|
TOTA Election (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
FYI, I'm getting married in July and I don't think that because a gentleman in my office will be getting married to another man that same week my marriage is any less meaningful. |
And with that you have seen your last blow job.....oh the joys of marriage....it doesn't matter if you are gay or straight....once the I DOs are said the blow jobs stop. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
too bad I am a white male.....I can't ask for anything.
|
How true that is... |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I disagree with you. The only difference is that two homosexuals do not have potential to reproduce as a result of their sexual union. If that is the reason why their marriage cannot be called marriage then I would argue the second a man gets a vasdectomy, a woman gets a tubal ligation or enters menopause their marriages must be declaired null and void. |
Two men or two women can NEVER have children, whereas infirtile heterosexual couples are the exception.
| quote: | | Even if the Conservatives were able to effect legislation that would grant persons in a "civil union" the same rights as "married" persons for all existing statutes it would still leave a problem with regard to private association/business policy which may not. |
No, because the statutes address that. Straights could also enter into civil unions - analogous to common law marriage. Think of marriages as a sub-set of civil unions, not the other way around.
| quote: | | Moreover, calling it anything other then marriage will remain unconstitutional. By trying to side step this and call marriage between two homosexuals a civil union it will only invite more litigation and another supreme court ruling (which will likely rule the same way as the charter is very clear that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation). |
Nope, because there would be no discrimination. Everyone would have the same rights at law.
| quote: | | This will cost millions and jepordize the rights of hundreds of thousands of people... |
Funny how you're worried about the rights of thousands of people... what about the majority of Canadians?
| quote: | | why, because some people have a problem reconciling the constitution with their religious beliefs.... sorry, but the rule of law means that the constitution trumps your conscienous. |
Actually marriage predates our joke of a "constitution" by thousands of years.
Dr. Gairdner:
"Article 7 - Marriage Belongs To The People
Marriage is an institution that has arisen from long-held beliefs and customs of the people that are prior to all states and all courts, and are essential to the very fabric of society. Any attempt by unelected officials of the courts or by any other branch of government to claim ownership of marriage, to alter it without the support of a significant majority of the people, or to diminish the father-mother-child relationship in favour of the state-citizen relation, usurps the natural rights and freedoms of the people and constitutes a serious breach of the public trust."
| quote: | | The problem we have in this whole issue is that the homosexuals are emotionally invested in this as they want to have all the same rights as anyone else. |
Harper's plan would make that happen.
| quote: | | a simple passionless reading of the law clearly results in the conclusion that disallowing homosexuals to marry is unconstitutional. |
oh really? Where in the Charter does it say that?
In fact, a plain reading of the Charter shows that homosexuality isn't even mentioned. If you look at the legislative history of the Charter, you'd find that homosexuality was intentionally left out. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't think there are any laws or Charter provisions for preventing your self-perceived "tainting" or "cheapening" of straight marriage. What a lame reply, LMFAO. |
Gay unions and marriage are fundamentally different, so you can't equate them. Equating the two would diminish the institution for straights. Parliament has the power to prevent that.
| quote: | | The public, with most gays included, wouldn't stand for it...I have not read of any major group or spokesperson promoting gay marriage who is also advocating *forcing* of Churches to perform ceremonies. |
It's begining to happen:
http://www.queenofpeace.ca/Human_Rights_Complaint.htm |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
It's funny how the thread has been distracted by the gay marriage debate. I think that's exactly what the Lieberals want. They introduced C-38 in order to deflect attention from AdScam.
I think it's high time that Canadians learn some recent Italian history. Everyone should read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_pulite
Italians always get a bad rap for corruption, yet they actually did something to clean it up, unlike Canada.
After decades in power, the DC were repudiated, split up and purged of corrupt elements. The party was reborn and is fast becoming a powerful force again. I think the exact same thing should happen to the Lieberals. We need a Liberal Party, not a Lieberal Party. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
If the Liberals cleaned up their act and actually governed and passed decent laws and cleaned up our country they might actually be a viable party.
But as it stands they have go to go... |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I disagree with you. The only difference is that two homosexuals do not have potential to reproduce as a result of their sexual union. If that is the reason why their marriage cannot be called marriage then I would argue the second a man gets a vasdectomy, a woman gets a tubal ligation or enters menopause their marriages must be declaired null and void.
Even if the Conservatives were able to effect legislation that would grant persons in a "civil union" the same rights as "married" persons for all existing statutes it would still leave a problem with regard to private association/business policy which may not. Moreover, calling it anything other then marriage will remain unconstitutional. By trying to side step this and call marriage between two homosexuals a civil union it will only invite more litigation and another supreme court ruling (which will likely rule the same way as the charter is very clear that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation). This will cost millions and jepordize the rights of hundreds of thousands of people... why, because some people have a problem reconciling the constitution with their religious beliefs.... sorry, but the rule of law means that the constitution trumps your conscienous.
The problem we have in this whole issue is that the homosexuals are emotionally invested in this as they want to have all the same rights as anyone else. The opponants of homosexual marriage are emotionally invested because they think that allowing gays to get married will either a) bring the scorn of God upon Canada or b) demeen the institution of marriage. It's too bad there is so much emotion in this arguement because a simple passionless reading of the law clearly results in the conclusion that disallowing homosexuals to marry is unconstitutional. |
Extremely well said.
Ontop of all that, I think "marriage" should be simply removed from the Charter (not constitution). In place, EVERYTHING currently qualifying as marriage should be changed as fulling under the term "civil union" under the Charter. Since "marriage" seems to be a petty term that groups are fighting over, take it out.
Marriages are a legal contract more than anything else today, all the fluffy dressing up we are indoctrinated with from childhood aside. The Charter, and Canadian law should allow anyone who wants to join into a social/financial partnership with someone else, to do so. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Ontop of all that, I think "marriage" should be simply removed from the Charter (not constitution). In place, EVERYTHING currently qualifying as marriage should be changed as fulling under the term "civil union" under the Charter. Since "marriage" seems to be a petty term that groups are fighting over, take it out. |
Marriage isn't in the Charter. The only thing in the Charter is this:
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.
Notice that sexual orientation isn't even mentioned. It was "written into" the Charter by a judge. Then another judge took that decision and unilaterally created gay marriage. Yet even so, Harper wants to extend the equal benefit of the law to gays without trampling on the rights of straights.
| quote: | | Marriages are a legal contract more than anything else today, all the fluffy dressing up we are indoctrinated with from childhood aside. The Charter, and Canadian law should allow anyone who wants to join into a social/financial partnership with someone else, to do so. |
I guess you're voting Conservative then right? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Not only is there no legal reason, the law is quite clear that any exclusion of homosexuals from marriage is unconstitutional. This civil union idea is silly. It's an odd thing though... my father, who is pretty socially progressive, supports the civil union thing but not marriage... funny part is that he recognizes that there is no logical reason for this. I think this true of many opponates to allowing homosexuals to marry.
... |
not surprising ;) No one here has provided a logical explanation either ;)
at least not one that doesn't refer back to their own personal moral or religious beliefs (which ought not affect the RIGHTS of others). |
|
|
| djeso |
| Political views are quite personal atleast for me, all I see is that no one here on either side respects anyone else's opinions, instead creating feeding anger and hate ..... just great |
|
|
| MarkT |
personal opinions should be respected...as should people religious beliefs.
but they should NOT factor into determing the rights of others... |
|
|
|
|
