living with my mother, but since we don't have sex she can't assert a common law marriage nor can I. So the basis of marriage is having sex (if you don't have sex, the marriage can be annulled).@@So in the past, it was recognized that living with and having sex with a person of the opposite sex would allow you to be married and allow you to get certain benefits, but living with and having sex with a person of the same sex wouldn't. It's an arbitrary distinction and hence discrimination.

The slippery slope I was referring to is FastNed argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so if we change that somehow marriage will be meaningless and people will stop having families.

Your slippery slope argument that we'll have to consider other types of marriages has more validity. However, we do not have accept all types of marriages. For example, there is an age requirement for marriage which is justifiable. As for the consanguinity restrictions, such restrictions are arbitrary because we can now predict the possibility of genetic disorders, but such information can't be used to prevent people from marrying or reproducing.

[FastNed]

Call me a cynic, but "legislative morality" is an oxymoron in my opinion. But let's take a more christian view and presume (a leap of faith) that such a thing does exist. At a minimum, we expect such people to have a system of ethics and morality and those who have a religion, one would expect to hold the moral views taught and expressed as part of that religion.

Each religion (most?) has someone at the peak who speaks with authority; for Catholics, it is the Pope, for Church of England, the Archbishop of C. and so forth. When that authority figure speaks on a question of morality, that then is or becomes the moral view of that religion. We can not wish those in legislative positions to be amoral so we should expect their ethics/morality to be a part of their experience and something to be considered before they establish public policy or pass a law. They are there to represent us - to enable us to adjust our different moral views and social views so that we can live together in a peaceful and civilized fashion. Here in North America we do not and will not have religious riots with members of one faith killing another, neither do we have clan or tribal warfare. We expect and require that our legislators find common ground so that we may live together in the richness of our different viewpoints and faiths. This truly is the secret of our success as civilized Nations.

This issue of gay "marriage" has the potential to put us at war with each other and we can not allow that to come to pass. I myself have no idea if being gay is genetic although there does appear to be a lack of peer reviewed evidence to support such a position but even so, the strength of our way of life is that we do not force a minority of us to agree with majority opinion. We do not have a State "Religion" or "Morality Code" to which all must comply, we North Americans made that choice long ago and we are better for it. There is also no question that under our legal systems (Canada & America) the status of "Married" creates a multitude of legal rights and establishes legal certainty in areas such as Inheritance, Real Property, Living Wills, Divorce and so forth. Two groups lack legal certainty in matters which flow from their relationship: gay couples and couple who elect to live together (and sometimes have children) without marriage. The latter group gets little sympathy as they elected to forswear marriage. Their choice, their problem. Which leaves us with the question of gay couples and their desire for a "legal" relationship. The issue is not going to go away, we must find some solution which allows us to continue to live in peace together so let's accept the fact that three percent of us have a different moral position than ours and reach a compromise with which we both can live.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I'm bringing up the religion issue again. If gay marriage is said to be against Christian beliefs AND this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, what if one Church decided that it was all right to have same-sex marriage.

I've used the United Church as an example in the past because of their liberal social views, and for the anti-gay marriage Church I used the Catholic Church. So if it is a question of being against Christian beliefs or marriage is part of Christian heritage, obviously we have conflicting beliefs. How is this to be resolved? Do we claim one religion is better than the other?

[FastNed]

No Lost, what you mention is our strength - the strength of democracy.

Religious Freedom means exactly that - subject to generally accepted rules. Symbolic sacrifices, or the fatted calf, or even a rooster may p1ss off PETA but are within the parameters of what we find acceptable religious practice. Human sacrifice, the eldest son or the virgin child is not. I have a friend in California who attends a "Black Mass" on a regular basis - and yes, I think she is sick and yes, I have a few weird friends but so long as the rules are not violated, it fits under "religious freedom". So if some denomination or religion allows "Gay Marriage", that is their version of morality and so be it. Their moral code is their business so long as they don't try to force it down my throat and make me follow it.

I long ago accepted that the only body I control or have a right to control is mine; likewise, for my bed. I happen to be an unashamed, unabashed, confirmed heterosexual who believes God's greatest gift to man is woman. But because I believe this, it does not mean others must.

As I said above:

"We expect and require that our legislators find common ground so that we may live together in the richness of our different viewpoints and faiths. This truly is the secret of our success as civilized Nations."

To be quite candid, I do believe that Gay people should be careful of what they wish for, they just might get it. Welcome to the world of divorce lawyers!

[Neal.F.]

