Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[AR_Six]

On a related note to hockey players taking public stances on homosexual rights issues,

Canucks Malhotra to march in Vancouver pride parade
Vancouver Canucks forward Manny Malhotra will march in the Vancouver 2012 pride parade on Sunday.

Malhotra will be joined by Patrick Burke and march with players from the Vancouver Cutting Edges, billed as the only gay hockey club in Western Canada.

The Canucks’ centre is the third professional hockey player to participate in Pride events this year under the You Can Play banner.

Tommy Wingels of the San Jose Sharks and Vincent LoVerde, of the Ontario Reign, marched in Chicago on June 24.

Malhotra joins Canucks teammates Ryan Kesler, and Daniel and Henrik Sedin in lending his name and efforts to You Can Play, an organization dedicated to eliminating homophobia in sports.

Commence off-colour Canucks jokes.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Bonded

That brings in a swackload of genetic problems.

Why? Clearly marriage is no longer about procreation.

But besides that, is your only defence of not allowing gay marriage going to be proposing more and more ridiculous marriage proposals?

How is a defence of not allowing gay marriage? And why do you consider siblings getting married ridiculous?

It would be weird, but te people would need to overcome the sibling effect.

Fair enough.

Tell me why is gay marriage akin to sibling marriage?

It is not allowed and society as a whole looks down on sibling lovin', even more than homosexuality.

The slippery slope argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying ducks is not a valid argument.

That's a nice strawman argument. People cannot marry ducks because animals cannot give consent.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Why? Clearly marriage is no longer about procreation.

So you believe impotent men and women should not be allowed to marry one another?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

So you believe impotent men and women should not be allowed to marry one another?

I think he's saying just the opposite -- "ability to procreate" should not be a pre-requisite for marriage.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think he's saying just the opposite -- "ability to procreate" should not be a pre-requisite for marriage.

To be honest, I don't know if he's saying that, or if he's simply saying it because now that gay marriage is allowed, it's changed the "purpose" of marriage.

So are you for or against gay marriage, BlackRedGold25?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Why? Clearly marriage is no longer about procreation.

It is not allowed and society as a whole looks down on sibling lovin', even more than homosexuality.

That's a nice strawman argument. People cannot marry ducks because animals cannot give consent.

But, procreation is a possibilty in sibling marriages, so there is that. Just because some marriages aren't about having kids and some are. If they want to adopt go ahead.

Also, are sibling marriages actually banned in Canada, I Have no idea as I assume this a rare occurence due to the sibling effect once again.

I have seen this line of reasoning before and as soon as someone says sibling marriage is okay, then a new form of marriage that is in no way related to gay marriage then put up.

I was just trying to close the circular logic before we had to through 10 iterations

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

But replace cousins with siblings then. How many people here are against sibling marriage and why?

how bad is it that I immediately started looking for a Sedin joke.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

how bad is it that I immediately started looking for a Sedin joke.

That would be cool, no babies, unless one of them actually has a vagina

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Bonded

That would be cool, no babies, unless one of them actually has a vagina

More like unless one of them actually has a fully functioning set of testicles.!

[getbak]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Commence off-colour Canucks jokes.

Alright, but just because you asked..."the Vancouver Cutting Edges, billed as the only gay hockey club in Western Canada."

-- I didn't know the Canucks were changing their name.

[Bonded]

Also, for the homophobes out there, I have one question I would be interested to hear an answer from, or at least ask yourself. why are you so opposed to something that has no real effect on you?

Here is some reading for you, and there are more studies than just this one. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1412846.html

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by getbak

Alright, but just because you asked..."the Vancouver Cutting Edges, billed as the only gay hockey club in Western Canada."

-- I didn't know the Canucks were changing their name.

They said hockey, not diving.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I'm hoping this won't be some sort of infinite regression!

Brothers and sisters can't get married because of their close genetic similarities -- they share half their entire genetic make-up. Compare that to first cousins, where people only share around 1/8th of their genetic make-up. It's a big difference when it comes to recessive diseases and other bad things. First cousins produce children with around a 5% risk of birth defects compared to over 30% for first degree relatives like brother and sister.

And, before you ask, I personally have no problem with gay brothers or gay sisters being married.

All the arguments I've heard about Gay marriage inevitably can be used for every other taboo marriage out there. Of course it's ridiculous to consider Uncles marrying their nephews, or Grandmothers marrying their Granddaughters. It used to be ridiculous to consider a man marrying another man. Wasn't even commented on it was so ridiculous. Now, your a bigot and a homophobe if you disagree with it. These goalposts are moving so bloody fast, no one in their right mind knows where they will end up.

