Liberals popularity rising

[peter12]

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).

Come on... I mean come on. There is a huuuuge difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults, polygamy is more along the lines of harm. I am fine with gay marriage, but any Canadian should get really worried about the idea of polygamy becoming "ok" in our society. Not to say that gay marriage leads to polygamy, I don't believe that is legally possible or even really sane.

[EddyBeers]

Egan was a case regarding Old Age Security benefits anyways and the definition of marriage under hte Old Age SecurityAct. The comments regarding the definition of marriage were obiter, they were not binding on the court. The SCC simply stated in that decision that the definition of marriage, in the context of the Old Age Security Act was constitutional.

Further to the point, the reason that the definition was considered constitutional in that case is because Sopinka saved it, under the grounds that government should be allowed flexibility in determining social programs. It was a concern about Parliamentary Sovereignty that ruled the day in that case, not what the legal definition of marriage was.

The case was simply not about ruling on the legal definition of marriage, anything to the contrary is simply incorrect.

[DementedReality]

Originally posted by peter12@Oct 23 2005, 10:48 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).

Come on... I mean come on. There is a huuuuge difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults, polygamy is more along the lines of harm. I am fine with gay marriage, but any Canadian should get really worried about the idea of polygamy becoming "ok" in our society. Not to say that gay marriage leads to polygamy, I don't believe that is legally possible or even really sane.

why ? whats it to you ?

if 4 consenting adults want to be married to each other, let them. if one guy has three wives and they all agree, well so what. frankly. one wife is punishment enough!

anyhow, i have no desire to be in anything but a traditional marriage, but if someone else does, i wouldnt stand in the way.

i still would vote conservative though.

dr

[Azure]

Originally posted by DementedReality@Oct 23 2005, 03:19 PM
why ? whats it to you ?

if 4 consenting adults want to be married to each other, let them. if one guy has three wives and they all agree, well so what. frankly. one wife is punishment enough!

anyhow, i have no desire to be in anything but a traditional marriage, but if someone else does, i wouldnt stand in the way.

i still would vote conservative though.

dr

Image the paperwork. There is no way it would work. Besides, whats the point of marriage then? At least we can say that if two gays want to get married they at least love each other but someone with four wives?

There has to be some moral.

[DementedReality]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 23 2005, 04:36 PM
Image the paperwork. There is no way it would work. Besides, whats the point of marriage then? At least we can say that if two gays want to get married they at least love each other but someone with four wives?

There has to be some moral.

paperwork .. well thats for lawyers and if you choose to have a multi marriage, be prepared for the lawyer work.

second, morals ? who decides which set of morals to use? besides, i dont see any harm or sin with a multi marriage.

marriage is the defintion of a legal relationship. i simply fail to see why anyone would care if other people made a marriage choice other than the traditional option.

isnt there better more impactful things in the world to get our t!ts tied up over?

like the frigging liberal crooks in power.

dr

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 23 2005, 04:36 PM
Image the paperwork. There is no way it would work. Besides, whats the point of marriage then? At least we can say that if two gays want to get married they at least love each other but someone with four wives?

There has to be some moral.

How can one argue against polygamy on the basis of morals, but have no problem with gay relationships? I'm not sure how one destroys the concept of marrige, but not the other.

[Azure]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 23 2005, 07:24 PM
How can one argue against polygamy on the basis of morals, but have no problem with gay relationships? I'm not sure how one destroys the concept of marrige, but not the other.

I am against gay marriage, even more against someone being able to marry more then one wife.

[DementedReality]

Originally posted by Azure@Oct 23 2005, 09:41 PM
I am against gay marriage, even more against someone being able to marry more then one wife.

why do you care about other peoples relationships ? i fail to see how it effects anyone else but them and why its anyone else's business.

it has no bearing on economy, safety of the citizens, nor the enviroment. why should it be of the governments concerns to legislate?

if its against your religion, fine, dont support a religion that doesnt share your values. but if its simply to do with your religion, its none of your business.

really, why even waste energy caring about other people's relationship structure ?

dr

[Cheese]

Wow has this post ever digressed!

First off....as mentioned MUCH earlier...Political discussions in which people try to decide which party is best is much like deciding whether someone wants to be bitten by a Funnel Web Spider or a Coastal Taipan Snake.
The PCs as they stand now are led by the POLICY maker of the old Reforms....they will never lead in the costume they wear now....never.

Second re marriage...LOL...Funny how we should all just close our eyes now to any form of marriage....I wonder if some hillbilly will want to marry his favorite sheep? What about the demented man who wants to marry his daughter...or vice versa? Where does it end? Do we close our eyes to EVERY type of marriage because we now allow Gay marriage? Yeesh

[DementedReality]

Originally posted by Cheese@Oct 24 2005, 05:34 AM
Wow has this post ever digressed!

First off....as mentioned MUCH earlier...Political discussions in which people try to decide which party is best is much like deciding whether someone wants to be bitten by a Funnel Web Spider or a Coastal Taipan Snake.
The PCs as they stand now are led by the POLICY maker of the old Reforms....they will never lead in the costume they wear now....never.

Second re marriage...LOL...Funny how we should all just close our eyes now to any form of marriage....I wonder if some hillbilly will want to marry his favorite sheep? What about the demented man who wants to marry his daughter...or vice versa? Where does it end? Do we close our eyes to EVERY type of marriage because we now allow Gay marriage? Yeesh

i think the key is legal consenting adults.

a sheep and a chile is neither adults or consenting. other than that, why should i care if you want 4 wives, as long as they all agree. in fact, its punishment enough, what more could the law do to you. ;-p

but seriously, why do people care ? no one has answered that for me.

dr

[sketchyt]

I just think it's strange at how many (not all, but many) people can speak with such conviction about being for or against gay marriage without ever having a single conversation with a gay couple about it.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by sketchyt@Oct 24 2005, 02:18 PM
I just think it's strange at how many (not all, but many) people can speak with such conviction about being for or against gay marriage without ever having a single conversation with a gay couple about it.