I know there are a few of you in the Toronto area, so this might be of interest to you. People need to get out , as well as continue the e-mail, and letter campaigns, If we are to stop Svend Robinson's C-250 and Chretien and Cauchon's gay marriage Bill.

-------------------------------------

MASS RALLY/TOWNHALL

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AND THE CONSTITUTION

AUGUST 27TH, 2003

The Christian Coalition International Canada is pleased to announce a Mass Rally /Townhall Meeting to take place at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship Centre facilities on August 27th from 7.30PM to 10.30PM. TACF is located at 272 Attwell Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M9W 6M3, near Pearson International Airport. Directions will be available on CCIC Inc's website at: www. ccicinc.org , as well as at the bottom of this e-mail.

Members of Parliament, the Senate of Canada, Rev. David Mainse, formerly President of Crossroads Television Systems, and many others will be speaking at this important Mass Rally/Townhall Meeting event on the subject, that is expected to contribute to shaping the future direction of our nation in the years to come.

The Rally / Townhall will center around the subject of the Defense of Marriage in the context of the current debate on the proposed Same-Sex Marriage draft legislation, and associated freedom of speech to oppose such, which is threatened by the Hate Crimes Private Member's Bill C-250, which is currently pending before Parliament.

These two connected legislative initiatives will have far reaching consequences for the free exercise of all religions, the moral basis of Canadian society as a whole, and will affect the expression of moral viewpoints contrary to quasi-human rights based homosexual equality rights contained in these legislative proposals.

Bill C-250 proposes Criminal Sanction for any expression of fact, opinion or belief deemed contrary to sexual orientation rights proposed to be codified in the Hate Propaganda sections of Criminal Code of Canada. The so-called "religious text exemption" added to this Bill is wholly inadequate, will only serve to undermine religious freedoms, as it does not preclude Criminal charges being laid, but similar to existing legal defenses, only serves as a vague and undefined defense after the fact.

These are extremely serious issues for Canadians of all religious backgrounds and all citizens of traditional moral persuasion. Please join the Christian Coalition International Canada in opposing these radical changes affecting our freedoms, the social fabric, and the Constitution of Canada.

We look forward to seeing you at this most significant event at TACF August 27th, 2003. The meeting will start at 7.30PM sharp.

Christian Coalition International (Canada) Inc.

P.O. Box 6013, Station A

Toronto, Ontario

Canada M5W 1P4

Phone nr. 1-905-824-6526

[Lost in Manitoba]

Neal, wondering what your response to my last post might be. In short: In our Judeo-Christian society, if a Church(denomination) decides to accept and perform same-sex marriages, should they be upheld by the gov't/courts as legal.

[Ronda]

So I can live with a woman ie living with my mother, but since we don't have sex she can't assert a common law marriage nor can I.... So in the past, it was recognized that living with and having sex with a person of the opposite sex would allow you to be married and allow you to get certain benefits, but living with and having sex with a person of the same sex wouldn't.

It's an arbitrary distinction and hence discrimination.

Well, that's why marriage is understood as a sexual relationship that is entered into in order to begin a family, ie. childrearing. It is absolutely NOT an "arbitrary decision". That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Shall we enter into the reasons people can't marry their dog or their daughter even though they may live together and have sex???

The idea of commonlaw relationships and gay marriages and you now talking about how adult children living with parents are not considered married, etc. poses a problem. I know people who are in college, opposite sex, living together for cost reasons alone who end up being classed as "commonlaw". It is not the case and they do not wish it to be. I've read cases of twins who live together and wish to partake in marriage benefits and are angry they cannot. You touch upon this idea.

The point is that marriage and all the laws surrounding it directly address the unique nature of a romantic, sexual relationship between a man and a woman who, 9 times out of 10, if not more, end up being father and mother.

The primary purpose of the marriage relationship is not to be a stamp of approval, nor to provide a tax break, or allow one to take advantage of someone else's medical benefits. The purpose is to bind two people together firmly who will likely breed and raise children or at the very least be a lifelong familial connection. Sharing benefits and tax breaks, for example, speak to the special circumstances that are involved in such a relationship.

Marital benefits are there because of marriage; marriage is not there to get marital benefits. The benefits of marriage directly speak to the dynamics and circumstances involved in a heterosexual union. People got married before such benefits existed and the benefits were borne out of an understanding of what heterosexual marriage commonly consists of. Therefore, it is not discrimination that a person cannot marry someone of the same sex. Or of the same family. Or someone underage. Or more than one person.

No-fault divorce and fierce individualism has already warped most people's view of what marriage is. If you do not understand how recognising gay "marriages" will further damage the institution, you do not understand what marriage is supposed to be about.

