Same-Sex Marriage

[Black Dog]

Thats the modern definition changed by those so concerned about the minorities, but that was not always the way.

I guess, geologically speaking, the 18th Century can be considered "modern" times. But that's when the concept of democracy as we know it today orginated.

Those countries that exercise direct democracy, where you or I could go vote on every issue, I would say are the most democratic. But according that definition, the more a role people play in their system, the less effective it is.

Nonsense. I simply said that a true democracy moderates majority rule. Without that, you'd have a tyrrany of the majority. That's not democracy.

I call that elitism. Why can't most people be trusted?

Yank Abroad made a good point on this, I'll just follow up by saying people are mortal and error prone, motivated as much by greed, self-interest, paranoia, xenophobia, superstision, emotion and fear as rationality. Acknowledging that is not elitist, because I'm not saying i or anyone else is any better.

[moderateamericain]

Ill say the same thing ive said to my American counter parts. Its none of the governments fucking business. The only thing i could possibly fathom as to why the Canadian (or US) government has anything to do with it is for Insurance reasons. So heres what you do Civil Unions for all. Let insurance companies charge astronimcal rates for gay HIV positive couples. And let religious leaders decided if they wanna marry people. Governments that govern least govern best.

[YankAbroad]

What about immigration?

I cannot get my partner in the UK a visa to return to the USA with me if I decide to go home.

That's just one of the thousands of big and little things that the moral majority brigade have attached to government licensed "marriage."

[moderateamericain]

What about immigration?

I cannot get my partner in the UK a visa to return to the USA with me if I decide to go home.

That's just one of the thousands of big and little things that the moral majority brigade have attached to government licensed "marriage."

Thus the purpose of civil union. In the eyes of the government you would be married. I know it will never happen. Doesnt mean it shouldnt.

[mar]

Can someone who is opposed to SSM please explain to me how your life, your church or whatever has been affected by the passing of SSM?

I can attest that my life, nor the lifes of anyone in my church has changed the least little bit, why the hubbub Bub?

Is no one going to answer this question?

I think you have your answer.

Since the position is - at the least - prejudice (if not hate) disguised as morality, no answer is possible, just as no answer was possible when inter-racial marriage was illegal in various U.S. states.

[YankAbroad]

In the eyes of the government you would be married. I know it will never happen.

Actually, it probably already will.

I've had people from the US consulates in Canada and the UK both ask me why I "haven't moved back home."

I explain that I don't find the freedoms I need back home to live a happy life, and it's a bit surprising to them. The world has made itself a decent place to earn an economic mercenary's living, but not one which facilitates building a stable home life.

The economic pressures will eventually get to them. . . the US policy on civil unions/DOMA/etc. has already cost it about $500,000 in income taxes from me over the last six to eight years. And there are several hundred thousand others like me.

[Hicksey]

Can someone who is opposed to SSM please explain to me how your life, your church or whatever has been affected by the passing of SSM?

I can attest that my life, nor the lifes of anyone in my church has changed the least little bit, why the hubbub Bub?

Is no one going to answer this question?

I think you have your answer.

Since the position is - at the least - prejudice (if not hate) disguised as morality, no answer is possible, just as no answer was possible when inter-racial marriage was illegal in various U.S. states.

For me, it is about tradition. I believe its not necessary to defame years of tradition to give gays their due rights.

My idea is to stop the government from further bastardizing the term by removing it from government recognition altogether. The government took the term for itself in the early 20th century and ever since its been trampled and severely disrespected. And I am not saying that heterosexuals haven't done it enough themselves. Every union would be just that--a union. Every union would be equal before the law. Leave marriage between a man and his church. Having said that I do realize that there are churches that will perform the 'marriage' ceremony for gays and I think that's fine. Not every religion is going to agree on this I admit. I think this way is the most socially responsible to achieve the goal. And it respects the beliefs of all involved.

My main beef is the revenge mentality that one needs to throw their lifestyle back in the faces of heterosexuals because they're angry that they were denied. What really happens when one fosters this attitude is that they nearly lose people like me that are mostly sympathetic to their cause because of their need to say "So there!".

[YankAbroad]

I believe its not necessary to defame years of tradition to give gays their due rights.

So your position is essentially the same as the position of the KKK in the American south in the 1950s and 1960s vis-a-vis black people.

