Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[Ramo]

I don't agree with the ruling by the Supreme court, and right now, these people have been disenfranchised.

If your Parliament passes a law saying Christian people can't marry, and then your courts overrule it, would you complain about the people being "disenfranchised" by the courts?

[korn469]

I think they should legalize gay marriage, but change it so that all people getting married (either gay or straight) would have to have a six month long legal engagement period before they could actually get married. That would lower the divorce rate.

[Ben Kenobi]

The issue is judicial: it's one of those cases where the rights of the minority must be preserved even in the face of rule of majority.

If it's about minority rights, why not force churches to do gay marriages, because churches ought not to discriminate? Surely discrimination takes precedence over religious freedom.

How does defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals? You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent. Unless you can show me why the old definition violates section 15, then I cannot agree with your argument.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Let the people vote, and show that your government is confident in supporting gay marriage. A waffle like this just indicates that they know they do not have the support in Parliament to pass the bill under the current regime.

Charlottetown '92 should be enough to tell you that referenda can be risky (although, what am I saying! Any accord that Quebec signed on to must have been EVIL!
). Anyway, putting the referendum issue aside (because it's illogical and wasteful):

I think, on the contrary to what you say, the Libs have plenty of support to pass the bill (if the Alliance bill from last time around was any indication) as of now, and they'll have just about the same amount of power after the spring election.

I reiterate: a wise political move by Martin (in that he can still pass the bill during the beginning of his new mandate, instead of at a time when the anti-gay elements would be a bit more volatile and powerful), which bothers me only in that it compromises rapid equality in the name of re-election. But hey, that's politics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you care so much if two consenting people of the same gender marry?

Personally? It devalues marriage.

You say it somehow devalues marriage, but the very notion is nonsensical and you've never defended it adequately.

Look at it this way. If you give marriage benefits to every relationship, it waters down the meaning behind the benefits. Why should we value marriage, if every relationship counts as one?

[Ramo]

How does defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals? You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent. Unless you can show me why the old definition violates section 15, then I cannot agree with your argument.

Would you say that a prohibition against interracial marriage is consistent with your constitution (since one would be free to marry anyone of a different race)?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at it this way. If you give marriage benefits to every relationship, it waters down the meaning behind the benefits. Why should we value marriage, if every relationship counts as one?

Hey Ben, marriages are not stock markets.

Why should we value marriage, if the divorce rate is so high?
Why should we value marriage, if Christians spread so much intolerance and intentionally disenfranchise those who are different?

The value of people's marriages are unchanged if Bob and Ben next door decide to marry.

This argument is beyond ridiculous and you have no hope in hell in making it sound sane. Sorry.

[korn469]

You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent.

However, a gay person wouldn't love the person of the opposite sex in the same way a straight person could, and that's where the discrimination comes in. I mean your statement is like saying vegetarian or jewish/muslim prisoners being fed pork chops aren't being discriminated against because they have as much right to eat the pork chops as anyone else.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If it's about minority rights, why not force churches to do gay marriages, because churches ought not to discriminate? Surely discrimination takes precedence over religious freedom.

Private non-profit organizations can discriminate all they like for all I care. Churches should not be forced to marry gay people.

I don't see your point. There are benefits to marriage, legally, even today. Gay people are not eligable for those benefits, because Christians are being stubborn, arrogant bastards and shoving their moralities down the throats of everyone else. You are not allowing two consenting adults to marry and gain those benefits, and you have no rational reason to do so.

How does defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals? You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent. Unless you can show me why the old definition violates section 15, then I cannot agree with your argument.

This is absolutely moronic. Totally, and utterly.

Homosexuals are people defined as being attracted to people of the same gender. In my case, NOT WOMEN. You and I have the same rights in that we can both marry women, but the problem is that's only really applicable to people who are able to marry women. I simply could not -- it would be terrible for everyone involved.

I am still rather speechless at that comment. It really shows me how hopelessly backwards and brainwashed the Christian mind really is.

[Ben Kenobi]

If your Parliament passes a law saying Christian people can't marry, and then your courts overrule it, would you complain about the people being "disenfranchised" by the courts?

Ramo:

Two more words, and you could really have gotten me stuck. As it is, to prevent a Christian from marrying anybody, is different from the laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. For instance, this definition would in no way prevent Asher from marrying a woman.

[Asher]

I think the root of this problem here is Ben's bisexuality leads him to believe one can choose which gender he loves. Therefore, anyone can choose to love a woman and be married. The gay people just choose to like men, it seems...

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you say that a prohibition against interracial marriage is consistent with your constitution (since one would be free to marry anyone of a different race)?

Now you got me.

3 different arguments I can make.

1) Marriage, as an institution, cannot be redefined or limited by parliament, because parliament does not have the authority to redefine or limit marraige. This would render this change null and void, as well as ruling out gay marraige.

2) Section 15. Does sexual orientation really belong with such physical traits as race and gender? I would argue that it should not, because it has not been shown that people have a fixed orientation. This interracial marriage provision would violate section 15 under equality rights, whereas a provision against gay marriage would not.

3) What are the benefits society expects from marriage? There cannot be shown any reasonable difference between interracial and other married couples, therefore there can be no justification for the ban. The same cannot be said for gay marriage.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why do you want to take away the liberties of gay people so badly?

Alas poor things, the popularity of witch burning took a nose dive, there hasn't been a decent War of Religion in ages, so the little sectaries have time on their hands.



And the devil makes work for idle hands.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey Ben, marriages are not stock markets.

Not my point. Providing marriage benefits to all relationships waters down the value of marriage.

Why should we value marriage, if the divorce rate is so high?

And gay marriage will lessen that divorce rate?

Why should we value marriage, if Christians spread so much intolerance and intentionally disenfranchise those who are different?

Intolerance? Just another word for people who disagree with your viewpoint.

[Ramo]

1) Marriage, as an institution, cannot be redefined or limited by parliament, because parliament does not have the authority to redefine or limit marraige. This would render this change null and void, as well as ruling out gay marraige.

If that were the case, on what authority can parliament prohibit gay marriage?

2) Section 15. Does sexual orientation really belong with such physical traits as race and gender? I would argue that it should not, because it has not been shown that people have a fixed orientation. This interracial marriage provision would violate section 15 under equality rights, whereas a provision against gay marriage would not.

Suppose this is true. However, religion isn't a physical trait like race and gender. So parliament must then have authority to pass a law prohibiting Christian marriage.

3) What are the benefits society expects from marriage? There cannot be shown any reasonable difference between interracial and other married couples, therefore there can be no justification for the ban. The same cannot be said for gay marriage.

1. This argument doesn't override your constitution.
2. Why is the difference between gay and straight marriages any less "reasonable" than the difference between a same-race and interracial marriage?