|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
After flipping through this thread, it's *incredible* how ignorant most people are about the law and our constitution.
baystreetboi seems to be one of the very few who has a ing clue around here on this LEGAL matter.
Shadowolf...I wish I didn't see your crap, but unfortunatley when people quote you the ignore feature doesn't work, lol.
"freedom to marry a wife"??? How ing ridiculous can you get? No, seriously. Exactly where are you afforded the RIGHT to marry a WIFE? :rolleyes: It's almost comical how you fabricate "rights" as you see fit...pathetic. You have a right to marry a woman who then becomes your wife, by definition of her being your spouse and her being a woman. *That has not changed*, so wtf do you care??? Why can't you simply be as forthcoming with your disdain as that other idiot nycionx and just say "look, I don't like gay people or agree with homesexuality and don't think they should enjoy the same priveledges as heterosexuals"? Your attempts to formulate your OPINIONS and FEELINGS into some form of interpretation of the law does little more than demonstrate your ignorance of our laws and legal processes.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
50 years ago, people would be disgusted if a black person and a white person drank from the same water fountain or took the same bus. Your objection to gay people getting married is the same thing. If something isn't special to you unless others can't have it, then you're just being selfish. It's not communism. It's freedom. |
EXACTLY...that is truly the issue here, IMHO. Some heterosexuals seem to feel that they are "losing" something...yet NOTHING changes for them other than what...exclusivity? How sad that their lives are somehow negatively impacted by what others now have too, LOL...how sad indeed! If a heterosexual marriage is somehow marginalized by gays being allowed to marry, that speaks VOLUMES on the fragility of the "sacred institution" of marriage, no? ;)
ponder that, everyone...it's a similar reaction to when some trance fans lose interest in trance because it's becoming too "mainstream". LAME. That tells me that they are less concerned with trance itself than the exclusivity of listening to trance. If someone's happiness depends on what others do or do not have in relation to what they themselves have...that's truly sad (for them).
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
You have a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can still marry. That has not changed.
The constitution does NOT guarantee you the right for that union to be termed a "marriage", nor does it guarantee you access to that instutition exclusively, to the exclusion of certain other people.
In this case, as I say over and over again, marriage has simply been broadened to be be more inclusive. How does that give a minority group (in this case, same-sex couples) a higher priority? It gives them exactly the same priortiy / access to an institution you already have been able to access. |
irrefutable point, IMHO...well said. It's incredible how some people extend the law to suit their own personal feelings. READ THE LAW folks...preferably before you start claiming rights that don't actually exist.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That should not ever take PRECEDENCE over the democratic majority, or their constitutional rights. When minority rights are given a higher priority than democracy and constitutional rights, it's communism. |
read above...how is anything taking "precedence" over the rights of the majority? What constitutional right of the majority is being infringed upon or being pushed to the side in favour of a minority? You, as a man, have the right to marry a woman. THAT is your right. Where exactly is it found in the law that your right also precludes a man from marrying another man, or a woman marrying a woman? THE RIGHTS OF THE HETEROSEXUAL MAJORITY HAVE NOT CHANGED. Can you POSSIBLY refute that statement? You may want to look up the definition of communism while you consider your reply...tongue in cheek or not, it's a silly reference to an unrelated political idealogy.
*sigh* I really find these threads tedious, but somehow feel the need to chime in...I'll finish with this:
There are two things that need to be made clear. RIGHTS vs. WISHES (or opinions or morals or...)
The RIGHTS of minorities must be protected as closely as the RIGHTS of the majority. Neither should take precedence or trump the other. I think we can all agree on that notion. However, the mere WISHES of the democratic majority have NO PLACE in determining/defining the RIGHTS of the a minority.
The RIGHTS of the majority HAVE NOT CHANGED in the context of legalizing gay marriage and revising the legal definition and terms of marriage.
The majority's WISHES can certainly trump the WISHES of the minority, but certainly not their RIGHTS (re: Mill's "tyranny of the majority"). That's what democracy and the "will of the people" is all about..."majority rules", so to speak.
Most people here seem to be having incredible difficulty in comprehending that distinction...a distinction that is FUNDAMENTAL to our legal system. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
"freedom to marry a wife"??? How ing ridiculous can you get? No, seriously. Exactly where are you afforded the RIGHT to marry a WIFE? :rolleyes: It's almost comical how you fabricate "rights" as you see fit...pathetic. You have a right to marry a woman who then becomes your wife, by definition of her being your spouse and her being a woman. *That has not changed*, so wtf do you care??? |
Wow, you just made a great case AGAINST gay marriage. Fabrication of rights, etc.
