|
It Begins: Extremist Gays Attack Church (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I agree 100% that homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals do. And yes, the right to equal treatment is specified in the charter.
However, the "right" to marriage is not specified in the charter. Marriage is not a legal right and does not convey legal rights; it's nothing more than a legally binding contract which is recognized by various institutions. Minors can't get married, and neither can members of the same family. And at least so far, polygamy is still illegal. How are their "rights" any different from homosexuals?
The answer is, they aren't... |
The positive right to marriage is not specified...you are correct.
Really, to be more clear, a positive right is not the issue. What is being argued is that denying gays the option to marry is unreasonably discriminatory. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.
ie. in GRANTING that CERTAIN people can marry (re: heterosexual couples), while DENYING that others may do so as well (re: gay couples), the state is unreasonably discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
not allowing minors to marry is seen as reasonable grounds to discriminate...just as we do with drinking, driving, voting, etc.
Shadowolf's "worth" argument is indeed alarming...how could you, or society, determine the worth of someone else's life or relationship based upon whether or not they can reproduce...that's ludicrous.
but...go down that path if you dare...it could just as easily be argued that a childless gay marriage (given that men still earn more than women, acc. to some stats) could be worth MORE to many sectors of society due to the higher earnings and disposable income ;)
I'd be fine with Moral Hazard's solution...it does make the most sense. But imagine the public outcry if it was perceived that gays were seeking to overhaul the ENTIRE legal system in this regard...ie. asking that existing hetero marriages be redefined by the state too and called something else. Yikes...talk about a backash. At least in this situation, they are only asking for what the state has already granted to others...not seeking to change the entire system.
That solution would have to come from the legislature or coursts themselves to be palatable to the entire country...although religious organizations would likely be on board for sure, as it would preserve their definition/sacrament of marriage. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
The positive right to marriage is not specified...you are correct.
Really, to be more clear, a positive right is not the issue. What is being argued is that denying gays the option to marry is unreasonably discriminatory. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.
ie. in GRANTING that CERTAIN people can marry (re: heterosexual couples), while DENYING that others may do so as well (re: gay couples), the state is unreasonably discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
|
I find it interesting that it would be 'discriminatory' to allow one group to have marriage and another to have civil union.
To me, it's like arguing over red marvel and a blue marvel, except what matters the most having the same type of marvel, not what colour the marvel is. You say toe mah toe, I say toe may toe. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Shadowolf's "worth" argument is indeed alarming...how could you, or society, determine the worth of someone else's life or relationship based upon whether or not they can reproduce...that's ludicrous.
|
Do you need a lesson in the birds and the bees? If it weren't for straight people making and raising babies, where would we all come from? Reproduction and socialization are VITAL functions, maybe the most important functions, for a society.
Don't tell me you support cloning.... :nervous: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'd be fine with Moral Hazard's solution...it does make the most sense. But imagine the public outcry if it was perceived that gays were seeking to overhaul the ENTIRE legal system in this regard...ie. asking that existing hetero marriages be redefined by the state too and called something else. Yikes...talk about a backash. At least in this situation, they are only asking for what the state has already granted to others...not seeking to change the entire system.
|
Thank you. I agree with you that my solution is not feasable because people will not give up something they already have. This, however, acts as a good illustraitor of why allowing homosexuals to have "civil unions" does not suffice. Much like the rest of the populas, homosexuals recognize that a "civil union" is not the same as a marriage if for no other reason then by the name alone. Thus a civil union distinguises them and therefore is is not equal... conotatively if not legally. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'd be fine with Moral Hazard's solution...it does make the most sense. But imagine the public outcry if it was perceived that gays were seeking to overhaul the ENTIRE legal system in this regard...ie. asking that existing hetero marriages be redefined by the state too and called something else. Yikes...talk about a backash. At least in this situation, they are only asking for what the state has already granted to others...not seeking to change the entire system.
|
The entire legal system regarding marriage at the federal level WAS overhauled. Marriage as we knew it is gone. Now everyone (including straights!!) has a civil union which they call "marriage."
