Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Liam]

Should it not be the right of all Canadians to decide by way of a national referendum, if SSM which is not an 'International Human Right' should be protected or allowed constitutionally in Canada?

I am not Canadian, but we are having the same debate here in Massachusetts. My feeling is No, we should not open up civil rights to popular vote, particularly where the effected class is a much-maligned minority.

You keep calling it "SSM" as though it is an entirely different legal status. It is not. It is marriage, plain and simple, and is no less legal that "OSM".

[Renegade]

International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or

Really? How do you know? How do you know it includes opposite sex couples?

does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right.

That's precisely what I'm trying to tell you. That SEXUAL ORIENTIATION is IRRELEVANT when it comes to marriage as a human right. IOW, everyone gets to marry regardless of sexual orientation

Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that excludes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

IOW, let me make it simple for you. Leglslation includes everyone unless it explicitly excludes some group. If you can show me where it explicitly excludes homosexuals, I'll concede you are right. I'll even settle for if you can show that it explictly shows that it applies specificly to hetrosexuals.

[Leafless]

Should it not be the right of all Canadians to decide by way of a national referendum, if SSM which is not an 'International Human Right' should be protected or allowed constitutionally in Canada?

I am not Canadian, but we are having the same debate here in Massachusetts. My feeling is No, we should not open up civil rights to popular vote, particularly where the effected class is a much-maligned minority.

You keep calling it "SSM" as though it is an entirely different legal status. It is not. It is marriage, plain and simple, and is no less legal that "OSM".

Civil rights in the U.S.would probably be best defined as: "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights

In the American constitution 'sexual orientation' is not a recognized nor protected right, so it is subject to discrimination.

The Canadian constitution is a bit of a joke.

Canada as a country was given to us from Britain and not conquered by Canadians to claim the country as their own, including our primary constitution which did not include rights pertaining to 'sexual orientation'.

The Liberal party of Canada unilaterally repatriated our constitution from Britain (without a national referendum) and amended that constitution to include the Liberal invented 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' without a national referendum again.

IMO only a banana republic would initially do such a thing without consulting all Canadians. Regardless this controversial amending of the Canadian constitution with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' included 'sexual orientation under the charter section, 'Equality Rights' and other very controversial rights without a 'national referendum'.

I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

[Black Dog]

Canada as a country was given to us from Britain and not conquered by Canadians to claim the country as their own, including our primary constitution which did not include rights pertaining to 'sexual orientation'.

How do the circumstances of Canada's founding matter in the slightest?

The Liberal party of Canada unilaterally repatriated our constitution from Britain (without a national referendum) and amended that constitution to include the Liberal invented 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' without a national referendum again.

Wrong.

After unpromising negotiations with the provincial governments, Pierre Trudeau eventually came to hope that the federal Parliament could unilaterally patriate the constitution, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Patriation Reference that a substantial level of consent from the provinces was needed according to constitutional conventions (though not in law). Trudeau succeeded in convincing nine provinces out of ten by adding the Notwithstanding Clause to limit the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

Uh... you are aware that the U.S. doesn't hold referendums on constitutional matters either, right?

Article 5

Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of mid-2006, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by a national convention or by Congress—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent.

[Rue]

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right.

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.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone.

What it says is "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."

International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right.

Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

Leafless your response makes no legal sense. For something to be interperated specifically it has to read specifically. Nowhere in the legislation you are failing to understand does it limit marriage to opposite sex marriage. You are reading that interperatation into it. So you are with due respect just dead wrong. Please don't practice law.

[Rue]

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Incorrect! It is indeed a international human right.

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.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Note that it doesn't state that is restricted only to hetrosexuals but is a right of everyone.

What it says is "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."

International Human Rights does NOT include same sex couples or does NOT make reference to SEXUAL ORIENTATION relating to marriage as a human right.

Why is it you are unable to read a straightforward piece of legislation and interpret in a way that includes homosexuals, when in fact it DOES NOT.

Leafless your response makes no legal sense. For something to be interperated specifically it has to read specifically. Nowhere in the legislation you are failing to understand does it state with words marriage must be to the opposite sex. Unless it does, you can not simply assume that is what it means. Ambiguity when interperating statues can not be construed to create a specific menaing. So You are with due respect just dead wrong.

Leafless you should also try to understand international human rights before you make such comments. For example are you even aware in April 2003, the Brazilian delegation to the UN CHR introduced a resolution on “human rights and sexual orientation” ? They wouldn't have been able to do that if it wasn't an international human right.