For one thing, if marriage is nothing but a stamp of approval and free benefits card which is bestowed on a sexual relationship, what is the point? Heterosexual couples almost always have children and this tends to complicate divorce and give those couples at least a sense of responsibility to the other spouse. (I realise you can find exceptions to what I'm saying, I am referring to the norm) With gay couples, there is never a biological link, simply a sexual relationship. What's to stop them from divorcing? What's the point of making it at all difficult to divorce??

In heterosexual couples, generally, one spouse is at home and the other, therefore, is at a definite financial disadvantage. This is also a factor in marriage law. Gay couples very rarely have anything close to this type of dynamic.

Bottom line is that if marriage is to be redefined and reframed as something that reflects nothing but an adult's sexual partner, there is no reason to endorse it nor to avoid divorce. To once again quote Aldous Huxley's intro to Brave New World... he says that he doesn't doubt that in the future "marriage licenses will be given out like dog licenses, renewable once a year" - Oh, and you can have more than one "dog" at a time, too.

This generation, who has grown up with no fault divorce already has the idea of marriage completely wrong. I shudder to think what the next generation will grow up believing.

[Scotchneat]

Bestiality and incest are not analogous to a normal heterosexual relationship. How is a homosexual relation different from heterosexual relationship exactly? You mention procreation. Yes, homosexuals cannot produce offspring together, but just because a person is gay does not mean that the equipment is broken. Lesbian couples can readily have children with a sperm donor. Male homosexuals may have children from a previous relationship. Therefore, gays can and are involved in raising families. And what about the infertile couples who can't have children. Should they just pack it in because their childless relationship is a mockery of a proper marriage?

I recently read about some American politican stating "I oppose gay marriage for the survival of the species". What's the meaning of that statement? Everybody will become gay? As I mentioned above, gay people can procreate in any case. People will be so discouraged by the existence of gay marriage that they'll stop having children?

It's raw homphobia. People used to justify the discrimination against blacks the same way. Give them equal rights and everyone will become mixed. Why would everyone become mixed? And so what if they do?

The issue of gays in society is making normally rational people say some pretty crazy things.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I disagree with much of what you say Ronda including the sweeping generalization of:

'In heterosexual couples, generally, one spouse is at home and the other, therefore, is at a definite financial disadvantage. This is also a factor in marriage law. Gay couples very rarely have anything close to this type of dynamic'

Do most families actually have a stay at home parent these days? I think not. And to say that gay couples rarely do, well I think you must be making that up. Where did you find that little statistic.

Rather than being snide, let me agree with you on the issue of no-fault divorce and argue against common-law marriage. The marriage contract IS one of the most important parts of our society. Neither should it be entered into lightly or be easy to get out of. I do think people should be made to see a counselor and have a mandatory waiting time for the divorce of at least a year, if only to provide enough hassle to give future couples pause to think. I like the idea of the wrongdoer of a failed marriage losing half their assets. If the person is calculating enough, they may actually try a little harder to make things work. And where did the idea of prenuptuals come from and do we have them in Canada? If so, scrap them. The idea of protecting yourself in the case of future adultery seems to me a little cold hearted.

Common-law marriage, to me, and I hope I don't offend anyone, is the stuff of trailer park trash. Too busy drinking your beer and watching wrestling to get married and legitimize your children? C'mon. I meet so many people who call their boyfriend/girlfriend their husband/wife. No, you're not married. They have no committment to you and they can leave at anytime. This is how I see it. Fear of committment. Or perhaps just general apathy. Why should common-law marriage get any aproval from society or the gov't? If it's a matter of not being religious, just go to the courthouse and sign a form. It boggles the mind how two people can be declared (commonlaw) married by doing absolutely nothing. (anyway thats my rant)

[Ronda]

As I mentioned above, gay people can procreate in any case.

Yes, they can. They can marry too. They can procreate the old fashioned way with someone of the opposite sex or by adding the opposite sex's genetic material artificially. They can also marry someone of the opposite sex or they could live with someone of the same sex and attain "marriage benefits" after a year. What's your point exactly???

[Ronda]

...including the sweeping generalization of:

...

Too busy drinking your beer and watching wrestling to get married and legitimize your children? C'mon.

Sorry, what? Generalisations, you say?

I didn't find any statistics regarding what I said and I believe I mentioned that I was making a generalisation. Yes, households with children ARE at a financial disadvantage. Even if one is not at home, which you brought up, daycare is bloody expensive. And, contrary to what Scotch might lead you to believe, not many gay people have children - particularly ones that live with them in a gay household.