Bill C-38 is labeled "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/..._3/C-38-4E.html
If what you said was true, it would have been called something like "An Act enacting same-sex marriage."
Why do you think I'm against it? It didn't grant any new rights to gays (they already had those rights) - but it took rights away from straights! |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf Do you need a lesson in the birds and the bees? If it weren't for straight people making and raising babies, where would we all come from? Reproduction and socialization are VITAL functions, maybe the most important functions, for a society.
Don't tell me you support cloning.... :nervous: |
wow...easy there Adolph :eek:
jeez, maybe everyone who can't reproduce should be branded so that we know who is a 1st class citizen and who is of "lesser value"? Get a grip...you are treading on very dangerous ground with the ridiculousness you are suggesting. As pointed out, there are plenty of people who cannot reproduce (or choose not to do so)...are they of "lesser value".
Given the booming population, many would argue that having multiple children is actually irresponsible from an ecological standpoint!
yes, of course reproduction is a vital function...it does not follow that a straight couple is "worth" more than a gay couple.
wow...I always thought you were a bit radical in your thinking (my polite way of saying crazy)...but this just takes the cake.:eyes: |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The entire legal system regarding marriage at the federal level WAS overhauled. Marriage as we knew it is gone. Now everyone (including straights!!) has a civil union which they call "marriage."
Bill C-38 is labeled "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/..._3/C-38-4E.html
If what you said was true, it would have been called something like "An Act enacting same-sex marriage."
Why do you think I'm against it? It didn't grant any new rights to gays (they already had those rights) - but it took rights away from straights! |
no it would NOT say that...I'm sorry that you fail to understand the wording of the act. It is extending an existing institution to all people...it's not creating a new one:
"WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Parliament of Canada has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex;"
...
"AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to couples of the same sex;"
read: EXTENDED...there is no "new" institution created. In the law, marriage BY DEFINITION is for civil purposes...it can't be for religious ones, because that is not the domain of the state. When a Church performed marriage is registered with the state, it is for "civil purposes" too :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Thank you. I agree with you that my solution is not feasable because people will not give up something they already have. This, however, acts as a good illustraitor of why allowing homosexuals to have "civil unions" does not suffice. Much like the rest of the populas, homosexuals recognize that a "civil union" is not the same as a marriage if for no other reason then by the name alone. Thus a civil union distinguises them and therefore is is not equal... conotatively if not legally. |
I take some solace in knowing that I'm on the same page as someone else here.
I don't pretend to have anything but a basic grasp of the law, the way it works, why it is worded the way it is, etc...but what you have said seems *so* clear to me as well, I'm frustrated when other people can't see that too. same, but different...by definiton, potentially unequal.
To me, it would be like having a different status when a landed immigrant obtains citizenship in a country...trying to justify it by saying "it's the same thing as being a citizen, we're just calling you something else so that the citizens don't feel that their status is negatively impacted". LOL, that's just not going to fly... |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
gay "marriage" --> polygamy --> incest --> pedophilia --> beastiality
Coming soon to Canada.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2005-09-27 00:08
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”
 |
|
|
| MarkT |
^^^
dude, seriously...you are a ing idiot to post that article in this thread. Maybe you need this in big, bold letters for it to sink in:
POLYGAMY AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES
It simply DOES NOT FOLLOW that in allowing gays to marry, the door is open to for polygamy to be legalized. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
^^^
dude, seriously...you are a ing idiot to post that article in this thread. Maybe you need this in big, bold letters for it to sink in:
POLYGAMY AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES
It simply DOES NOT FOLLOW that in allowing gays to marry, the door is open to for polygamy to be legalized. |
Or if you want to take his logical order of progression (gay "marriage" --> polygamy --> incest --> pedophilia --> beastiality)
....you could just throw plain ol' "marriage" out in front, saying that is the root of ALL of the "evils" that follow it. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| This thread just turned hilarious |
|
|
|
|