With due respect, this resolution affirmed the universality of human rights and the basic principle that lesbians, gays and bisexuals were entitled to the same human rights protection as other human beings.

The resolution was co-sponsored by many states, i.e., Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Leafless]

Canada as a country was given to us from Britain and not conquered by Canadians to claim the country as their own, including our primary constitution which did not include rights pertaining to 'sexual orientation'.

How do the circumstances of Canada's founding matter in the slightest?

The Liberal party of Canada unilaterally repatriated our constitution from Britain (without a national referendum) and amended that constitution to include the Liberal invented 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' without a national referendum again.

Wrong.

After unpromising negotiations with the provincial governments, Pierre Trudeau eventually came to hope that the federal Parliament could unilaterally patriate the constitution, but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Patriation Reference that a substantial level of consent from the provinces was needed according to constitutional conventions (though not in law). Trudeau succeeded in convincing nine provinces out of ten by adding the Notwithstanding Clause to limit the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

Uh... you are aware that the U.S. doesn't hold referendums on constitutional matters either, right?

Article 5

Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of mid-2006, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by a national convention or by Congress—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent.

(1)- If Canada was conquered, obviously (whatever government) would not be involved with the 'founding nations notion' or whatever you want to call it. Government would waste no time bickering with Quebec or Aboriginals and I would assume (like most other conquered lands), Quebec and Aboriginals would quickly fall into line with wishes of government or face certain consequences.

(2)- So what if the premiers (at the time) ratified the constitution. Anyways it was still the constitutional boat rocking Liberals who initiated the process. It is still ethically wrong not to include Canadians to decide the fate of their own country especially when it sponges British law to suit the corrupt requirement of politicians. We know all about it, screw the British but keep their paramount political system giving the PM the powers of a king to screw Canadian citizens.

(3)- I would like to see what the finalized process that would be used in such a divisive issue as SSM in the U.S. It will never happen.

As it is, the states that have agreed to SSM offer NO FEDERAL benefits to homosexual couples.

[Leafless]

Leafless your response makes no legal sense. For something to be interperated specifically it has to read specifically. Nowhere in the legislation you are failing to understand does it limit marriage to opposite sex marriage. You are reading that interperatation into it. So you are with due respect just dead wrong. Please don't practice law.

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

You are an obscene person to interpret to the goodness of international rights legislation to include members of the same sex, relating to marriage.

You are making a mockery relating to the goodness of international human rights.

[guyser]

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

As with any contract in law, insurance, employment whatever.....if it is not specifically excluded then it is included. There can be no other conclusion. But dont let that stop you.

OR

Show me where it says Homosexuals are excluded as being allowed to marry each other?

Let them marry....they deserve to be as miserable as anyone else.

[Black Dog]

f Canada was conquered, obviously (whatever government) would not be involved with the 'founding nations notion' or whatever you want to call it. Government would waste no time bickering with Quebec or Aboriginals and I would assume (like most other conquered lands), Quebec and Aboriginals would quickly fall into line with wishes of government or face certain consequences.

But we weren't and they don't. Too bad, so sad.

(2)- So what if the premiers (at the time) ratified the constitution. Anyways it was still the constitutional boat rocking Liberals who initiated the process. It is still ethically wrong not to include Canadians to decide the fate of their own country especially when it sponges British law to suit the corrupt requirement of politicians. We know all about it, screw the British but keep their paramount political system giving the PM the powers of a king to screw Canadian citizens.

The fact the province's had a say gives lie to your statement that patriating the Constitution was a unilateral move. And the fact that they didn't ask Canadians, well, you seem to be having a wee bit of trouble with the whole "representative" democracy thing. The point of such a system is that they don't run to the people with every single decision. To be honest though, I think the Constitutional issue is fair game for a referendum. The definition of marriage, on the other hand, is not.

I would like to see what the finalized process that would be used in such a divisive issue as SSM in the U.S. It will never happen.

It's also apples and oranges. Marriage, IIRC, is the states' juridstiction, not the feds like it is here.

[Leafless]

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

As with any contract in law, insurance, employment whatever.....if it is not specifically excluded then it is included. There can be no other conclusion. But dont let that stop you.

OR

Show me where it says Homosexuals are excluded as being allowed to marry each other?

Let them marry....they deserve to be as miserable as anyone else.

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights "as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislation's."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053102.html

[Renegade]

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

I'll be happy to. "Men and women of full age...". Or is it your position that homosexuals are not considered "Men and women of full age"?

