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

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Wezil
In giving women equality with men, did we have to redefine what a man is?

Oy. We aren't redefining 'heterosexual'.

We did redefine every single profession women weren't allowed into before to allow for women. For example, "Police officer" no longer means "a man with a truncheon and a silly hat" but rather "a person with a truncheon and a silly hat". Is that so bad?

[Ben Kenobi]

From an orthodox Catholic viewpoint (not, BTW, exclusively developed by priests) modern Western society has perverted sexuality by viewing a secondary benefit of sex as the most important part of it. This understanding of sex underlies the Church's position on a lot of other matters, including divorce and abortion--not just homosexuality. It is a coherent, rational worldview once you accept its underlying principles. Most of all, it is backed up by centuries of debate and arguments by many of the finest philosophers and theologians in history.

Thank you St. Leo. That is precisely it. Why should the zeitgeist of an age that is rapidly fading replace this?

[Ben Kenobi]

We aren't redefining 'heterosexual'.

You dodge the question, St. Leo.

You are redefining the meaning of marriage, and as such, meaningful equality cannot be acheived.

Equality in form can be established, but not in substance.

[St Leo]

Which age is rapidly fading? I can think of several you might have in mind.

The Catholic church is in the unenviable position of the Coyote. It's wrong, the ground has been pulled from underneath its feet, and it's ten thousand meters above the canyon floor. Unfortunately, to admit that it's wrong would be to look down, and so it's playing mindgames and adopting untenable positions because it can't afford to reconcile reality with religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

What is reality?

Is it of this age, or that which has persisted through the ages?

There is one reason why God is said to be outside time, because he is too real to have any part of him fade away.

It's wrong, the ground has been pulled from underneath its feet, and it's ten thousand meters above the canyon floor. Unfortunately, to admit that it's wrong would be to look down, and so it's playing mindgames and adopting untenable positions because it can't afford to reconcile reality with religion.

What if the Don is right? That what is seen as the windmill is really a giant?

Or that the simple barmaid is really a princess?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You dodge the question, St. Leo.

You are redefining the meaning of marriage, and as such, meaningful equality cannot be acheived.

Equality in form can be established, but not in substance.

People tend toward short-sightedness. In the long run, form dictates substance because form is easier to transmit across generations.

That's why your side is fighting so hard -- form is all you have left. The more general definition has the moral and ethical high ground. Resistance to it will not spontaneously appear post-facto because there's nothing about the liberalization that would arouse passions other than the indignity of change.

So, you have to fight now to keep the spectre of inconsistent morality alive.

[Ben Kenobi]

People tend toward short-sightedness. In the long run, form dictates substance because form is easier to transmit across generations.

But people hunger for substance.

Form may be easier to pass on, but it will not satisfy.

That's why your side is fighting so hard -- form is all you have left.

Think about that for awhile. How could the form of something spur us to defend that form? It's the substance that is driving us.

The more general definition has the moral and ethical high ground.

What is adopted by a passing age? Hardly. There have been many things that have been supported by the majority that have been proven wrong. Majority need not imply morality.

Resistance to it will not spontaneously appear post-facto because there's nothing about the liberalization that would arouse passions other than the indignity of change.

I would argue that liberalism cuts it's own throat. There is nothing to defend in permissiveness, because defending implies that something is wrong.

[embalmer42]

I don't mean to stir the waters but so far in this thread I have not seen one point raised which I think could be important: if this legislation is passed, what is your opinion about religious leaders not being forced to marry gays? Would that survive a court challenge by a group demanding to be married by a church oppposed to gay marriage (regardless of what Paul says)? Would equality triumph over religious freedom in the supreme court?

And don't say it will never happen because someone would take the issue to court if only to make a name for themselves.

[St Leo]

0. Religious leaders have been refusing to conduct interfaith marriage ceremonies for ages. Gay marriage is quite similar to that.

1. The Supreme Court has already said that forcing religious personages to conduct marriages they don't want to conduct would be against the Charter and that the extra protections in the bill are hot air.

[mindseye]

I'm joining this thread really late, but one comment on the polygamy slippery slope argument:

Polygamy is a choice.

Homosexuality is not.

That single enormous difference negates the fear-monger's slippery slope argument.

Canada!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by mindseye
I'm joining this thread really late, but one comment on the polygamy slippery slope argument:

Polygamy is a choice.

Homosexuality is not.

That single enormous difference negates the fear-monger's slippery slope argument.

Canada!

Just a comment on the polygamy part sure its a choice for the man but not the woman in all cases.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by embalmer42
I don't mean to stir the waters but so far in this thread I have not seen one point raised which I think could be important: if this legislation is passed, what is your opinion about religious leaders not being forced to marry gays? Would that survive a court challenge by a group demanding to be married by a church oppposed to gay marriage (regardless of what Paul says)? Would equality triumph over religious freedom in the supreme court?

And don't say it will never happen because someone would take the issue to court if only to make a name for themselves.

There is a reason the notwithstanding clause is in the Charter. One of these days, on some issue or other, it will be used.

Actually, it already has as the GoQuebec has deemed the protection of French to be more important than the SCoC's rulings re language.

[ixnay]

Just because we don't need a bunch of gay marriage threads cluttering up the forums and I didn't see this posted anywhere:

N.Y. Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down

2 hours, 24 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AP

By SAMUEL MAULL, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a ruling that would allow gay couples to wed if it is upheld on appeal.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of five gay couples who were denied marriage licenses last year.

Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples, said they were thrilled by the ruling and believed it would offer their family increased legal protection. They have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter.

