Liberals popularity rising

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 20 2005, 03:31 PM
I don't get why you care what they call their own relationship.

It's been what, 4 or 5 months now since the law passed and gays started getting hitched. What difference has it made in your life?

By the same token, why do you care what I call their relationship?

Similaraly, why does it matter to them what their relationship is called? What difference does it make in their lives? ("their" meaning gay or common-law unions)

What matters is that civil unions and marriages hold the same rights legally.

[MarchHare]

Like I said, you only care when somoene elses opinion is crammed down your throat, but you are pefectly fine when your opinion is crammed down someone elses throat. If you can't see the hypocricy in that argument, I can only pity you.

How is allowing gay marriage cramming anything down anyone's throat?

If you belong to a church that refuses to marry homosexuals (and the church has the legal right to do so), you're not affected by this at all. The only people the bill affects are gay couples and their friends and family. For everyone else it's business as usual.

On the other hand, by not allowing homosexuals to get married, gay couples are affected. They're having the beliefs of others crammed down their throats.

I don't understand why so many people fail to recognize that distinction.

[MarchHare]

Similaraly, why does it matter to them what their relationship is called? What difference does it make in their lives? ("their" meaning gay or common-law unions)

What matters is that civil unions and marriages hold the same rights legally.

For precisely the same reason that the people against this don't want it called marriage, gay couples want to use that term. Legal rights aside, if they can't call their lifelong committed relationship the same thing that everyone else calls it, they'll feel like second-class citizens, and rightly so.

Or to put it another way, why do you suppose people get so worked up about homosexual marraige but would allow legally-equivalent civil unions? They view a civil union as being of a lesser-status than a marriage, and that's why the civil-union "compromise" is unacceptable.

Throughout this whole debate, I've often heard people opposed to gay marriages state that the primary purpose of marriage is for raising a family; since homosexuals cannot procreate, then they shouldn't be given the right to marry (but should be allowed a civil union). So what about heterosexual couples who are sterile or voluntarily choose not to have children? Should they be denied the right to marry as well and be limited to common-law unions? I know my girlfriend and I would like to get married at some point, but we have no intention of ever having kids...we would feel slighted if we weren't permitted to say we were legally married.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 20 2005, 04:49 PM

I dont care personally.

But I certainly do understand why others have a problem....which makes me much more understanding than YOU!

By the faith of a HUGE part of the population...marriage is defined between a woman and a man...period. That applies to the world, not just Canada.

So who is the bigot now? Me for understanding each sides opinon/beliefs, or you for outright dismissing one side completely?

Careful how you answer.

Laugh. Ooooh, the trap has been set. I will be very careful!

I didn't dismiss anyone, I just think they are wrong. I suppose that makes me THE BIGOT!!!!

By the faith of a HUGE part of the population...marriage is defined between a woman and a man...period. That applies to the world, not just Canada.

You certainly have demonstrated not only that you are not THE BIGOT, but you have AN INCREDIBLE GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS AND NEED TO TELL US ABOUT IT!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 20 2005, 11:27 PM
By the same token, why do you care what I call their relationship?

Similaraly, why does it matter to them what their relationship is called? What difference does it make in their lives? ("their" meaning gay or common-law unions)

What matters is that civil unions and marriages hold the same rights legally.

Surprisingly enough, I don't care what you call their relationship and as far as I'm concerned they can call it whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage then they can go right ahead.

Still compiling that list of the problems and changes that have come about since that law passed?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Marchhare
How is allowing gay marriage cramming anything down anyone's throat?

The comment you responed to with this was a generalization, and not specific to the gay marriage debate.

that said...

On the other hand, by not allowing homosexuals to get married, gay couples are affected.# They're having the beliefs of others crammed down their throats.

I don't understand why so many people fail to recognize that distinction.

Because it works both ways. People that consider a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, or in my personal case, a formal union between a man and a woman, are having others beliefs crammed down their throats when they are being told their beliefs are irrelevent.

The "second class citizen" argument is pretty weak as well. A homosexual relationship is different from a heterosexual relationship. Similaraly, simply living with a person long enough is different than formally being married. These are different things, thus different terms.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2005, 09:22 AM
Surprisingly enough, I don't care what you call their relationship and as far as I'm concerned they can call it whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage then they can go right ahead.

