Canpol: Stick a fork in them, and congrats on the nuptials

[MrFun]

I believe that freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are both equally important, BK.

Your concern about repression of religious freedom is utterly unfounded.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then why does Parliament have a say at all? Why does the Supreme Court of Canada, affirm that the Parliament of Canada are the ones who determine the marriage laws of the country? The answer to this, is that it is up to the people of Canada, and that the marriage law is something of concern to everyone.

No, actually, it is the Constitutional order. The fed has power over marriage. The provinces have power over the granting of licenses.

It actually is mentioned in the BNA Act. It was that important.

As far as it being the concern of everyone, and up to the peoiple... civil rights have never lent themselves well to popular politics.

Rights are either there, or they are not. They should not ever be subject to popular opinion.

Largest Protestant denomination, NYE. Sloppy.

Big enough for my argument. That being that some zealots from other sects are attempting to stamp their vision of marriage on all of us, including a very large number of religious people who disagree with them.

How can you say this is a state vs religion issue when it has been religion vs religion for a long time?

Acknowledge that there are some churches that do want to marry gay people? Yes, they do. This is religion to other people, but as you have also said, their religion ought to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

No, Ben. Your religion is irrelevant to the laws that effect other people. And theirs to yours.

If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people.

The number of the mob opposed to civil rights are not relevant.

The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.

So, it really isn't an argument that we require gay marriage in order to respect the religious freedoms of everyone here in Canada. If one were to follow the logical chain of argumentation, Canada would have to allow polygamy, since that is the practice of certain religious groups.

Pish tosh.

That is like saying we would be compelled to allow slavery based on contract law. It is simply silly.

That's not an individual right, NYE. That is a collective right. One cannot get married to oneself. To say that it is a human right, assumes that it is an individual right and not a collective. All the other rights, freedom of speech, religion, conscience, and the equality provisions are all based upon the status of an individual and not a collective.

Sorry, Ben, this is just jibberish.

All I'm going to say ATM is it sure as hell is an individual right.

Think about the rights of whites and blacks to marry each other.

Fine argument. Now, should the state add legal teeth to the recognition of marriages performed by Muslims, to multiple wives, that they have been performing for a long time.

See above re pish tosh, but let me add...

It would not be legal for a man to marry a six year old girl. Nor will it be legal for a gay man to marry a six year old boy. Nor will it be legal for anyone, ever, to marry multiple people.

Another red coloured, fishey substance.

I for once, would like to see a ruling in the court that sides with the religious folks, in terms of their beliefs. The last big one I saw was the Trinity Western case, that permitted them to retain regulations barring sexual activity, among their students, as a Private university.

What about the beliefs of those from the United Church?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes. I'm not the only one who sees this coming too. As for it being electoral suicide, just look at how many folks in this thread who would support such a thing.

People no longer believe that religious freedoms are an essential component of human rights.

Well then, you will have to trust to the rule of law and the wisdom of the SCoC, won't you?

[notyoueither]

The funny thing is that you would not accord the same protections to your 'opponents'.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada?

The law was not passed by the Supreme Court. It was passed by Parliament.

Canada is a democracy. You can try to get a Conservative government elected since Harper promises to overturn the law. The Conservatives could then have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment.

Since you believe that people choose to be gay or lesbian then same sex marriage is not special treatment. It is now a right that any Canadian can choose to use.

Just as you choose to practice your freedom of religion while I do not. That doesn't mean you are receiving special treatment.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I have seen the Catholic church on campus spraypainted with my own eyes. I cannot count on the courts protecting my rights to practice religion in the manner that I see fit, nor can I count on those who support human rights to find a place for freedom of religion.

If this were coming from almost anyone else, I'd say it's the most rediculous argument they've ever presented!

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe that freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion are both equally important, BK.

Your concern about repression of religious freedom is utterly unfounded.

That's really not what I was looking for. You don't talk about freedom from the press, because freedom of the press doesn't work that way. Why religion then? If you don't want to go to church, then no one is going to force you.

And yes, I am concerned about the repression of religious freedoms in Canada.

[Bill3000]

HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's really not what I was looking for. You don't talk about freedom from the press, because freedom of the press doesn't work that way. Why religion then? If you don't want to go to church, then no one is going to force you.

Another stinker of an analogy.

"Freedom from the press" isn't an issue because there is no media dogma that the press is trying to get passed into law that will effect people's ability to live their lives as they see fit.

Religious groups, however, are trying to force people to live by their standards. Ignoring that and claiming it's just an issue of forcing people to attend church is pretty disingenuous.