That is my biggest issue with the whole thing. Once govenrment and society is allowed to change a definition most people have held sacred (or at the very least, incredibly important to them personally), the definition is up for grabs. It's too important a thing to let it change for any reason at all, no matter how good your intentions are.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

All the arguments I've heard about Gay marriage inevitably can be used for every other taboo marriage out there. Of course it's ridiculous to consider Uncles marrying their nephews, or Grandmothers marrying their Granddaughters. It used to be ridiculous to consider a man marrying another man. Wasn't even commented on it was so ridiculous. Now, your a bigot and a homophobe if you disagree with it. These goalposts are moving so bloody fast, no one in their right mind knows where they will end up.

That is my biggest issue with the whole thing. Once govenrment and society is allowed to change a definition most people have held sacred (or at the very least, incredibly important to them personally), the definition is up for grabs. It's too important a thing to let it change for any reason at all, no matter how good your intentions are.

But the biggest thing is desire, do you think many 18 year olds are hankering to hop in bed with granny?

So, just because there is a small possibility that more unconventional marriages will become possible, we should stop and deny them?

If we took that approach in science we wouldn't be very far ahead in healthcare or pretty much an experimental field.

Just because you are scared of doom and gloom scenarios, doesn't mean I am. What makes your traditional viewpoint more valid than the charter? Just because things have worked in the past does not mean it is the right way. People are scared of change, but it happens and you might as well try to adapt.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

All the arguments I've heard about Gay marriage inevitably can be used for every other taboo marriage out there. Of course it's ridiculous to consider Uncles marrying their nephews, or Grandmothers marrying their Granddaughters. It used to be ridiculous to consider a man marrying another man. Wasn't even commented on it was so ridiculous. Now, your a bigot and a homophobe if you disagree with it. These goalposts are moving so bloody fast, no one in their right mind knows where they will end up.

That is my biggest issue with the whole thing. Once govenrment and society is allowed to change a definition most people have held sacred (or at the very least, incredibly important to them personally), the definition is up for grabs. It's too important a thing to let it change for any reason at all, no matter how good your intentions are.

Can you actually explain why it's "too important a thing to let change for any reason at all"?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, but to make such an extraordinary claim, there needs to be some sort of justification for it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I wasn't aware that cousin marrying was allowed in Canada. Interesting that you knew that though.

But replace cousins with siblings then. How many people here are against sibling marriage and why?

The obvious answer is that no one is proposing or asking that siblings be permitted to marry. That said, however unlikely, I suppose that it is possible that one day some brave person will challenge the legislated prohibition on sibling marriage. When that day comes, I imagine that the courts will have little trouble dismissing it.

In order for a distinction (or differential treatment) to be discriminatory, it must be made on the basis of one of a number of "enumerated or analagous grounds" or personal characteristics. There are nine grounds enumerated in the text of Section 15 of the Charter: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. A personal characteristic can also be analagous if it is immutable or cannot be changed or can only be changed at excessive cost (for example, sexual orientation.)

In the case of not being permitted to marry one's sibling, that distinction is not based on either an enumerated or analagous personal characteristic, and therefore cannot constitute discrimination.

Of course, this is a (very cursory) examiniation of the question through a legal framework, rather than a purely moral one. However, I think that the two (moral framework and this legal framework) are very closely related.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Can you actually explain why it's "too important a thing to let change for any reason at all"?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, but to make such an extraordinary claim, there needs to be some sort of justification for it.

Obviously people will start marrying whoever obviously. Family bonds be damned!

[Senator Clay Davis]

The whole changing what society held sacred argument is such a load of crap. American society used to hold sacred that women weren't allowed to vote, blacks were 3/5 of a person and slavery was acceptable. Other societal things that used to be held sacred include public executions, trials without due process and killing the other guy because his religion was different. Society evolves, usually for the better. Gay people getting married does not devalue marriage. Larry King getting married 8 times to women 50 years younger than him devalues marriage.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'll bet there are a ton of folks who stand up for the rights of homosexuals to marry that would refuse to do the same for first cousins.

Weird...

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In order for a distinction (or differential treatment) to be discriminatory, it must be made on the basis of one of a number of "enumerated or analagous grounds" or personal characteristics. There are nine grounds enumerated in the text of Section 15 of the Charter: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. A personal characteristic can also be analagous if it is immutable or cannot be changed or can only be changed at excessive cost (for example, sexual orientation.)

In the case of not being permitted to marry one's sibling, that distinction is not based on either an enumerated or analagous personal characteristic, and therefore cannot constitute discrimination.

I fail to see how a family relationship is not immutable. You cannot change who you are related to.