Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

No, but an apt description of what a lot of Christians display.

Mmmm, what's that monotonous sound?

It's the Kenobi one note samba......

[Ben Kenobi]

However, a gay person wouldn't love the person of the opposite sex in the same way a straight person could,

Now we get to the point of love. Is marriage just about loving someone? I could love my grandmother, but it doesn't mean we should be married.

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.

There's a difference here. No one is forcing Asher to marry a woman if he chooses not to. Asher is not a prisoner, where he has no choice but to marry a woman.

[Zylka]

OHHH WHEN WILL IT ****ING END?

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay people are not eligable for those benefits,

No one's stopping you from marrying a woman, but you.

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.

So don't get married to a woman then. That's entirely your decision.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not my point. Providing marriage benefits to all relationships waters down the value of marriage.

This is your point, though. Marriage is not a zero sum game, Ben. If you want to keep asserting it is, prove it. Otherwise, can it and admit defeat.

And gay marriage will lessen that divorce rate?

No, the point is that those portraying marriage as some precious institution and letting 10% of the population marry the same gender is a bit ridiculous when heterosexuals have a 50% divorce rate.

Get your priorities straight.

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

It's another word for people who actively legislate restricting rights to those who are different.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No one's stopping you from marrying a woman, but you.

This is so incredibly stupid. The problem isn't homosexuals being denied the ability to marry women, and I'm going to just let you sit on that for a bit until you want to actually think about it rather than jerk off over jesus on this forum without thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

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

Based on the law at the time, that stated marriage was to be defined as one man and one woman. Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition.

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

Charter provisions under section three, protecting religious freedoms, entirely seperate from Section 15, which is the equality rights, would prevent them from doing so. Sexual orientation does not even appear on the original section 15, until the Supreme court 'read in' the right.

1. This argument doesn't override your constitution.

Granted, but it gets a little deeper into why they should protect marriage as one man and one woman.

2. Why is the difference between gay and straight marriages any less "reasonable" than the difference between a same-race and interracial marriage?

There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

[Theben]

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?

Because not every relationship counts as marriage. A couple actually has to go thru the necessary qualifications (legal, cultural, etc.) before there are married.

If your main concern is the value of marriage (based on the supposition that more= less value), how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

[monkspider]

I think it is time that we take the next step and ban same-sex friendships.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

As opposed to how it is now, with fertile gay men and women marrying and procreating wildly with members of the opposite sex. Once we allow gay marriages, birthrates will drop sharply.

Right?

[Ben Kenobi]

If your main concern is the value of marriage (based on the supposition that more= less value), how about allowing for more stringent qualifiers? A couple net worth must be > $1,000,000, or maybe only allowing heads of state to marry? 1st born?

Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

Ah, so it is as I expected.

You're worried that if gay couples get the same tax benefits as straight couples, many Christian men would turn gay?

[Ramo]

Based on the law at the time, that stated marriage was to be defined as one man and one woman. Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition.

That doesn't make any sense. Why should the Vicky Windsor have legal authority over marriage in Canada, but not your parliament?

Charter provisions under section three, protecting religious freedoms, entirely seperate from Section 15, which is the equality rights, would prevent them from doing so. Sexual orientation does not even appear on the original section 15, until the Supreme court 'read in' the right.

But that isn't limiting one's freedom to be a Christian. It's just limiting one's freedom to marry Christian people, or as a Christian. There can be freedom of religion without equal rights.

Besides, you haven't made the case why the equality of gay people shouldn't be protected. Nor have you made the case that homosexuality isn't biological.

There are other factors, but the big one is procreation within the union. Society gets a huge benefit from marriage in this respect, that would not be found in gay marriage.

Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids?

[Ben Kenobi]

DRoseDars:

If you lower the marriage rate in heterosexual couples, that will drop the birthrate.

As opposed to how it is now, with fertile gay men and women marrying and procreating wildly with members of the opposite sex.

Can you say that gay marriage will increase the birth rates?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at it this way. One way to encourage people to marry is to provide tax benefits for doing so. Now, if you expand these benefits to common law relationships, you lose the original benefits of encouraging marriage. That make sense?

Not in the least, unless the point was to dodge my question. Then it makes sense.