Liberals popularity rising

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 24 2005, 01:44 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?

What impact has it had on straight couples? Nobody has quite explained that yet.

I assume you are married Snakeeye, so do tell the impact some gay people getting married has had on your marriage.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 24 2005, 02:30 PM

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.

The problem with that statement is that it's just not true.

Dowries, forced marriages, arranged marriages, multiple wives, marriages of convenience, selling brides, shotgun weddings... things have changed with this institution. Our grandparents had a different concept of marriage than we do, let alone "thousands of years".

As for the "slippery slope" argument, doesn't that start with hetero-marriage? I mean if we allow straight people to marry then it only makes sense that someone is going to try to go for some other form.

Or, to look at it another way, let the sheep-humpers and Cousin-Kissers fight their own battles. Why ban gay people from getting married because other people do other things? I'd also like to see a dog sign a marriage certificate.

BTW, I'm quite sure it's legal to marry your first cousin in Alberta.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2005, 01:32 PM
What impact has it had on straight couples? Nobody has quite explained that yet.

I assume you are married Snakeeye, so do tell the impact some gay people getting married has had on your marriage.

No, I am not married. And I am not religious, but I do know some very religious people, and I do know that they find changing the definition of marriage cheapens the instutution for then, and is an affront to their beliefs, and their interpretation of God.

For people who hold the opinion that marriage is between a man and a women because of their religious beliefs, the government is telling them that their religion, their beliefs and their faith is wrong.

You don't think that causes an impact?

Like I said, who we are is a composite of our beliefs.

You've never explained to me what impact calling a gay union a civil-union rather than a marriage has on gay couples. Given equivalent legal rights, why is it necessary that gay unions be called "marriages"?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2005, 01:42 PM
Or, to look at it another way, let the sheep-humpers and Cousin-Kissers fight their own battles. Why ban gay people from getting married because other people do other things? I'd also like to see a dog sign a marriage certificate.

BTW, I'm quite sure it's legal to marry your first cousin in Alberta.

Are you gay?

Why are you so interested in fighting for gay couples, but not a brother and sister that wish to have a legitimatized relationship? Why ban incestious or polygamous marriages because other people do other things?

I agree on the bestiality argument though. The concept of two adults freely doing what they see fit is lost on this angle, as one cannot claim that an animal likes, wants or cares for such a "relationship."

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 24 2005, 02:51 PM
No, I am not married. And I am not religious, but I do know some very religious people, and I do know that they find changing the definition of marriage cheapens the instutution for then, and is an affront to their beliefs, and their interpretation of God.

For people who hold the opinion that marriage is between a man and a women because of their religious beliefs, the government is telling them that their religion, their beliefs and their faith is wrong.

You don't think that causes an impact?

Like I said, who we are is a composite of our beliefs.

Well if someone thinks their marriage is cheapened because someone else got married too, they probably have some bigger problems to deal with.

For people who hold the opinion that marriage is between a man and a women because of their religious beliefs, the government is telling them that their religion, their beliefs and their faith is wrong.

So, umm, laws should be made based on people's religious beliefs? I'd rather not. This is Canada, not Iran.

Your religious friends sound pretty dodgy about their marriage and their beliefs. Sounds like they need a fair amount of government approval for both.

You've never explained to me what impact calling a gay union a civil-union rather than a marriage has on gay couples. Given equivalent legal rights, why is it necessary that gay unions be called "marriages"?

Why is it necessary that straight unions be called marriages? If it's just a word, who cares? I know I don't. I think you've suggested before that they should do away with it all and everyone is on equal legal footing and they can call their relationship what they like. I agree with that. But that's not how it is.

[transplant99]

Dowries, forced marriages, arranged marriages, multiple wives, marriages of convenience, selling brides, shotgun weddings

All include two things in common...a man and a woman....and the term marriage.

Again, im not against gay marriages, but I certainly understand both sides of the debate.

I am even more certain that Liberals, in their politically driven image of not wanting to harm the feelings of any one particular group, completely fudged this thing up to the point that it has become a very polarizing issue in Canada.

[MarchHare]

No, I am not married. And I am not religious, but I do know some very religious people, and I do know that they find changing the definition of marriage cheapens the instutution for then, and is an affront to their beliefs, and their interpretation of God.

For people who hold the opinion that marriage is between a man and a women because of their religious beliefs, the government is telling them that their religion, their beliefs and their faith is wrong.