Legalizing gay marriage isn't forcing religious people to participate or live by a "gay standard." But prohibiting it IS requiring gay people to live by a religious standard. Or, at least, one religious viewpoint.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, actually, it is the Constitutional order. The fed has power over marriage. The provinces have power over the granting of licenses.

It actually is mentioned in the BNA Act. It was that important.

Thank you. If the constitutional act places the authority to Parliament, then yes, it is the concern of everyone. If it were solely a rights issue, then the courts would have said that parliament does not have a role.

Rights are either there, or they are not. They should not ever be subject to popular opinion.

Big enough for my argument. That being that some zealots from other sects are attempting to stamp their vision of marriage on all of us, including a very large number of religious people who disagree with them.

How can you say this is a state vs religion issue when it has been religion vs religion for a long time?

It is a state vs religion issue, because, as you have said, the state decides what it shall recognise as marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage, don't appreciate having gay marriage shoved down their throats.

As for it being religion vs religion, the stance of the United Chruch wrt to gay marriage is a very recent innovation. Up until then, all of the churches would have agreed.

No, Ben. Your religion is irrelevant to the laws that effect other people. And theirs to yours.

Thank you. Then the stance of the United Church is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The number of the mob opposed to civil rights are not relevant.

Then so is the stance of the United church, which you brought up.

That is like saying we would be compelled to allow slavery based on contract law. It is simply silly.

You laugh, but this is what is happening in BC right now as we speak. No one is enforcing the provisions with respect to polygamy, and soon someone is going to ask the question why we should just have two people in a marriage?

I don't see why it ought to be considered the same as slavery, when you are dealing with consenting adults, who choose this arrangement. And there would be plenty more precedence for polygamy than there is for gay marriage.

Sorry, Ben, this is just jibberish.

All I'm going to say ATM is it sure as hell is an individual right.

Think about the rights of whites and blacks to marry each other.

Yes, that is because race is irrelevant to the union in marriage. Gay marriage is different, because you have to change the meaning of the union in order to establish it.

It would not be legal for a man to marry a six year old girl. Nor will it be legal for a gay man to marry a six year old boy. Nor will it be legal for anyone, ever, to marry multiple people.

Another red coloured, fishey substance.

Why not, if this is what consenting adults want, why should they be prevented from doing so? It is hardly slavery then, and you are discriminating against them for the way in which they want to live their life. Are they not second class citizens because they all cannot get married to each other?

What about the beliefs of those from the United Church?

They've had plenty of rulings. I'd like one that protects the rights of all religious people, and not just a few.

[MrFun]

BK -- you're claiming that the definition of marriage has never changed in all of human history?

[Ben Kenobi]

Religious groups, however, are trying to force people to live by their standards. Ignoring that and claiming it's just an issue of forcing people to attend church is pretty disingenuous.

How are they forcing people to live by their standard? Are they stopping gay people from forming relationships? I see plenty of billboards and advertisements, for a 'man line' and the rest, encouraging gay folks to get together. If religious folks are dictating to the lifestyle of the gay folks, then none of that would be there. Yet this is what I see. Should the same billboard be an advertisement for Focus on the Family, it would be vandalised, but not before every single gay person complained about the sign, and tried to get it taken down.

I'd love to be a gay person in Canada. I'd have better treatment than I would otherwise. The city would throw a parade once a year saying that I am cool ****, and folks would have to tiptoe around me, lest they be accused of being homophobes.

Legalizing gay marriage isn't forcing religious people to participate or live by a "gay standard." But prohibiting it IS requiring gay people to live by a religious standard. Or, at least, one religious viewpoint.

That asks the question, why should society care about marriage? I think society derives certain benefits from marriage between a man and a woman, which is why society wants to encourage this, over other arrangements.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK -- you're claiming that the definition of marriage has never changed in all of human history?

That can't be true because I argued that there is precedence for polygamy.

As soon as you decide to change the established definition of marriage here in Canada, then it becomes a real question as to why change ought to stop here. Why should polygamy be outlawed? Who would be harmed by polygamy?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a red herring? Well, saying that gay marriage is a human rights issue is seen as a red herring. It assumes, that people are born gay, and that they cannot choose to change.

If I get a plastic surgery to become black, does that mean people can discriminate against me?

[Ben Kenobi]

If I get a plastic surgery to become black, does that mean people can discriminate against me?

How would they be discriminating against you? After all, you are the same person you were before you became a black person. Or have you totally changed, and are no longer the same person you were before just because you have changed the colour of your skin?