Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123

[peter12]

The question really revolves a quote that floats around constitutional law. It's something like, no one debates the need for the expansion of civil liberties, what is debated is who gets to decide what a civil liberty is.

This was really a matter surrounding the common law tradition in Canada, that predates the Charter 1982 and the Bill of Rights 1960. Parliamentary debate, when it respects public opinion (through the whole spectrum) and Canada's traditions and conventions of freedom and liberty, has done a pretty good job of protecting and expanding Canadians rights. Further, through this debate, the subject gains legitimacy and support of the populace as citizens to a large extent will engage in partisan debate themselves. This leads to compromise.

When a court rules on civil liberties, it changes the law and doesn't necessarily add the democratic legitimacy to it. This is really judicial activism, something that was argued in regards to the Supreme Court decison on the Gay Marriage reference. Is a law or liberty really legitimate when almost half of the population reject all or part of it?

Now, I am personally not really against gay marriage at all. From my experiences, alot of conservatives aren't either. A lot of conservatives do line up, not surprisingly, on the common law and democratic interpretation of civil liberties. I think Harper was essentially making a gesture to alot of those conservatives.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Please give me an example of where two seperate person's rights are in direct conflict where one of them has to be denied their civil right for the sake of the other person's civil right.

How about a good recent example:

Election gag laws restrict my ability to report on, or find, regional election results based on the theory that such reporting will infringe on the democratic rights of people whose polls are still open. Similar restrictions on third-party advertising for elections, with the same rationale.

Clear-cut case of two diametrically-opposed Charter rights, for which the "powers that be" have chosen that the freedom of expression is less important that said democratic rights.

Even Charter rights are not absolute, and somebody has to interpret the grey areas.

[AC]

First off I do understand the points you make, but I still dont agree with them.

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I find it odd that a group with so much "pride" would want to be melded into the majority group, instead of fighting for their own, equal institution and then fighting to have it recognized as equal.

I'd say theres a big difference between choosing to have it called something else and being forced to have it called something different from 'marriage'.

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

However, I think the over-use of Charter challenges is dangerous to this country, as is the tendency of our current Supreme Court judges to "read-in" rights that aren't explicitly set out in the Charter.

With changing circumstances, governments, policies, and laws all need to adjust accordingly. I understand your concerns, but I don't follow where you seem to think this will lead to.

As Adam pointed out, gay marriage will not lead to people demanding the right to do as they please with extreme conditions. I think your fear of changing policies is out of place and a bit over dramatic.

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

If a government allows provincial court of appeal judges to define Canadian law without any opposition, then I think we've already lost democracy.

And I'd say that if a government fails to acknowledge, accept, and support minority groups, then we've lost a vital part of living in an equalistic society.

[peter12]

With changing circumstances, governments, policies, and laws all need to adjust accordingly. I understand your concerns, but I don't follow where you seem to think this will lead to.

Then the legislatures do it. If they fall out of what is acceptable to the people, then they can be held accountable.

Supreme Court justices on the other hand are completely unaccountable.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Let their supervisors figure it out.

You know, that's probably what it'll come down to in the end. It'll be a non-issue. If a couple dudes want to get married and they call up the marrying place, they'll just give 'em the guy who doesn't have a problem with it.

The JP who won't do it won't even be part of the equation.

I wonder if it's become a condition of employment for the newbies though.

Edit: we (or at least I) am talking about this in some vague future terms. Really though it's already been happening for a year and a half.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I honestly don't see it as the priest being a bigot. It is against the Catholic faith to have same sex marriages.

Fair enough. The priest may not be a bigot. He can always claim his hands are tied because his religion is bigoted.

To me, it is pretty simple. Religion calls homosexuality a “sin”. This is bigotry against a group of people, for no other reason that “the bible says so”.

If you think an entire group of people are “wrong” and should be denied the rights available to all other members of society simply because of who they are – then you are exactly the same as people who discriminate against blacks, women, Asians, and any other group you want to name.

