Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[MikeH]

He's a catholic so he whole-heartedly embraces demonising the gays.

[Heraclitus]

Homophobia etc. is learned behaviour.

Xenophobia while it can be enhanced by learning is not primarily a learned behaviour, its rather the default. Many of our instincts about dealing with the same and opposite sex are also sexist.


Obviously many people can control these urges and most can overcome them (at a price) with socialization, but like all human characteristics there is variety. For some people no matter of socialization or condition will overcome these tendencies. For others it can be done but will cause psychological problems.

[Flubber]

No they weren't. Words are important. They advocated that marriage should be a man and a woman, and it's important to get their argument right. They did not say that marriage should be a union of two persons, they said something very different.

Ben obviously when the racial debate was going on there was an underlying assumption that marriage was between men and women. SO? Tha parralell still is valid.

The question around interracial marriage amounted to a question of humanity. Why the division between the two was because one were persons and the other were not. That's not the argument wrt to gay marriage, it revolves around the insitution, what does marriage mean, and not the persons. The rationale given against interracial marriage is because the white man and the black man were not the same. That's not the argument wrt gay marriage. The argument is that the union is not the same.

Ben HERE is where we fundamentally disagree. I see the gay marriage debate as one where homosexuals advocated for and succeeded in gaining access to exactly the same legal structure of marriage as straight people. Please explain to me how the rules now in Canada for married gay people differ in any way from the rules for married straight people with respect to the form of marriage (ceremony or licensing), divorce requirments, child custody rules, property division rules, rights to medical decisionmaking or any of the other legal results of a marriage. Tell me ONE thing that has changed with respect to my marriage since gay people were permitted to marry in Canada? ONE!!

I'm sure you believe it is fundamentally changed by allowing two men to marry but that is no different that the belief of a racist that marriage was fundamentally chaged when they allowed a white person to marry a black person.

Your best argument is again the union between a man and a woman is fundamentally equal because each wife has her own husband and each husband her own wife. Anything else is inherently inequal and denies the fundamental equality between a man and a woman in value. The reason you can't find this argument is becuase you've moved far enough down that it's not there for you. Which is the problem.

Ben I find this argument incomprehensible. How does providing a man and a woman the choice of marrying either a man or a woman deny anyone equality? Now each husband has their own wife or husband and each wife has their own husband or wife. Or lets be simple and say each spouse has a spouse with equal legal rights and responsibilities.

One question, what is your model for marriage?

Are you asking for my ideal as to the legal requirments? The status quo is pretty much it. AS a society we have mostly learned to accept our differences and we have come to a point where any two consenting adults that wish to link themselves in this fashion can do so.

I am sure you would in your model want to bring in elements related to God or fidelity or conceiving children but I don't see how you test for or require these things . . . and to think that traditional marriages 100 or 300 years ago were all about love sanctified by God is naive in the extreme.




Bottom line-- gay marriage changed NOTHING for my marriage. IT is exactly as it was.

Polygamous marriages would almost certainly change how marriage works. As I set out earlier, I easily came up with 3 different models for such a system and each was fairly different and each would fundamentally change the legal rights and responsibilities that are attributed to marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

You said that they believed that marriage was between two persons, so no, it's not obvious.

Polygamous marriages would almost certainly change how marriage works. As I set out earlier, I easily came up with 3 different models for such a system and each was fairly different and each would fundamentally change the legal rights and responsibilities that are attributed to marriage.

I'm not disputing this. I agree with your position here. Where I am trying to figure out is how gay marriage is not a fundamental chance to the institution. Do you believe that sex is a crucial part of marriage?

Are you asking for my ideal as to the legal requirments?

No, I'm asking a more fundamental question. You have a model for marriage, and I'm asking you, what do you see as the model for marriage.

I am sure you would in your model want to bring in elements related to God or fidelity or conceiving children but I don't see how you test for or require these things . . . and to think that traditional marriages 100 or 300 years ago were all about love sanctified by God is naive in the extreme.

Real simple, adam and eve, Eve is Adam's helpmeet for him, and Adam is to love, care and protect her. Is it fundamental to you in your own marriage that your wife is a woman?

Tell me ONE thing that has changed with respect to my marriage since gay people were permitted to marry in Canada? ONE!!

Spouse A and Spouse B. Parent A and Parent B. "I now swear to be your lawfully wedded Spouse A. Spouse B, you may now kisss Spouse A." Language is important.

Tha parralell still is valid.

Unfortunately, no it's not. Nobody is arguing that a gay man and a straight man are fundamentally different. Again, the concept of a marriage is really no different than roommates because there is no union.

[Ben Kenobi]

[
The goals of mandatory diversity training is a theme of tolerance. The goal is to not attack or disrespect people because they are black, gay, female, deaf, blind, etc. I do not disagree with this goal.

And to attack anyone who doesn't share the truefaith.

I'm sure you, as an upstanding person of Christian faith, whole-heartedly embrace this as well. Right?

Absolutely not, because what it teaches is contrary to my beliefs. And contrary to what Christ teaches. All men are created equal and endowed by their creator, not all men are created black brown green white and yellow. Here there is no, Jew or Greek, slave or free, there is no male or female for all are one in Christ. Our distinctions are irrelevant, not celebrated when it comes to Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

So he's happy to attack people for homophobia and that's somehow wrong?

Homophobia is no different than heresy, that's all the word means. It's a thoughtcrime. If I believe that homosexuality is sinful that makes me a homophobe. This ignores the distinction between who a person is and what he does. This is the problem with diversity training, who a person is is reduced to the colour of his skin or who he had sex with last night.

