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

[Straybow]

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.

Invalid comparison. Proper comparison:

1. Polygamy is a choice.
2. Homosexual marriage is a choice.

Similitude holds, slope is slippery.

[joncha]

Heterosexual marriage is also a choice. We should ban it before we head any further down that slippery slope of yours.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I have to say this again Polyagmy is not the choice of both people most of the time. In my recolations the young woman in these cases dont have the choice of who they are to be married to. These girls cant say no, how is that a choice?

[Ben Kenobi]

What was that about an effective law against polygamy?

I was right about the BC Liberals.


Provincial Attorney-General Warns Canada Polygamy Law Open to Legal Challenge

VANCOUVER, February 4, 2005

– BC’s Attorney General warned Thursday that Canada’s law prohibiting polygamy will not stand up to a legal challenge, because of potential conflicts with laws protecting religious freedoms. Attorney-General Geoff Plant said, “There might well be a case where the court would have to deal with religious freedoms arguments, and I think there is at least some risk that those arguments might succeed,” according to a CanWest News Service report.

Plant is concerned, in part, because police have never laid polygamy charges, despite allegations that polygamists in Bountiful, BC, are marrying girls as young as 13 to much older men.

“My view is that if there is evidence that would support a charge ... it is in the public interest to prosecute, because the section has never been struck down by a judge, by a court, and so it has to be treated as though it's good law,” he said. “I know that some prosecutors may well have some concerns about that, and we won't have to cross that bridge until we find out if there's real evidence out there.”

Former B.C. chief justice Allan McEachern agreed with Plant’s assessment that a court challenge of the polygamy law would probably result in the law being overturned. However, federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler disagreed. He said the law, “In my view” is “constitutional and it is enforceable.”

The RCMP has been conducting an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse and incest, since several women from the Bountiful community have left and complained to authorities. The community, members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is an offshoot of the Mormon Church.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not they should be allowed to adopt children. They can raise children well, (I mean, what am I going to say about my own dad?), but it is still difficult, and there are challenges that need to be overcome.

Are we doing what is right by the child in an adoption to knowingly put them in such a position, when this could be avoided?

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.

So, my point is that this 'solution' doesn't work all that well. If it costs too much money, than it isn't really helpful for most deaf students in dorms.

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?

True, but the fact is that they would laugh because the solution would cost to much for them to implement, particularly since most students live in a dorm for maybe 2 years, and the installation of the equipment would have to be removed after the deaf student left.

There are cheaper methods to accomplish the same end.

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

What if you aren't in that room? Do all the lights in the house need to be wired in this way?

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.

My point is that this is primarily a money issue. If the solutions are costly and cumbersome, people will make do on their own. I know this from my own life, and from the people that I have worked with who get frusterated at the cost barrier more than anything else.

If you had a choice between plopping down a substantial chunk of money for this, and between making sure the house is heated, etc, I know what I would choose, to keep the house. This is where the ingenuity comes in, to try to find a cheap solution to the problem.

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.

These aren't bald assertions, Boris. I'm insulted that you consider them as such, when your own website brings up plenty of red flags.

Can't you consider that my testimony is valid evidence, that ought to be considered, given that I love my parents, and my aunt? Yet I am willing to acknowledge the difficulties they have had in raising children.

If I were in a court of law, my evidence would be considered to be top notch.

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

Yup. But it's part of that red tape you deny discourages couples from adopting.

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.

Keep putting words in my mouth Boris.

No, my argument is that the children, (the kids adopted) have a desire for both a father and a mother, regardless of what they see around them, and will ask why they don't have a mother or a father.

Secondly, a mother and a father, can teach a child both gender roles, how to live their own, and to understand the other.

But of course, you don't believe in this, do you Boris? You believe gender is fluid and sexuality rigid.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Less safe that with a hearing couple, not unsafe. Big difference.

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.

Well, I don't think that website is going to show you the children that haven't done well, would it?

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.

Hampers? I would say it hampers, when there's a barrier between understanding your child. It's a challenge for sure, but one that needs to be considered when doing the adoption placement.

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.

And you can't ignore the red tape that discourages many of these couples from adopting these 'less than perfect children.'

Many of these children with challenges, have the bar set so high, that their care cannot be done privately. I seem to remember DanS talking about one of these children, only to be invalidated, because it was determined that he would be unable to give the child the care he needed, because of a lack of medical training.

These are some of the children you are talking about.

Foster care is a completely different bag, because the child is old enough to know about their family that either abandoned them, or could not take care of them. Most families want to adopt a child, that they can raise as their own.

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.

Numbers, Boris. A drop in the bucket, even if we adopt your suggestions, all of these problems are still going to be there, with foster kids and the rest.

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.

I don't want an adopted child to be put in a position where the adopted child has to raise his parents, Boris. That's all there is to it. Regardless of how the child turns out, you are putting that child at risk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly:

If I stigmatise others with this disability, I stigmatise myself.

Your charge has no merit.

Where did YOU claim that?

When I said that to prevent them from having children infringes on their liberties.

Adoption and procreation are not the same, restrictions in one do not imply restrictions on the other.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

Given that the provinces are the ones responsible for enforcing marriage laws, it's a very valid point. Martin cannot promise any protections for the churches, or church officials, because it is not in his jurisdiction to protect these people.

[notyoueither]

A marriage license doesn't force any clergyman to perform the ceremony, Ben.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Molly:

If I stigmatise others with this disability, I stigmatise myself.

Your charge has no merit.

Oh what rot.

'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.'


Let's all try very hard to guess who said that.

Far better to have a profoundly deaf or deaf mute child incarcerated in a children's home or orphanage than have the opportunity of having loving caring parents who happen to be deaf to look after her, eh?


As for your children bringing up parents non-issue- ignoring the millions who already do so, through accident, happenstance, illness, isn't there something in your holy book about honouring one's parents?

Let's see:

" The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 15:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."


Does that just mean only honouring them if the going's good and not if life gets you down then?

How very liberal of you, Obi Gyn.

[Last Conformist]

Plant is concerned, in part, because police have never laid polygamy charges, despite allegations that polygamists in Bountiful, BC, are marrying girls as young as 13 to much older men.

13? What's the age of consent in Canukhstan? One might have thought nobody could marry anyone under it.

IIRC, here, minors need be over age of consent and have parental permission to marry.