"We're just overjoyed," said Shain. "We didn't think it would ever happen.

Kennedy said she wants to marry Shain as soon as possible. "I can't wait," she said. "We went to buy a (marriage) license in March 2004 and couldn't get it. That's what started this whole thing."

The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_1

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:

You back up my claim that deaf mute parents should be able to have children.

Thanks.

Where did YOU claim that?

Instead of attempting to score a (non-existent) point, perhaps you should have looked a little harder at the motive behind my post: good enough to reproduce and raise children, then if proven suitable by Social Services and adoption agencies, good enough to foster or adopt.


How many hearing only 'nuclear' families are prepared to foster or adopt profoundly deaf or deaf mute children?

Judging by the state of orphanages, not that many.

You stigmatize people because of their disability, rather than seeing that they are capable of surmounting those difficulties and giving a loving home to a child.

Likewise, you stigmatize lesbians and gay men because of their sexuality, refusing to countenance the extension of civil rights which are the product of secular societies to them.


Regurgitating the same stale arguments again and again, doesn't make those arguments more right, it just makes them more monotonous.


The grapes of wrath express a thin whine.....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's just say I've gotten frusterated with much of the system that is supposed to be helping me.

I mean, I have a cell phone, for pete's sake because nothing else seems to work properly, which is probably the most unfriendly method for me to talk to people on the telephone.

I don't see why your anecdotal, personal testimony should have any weight against the fact that plenty of deaf parents are able to raise hearing children quite well.

Never heard of that. First of all, what did her dormitory pay to have that installed? Secondly, did they agree to have it installed before she came in or not?

What's that matter? The point is, means exist, and it worked. So if a hearing couple can have such systems in place that are effective, that takes care of the problems mentioned.

If I did that at my old dorm I would have been laughed at.

So? I don't see why your aversion to public ridicule has anything to do with deaf parents raising children. Wouldn't such laughter reflect badly on those laughing, not you?

Lights are good, but they are much less effective than sound, because you do not need to be looking at the light to see the light.

Not if it is all the lights. If the lights in a whole room flash, it will be noticed.

Finally, all this costs money. I don't really have money to pay for the installation of this stuff, unless the installation is paid for.

So? We're not talking about money issues. The point is that such systems can be provided. Adoptees don't often end up in households that can't provide for their needs. So it's reasonable to expect a deaf couple wanting to adopt would need to be able to provide such tools.

I think my points are still valid, about the safety, based on what I have seen from my aunt, (raising two kids on her own who is deaf), and my dad. Both of them, whenever their kids were little, would make sure that their kids were always in their sight, and couldn't let them out of their sight, or bad stuff would happen.

No, your points aren't valid. I would love to see some sort of evidence of a higher increase in child injury/fatality among deaf parents than hearing ones. Until then, bald assertions that it's unsafe and anecdotal evidence that ignores the reality that other deaf couples experience is pretty useless.

We had a thread, on why black kids can't get adopted by white families, because of the bs that the kids will feel ostracised. That's a huge piece of red tape there.

And one I don't believe should be there, absolutely. You'll note the fellows at lethimstay.com have a mixed family, btw.

But this is curious that you discount such potential "ostracism" among racially mixed families, but one of the cruxes of your opposition to gay parenting is that the kids could experience ostracism from their peers over it. While it's refreshing to see such a tacit acknowledgement the homophobia is still a big problem, I find the hypocrisy of the positions startling.

Plus you have the costs associated with adoption alluded to by Strawbow, that you haven't even acknowledged. That's red tape, and very discouraging to parents wishing to adopt.

I'm all about tearing down red tape, but keep in mind why much of this red tape exists. It's hard work to sift through couples wanting to adopt all the cute babies to find suitable ones. The question is whether or not a deaf couple who can provide the same means of care and comfort for a child should be treated as "lesser" than a hearing couple. So far, the only argument for this to be the case from you are blanket assertions that it's somehow "unsafe," despite plenty of examples available that children of deaf parents do just fine.

Granted. This is a big problem that will be there regardless of what you do. Your solution won't make this problem any better. Why would the people who have difficulties of their own wish to raise the most challenging kids?

Nobody is devoid of "difficulties." Being deaf isn't an insurmountable one. In fact, given all of the healthy, happy and well-adjusted children of deaf couples out there, clearly such difficulties are minor.

Why shouldn't they want to raise challening kids? I see no evidence that a parent having physical difficulties in any way hampers their ability to effectively raise children, even challenging ones.

Did I say people clamoured to adopt foster kids? No. I referred to the younger kids, since no one specified earlier that the problem was more with adoption, or with foster children.

Nary a difference, the problem still exists. Singling out younger children to somehow prove that there is no shortage of parents willing to adopt is just defining the terms to suit you instead of addressing the problem. Adoption isn't confined to cute little babies who are perfect in every way.

I'm not impressed to be sure that this is a viable solution for the problems that you cited, but I agree that he should stay if he's already there.

That's refreshing, at least. But I don't see on what grounds you can say it isn't "viable." The fact that it's working right now seems to suggest it is plenty viable.

Edit:

Here's another thing.

So you have children raising parents.

Yeah, and you can find similar examples of kids having to grow up fast and "raise" their parents across the spectrum. But this is still just one anecdote. Is it universal? No, because there are other anecdotes on those websites that show deaf parents fully in charge and raising their child.

Of course, I don't see how that anecdote is meant to be damning, since the person being quoted didn't grow into a maladjusted sociopath, nor died whilst the parents snoozed through a blaze...