[Hakan]

Lets bear in mind this isn't something like slavery, ethnic oppression or women being treated as lesser persons... this is something very different, and frankly, inconsequential if refused.

Ok... it actually isn't that much different at all. You may be a consequentialist and argue that the results of this discrimination are not as detrimental to those who suffered from the various discriminating policies listed above but the principle of discrimination is still there and thus is fundamentally wrong.

Alberta has the most progressive policies on gays and lesbians in Canada... they have every right a married couple has, except the ability to unite under holy matrimony. But thats a pitfall of the lifestyle you are in, life is naturally unfair and you cannot honestly expect the world to change for tiny percentages who aren't being actually persecuted.

Ok... actually Alberta is one of the least progressive.

Alberta is the only province with a leader that has publicly stated his aversion to same sex marriages. That's the opposite of progressive. Or, remember in 1998 in Vriend vs. Alberta when the Alberta Human Rights Code didn't mention sexual orientation so the government thought it was fine to fire someone from their job over their sexual orientation? Another great example of being progressive.

Lots of people can't have children... dare the government legislate something to make it more fair for everyone?? absolutely never. Some people can't throw a football as well as others... should the government intervene to make it more fair? no. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But really, the whole gay marriage argument is just as ridiculous. 5% of Canadians live a different lifestyle and marriage is not catered to them. Hey, when I applied for scholarships, I was only eligible for three mostly because I'm not "poor", french speaking or of visible minority (this is even before grades are considered). Thats discrimination too, by the letter of the law.

You're right, this argument does sound ridiculous. The whole poor discriminated against white guy argument is so fallacious and backwards that I can't believe people still bring that up anymore. Listen, the reason that poor and aboriginal and whomever else gets to have favourable admission policies to university is because of a wholly deplorable lack of representation of those people in university institutions. Is that because they're lazy or just don't have what it takes? No, it's because they've been beaten down from the beginning over real sociological differences in priviledge and from historical legacies of discrimination and oppression (see: residential schools). And frankly, I'm quite glad to have gone to a university where it wasn't 100% white men and women but had a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds.

Not allowing gays to marry would only be wrong if it limited them in any obvious way, and it doesn't. Lots of hetero couples are common law, and are very happy. You dont have to be married to live together, share finances, or anything like that. If they really want recognition, pass a civil union act, but don't stomp on historical and religious tradition, that a very significant amount of Canadians profess to have.

It is limiting them. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Why should Christian bigots have a monopoly on the semantic meaning of marriage? And it's not stomping on religious tradition, if your religion doesn't want to marry gays then it doesn't have to!! How is that disregarding your tradition? Or should your tradition and values take precedence over other people's values? If so, read a book or something.