Same-Sex Marriage

[Black Dog]

Remember my proposal? It seems to me that you just endorsed it, even if unintentionally.

That was the whole purpose of my proposal. Equal treament under the law. People could still celebrate their union however they want.

The only problem is some people are claiming exclusive ownership of the the term marriage and taking issue with the legal usage. Which I could accept if y'all hadn't been completely mum on the issue of government defining marriage until they decided to let the queers in on the act, which makes it look like the beef isn't really with the government co-opting religious terminology at all.

No, I don't see why we should go through the fuss of creating "civil unions" (thus denying both gays and non-religious heterosexuals the privilege of calling their unions a marriage) and "religious marriage" when that's pretty much exactly the situation we have now.

[Spike22]

I have now switched sides. I think all the homo's should be allowed to marry etc. (more chicks for us straight guys). However all queers should have to wear something visible to promote/show their gayness.

How about a t-shirt for gay men with I like smelly, hairy as*h*les. Or for women I like to play with canoes ( I am a lesbian too I suppose)

[Black Dog]

Why do knuckle dragging homophobes spend more time thinking about gay sex than even gay people do?

[Hicksey]

Remember my proposal? It seems to me that you just endorsed it, even if unintentionally.

That was the whole purpose of my proposal. Equal treament under the law. People could still celebrate their union however they want.

The only problem is some people are claiming exclusive ownership of the the term marriage and taking issue with the legal usage. Which I could accept if y'all hadn't been completely mum on the issue of government defining marriage until they decided to let the queers in on the act, which makes it look like the beef isn't really with the government co-opting religious terminology at all.

No, I don't see why we should go through the fuss of creating "civil unions" (thus denying both gays and non-religious heterosexuals the privilege of calling their unions a marriage) and "religious marriage" when that's pretty much exactly the situation we have now.

You're missing the whole point of my proposal. I'm leaving the definition of 'marriage' to each person and their beliefs. I'm saying lets all be equal before the law, and lets let everyone decide what marriage means to them. Nobody gets ownership of marriage this way. It becomes to each person what they wish to make of it. Maybe that way people will value marriage more because it will be something different and special to them. Lets make it about a celebration of people and their bond instead of a legal document.

I am trying to find a way to get people to value the principle by allowing them to personalize it to what they care about, while still respecting the beliefs of all. By removing government from the equation, and leaving it between people and those they will choose to celebrate with I think will go as far toward making marriage something that is cherished and respected as I think can happen today.

[Black Dog]

You're missing the whole point of my proposal. I'm leaving the definition of 'marriage' to each person and their beliefs. I'm saying lets all be equal before the law, and lets let everyone decide what marriage means to them. Nobody gets ownership of marriage this way. It becomes to each person what they wish to make of it. Maybe that way people will value marriage more because it will be something different and special to them. Lets make it about a celebration of people and their bond instead of a legal document.

I am trying to find a way to get people to value the principle by allowing them to personalize it to what they care about, while still respecting the beliefs of all. By removing government from the equation, and leaving it between people and those they will choose to celebrate with I think will go as far toward making marriage something that is cherished and respected as I think can happen today.

I still don't think you're changing anything. People currently get married for a variety of reasons, and those reasons differ between couples. In other words, people already define marriage according to their own personal beliefs. Hell, that's why some people get maried in a church or a temple while others go to city hall, while others don't even bother with legal recognition at all, yet still consider themselves married. So I'm not sure how getting government out of the equation would change the way people look at marriage or their relationships. But at least, by retaining the status quo, we keep another option open (not to mention save a lot of hassle re-writing laws and such.)

[Spike22]

Why do knuckle dragging homophobes spend more time thinking about gay sex than even gay people do?

Cuz it is fun. So exactly how much time do you spend Black Dog thinking about it? (just wanted to know from the gay side)

[Conservative1]

If it were up to me civil unions seems to be a good compromise...but honestly i don't know if i care any more...lol

Seems to me the battle was lost when gays garnered the right to adopt anyways....

[Black Dog]

Cuz it is fun. So exactly how much time do you spend Black Dog thinking about it? (just wanted to know from the gay side)

Paging Dr, Freud...

[cybercoma]

What's wrong with polygamy if that's what a particular culture believes in? If it's discrimination to give a marriage license to man and woman and not man and man or woman and woman, then certainly it's discrimination not to allow someone to marry more than one person. Just because our culture doesn't allow us to wrap our minds around that form of relationship, doesn't make it any less valid to those cultures that believe in it.

Who are you or the state to tell men and women of a certain religion whether or not they can take part in polyamorous relationships? And say the husband takes care of 3 or 4 women and he dies, then they're not entitled to the pension and benefits to be split amongst them like a gay couple is now afforded?

I call BS. If you're going to allow one, you must allow the other.

[Michael Hardner]

I call BS. If you're going to allow one, you must allow the other.

I agree Cybercoma... You will find, though, that many who support samesexmarriage will argue against polymarriage using the same fallacious arguments that are used against samesexmarriage.

Principles are logical, geometric, Cartesian, perfect. When they are applied to imperfect human affairs you end up having to support some awkward ideas in order to stay consistent.

I argued with somebody (on rabble) who stood steadfastly on the woman's right to have control over her body (ie. abortion) as a principle. Unfortunately, fetuses aren't theoretical and a 1 day old fetus is very different from a 9 month old fetus. My friend couldn't let go of his principle, though, and he ended up arguing that a woman had the right to abort a fetus right up to the minute of birth. Also that he as a man had no right to opine on the issue.

