More Tory MPs question wisdom of another gay-marriage vote

[MightyAC]

I support the previous definition of marriage as it represents a tradition and a defining institution of our society...

Throughout history the purpose and meaning of marriage has changed and evolved drastically as society has changed and evolved. In my opinion, society defines the meaning marriage, not the other way around. It seems to me that society has changed enough to warrant changing the traditional definition of marriage. I hate to use the word traditional because it implies that the idea that a man married a woman for love existed forever. Our previous definition of marriage is actually a fairly recent idea, historically speaking. Although, not common practice SSM has occurred in throughout history, in fact Nero married men on two separate occasions.

Anyway, my point is that meaning of marriage has changed many times as society changed, why freeze the definition now?

[FTA Lawyer]

I support the previous definition of marriage as it represents a tradition and a defining institution of our society...

Throughout history the purpose and meaning of marriage has changed and evolved drastically as society has changed and evolved. In my opinion, society defines the meaning marriage, not the other way around. It seems to me that society has changed enough to warrant changing the traditional definition of marriage. I hate to use the word traditional because it implies that the idea that a man married a woman for love existed forever. Our previous definition of marriage is actually a fairly recent idea, historically speaking. Although, not common practice SSM has occurred in throughout history, in fact Nero married men on two separate occasions.

Anyway, my point is that meaning of marriage has changed many times as society changed, why freeze the definition now?

Your point is understood...in fact, the remainder of my post that you didn't cite shows that I am absolutely open to the definition of marriaged being "thawed"...

But that's just my personal view.

The current definition may indeed be the prevailing opinion of most Canadians, and if so, I accept that as a valid expression of democracy in action. I can just imagine the opposition that existed at the time to the re-defining of "persons" to include women...I'm certainly not upset with that development, but at the same time I would not have summarily dismissed anyone arguing in opposition to the development as being simply rhetorical or hate-filled.

Meaningful debate requires input from all sides, and sometimes opposing change for no other reason than it is change (i.e. to protect and support tradition) can be a very valuable and worthy cause. Doesn't mean those opposing change will or should win the day, but they deserve to be heard every bit as much as those who are backing the new way of doing things.

When I speak though of the previous definition being a tradition of our society, I'm talking about Canadian society...I couldn't care less about whether an ancient Roman Emperor liked to play for both teams. If no one argues for Canadian traditions, and we simply shift our way of doing things to follow what some other country or region is doing because that is what is fashionable at the time, then we allow Canadian society to be incapable of definition (other than to call it indecisive, non-committal, and willing to change for anyone at anytime...wait a minute, maybe I'm on to something...do you think that RCMP officer over there wearing a turban would agree?)

FTA

[MightyAC]

Your point is understood...in fact, the remainder of my post that you didn't cite shows that I am absolutely open to the definition of marriaged being "thawed"...

Yeah, it's clear from this and other posts that you are willing to accept the change in definition if that's the will of the people. Which, I applaud since most are not as civil about such topics.

You did say that you supported "keeping the previous definition but addressing the question of collateral benefits for same-sex couples via the often suggested 'legal union'."

So that's why I pointed out the fact that the meaning of marriage has changed drastically over time so why cling to a snapshot now.

When I speak though of the previous definition being a tradition of our society, I'm talking about Canadian society...I couldn't care less about whether an ancient Roman Emperor liked to play for both teams. If no one argues for Canadian traditions, and we simply shift our way of doing things to follow what some other country or region is doing because that is what is fashionable at the time, then we allow Canadian society to be incapable of definition (other than to call it indecisive, non-committal, and willing to change for anyone at anytime...wait a minute, maybe I'm on to something...do you think that RCMP officer over there wearing a turban would agree?)

I too could not care less "whether an ancient Roman Emperor liked to play for both teams". However, the idea of marriage is very old and Canada is very young. Marriage existed and was evolving within various societies long before Canada existed. Canada was settled by Europeans that brought their current incarnation of marriage with them. Over time Canadian society has evolved and now there is a conflict between it and the previous definition of marriage. IMO it is time for the definition to evolve again.

I don't agree with change for change sake nor do I agree with adopting what is "fashionable at the time". However, I would hardly call inclusiveness and equality fads. A significant portion of our society is homosexual and always has been. What has changed is the proportion of Canadians willing to treat them as equals.

Society will continue to change and more traditions and laws will change with it.

Your RCMP comment is a little ridiculous. You know better than most that rules change on a case by case basis. Using a simple uniform change as an example of society caving into what is fashionable at the time is pathetic. Would it bother you if your local coffee pourer wore a turban instead of a Tim Horton's visor or ball cap?

[FTA Lawyer]

Your RCMP comment is a little ridiculous. You know better than most that rules change on a case by case basis. Using a simple uniform change as an example of society caving into what is fashionable at the time is pathetic. Would it bother you if your local coffee pourer wore a turban instead of a Tim Horton's visor or ball cap?

The comment was flippant, maybe, but not pathetic or ridiculous. We obviously don't have the same view of the importance of tradition...which is fine...but a turban instead of a ball cap isn't even remotely the same as changing the world-reknowned and highly regarded uniform of our national police force (whose origins are older than the country itself) to make sure that no one feels slighted if they are asked to follow Canadian tradition / custom.

