Same-Sex Marriage

[YankAbroad]

What's "building a bridge between the past, present and future?"

Sounds like something Bill Clinton would say.

And I never cease to be astounded by the arguments of supposed "conservatives" that people would just stop having children altogether if it wasn't for a big government welfare program called "marriage" -- especially considering that over half of married couples don't have children living with them and alkmmost half of all children weren't born to legally married individuals.

[mar]

What's "building a bridge between the past, present and future?"

Sounds like something Bill Clinton would say.

And I never cease to be astounded by the arguments of supposed "conservatives" that people would just stop having children altogether if it wasn't for a big government welfare program called "marriage" -- especially considering that over half of married couples don't have children living with them and alkmmost half of all children weren't born to legally married individuals.

Damn! You're right.

We need a Defence of Marriage Act before these degenerates ruin the country.

[Clopin]

It's a good thing younger generations are more supportive of SSM. Indicative of where the 'bridged future' is heading.

[Clopin]

Upon evaluting the pros & cons debated here about SSM I conclude that Opposite-sex marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises from a heterosexual relations that serves as a bridge between past, present and future generations. The deconstruction of opposite-sex marriage leads to the unravelling of society.

Public benefits should not be awarded to promote personal or special-interest agendas. Public laws are intended to protect and promote public interests, not private lifestyle preferences. Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes, which is to encourage the birth and the raising of children; it is not meant to promote private interests.

My tin foil hat is on.

Did you get all that from the Real Women of Canada? Sounds like the mantra lives on. Too late for the tin foil it seems.

[mar]

Did you get all that from the Real Women of Canada? Sounds like the mantra lives on. Too late for the tin foil it seems.

ooooooh Clopin! Left AND feminist. Welcome.

OOPS. sorry I see you just don't say much but I dunno how to delete this

[A Hermit]

Legal marriage is a public institution established to achieve public purposes, which is to encourage the birth and the raising of children; it is not meant to promote private interests.

So according to you my Grandfather's second marriage shouldn't count, even though it ended up lasting longer than his first? After all, he and his second wife already had families (all grown up and moved out, some with kids of their own) from their previous marriages (both were widowed), and never had any intention of having children.

Why, I guess you're right! We should never allow public benefits to go to such selfish, selfish people with their disgusting personal special interest agendas...

[Shakeyhands]

blah, blah, blah.... it all comes down to people who 'don't agree with the gay lifestyle' bemoaning the equality of them. Some call these people a certain name.. any guesses?

The fact that no one has stated how it has impacted them in anyway speaks volumes, other than one responder who says his def. of marriage had to change... sad.

[Liam]

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line:

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -"

[Liam]

I am straight because I chose to be that way. I am here because I chose to be here. These are just things we choose to do and be, just as others choose to be gay.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are.

Brilliant!!

[uOttawaMan]

The fact is, the same thing has occured here , hundreds of years ago when people realised they could challenge the Church doctrine and not have the wrath of God strike them down.

Same-sex marriage was legalised, and the sun did not stop rising, society did not break down into mass violence. Too much time has passed, with nothing bad happening for Harper to do anything about this law.

You can say , but OMG what might be next? Polyigomous(sic) marriages? Who knows, it very well might be. But to try and debate this case on what "might" happen in the future rather than its merits is simply illogical.

So same sex-marriage is here to stay, and thats fine, I had no problem with it in the first place.

[Hicksey]

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line:

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -"

You've obviously missed the target of the quote. The quote is in regard to passing hate-speech laws.

[SamStranger]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

[Black Dog]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

The Bible says a lot of wacky stuff. But I'm sure, as a devout follower who never eats shellfish, or wears clothes of mixed fabrics, you already know that...

[SamStranger]

Hey... no need for insults. Thats not me at all.

I said I was NOT a religious nut. I just heard that from one of those TV pastors.

No need for personal insults Black Dog.

[Liam]

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line:

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -"

You've obviously missed the target of the quote. The quote is in regard to passing hate-speech laws.

Your tagline seem to reflect the political philosophy that to live in a free (and democratic) society, we sometimes need to suffer those things that we don't accept. At the time I posted this reply, I had only read the earlier part of the thread where your opinion appeared to be "SSM is an affront to me and my understanding of marriage, so it needs to be banned." I interpreted this as a direct contradiction of the more accepting philosophy your tagline seems to espouse. I have since completed reading the entire thread and, while disagreeing with your position, understand where you are coming from. No offense was meant at the time of posting nor now.

