Wildrose vs PC Same Sex Marriage Debate

[killer_carlson]

I really have zero interest in this debate, again, tonight, but the PC race thread, which actually matters to the province, is being derailed by this topic.

If you want to try and discuss how progressive your party is, then talk about it here.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's a slippery slope argument. Whether I believe churches should have to marry anyone is irrelevant to whether marriage commissioners (who perform civil unions, not religious ceremonies) should be allowed to discriminate.

It's not my fear you're appealing to, it's the fear of your WRA supporters.

Well, I can't help you with your own irrational fears.....LOL

[SebC]

Conscience rights are socially conservative policy: agree or disagree?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Conscience rights are socially conservative policy: agree or disagree?

Disagree. I see them more as a small (l) libertarian position. It allows for everyone's individual beliefs to be respected, while no one goes without services that they are legally entitled to.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Disagree. I see them more as a small (l) libertarian position. It allows for everyone's individual beliefs to be respected, while no one goes without services that they are legally entitled to.

This is true, but it's also allowing (mostly) religion to trump anti-discrimination. It's is also resisting progressive change. My definition of liberty does not include liberty to discriminate.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Disagree. I see them more as a small (l) libertarian position. It allows for everyone's individual beliefs to be respected, while no one goes without services that they are legally entitled to.

So you'd have no problem if minorities were forced into special separate but equal schools, because the Public School Board decided they couldn't educate them 'as a matter of conscience', as long as the minotities still had access to education?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So you'd have no problem if minorities were forced into special separate but equal schools, because the Public School Board decided they couldn't educate them 'as a matter of conscience', as long as the minotities still had access to education?

Due to health concerns with the lifestyle, I think we should have separate water fountains.

[Calgaryborn]

It's not discriminatory to provide language classes to new Canadians. It's not discriminatory to help find housing and jobs for mentally ill Canadians. It's not discriminatory to provide counciling services and safe houses for abused women. Why? Because it is in the best interest of society to help in these situations.

It is not discriminatory to provide legal protection in the form of a marriage contract and tax benefits to heterosexual couples who want to commit to a life together. it has been a huge benefit for women who economically have had built in and cultural disadvantages. This is compounded if and when they have children. It has been a huge benefit for children who benefit from the advantage of a 2 parent home.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It's not discriminatory to provide language classes to new Canadians. It's not discriminatory to help find housing and jobs for mentally ill Canadians. It's not discriminatory to provide counciling services and safe houses for abused women. Why? Because it is in the best interest of society to help in these situations.

It is not discriminatory to provide legal protection in the form of a marriage contract and tax benefits to heterosexual couples who want to commit to a life together. it has been a huge benefit for women who economically have had built in and cultural disadvantages. This is compounded if and when they have children. It has been a huge benefit for children who benefit from the advantage of a 2 parent home.

How is not discriminatory to deny those same benefits based exclusively on gender?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It's not discriminatory to provide language classes to new Canadians. It's not discriminatory to help find housing and jobs for mentally ill Canadians. It's not discriminatory to provide counciling services and safe houses for abused women. Why? Because it is in the best interest of society to help in these situations.

It is not discriminatory to provide legal protection in the form of a marriage contract and tax benefits to heterosexual couples who want to commit to a life together. it has been a huge benefit for women who economically have had built in and cultural disadvantages. This is compounded if and when they have children. It has been a huge benefit for children who benefit from the advantage of a 2 parent home.

So women who are in a heterosexual relationship are naturally disadvantaged because of built-in cultural conditions, as well as by their ability to have children. Got it. Yet it seems you believe that lesbian women do not face the same cultural disadvantages that heterosexual women have, is that correct? And here I thought gay people had cultural disadvantages. Glad you cleared that up.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is true, but it's also allowing (mostly) religion to trump anti-discrimination. It's is also resisting progressive change. My definition of liberty does not include liberty to discriminate.

Should the Catholic Church be forced by the government to marry a homosexual couple? An atheist couple? A Hindu couple? Should they be forced to rent their property for the purposes of conducting satanic rituals?

That question settles down to whether religious institutions should be able to have a modicum of control over their own sphere of influence (their property, congregations, rites, personal beliefs and whatnot).