Still compiling that list of the problems and changes that have come about since that law passed?

Your question is as pointless as it is irrelevent.

The legal rights of a gay civil union havent changed since they changed it to a gay marriage, so I could just as easily argue that gay couples have seen no benefit, thus what was the point?

[transplant99]

I didn't dismiss anyone, I just think they are wrong. I suppose that makes me THE BIGOT!!!!

Nope didnt say that and wouldnt ever. No one is a bigot on this issue unless they atually believe that gays are lesser people.

Though i was called that same thing in this thread for having an understanding of both sides of the issue.

Doesnt that strike you as odd?

And what are they wrong about? The definition of marriage? By Canada's own definition in the Charter of Rights....it is between a man and a woman.

But this thread again has been derailed from it's intent.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 21 2005, 10:55 AM
Your question is as pointless as it is irrelevent.

The legal rights of a gay civil union havent changed since they changed it to a gay marriage, so I could just as easily argue that gay couples have seen no benefit, thus what was the point?

So nothing has changed, right? We'll agree to that?

Why are you against it?

[MarchHare]

And what are they wrong about? The definition of marriage? By Canada's own definition in the Charter of Rights....it is between a man and a woman.

Huh? Where does the Charter define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Charter doesn't define marriage at all, but it does grant the following:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

"Benefit of the law" includes the right to marry, which is why courts in eight provinces determined that not allowing gay marriage was a violation of the Charter.

Because it works both ways. People that consider a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, or in my personal case, a formal union between a man and a woman, are having others beliefs crammed down their throats when they are being told their beliefs are irrelevent.

You're perfectly free to keep your own personal defintion of marriage. Religious organizations are free to only define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The government is not. Nobody is forcing anything on YOU. Your life is not affecting in the least by this.

The "second class citizen" argument is pretty weak as well. A homosexual relationship is different from a heterosexual relationship. Similaraly, simply living with a person long enough is different than formally being married. These are different things, thus different terms.

If it's a pretty weak argument, then how do you explain that people opposed to allowing gay marriages are often willing to allow them to have civil unions or somesuch? Simply put, a civil union is viewed as being second-rate to a marriage. For the same reasons that the opponents don't want homosexuals to be permitted to use the term marriage, gay couples want that term applied to their relationships.

[transplant99]

Huh? Where does the Charter define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Charter doesn't define marriage at all, but it does grant the following:

According to a Supreme court decision, which was based on the BNA act and then again on the COR. However, you are correct as there is no definition of marriage in the COR, rather a long held interpretation of what marriage is.

In a similar vein, former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, the last case by the way where the Supreme Court addressed the definition of marriage directly, famously said the following:

"Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual."

The statement was also written in 1995, over a decade after adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it remains the only commentary on the fundamental definition of marriage in any Supreme Court decision

And how did they reach this conclusion?

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

Again, this is getting way off topic, but the only side that is having something forced on them, (and it's by way of losing the secularness of the definition of marriage), are the ones who oppose allowing gays to be called "married".

Whether they are right or wrong, I believe they have just as a legitimate argument as the other side. And no, that doesn't make them bigots.

[Azure]

According to some people, including some here on this board, those that believe that marriage should stay between a man and a woman are all gay-haters.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 21 2005, 11:42 AM
Again, this is getting way off topic, but the only side that is having something forced on them, (and it's by way of losing the secularness of the definition of marriage), are the ones who oppose allowing gays to be called "married".

That seems to be about it. They don't want them to use the word.

Nobody has offered anything more than "I don't want them to use the word".

There is no "it's bad for me" or "it hurts my kids" or "it causes crime" or "it's bad for your teeth", it's all about the word.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. I'm not gay, I'm not going to get gay-married, I don't know anyone who is contemplating gay marriage... but what exactly is being forced on me if two dames decide to tie the knot? Nothing is being forced on me. What the hell do I care if they want to be called "married"?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2005, 10:03 AM
So nothing has changed, right? We'll agree to that?

Why are you against it?

Personal belief.

Why are they for it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 21 2005, 12:00 PM
Personal belief.

Why are they for it?

So that's your argument? You just don't like it?

