Liberals popularity rising

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 21 2005, 01:21 PM
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.

So just so we are clear, gays getting married causes you no harm whatsoever, you've offered no evidence (or even a claim IIRC) that it is damaging to society a yet you still contend it should be illegal because you don't agree with it?

That's the gist of it?

I don't like cherry-flavored gum. I think it's disgusting. I don't agree with it. Other people may enjoy it but I find it repulsive. Other people enjoying it doesn't hurt me at all. It causes no harm to society that cherry-flavored gum is available. I can demonstrate nothing that says cherry-flavored gum does anyone harm. I think cherry-flavored gum should be illegal though, because I don't agree with it. No reason needed, I just don't like it.

Sound fair?

[MarchHare]

I'm a liberal in the classical sense of the word in that I believe people should be free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others or presents a danger to society.

As a thought experiment, I'd like to ask anyone opposed to the legalization of gay marriage to rank the following from most harmful to least harmful (taking into account harm both to oneself and to society). Please be honest.

Gay Marriage
Alcohol
Abortion
Marijuana
Tobacco
Video Gambling
Crystal Meth

[Tron_fdc]

Gay Marriage 5
Alcohol 3
Abortion 4
Marijuana
Tobacco 1
Video Gambling 2
Crystal Meth 1

Crystal meth and tobacco are my 2 most harmful......does this mean I'm a gay loving, baby killing, pot smoking Liberal?

[Cube Inmate]

Here's two hypotheses:

1) It's all about semantics: Gays being married causes nobody any harm whatsoever since all we're arguing about it a word. Similarly, then, *not* being married should cause them no harm whatsoever because it's just a word, as long as there's an equal legal union available.

2) It's about personal meaning: Having a "separate but equal" union is not equal at all because it causes others to think of gay unions as being "less legitimate," which causes stress for those involved. Following that, from the other perspective, gays being married causes an instantaneous change in a social institution which has evolved slowly over hundreds of years, changing a deeply-held belief of many people, thereby causing them stress.

Based on the heated discussion here and elsewhere, it's fair to say that this is about more than just semantics. Therefore, we're left with the assumption that it's a debate about personal meaning. To resolve this, it came down to determining whose "meaning" was more important, and the only reason that the gay marriage side won the argument is because they claimed "rights violations," which is a Canadian catch-all for getting your way. As I've pointed out numerous times, the issue of rights violations was never conclusively decided either way, meaning that the "yes" side won simply on the whim of the government of the day, for reasons of personal beliefs--which is exactly what the Liberal fearmongers say the Cons would do. If it had been decided--legitimately--to be an issue of rights, it would be different....and that's the difference between this and the Lib fearmongering: the issues of abortion and equal gay unions HAVE been decided conclusively to be rights issues, and are therefore in no danger of being crushed at the whim of a Con government.

For supporters, you can't seem to understand how "marriage" could possibly have a deeper meaning, as a union between a man and a woman, that isn't consistent with gay marriage. You're as blind as the people who say that gay unions should be outlawed. Treating "marriage" as a pack of gum just shows how little understanding you have of what this so-called "institution" means to millions upon millions of Canadians.

[MarchHare]

As I've pointed out numerous times, the issue of rights violations was never conclusively decided either way, meaning that the "yes" side won simply on the whim of the government of the day, for reasons of personal beliefs--which is exactly what the Liberal fearmongers say the Cons would do. If it had been decided--legitimately--to be an issue of rights, it would be different....

It was determined to be a rights issue by the highest court in eight provinces and one territory. I might buy that one or two judges might have made a bad interpretation of the Charter, but nine?

You are correct that the highest court in the land has not ruled on it, but when nine lower courts unamiously agree, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would come to a different conclusion.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 21 2005, 12:48 PM
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.

The problem is that T99's quote was incomplete and misleading.

Here's the complete quote:

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. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage

LaForest was speaking to the cultural assumptions underlying the tradition of marriage, not to the law of marriage in Canada, which must comform to the Charter.

And in any case, he was only speaking for 4 judges of the 9 who sat on that case, so his comments on that issue were not "binding" (for that and other reasons).

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 21 2005, 02:33 PM
As a thought experiment, I'd like to ask anyone opposed to the legalization of gay marriage to rank the following from most harmful to least harmful (taking into account harm both to oneself and to society). Please be honest.

Gay Marriage
Alcohol
Abortion
Marijuana
Tobacco
Video Gambling
Crystal Meth

No point ranking abusable substances against gay marriage. Gay marriage, and gay lifestyles are not "harmful" in that sense of the word.

The harm comes in appeasing a small group by changing the meaning of an institution that many people hold dear. The further harm comes in inventing new rights to justify the change, which de-values all of the rights which are actually written in the CoR.

[MarchHare]

No point ranking abusable substances against gay marriage. Gay marriage, and gay lifestyles are not "harmful" in that sense of the word.

Where does abortion fit in, then? It's not an abusable substance (or activity, in the case of gambling); yet many of the same people who preach the harms of gay marriage also rail against the fact that abortion is legal.

