Same Sex Marriage

[Azure]

Unless you make it politically incorrect to say 'getting married.'

[jolinar of malkshor]

Let them get married for hell sakes and lets be done with this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm not sure that really qualifies as civil rights. They aren't being subject to a treatment that isn't fair or are being denied something someone else has.

If they really don't want to be part of Canada, but people don't agree with them separating the province, they are allowed to move.

The referendum was important there because it wasn't a civil freedoms issue. It was a question of the desires of the province as a whole, and what should be done regarding it.

I think that the Quebec Seperatists certainly saw it as a rights issue, but its just one example.

If you open something up to a referendum tho, you can't at that point say "The vote doesn't matter at all, because it infringes on minority rights", then it becomes a fact that the government made a mistake putting it to a referendum anyways.

When Harper put the Gay Marriage vote to the house as part of one of his election promises, he knew that it wouldn't change the current situation because he was in a minority situation. However if he opened it up to a referendum and the majority of Canadian's voted against it, he can't simply ignore the results because it was unforseen or inconvienient.

As far as opening it up, and trust me I'm not using the slippery slope argument, its just an example pulled from a tired brain. But if a group of rabid people who like to marry underaged elvis impersonators managed to fight to get a referendum for their right to marry, and the majority said no whey, then the government doesn't have the right to go back and say that the majority of voters doesn't matter because this is a civil rights issue. The only way to avoid this argument then is to leave it to a party partison vote and have the members of your party vote against their consituants.

Sorry about the spelling by the way.

[MarchHare]

As far as opening it up, and trust me I'm not using the slippery slope argument, its just an example pulled from a tired brain. But if a group of rabid people who like to marry underaged elvis impersonators managed to fight to get a referendum for their right to marry, and the majority said no whey, then the government doesn't have the right to go back and say that the majority of voters doesn't matter because this is a civil rights issue. The only way to avoid this argument then is to leave it to a party partison vote and have the members of your party vote against their consituants.

That's actually incorrect.

One of the fundamental principles of modern democracies is that minority rights (as defined in the constitution, bill of rights, or other equivalent documents) cannot be trampled by the will of the majority. There was a time when a majority of citizens would have voted for things like legalized slavery or "whites only" public washrooms or not permitting inter-racial marriage. All of those were over-turned because the courts recognized that the government has an obligation to protect the rights of minorities from the "tyranny of the majority".

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm an atheist. Do you have a problem with my wife and I using the term marriage?

as a catholic yes... but as a person no... I think the term marriage should just be reserved for religious ceremony and the government should not have anything to do with the word.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

as a catholic yes... but as a person no... I think the term marriage should just be reserved for religious ceremony and the government should not have anything to do with the word.

I thought religion was to be inclusive.....before the Catholics start pointing out splinters in other people's/group's eyes, they should work on the plank they have in their "eye".

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

as a catholic yes... but as a person no... I think the term marriage should just be reserved for religious ceremony and the government should not have anything to do with the word.

What about religious people who aren't Catholics (or other Christian denominations)? Whould you object to, say, a polytheist Hindu couple using the term marriage? Or what about a Buddhist couple who are spiritual but don't believe in a creator-god?

[V]

I think marriage has enough spiritual and emotional intonations that it should be separated from state. I don't see the issue. If I want to get married, above and beyond whatever legal documentation I need for the perks, I can go into my neighbourhood church or club or bar to receive my 'marriage license', for whatever it means to me.

[MoneyGuy]

My wife says we're in a same-sex marriage. She complains that the sex is always the same.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

I have no problem with them getting "married", but as a catholic I have a problem with them using the term marriage which is a sacred word for us.

So then would you have a problem with a child molester using the term as long as he was heterosexual? What about a wife-beater?

Much like the post above this one, I am an athiest, yet I rarely see a protest to null my marriage. Many like to proclaim that gays can't use the word because of it's religious roots, yet there seems to be absolutely no problem with marriage for sinful people or even people who don't believe in god.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that the word is "sacred" when so many treat it as a joke. I think suddenly the word gets a lot more "sacred" when somebody wants to use it that you don't agree with.

The reason gays deserve the right to marry is quite simple: if we neglect them rights then there is no reason we shouldn't be able to neglect the rights of people of a certain race, people with blue eyes or individuals of a particular height.

The idea that there is a choice regarding sexual preference is perhaps the most ignorant thing I can think of. It's a train of thought that I am unable to understand and after several years of this debate I've come to the conclusion that I really don't care to understand the mental processes of the people who can't put the pieces together.

I apologize if I'm coming off as harsh, but I've just grown tired of people who display incredibly homophobic or discriminatory behaviour and proclaim it ok because they go to church every sunday. I'd have much more respect for somebody who proclaims that they don't want gays to marry because they simply don't like them.

To see the African-American population in the states take such a strong stand against gay marriage is unfortunate. You'd think a group of people so strongly discriminated against would feel negatively towards discrimination of any kind.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by troutman

Marriage is a loaded term in our culture - legally, emotionally, spiritually. Many people dream of getting married, not civil unioned.

The fact that is constantly being debated, shows how important the term marriage is to many people.

This is a great point.

I've also read alot lately of people voting YES automatically labelled as homophobes (by the losing side). This is not necessarily true. You can be for gay rights and letting them have civil union but not "marriage".

Conversely, you could also be a homophobe (I don't want these guys anywhere near me!) but be an advocate for civil rights and vote NO.

The media see the 70% number and automatically declare "Blacks are homophobes"!

Anti-Prop-8ers are looking really really bad with the rioting their doing.

