|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| maxtuh |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
LOL..
"Juss lose it!"
- Eminem
sadly.. a normal human being can only take so much .. :sadgreen:
|
hahah agreed , talk about abnormal |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
This has not been a case of a court acting outside it's authority though. A court can certainly read things into law all it wants and does so all the time... it's called statutory interpretation. Our laws are not written to be interpreted by looking up every single word in
Webster's or Oxford and reciting their literal meaning.
Similarily, the Charter has always been broadly interpreted, which also means the inclusion of sexual orientation under section 15. Time and time again it has been considered a grounds for discrimination even though it is not explicitely listed. The grounds listed in section 15 are by no means intended to be an exhaustive list.
Finally, the Ontario court did not "strike down heterosexual marriage". It broadened its interpretation (as it has ever jurisdiction to do under the Charter) to be more inclusive. |
A court may NOT "read in!" That goes against our Common Law traditions, and is frankly un-Canadian.
The Charter has been read broadly by whom? By Lieberal appointed judges! Not only have they acted unconstitutionally, but the Canadian people had no say in their appointment!
And yes, the Ontario court struck down the traditional definition of marriage and used LEGISLATIVE POWERS to unconstitutionally expand the definition to include homosexuals. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lephaid
Two men can adopt or possess a child if they remarry another male, though. And that doesn't mean the possibility of that will never exist in the future... |
uhh no
the biological fact remains that a human being can have only one father and one mother
| quote: | | I think Canada is way ahead of their time, if anything. |
As did the Romans of their own civilization, crica 400 A.D.
Civilizations can and do decline. History is not just a progression.
Bill 171 is a sign of Canada's decline. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
and the funny part is how some people coughkytracidcough feel that there is no place for political discussion on TOTA.
I think they add character to this section of the board. |
|
|
| nycionx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
You live in Canada... therefore canada is your country |
funny guy u are |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nycionx
funny guy u are |
its no joke... and if you dont feel this way why are u here? |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
As did the Romans of their own civilization, crica 400 A.D.
Civilizations can and do decline. History is not just a progression.
Bill 171 is a sign of Canada's decline. |
HAHHAHAAHAH, did you just compare the decline of the Roman Empire to Bill 171 of Canada?
The Roman's didnt fall because of homosexuality. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
Yes and personally, I am ing PROUD AS HELL to live in a country and province that recognizes this.
I find it horrible and offensive that it can even be viewed in any other way! |
What about my rights, and the rights of the majority?
The government just took away my right to be recognized as a husband at law. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodrico
The Roman's didnt fall because of homosexuality. |
No, that was the Greeks :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| nycionx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
its no joke... and if you dont feel this way why are u here? |
business trip |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nycionx
business trip |
pretty damned long trip! LOL |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Keep the language the same but let gay people get married...
all the Politically correct bull. Let gays marry and let mothers and fathers be husbands and wives....
How can gay people want to be recognized as "married" and get upset when people object to the word yet want the words husband and wife stricken because it offends them?
Either you are or you arent... sorry! |
Hmmmm... although i dont disagree w/ the change, i think wording could also read "husand and husband" and "wife and wife" |
|
|
|
|