The bible should not, and cannot be used as a defense for discrimination.

You can either accept human beings as equal or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are a bigot against whatever group of people you want to deny as equals. If you believe all people of adult status are equal, then they should have equal rights. Including the right to marry whomever they want, and have it recognized as a “marriage”.

I defy anyone to indicate the difference between interracial marriage (which was once illegal) and marriage between couples of the same sex. Both consist of a pair of consenting adults – and they should be equal under the law. Today, anyone who opposes interracial marriage, could easily (and correctly IMO) be labeled a bigot.

In time, I expect anyone who opposed gay marriage to also be labeled a bigot. Hopefully they will eventually see the error of their ways.

Sorry if religion doesn’t believe in equality. It’s a real shame it is so far behind the Canadian government.

[jzA]

You know what, Ive came to this final conclusion beause frankly im sick of the issue it seems like its everywhere.

Let queers get married, but PLEASE, PLEASE dont let them have any sort of child. (adopted). Im really strongly against that.

All I have to say to people who participate in Bi-Sexual or straight up GAY acts, is they better be very careful. The whole lifestyle to me is beyond comprehension and I myself think gays and lesbians as merely unconformists to society.

Have you ever known anyone who has HIV? and is currently dying as we speak? Its an awful disease to have, ive seen mothers crying, because there sons were not careful and possibly not open about their gay lifestyle (the person im talking about came out of the closet roughly a 1 year before he was diagnosed). It withers you away to nothing, destroys your life. He cant eat, he is just waiting to die, he is going to die, time is not in his favour. What scares me the most is that a every day average joe (you and me) and easily get it too, from GIRLS. I was somewhat uneducated on the subject for a long time, and now know that there are people that go both ways, and to me it just isnt worth the risk.

I think besides dying in a terroist attack, dying of HIV or AIDS would be next on the list, totally preventable, and not needed.

Its really scary, and I think if we as canadians promote the gay and bisexual lifestyle, HIV will become even more prominant now, more then ever.

Im just saying that before you take a stranger home from the club, PLEASE, please think twice, maybe 4 times, its just a terrible and sad way to go out. I feel so sorry for these parents mentioned above.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jzA

Y
Its really scary, and I think if we as canadians promote the gay and bisexual lifestyle, HIV will become even more prominant now, more then ever.

How exactly are we "promoting" the gay lifestyle, whatever that is? Accepting people is a lot different than promotion.

And even if someone is "promoting" homosexuality, I think they'll have a pretty tough sell. Nobody, not one person, can be convinced to change their sexuality.

I mean could you? Me neither. Nobody could ever convince me that getting it on with another guy is something I might want to do. I don't know of any person who could be convinced, through "promotion" to do anything of the sort.

The thing with this gay marriage stuff is that it hasn't changed anything. It hasn't made for "more gays". It hasn't broken up straight marriages. It hasn't made a single straight person decide they don't want to get married. Nothing has changed except a few words on a few pieces of paper. Canada is not "more gay" or "more bi-sexual". We aren't gayer or straighter. It's the same as it always was. It's the same as it would be if same-sex marriage was still illegal.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by jzA

You know what, Ive came to this final conclusion beause frankly im sick of the issue it seems like its everywhere.

Let queers get married, but PLEASE, PLEASE dont let them have any sort of child. (adopted). Im really strongly against that.

You would be better off to be against bad parents, than to be against gay parents. Gay parents have to work a lot harder to have children in a lot of cases - especially since many of them adopt.

Unlike most heterosexual parents.

All I have to say to people who participate in Bi-Sexual or straight up GAY acts, is they better be very careful.

Yes, they should be careful during sex. Just like heterosexual partners.

The whole lifestyle to me is beyond comprehension and I myself think gays and lesbians as merely unconformists to society.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think people who make up words are unconformists. There are a great many things beyond my comprehension, but for most of them I have an intellectual curiosity where I try to fight my own ignorance. Especially if I want to have an opinion about them.