Originally Posted by Russic

To see the African-American population in the states take such a strong stand against gay marriage is unfortunate. You'd think a group of people so strongly discriminated against would feel negatively towards discrimination of any kind.

It is unfortunate. But people are selfish. African-Americans came out in droves to vote for one of their own. They usually vote democratic cause they're poor but they hold very conservative religious views.

It's also alot easier to vote for President cause it's not a specific question.
It's Obama, things are going bad, he's going to fix everything and bring hope. It's easy to vote for him.

But for a direct question like Prop 8 and you're standing there in the booth.
Your prejudices will come out.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

One of the fundamental principles of modern democracies is that minority rights (as defined in the constitution, bill of rights, or other equivalent documents) cannot be trampled by the will of the majority.

Hi I'm the 2nd Amendment.

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by Russic

So then would you have a problem with a child molester using the term as long as he was heterosexual? What about a wife-beater?

Much like the post above this one, I am an athiest, yet I rarely see a protest to null my marriage. Many like to proclaim that gays can't use the word because of it's religious roots, yet there seems to be absolutely no problem with marriage for sinful people or even people who don't believe in god.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that the word is "sacred" when so many treat it as a joke. I think suddenly the word gets a lot more "sacred" when somebody wants to use it that you don't agree with.

The reason gays deserve the right to marry is quite simple: if we neglect them rights then there is no reason we shouldn't be able to neglect the rights of people of a certain race, people with blue eyes or individuals of a particular height.

The idea that there is a choice regarding sexual preference is perhaps the most ignorant thing I can think of. It's a train of thought that I am unable to understand and after several years of this debate I've come to the conclusion that I really don't care to understand the mental processes of the people who can't put the pieces together.

I apologize if I'm coming off as harsh, but I've just grown tired of people who display incredibly homophobic or discriminatory behaviour and proclaim it ok because they go to church every sunday. I'd have much more respect for somebody who proclaims that they don't want gays to marry because they simply don't like them.

To see the African-American population in the states take such a strong stand against gay marriage is unfortunate. You'd think a group of people so strongly discriminated against would feel negatively towards discrimination of any kind.

many people do take the word as a joke... I don't because it is part of my faith. It's how I was raised and what I believe... I think everyone should have equal rights it is just that the world holds a special meaning to me.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

many people do take the word as a joke... I don't because it is part of my faith. It's how I was raised and what I believe... I think everyone should have equal rights it is just that the world holds a special meaning to me.

Don't you think the word holds a special meaning to others as well?

As an atheist, I have no religious attachment to my marriage, but I love my wife dearly and cherish the bond we have. Why should I be denied the right to use the word "marriage", a term steeped in thousands of years of traditions that transcend all cultures and religions, because I don't acknowledge the existance of an omnipotent creator-god?

And moreover, why would you wish to deny the joys of marriage to others? Shouldn't you be encouraging more people to join in the life-long monogymous bond of marriage? How is your personal life in any way affected if Robert marries James or Linda marries Jennifer?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Me and my 7 wives agree

My 7 wives and I...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Stop issuing marriage licenses, instead issue civil union licenses - dont force anyone to grant such licenses if they dont want to.

This really is the only correct opinion and there really should be no objection to it. It doesn't descriminate against anyone and treats everyone equally.

A marriage to the state is simply a binding economic partnership with certain benefits and specific rules for the disolution of the partnership, the division of assets and possible children. Would anyone consider this the true definition of marriage? Probably not. Since the state's action in joining to people legally has absolutly nothing to do with most peoples marriage definition usually involving love and commitment why are they using the word marriage. What the state does is clearly an legal and economic partnership with no requirement of love.

As for the word marriage once you take away its legal standing anyone can use how they please. And any individual will be free to recognize anyone's marriage they want to. As others have said if people of faith need the government to legitamize their marriage then their faith must be pretty week. By the same token if secular people need the government to recognize them as married their marriages might not be as strong as they believe. And if Gays and Lesbians are upset that they do not have legislative backing to use the word marriage then they were either more concerned about the issue of equality then actual marriage or again there marriages aren't what they believe

[GGG]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not a chance. "Marriage" is an important word to many people for many reasons.

Why do you need the state to legitamize the word when what the state does has nothing to do with most people's definition of marriage.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is a great point.

I've also read alot lately of people voting YES automatically labelled as homophobes (by the losing side). This is not necessarily true. You can be for gay rights and letting them have civil union but not "marriage".

I disagree. You don't have the same rights if you are given a different title. I think an excellent way to look at this debate is to replace "gay" with some of sort previously oppressed minority, like "black".

Example:

I've also read alot lately of people voting YES automatically labelled as racists (by the losing side). This is not necessarily true. You can be for black rights and letting them have civil union but not "marriage".

I think the comparison of blacks and gays is fair because it has been shown that it is not as simple as being gay "is a choice" as some people state. In fact the science very much points in the other direction.

The overwhelming evidence from science shows that gender preference is primarily determined by our genetics and prenatal biochemistry, especially embryological hormone balance. Almost everyone is born attracted to members of the opposite sex. A small percentage — perhaps as few as one to two percent (but probably not as high as ten percent, as some estimates have put it) — are attracted to members of the same sex.

Asking a homosexual when he or she chose to become gay is like asking a heterosexual when he or she chose to become straight. The answer you will get (I know because I’ve asked) is “Uh? I didn’t choose. I’ve always felt that way.” And that’s the answer I get from straights as well as gays.

http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/04/gay-marriage/

If you think that under the laws of the state that straights get married and gays get civil unioned and that you claim that you are for gay civil rights, then I content that you are not.

[Cheese]

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

Priests can't marry...therefore it is a non-issue

Insert Priest molesting little boy joke here: