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

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is pretty presumptuous of you to think that those in favour of changing the definition of marriage have a lower level of respect or regard for the institution and its importance. I absolutely reject the supposition, as I am enthusiastically committed to my own marriage, and a strong proponent for marriage generally, but am also very much in favour of refining it.

It is interesting, because you and I have crossed paths on this same issue at least once before, in which I offered the following assertion about the beneficial changes in the definition of marriage that are ongoing:



So, I will remind you again. I am convinced that the current vintage of marriage is easily the most superior expression of the ideal in human history, and this is demonstrated in part by how difficult it is to actually succeed in marriage. The current divorce rates are in many ways tragic and ultimately disappointing, but they do point to how noble and extraordinary the relational premises of modern marriage have become. In my mind, if homosexuals want the same rights to celebrate the same institution that heterosexual couples strive to perfect, are there really any good reasons for their exclusion?

I respect this position - it has a lot to commend it.

I may be presumptuous regarding the value that others put in the institution, sure, I'll recognize that. But it still doesn't change the fact that the implication is there. You may find your position is in the minority amongst those who wish to "continue" refining the definition, after all your point of view is well known to be unique. Most of what I see is people who are trying hard to not be bigots. It appears to me that their belief is that changing the definition of marriage is somehow the only way of showing their acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. The corollary of that is that those who disagree with gay marriage are by definition homophobic and bigoted. In a way, it's a political position most people are holding. I dislike this. I do not think that marriage should be held hostage for political reasons. It's too important to change the definition for these reasons.

You can call me cold, you can call me wrong, you can call me whatever, just don't call me a bigot. It's not because of that.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I respect this position - it has a lot to commend it.

I may be presumptuous regarding the value that others put in the institution, sure, I'll recognize that. But it still doesn't change the fact that the implication is there. You may find your position is in the minority amongst those who wish to "continue" refining the definition, after all your point of view is well known to be unique. Most of what I see is people who are trying hard to not be bigots. It appears to me that their belief is that changing the definition of marriage is somehow the only way of showing their acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. The corollary of that is that those who disagree with gay marriage are by definition homophobic and bigoted. In a way, it's a political position most people are holding. I dislike this. I do not think that marriage should be held hostage for political reasons. It's too important to change the definition for these reasons.

You can call me cold, you can call me wrong, you can call me whatever, just don't call me a bigot. It's not because of that.

Than what?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Most of what I see is people who are trying hard to not be bigots. It appears to me that their belief is that changing the definition of marriage is somehow the only way of showing their acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality.

So you believe that the Supreme Court of Canada changed the definition of marriage because they were worried about political correctness (which I presume is what you're describing above)?

Originally Posted by Knalus

The corollary of that is that those who disagree with gay marriage are by definition homophobic and bigoted. In a way, it's a political position most people are holding. I dislike this. I do not think that marriage should be held hostage for political reasons. It's too important to change the definition for these reasons.

You can call me cold, you can call me wrong, you can call me whatever, just don't call me a bigot. It's not because of that.

I'm not sure that you've really provided a cogent reason for opposing the change though (or if you have, I've missed it.) In the absense of such, what are we left to believe?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

A little humour does the world a lot of good. Us Canadians dish it out as well as we take it. Sorry you might not like my blunt humour, but my humour usually consists of facts. That Americans are fat is a fact, and I threw it in for fun because while there's a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, something tells me there's not a salad appreciation day in Ameica.

Edit:

I call bullcrap on that. I make fun of more than just America, yet you only seem to comment on my swipes at America. It obviously annoys you.

Of course it annoys me. You asked if you hurt my feelings. Big difference.

If there was a salad appreciation day you wouldn't know because positive aspects of America don't seem to interest you in the least.

BTW....not all of us are celebrating Chik-Fil-A appreciation day. In fact, most of us aren't!

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

So you believe that the Supreme Court of Canada changed the definition of marriage because they were worried about political correctness (which I presume is what you're describing above)?



I'm not sure that you've really provided a cogent reason for opposing the change though (or if you have, I've missed it.) In the absense of such, what are we left to believe?

Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada did it entirely for political correctness. You win. I do believe that 100%.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada did it entirely for political correctness. You win. I do believe that 100%.

Seriously? Not the whole you cannot deny people rights based on their sexuality thing?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada did it entirely for political correctness. You win. I do believe that 100%.

So, if you accept that the SCC (and at least a dozen other superior and appellate courts around the country) had legitimate reasons for their position with respect to same sex marriage, why do you seem to think that other people might not have the same (or similar) legitimate reasons?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...Most of what I see is people who are trying hard to not be bigots. It appears to me that their belief is that changing the definition of marriage is somehow the only way of showing their acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. The corollary of that is that those who disagree with gay marriage are by definition homophobic and bigoted.

As I read this, it seems to me that you are arguing for the protection of people from the implications of their choice to reject the validity of same-sex marriage, but I'm still not seeing any clearly formed rationale to restrict marriage to heterosexual coupling. It would be much simpler to address and discuss your position if you would clearly spell it out.

Regardless of what anyone might think, please share your reasons for holding to a traditional view of marriage at the expense of same sex unions.

Originally Posted by Knalus

In a way, it's a political position most people are holding. I dislike this. I do not think that marriage should be held hostage for political reasons. It's too important to change the definition for these reasons.

You can call me cold, you can call me wrong, you can call me whatever, just don't call me a bigot. It's not because of that.

We can't really do any of these things until we have a clear idea of how you form your conclusions. I think the issue here really is that I have yet to see a good argument for precluding same-sex couples from marriage. Can you provide one?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Seriously? Not the whole you cannot deny people rights based on their sexuality thing?