The law has changed nothing for religious people. If the Catholic Church, for example, only believes that marriage is between and man and a woman, Catholic marriages will still adhere to that requirement. The new law, as I'm sure you know, only applies to civil marraiges; religious organizations are perfectly free to choose any definition of marriage they like. OTOH, some religions (the United Church of Canada is one example) are tolerant of gay marriages, so the new law opens that option for them, but for anyone opposed to the concept because of their religious beliefs, they can rest easy knowing that their church will never have to sanctify the union of a homosexual couple.

And if they think that changing the definition of civil (not religious) marriage is an affront to their beliefs? Too fudging bad...we live in a secular democratic society, not a theocracy.

[transplant99]

So, umm, laws should be made based on people's religious beliefs? I'd rather not. This is Canada, not Iran.

The entire Canadian, and American for that matter, system of laws, punishment and whatnot are based almost exclusively on Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Just an FYI.

[MarchHare]

The entire Canadian, and American for that matter, system of laws, punishment and whatnot are based almost exclusively on Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Just an FYI.

Is it? Please cite examples of where Canadian or US laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 24 2005, 02:55 PM
Are you gay?

Why are you so interested in fighting for gay couples, but not a brother and sister that wish to have a legitimatized relationship? Why ban incestious or polygamous marriages because other people do other things?

I agree on the bestiality argument though. The concept of two adults freely doing what they see fit is lost on this angle, as one cannot claim that an animal likes, wants or cares for such a "relationship."

Are you married? Why are you so interested in fighting bla bla bla...

No I'm not gay and I'm interested in this argument to the extent that I'll discuss it on a message board.

Just because I think gay people should be allowed to marry doesn't mean I'm going to stick up for weirdos who want to marry their brother.

[transplant99]

And if they think that changing the definition of civil (not religious) marriage is an affront to their beliefs? Too fudging bad...we live in a secular democratic society, not a theocracy

And the other side will say the same damn thing to gays wanting to be termed "married"...dont trot that BS out, it doesn't help.

And in a democracy I thought majority ruled...when a majority (though narrow) of Canadians are actually opposed to C-38, why is it rammed through anyhow?

thsi was the last poll I found on the subject...from CBC

Slightly more than half – 52 per cent – of the 1,203 respondents said they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Nearly as many people – 44 per cent of respondents – said they supported Bill C-38, the legislation that would make the change law

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 24 2005, 03:11 PM


The entire Canadian, and American for that matter, system of laws, punishment and whatnot are based almost exclusively on Judeo-Christian belief systems.

Just an FYI.

Well I'm not about to get in a philosophical debate about our legal system, but I gotta ask if you think we should be making laws based on what will and what will not offend the most devout Christian Canadians.

I'd rather laws we make are not determined by what a 2000 year old book says, or what some people believe an invisible man in the sky told them.

[Resolute 14]

So, umm, laws should be made based on people's religious beliefs? I'd rather not. This is Canada, not Iran.

I never said that, nor did I imply that. You asked how changing the definition of marriage can affect a straight couple, I answered.

Well if someone thinks their marriage is cheapened because someone else got married too, they probably have some bigger problems to deal with.

And if someone thinks their relationship is cheapened becasue it is called something else, they probably have some bigger problems to deal with themselves.

Why is it necessary that straight unions be called marriages? If it's just a word, who cares? I know I don't. I think you've suggested before that they should do away with it all and everyone is on equal legal footing and they can call their relationship what they like. I agree with that. But that's not how it is.

Ok, better question: why do gay couples feel it is important to have their relationship called a marriage rather than a union? The answer to that might shed some light on why some people - particularaly (deeply) religious people find it important that the definition of marriage remain the same.

It may ultimately be nothing more than a word, but for a lot of people, words have a very, very powerful impact.

[MarchHare]

And the other side will say the same damn thing to gays wanting to be termed "married"...dont trot that BS out, it doesn't help.And the other side will say the same damn thing to gays wanting to be termed "married"...dont trot that BS out, it doesn't help.

What will the other side say? That we're not a secular democracy but some kind of Judeo-Christian theocracy? In that case, they're simply wrong; there's no shades of gray there.

And in a democracy I thought majority ruled...when a majority (though narrow) of Canadians are actually opposed to C-38, why is it rammed through anyhow?

Majority rules so long as it doesn't tample the rights of minorities. Courts in eight provinces and one territory found that Canada's old marriage laws were discriminatory; therefore, the new marriage law was written.

If democracies were about straight majority rule, Canada wouldn't need the Charter and the US wouldn't need the Constitution. These documents exist to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority".

