Same-sex motion defeated by wide margin

[cybercoma]

House: 1

God : 0

no no no you have it all wrong

House: 1

Flying Spaghetti Monster: 1

God: 0

Oh man! You took my post right from my keyboard! FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN THE HIZOUSE! *throws up gang signs!*

see also: Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

[normanchateau]

House: 1

God : 0

House: 1

Haters: 0

[fellowtraveller]

Harper : 1

Fundies: 0

The best part was how Harper forced/shamed Dion into allowing all his MPs a free vote. Has this ever happened before to the Liberals? An actual free vote?

[jdobbin]

Harper : 1

Fundies: 0

The best part was how Harper forced/shamed Dion into allowing all his MPs a free vote. Has this ever happened before to the Liberals? An actual free vote?

A simple look at the record would reveal many free votes. Death penalty anyone?

[fellowtraveller]

No , i mean an actual free vote where backbenchers and Cabinet are free to vote however they choose. All the previous Liberal votes on same sex marriage were partially or entirely whipped.

I understand the Liberal cabinet was whipped for the death penalty vote too, in what - 1965?

Got any actual examples of totally unwhipped free votes jdobbin?

Post WW2 would be good.

Give me that simple 'look at the record'.

[jdobbin]

No , i mean an actual free vote where backbenchers and Cabinet are free to vote however they choose. All the previous Liberal votes on same sex marriage were partially or entirely whipped.

I understand the Liberal cabinet was whipped for the death penalty vote too, in what - 1965?

Got any actual examples of totally unwhipped free votes jdobbin?

Post WW2 would be good.

Give me that simple 'look at the record'.

As I said. The death penalty vote.

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

That was in 1988. Every party was free to vote as they chose. No one was forced to toe a party line. A simple search of the Internet would have let you find that.

[CrazyCanuck]

Isn't celebrity-marriage much more of a threat to the institution then same-sex marriage?

[southerncomfort]

Harper : 1

Fundies: 0

The best part was how Harper forced/shamed Dion into allowing all his MPs a free vote. Has this ever happened before to the Liberals? An actual free vote?

Not too often Too bad tho people who do object to SSM for morality or other reasons have to be called names. That is all too typical of Liberals too, anyone who disagrees with them is either a racist, a hater or put your slur of the day here____________

[Melanie_]

Too bad tho people who do object to SSM for morality or other reasons have to be called names. That is all too typical of Liberals too, anyone who disagrees with them is either a racist, a hater or put your slur of the day here____________

Anyone is free to reject SSM on moral grounds, by choosing not to marry someone of the same sex. The problem is when that person tries to impose their version of morality on someone else. The counter argument is often that SSM proponents are imposing their morality on their opponents, but this is untrue - no one is being forced into SSM.

[cybercoma]

"Attitudes to homosexuality reveal much about the sort of morality that is inspired by religious faith." -Richard Dawkins

Because it's perfectly reasonable for rational human beings to believe that the private actions between two consenting adults will result in an eternity of suffering and misery.

[Renegade]

"Attitudes to homosexuality reveal much about the sort of morality that is inspired by religious faith." -Richard Dawkins

Because it's perfectly reasonable for rational human beings to believe that the private actions between two consenting adults will result in an eternity of suffering and misery.

cybercoma, will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for who? If it is their own actions which result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themselves, they have a right to be concerned, and can take action to prevent it. If they are concerened that someone elses private actions will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themseles, then no, it is not perfectly reasonable.

[normanchateau]

"Attitudes to homosexuality reveal much about the sort of morality that is inspired by religious faith." -Richard Dawkins

Dawkins would have been delighted to know that Canadian evidence supports his point. Almost all of the opposition to making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals came from religious groups or politicians influenced by religious groups.