Heterosexual marriage is based on NATURAL LAW. It is an indisputible fact of sexual reproduction that a man and a woman are required to make a baby.
Marriage is also based on the common law, as inherited from England and Wales. In Hyde v. Hyde, the Court stated that marriage has always been "defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
That definition is not just an English one, but a universal one. EVERY SINGLE CULTURE in the world follows that definition. Why? Because it's based on our natural human condition.
Why do I care? Because instead of giving a group certain rights, the Legislature took away rights from the majority.
Your entire argument can be summed as up: "Suck it up." By your logic, why can't gays?
| quote: | | yet NOTHING changes for them other than what...exclusivity? |
what are you talking about? Husbands and wives no longer exist at law in Ontario! Husbands and wives are the foundation of our society!!
| quote: | | irrefutable point, IMHO...well said. It's incredible how some people extend the law to suit their own personal feelings. READ THE LAW folks...preferably before you start claiming rights that don't actually exist. |
Again, that's a great argument AGAINST gay marriage.
Where, praytell, does the Constitution mention gay marriage, or homosexuality for that matter?
| quote: | | Where exactly is it found in the law that your right also precludes a man from marrying another man, or a woman marrying a woman? |
The Hyde case, as well as natural law.
| quote: | | The RIGHTS of minorities must be protected as closely as the RIGHTS of the majority. Neither should take precedence or trump the other. I think we can all agree on that notion. |
Yes. So why do you insist on infringing on the rights of straights?
| quote: | | However, the mere WISHES of the democratic majority have NO PLACE in determining/defining the RIGHTS of the a minority. |
The minority has no right to push their radical agenda on the majority.
code:
The majority's WISHES can certainly trump the WISHES of the minority, but certainly not their RIGHTS (re: Mill's "tyranny of the majority"). That's what democracy and the "will of the people" is all about..."majority rules", so to speak.
Didn't you criticize me above for creating false rights? Since when is gay marriage a right?
| quote: | | Most people here seem to be having incredible difficulty in comprehending that distinction...a distinction that is FUNDAMENTAL to our legal system. |
I think you need to read some of Hohfeld's works before you decide to re-post on this topic. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
IT'S TIME TO THINK ABOUT CHILDREN
Barbara Kay
National Post
February 5, 2005
Not long ago I was seated at dinner beside an Ontario family law judge. I asked what his position was on adoption equity for gays.
Would he, once gay marriage was entrenched, and in keeping with our government's current equity legislation in the workplace, feel obliged to fast-track gays' access to available children to make up for "past injustices" and their "disability" on the procreative front? And what about a single mother willing to give up her child for adoption, provided the baby went to a heterosexual couple? Whose rights would be privileged, hers or those of gay adoptive applicants?
The judge paused, then said, "I haven't ever really thought about it." Eventually the judge opined that a gay married couple's rights should trump a biological mother's right to have her child raised in a normative family. And on further reflection, he decided, he would also be partial to equity adoption policies for gays.
I know why the judge was caught off guard. Up until now, the gay marriage debate has focused on the rights of adults. The gay marriage bill arose from the conviction amongst our political and ideological elites that the raison d'etre for marriage was romantic attachment, not procreation. Once the bill passes, the focus will shift from "what is marriage?" to "what is family?"
In passing the gay marriage bill, our government will confer rights on homosexuals that all democracies, except two other extremely liberal ones, and the United Nations itself have considered at length and rejected.
As McGill bioethicist Margaret Somerville recently noted, Article 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family (my emphasis)," not "two people of full age" and not "to marry and sanctify their romantic attachment."
The gay marriage debate in the media has scanted discussion about family-building in a post-heterosexual-marriage Canada. Theorists agitating for social change imply that human nature is infinitely plastic, dismissing concerns for children with the simplistic and misleading mantra, "all children need is love; and love has no gender."
Love is neither a unitary product, nor all that children need to thrive. If it were, children would do as well with one parent as with two. In the '70s, feminists insisted that single motherhood was in no way inferior to dual parenting.
Irrefutable sociological data later proved that under any economic circumstances -- not just in poor households -- children of single mothers fared worse in scholastic achievement, self-esteem and eventual success than dual-parented children. Feminists simply ignored or disparaged the studies.
Whether same-sex and opposite-sex parenting are equally good for children is a proposition that has never actually been effectively tested, much less proved. Gay parenting is such a recent phenomenon, we have no scientifically credible control groups of gay-parented teens and adults to establish or discredit such a claim. But research, data and objectivity matter little to theory-bound ideologues.