The Libertarian view would be that those institutions should be able to do whatever they like within their sphere (churches, church-owned properties etc) and other groups - Gays, Atheists, Hindi, Wiccans can do whatever they like with their own personal spheres and that all groups would have to act in a totally equitable and non-discriminatory fashion in the public sphere (public rentals, the workplace, government, malls, parks and all that stuff).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Should the Catholic Church be forced by the government to marry a homosexual couple? An atheist couple? A Hindu couple? Should they be forced to rent their property for the purposes of conducting satanic rituals?

That question settles down to whether religious institutions should be able to have a modicum of control over their own sphere of influence (their property, congregations, rites, personal beliefs and whatnot).

The Libertarian view would be that those institutions should be able to do whatever they like within their sphere (churches, church-owned properties etc) and other groups - Gays, Atheists, Hindi, Wiccans can do whatever they like with their own personal spheres and that all groups would have to act in a totally equitable and non-discriminatory fashion in the public sphere (public rentals, the workplace, government, malls, parks and all that stuff).

We're not talking about the Catholic Church, we're talking about marriage commissioners - who perform civil unions. That IS the public sphere.

[Thor]

We legalized gay marriage over 6 yrs ago, whats the point of this debate now?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Thor

We legalized gay marriage over 6 yrs ago, whats the point of this debate now?

Becuase the WRA would enact a policy allowing marriage commissioners to opt out of the equality laws (as well as give doctors the right to not perform abortions, which nobody seems to want to talk about).

I pointed this out in response to First Lady's assertion the the WRA does not have socially conservative policies.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...5&postcount=63

[Flash Walken]

Does the WRA believe pharmacists should be allowed to opt out of distributing birth control?

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by SebC

We're not talking about the Catholic Church, we're talking about marriage commissioners - who perform civil unions. That IS the public sphere.

Yeah, I read this thread before I read that other one where you were more elaborate.

As an atheist supporter of gay rights, it doesn't bother me much if a marriage commissioner wants to list themselves as not interested in doing same sex-marriages any more than it would bother me for them to be listed as only being interested in doing same-sex marriages. Similarly, I don't mind if religious doctors are not be required to perform or prescribe abortions for instance. I'd want them to be upfront about it though and have their preference listed publicly, and accept the consequences in terms of lost business from folk like you an me.

I'd actually like an answer to my questions though. In your opinion, should the Catholic Church (as an example) be allowed to refuse to host a lesbian wedding reception? Should a Catholic Priest be forced by the government to Marry a gay couple?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

How is not discriminatory to deny those same benefits based exclusively on gender?

Look at my examples. Government services are often restricted by ethnicity, mental or physical condition, or gender. They target areas of need.

Government involvement in marriage came about because they saw a specific needs. Before homosexuality was even legal there were lots of instances of adults living together as a means of cutting expenses or for companionship. Some were extended family and some were friends. These groups never demanded then or now to have the special benefits a marriage offers. They aren't being discriminated against any more than you are by not having a government agent helping to find you lodging or a job.

A marriage license isn't a right. It is a service the government administers to a select group of society. Ask yourself why the government even offers the legal protection and tax breaks to married couples.

Homosexual roommates shouldn't recieve those benefits and protection any more than an adult child living in his mother's basement should.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at my examples. Government services are often restricted by ethnicity, mental or physical condition, or gender. They target areas of need.

Government involvement in marriage came about because they saw a specific needs. Before homosexuality was even legal there were lots of instances of adults living together as a means of cutting expenses or for companionship. Some were extended family and some were friends. These groups never demanded then or now to have the special benefits a marriage offers. They aren't being discriminated against any more than you are by not having a government agent helping to find you lodging or a job.

A marriage license isn't a right. It is a service the government administers to a select group of society. Ask yourself why the government even offers the legal protection and tax breaks to married couples.

Homosexual roommates shouldn't recieve those benefits and protection any more than an adult child living in his mother's basement should.

Isn't that because both homosexual roommates, extended family and friends don't want to be married? I'm assuming marriage is desired as a communion of love rather than soley based on a financial gain and tax breaks.

[Stay Golden]

again this has crept in

[GP_Matt]

I have been going through the Wildrose' policies and can't find anything that references marriage. In fact the google search 'marriage site:wildrose.ca' brings up only one page with an article about merging the Wildrose and the Alliance parties. I am sure that there are some members of the party who don't think marriage commissioners should be forced to perform same sex marriages but they do not represent the majority.