Why are they for it? I don't know. Why are you married?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 21 2005, 10:42 AM
Again, this is getting way off topic, but the only side that is having something forced on them, (and it's by way of losing the secularness of the definition of marriage), are the ones who oppose allowing gays to be called "married".

Whether they are right or wrong, I believe they have just as a legitimate argument as the other side. And no, that doesn't make them bigots.

Allowing gay marriage means that "traditional marriage" supporters are losing the ability to have the state enforce their discrimination against same sex couples in order to retain a sense that their marriage is "special".

Disallowing gay marriage means that same sex couples are prevented from enterng into a union that may have deep personal and spiritual meaning to them but won't affect anyone else.

Each person will have to decide which option they prefer, which option they feel is "legitimate", but given that Canada is a country which prides itself on respecting human dignity I know which one I prefer

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2005, 11:05 AM
So that's your argument? You just don't like it?

Why are they for it? I don't know. Why are you married?

Who we are is the sum of our beliefs.

From a personal view, it's not that I dont like it, it is that I don't agree with it. Half of this nation feels the same, though there are a wide range of reasons why.

Politically, I dont like it because it was used by a hypocritical political party for self-serving reasons. The Liberals dont give a damn about the supposed rights of the gay community, they used the issue to press their conspiracy theories against the right, and it didn't hurt that it was a distracting issue from their corruption as well.

Afterall, the Liberals themselves, including Chretien and Martin were highly supportive of previous motions that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

That all said, I am aware that the SCoC has decided that calling different things by different names is somehow discriminatory, and that the government had little choice. Personally, I would have preferred that the government refer to all unions as "civil unions" as the legal definition, and let everyone decide for themselves what constitutes a "marriage".

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MikeF
Allowing gay marriage means that "traditional marriage" supporters are losing the ability to have the state enforce their discrimination against same sex couples in order to retain a sense that their marriage is "special".

What rights are being denied if a gay union is simply referred to as a "civil union"?

People who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds arent going to care what the legal definition is. They will continue to treat gay unions as lesser.

Disallowing gay marriage means that same sex couples are prevented from enterng into a union that may have deep personal and spiritual meaning to them but won't affect anyone else.

If two people need a piece of paper with the word "marriage" written on it to justify their relationship, then that relationship has no deep personal or spiritual meaning to begin with.

Seems to me that you are basically arguing that government decides what is personal or spiritual rather than individuals, or in this case, couples.

Each person will have to decide which option they prefer, which option they feel is "legitimate", but given that Canada is a country which prides itself on respecting human dignity I know which one I prefer

Not at all certian myself how calling different things different robs someone of dignity, but meh.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 21 2005, 12:26 PM
What rights are being denied if a gay union is simply referred to as a "civil union"?

Their equality rights -- the right to have access to all of the same institutions as straight people.

People who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds arent going to care what the legal definition is. They will continue to treat gay unions as lesser.

Yes, but they won't have the gov't of Canada endorsing their biased beliefs.

If two people need a piece of paper with the word "marriage" written on it to justify their relationship, then that relationship has no deep personal or spiritual meaning to begin with.

So a straight couple who feels a "need" to get married has a relationship with "no deep personal or spiritual meaning to begin with"?

Seems to me that you are basically arguing that government decides what is personal or spiritual rather than individuals, or in this case, couples.

Uh... No

I can't even begin to respond to that since I have no idea where it came from.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 21 2005, 11:23 AM
"Benefit of the law" includes the right to marry, which is why courts in eight provinces determined that not allowing gay marriage was a violation of the Charter.

They've always had the right to get married, just not to each other.

Yes, it's a lame statement, but you can't deny that it's factually correct. And given that, the decisions by those 8 courts were based on personal opinion, not law; there have never been such things as "couple's rights" in the constitution until those judges decided to invent them.

Furthermore, according to the SCC decision cited by tranny, those lower courts were legally wrong. It sounds like the SCC clearly decided that the definition of "marriage" was constitutional in 1995, and hasn't ruled on it since. I understand that times can change, but it's not up to the lower courts to change things--they're supposed to abide by the precedent of superior courts until the opinion of the superior courts changes by way of appeal.

If this had been done with proper, due process, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. As it was, however, a small group of very vocal people complained, using the all-too-Canadian technique of crying "rights violation," and got their way. The more this tactic succeeds, the less our true rights are actually worth.