What will research -- and adult children of gays themselves -- tell us in 20 years? Third-party parenting is in its infancy. Official sanction will widen its base. Social problems in children rarely surface before adolescence.
What if research finds measurable social deficits in children of same-sex households? More worryingly, will ideologues even permit such research to go forward? In today's increasingly frosty academic climate regarding race and gender, such initiatives may be condemned as homophobic, just as comparative aptitude studies are labelled racist. Academic sociologists will likely self-censor themselves on this important issue.
Canadian researchers have made no effort to harvest the views of those most invested in the gay marriage debate -- children. Nobody has asked children if they "strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care" whether they have: a single mom, single dad, mother and father, two moms or two dads. They won't, because the response from unabashedly politically incorrect children will discomfit the liberal theorists who dictate the rules of sociological inquiry.
You can prep children with Manchurian Candidate-level indoctrination on the fungibility of gender. You can read around the clock to them from books like Debbie Has Two Dads or Brian Has Two Moms And A Deeply Involved Sperm Donor, but children, social conservatives by nature, will always respond: "Strongly prefer" a mother and a father.
Canada is one of only three places on Earth poised to endorse the use of children as social guinea pigs without their consent. And all because our intellectual and political elites "haven't ever really thought about it." |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Unlike mirrors.. water doenst break when people like you see thier reflection. Try looking at yourself without cringing and maybe then you will finally understand how no country deserves the fate of a creature like you occupying a place on its territory.
You do not deserve to live in this wonderful country... go to Israel |
:eek: :eek: can you say OWNED??:eek: :eek: :eyespop: |
|
|
| MarkT |
Shadowolf...I read your reply.
"Gay marriage" is not an explicitly stated right...I'm saying that in denying gays the right to marry, it's inconsistent with our law. That's slightly different.
You're absolutely correct in saying that the Charter doesn't specifically mention sexual orientation as being protected...however, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY MENTION IT! In fact, the Charter's wording actually provides, and seems to intend, for further extending rights/freedoms based upon other criteria.
From the Charter:
| quote: | Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
you'll note that the Charter EXPLICITLY provides for additional protections and benefits for all individuals under the law that are not specifically mentioned. "...in particular, without discrimination based on...". "In particular" is key, as that means that such protections are NOT LIMITED to those specifically mentioned criteria.
An expert in consitutional law can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't *exaclty* how our courts have seen fit to extend those protections to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? This already permeates many other areas of law, such as labour law, and now it's being extended to marriage. What's the problem?
Given that marriage is NOT merely a religious sacrament, but a legal status which conveys legal rights and obligations unto the married parties, to exclude gays is to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
I've gone over this before...property law is a great example. Common law spouses have virtually NO rights regarding the property their common law partner owns if they're not also on title to that property. However, if you are legally married, you have a "spousal interest" in that property (dower rights in some provinces, I believe)...ie. the spouse not on title has a right to live there and must consent to transactions conducted on that property (eg. getting a mortgage, sale of the property, etc).
If you refuse to accept that sexual orientation ought to be included...then you're rejecting those past extentions to other areas of the law, I think, and harkening back to the days when homosexuality was seen as a mental illness (even included in the APA's DSM manual until fairly recently, lol).
So do you feel that gays should not be protected from discrimination when applying for a job? How about when seeking medical treatment? When being charged with a crime or in a court of law?
Given this, I fail to see how extending marriage to include gays is in any way inconsistent with past applications of the Charter to protect against discrimination on the issue of sexual orientation. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Haha, alright.
The problem is, while I don't doubt that most proponents of gay marrige do in good faith believe that churches shouldn't be required to marry gay couples if it goes against their religion, that simply won't stick.
Now I'm not trying to use the "slippery slope" fallacy as an argument against gay marriage here, but I think that a legislating government has a responsibility to make sure that the slope is indeed not slippery by instituting safeguards in order to protect religious rights. There are guaranteed to be some protesters and lobbyists who will cause a stink about refusals to marry gay couples, and with legislation like this, it's hard for churches (not to mention lawyers and courts) to come up with an airtight legal argument to support their case, because the correct legal terminology won't even exist.