[Scotchneat]

I mention the fact that gay people can procreate, because many people think that they can't. There's alot of mixed up notions out there.

[Ronda]

No, Scotch, people think they DON'T procreate because of the fact that they are usually (obviously) coupled with someone of the same sex. Common sense would dictate that such partnerships would not beget children. People do not feel that gays CAN'T have children.

The flipside is people like you who think that gays CAN'T get married, or that they are not allowed because of who they are. This is not the case. Gays DON'T get married for the same reason sister/brothers don't get married or underage couples. The same reason people in this country only take one spouse instead of a few (or few hundred). Gays CAN marry. The people they may WANT to marry do not fit within the confines of the very definition of the word "marriage". Just like many people in our country. In fact, judging by the number of immigrants in this country, it would not surprise me (though I haven't looked it up) if polygamists outnumbered monogamous gay couples. And frankly, I think they're worse off. I would rather live with my chosen partner and claim marriage benefits after a year than have to leave them in a hellhole while I moved to safety.

[Scotchneat]

Who defines marriage? In the end it is defined by law. Laws can be changed.

The notion of marriage as a sacred institution has led to all kinds of nonsense. It used to be that a spouse could be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. As a result, murders could not be convicted.

The better question is are gays capable of living in a married state. The answer is yes. Accept that answer and you'll be a better person. Stop raising the canards like raising children etc.

People have all kinds of crazy ideas about homosexuals. Even now you'll hear "he can't be gay, because he has a wife". Gay people are capable of having sex with the opposite sex, they just don't want to do it.

[FastNed]

Scotch, I really think you are missing the point of all this. Bluntly, the vast majority of us could really care less what gay people do unless and until it infringes upon our lives. But keep this in mind - for years now in American as in Canada, we have seen claims of "Civil Rights" and "Charter Rights" twisted and abused and pushed far beyond anything we consider reasonable. We witness a Sask. Human Rights Commission finding that mere publication of biblical quotes constitutes an infringement upon "Gay" Rights. We witness pending legislation that defines our religious texts as "Hate Speech". We witness that in Ireland, with much the same "Hate Speech" Laws, the threat that mere publication of a statement from the Pope in a Church Newsletter will be prosecuted as "Hate Speech" and we see the handwriting on the wall. We of all people remember the meaning of "Mene, mene, teckel, upharsin" - it does not have to be in letters of fire!

Three percent or ten percent of our population, and their political allies, are not going to destroy our religions - over our dead bodies, that's how serious an issue this has become. This is not a "plays well with others" issue, this is an attack upon our core values which will not stand and we will not suffer it. This will lead to civil disobedience, civil strife and , bluntly, outright violence. Let us not go there!

[Ronda]

Scotch,

Your attitude baffles me and you clearly cannot actually defend your position beyond basically telling me to chill out. I'll look forward to your automatic acceptance and cavalier attitude when gay activists strike down decency laws and age of consent laws (see 365gay.com) or when the good folks at NAMBLA start having parades, assuming they aren't at the gay pride parades already. Also when polygamists scream for "equality".

If this is not your position, you do a really poor job of expressing yourself and should come up with some better arguments.

[SirRiff]

Ronda saying that letting two perfectly law abiding decent gays to marry will lead to little boys being legally sodomized by child preadors is fear mongering at its worst.

its obviously not going to happen so why do you keep trying to pretend its related?

there is NO consent issue with gay marraige, so it should have no effect on the consent of children. especially considering how touchy society is about protecting kids.

why do you keep making such bizarre and distastfull claims?

do you think that letting women become people and not just property will cause men sexually rejected by thier wives to go on raping rampades through society?

do you think that blacks when allowed to have sex with whites will lower the IQ of the nation and lead to the end of the white race?

because these all sound about equally plausable..

is this the only negative effects that people use to scare up support for preventing gay marriage?

i just dont think its a reasonable discussion to have...

Sirriff

[Scotchneat]

Well put Sir Riff. My basic point has been that once you accept that gay relationships are legitimate, then you ultimately have to accept gay marriage. However, these days most people accept gay relationships, but I admit that gay marriage does not have wide acceptance.

However, what bothers me that the opponents of gay marriage are throwing up canards and wild slippery slope arguments. ie

(1) The survival of the species argument

First, it's odd that in the middle of a population explosion, people are talking the extinction of the human race. What's the logic of this argument? Everyone will become gay? Even accepting that bizarre and highly improbable premise, since gay people can procreate it seems that the species could survive in any case.