The harm comes in appeasing a small group by changing the meaning of an institution that many people hold dear.

I fail to see any harm there. I'll have to ask every married (heterosexual) couple I know if they feel their vows and lifelong commitment are any less meaningful now that those same rights have been extended to homosexuals. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases most married Canadians who hold the institution dear do not feel that their marriage is any less meaningful now than it was before the bill was passed.

The further harm comes in inventing new rights to justify the change, which de-values all of the rights which are actually written in the CoR.

Eh? How are any of my rights as defined in the Charter lessened by allowing gays to marry? I don't follow. I still have the same democratic, mobility, speech, language, etc. rights I've always had. Granting more freedoms is not cheapening the ones I already have.

[troutman]

an institution that many people hold dear

The Divorce rate in Canada is near 50%.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by troutman@Oct 21 2005, 03:25 PM
an institution that many people hold dear

The Divorce rate in Canada is near 50%.

Actually, I heard it was higher.

I also think this legal gay marriage thing is in large part due to a bunch of lawyers pushing hard for it. Untapped market 'n stuff.

Troutman, ya dirtbag. Youre' the REAL one to blame here

[RougeUnderoos]

Is there one single person out there who's marriage is degraded by this?

That was the line of the day -- "it will ruin marriages" et cetera. I'd like one volunteer, just one, to say that they love their wife less because a couple thousand gays got married. One volunteer that says "my marriage doesn't mean as much to as it used to because of gay marriage".

Are there any volunteers?

CubeInmate -- does your marriage mean less now?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare+Oct 21 2005, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ Oct 21 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Where does abortion fit in, then?
[/b]

Right now, it fits in as an individual right guaranteed by the constitution. That's what the CoR is about...individual rights. But just suppose for a second that the practice of judicial law-making continues, as it has in the gay marriage case, and judges continue reading new rights into that document...

A slight turn to the right in Canadian politics results in the appointment of judges with right-ish beliefs. When faced with a case of the "rights of the unborn child," such judges are likely to infer that the right to life, as guaranteed in the CoR, is now extended to the unborn child. After all, there's nothing in the CoR that defines what a "person" is, so they're free to change the definition to include fetuses, correct? The government, perhaps tacitly agreeing with this position, chooses not to challenge the ruling.

Oops..! Suddenly abortion is illegal, and the Cons get away with it by saying, "but the courts said we had to!" Is this the kind of government you want to live under? Not me. The Libs have done exactly that with gay marriage, and it's a precedent I don't like.

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 21 2005, 03:22 PM

I fail to see any harm there. I'll have to ask every married (heterosexual) couple I know if they feel their vows and lifelong commitment are any less meaningful now that those same rights have been extended to homosexuals.

Not a huge cross-section of society I'm sure. For some people, a marriage is about procreation and raising a family as much as it is about living in love with a partner (or more so, in some cases). There are married couples who stay together for the sake of the kids that they created, even when they've lost the spark. For people like this, maybe being a part of the "institution" of marriage gives them certain beliefs about what their responsibilities are. Removing the idea of procreation from this institution might take away meaning for them...why can't you respect that opinion?

I await your pulling out the argument that sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry then, or old people, if the above concept is important. Well I can't refute that except to say that there was *NEVER* any potential for two women to create a baby together, which isn't the case for even Anna Nicole Smith and her wrinkle-daddy.

<!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Oct 21 2005, 03:22 PM

Eh? How are any of my rights as defined in the Charter lessened by allowing gays to marry? I don't follow. I still have the same democratic, mobility, speech, language, etc. rights I've always had. Granting more freedoms is not cheapening the ones I already have.
[/quote]

See above re: abortion suddenly becoming legal because of similar judicial activism.

[Resolute 14]

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

They already did. I believe the Canadian govt already awarded all the same legal rights to gay unions as they give marriages and common-law unions in 2003.

This latest argument was over a word, nothing more. Once again, what right is being violated by calling a gay union a civil union?

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

Uh... No

Nope, that isnt what I said, and it was, quite frankly, a weak attempt at twisting what I said. You were the one who said that disallowing gay marriage prevents two people from "entering into a union that may have a deep personal and spritual meaning."

I am questioning why the government has any place in that statement, as the personal and spiritual meaning of any relationship is exclusivly between the people in the relationship. The spirituality of any relationship has nothing to do with whether the government gives you a piece of paper that says "marriage" or not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2005, 01:13 PM
So just so we are clear, gays getting married causes you no harm whatsoever, you've offered no evidence (or even a claim IIRC) that it is damaging to society a yet you still contend it should be illegal because you don't agree with it?

That's the gist of it?

I don't like cherry-flavored gum. I think it's disgusting. I don't agree with it. Other people may enjoy it but I find it repulsive. Other people enjoying it doesn't hurt me at all. It causes no harm to society that cherry-flavored gum is available. I can demonstrate nothing that says cherry-flavored gum does anyone harm. I think cherry-flavored gum should be illegal though, because I don't agree with it. No reason needed, I just don't like it.