[MarchHare]

Ok, better question: why do gay couples feel it is important to have their relationship called a marriage rather than a union? The answer to that might shed some light on why some people - particularaly (deeply) religious people find it important that the definition of marriage remain the same.

It may ultimately be nothing more than a word, but for a lot of people, words have a very, very powerful impact.

This, of course, is the crux of the debate. For precisely the same reason that some religious people don't want the term marriage applied to homosexual unions, gay people want the word. Some religious people are open to the idea of allowing unions because to them a union is of lesser-status than a marriage, even if legally they would be equivalent. Gays don't want their relationships to be thought of as second-rate. I completely agree with them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2005, 02:12 PM
Are you married? Why are you so interested in fighting bla bla bla...

No I'm not gay and I'm interested in this argument to the extent that I'll discuss it on a message board.

Just because I think gay people should be allowed to marry doesn't mean I'm going to stick up for weirdos who want to marry their brother.

If only the wierdo siblings were gay... what an argument THAT would create.

Seems to me that your POV is based on what you consider "wierd". What about the person who finds a homosexual relationship "wierd"? Are you more right tha he is?

Perhaps you are acting as a microcosom of society. We tend to shun that which we do not understand, and often term it evil, undesirable, etc. Push it to the corner. Maybe it is the only way we can allow ourselves to be discriminating in our discrimination.

As creepy as the extremes may be, if we are going to argue that we have no right to dictate what kind of relationships two (or more) adults wish to have, then we have no right to limit that argument.

Anything less is hypocritical.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 24 2005, 02:26 PM

This, of course, is the crux of the debate. For precisely the same reason that some religious people don't want the term marriage applied to homosexual unions, gay people want the word. Some religious people are open to the idea of allowing unions because to them a union is of lesser-status than a marriage, even if legally they would be equivalent. Gays don't want their relationships to be thought of as second-rate. I completely agree with them.

Of course, ultimately, you can never legislate peoples opinions, so nothing really has changed, has it?

Afterall, the term has already been hyphenated. You have marriages, and you have gay-marriages. And common-law marriages.

Different terms for different things. Legally equivalent, but in reality, much different.

No matter how much anyone on earth argues it, "seperate but equal" is a fact of life, and government will never change this.

Hell, consider the concept of African-Amercans, Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, Native Americans, etc. Nobody is just "American".

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 24 2005, 03:29 PM
If only the wierdo siblings were gay... what an argument THAT would create.

Seems to me that your POV is based on what you consider "wierd". What about the person who finds a homosexual relationship "wierd"? Are you more right tha he is?

Perhaps you are acting as a microcosom of society. We tend to shun that which we do not understand, and often term it evil, undesirable, etc. Push it to the corner. Maybe it is the only way we can allow ourselves to be discriminating in our discrimination.

As creepy as the extremes may be, if we are going to argue that we have no right to dictate what kind of relationships two (or more) adults wish to have, then we have no right to limit that argument.

Anything less is hypocritical.

To tell you the truth, I really don't care if two siblings want to get hitched. It won't have any bearing on my life and I'm sure I won't even know it happened so I won't spend any time or breath arguing against it.

I'm not going to argue for it, but I'm not standing in anyone's way.

I find it a distasteful topic no doubt, but I wouldn't let it affect my own marriage.

[MarchHare]

The problem with siblings getting married is that incest can lead to genetic disorders should they procreate. In priciple I'm not opposed to anything between two or more consenting adults, but there's larger issues with incestuous relationships.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2005, 02:39 PM
To tell you the truth, I really don't care if two siblings want to get hitched. It won't have any bearing on my life and I'm sure I won't even know it happened so I won't spend any time or breath arguing against it.

I'm not going to argue for it, but I'm not standing in anyone's way.

I find it a distasteful topic no doubt, but I wouldn't let it affect my own marriage.

The point is that it doesn't even matter if it does affect your marriage a civil right is a civil right. Snakeyes friends? Don't care, civil right. Transplant knows religious people, doesn't matter? What if i said, but it's my beliefs to have a black slave and if you ban it you're affecting my beliefs? Well thankfully the black person is protected as a civillian with rights that aren't affected by the whims of relgious beliefs as they are being moulded in that century. We don't close all stores on sunday anymore either, because some people wanna be able to buy bread (the earthly kind) on that day and be damned with beliefs of those saying it's sacred!
Of course they are sacred and valid, just not enforcable.
That's what the whole gay marriage problem is. People think of it as allowing something, when they should be thinking of it as lifting a ban and a ban that's not constitutionally valid.