|
Notable quotes from MPs on Same Sex Marriage
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
I'll reveal who said what later on....
| quote: |
"Marriage is the union between men and women and has been that way since the beginning of time. It's meant to stay that way… anything else is not civilized. It's not acceptable."
"It's sort of corny, but a constituent phoned up and said, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’ … If it's two adults, where do we stop? What about a grandma that wants to marry her grandson or an uncle that wants to marry his niece? Where do you stop?"
"Then what's next? Multiple marriages? Multiple spouses?"
"And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," Kilgour said."
"All of these things are being cleared to create same-sex benefits as a means in which to bring about, I suspect, same sex marriage recognition throughout.… There is obviously an agenda being pursued (and) it's not one that I agree with."
"[T]he definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage of court… I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find." |
Discuss: |
|
|
| e*motion |
| no problem with same sex marriage.. as long as it stays out of the catholic church. |
|
|
| kabelicious |
LMAO
"What if mothers marry their sons?!" What the frick has that got to do with it?!
Marraige is a union between two adults - if a church dosen't want to marry them, that's there thing. But to have the government deny them that right is a violation of civil rights. Marraige is a ritual beholden to human civilization since before there was a Jesus or a church. To deny someone that is like denying them the right to work or play a sport (other ageless pursuits) - it's ridiculous! |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| For the sake of not wanting to get overly worked up, i think im staying outta this thread for now |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
My thoughts are that whether or not the general population agrees or disagrees with the morality of same sex marriage is irrelevent. The potential consequences are irrelevent. We live in a country that is governed by the rule of law. Our constitution trumps morality or public opinion. Based on the constitution there is no legal means by which to prevent homosexuals from being allowed to wed (not including S.33 which is a temporary measure). If the desire to keep homosexuals from using the word "married/marriage" is strong enough then perhaps a constitutional ammendment can be passed, however, with Ontario and Quebec being more then 50% of the population and firmly in favour of same sex marriage it is impossible that the criteria of the ammending formula could be met.
Oddly enough, I had a long conversation about this same thing with my parish priest last night (my fiancee and I were walking through the right of marriage). If anyone is interested his opinion was... the word marriage should not matter to any of the people who decent based on religious grounds as the word marriage has two meanings in this country. Marriage as seen by the state is a contract between two individuals whereas marriage as seen by the church is a covenant between two people and God. So long as the wedding is not conducted in accordance with the sacrament of marriage then it is not a marriage in God's eyes. What the state calls it doesn't matter. |
|
|
| house_conXion |
| I'm not against same-sex marriage, doesn't really bother me but at least keep it out of the church. Two gay athiests can marry each other for all I care. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by house_conXion
I'm not against same-sex marriage, doesn't really bother me but at least keep it out of the church. Two gay athiests can marry each other for all I care. |
Whut about two gay christians that chose to have a civil marriage?
EDIT: ! Already posted... :confused: |
|
|
| Orko |
do what you want, marry who you want. its your life.
Ive always loved the joke:
"gay people are the only ones that want to get married these days, why are we stopping them?"
has anybody seen a stat of how many gay marriages have failed? Its funny because heterosexuals get devorced 50% of the time, im sure homosexuals can do better than that! |
|
|
| zokissima |
| IT all depends on which connotation of marriage you chose; religious or political. WHen it comes to civil rights and incentives that couples get, the same should be extended to homosexual couples, but MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman, and should remain so. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
IT all depends on which connotation of marriage you chose; religious or political. WHen it comes to civil rights and incentives that couples get, the same should be extended to homosexual couples, but MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman, and should remain so. |
I agree... you have to balance gay rights with religious rights. |
|
|
| Orko |
| for those people against gay marriage, are also against gay couples in general? |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
IT all depends on which connotation of marriage you chose; religious or political. WHen it comes to civil rights and incentives that couples get, the same should be extended to homosexual couples, but MARRIAGE is the union of man and woman, and should remain so. |
Well, thats the religious definition of marriage then.
The civil definition of marriage includes both.
As long as a distinction is made between a marriage that is civil and a marriage that is religious, i dont see the issue w/ calling civil gay marriages "marriages" even tho it differs from the religious definition of marriage.
EDIT:
Marriage to me has two definitinos, one in "cival" terms and one in "religious" terms, and i dont see the problem there |
|
|
|
|