[Liam]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

It does say those things. However, it also says that gambling is a sin, yet we allow gamblers to marry. The Bible says that murder is a sin, yet we allow murders (in prison, yet!) to marry. Furthermore, of all the sins discussed in the Bible, homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Murder, disrespect for one's elders, gambling, stealing, lying, and dozens of other sins are mentioned considerably more often. If anything, this would indicate some understanding that those other sins are much more grave than two men's lying together. Jesus certainly never said a single thing about homosexuality. Jesus was welcoming of all. And Jesus also set the model for the separation of church and state ("...render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's...")

But not to go down that path too far, the problem with basing opposition to SSM on Biblical teachings is that society has already rejected the notion that we extend or curtail civil liberties or basic rights based on the sinfulness or religious devotion of individual citizens... or would you rather have certain rights of yours denied you because of that trip to Vegas?

[Hicksey]

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line:

"If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society

- Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -"

You've obviously missed the target of the quote. The quote is in regard to passing hate-speech laws.

Your tagline seem to reflect the political philosophy that to live in a free (and democratic) society, we sometimes need to suffer those things that we don't accept. At the time I posted this reply, I had only read the earlier part of the thread where your opinion appeared to be "SSM is an affront to me and my understanding of marriage, so it needs to be banned." I interpreted this as a direct contradiction of the more accepting philosophy your tagline seems to espouse. I have since completed reading the entire thread and, while disagreeing with your position, understand where you are coming from. No offense was meant at the time of posting nor now.

Point well made.

My main point is that while we do need to be sensitive to the plight of minorities in this country, we should be as sensitive we can to everyone else too. It shouldn't be about what a minority wants, rather about how it can best be achieved without insulting anyone. I believe in my heart that my proposal is a greater form of equality. Before the federal government seized the term marriage for its own in the early 20th centruy and began issuing licenses uner that name, my proposal is how things were done. That worked for 1900+ years.

[Liam]

Hicksey: Understanding that politicians who dig their claws into something are often very reluctant to give it up, can we realistically expect them to suddenly get out of the marriage business altogether opting for a civil union structure for all? While I would be willing to suffer under that aspect of your position, a la Kim Campbell, we can hardly expect it to ever come to pass. Politicians on both sides of the 49th parallel will continue to regulate the institution of marriage.

With permanent government intrusion into marriage as a given, does it make sense to further exclude from marriage an entire segment of society? Does that make laws which exclude gays from marriage fair? If anything, the making of marriage into a state-licensed event requires that it be applied evenly, fairly and equally among all citizens, regardless of how small a minority one group may be or how distasteful we may feel their union may be. Absent a compelling state interest, the state cannot arbitrarily and unevenly decide to whom it will extend rights and liberties.

To go back my paraphrased version of Kim Campbell's quote, to live in a democratic society, we sometimes need to suffer those things with which we disagree.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey: Understanding that politicians who dig their claws into something are often very reluctant to give it up, can we realistically expect them to suddenly get out of the marriage business altogether opting for a civil union structure for all? While I would be willing to suffer under that aspect of your position, a la Kim Campbell, we can hardly expect it to ever come to pass. Politicians on both sides of the 49th parallel will continue to regulate the institution of marriage.

With permanent government intrusion into marriage as a given, does it make sense to further exclude from marriage an entire segment of society? Does that make laws which exclude gays from marriage fair? If anything, the making of marriage into a state-licensed event requires that it be applied evenly, fairly and equally among all citizens, regardless of how small a minority one group may be or how distasteful we may feel their union may be. Absent a compelling state interest, the state cannot arbitrarily and unevenly decide to whom it will extend rights and liberties.

To go back my paraphrased version of Kim Campbell's quote, to live in a democratic society, we sometimes need to suffer those things with which we disagree.

I know that my proposal would not happen. I knew it when I suggested it. I was pointing out there are alternatives that provide for greater social justice for all.

And yes, like my quote suggests, I will likely have to suffer with that which I disgree.

[geoffrey]

Hicksey: Understanding that politicians who dig their claws into something are often very reluctant to give it up, can we realistically expect them to suddenly get out of the marriage business altogether opting for a civil union structure for all? While I would be willing to suffer under that aspect of your position, a la Kim Campbell, we can hardly expect it to ever come to pass. Politicians on both sides of the 49th parallel will continue to regulate the institution of marriage.

With permanent government intrusion into marriage as a given, does it make sense to further exclude from marriage an entire segment of society? Does that make laws which exclude gays from marriage fair? If anything, the making of marriage into a state-licensed event requires that it be applied evenly, fairly and equally among all citizens, regardless of how small a minority one group may be or how distasteful we may feel their union may be. Absent a compelling state interest, the state cannot arbitrarily and unevenly decide to whom it will extend rights and liberties.

To go back my paraphrased version of Kim Campbell's quote, to live in a democratic society, we sometimes need to suffer those things with which we disagree.

