|
Same sex marriage passed in Canada (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Little John |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate here.
Arguably, it was under 'religious' circumstances that marriages were performed between a man and a woman, in many cultures. So, what if the religious community is only trying back what is theirs?
To many religious community, the def. of marriage is union between a man and a woman blessed by God or Allah or Vishnu or Zordon, master of Xaxon, whatever. To have homosexuals be granted marriage, to many, it's like ting on their fundamental religious beliefs. Yes, the term marriage is used in common terms applied not just in religious context, but it is still something sacred.
Okay. Before we get into this issue, we must understand what the heck is a right. Generally put, a right is a claim on someone or something else. For example, if I buy a plane ticket to NY, that ticket gives me the 'right' to have a seat on that plane which goes to NY. So if someone takes away that ticket or don't allow me to get on that plane, then it would be a violation of my 'right'.
Right can be split into two 'sort' of rights. Positive right requires something, or someone else to do whatever action necessary to protect or promote that right. For example, if I have the right to shiny red ball because of a law that the govt passed, then the govt must do whatever to ensure that I have that shiny red ball. Negative right means a person or something do not do anything to violate a right. For example, if a person has right to life, as long as I do not harm that person, I am respecting his right to life.
Now to the comment on hand, lol. The problem is that ALL rights cannot be applied to every single citizen, because only certain groups enjoy certain rights. For example, Natives have dual citizenship of Canada and US ever since they are born as their right. So myself, as an immigrant who is now a Canadian citizen, cannot claim that right. It is important to distinguish whether a right to be... selective to certain groups or to be universal.
It's just me, but I think a lot of religious groups are against gay marriage because the gays seems to insist on using the term marriage. If the law says 'civil unions' with same rights and privileges as marriages, I'm sure there would have been less opposition.
|
This is the question I have. If the law before gave same-sex and common-law partners the same tax benefits and subjects them to the same obligations as married couples and opposite-sex couples, why is it that the term marriage is required? Do you not agree there is a difference between a legal contract of the state and a union under religion.
The term marriage is for religion, it is a union between husband wife under the eyes of God. This was long before governments and legal laws we know today. |
|
|
| MarkT |
the law, at least in Ontario, most certainly DOES NOT convey identical rights, benefits and obligations to common law parties as it does to married parties.
I've brought up property rights before as an example...you can look it up instead of me repeating myself :p |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Little John
This is the question I have. If the law before gave same-sex and common-law partners the same tax benefits and subjects them to the same obligations as married couples and opposite-sex couples, why is it that the term marriage is required? Do you not agree there is a difference between a legal contract of the state and a union under religion.
The term marriage is for religion, it is a union between husband wife under the eyes of God. This was long before governments and legal laws we know today. |
I think you're going for 'civil union' vs. marriage. |
|
|
| Little John |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the law, at least in Ontario, most certainly DOES NOT convey identical rights, benefits and obligations to common law parties as it does to married parties.
I've brought up property rights before as an example...you can look it up instead of me repeating myself :p |
So why not change the provincial law to mirror the federal law. The CRA does recognise same-sex partners as a "spouse". But if you could please first answer my question of why the term "marriage" is required? The reason why I think everyone gets upset over this issue is due to Gays wanting a legal recognition of a union, whereas religion has been using the term "marriage" as a religious one. The word marriage would have never existed without religion, under law it is just a contract. It is understandable that gay couples want to have a recognized union entitling them to the same benefits as a husband and wife however it is a legal contract rather then "marriage". |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Little John
So why not change the provincial law to mirror the federal law. The CRA does recognise same-sex partners as a "spouse". But if you could please first answer my question of why the term "marriage" is required? The reason why I think everyone gets upset over this issue is due to Gays wanting a legal recognition of a union, whereas religion has been using the term "marriage" as a religious one. The word marriage would have never existed without religion, under law it is just a contract. It is understandable that gay couples want to have a recognized union entitling them to the same benefits as a husband and wife however it is a legal contract rather then "marriage". |
I think the gay community is also trying to... drive the point in, so to speak, to have homosexuality accepted as a norm in today's society by using marriage as a lever point. A great fight for gay equality or something like that. |
|
|
| Little John |
| I completely agree. |
|
|
| MarkT |
some feel that way, no doubt.
Although I have plenty of gay friends who don't give a damn one way or the other...to the extent that some perceive striving for "marriage" as buying into the heterosexual ideals of what a relationship should eventually become. They feel that gays should forsake that path and carve out their own...though still have some way of enjoying every legal right, benefit, obligation, etc. that hetero couples currently possess, if they so choose.
it's an interesting position. |
|
|
| Little John |
| For all those who call me a lurker, you can now kiss my butt. :haha: |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I strongly disagree...rights ought not be subject to the personal opinions of the majority...and ESPECIALLY the morality of the majority. |
So I guess you don't think that Parliament, that decides votes by majority vote, should be able to define marraige, right? Only a court can?
Not only was there not a referendum on a bill that decreased the rights of the majority, but the vote in Parliament was not a free vote (except for the CPC MP's).
| quote: | What if 75% of the country votes "no" to something for their own selfish reasons?
|
The rights of 90-95% of Canadians were infringed in a major way to satisfy a small minority. THAT'S WRONG.
In a democracy, the rights of the minority and the majority both have be taken into account. That's why the best policy would have been to allow the majority to keep their rights under the traditional definition of marriage, while also granting full legal rights to gays.
It's too bad that the current government (the Lieberal-NDP-Bloc Alliance) is dominated by extremists. |
|
|
| naesean3 |
| WHIP IT OUT WHIP IT OUT!! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NOISE
I don't know. I just feel like being a dick.
It's actually quite confusing. The Christian God forgives everyone. If you're catholic, the only way to be saved is by confessing your sins. I think being gay is considered a sin. I guess if you confess that you had some boy-boy action God forgives you just as long as you say your ten hail marrys. |
FYI, the official position of the Catholic Church is that being a homosexual is not a sin, however, homosexual sex acts are sins. You can be a homosexual and God is cool with that but if you engage in sex acts with a member of your own gender ( that rhymed) then you have sinned. In order to avoid hell or pergatory homosexuals, like anyone guilty of any other mortal sin, must confess their sin and repent (part of which is not commiting the same sin again). |
|
|
| xls |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
The rights of 90-95% of Canadians were infringed in a major way to satisfy a small minority. |
This is the common argument that I simply can not grasp. How the does a gay couple getting married infringe on your rights?! Please, spell it out for me. |
|
|
|
|