[bk59]

Don't bother talking about the Constitution or Charter with Leafless. He has decided that the federal government does not count as representing the people and chooses to ignore the fact that the Constitution was patriated with the approval of multiple provinces led my multiple political parties. While he is entitled to his opinion, half of it is just wrong (i.e. the evil Liberals patriated the Constitution as part of their evil plans) and the other half (that the Charter is bad) just doesn't align with the views of most Canadians.

See here: http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/charter/charter.html#cric

Anyway... on with the show...

Women's right to vote was a 'human right' in which they were denied that LEGAL right initially.

What I am saying is SSM mainly 'IS NOT' a international human right and 'sexual orientation' is not protected from discrimination.

Any law made legal pertaining to 'sexual orientation' which is not a 'human right' should be decided by Canadians if it to receive Charter protection as there are NO human rights being initially denied to homosexuals.

First, numerous people have shown how international human rights explicitly recognize sexual orientation as a human right. Second, others have shown that international human rights can be interpreted to extend to same-sex marriage. However, to be fair to you, this is open to interpretation - some interpret that section as applying to heterosexual couples only while others take the SSM interpretation.

More to the point, what does it matter if SSM has been recognized as a legitimate human right or not? Part of the reason why I keep asking you questions is to get to the basis of your argument. I can accept that you are morally against SSM. But you keep trying to base your argument on other reasons. First it was that SSM wasn't in the Constitution in 1867 therefore it was bad. When I pointed out that women's rights weren't there, you moved to an international standard (implying that the 1867 argument wasn't really valid, that the rights are based on international acceptance). Of course, this argument is pretty weak as well. At one time, no countries allowed women to have certain rights, including voting rights. Using your argument, the first country to consider allowing women to vote would have looked around at the international community and said "Oh, the standard seems to be that women shouldn't vote, therefore we won't let them." Using your argument, no country would have extended voting rights to women.

You say that women's rights are human rights that were legally denied them. But many people say the exact same thing about sexual orientation. How do you determine that a women's right to vote is a human right, but equality based on sexual orientation is not?

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights "as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislation's."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053102.html

You should take a look at the whole paragraph that you are quoting:

if the Vatican's interpretation is seen as an imposition of morality on others, then "gay rights laws and the demand for special rights as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislations."

What it says is that if the Vatican's interpretation of sexual orientation rights is imposing their morality on others then groups advocating sexual orientation rights are imposing their morality on others. But that logic doesn't quite hold. If the Vatican had their way, then they would be preventing some people from doing what they want - SSM. But if SSM is allowed, how does that prevent (for example) Catholics from doing anything? Catholics are still allowed to believe that SSM is wrong, Catholics do not have to perform SS marriages in their churches, Catholics will still have their religious version of marriage that excludes homosexuals.

There are people in the world that think, based on religious beliefs, that drinking or gambling is wrong. But no one argues that the existence of alcohol or casinos is somehow infringing on their rights. Or at least, I haven't seen an argument for that.

[gc1765]

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

Show me specifically where it says that people who post at mapleleaf web under the nickname "Leafless" are allowed to marry? Show me where is says that people who pick their noses are allowed to marry? Show me where it says that anyone who has ever worn a blue shirt is allowed to marry? etc..... Should we deny rights to these people? Afterall, picking your nose is not specifically mentioned as a human right.

[Leafless]

Show me where it says homosexuals are included as being allowed to marry each other?

I'll be happy to. "Men and women of full age...". Or is it your position that homosexuals are not considered "Men and women of full age"?

Reference to homosexuals having the right to marry each other = "Men and women of full age...". I don't think so.

Pertaining to marriage, I don't think that would be accurate to make such a statement.

The definition of 'man' includes: " a person showing characteristics associated with males" This would include of course i.e. 'normal sexual characteristics' which homosexuals do not possess.

Besides, you simply cannot blurt out a statement "Men and women of full age" as being meaningful without including what that statement is meant to imply.

Let's face facts.

The only reason homosexuality is legal along with SSM is Canadian politicians wish to control the electorate to squeeze every vote possible in the direction that is of benefit to that particular political party.

Referendums are NOT illegal in Canada and politicians IMO are depriving Canadian citizens of their rightful democratic rights.

SSM will simply convince many more Canadians not to participate in the federal electoral process.

[Leafless]

You say that women's rights are human rights that were legally denied them. But many people say the exact same thing about sexual orientation. How do you determine that a women's right to vote is a human right, but equality based on sexual orientation is not?

--------------------------------------------------

There were basic reasons why women were initially denied the right to vote.