What you call a "simple uniform change" I call a serious derrogation of one of the true bona-fide traditions our relatively young country could actually lay claim to.

What you call a "simple definition change" I call a serious shift in the social standards upon which our formal relationships with fellow Canadians are built.

I don't profess that either change is wrong simply because it represents a new way of doing things, but I do feel that certain inequities in society can be justified because they are traditional / customary and we ought to not be so quick to change Canadian society in the name of political correctness.

FTA

[injusticebuster]

One of the problems I have with the gay agenda is that they want to make it very difficult to speak out against gay marriage. My local Bishop, Fred Henry, was brought before the Human Rights Tribunal (which cost alot of money) because he is against gay marriage.

When your not allowed to speak out on an issue in a free country, it becomes obvious that this isn't extending rights to a persecuted minority, but taking rights away from one group that downtown Torontonians think its dangerous and giving them to one with a well funded propaganda machine.

The only reason the gays want the word marriage is to strike big winning blow in the politically correct area. There is no reason why the plan I've advocated for a long time on these forums can't work, have the government drop the word marriage all together, and allow people benefits no matter their living arrangement. Those that want to be married, can say so, those that want something else to say so.

Gay marriage is not neccessary for rights equality. With what I've advocated, they could be married if they so wished, who cares, not my business.

My tax dollars funding a government that advocates gay marriage, now that, is a completely different issue.

The best laws are drawn on compromise, instead, we have one on the books now that is 110% sided to one side, steamrolling everyone that opposed it... now you can't even oppose it legally without being charged with hate crimes.

Human Rights Commissions uzurpes monopoly on human rights just like Inquisition and Communist party once did.

When Halpern wanted to marry his same sex partner, the court ruled refusal violated their dignity.

When a dying father asked the Ontario Human Rights Commission to give him more time to comply with the strict 15 day deadline, Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Norton denied it on spot.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided it it was a priority to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse than to save a life of a father.

When a crippled by illness father attempting to support his family was harassed, intimidated, reprised by a lesbian manger for enforcing his right to be accommodated, the Ontario Human Rights Commission told the sick father to quit because it "does not like that type of cases" and its priority was to guarantee a right to party for lesbians in the bathhouse .

[Charles Anthony]

What you call a "simple uniform change" I call a serious derrogation of one of the true bona-fide traditions our relatively young country could actually lay claim to.

What you call a "simple definition change" I call a serious shift in the social standards upon which our formal relationships with fellow Canadians are built.

I have a completely different take on the same things and the same changes.

They represent the changes that many people want. I do not think that most Canadians identify themselves with an RCMP uniform any more than they do with Inuit soap carvings.

Today, I think Canada's culture is more accurately identified as a constant influx and tolerance of foreigners. It is a bit laugable to expect many Canadians to identify with an old uniform. I would rather have an officer who is the best for the job (wearing a turban) than the second best officer. Now, this opens up the possibility that the turban-officer was hired because of ethnicity to fill some racial quotas -- I do not know. If that is the case, the uniform is irrelevant. I want the better officer, even if he has to wear plain-clothes.

I realize that my attitude seems culturally poor. However, I do not think there is much practical choice. It is like fighting to subsidize the hoola-hoop industry -- nobody cares anymore. You can not force culture nor traditions.

[FTA Lawyer]

What you call a "simple uniform change" I call a serious derrogation of one of the true bona-fide traditions our relatively young country could actually lay claim to.

What you call a "simple definition change" I call a serious shift in the social standards upon which our formal relationships with fellow Canadians are built.

I have a completely different take on the same things and the same changes.

They represent the changes that many people want. I do not think that most Canadians identify themselves with an RCMP uniform any more than they do with Inuit soap carvings.

Today, I think Canada's culture is more accurately identified as a constant influx and tolerance of foreigners. It is a bit laugable to expect many Canadians to identify with an old uniform. I would rather have an officer who is the best for the job (wearing a turban) than the second best officer. Now, this opens up the possibility that the turban-officer was hired because of ethnicity to fill some racial quotas -- I do not know. If that is the case, the uniform is irrelevant. I want the better officer, even if he has to wear plain-clothes.

I realize that my attitude seems culturally poor. However, I do not think there is much practical choice. It is like fighting to subsidize the hoola-hoop industry -- nobody cares anymore. You can not force culture nor traditions.

You've drifted off the point...I'm not opening the can of worms about affirmative action...I also want the best officer...regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc...BUT, I want the officers to wear the unifrom that every RCMP officer has previously worn proudly...and if you don't want to wear that unifrom then choose some other profession.

When I appear in the Court of Queen's Bench I have to wear my formal barrister's gown...otherwise, the presiding judge can actually refuse me the privilege of addressing the Court. If I have some religious aversion to that tradition, I am free to not appear in the Court of Queen's Bench, rather than force tradtion and custom to be abandoned by all just to make me happy.

