Canada shelves Gay marriage legislation.

[MrFun]

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.

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.

I'm getting real tired of your attempts to deliberately distort the issue that gays have.

The point is not that we want to marry someone of the opposite gender, but that we want to be able to marry another person of the same gender.

Stop twisting this around.

[Ming]

I'm still trying to understand what people have against gay marriage besides just religious beliefs and bigotry.

If BK is against it for purely religious beliefs, that's fine by me. His religion doesn't have to perform or recognize them... their right.

But all the "logical" arguments people bring up against aren't really logical at all... and are just weak rationales for supporting their bigotry or religious beliefs.

Let's review some of those lame arguments against it...

1) It cheapens the institution of marriage.

HUH? Are people really saying that the love two people have for each other and the bond they share by getting married is at all effected because of what other people do? That allowing gays to get married has an actual effect on non gay marriages? Please explain what effect it will have beyond simple religious beliefs.

2) Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays.

HUH? Couples who can't have children are allowed to get married... and EVERY RELIGION I KNOW OF allows that and doesn't see it as a sin. Marriage is about love and commitment... You don't have to prove you can have children to get married.

3) Effecting the birth rate seems to have come up...

HUH... what does this have to do with anything.

4) Since gays aren't necessarily getting married to have/adopt children, they don't need the special legal rights that are granted to those that do.

Bull... Marriage has evolved beyond just having a family. It provides legal protections that are important to people who plan on spending their lives together and taking care of each other. Why should they not be allowed the same protection as other couples in love.

I have yet to hear any logical argument against it... Only religious beliefs (which is fine) or simple bigotry (which isn't)

[Sava]

Ming is the smartest person in this thread.

The government should have equal rights under law. Period. That means two gay dudes (or women) can enter into a legal contract of property, hospital visitation rights, or insurance coverage... basically, everything a marriage has. I don't give a **** what people call it. And religions don't have to perform or recognize such unions... but the LAW DOES!

And with all the problems in the world? Why is the government wasting it's time worrying about weddings? Give me a ****ing break.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm still trying to understand what people have against gay marriage besides just religious beliefs and bigotry.

If BK is against it for purely religious beliefs, that's fine by me. His religion doesn't have to perform or recognize them... their right.

But all the "logical" arguments people bring up against aren't really logical at all... and are just weak rationales for supporting their bigotry or religious beliefs.

Let's review some of those lame arguments against it...

1) It cheapens the institution of marriage.

HUH? Are people really saying that the love two people have for each other and the bond they share by getting married is at all effected because of what other people do? That allowing gays to get married has an actual effect on non gay marriages? Please explain what effect it will have beyond simple religious beliefs.

2) Marriage is meant for having children/family and that wouldn't be the case for gays.

HUH? Couples who can't have children are allowed to get married... and EVERY RELIGION I KNOW OF allows that and doesn't see it as a sin. Marriage is about love and commitment... You don't have to prove you can have children to get married.

3) Effecting the birth rate seems to have come up...

HUH... what does this have to do with anything.

4) Since gays aren't necessarily getting married to have/adopt children, they don't need the special legal rights that are granted to those that do.

Bull... Marriage has evolved beyond just having a family. It provides legal protections that are important to people who plan on spending their lives together and taking care of each other. Why should they not be allowed the same protection as other couples in love.

I have yet to hear any logical argument against it... Only religious beliefs (which is fine) or simple bigotry (which isn't)

Oh, and just to add to your bit about the illogical argument that gay marriage would desacralize conventional marriage:

the fact is that marriage has not been sacred for many, many years now thanks to high divorce rate, Jerry Springer shows, Las Vegas drive-through weddings, and so on.

In this aspect, conservative heteros who adhere to the illogical argument you mentioned want to scapegoat gays for what are perceived as problems, that straight people have created.

[Guynemer]

Folks, you'd have more success trying to get Colmes to stand up to Hannity than you would arguing gay marriage with Ben Kenobi.

[MrFun]

Well, I want Bennie to at least stop distorting this issue by trying to state that gays are upset that we are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.

That is not what we're upset about.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Starchild

Hell, if it wanted to, the Canadian Parliament could define marriage to be exclusively between a man and an oak tree.

Trust you to think of something so perverted .............


and yet, I have heard a siren call from my garden

[Starchild]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Trust you to think of something so perverted .............


and yet, I have heard a siren call from my garden

Watch out for woodpeckers.

[Jamski]

and yet, I have heard a siren call from my garden

Yeah, its the 3 minute warning.

-Jam

[Spiffor]

There is just one thing I want to say about gay marriage:

My girlfriend and I have lived happily for one year now. We have very little strife, and our couple just works perfectly.
My girlfriend and I have wild plans, about getting married, about having kids, about living together with a simple happiness everybody will understand and sympathetize with.

Such plans are common. Every longlasting couple draws them. It is a simple game, a simple happiness of life in a couple. Not only a simple one, but also an obvious one.

I can not understand why gays should be barred from experiencing this happiness.

[St Leo]

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.

Same sex marriage is in full accord with the traditional definition of marriage as a union of two loving humans. Any attempt to outlaw it is a limitation of it by parliament.

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.

Yes, it can. There is no reasonable difference between samesex and other married couples. Both provide an increased tax base and a stable environment for the rearing of children.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Starchild

Hell, if it wanted to, the Canadian Parliament could define marriage to be exclusively between a man and an oak tree.

It could also extend it to that. I mean - we're right on course for such!

[Zylka]

hmm

Originally posted by St Leo

Same sex marriage is in full accord with the traditional definition of marriage as a union of two loving humans. Any attempt to outlaw it is a limitation of it by parliament.

Sorry - I try not to give a **** about this issue all too much. But where exactly is this "traditional" definition you've outlined from??

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Zylka
It could also extend it to that. I mean - we're right on course for such!

No, we are not. An oak tree cannot consent.

I don't see a woman and a dolphin happenning anytime soon either.

[Zylka]

So, consent is your parameter. Good to see we're all adhering to arbitrary self opinion in legal definition, now!