Same-Sex Marriage

[JerrySeinfeld]

It doesn't include it.

It doesn't not include it.

so gay marriage is not a human right

[Drea]

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Doesn't say men WITH women...

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Says "spouses" not "husband" or "wife"

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It says "family" not "husband" with "wife" with "children".

[JerrySeinfeld]

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Doesn't say men WITH women...

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Says "spouses" not "husband" or "wife"

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It says "family" not "husband" with "wife" with "children".

But it doesn't say "penetrative anal sex with shephard in a tent" either

[Black Dog]

so gay marriage is not a human right

Is hetero marriage?

[JerrySeinfeld]

so gay marriage is not a human right

Is hetero marriage?

is polygamy?

[Black Dog]

Not going to answer the question, then? You're a stockbroker, so this clearly requires some explanation: if marriage itself is a human right, then it's a right that exists regardless of the gender or number of the participants. In other words, if hetero marriage is a human right, so is gay marriage and even polygamy (the latter two simply being different versions of marriage). Now, i don't think you're arguing marriage is a human right: fine. But that has me wondering: if it's not a human right, what is it and why does it matter so much if it's changed?

[Renegade]

It doesn't include it.

Jerry, have you even looked into AI stance on marriage? It is opposed to restricting people's right to marriage. For example, Albania tried to restrict the ability of people with mental illness to marry. AI vehemently opposed this. It doesn't explicitly say in the paragraph above that people with disabilities have the right to marry, however it is assumed. Specificly if it doesn't explictly exclude one group, then by default it includes them. Same thing applies to hetrosexuals. link

So maybe now that I've demonstrated that AI's definition of rights is more inclusive than you give them credit for. so instead of these one line dodges where you evade the point, you can point out some evidence from AI which shows that it should be exclusively limited to hetrosexuals.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It doesn't include it.

Jerry, have you even looked into AI stance on marriage? It is opposed to restricting people's right to marriage. For example, Albania tried to restrict the ability of people with mental illness to marry. AI vehemently opposed this. It doesn't explicitly say in the paragraph above that people with disabilities have the right to marry, however it is assumed. Specificly if it doesn't explictly exclude one group, then by default it includes them. Same thing applies to hetrosexuals. link

So maybe now that I've demonstrated that AI's definition of rights is more inclusive than you give them credit for. so instead of these one line dodges where you evade the point, you can point out some evidence from AI which shows that it should be exclusively limited to hetrosexuals.

Hey, if a brokeback guy who likes sex in the bum wants to get hitched, it doesn't bother me. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that it's not about human rights, its about getting what you want. Big BIG difference.

[Liam]

Hey, if a brokeback guy who likes sex in the bum wants to get hitched, it doesn't bother me. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that it's not about human rights, its about getting what you want. Big BIG difference.

For all the talk about gay marriage's cheapening hetero marriage, you've done it all on your own by completely reducing the marital relationship to nothing more than a romp in a tent. Don't be offended then if someone assumes your marriage is only about getting off and has absolutely nothing to do with companionship, love, family or commitment.

[Renegade]

Hey, if a brokeback guy who likes sex in the bum wants to get hitched, it doesn't bother me. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that it's not about human rights, its about getting what you want. Big BIG difference.

Fortunately for us all, the reputable jurists who sit on the SCC, do believe it is about human rights. If it comes to makeing a judgement on who can better evaluate what are human rights, I have to go with their opinion over yours.

For a while the majority of the population and legislators were against interpreting marrriage to include sames-sex couples, do you really think that without being forced to change the law because of rights violations, they would have done so voluntarily?

[Black Dog]

Even if you strip away the human rights angle from the debate the arguments against equal marriage are still flimsy. So whatever.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Hey, if a brokeback guy who likes sex in the bum wants to get hitched, it doesn't bother me. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that it's not about human rights, its about getting what you want. Big BIG difference.

Fortunately for us all, the reputable jurists who sit on the SCC, do believe it is about human rights. If it comes to makeing a judgement on who can better evaluate what are human rights, I have to go with their opinion over yours.

For a while the majority of the population and legislators were against interpreting marrriage to include sames-sex couples, do you really think that without be forced to change the law because of rights violations, they would have done so voluntarily?

Yes, fortunately "for us all" as you put it.

I know I'm sleeping better at night knowing that gays are getting married.

PHEW!

Now we can get around to the REAL dirty business: gay DIVORCE!!!!

[betsy]

please show me where "gay marriage" is listed as a Human Right in Amnesty International?

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you?