I find it equally strange that you can possibly know that those with convictions either way, haven't had such conversations with a gay couple.

I mean really....how does one come to such a conclusion?

[Flame On]

The equal rights notion of it means you shouldn't have to speak to anyone, it's a given right. You don't have to defend it as an opinion or as a religious belief. Especially as our church and state and their views within are supposed to be seperate.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by DementedReality@Oct 24 2005, 01:42 PM
i think the key is legal consenting adults.

a sheep and a chile is neither adults or consenting. other than that, why should i care if you want 4 wives, as long as they all agree. in fact, its punishment enough, what more could the law do to you. ;-p

but seriously, why do people care ? no one has answered that for me.

dr

ok using your idea...what if it was a legal aged daughter and father...or legal aged son and mother?
What makes it ok for Gays to marry yet a sheep herder and his favorite sheep unable to do the same? ah fer chrisaakes...bahhhh bahhhhhhh

[sketchyt]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 24 2005, 11:36 AM
I find it equally strange that you can possibly know that those with convictions either way, haven't had such conversations with a gay couple.

I mean really....how does one come to such a conclusion?

In my personal dealings regarding this topic, I've noticed the stronger the person speaks for or against gay marriage, the more likely they have not had any conversations with a gay couple about it.

If you're saying that I'm making a large assumption here, you're absolutetly right. Because again, I'm just speaking from personal experience.

There's also the fact that there aren't a whole lot of gay people in Canada to begin with (about 300,000, less than 1% of the population, reported they were gay in the 2003 CCHS StatsCan survey), it's not an easy thing to find a gay couple to have positive discourse with.

With those odds, I'm willing to bet the majority of the population with a strong opinion of the matter have not ever spoken to a gay couple, much less spoken to one about gay marriage.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by sketchyt@Oct 24 2005, 03:02 PM
In my personal dealings regarding this topic, I've noticed the stronger the person speaks for or against gay marriage, the more likely they have not had any conversations with a gay couple about it.

If you're saying that I'm making a large assumption here, you're absolutetly right. Because again, I'm just speaking from personal experience.

There's also the fact that there aren't a whole lot of gay people in Canada to begin with (about 300,000, less than 1% of the population, reported they were gay in the 2003 CCHS StatsCan survey), it's not an easy thing to find a gay couple to have positive discourse with.

With those odds, I'm willing to bet the majority of the population with a strong opinion of the matter have not ever spoken to a gay couple, much less spoken to one about gay marriage.

You make a huge amount of assumptions to justify your points.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by sketchyt@Oct 24 2005, 11:18 AM
I just think it's strange at how many (not all, but many) people can speak with such conviction about being for or against gay marriage without ever having a single conversation with a gay couple about it.

By the same token, have gay people considered the impact of changing the definition of marriag has on straight couples, especially those who oppose the concept on religious grounds?

-----------------

The argument on incest is a valid one though. Why should the government step in the way of any consenting adults in any situation? Why do we get to oppose one type of relationship because it is vile and disgusting to an overwhelming majority of people, yet harms nobody, while granting extra rights to another type of relationship because fewer people find it vile and disgusting?

Who knows, maybe 25 years from now our kids will be debating the potential legaliztion of polygamy or incest. As they say, today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cheese@Oct 24 2005, 05:34 AM
Second re marriage...LOL...Funny how we should all just close our eyes now to any form of marriage....I wonder if some hillbilly will want to marry his favorite sheep? What about the demented man who wants to marry his daughter...or vice versa? Where does it end? Do we close our eyes to EVERY type of marriage because we now allow Gay marriage? Yeesh

Oh good!

It's never an official CP Gay Marriage Debate™ until bestiality and incest make an appearance.

[sketchyt]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 24 2005, 12:44 PM
By the same token, have gay people considered the impact of changing the definition of marriag has on straight couples, especially those who oppose the concept on religious grounds?

It's a good point. I've never really thought of it that way before.

This doesn't answer your question directly, but I imagine since most Canadian households have a religious background, many gay people have had to deal with their family's religious and/or moral opposition to their own sexual disposition at one time or another.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 24 2005, 03:50 PM
Oh good!

It's never an official CP Gay Marriage Debate™ until bestiality and incest make an appearance.

It's a valid point though Mike...he isnt saying that gay marriage WILL lead to these other much more morally objectionable situations, but instead that it COULD simply because of the way it was done.

Re-defining an existing word that has meant one thing, and one thing only, for thousands of years, has opened the proverbial "pandoras box" to allow it to mean a whole bunch of other things as well, should a court deem it so.

This is the part of the argument on the side of those opposed, so many fail to acknowledge.

When does it end? If it ends with gays only...why so? Would that not constitute discrimination? The same kind of discrimination that those are opposed get hurled at them in this very thread, and in this debate all over the country?

I understand and am clear, as do the majority of people, (Cons included believe it or not) that being gay does not lead to beastiality, nor polygamy, nor incest, anymore than being straight does.

This boils down to the Liberals being so damn wishy-washy about the entire debate, and being so afraid to find a compromise as to not upset anyone specific group.

It may very well end up as a boodoggle as large and unable to extrapolate itself from the rats nest, as the gun registry has become.

But hey.....lets vote em in again!!!!!!!!!