Same-Sex Marriage

[SamStranger]

I apologize to all the gays, lesbians, trans, or bi's out their... but I am soooo against SSM that its not even funny. Aparently Paul Martin went to a confession booth at a Catholic Church in Montreal and begged for forgiveness for changing the traditional definition of marriage.

Hypo-f**king-crit eh?

[Leafless]

SamStranger

You wrote- " but I am soooo against SSM that it's not even funny"

The bastardization of the institution of marriage could be considered a crime and I don't think that's soooo funny.

[BigGunner]

I am in favour of it, because its not up to government do define what my family structure is, and if Dave and John want to be married, its neither my nor anyone elses business.

[Leafless]

BigGunner

You wrote- " I am in favour of it, because it's not up to goverrnment do define what my family structure is and if Dave and John want to be married, it's neither mine nor anyone elses buisness."

But that's the whole point, the government did get involved and made it THEIR BUISNESS.

Family structure must be upheld by all of society or we possibly could wind up all being bastards.

[sage]

There is a very simple answer to all of this.

Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions.

As for the proponents who yak about government having to uphold "family structure", what's next, banning common-law relationships? Last I looked you don't have be married to have a child, regardless your sexuality.

[tml12]

Sage,

"Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions."

That is what I have been arguing for years...

[cybercoma]

Sage,

"Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions."

That is what I have been arguing for years...

this is the perfect compromise.

[Black Dog]

But that's the whole point, the government did get involved and made it THEIR BUISNESS.

Where were you people when the government started to issue marriage licenses? You had no problem with state involvement in marriage before they decided to let gays join. It wasn't until you felt your little club was threatened that your kind decided the government has no business in marriage. So you'll excuse me and other SSM supporters for viewing your position has little more than a front for your dislike of gays.

Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions.

Government has only changed the definition of civil marriage. Religions who don't want to marry same sex couples don't have to. Why don't we just leave it at that?

Why should non religious people be denied the right to marry?

[tml12]

BlackDog,

"Why should non religious people be denied the right to marry?"

If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why.

[BigGunner]

What I agreed with is the fact that the 'equal mariage law' exempted churches and other religious organisations from participating - so that the state was NOT forcing this law on those of faith.

Had the government not included this exemption, then I would oppose it.

BigGunner

You wrote- " I am in favour of it, because it's not up to goverrnment do define what my family structure is and if Dave and John want to be married, it's neither mine nor anyone elses buisness."

But that's the whole point, the government did get involved and made it THEIR BUISNESS.

Family structure must be upheld by all of society or we possibly could wind up all being bastards.

[politika]

I am in favour of it, because its not up to government do define what my family structure is, and if Dave and John want to be married, its neither my nor anyone elses business.

But it is the governments business to interfere with the religious rights Canadians have?

[BigGunner]

In a separate post, I referred to the exemption that churches and religious institutions have from this law...so, NO - the government is not interfering with the religious rights of Canadians.

I am in favour of it, because its not up to government do define what my family structure is, and if Dave and John want to be married, its neither my nor anyone elses business.

But it is the governments business to interfere with the religious rights Canadians have?

[politika]

In a separate post, I referred to the exemption that churches and religious institutions have from this law...so, NO - the government is not interfering with the religious rights of Canadians.

I am in favour of it, because its not up to government do define what my family structure is, and if Dave and John want to be married, its neither my nor anyone elses business.

But it is the governments business to interfere with the religious rights Canadians have?

How come this has become a controversy among religious groups in Canada and they are moving to get the governments attention with this issue still?

[sage]

Actually the law does sort of interfere with the religious rights of Canadians. Remember the B.C. Knights of Colombus who refused to marry the lesbians in their hall?

Well the couple took them to the B.C. Human Rights tribunal. The tribunal essentially said that the K of C had the right to deny access, yet awarded something like $2,500 to the couple anyway. Not exactly the resounding vote of confidence the churches were assured they would have on this subject.

[crazymf]

Silence is consent.

My vote today in the federal election supports my disagreement with gay marriage.

I'm not about to tell other people what to do with their private life, but don't try and tell me 2 homos are equal but merely different to a real married couple. That's a load of crap.

[Leader Circle]

Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions.

Government has only changed the definition of civil marriage. Religions who don't want to marry same sex couples don't have to. Why don't we just leave it at that?

BD, how long before this right is taken away?

You know it will be, in the political destruction of religious rights.

How long ago was it that SSM was never going to happen??

If they want it, they'll get it. (SSM supporters...aka the oppressed minority!)

[Canuck Monk]

I am deeply against same-sex marriage. Just let them have a civil union.

[newbie]

... but don't try and tell me 2 homos are equal but merely different to a real married couple. That's a load of crap.

Aaah, such eloquence.

[Black Dog]

If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why.

Too bad marriage isn't soley a religious institution. It's also a state-sanctioned contract. I don't care if you don't believe that's the way it should be, that's the way it is.

Actually the law does sort of interfere with the religious rights of Canadians. Remember the B.C. Knights of Colombus who refused to marry the lesbians in their hall?

Well the couple took them to the B.C. Human Rights tribunal. The tribunal essentially said that the K of C had the right to deny access, yet awarded something like $2,500 to the couple anyway. Not exactly the resounding vote of confidence the churches were assured they would have on this subject.

That case has nothing to do with same sex marriage per se. They weren't looking for religious sanction for their union.

How come this has become a controversy among religious groups in Canada and they are moving to get the governments attention with this issue still?

Because some people can't resist beating a dead horse?

BD, how long before this right is taken away?

Probably never: the same Charter which allows gays to marry protects religious expression. After all, gay marriage has been a fact of life in Canada for years and yet none of the dir epredictions of the religious right have come to pass. Live and let live.

I am deeply against same-sex marriage. Just let them have a civil union.

Civil unions would not survive a Charter challenge. Seperate but equal isn't an option.

[Argus]

A better poll would also include the option "civil union".

[geoffrey]

Sage,

"Why not have marriage being only the recognition of a relationship by a church. Everyone else (homos and heteros alike) who want their relationship recognized by the state have civil unions."

That is what I have been arguing for years...

this is the perfect compromise.

There is no compromise with the left.

[fellowtraveller]

100% in favour.

Love and commitment should never be discouraged among consenting adults. I'd also extend that to polygamy.

I'll comment later on how divisive the term 'marriage' has become. The govt has absolutely no business in defining the term , it is what is causing all the grief. Let the individual define it, or some other institution like a church.

The govt should apply their own and excellent lead in the abortion issue to same sex marriage- by refusing to create any law, and staying out of the moral debate entirely.

[Black Dog]

There is no compromise with the left.

Not on this issue, no. Why should there be? Same sex marriage (and I've said this many times before) only concerns gay couples who want to get hitched. Everyone else should mind their business.

I'll comment later on how divisive the term 'marriage' has become. The govt has absolutely no business in defining the term , it is what is causing all the grief. Let the individual define it, or some other institution like a church.

The govt should apply their own and excellent lead in the abortion issue to same sex marriage- by refusing to create any law, and staying out of the moral debate entirely.

Are you (anmd anyone else who wants the government out of marriage) also in favour of eliminating state benefits for married couples?

[sage]

One of the best solutions to all this might simply be to repeal the whole F'ing thing.

Since the introduction of common-law property rights, etc. there really is no significant difference between being married and living common-law anyway.

The whole concept is perhaps a little outdated. Like a previous post had mentioned, it may be preferable to leave it up to people to define their relationship, as opposed to the government.

[sage]

Black Dog what specific state benefit is there to being married that is denied to common-law spouses?