Nothing else matters! It's a horribly offensive teaching to anyone who believes that there is no fundamental different between people and that we should treat everyone with respect as persons, not because their skin is of a different shade.

[Flubber]

Flubber:

Do you believe that sex is a crucial part of marriage?

.

Do you mean gender or intercourse? I'll address both

Intercourse__ I believe there are many marriages where these sexual relations were never that important or where they have disappeared. I find that unfortunate but consider those couples that choose to retain that bond are still married . The old model was that any two adults of opposite genders could get married based on any criteria they used to select a partner. The new model in Canada ius that any two adults may marry irrespective of gender.

So if you wish to assert that a marriage requires a penis in a vagina or an attempt to procreate, I reject any such REQUIREMENTS. I do admit that for me peresonally I was seeking a partner with which to have sex, raise a family etc etc.


Gender-- Its immaterial to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

So if you wish to assert that a marriage requires a penis in a vagina or an attempt to procreate, I reject any such requirements

So it's irrelevant to you that your wife is a woman?

I find that undortunate

Why? Sex isn't a part of marriage. Sex isn't even on the table. The only thing that's on the table is cohabitation and maybe companionship. That seems to be about all thast marriage is to you.

Gender-- Its immaterial to me.

So why did you get married in the first place?

[Flubber]

Real simple, adam and eve, Eve is Adam's helpmeet for him, and Adam is to love, care and protect her. Is it fundamental to you in your own marriage that your wife is a woman?


.

First of all I don't buy into that language that I am to "protect" her (why not use the language where she is to "obey" or "support" me). Since I am attracted to womnen and yes for me I was seeking a sexual partner, yes it was important that she be a woman. But if I were a gay man, it would be importnat that my spouse be a man. The fact that such spouse cannot bear children is irrelkevent just as it would be if my heterosexual wife were infertile. IN either event the inability to have children is irrelevent to the RIGHT to marry

Ben -- you seem to be trying to assert a higher purpose for marriage. But if we are talking about the right to marry, society has for quite some time (and long before the gay marriage debate was active) permitted people to marry in lots of situations which would come nowhere near meeting your ideal. The following examples of heterosexual marriage seem to me to be what cheapens or devalues the institution if you want to talk about what marriage should be.

1. the 20 year old marrying some 80 year old just for his money
2. people getting married solely for a tax benefit or
3. People who get married 8 or 10 times

I think that these people are showing disregard for what I believe it means to be married. BUt thats my ideal and I have no right and really no desire to impose my view of what a marriage is or should be on anyone else

On the other side, I have a gay uncle. He has been with the same partner for 20+ years. I watched his partner support him through the death of his father. IF they choose to get married, I support it and it to me is a good marriage( if such a thing exists). They have been, are and intend to be life partners and if they want the state-sanctioned rights and responsibilities that come from formalizing their union, i see nothing bad in that. Their would be a good example of what I think a marriage should be . . . people truly committed to one another

[Flubber]

So it's irrelevant to you that your wife is a woman?

?

See cross-post

BUt no It was relevant to me that she was a woman it was also relevant to me that she was smart and funny and compassionate . . . was attractive, had large breasts, has a wonderful laugh and green eyes that sparkle with mischief. It was also relevant that she was working on a good career, had a lot of great friends and could get along with people etc etc etc etc-- there were thousands of things that were relevant.

I would not marry a man. I also would not marry a female bigot or a female idiot. IN fact I would say that about 98% of the females I meet would be disqualified as being a potential life partner within 5 minutes of making their acquaintance.

[Asher]

And to attack anyone who doesn't share the truefaith.



Absolutely not, because what it teaches is contrary to my beliefs.

I don't believe Christianity preaches intolerance and bigotry. I thought "love thy neighbour" was an important tenet.

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber, I hink that your experiences are crucial, in understanding marriage. You married your wife, not because she was all of thse sthings, smart funny and compassionate, but also because she was a woman. I think that to be honest you have to come on the side that sex is relevant. Very relevant to marriage and any functioning marrriage relationship.

[Flubber]

Why? Sex isn't a part of marriage. Sex isn't even on the table. The only thing that's on the table is cohabitation and maybe companionship. That seems to be about all thast marriage is to you.

Be careful with what you say since after all language is important LOL---- What I desire or expect in my own marriage is a different set of criteria that a discussion of who should be permitted to get married. AS I said in one of the cross posts, sex to me is part of my marriage-- I sought a life partner which included being a sex partner.

I suspect that most of the gay people that have gotten married are very much sexual partners to one another. So I am a buit uncertain where this is going unless you plan to asser that the only real sex is P in V

BUt Ben answer me this-- would you disallow a disabled man (with a non-functional penis) from marrying...... He has found love and pleasures her with his mouth and fingers-- THey hope to adopt

[Asher]

Flubber, I hink that your experiences are crucial, in understanding marriage. You married your wife, not because she was all of thse sthings, smart funny and compassionate, but also because she was a woman.

Because he was sexually attracted to her, not because she was a woman. Using your logic, he'd marry a 98 year old corpse of a woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. the 20 year old marrying some 80 year old just for his money
2. people getting married solely for a tax benefit or
3. People who get married 8 or 10 times

No argument. I think you have an example of what I see marriage as it ought to be and I find it personally discouraging that rather then uphold yourself and your own relationship as an example for others to follow, you'd rather teach something else entirely.

Do you mind if I say do as you obviously do and not as you say?