And so it begins: Same-sex marriage law tabled federally in Canada

[Ben Kenobi]

However, the gutlessness of the Province of BC and the RCMP over Bountiful is not the deciding point of national policy and law, and nor should it be.

It will be unless either the provincial or federal authorities intend to enforce the marriage laws.

And the Feds, can say that this is out of their jurisdiction. Their role is to set the policy for the nation as a whole, not to enforce the policy.

So it's really up to BC. Will they enforce their marriage laws by charging those responsible for Bountiful, or will their inaction amount to tacit approval?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


How does increasing the number of people who have free speech strengthen the right to free speech?

I'd say it doesn't. It will likely lead to more people more vocally defending it, but it has no inherent benefit. If you believe it's a right, it's a right, independent of how many people have it.

Keep in mind I'm on your side on this issue - I'd just rather see solid arguments advanced so it isn't so easy for someone like BK to weasle out of his corner.

[Ben Kenobi]

You know I cant think of a thing that hurts the institution of marriage between members ofthe same sex. As long as the couple is dedicated too one another and willing to withstand the attacks of people who dont like it then why not let them marry.

Sure, but is that commitment and dedication there? I'm not sure. The majority of the complaints with our current common law partnerships, is that they do not allow for an automatic division of the property upon their dissolution. So the motive, being more to ensure the security of gay divorce than marriage.

After all marriage is a commitment to love respect support and make a life for each other together. The only things I have heard bad is that what happens if kids get into the picture?

That's the big question. What is marriage, if expressly done apart for the purposes of having and raising children?

Will they be raised in a unacceptable way. My answer is no they kids will make the choices they want when they make them. Hell if a gay couple is allowed to adopt children why cant they marry as well?

Why should they be allowed to adopt? Adoption is not done for the sake of the couples wishing to adopt, but rather, for the sake of the children. It seems reasonable to me, that most children want two parents, a mom and a dad, and if they are lacking this, they feel deprived.

I can show you plenty of articles, one in particular dealing with what to tell your child if you conceived through sperm donation. It seems the last people that are being thought of are the children.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'd say it doesn't. It will likely lead to more people more vocally defending it, but it has no inherent benefit. If you believe it's a right, it's a right, independent of how many people have it.

Right, and therefore I say it is not incumbent upon gay marriage advocates to prove its worth, but rather on opponents to prove its harm. I've seen no such evidence, or even sound arguments.

Heterosexual marriages are approved all the time that one could obviously see are bad ideas. But it's their right to enter into marriage with whom they wish. And it should be the same right for everyone.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Bk while most couples dont enter in marriage considering divorce it does happen. Just like relationships. I dont care if your a man and a woman or of the same sex. But as far as division of proprety, How does that notcompare to a commnity property state? You know when I got my divorce from my ex of 11 years,we were seperated for two of the last in which case he inherited a home and alot of other items of value. All of which i was intitled to at out divorce. since these whee aquired thru our marriage. I of course didnt want none of the items because im a better person then that shrugged them off. However i think its the evil twist of a person that fights for posessions out of spite.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Right, and therefore I say it is not incumbent upon gay marriage advocates to prove its worth, but rather on opponents to prove its harm. I've seen no such evidence, or even sound arguments.

Heterosexual marriages are approved all the time that one could obviously see are bad ideas. But it's their right to enter into marriage with whom they wish. And it should be the same right for everyone.

Careful, Boris. That's starting to sound suspiciously like an actual argument.

[Asher]

Why should they be allowed to adopt? Adoption is not done for the sake of the couples wishing to adopt, but rather, for the sake of the children.

For the same reason deaf people should be allowed to adopt.

Or even those who preach intolerance, such as fundy Christians.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I think I said that didnt I. But to make it even you need to have both sides debating the harms or lack there of.

[Ben Kenobi]

Indeed. Not only is polygamy illegal everywhere in Europe, it's actually being actively acted against. Which is more than can be said for certain areas of the US and Canada...

Ah, you are correct, but blind to assert that the problem does not happen in Europe. Rather, you are at the forefront of this debate.

Ireland has just passed a law requiring Muslims to register only one wife, and not multiple wives, should they immigrate into Ireland.

However:

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties said on Wednesday that the rule was religious discrimination and appeared to contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not just in some religion, in all 3 major monotheist religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In fact, the Bible was used to justify the exploitation of slaves in the New World in colonial times.

And it was the Christian abolitionists who managed to ban slavery. The primary motivations of the slavers in earlier Christian times, was not to uphold Christian ideals, but to use a source of cheap labour.

The institute of marriage as it exists today in many countries including Canada discriminates against people of homosexual orientation. Gay marriage advocates merely seek to end this discrimination.

And many laws discriminate against one group of individuals. In order to establish equality, one needs to compensate people for their burdens. Equality, rather than insisting that all benefits be paid equally, denies that preposition.

Hence, gay marriage and polygamy have NOTHING in common and are completely independent issues.

Saying so won't make it so. Many do see the connection between the two of them, and see how one can lead to another.

If marriage is a contract between two individuals, than there is no good reason to limit that contract to two.

[Asher]

Saying so won't make it so. Many do see the connection between the two of them, and see how one can lead to another.

Many also believe man didn't land on the moon...

The slippery slope argument is ridiculous on its face. Making gay marriages legal won't legalize polygamy, that would be a different bill with different support base.

Please don't continue using it. It gets you nowhere, and shows you have actually nothing against the root issue.

If marriage is a contract between two individuals, than there is no good reason to limit that contract to two.

As opposed to the good reason to limit that contract to man and woman exclusively?

The same arguments about polygamy were spewed by the racist bigots back when interacial marriage was legalized. Go figure that a generation or two later, we have a new generation of bigots (usually heavily Christian, pure coincidence I'm sure), using the same argument to oppress minorities.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I seemto think there is a good reason to limit that contract to two mariage should only be two people if you want multiple partners why get maried?

[Alexander's Horse]

will you wear the dress at your wedding Asher?

[Ben Kenobi]

For the same reason deaf people should be allowed to adopt.

Or even those who preach intolerance, such as fundy Christians.

I would be the first to argue against you on the first point. If I were to marry a deaf woman, I would not want us to be allowed to adopt a child.

How would we hear the child, if the child needed something at night? How could we take care of the child. I know it hasn't been easy, particularly on my aunt, but she's always had someone else to help her look after her kids, because it is just plain difficult to do when you can't hear.

As for the second, Christians are probably the most tolerant people you will ever meet. They may disagree with you, but that disagreement doesn't mean hating you as a person. Tolerance means you put up with something you disagree with.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Im sorry but now i have to say this all children that need adopting are not infants. What about those children that can walk to you in the middle of the night course you can read so if they can gesture and write then you can understand.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would be the first to argue against you on the first point. If I were to marry a deaf woman, I would not want us to be allowed to adopt a child.

How would we hear the child, if the child needed something at night? How could we take care of the child. I know it hasn't been easy, particularly on my aunt, but she's always had someone else to help her look after her kids, because it is just plain difficult to do when you can't hear.

Good points -- clearly we should have a law preventing your kind from marrying another deaf person. Right?

As for the second, Christians are probably the most tolerant people you will ever meet. They may disagree with you, but that disagreement doesn't mean hating you as a person. Tolerance means you put up with something you disagree with.

No, Christians are usually the most polite, but horribly intolerant people out there. They oppress the private rights of those they disagree with based on their own moral values, but do so with a smile and say it's for our best.