I appreciate that times change...I think I have been quite clear about that. I accept that the change in the definition of marriage is achange that many want or are at leaset indifferent about. But you cannot dispute that many do not want the change, and I am simply taking a democratic view that when Parliament speaks on an issue as sensitive as this, it should make every effort to effect representative democracy al la the late Chuck Cadman rather than arbitrarily imposed party discipline.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

You've drifted off the point...

I drifted off the point???

You brought up the diversion of turban RCMP officers and uniforms as an analogy.

I called you on your analogy and you say that I am drifting off the point.

I'm not opening the can of worms about affirmative action...I also want the best officer...regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc...

What about regardless of uniform?

BUT, I want the officers to wear the unifrom that every RCMP officer has previously worn proudly...

I do not. I do not care about what the best officer wears.

I am willing to bet that there are a lot more plain-clothes RCMP officers who do just as much useful work if not more. Where is the tradition there?

and if you don't want to wear that unifrom then choose some other profession.

That argument would work if the government did not monopolize the law and order business.

If we were talking about a private security company, fine. Your stance would be fair. However, the RCMP is paid by everybody's taxes.

You have to explain more about this new analogy:

When I appear in the Court of Queen's Bench I have to wear my formal barrister's gown...otherwise, the presiding judge can actually refuse me the privilege of addressing the Court. If I have some religious aversion to that tradition, I am free to not appear in the Court of Queen's Bench, rather than force tradtion and custom to be abandoned by all just to make me happy.

Are you (or whoever you represent) required to defend themselves at this Queen's Bench court? Is there no other choice?

If there is no other choice and you would be refused to present yourself without a particular costume, that is a horrifying miscarriage of justice. Period.

That is not "equal under the law" at all. Sorry.

I appreciate that times change...I think I have been quite clear about that. I accept that the change in the definition of marriage is achange that many want or are at leaset indifferent about. But you cannot dispute that many do not want the change,

Yes. I can dispute it easily. To start, take a look at this forum. Not everybody agrees with the same definition of mariage.

when Parliament speaks on an issue as sensitive as this, it should make every effort to effect representative democracy

How should it do that?

[Topaz]

There are certian subjects that the governement has no say in what Canadians do or don't do. This same-sex marriage is one of them! This is between two adults ,usually and what do I care or even should care. They are not hurting me or anyone else. There more serious subjects, that the government needs to attend to and this is not one! They are Canadians citizens and should be treated as such, not anymore than you or me but not any less!

[Guest Warwick Green]

There are certian subjects that the governement has no say in what Canadians do or don't do. This same-sex marriage is one of them! This is between two adults ,usually and what do I care or even should care. They are not hurting me or anyone else. There more serious subjects, that the government needs to attend to and this is not one! They are Canadians citizens and should be treated as such, not anymore than you or me but not any less!

We can argue that by revisiting SSM Harper is pandering to the religious right. We can make the argument that you do, that it is "between two adults". However, given the legal rights associated with marriage it is certainly an issue that falls within the purview of Parliament to make a final decision on the matter.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The elected representatives of the people determine the outcome of legislation proposed in the House of Commons. This has already been decided upon, yet we now find ourselves returning to the same issue. In my view the government is wasting time and money on this issue.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of citizens. The private sexual habits of citizens have no impact on society. It is nobody's business what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. For this reason a more valueable debate would be legalizing prostitution. As it stands the sex industry is conducted outside of government regulations and the proliferation of disease and criminal abuse of the workers is common place. Many young girls are trapped in a lifestyle not by choice but by circumstance. This situation has been in existance for years and the government has always left these citizens behind in terms of care and aid. In addition the prosecution for violent and underage sex offenses could be elevated into a capital crimes classification through the change of legal status of sex trade workers. If services can be legally purchased then there is even less excuse for sex without mutual consent of legal age adults.

The SSM issue pales in comparison to this age old problem of society.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The elected representatives of the people determine the outcome of legislation proposed in the House of Commons. This has already been decided upon, yet we now find ourselves returning to the same issue. In my view the government is wasting time and money on this issue.

Strictly politics. Ever since Harper showed he was pro-abort he had to throw the socons a bone.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of citizens.

Agreed but this goes beyond that. It's the issue of how we recognize SSMs - same level as hetero-unions or something different.

[jdobbin]

I thought that Harper said he was going to call a vote but not actually change the law. Was I wrong on that?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I thought that Harper said he was going to call a vote but not actually change the law. Was I wrong on that?

They will vote on a resolution whether or not to review the issue. If the vote is no, the issue is dead. If it's yes then he will introduce legislation to change the law.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I hope this vote will be a matter of confidence.

[jdobbin]

They will vote on a resolution whether or not to review the issue. If the vote is no, the issue is dead. If it's yes then he will introduce legislation to change the law.

Tough call. He will increase his percentage of votes in seats already won and likely not gain enough of a percentage in seats he might need for a majority elsewhere. No win situation.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I hope this vote will be a matter of confidence.

It's just a resolution, not a bill - no issue of confidence. It's what he promised. And I'm sure the fix is in to defeat the resolution. He's got the anti-SSM vote in his backpocket either way. He's after the urban vote which is more pro-gay rights.