Have you ever known anyone who has HIV? and is currently dying as we speak? Its an awful disease to have, ive seen mothers crying, because there sons were not careful and possibly not open about their gay lifestyle (the person im talking about came out of the closet roughly a 1 year before he was diagnosed). It withers you away to nothing, destroys your life. He cant eat, he is just waiting to die, he is going to die, time is not in his favour.

That is very unfortunate. HIV / AIDS is a horrible disease, and you have my sympathy for your friend. We can only hope a cure will be found soon.

That said, are you suggesting that he caught AIDS just because he was gay? Because the disease can be transmitted any number of ways regardless of sexual orientation. If it was sexually transmitted, it certainly was probably due to having unproteced sex, not being gay.

What scares me the most is that a every day average joe (you and me) and easily get it too, from GIRLS. I was somewhat uneducated on the subject for a long time, and now know that there are people that go both ways, and to me it just isnt worth the risk.

It is good that you have decided to educate yourself about the dangers of HIV and Aids. Because, as you know, everyone can get it. And not just from sex. While it is prevalent in the gay male community, it certainly isn't exclusively there. Lots of exclusively heterosexual people have it.

Some have only ever had 1 partner. Some have never had a partner. Some are children infected by tainted blood.

Bottom line? We all have to be careful. Being gay or straight has almost nothing to do with it.

Its really scary, and I think if we as canadians promote the gay and bisexual lifestyle, HIV will become even more prominant now, more then ever.

Unsafe sex promotes STD's, not being gay. And how is allowing marriage "promoting a gay lifestyle?"

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jzA

You know what, Ive came to this final conclusion beause frankly im sick of the issue it seems like its everywhere.

Let queers get married, but PLEASE, PLEASE dont let them have any sort of child. (adopted). Im really strongly against that.

All I have to say to people who participate in Bi-Sexual or straight up GAY acts, is they better be very careful. The whole lifestyle to me is beyond comprehension and I myself think gays and lesbians as merely unconformists to society.

Have you ever known anyone who has HIV? and is currently dying as we speak? Its an awful disease to have, ive seen mothers crying, because there sons were not careful and possibly not open about their gay lifestyle (the person im talking about came out of the closet roughly a 1 year before he was diagnosed). It withers you away to nothing, destroys your life. He cant eat, he is just waiting to die, he is going to die, time is not in his favour. What scares me the most is that a every day average joe (you and me) and easily get it too, from GIRLS. I was somewhat uneducated on the subject for a long time, and now know that there are people that go both ways, and to me it just isnt worth the risk.

I think besides dying in a terroist attack, dying of HIV or AIDS would be next on the list, totally preventable, and not needed.

Its really scary, and I think if we as canadians promote the gay and bisexual lifestyle, HIV will become even more prominant now, more then ever.

Im just saying that before you take a stranger home from the club, PLEASE, please think twice, maybe 4 times, its just a terrible and sad way to go out. I feel so sorry for these parents mentioned above.

Because a straight person has never spread HIV... ever.

What does HIV have to do with Homosexuals?

[jharp]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you have any statistics to back this up, or is this all speculation?

common sense.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Because a straight person has never spread HIV... ever.

What does HIV have to do with Homosexuals?

I am under impression that it is generally a homosexual disease, as these were its orgins.

By allowing same sex marriage I think in a way we are somewhat promoting it just be accepting it. I know there will be people here that definatly have a different opinion.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jzA

I am under impression that it is generally a homosexual disease, as these were its orgins.

You are under the wrong impression

[jharp]

this topic is just too controversial to be solved.
i think this is a great method to discuss the topic, but i think it is too deeply routed in ideology to be solvable in such a format.
i am not sure about everyone else, but i have argued this topic more times then i care to remember, and nothing that i have read, or that i have said, is new.
fact of the matter is, it looks like the issue is over and i am sure that politicans will drop that matter and never bring it up again for fear of political suicide. the only reason that vote was even held yesterday was to fufill an election promise anyways. harper had no intention of winning. the idea is that now it is over and the liberals will not be able to nail him to a wall with it come election time.
so while i may not agree with homosexuality, gay marriage, and especially gay parents, it is over. in my opinion the country and society are worse off for it, but it is over.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jharp

i think 'gayness' is wrong, and i cannot fathom how any sane person could ever be lead down this path.

