Same-sex motion defeated by wide margin

[geoffrey]

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.

No doubt Melanie. I'm actually not as anti-SSM as it may appear here. I'd prefer if the issue was closed. I was partially playing the devils advocate.

But... there's a but here... I think there was a better way of setting things up.

Civil unions are completely practical, the hetero and homo sexual partners relationships would only be recognized as a common law relationship. The government drops the marriage (a Church issue, there should be seperation there) terminology concept completely.

Bottom line, if meet the terms of the current common law marriage arrangements within either a hetero or homo sexual relationship, you get full and equal benefits of the state.

Let the ceremonies and celebrations and names be decided by the individual participants. If gays want to call it marriage, let them. It's really no one's business. It's also not the government's business to extend names traditionally reserved by religious institutions to others as a matter of law.

Now that's compromise. Why wasn't anyone willing to discuss that?

[jbg]

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

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes.

[Melanie_]

My issue with this is that it gives the rights to the word marriage to religious institutions. What about those who do not subsribe to any religion? Many people choose to get married by a Justice of the Peace, or even by Elvis, and they are considered just as married as anyone married in a church. Churches are given the right to perform marriages by the state ("by the power vested in me by the Province of Manitoba..."), and can use whatever ceremony their beliefs endorse, but the actual marriage must be registered with the state to be valid, regardless of how the institution views their ceremony.

Each institution can set parameters around who they will extend their ceremony to (you can't get married in a Roman Catholic church unless you are Roman Catholic, for example), but they can't invalidate marriages performed by other institutions or by other means (JPs). Even if they won't perform a ceremony for gays or lesbians, they can't dicate whether they can be married by someone else who has been granted the power from the state.

[Melanie_]

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

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes.

Ah, so we need a significant number of reckless single homosexual drivers because we are invested as a society in keeping your discount. Finally an argument that makes sense.

[cybercoma]

No doubt Melanie. I'm actually not as anti-SSM as it may appear here. I'd prefer if the issue was closed. I was partially playing the devils advocate.

But... there's a but here... I think there was a better way of setting things up.

Civil unions are completely practical, the hetero and homo sexual partners relationships would only be recognized as a common law relationship. The government drops the marriage (a Church issue, there should be seperation there) terminology concept completely.

Bottom line, if meet the terms of the current common law marriage arrangements within either a hetero or homo sexual relationship, you get full and equal benefits of the state.

Let the ceremonies and celebrations and names be decided by the individual participants. If gays want to call it marriage, let them. It's really no one's business. It's also not the government's business to extend names traditionally reserved by religious institutions to others as a matter of law.

Now that's compromise. Why wasn't anyone willing to discuss that?

Because the legislation that was tabled would've taken the legal rights 'marriage' gives a couple away from homosexual couples. And sure, it's great that you'd like to change the definition to civil union for all couples, but that was never one of the recommendations in the house. If you're suggesting that we should've started with the gays (since they have less of a voice in parliament, being the minority of Canadians) then eventually moved on to heterosexual marriage, I'd suggest you're way too optimistic. Changing the definition of marriage for heterosexuals to 'civil union' as recognized by the government would be several times more unpopular than recognizing homosexual marriages. Chances are it wouldn't end up happening and the same-sex couples would be left in the dark.

Please, just raise your consciousness a bit. The government already has civil unions for all couples. They're afforded all the benefits that two people who decide to live their lives together should: it's called marriage. Playing the semantics game, to get around legal equality for all people is not cool.

[cybercoma]

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes.

Homosexual couples aren't single. There are plenty of married homosexuals that live a perfectly conservative life style. Your idiotic statement presupposes that homosexuals can't live a conservative married life.

By your logic, we should ask people who are married if they've ever cheated on their spouse, we should also ask the couple what kind of lifestyle they live. If they're not staunchly conservative, sitting at home on the weekends watching CBC, their premiums should be raised. This can be applied equally to mixed-sex marriage or same-sex marriage.

Not that insurance companies write laws.

[cybercoma]

My issue with this is that it gives the rights to the word marriage to religious institutions. What about those who do not subsribe to any religion? Many people choose to get married by a Justice of the Peace, or even by Elvis, and they are considered just as married as anyone married in a church. Churches are given the right to perform marriages by the state ("by the power vested in me by the Province of Manitoba..."), and can use whatever ceremony their beliefs endorse, but the actual marriage must be registered with the state to be valid, regardless of how the institution views their ceremony.