Here's what the Christian Heritage Party had to say when they feared that Stephen Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance, would not vote against C250 on final reading:

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

[cybercoma]

cybercoma, will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for who? If it is their own actions which result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themselves, they have a right to be concerned, and can take action to prevent it. If they are concerened that someone elses private actions will result in an eternity of suffering and misery for themseles, then no, it is not perfectly reasonable.

Damn those people for loving one another.

Do you think the 'spirit' is something tangible that actually exists? Do you really believe there is something inside you waiting to get out when you die? And do you really think that two people who love each other are going to rot in hell for being happy?

Eternal damnation and torture for those who love one another.

What ignorance. What ridiculous, asinine ignorance. Shame on YOU for making your way into the private lives of consenting adults. Shame on YOU for putting restrictions on whom a person may love. What they do in the privacy of their home is none of your business and condemning them, or suggesting that they be tormented for eternity for their actions, is contemptable.

[geoffrey]

Anyone is free to reject SSM on moral grounds, by choosing not to marry someone of the same sex. The problem is when that person tries to impose their version of morality on someone else. The counter argument is often that SSM proponents are imposing their morality on their opponents, but this is untrue - no one is being forced into SSM.

Don't be silly Melanie, we force our morals on others everyday... it's called the law. It's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal. Ect.,ect.... this all despite that depending on your particular moral views, these principles can sometimes be justified.

The law in the western world is to uphold a common moral code.

This 'don't force moral values' argument is the weakest from the pro-SSM side... on par with "God says it's bad" from the anti-SSM crowd.

In a related 'sexual choices issue', instead of real issues like murder and theft... necrophilya is a crime... by your logic that should be legalised because we shall not enforce our morals on others... what about public sex, public nudity. That is just our moral values imposed on someone else.

Let's be reasonable here, imposing morals on others is a cornerstone of civilized society. We just need to make sure they are the right morals.

[cybercoma]

Don't be silly Melanie, we force our morals on others everyday... it's called the law. It's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal. Ect.,ect.... this all despite that depending on your particular moral views, these principles can sometimes be justified.

The law in the western world is to uphold a common moral code.

This 'don't force moral values' argument is the weakest from the pro-SSM side... on par with "God says it's bad" from the anti-SSM crowd.

In a related 'sexual choices issue', instead of real issues like murder and theft... necrophilya is a crime... by your logic that should be legalised because we shall not enforce our morals on others... what about public sex, public nudity. That is just our moral values imposed on someone else.

Let's be reasonable here, imposing morals on others is a cornerstone of civilized society. We just need to make sure they are the right morals.

Morals are enforced everyday, but the private actions of consenting adults, which poses no harm to anyone, is no place for others to assert their morality.

Necrophylia is a crime because a dead person can't consent to having their corpse defiled. And altough this is illegal, it obviously should not be as illegal as say, having sex with someone who is passed out and cannot give consent.

Public sex and public nudity are illegal because of the 'public' part, regardless of a person's sexuality. These are not things done in private, since it forces others who are out in public to witness it.

[geoffrey]

Morals are enforced everyday, but the private actions of consenting adults, which poses no harm to anyone, is no place for others to assert their morality.

Private actions of consenting adults is a very narrow scope. Most actions have effects on those outside their immediate impact.

[Melanie_]

Don't be silly Melanie, we force our morals on others everyday... it's called the law. It's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal. Ect.,ect.... this all despite that depending on your particular moral views, these principles can sometimes be justified.

The law in the western world is to uphold a common moral code.

This 'don't force moral values' argument is the weakest from the pro-SSM side... on par with "God says it's bad" from the anti-SSM crowd.

In a related 'sexual choices issue', instead of real issues like murder and theft... necrophilya is a crime... by your logic that should be legalised because we shall not enforce our morals on others... what about public sex, public nudity. That is just our moral values imposed on someone else.

Let's be reasonable here, imposing morals on others is a cornerstone of civilized society. We just need to make sure they are the right morals.