(2) Marriage will lose its meaning/ family values will be destroyed

Marriage is just a legal construct and people are free to make what they want of it. If you think that marriage is a "union blessed by God", that's your prerogative and no one will stop you and the same is applicable for family values.

I guess the premise of this argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage will create some moral fatigue ie gays can marry, so I guess anything goes... I guess I'll go cheat on my spouse, neglect and abuse my children etc.

(3) Other forms of marriage currently not acceptable will become acceptable

This argument has some validity, only in that we will have to consider taboos in light of reason. Most taboos are logically justifiable ie the age requirement. The consanguinity restriction may need to be looked at again. Currently people cannot marry their first cousin. I believe the reason is that such a union could result in offspring with genetic disorders. However, we currently have a more advanced understanding of genetics, so cousins or anyone else susceptible to having offspring with genetic disorders can receive genetic counselling, so the traditional reason may no longer be applicable.

The same is true of polygamy.

However, the rational examination does not mean we have to accept such forms of marriage.

So the opponents should stick to arguing that (1) gay relationships are not acceptable (2) even if we should tolerate them, we shouldn't encourage them with official sanction.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Scotchneat,

The arguments against gay marriage do have some merit. The idea that it MAY end up trivializing marriage, for instance, may have a basis of truth. That is if it becomes a novelty for gay couples to get married just because they can, and then a few months later get divorced. I'd argue against this by looking at divorce rates now, or taking a look at commonlaw marriage which seems to be an apathetic process. If looked at from a sociological and philisophical, long range perspective, the arguments against MAY actually be on to something.

The against side though typically though attacks homosexuallity itself calling it unnatural, deviant, and mentally disturbed. This stems mostly from deeply ingrained religious thought. These people seem to be still in a Victorian mindset when it comes to sexual freedom and expression. These are the arguments that cannot be taken seriously, and these are the arguments that we most hear.

[theWatcher]

What about the fact that there is a difference between "Equal rights" and the "Same Rights".

Let's use men and women for example. They have "equal rights" to each other, but that is not the same as "same rights".

If I, as a male wish to use a public washroom, i use the Males lavatory. I could try to use the argument that I wished to be treated the same as women and use theirs. But I cannot. Therefore my rights are not the same.

But I am free to use the male’s washroom which means that I have an equivalent set of rights that are equal to women’s rights.

Change rooms work the same way. What about the Olympics? I would stand a better chance of winning a medal if I entered the woman’s Olympics, why are you depriving me of my right to competing for a medal?

Gays can be treated as equals by giving them a union that has all of the same rights as marriage does for hetero's, it should just be called something else.

Why call it something else? Because it is different, in most respects it is different.

Hundreds of laws would have to be changed to support it, for instance look at child custody.

Typically in Canada, when a couple divorces, the custody of the child goes to the woman, and the man makes support payments. I am not saying that is fair, that’s just the way it is. The man pays a portion of his salary as determined by a table in a legal document (after paying taxes on it) and the woman gets the money to use to help support the child (without paying taxes on it).

How will this work in a same sex marriage? If they adopt the child, or one of the women gets pregnant how is custody going to be determined and how will support payments be calculated?

Pension payments are based an actuary tables that take into account that women live longer than men, and payments are adjusted accordingly. This will now have to work differently when both people are of the same sex.

Insurance will have to be adjusted as well.

EI benefits for couples having children, how is this going to work? There are different lengths of time that mothers can take as compared to fathers. Will two women who marry and have a child both be eligible for mother’s rights, even if only one is pregnant?

When a same sex couple gets a child, what last name is the child going to use?

What about incest laws? They were created to prevent two headed babies created from diluting the gene pool, and since 2 brothers or sisters cannot make a child should they still be prevented from getting married? Or father/son, mother/daughter?

What about the titles “mother” and “father”? Every same sex marriage is missing one of them. So it could be argued that mother’s day and father’s day is discriminatory and should be banned. We can’t have little jimmy making mothers day cards in school now because he has two dads and no mother, and that would traumatize him.

Teachers are banned from using the M word and F word. Little jimmy gets hurt, the teacher asks “Is your parental unit at home? or should I phone them at work?” It’s going to sound like an episode of the Coneheads.

Two gay guys get married, adopt a child, divorce and each of them remarry. So the poor kid has a dad, and another dad, his dad’s step dad, and his other dad’s step dad. Wonder who he’s going to spend father’s day with.

Our laws end up getting way more complicated because any relating to marriage will have to have an asterisk next to each one showing the permutations of what is going to happen with the different permutations of possibilities.

It should keep a lot of lawyers employed trying to sort it all out.