At the very least, if they are going to pass this kind of legislation, it should be EXPLICITLY written into the law that the "new" definition of marriage does NOT override the religious sovereignity of churches/synagogues/etc. and that they are NOT required by law to fulfil requests for homosexual unions. And even then, there are some extremely sensitive issues, for example: many religious institutions have separate contracts for the "state" marriage and the "religious" marriage, are they going to be forced to rewrite the latter contracts? Undoubtedly these forms will say "husband" and "wife" on them. How is their freedom of religion write being preserved if these words are automatically struck down in a court of law? The contracts become completely void. Again, it's the slippery slope which the government is doing nothing to avoid...
This doesn't affect me personally, I'm an atheist, but it's the only way to protect constitutional rights in the long term. |
I agree with you. Religious freedoms ought to be protected.
While I'm sure there are many gays who are "religious" and who wish (and campaign) for Church reform...I trust that the *vast* majority are in full support of protecting religious freedom. Who the hell wants to literally force a church or religious organization to accept them??? I suppose there are some such people...but from a legal standpoint, their position seems pretty damn weak!
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...but it is ALREADY the case that any church-performed marriage is only LEGALLY recognized by the state if it's registered with the state (ie. in the same manner as a civil service would be registered)? ie. just because you got married in your church, if you didn't fulfill the state requirements for marriage (signed and registered a marriage license or whatever it's callsed), it's not yet a "legal" marriage?
Regardless...I fully support any Chruch's right to not be forced to perform a gay marriage. It's outside of the scope of the state to force that...and 100% irrelevant from a legal standpoint anyway as marriage long ago ceazed to be merely a religious sacrament.
I can't even imagine any judge attempting to force a church to perform a gay marriage, lol...it's absurd and without question, IMHO, would be struck down by a higher court. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I can't even imagine any judge attempting to force a church to perform a gay marriage, lol...it's absurd and without question, IMHO, would be struck down by a higher court. |
Ie seperation of church and state. :) Which is how I think things should be. (Not entirely but for certain ways of looking at things. |
|
|
| tatgirl |
Can we say "HOMOPHOBES"??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You gotta love how some of the people bitching on here probably have never even TOUCHED a woman, and don't even know which country we're talking about.
Thank you MarkT & DJ_Elyot for the voice of reason. If some of these people had their way, they'd probably bring back slavery, blue laws, and mandatory wearing of yellow armbands.
While I think the new terms are wierd, I can imagine it was the same when you had to go from calling a 'negro' to 'coloured' to a 'black person' and then again to 'African American/ Canadian'. happens. Get over it. Jayx1- while I know u are in 100% agreeance with this thread based on PC nonsense, take note that Shadowolf has a much DEEPER agenda / inferiority complex at the root of this argument.
Shadowolf- thank you for telling us how it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. I was wondering how I got here.... I thought it had something to do with a stork?
Might I remind you all that while it takes a sperm and an egg to make a child, it doesn't take the two to raise one. There are PLENTY of people out there having babies that should not be- sadly, there is no screening process out there for people who want to have babies. They can just go and make them, no questions asked. Good luck to that child if the parent turns out to be far below standards, could give a about them, abuses them or can't provide for them. Good luck getting an overworked and understaffed member of child welfare to look after that child. Good luck on making sure they get put into a good foster home- one that doesn't sexually or physically abuse you, should your 'natural' family fail you. Yet, loving couples (be it straight or gay) who want to provide for a child less fortunate, are scrutinized and discriminated against. Go figure.
It still takes 2 STRAIGHT people to make a gay child. |
|
|
| tatgirl |
And for all you retards who think homosexuality is a 'sin' or 'unnatural' that only occurs with humans, how the f*ck can u explain this?
"Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals
Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.
In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.
The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.
In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.
.....
Conclusion
There's clearly a wide range of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. It's widespread, common and impossible to deny or explain away any longer. Homosexuality is natural as green grass in summer, and it's high time we accepted that fact.
The birds do it. It's been described in 130 species of birds. The southeastern blueberry bees do it. Same sex pairs of animals kiss and caress each other with obvious affection and tenderness. Male pairs and female pairs form long-lasting pair-bonds and reject, threaten, even fight off potential opposite sex partners when they are presented with them. Same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom.
It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.
We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural, and it shouldn't be a crime."
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
A VERY interesting read.
Yet most of you would just love to stick it up your gf's ass, wouldn't u? Somehow that's more natural?
Now take your theories and shove them up your.... |
|
|
| tatgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
You do not deserve to live in this wonderful country... go to Israel |
He should be so lucky.
P.S. Tiesto LOVES Israel. :p |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
OMG :eyes: does the bitching ever stop?
WTF ppl...it's time to get off this train.
Live and Let Live. |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
Live and Let Live. |
Amen!
'nuff said. |
|
|
|
|