Sound fair?

Actually, I am not even complaining about the legality of gay unions vs straight unions. I have no problem with civil unions having the same legal status as marriages. For me, it is the insistance that two different things must have the same name, or someone is somehow being discriminated against.

It's assinine.

Or, to borrow your analogy, I dont like it that cherry flavored gum wants to be called orange flavored gum. They are different, even if they are related.

Like I have said numerous times, this is a fight over definitions, not legal rights.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2005, 04:44 PM
CubeInmate -- does your marriage mean less now?

I don't have one yet, but not too far off. When we do, we'll get hitched for a few reasons:

1) public expression of commitment
2) legal benefits
3) legal marriage is proven to be better for any kids that might result. I've heard from personal experiences that the "piece of paper" is all that keeps some couples together when times are bad, which is generally better for kids.

The value of my own marriage will come from having a happy family and keeping it together for life...that's not based on any religious beliefs, but simply based on the fact that I grew up in such a family, and it shaped me that way. If it turns out that gay couples get married without as much regard for #3 above, that will undoubtedly affect how my kids see this institution. I'd consider that to be something that indirectly could affect me.

I'm leavin'

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 21 2005, 04:07 PM
Nope, that isnt what I said, and it was, quite frankly, a weak attempt at twisting what I said. You were the one who said that disallowing gay marriage prevents two people from "entering into a union that may have a deep personal and spritual meaning."

I am questioning why the government has any place in that statement, as the personal and spiritual meaning of any relationship is exclusivly between the people in the relationship. The spirituality of any relationship has nothing to do with whether the government gives you a piece of paper that says "marriage" or not.

You said:

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.

which means that all those people who feel that their relationships have been significantly transformed because they went and got married are just... what? Delusional? Shallow people with flawed relationships seeking some outward validation to make up for the fact that their relationship has no deep personal or spiritual meaning to begin with?

And if all it is is a piece of paper with the word "marriage" on it, why the hell are you so adamant on denying it to same sex couples?

You're trying to have it both ways:

When traditionalists say it's important to them and they want to protect "marriage" you rally behind them saying it's too important and sacrosanct a thing to abandon, so homosexuals will just have to make due with separate but equal...

But then when same sex couples say it's important to them and they want access to it you just brush it off saying it's just a word on a piece of paper, and the personal and spiritual meaning of any relationship is exclusivly between the people in the relationship so it shouldn't matter, blah, blah, blah.

So which is it? Is "Marriage" something special and sacred worthy of protecting, or is it just a word on a piece of paper that the gov't gives you so no one should be too concerned about?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Every time I read a gay marriage thread it seems like bizarro world for politics.

Capital C conservatives who typically want the state to treat everyone the same regardless of their choices, say treat people differently in this case.

Capital L liberals who generally can't bear the thought of the state treating everyone the same say 'equality for all'.

Maybe it's just that I'm an alleged conservative who has no issue with gay marriage. Or maybe all purely principled debates are this way. Just weird.

[Resolute 14]

I'm not the one who said that denying a marriage denied a person a "deeply personal and spiritual" relationship Mike, you did. I merely call it as I see it. If you cannot have a personal and spiritual relationship without getting married, then you will never have one. The government does not legislate spirituality.

I never said anything about a marriage or union transforming a relationship, but I do not believe that getting married, or joined in a union, can add something that something that is not present to begin with. If a marriage truely could transform a relationship, the divorce rate would not be what it is.

[DementedReality]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 21 2005, 10:52 AM
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.

frankly, i think anyone should be allowed to marry any other adult on the planet, in any combination and #'s that each party agree's to. if some guy wants 4 wives, thats his problem. if you two ladies want to get married, i could care less. it has no bearing on my marriage and organized religion can keep their noses out of my business (and wallet).

that said, i will still vote conservative because i cant stand another minute of the liberal's blatant arrogance and contempt of trust.

however, the biggest impact the conservatives can have is more likely as opppostion in a minority govt. if they ever got into power, they would only do so by cowtowing to Ontario and the west would still not have the represntation.

dr

[Azure]

Originally posted by DementedReality@Oct 23 2005, 12:03 AM
frankly, i think anyone should be allowed to marry any other adult on the planet, in any combination and #'s that each party agree's to. if some guy wants 4 wives, thats his problem. if you two ladies want to get married, i could care less. it has no bearing on my marriage and organized religion can keep their noses out of my business (and wallet).

that said, i will still vote conservative because i cant stand another minute of the liberal's blatant arrogance and contempt of trust.

however, the biggest impact the conservatives can have is more likely as opppostion in a minority govt. if they ever got into power, they would only do so by cowtowing to Ontario and the west would still not have the represntation.

dr

That is your belief, opinion or whatever you want to call it. I'm certainly not going to accuse you of hating someone or something just because of those beliefs. But like I said, there are those that will accuse those that stand against gay marriage as gay haters.