I know that my proposal would not happen. I knew it when I suggested it. I was pointing out there are alternatives that provide for greater social justice for all.

And yes, like my quote suggests, I will likely have to suffer with that which I disgree.

I agreed and have advocated your position on marriage Hicksey, its not entirely unfeasiable either. We just need the right people in power (and its not even the Conservatives )

[Hicksey]

Hicksey: Understanding that politicians who dig their claws into something are often very reluctant to give it up, can we realistically expect them to suddenly get out of the marriage business altogether opting for a civil union structure for all? While I would be willing to suffer under that aspect of your position, a la Kim Campbell, we can hardly expect it to ever come to pass. Politicians on both sides of the 49th parallel will continue to regulate the institution of marriage.

With permanent government intrusion into marriage as a given, does it make sense to further exclude from marriage an entire segment of society? Does that make laws which exclude gays from marriage fair? If anything, the making of marriage into a state-licensed event requires that it be applied evenly, fairly and equally among all citizens, regardless of how small a minority one group may be or how distasteful we may feel their union may be. Absent a compelling state interest, the state cannot arbitrarily and unevenly decide to whom it will extend rights and liberties.

To go back my paraphrased version of Kim Campbell's quote, to live in a democratic society, we sometimes need to suffer those things with which we disagree.

I know that my proposal would not happen. I knew it when I suggested it. I was pointing out there are alternatives that provide for greater social justice for all.

And yes, like my quote suggests, I will likely have to suffer with that which I disgree.

I agreed and have advocated your position on marriage Hicksey, its not entirely unfeasiable either. We just need the right people in power (and its not even the Conservatives )

Conservative is a relative term these days. The CPC is conservative, in relation to the Liberals and NDP, but rarely represents real conservative ideals. The truly conservative stance on marriage, gay marriage, the institution of marriage being used by the government is the same as mine: get the government out of the marriage business altogether. My stance on gay rights isn't in keeping with true conservative values as true conservatives believe homosexuality is wrong and recognizing gay rights goes against that.

We have:

CPC (Con): liberal-lite

Liberal: liberal-lite to liberal

NDP: liberal to socialist

Green: socialists/environmentalists

CPC (Com): Stalinist/Marxist whackos.

[uOttawaMan]

The fact is, the same thing has occured here , hundreds of years ago when people realised they could challenge the Church doctrine and not have the wrath of God strike them down.

Same-sex marriage was legalised, and the sun did not stop rising, society did not break down into mass violence. Too much time has passed, with nothing bad happening for Harper to do anything about this law.

You can say , but OMG what might be next? Polyigomous(sic) marriages? Who knows, it very well might be. But to try and debate this case on what "might" happen in the future rather than its merits is simply illogical.

So same sex-marriage is here to stay, and thats fine, I had no problem with it in the first place.

[betsy]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

Yes it does.

On religious terms, we all have our own crosses to bear. The test is on how we bear our burden. I don't think God changes His way in accordance to how modern society gets, hence I cannot understand the other Christian denomination who succumbed to the pressures of humans in changing the ways of the church.

I do hope the Vatican continues to hold firm.

[Liam]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

Yes it does.

On religious terms, we all have our own crosses to bear. The test is on how we bear our burden. I don't think God changes His way in accordance to how modern society gets, hence I cannot understand the other Christian denomination who succumbed to the pressures of humans in changing the ways of the church.

I do hope the Vatican continues to hold firm.

No one in favor of granting marital rights to committed gay couples has ever argued that religions should abandon their beliefs or compromise their basic tenets. What we want is equal treatment under the law. Religions should keep its focus on eternal matters. Government should keep its focus on temporal matters.

[betsy]

I cant stand religious gays who say that God doesnt care if your gay. Im not a religious nut, but does it not say in the Bible that "man shall not lay down with man, and women shall not lay down with women"

Prove me wrong.

Yes it does.

On religious terms, we all have our own crosses to bear. The test is on how we bear our burden. I don't think God changes His way in accordance to how modern society gets, hence I cannot understand the other Christian denomination who succumbed to the pressures of humans in changing the ways of the church.

I do hope the Vatican continues to hold firm.

No one in favor of granting marital rights to committed gay couples has ever argued that religions should abandon their beliefs or compromise their basic tenets. What we want is equal treatment under the law. Religions should keep its focus on eternal matters. Government should keep its focus on temporal matters.

Pressures and challenges have been launched against religious beliefs and teachings. Take for example that teen who challenged a Catholic school about bringing his gay partner in the prom.

What guarantees that our religious beliefs and expressions would not be compromised?

Priests preaching from the pulpits could easily be harrassed and intimidated by invoking the gag law.