Each institution can set parameters around who they will extend their ceremony to (you can't get married in a Roman Catholic church unless you are Roman Catholic, for example), but they can't invalidate marriages performed by other institutions or by other means (JPs). Even if they won't perform a ceremony for gays or lesbians, they can't dicate whether they can be married by someone else who has been granted the power from the state.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that religious ceremony be taken away from people. The ceremonies are beautiful for both marriage and death, they're a part of our history, our culture and our society. We can show equality for homosexuals, hell we could all be atheists, and the beautiful religious ceremonies can continue.

It's the ignorant segregation that religion causes that is the problem.

[Renegade]

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

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes.

It is hard for me to believe that you seriously put that out there as a justification. Can you explain what it is about the more conservative lifestyle which makes them better drivers?

[Renegade]

No doubt Melanie. I'm actually not as anti-SSM as it may appear here. I'd prefer if the issue was closed. I was partially playing the devils advocate.

But... there's a but here... I think there was a better way of setting things up.

Civil unions are completely practical, the hetero and homo sexual partners relationships would only be recognized as a common law relationship. The government drops the marriage (a Church issue, there should be seperation there) terminology concept completely.

Bottom line, if meet the terms of the current common law marriage arrangements within either a hetero or homo sexual relationship, you get full and equal benefits of the state.

Let the ceremonies and celebrations and names be decided by the individual participants. If gays want to call it marriage, let them. It's really no one's business. It's also not the government's business to extend names traditionally reserved by religious institutions to others as a matter of law.

Now that's compromise. Why wasn't anyone willing to discuss that?

Because the legislation that was tabled would've taken the legal rights 'marriage' gives a couple away from homosexual couples. And sure, it's great that you'd like to change the definition to civil union for all couples, but that was never one of the recommendations in the house. If you're suggesting that we should've started with the gays (since they have less of a voice in parliament, being the minority of Canadians) then eventually moved on to heterosexual marriage, I'd suggest you're way too optimistic. Changing the definition of marriage for heterosexuals to 'civil union' as recognized by the government would be several times more unpopular than recognizing homosexual marriages. Chances are it wouldn't end up happening and the same-sex couples would be left in the dark.

Please, just raise your consciousness a bit. The government already has civil unions for all couples. They're afforded all the benefits that two people who decide to live their lives together should: it's called marriage. Playing the semantics game, to get around legal equality for all people is not cool.

I agree with geoffery's proposal as the way forward that makes the most sense. There is a lot of sensitivity around the word "marriage". Further I would say that most hetrosexual married couples would not want the government to dictate who is "married" and who is not, and it should be the couples who self-declare that they are married or have their church declare them married on their behalf. Of course despite their declarations they are not entitiled to the legal benefits of a civil union unless they have that civil union formalized by the state.

BTW, France has a similar system in that the state formalization is separate from any religious one.

[jbg]

Married couples' auto premiums are lower than single peoples' because their more conservative life style makes them better drivers. My rights are violated if that discount vanishes.

It is hard for me to believe that you seriously put that out there as a justification. Can you explain what it is about the more conservative lifestyle which makes them better drivers?

Experience and actuarial statistics. The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

[jdobbin]

Experience and actuarial statistics. The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Do you realize that gay couples live longer than single ones? I think insurance companies would back gay marriage.

[normanchateau]

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.

Smokers have a higher probability of developing lung cancer and a host of other diseases. That's a cost to society which has a negative impact on all of us. Should we make smoking and the possession of cigarettes illegal?

[cybercoma]

Experience and actuarial statistics. The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Who said "gay marriage" is a human right?

The issue is equality before the law.

[seabee]

The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Do they have data supporting those differentiated rates? What are the statistics? Do the they also have date for single and for "married" gays? Shoudn't married gays enjoy discount insurance rates compared to that of single gays? Could it simply not be that people in a stable marital situation have less accidents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. If so, SSM could lead to greater stability of the couple and hence greater road security. Then, everyone should be for SSM just for its value in increasing road security and making a few less casualties each year.