First and foremost was women were not interested in politics and did not really understand what was going due to dedicating their full time to family obligations, which was back then the norm. Secondly most did not pay taxes or own property. Women having the right to vote is an international human right.

To-day with many women working and paying taxes along with the right to vote mostly has been beneficial to society as a whole.

Equality and human rights are not on the same level and cannot or should not be associated with each other since equality as in the case of Canada is a 'dictated right as seen by government' and therefore can be seen as 'corrupt' for the benefit of government and not the citizens of the land or for that matter the world.

[Drea]

There were basic reasons why women were initially denied the right to vote.

First and foremost was women were not interested in politics and did not really understand what was going due to dedicating their full time to family obligations, which was back then the norm.

It's not that they didn't WANT to be involved in the political process -- they weren't ALLOWED to. Men would not allow women to participate.

Secondly most did not pay taxes or own property.

Again, because they were not allowed to. They were considered "property" themselves. Does your car pay taxes (it's your property)? Does your car own land? <heh>

Women having the right to vote is an international human right.

It is a right today, but it was not a right in the past. This goes to show that rights can, do and should change over time.

To-day with many women working and paying taxes along with the right to vote mostly has been beneficial to society as a whole.

Of course. Too bad it took ten thousand years for men to realize women were not objects to be owned.

Equality and human rights are not on the same level and cannot or should not be associated with each other since equality as in the case of Canada is a 'dictated right as seen by government' and therefore can be seen as 'corrupt' for the benefit of government and not the citizens of the land or for that matter the world.

Every adult human being should have the same rights. Gay, straight, male, female, native or immigrant. The one thing we all have in common is that we are all human beings. That in itself should be enough.

[Renegade]

The definition of 'man' includes: " a person showing characteristics associated with males" This would include of course i.e. 'normal sexual characteristics' which homosexuals do not possess.

Where are you getting this definition?

So I would understand by your response that you do not consider a male homosexual a part of the group "man"? By extension, you also don't consider lesbians to be part of the group "women". Am I getting that right?

Besides, you simply cannot blurt out a statement "Men and women of full age" as being meaningful without including what that statement is meant to imply.

Neither I nor you can read implications into statements, unless we have the ability to read the mind of the statement originators. Until then you and I must rely on exactly what is written and not try to read implications into it.

The statement question does not state that the right of marriage for men or women is "to each other". Because no such restriction is made, any marriage is a protected right. The only limitation in the statement is that they be "of full age". Given that they were specific with the age limitation, would you not agree if there were other limitations they would also include those?

BTW, you never answered my earlier question. Since the statement does not mention that men and women shoudl marry each other, how do you know that the international right to marriage extends to hetrosexuals?

The only reason homosexuality is legal along with SSM is Canadian politicians wish to control the electorate to squeeze every vote possible in the direction that is of benefit to that particular political party.

You've now begun to rant and read motivitations for which there is no evidentiary support.

Referendums are NOT illegal in Canada and politicians IMO are depriving Canadian citizens of their rightful democratic rights.

A referendum is meaningless when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population said that they supported the concept that marriage is only a hetrosexual union, the 1% still should have the freedom to decide for themselves who they marry.

SSM will simply convince many more Canadians not to participate in the federal electoral process.

If a subset of the population with bigoted views decides to not participate in the electorial process, in my view it would only serve to enhance the process.

[Leafless]

The definition of 'man' includes: " a person showing characteristics associated with males" This would include of course i.e. 'normal sexual characteristics' which homosexuals do not possess.

Where are you getting this definition?

So I would understand by your response that you do not consider a male homosexual a part of the group "man"? By extension, you also don't consider lesbians to be part of the group "women". Am I getting that right?

I am quoting the definition of 'man' from 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' Item 3-a, reads, " a person showing characteristics associated with males."

You are correct pertaining to your understanding, that I do not consider homosexuals traditionally male or female as in comparison to the traditional role of male and females.

Proof of this is in a homosexual or lesbian relationship, usually one of the same sex partners, invariably assumes the traditional heterosexual role of a member of the opposite sex.

It's clear homosexuals and lesbians could be identified as members the third sex in which they play act heterosexuals.

[Leafless]

BTW, you never answered my earlier question. Since the statement does not mention that men and women shoudl marry each other, how do you know that the international right to marriage extends to hetrosexuals?

A referendum is meaningless when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population said that they supported the concept that marriage is only a hetrosexual union, the 1% still should have the freedom to decide for themselves who they marry.

Are you that naive, relating to 'marriage' to interpret that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' refers to 'an act of perversion' relating to the activities of diverse homosexuals and lesbians.