It's revealing that you hate gays so much that you would characterise their involvement in an institution or legal process as "defaming" it.

They say that history repeats itself -- we're seeing that process here, today.

[Hicksey]

I believe its not necessary to defame years of tradition to give gays their due rights.

So your position is essentially the same as the position of the KKK in the American south in the 1950s and 1960s vis-a-vis black people.

It's revealing that you hate gays so much that you would characterise their involvement in an institution or legal process as "defaming" it.

They say that history repeats itself -- we're seeing that process here, today.

Are you serious?

I sit here and offer complete equality before the law and because of that I hate gays?!

Give me a break. It's that attitude that will lose you people like me that support gay rights, but think that traditions should be respected wherever possible.

[mar]

Are you serious?

I sit here and offer complete equality before the law and because of that I hate gays?!

Give me a break. It's that attitude that will lose you people like me that support gay rights, but think that traditions should be respected wherever possible.

That really is not correct.

The institution of marriage long pre-dates Christianity. The fact that in some Western countries religious institutions were able to assume some state roles during the ascendancy of the Holy Roman Empire is not an argument for tradition, even if one wanted to take the rather dubious position that Canada honours only a Christian tradition.

If I understand you correctly, your argument seems to boil down to an objection at using the word "marriage." As the word itself is of Latin origins - "maritatus" - , you seem to be considerably exercised about preserving the purity of a word whose origins also pre-date Christianity.

[YankAbroad]

I sit here and offer complete equality before the law and because of that I hate gays?!

It's the language which bothers me.

When someone says that my participation in an institution "defames," "debases," or "ruins" it, funnily enough I don't take super kindly to it.

As for the arguments regarding tradition, they're patently incorrect as has been demonstrated a million times already.

I don't believe government should be in the marriage business to begin with. If I choose to define my relationship as a marriage, or you choose to define yours as a marriage, that's your business, not the business of the state.

[compaq905]

It the majority of Canadians are against same-sex marriage it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy.

[Hicksey]

Are you serious?

I sit here and offer complete equality before the law and because of that I hate gays?!

Give me a break. It's that attitude that will lose you people like me that support gay rights, but think that traditions should be respected wherever possible.

That really is not correct.

The institution of marriage long pre-dates Christianity. The fact that in some Western countries religious institutions were able to assume some state roles during the ascendancy of the Holy Roman Empire is not an argument for tradition, even if one wanted to take the rather dubious position that Canada honours only a Christian tradition.

If I understand you correctly, your argument seems to boil down to an objection at using the word "marriage." As the word itself is of Latin origins - "maritatus" - , you seem to be considerably exercised about preserving the purity of a word whose origins also pre-date Christianity.

I'm saying lets make everyone equal before the law. This needn't be done by going against the religious beliefs of some people. I'm saying that neither gays nor catholics should be able to project their beliefs upon one another so the answer is to remove the word marriage from the legal definition altogether. Everyone gets the rights they so deserve and 'marriage' is left left between people and their religious institutions. And if an institution decides to embrace and marry gays, that's fine with me because in my opinion in such a situation the spirit of marriage is still upheld.

IMO, its the only way to be fair to all involved in the debate.

It comes as close as possible to forcing people to respect marriage.

[Melanie_]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here is a group of law professors' take on the constitutionality of changing the definition to exclude gays.

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/samesexletter.html

I'm saying lets make everyone equal before the law. This needn't be done by going against the religious beliefs of some people. I'm saying that neither gays nor catholics should be able to project their beliefs upon one another so the answer is to remove the word marriage from the legal definition altogether. Everyone gets the rights they so deserve and 'marriage' is left left between people and their religious institutions.

Hicksey, that is what this whole argument is about. Yes, lets make everyone equal before the law. But don't restrict marriage to be only the function of a religious institution; many people choose to get married in non religious ceremonies, and they are still legally married. I don't see how taking the word marriage out of the legal definition is equality for all.

[A Hermit]

It the majority of Canadians are against same-sex marriage it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy.

Hmmm, let's try a few variations on that theme....

"If the majority of Canadians are against inter-racial marriage it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

"If the majority of Alabamans are against desegregation it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

"If the majority of Germans are against Jews owning property it shouldn't happen anything else isn't a democracy."

.....