[normanchateau]

The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Do they have data supporting those differentiated rates? What are the statistics? Do the they also have date for single and for "married" gays? Shoudn't married gays enjoy discount insurance rates compared to that of single gays? Could it simply not be that people in a stable marital situation have less accidents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. If so, SSM could lead to greater stability of the couple and hence greater road security. Then, everyone should be for SSM just for its value in increasing road security and making a few less casualties each year.

Some insurance companies have lower rates for smokers but do we want society to operate on the principles of insurance companies?

[jbg]

The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Do they have data supporting those differentiated rates? What are the statistics? Do the they also have date for single and for "married" gays? Shoudn't married gays enjoy discount insurance rates compared to that of single gays? Could it simply not be that people in a stable marital situation have less accidents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. If so, SSM could lead to greater stability of the couple and hence greater road security. Then, everyone should be for SSM just for its value in increasing road security and making a few less casualties each year.

Some insurance companies have lower rates for smokers but do we want society to operate on the principles of insurance companies?

\

No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance).

[normanchateau]

The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Do they have data supporting those differentiated rates? What are the statistics? Do the they also have date for single and for "married" gays? Shoudn't married gays enjoy discount insurance rates compared to that of single gays? Could it simply not be that people in a stable marital situation have less accidents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. If so, SSM could lead to greater stability of the couple and hence greater road security. Then, everyone should be for SSM just for its value in increasing road security and making a few less casualties each year.

Some insurance companies have lower rates for smokers but do we want society to operate on the principles of insurance companies?

\

No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance).

Why would ssm in Canada affect US insurance rates?

[jdobbin]

No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance).

Your worried your car insurance will go up because of same sex marriage?

[jbg]

No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance).

Your worried your car insurance will go up because of same sex marriage?

If it comes to the States (as it has partially in VT, MA and NJ) quite worried about that. That answers post before yours as well.

[Renegade]

Experience and actuarial statistics. The insurance companies have had differentiated rates for married and single people for decades, long before someone discovered that gay marriage was a human "right".

Can you please be specifc on what "experience" you have had to led you to draw this conclusion?

Also, assuming you are correct on actuarial statistics, how do you know that it is not the stabilization influence of marriage which causes a lower claim rate? How do you know that gay married couples also wouldn't also have a lower claim rate?

If you are correct and the lack of a "conservative lifestyle" is the differentiating factor, why would the auto insurance companies not provide differentiated rates between opposite sex marriages and ssm?

[jdobbin]

If it comes to the States (as it has partially in VT, MA and NJ) quite worried about that. That answers post before yours as well.

Gays are worse drivers?

[normanchateau]

No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance).

Your worried your car insurance will go up because of same sex marriage?

If it comes to the States (as it has partially in VT, MA and NJ) quite worried about that. That answers post before yours as well.

What if there were evidence that married gays and lesbians had lower accident rates than single gays and lesbians. Would you view that as an argument in favour of legalizing same sex marriage in the US?

Or do economic arguments only apply when they favour the same sort of discrimination that you favour?

Suppose there was evidence that people of a particular race, religion or ethnicity had higher accident rates. What do you think are the chances that any North American automobile insurance company would charge that group higher rates?

[jbg]

Can you please be specifc on what "experience" you have had to led you to draw this conclusion?

The term "experience rating" means rates based on insurers' experience, not mine.

[normanchateau]

What if there were evidence that married gays and lesbians had lower accident rates than single gays and lesbians. Would you view that as an argument in favour of legalizing same sex marriage in the US?

Or do economic arguments only apply when they favour the same sort of discrimination that you favour?

Suppose there was evidence that people of a particular race, religion or ethnicity had higher accident rates. What do you think are the chances that any North American automobile insurance company would charge that group higher rates?

[Renegade]

Can you please be specifc on what "experience" you have had to led you to draw this conclusion?

The term "experience rating" means rates based on insurers' experience, not mine.

So your contention is that insurers' experience is that straights have a more "conservative lifestyle" over gays and this affects their driving risk. Also you contend that by allowing gays to be married, it would increase the overall risk of the "married" group of drivers. Did I get that right?

So if it is really their "gayness" which impacts their driving risk, why is it that insurance companies do not provide differentiated rates based upon whether you are gay or straight, regardless of if you are married or not?