Here's what AI specifies:

Article 16

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples.

Gays had never lost their RIGHT to marry! As long as they marry women.

Take note of Article 16, #3:

"3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Nowhere throughout history can you find a civilization that had showed and accepted a family comprising of same-sex couples.

The SCC had reneged on its duty to protect the family. Who were sitting on the benches, and how many among them were Liberal appointees?

[betsy]

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[/i]

Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples.

1) MEN and WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race,nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Where does it say without any limitation to SEXUAL ORIENTATION??? It named only three...race, nationality or religion!

It's been taken for granted that men would marry women and vice versa. Who would've thought that a time like this will come when it ought to be spelled out precisely who have the right to marry?

If ever this issue on same-sex marriage is dealt with again under the current government...and repealed, hopefully they'll re-word the charter to make it impossible for anyone to tweak it. Some countries did just that.

[Riverwind]

The SCC had reneged on its duty to protect the family.

There is not one shred of evidence that allowing SSM hurts families so there was nothing the court needed to do to protect them.

[Melanie_]

Oh my God. I've just logged in after being away for about a month and an half, and this topic is STILL active! Give it a rest, people!

[Renegade]

Gays had never lost their RIGHT to marry! As long as they marry women.

How about gays who are women? You ok if they marry women?

Take note of Article 16, #3:

"3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Nowhere throughout history can you find a civilization that had showed and accepted a family comprising of same-sex couples.

Maybe that is true, maybe it is not. However why is it that we have to accept your definition of family as one man, one woman, and kids. Is a single mother and her kids a family? How about a common law couple? Communes in the 60s considered themselves a family. Personally, I don't see that it is society's business to define what is a family, however if forced to do so, should define it in the most inclusive way possible.

The SCC had reneged on its duty to protect the family. Who were sitting on the benches, and how many among them were Liberal appointees?

I disagree. The SCC is protecting families, however its definition of a family is more inclusive then the one you represent. The fact that protection also extends to your definition of family seems irrelevant to you and you seem resentful of the rights also extended to others.

1) MEN and WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race,nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Where does it say without any limitation to SEXUAL ORIENTATION??? It named only three...race, nationality or religion!

It doesn't say limitations based upon disabilities, age, or wealth either. It referenced the most common kinds of discrimmination. If we passed a law saying only people who were 20-30 and were fertile could get married, do you think everyone elses rights would be violated, despite the fact we have not discriminnated on the basis of race, nationality, or religion? You're grasping at straws on this one.

It's been taken for granted that men would marry women and vice versa. Who would've thought that a time like this will come when it ought to be spelled out precisely who have the right to marry?

Frankly it would have been my wish that the government stayed out of the definition of marriage completely and let people decide for themselves if they considered themselves married, however since they chose to treat married members of society different from others, they have been forced down this path. Over time the definition of marriage has become more inclusive. There was a time when "common-law" was not considered married. Today it is. Odd that it didn't cause the same rukus that SSM does. The extension of marriage to include same-sex couples is a natural evolution. I see this evolution continuing further as society evolves.

[Renegade]

Oh my God. I've just logged in after being away for about a month and an half, and this topic is STILL active! Give it a rest, people!

Sorry Melanie, as long as a segment cling to an idea that they alone are custodians of what marriage or a family is, this debate will extend for months or years.

Even the current government has decided(wisely) that reopening this debate is not a good idea. Face it people, like it or not, SSM is here to stay.

[Black Dog]

"3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Nowhere throughout history can you find a civilization that had showed and accepted a family comprising of same-sex couples.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

1) MEN and WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race,nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Where does it say without any limitation to SEXUAL ORIENTATION??? It named only three...race, nationality or religion!

It does't say anything about hair colour either, but one can safely assume that's covered.

If ever this issue on same-sex marriage is dealt with again under the current government...and repealed, hopefully they'll re-word the charter to make it impossible for anyone to tweak it. Some countries did just that.

Keep dreamin'.

[BubberMiley]

drag queen?

[JerrySeinfeld]

drag queen?

I can't wait for "gay divorce" - should be a great reality TV show.

Gays are wierd.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Even if you strip away the human rights angle from the debate the arguments against equal marriage are still flimsy. So whatever.

BD, you're gay for sure.

[Black Dog]

BD, you're gay for sure.

Are you cruising?

[JerrySeinfeld]

BD, you're gay for sure.

Are you cruising?

whoa. easy buddy it was a joke.

[BubberMiley]

BD, you're gay for sure.

Are you cruising?

He did say that he can't wait to see some gay reality TV.