Social progress

[Ben Kenobi]

As usual, you just make stuff up when you are wrong. One more time, the School board simply pulled their license for a perceived violation of the constitution. They have multiple options to stay open. And if they close, it will be the school's decision. They are NOT BEING FORCED TO CLOSE. And, I have not said a single thing that you just claimed I said.

Until now the school has been using the bible without issue. The constitution has not changed. Ergo, there is a prima facie argument against the School Board. If the practices of the school have not changed, and nor has the constitution, then they have no merit in arguing that there is a violation of the Canadian constitution.

Even if there were a change, they would have to argue that this change would prevail over the constitutional protections for religious minorities, and it's not clear to me under the Canadian constitution that this would be so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Apparently Ben heard Kid had overtaken him as the worst poster in Apolyton history, and is back to reclaim the title!

Christ. He just tagged me in so he could take a smoke.

[Ming]

Until now the school has been using the bible without issue. The constitution has not changed. Ergo, there is a prima facie argument against the School Board. If the practices of the school have not changed, and nor has the constitution, then they have no merit in arguing that there is a violation of the Canadian constitution.

Even if there were a change, they would have to argue that this change would prevail over the constitutional protections for religious minorities, and it's not clear to me under the Canadian constitution that this would be so.

One more time... Your WHOLE point was that they were FORCING the school to close. They aren't. And that's a FACT, not the lie you were telling.
As far as any legal discussion, that's up to real lawyers, not hacks like you.

[Dry]

I don't get the whole fuzz about gay marriage.
Maybe it's because I'm an old fart, or maybe it's because the history of marriage is different in my country, but here is the way the concept has evolved in Belgium during my time on this earth.

Back in the days, the concept of marriage was heavily linked to religion in general and as the religion of the majority to catholicism more specifically.
Being married was so common that when there were 2 bread winners in the family, their respective income were added when calculating the income tax level of given household.

In these times, living together without being married allowed you declare 2 smaller income instead of one big one.
Not being married was an advantage when it came to tax, a disadvantage when it came to inheritance.
Things were ok, because in those religious times the 'moral' thing to do (being married) was stronger than the financial advantage (living together).

But as religiosity receded, more and more people chose the 'living together' over being married, for the financial benefits.
The catholic politicians noticed the trend and they voted for a separate income declaration for married couples too.

Somewhere along the way (I don't know when exactly), maybe as part of some Belgian compromise for the above, the state made official the concept of 'legal cohabitant'.
That is people living together without being married. In order to be legal cohabitant, you needed to live under the same roof (same address) and to declare it (fill some form) at the town hall.
Being 'legal cohabitant' granted you the exact same rights (inheritance, medical say, parenthood...) as married couples.

So married couples were on the exact same page as unmarried ones.
But the concept of marriage was so much linked in people's mind to the church and religious practice, that I know a lot of (atheist) couples who refused to marry only because of the religious stigma linked to it.

Time going by, marriage lost of its religious connotation and even non religious people wanted to marry. From a legal point of view there was zero difference between being married and legal cohabitation.
So being married or not back then was only a question of personal preference.
Good.

But none of this applied to homosexual couples. They could of course live together, their incomes were of course not added up for tax purposes, but they could inherit from each other only at the max tax rate.

In 2003, Belgium legalized homosexual marriage, but also homosexual 'legal cohabitation', so today, you really have the choice on how you want to live together.
If you are so allergic to religious practices that even the idea of being married brings you out in a rash, you can chose the 'legal cohabitant' status.

I understand that marriage has lost a lot of its religious connotation, but being of the generation that thought of marriage as a religious institution, I have difficulties understanding why homosexuals fight so hard to be allowed marry.
From my perspective, a status close to this 'legal cohabitant' with the exact same rights as married couples allows much more freedom for much more people. To all for which the word 'marriage' is a cuss word and the idea of being married wears to much religious connotation.

How many countries have this legal couple concept?

I know France made the concept even broader with its 'PACS' status. It gives any 2 persons those same rights. Those 2 persons do not need to be a couple, but need to live under the same roof.
Typical example is two old sisters or widows that have lived in the same house since the death of their respective husbands 20 y ago.

But what about other countries?

[rah]

In the US, in most cases the TAX laws favor the Married couple that file jointly. So being legally married is a beneficial not just for ease of inheritance and other legal rights. Which is one of the reasons the courts made it legal for gays so they could have the same benefits all around that other had.

[Jon Miller]

Given that the overall marriage rate in Canada has declined, this argument carries no water.

If you look at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...g3_1-1-eng.cfm it seems as if things have flattened since the 2005 legalization of same-sex marriage.

This isn't a proof of anything, not necessarily even a suggestion, but does mean that the argument can not be thrown out based on Canadian data without further analysis.

JM

[N35t0r]

Given that the overall marriage rate in Canada has declined, this argument carries no water.

"Throwing newborn babies of skyscrapers increases infant mortality rates"
"Given that the overall infant mortality has declined since the advent of skyscrapers, this argument carries no water"

[rah]

But since no one else here takes anything he says seriously, not really necessary

But still funny.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you look at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...g3_1-1-eng.cfm it seems as if things have flattened since the 2005 legalization of same-sex marriage.

This isn't a proof of anything, not necessarily even a suggestion, but does mean that the argument can not be thrown out based on Canadian data without further analysis.

Your argument would require there to be an increase in order to argue for increased stability... which we don't see.

[Ben Kenobi]

Going through the data, in Canada, married couples as a percentage have declined from 70 percent to 67 percent since 2006 to 2011. I'll see if I can find more current data.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...amil01-eng.htm

Per capita rate is slightly higher, about 6 tenths of a percent from 2012 to 2016. Not enough to make up for the drop to 2011 of about 3 percent. So the rate today is still about 2.5 percent lower than it was before homosexual marriage was introduced.

[Ming]

Gee... think how much lower it might be without gays getting married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee... think how much lower it might be without gays getting married.

Given the statistics and the changes in the percentages from the 60s, it's pretty clear that overall trends in marriage are declining since then. I've been very firm that homosexual marriage is a symptom, not a cause of greater problems.

At least the stats back up my argument. If you're arguing that marriage is better off with 2.5 percent fewer people getting married, good luck.

[Ming]

And when did I ever argue that?
I'm saying the drop would be even more with out gays. So gays are helping to slow the decline. And that's a good thing since marriage is considered good.

[Proteus_MST]

This is a difference between Canada and Germany. Canada has constitutional protections for Catholic schools, which are permitted to teach Catholic doctrine, unlike all those other things that you referenced which are not Catholic doctrine.

Does the Canadian law also state that catholic churches don't have to fulfill any additional requirements in order to be eligible for receiving public funds?
If the canadian law doesn't state this, then your comparison is moot.

After all the church is allowed to teach what they want, if they just forego any public funding (and instead be financed privately/by the catholic church)