Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree. Rather than letting a small segment of society decide, be they judges or priests, let everyone have their say.

Let's get parliament to hold a real vote on this issue.

Horse hockey! Your's is the small segment of society, bub. Your's is the small segment of society that is trying to enforce your own religious convictions on all others AND on other Churches.

In case you weren't paying attention in whatever social sciences classes you ever took, your Church does not get any say in what other Churches do. Got that?

And finally, we are all going to get our say, through our elected representatives. Probably during the next Parliament. That is how we do things in this country. We do not hold referenda on every issue that causes some malcontent to develop blisters just thinking about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not seperate the benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids (biological or adopted), and the number of them?

We already have a benefit along those lines. Here's my previous argument, cut and pasted from my last post.

It is just as bad to overemphasize procreation and childrearing over love, as it is to emphasize love over childrearing and procreation. Both aspects should be part of marriage, one not seperated from the other.

[Ramo]

Requiring the kids to be biological seems inane to me. People who adopt are even more valuable than people who give birth given that there are many kids that would grow up without parents if there aren't people to adopt them.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[Ben Kenobi]

And finally, we are all going to get our say, through our elected representatives. Probably during the next Parliament.

Like Martin wants to touch this issue. He'll put it off as long as people let him get away with it.

That is how we do things in this country. We do not hold referenda on every issue that causes some malcontent to develop blisters just thinking about it.

It's not everyday that you are redefining such a time-worn institution as marriage. I still would prefer a referendum, as that would offer greater citizen participation, to such an important question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Requiring the kids to be biological seems inane to me. People who adopt are even more valuable than people who give birth given that there are many kids that would grow up without parents if there aren't people to adopt them.

I agree. We should have such a benefit. People who raise children provide a benefit to society. So do those people who marry. I say offer both benefits, as it need not be one or the other.

[Asher]

What if we had a referendum for women's suffrage?
What if we had a referendum in the south for letting black people vote?

Sometimes you gotta do what's right, protect the rights of the minorities despite the tyranny of the majority. Seeing as in this case, gay marriage clearly doesn't affect anyone but the two consentual adults, it's no business what the general public thinks really.

[Ramo]

People who give birth and leave kids at orphanages don't benefit society (orphans are burdens on the state). People who give birth and raise their kids beneift society. People who adopt and raise kids benefit society even more.

And again, you've failed to answer my question.

[Theben]

In 1991, newspapers primarily on both coasts trumpeted the discovery of a brain difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals....

I don't think you want to argue this method. This would validate every other group who have altered physiology from the 'norm', including the tired old "pedophile/criminal" chestnut. Plus the article admits the study contained known variables.

Arguing from a civil rights POV is the strongest case.

[Tingkai]

I hate half the things the Liberals do, and I think half of them are probably crooks, but you got to hand it to them, they're fricking brilliant political strategists.

Martin has just created a massive election trap for the Conservatives and they're going to walk straight into it.

The Conservatives are going to turn gay marriages into an election issue, and that's exactly what Martin wants.

He knows that people opposed to GM tend to be conservatives who won't vote for the Liberals. So a pro-GM stand doesn't cost him many votes.

But the Conservatives will be screwed by an anti-GM stand. It pushes them to the right and alienates people in the middle, the voters they need to win. This is particularly true in Quebec. And an anti-GM stand reinforces the stereotype that the former Reformers are a bunch of religious right-wing rednecks.

It'll even cost them conservative voters. Asher: would you vote for an anti-GM Conservative candidate? Probably not, eh.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

[Flip McWho]

Ben. You are just proving how ignorant and pathetic the arguments against Gay Marriages are. From a religios point of view. I'm surprised Asher and all them are still bothering trying to argue with you. Its pretty obvious that you will never be swayed cause of your hmmm obsolete religious convictions.

[DRoseDARs]

Didn't you know: Most gays are into sado-masochism. Pain, delicious pain.

[Flip McWho]

fair enough

[Jamski]

Mistakes Ben is Making : Chapter 14c

Marriage is a Christian institution.

Umm, let's think about this...
Moslems get married.
Buddists get married
Hindus get married.
Jews get married.

Ok, let's say that marriage is a religious institution.

Nope.

People get married in registry offices, in casinos, on cruise ships...
Confucians in China get married.
Communists in the USSR (where God officially didn't exist) got married.

But at least married couples are more likely to stay together (changing tactics)

Nope. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce - not to mention how many end without a divorce. Your marriage is statisically more likely to fail than succeed.

Being married produces more children, though.

So? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I havn't seen evidence either way. But the world is overpopulated anyway...

Married people pay less tax. Gays should pay more tax!

Ah, now I see the point Ben is trying to make...

Sheesh.

-Jam

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition.

The argument goes back to the old constitution of Canada that describes the role of parliament as a caretaker of marriage. That description seems to rule out the capacity of parliament to redefine marriage

Sorry Ben, but you're wrong. The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, which Canada inherited from the UK, means that Parliament is free to create any law or definition it damn well feels like. Also, since each individual sitting of Parliament is in itself sovereign, current Parliaments can neither be bound by nor bind past or future Parliaments. If the House of Commons in Canada wanted to, it could dissolve all the courts and Provincial parliaments, repeal all past legislation, and rule by dictate just like the UK House of Commons creates and dissolves other bodies (London Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Supreme Courts) as it sees fit.

So Parliament can define marriage in Canada any way it wants. No prior law can restrict its ability to do this. Hell, if it wanted to, the Canadian Parliament could define marriage to be exclusively between a man and an oak tree.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

I can't believe anyone would would field this absurdity around here, not once ... but twice!

I gotta question for you:

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man? Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar? And enjoy that honeymoon? And set up a life-long love nest with him? Could you really do that? I'm not kidding here, I want to know.

Therefore, gay marriage will reduce the birthrate.

Still rolling over this one. If only that were true, please, somebody, inform the leadership of China!

Seriously, do you think that if a couple is considering having kids, their decision will be influenced by whether or not lesbians can marry in their country?

it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities.

You aren't aware that some gay people (male and female) sire children?

Why is homosexuality biological?

Well, for starters, the animal world is rife with it, especially mammals. Hard to imagine that those male giraffes screwing each other are acting on something other than biological impetus.

Rather than letting a small segment of society decide, be they judges or priests, let everyone have their say.

Basic civil rights should never, ever be decided through popularity polls.

And rights don't get much more basic than the right to marry, a right most would consider far more important than the right to vote.

Most Americans were against interracial marriage when it was legalized in 1967. Ben, do you think the US should have waited until the general population voted its approval before allowing interracial couples to wed?