Killing and stealing obviously infringe on the rights of others. Necrophilia doesn't involve consent, and public sex and nudity impose themselves on others who aren't given the choice to consent or not. Same sex marriage involves consenting adults who were being restricted by someone else's vision of what they should be allowed to consent to. No one's rights are being violated by SSM.

[geoffrey]

Killing and stealing obviously infringe on the rights of others. Necrophilia doesn't involve consent, and public sex and nudity impose themselves on others who aren't given the choice to consent or not. Same sex marriage involves consenting adults who were being restricted by someone else's vision of what they should be allowed to consent to.

Dead people have no inherent self-interest, really their rights are more related to the family then themselves.

You say public sex and nudity impose themselves on others. Maybe I feel the same about gays holding hands in public.

No one's rights are being violated by SSM.

I'd take that statement and change it a little. No one's rights need to be violated by extending equal state treatment to alternative sexual arrangements.

[cybercoma]

Morals are enforced everyday, but the private actions of consenting adults, which poses no harm to anyone, is no place for others to assert their morality.

Private actions of consenting adults is a very narrow scope. Most actions have effects on those outside their immediate impact.

What I mean is, as long as those private actions don't pose harm to anyone.

[geoffrey]

Morals are enforced everyday, but the private actions of consenting adults, which poses no harm to anyone, is no place for others to assert their morality.

Private actions of consenting adults is a very narrow scope. Most actions have effects on those outside their immediate impact.

What I mean is, as long as those private actions don't pose harm to anyone.

And what I meant is there are pretty much no actions that have an effect limited to only those parties involved.

[cybercoma]

You say public sex and nudity impose themselves on others. Maybe I feel the same about gays holding hands in public.

And if the government wants to make it illegal for heterosexual couples to hold hands in public, then they can make it illegal for homosexuals to hold hands as well.

Seeing how it's a ridiculous proposition, I don't expect it to be a private member's bill anytime soon.

[cybercoma]

And what I meant is there are pretty much no actions that have an effect limited to only those parties involved.

Hey, millions of Canadians are having sex right now, get back to me on how that's affecting you.

PS: Some of them are homosexuals.

[geoffrey]

And what I meant is there are pretty much no actions that have an effect limited to only those parties involved.

Hey, millions of Canadians are having sex right now, get back to me on how that's affecting you.

PS: Some of them are homosexuals.

Millions are having sex right now? You figure that 25-30% of the population perhaps is just givin' it at any time? I don't know....

But numbers aside... the average sexual relationship really doesn't impact me at all. Let's take for example an alternative relationship in homosexual males. They have a significantly higher chance of contracting AIDS. That's a cost to society. Their activity has a negative financial impact on others.

For example.

[cybercoma]

Millions are having sex right now? You figure that 25-30% of the population perhaps is just givin' it at any time? I don't know....

But numbers aside... the average sexual relationship really doesn't impact me at all. Let's take for example an alternative relationship in homosexual males. They have a significantly higher chance of contracting AIDS. That's a cost to society. Their activity has a negative financial impact on others.

For example.

Do you suppose they're getting AIDS because they're gay, so all gay people are a cost to society?

Or are you educated enough to figure out that it's the irresponsible homosexuals that are more likely to get AIDS. Just as anyone who is sexually irresponsible is at risk for a whole textbook full of STIs, even if it is homosexual MEN -- nothing like not taking into consideration the other half of the homosexual population -- that are most likely to contract AIDS because of the type of sex they engage in. But hey, anal intercourse isn't just for the gays anymore.

[Melanie_]

I'd take that statement and change it a little. No one's rights need to be violated by extending equal state treatment to alternative sexual arrangements.

How are anyone's rights being violated by extending equal rights to gays? My heterosexual marriage hasn't been impacted at all.

If you are going to argue the increased health costs of AIDS, please remember that marriage implies monogomy, so it actually should decrease the costs associated with AIDS if we reduce the numbers of sexual partners anyone has.