But...

You are an open minded individual. Let's get married.... to a third person....

[Melanie_]

I'm all for polygamy, as long as I get to be the first wife and boss the other ones around. No more housework for me!

[Transplanted Caper]

What's wrong with polygamy if that's what a particular culture believes in? If it's discrimination to give a marriage license to man and woman and not man and man or woman and woman, then certainly it's discrimination not to allow someone to marry more than one person. Just because our culture doesn't allow us to wrap our minds around that form of relationship, doesn't make it any less valid to those cultures that believe in it.

Who are you or the state to tell men and women of a certain religion whether or not they can take part in polyamorous relationships? And say the husband takes care of 3 or 4 women and he dies, then they're not entitled to the pension and benefits to be split amongst them like a gay couple is now afforded?

I call BS. If you're going to allow one, you must allow the other.

I dont think its the same type of claim though. The basis for same sex marriage, at least in terms of a Charter claim, was discrimination as homosexuals were not being garnered the same rights as straight couples. NO ONE is alllowed to have more then one wife/husband so im not sure from which end a Charter claim would come from. If all of a sudden men were allowed to become polygamists, but women were not, then there would be a claim.

[cybercoma]

I'm all for polygamy, as long as I get to be the first wife and boss the other ones around. No more housework for me!

Ladies and Gentleman, this is why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. One partner, man or woman, thinks it's their job to boss the other around.

[cybercoma]

What's wrong with polygamy if that's what a particular culture believes in? If it's discrimination to give a marriage license to man and woman and not man and man or woman and woman, then certainly it's discrimination not to allow someone to marry more than one person. Just because our culture doesn't allow us to wrap our minds around that form of relationship, doesn't make it any less valid to those cultures that believe in it.

Who are you or the state to tell men and women of a certain religion whether or not they can take part in polyamorous relationships? And say the husband takes care of 3 or 4 women and he dies, then they're not entitled to the pension and benefits to be split amongst them like a gay couple is now afforded?

I call BS. If you're going to allow one, you must allow the other.

I dont think its the same type of claim though. The basis for same sex marriage, at least in terms of a Charter claim, was discrimination as homosexuals were not being garnered the same rights as straight couples. NO ONE is alllowed to have more then one wife/husband so im not sure from which end a Charter claim would come from. If all of a sudden men were allowed to become polygamists, but women were not, then there would be a claim.

The claim is that some cultures believe in that type of union, and if all parties involved are consenting why should the state stand in the way of their beliefs? How can you put a restriction on how many people someone is allowed to marry, when there are several religions out there that believe in polyamorous relationships? The religious rite of marriage is sacred and the state shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of that.

[tml12]

Is it just me or can anyone else believe that this thread is still up in the top 5???

[SamStranger]

Is it just me or can anyone else believe that this thread is still up in the top 5???

Considering that I started this thread, i am very happy to see people showing an interest in it. Im also happy that 41 people support me in saying "no more gay marriage"

Put that in your pipe Layton!

[Black Dog]

Is it just me or can anyone else believe that this thread is still up in the top 5???

Considering that I started this thread, i am very happy to see people showing an interest in it. Im also happy that 41 people support me in saying "no more gay marriage"

Put that in your pipe Layton!

Equal marriage is legal and will probably stay that way. And even if somehow Harper's little "free vote" scheme overturns it, there's no way that decision would withstand a court challenge without the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, a tactic which would certainly blow up in Harper's face. In otehr words, gay marriage is an inevitability. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Leader Circle]

Is it just me or can anyone else believe that this thread is still up in the top 5???

Considering that I started this thread, i am very happy to see people showing an interest in it. Im also happy that 41 people support me in saying "no more gay marriage"

Put that in your pipe Layton!

The problem with this vote is Black Dog has 20 different names that he logs into to vote FOR gay marriage, otherwise the against vote would be much larger. There are 2 or 3 hardcore flamers in here that try to skew every poll in their favor and try to wreck it for everyone else.

Put no faith in that poll! (I am not accusing you of doing this though Mike hardner, I respect your opinion in this from the gay person's perspective.)

[Michael Hardner]

Uh....

Just to be clear, I'm not gay.

And... wait for it....

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm in favour of samesexmarriage, but even more in favour of productive, open and well reasoned arguments.

[Black Dog]

The problem with this vote is Black Dog has 20 different names that he logs into to vote FOR gay marriage, otherwise the against vote would be much larger. There are 2 or 3 hardcore flamers in here that try to skew every poll in their favor and try to wreck it for everyone else.

Put no faith in that poll! (I am not accusing you of doing this though Mike hardner, I respect your opinion in this from the gay person's perspective.)

That's a pretty serious allegation. Care to offer any proof? If you must know, I've never cast a vote in one of these polls.

[Spike22]

Tsk tsk

Harder and Black Dork the gay fella's swaying the votes again...I knew something was up.

[Michael Hardner]

Spike22:

A little joshing is fun when it's part of an intelligent discussion, but you should probably familliarize yourself with the accepted practices on this board if you want to continue here.

[Black Dog]

A little joshing is fun when it's part of an intelligent discussion, but you should probably familliarize yourself with the accepted practices on this board if you want to continue here.

I don't know why, but all Spike's posts remind me of this.

[Liam]

A little joshing is fun when it's part of an intelligent discussion, but you should probably familliarize yourself with the accepted practices on this board if you want to continue here.

I don't know why, but all Spike's posts remind me of this.

[betsy]

One partner, man or woman, thinks it's their job to boss the other around.

Must be mostly Liberals.