Again you are making a nonsensical statement suggesting diverse or perverted Canadians reserve the right to marry whoever they choose.

Does this include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, dogs, cats, sheep etc. being defined as a suitable candidates for marriage?

[Melanie_]

Are you that naive, relating to 'marriage' to interpret that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' refers to 'an act of perversion' relating to the activities of diverse homosexuals and lesbians.

Again you are making a nonsensical statement suggesting diverse or perverted Canadians reserve the right to marry whoever they choose.

Does this include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, dogs, cats, sheep etc. being defined as a suitable candidates for marriage?

Whatever "acts of perversion" two consenting adults indulge in is their business, not yours. The issue is whether to acknowledge and respect their committment to a permanent relationship, not what they do within that relationship. Or maybe you would like to sponsor a movement to ensure all Canadians use the missionary position only at all times? Outlaw all forms of foreplay - just get straight to the business at hand (oh, sorry, no hands, business at genetalia).

BTW, International Human Rights seem to deal with your concern regarding dogs, cats and sheep...

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.

[ft.niagara]

Does this include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, dogs, cats, sheep etc. being defined as a suitable candidates for marriage?

I agree. Marriage presumably requires sex. The lack of sex is a basis for divorce. Homosexual sex, at least between males REQUIRES anal sex. To some, this is disgusting. For female homosexuals, it REQUIRES dildo and vibrator play. To others, this might be disgusting. Neither play has any potential societal benefit except pleasure. In the thousands of years of humanity, there has never been a concept of legal marriage of homosexuals, yet in just ten or twenty years, it is a concept forced upon society by homosexuals not content with legal union. Further, why is it still illegal to marry a daughter, or poligamy, or age requirements....because there is not a large enough self interest group to promote it, yet it is really very similar to homosexual marriage because it is also a change in the concept in what constitutes marriage.

Basicly, homosexual marriage is a joke, and will always be one. It is an emperors cloths sort of joke.

[ft.niagara]

Whatever "acts of perversion" two consenting adults indulge in is their business, not yours. The issue is whether to acknowledge and respect their committment to a permanent relationship, not what they do within that relationship. Or maybe you would like to sponsor a movement to ensure all Canadians use the missionary position only at all times? Outlaw all forms of foreplay - just get straight to the business at hand (oh, sorry, no hands, business at genetalia).

A typical arguement, personally attack the other as unenlightened. I think the true arguement is the term "marriage". Some consider it a sacred term, but with the breakdown of the family, and legalized perversion, I guess it is no longer considered such to many. A term is just a term. Nothing to fight about really.

[Melanie_]

I agree. Marriage presumably requires sex. The lack of sex is a basis for divorce. Homosexual sex, at least between males REQUIRES anal sex. To some, this is disgusting. For female homosexuals, it REQUIRES dildo and vibrator play. To others, this might be disgusting. Neither play has any potential societal benefit except pleasure. In the thousands of years of humanity, there has never been a concept of legal marriage of homosexuals, yet in just ten or twenty years, it is a concept forced upon society by homosexuals not content with legal union. Further, why is it still illegal to marry a daughter, or poligamy, or age requirements....because there is not a large enough self interest group to promote it, yet it is really very similar to homosexual marriage because it is also a change in the concept in what constitutes marriage.

Basicly, homosexual marriage is a joke, and will always be one. It is an emperors cloths sort of joke.

Although I think your assessment of the potential acts is somewhat limited, those forms of sex can be found in heterosexual relationships as well. Are we going to outlaw heterosexuals indulging in those acts? Who's going to police that? Sex is rarely about "potential societal benefit" and much more often about pleasure, even among heterosexuals - I sure wouldn't want to get pregnant every time! As for polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc, they are no more connected to same sex marriage than they are to opposite sex marriage - perhaps they are even more closely connected to opposite sex marriage.

[Melanie_]

A typical arguement, personally attack the other as unenlightened. I think the true arguement is the term "marriage". Some consider it a sacred term, but with the breakdown of the family, and legalized perversion, I guess it is no longer considered such to many. A term is just a term. Nothing to fight about really.

Considering it sacred doesn't make it so. The problem with considering it sacred is that it implies that marriage is a religious term, and that religion therefore defines marriage. Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state. "By the power vested in me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you...." Marriage is just as valid when it is performed by a justice of the peace, a rabbi, a priest, or a Wiccan priestess, as long as they are given the power to do so by the state. Therefore it is up to the state to determine who can marry, and who cannot.