Discrimination based on sexual orientation wasn't prohibited by the charter as written. In 1995 in Egan v. Canada the Supreme Court held that it would be interpretted as a protected group, but it doesn't say that in the actual document.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Discrimination based on sexual orientation wasn't prohibited by the charter as written. In 1995 in Egan v. Canada the Supreme Court held that it would be interpretted as a protected group, but it doesn't say that in the actual document.

So what? Section 15 clearly provides for "analagous grounds" in addition to the enumerated grounds therein.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

We can't really do any of these things until we have a clear idea of how you form your conclusions. I think the issue here really is that I have yet to see a good argument for precluding same-sex couples from marriage. Can you provide one?

How about this, from the same Egan v Canada decision I mentioned above.

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. 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.

Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr...5scr2-513.html

The Supreme Court has since ruled in ways that would overrule this text, but it remains a cogently stated argument.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Discrimination based on sexual orientation wasn't prohibited by the charter as written. In 1995 in Egan v. Canada the Supreme Court held that it would be interpretted as a protected group, but it doesn't say that in the actual document.

Yeah, but the idea that has been taken in Canada is that the charter is a living document that can be used to interpret novel situations in context of the spirit of the document and current conditions. It is not possible to write a document that is 100% valid into the future. It needs to be re-examined and re-contextualized.

Which on a side note, it really bugs when judges try to use original intent and put words in the mouths of the writers into situations that they could not have possibly predicted.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Yeah, but the idea that has been taken in Canada is that the charter is a living document that can be used to interpret novel situations in context of the spirit of the document and current conditions. It is not possible to write a document that is 100% valid into the future. It needs to be re-examined and re-contextualized.

Which on a side note, it really bugs when judges try to use original intent and put words in the mouths of the writers into situations that they could not have possibly predicted.

Protection based on sexual orientation was considered at the time the charter was written, and rejected. It would have been politically impossible to amend the constitution in that way at that time. The fact that it is now politically possible to read that into it is an example of how it was in fact a political decision, which is what Knalus was saying.

The SCC can read that into the charter, and they've done so. But politics absolutely came into it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Protection based on sexual orientation was considered at the time the charter was written, and rejected. It would have been politically impossible to amend the constitution in that way at that time. The fact that it is now politically possible to read that into it is an example of how it was in fact a political decision, which is what Knalus was saying.

The SCC can read that into the charter, and they've done so. But politics absolutely came into it.

Fair enough, but agreeing that politics, changing social norms, etc., came into it is different than the shallow "political correctness" that knalus was alleging.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Fair enough, but agreeing that politics, changing social norms, etc., came into it is different than the shallow "political correctness" that knalus was alleging.

No it is not.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

No it is not.

It cheapens the decision. Political correctness is not fighting to get protections and access to rights. Political correctness would be not calling someone a fag. People wanted change and got it. I sincerly do not think that the majority remained silent and just went along with it for the sake of appearance.

The denial of rights seems to be steeped in religion and tradition. All I know if I had a gay child I would want then to enjoy thr same things as myself.

Even without the possibility of a child, what gives you the right to impose your viewpoint on the life's of other people. What is your argument for stopping something they want to do. Is it because it confuses you and makes you feel weirded out?

Get over it, life is weird. Adapt and let others enjoy their time on this rock.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How about this, from the same Egan v Canada decision I mentioned above.



Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/1995/1995scr...5scr2-513.html

The Supreme Court has since ruled in ways that would overrule this text, but it remains a cogently stated argument.

Thank you for that. It is cogent, yes, but I do not believe that the ruling presents a good argument against same-sex marriage. In the first place, it presumes that the traditional definition of marriage is somewhat arbitrary in its assertion that "marriage is by nature heterosexual" on the premise that procreation is its primary function. Second, I also do not believe that it does present "the biological and social realities" of the current form of the institution in the Western world.

Again, if the function and purposes of marriage change over time, should our definitions not also change with them?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

No it is not.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but to me there is a large difference between recognizing changing demographics, social norms, etc., and being afraid of being labelled a bigot.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thank you for that. It is cogent, yes, but I do not believe that the ruling presents a good argument against same-sex marriage. In the first place, it presumes that the traditional definition of marriage is somewhat arbitrary in its assertion that "marriage is by nature heterosexual" on the premise that procreation is its primary function. Second, I also do not believe that it does present "the biological and social realities" of the current form of the institution in the Western world.

Again, if the function and purposes of marriage change over time, should our definitions not also change with them?

There is a reason that argument was over ruled as it presumes procreation as the reason to block gay marriage, why marry when you can't have kids. The charter adapted when needed.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Thank you for that. It is cogent, yes, but I do not believe that the ruling presents a good argument against same-sex marriage. In the first place, it presumes that the traditional definition of marriage is somewhat arbitrary in its assertion that "marriage is by nature heterosexual" on the premise that procreation is its primary function. Second, I also do not believe that it does present "the biological and social realities" of the current form of the institution in the Western world.

Again, if the function and purposes of marriage change over time, should our definitions not also change with them?

You mentioned the original ideal of marriage was for the "purpose of ensuring progeny" here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=369

Historically, procreation was the primary purpose of marriage. In a world where marriage is mainly about companionship and access to government benefits, maybe it doesn't matter whether two individuals entering it can procreate. On the other hand, if the function and purpose of something changes, maybe it's not that thing any more, but rather something else.

I actually think a reasonable compromise would be for the gov't to get out of the marriage business altogether and allow any two human beings to register a civil union with the government. Then NGOs can administer marriages as they see fit, whether that's the Catholic Church or the local lawn bowling club.