Nope; can't say I like that line of reasoning at all...

[Black Dog]

I'm saying lets make everyone equal before the law. This needn't be done by going against the religious beliefs of some people. I'm saying that neither gays nor catholics should be able to project their beliefs upon one another so the answer is to remove the word marriage from the legal definition altogether. Everyone gets the rights they so deserve and 'marriage' is left left between people and their religious institutions. And if an institution decides to embrace and marry gays, that's fine with me because in my opinion in such a situation the spirit of marriage is still upheld.

The problem is marriage is a brand. People have associations and expectations of "marriage" that just isn't conveyed by "civil union".

Scene: interior of a posh restaurant. Four women, all in their mid to late 20s, all well-dressesd and attractive, are talking over lunch. We enter mid conversation...

Charlote: ...so then, after dinner, dessert comes and its my favorite kind of cupcake with a diamond ruing on top. And then right in front of everyone, Chad gets down on one knee and asks me to get ...civil union'd!

All: OMIGOD! CIVIL UNION'D!?

Not quite the same, is it?

In fact, given that the majority of marriages are not religious (even here in conservative Alberta, civil ceremonies outnumber church weddings), it's clear that marriage (yes, marriage) is important to more than just churchy types.

I don't see how the current arrangement (marriages for all, with religious institutions having the option to "opt out") poses a problem for anyone.

[A Hermit]

I used to "marry" steel rafters to columns in my construction job. Was that wrong?

[geoffrey]

I used to "marry" steel rafters to columns in my construction job. Was that wrong?

Yes, your going to hell.

[Hicksey]

I'm saying lets make everyone equal before the law. This needn't be done by going against the religious beliefs of some people. I'm saying that neither gays nor catholics should be able to project their beliefs upon one another so the answer is to remove the word marriage from the legal definition altogether. Everyone gets the rights they so deserve and 'marriage' is left left between people and their religious institutions. And if an institution decides to embrace and marry gays, that's fine with me because in my opinion in such a situation the spirit of marriage is still upheld.

The problem is marriage is a brand. People have associations and expectations of "marriage" that just isn't conveyed by "civil union".

Scene: interior of a posh restaurant. Four women, all in their mid to late 20s, all well-dressesd and attractive, are talking over lunch. We enter mid conversation...

Charlotee: ...so then, after dinner, dessert comes and its my favorite kind of cupcake with a diamond ruing on top. An dthen right in front of everyone, Chad gets down on one knee and asks me to get ...civil union'd!

ALL: OMIGOD! CIVIL UNION'D!?

Not quite the same, is it?

In fact, given that the majority of marriages are not religious (even here in conservative Alberta, civil ceremonies outnumber church weddings), it's clear that marriage (yes, marriage) is important to more than just churchy types.

I don't see how the current arrangement (marriages for all, with religious institutions having the option to "opt out") poses a problem for anyone.

Apparently my last post wasn't read too closely. The only part of the deal that is a 'union' is the paper. People would still be free to have marriage ceremonies according to their differing religous beliefs.

[Black Dog]

Apparently my last post wasn't read too closely. The only part of the deal that is a 'union' is the paper. People would still be free to have marriage ceremonies according to their differing religous beliefs.

What about those people with no religious beliefs? What do they get?

[Hicksey]

Apparently my last post wasn't read too closely. The only part of the deal that is a 'union' is the paper. People would still be free to have marriage ceremonies according to their differing religous beliefs.

What about those people with no religious beliefs? What do they get?

The same as the rest of us.

[Black Dog]

Which is what? Civil unions, right?

[Hicksey]

Which is what? Civil unions, right?

Yessir.

It doesn't stop them from holding whatever celebration they want to affirm their union. They can even have a marriage type ceremony with a justice of the peace.

It doesn't change what we feel in our hearts. It just makes everything equal to everyone. We can still celebrate our union any way we please.

[moderateamericain]

Which is what? Civil unions, right?

Yessir.

It doesn't stop them from holding whatever celebration they want to affirm their union. They can even have a marriage type ceremony with a justice of the peace.

It doesn't change what we feel in our hearts. It just makes everything equal to everyone. We can still celebrate our union any way we please.

Does that mean we could go bullfighting?

[YankAbroad]

What's the purpose of a government registered ceremony in the first place?