Which means that what? 5-10% of the population is crazy?

But I do agree, who would want to choose this path? I mean who wants to be abused and made fun of at school on a regular basis and feel like a complete outcast growing up?

One of my good friends I went to school with turned out to be gay. So, I asked him if it was a choice for him. He was a guy who dated girls all throughout highschool, tried to fit in and like girls as much as he could, but at the end of the day, he just couldn't.

He simply wasn't attracted or sexually arosed by women. Was that his choice? Not a chance. He was when he first came out completely ashamed of being gay and didn't tell any of his friends until he was 19. He wished he could have been straight.

Does that sound like come Crazy who just chose the gay lifestyle for fun? No. Not a chance. It isn't common sense as you put it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jzA

I am under impression that it is generally a homosexual disease, as these were its orgins.

By allowing same sex marriage I think in a way we are somewhat promoting it just be accepting it. I know there will be people here that definatly have a different opinion.

The HIV infection rate is currently the highest among young single women.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You are under the wrong impression

It's orgin is somewhat up in the air, but one cannot deny this fact.

The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s (more about this period can be found on our history page). A number of gay men in New York and San Francisco suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome. The discovery of HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus that causes AIDS was made soon after. While some were initially resistant to the connection (and indeed remain so today), there is now clear evidence to prove that HIV does cause AIDS.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

Some of the theorys are somewhat interesting, most notably the conspiracy theory.

[jharp]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Which means that what? 5-10% of the population is crazy?

But I do agree, who would want to choose this path? I mean who wants to be abused and made fun of at school on a regular basis and feel like a complete outcast growing up?

One of my good friends I went to school with turned out to be gay. So, I asked him if it was a choice for him. He was a guy who dated girls all throughout highschool, tried to fit in and like girls as much as he could, but at the end of the day, he just couldn't.

He simply wasn't attracted or sexually arosed by women. Was that his choice? Not a chance. He was when he first came out completely ashamed of being gay and didn't tell any of his friends until he was 19. He wished he could have been straight.

Does that sound like come Crazy who just chose the gay lifestyle for fun? No. Not a chance. It isn't common sense as you put it.

i understand what you mean, and i am sure that there are a tone of people like your friend out there. this is fine, i understand that. i do think it is wrong, but what can i do about it? it is not my place to tell people what to do or think.
having said that, the point i am trying to get across is that i think it is wrong to allow gay couples to adopt kids. i think this is wrong, as well as unfair to the children. being raised in a gay home would make it seem much more acceptable to be gay and would also lead to the things that i bolded in your post. i would not want to be abused and made fun of in school for having two daddys.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by peter12

The HIV infection rate is currently the highest among young single women.

Good statistic, but almost all first known cases are from gay males. Whos to say some of those gay males didnt go both ways.

This topic on the whole is just sad, i feel so sorry for these peoples family.

[jzA]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Which means that what? 5-10% of the population is crazy?

But I do agree, who would want to choose this path? I mean who wants to be abused and made fun of at school on a regular basis and feel like a complete outcast growing up?

One of my good friends I went to school with turned out to be gay. So, I asked him if it was a choice for him. He was a guy who dated girls all throughout highschool, tried to fit in and like girls as much as he could, but at the end of the day, he just couldn't.

He simply wasn't attracted or sexually arosed by women. Was that his choice? Not a chance. He was when he first came out completely ashamed of being gay and didn't tell any of his friends until he was 19. He wished he could have been straight.

Does that sound like come Crazy who just chose the gay lifestyle for fun? No. Not a chance. It isn't common sense as you put it.

Thats a pretty sad story. But I find that sex is a very very small part of life...Some people I guess just value sexual satisfaction over say, building a family and reputation.

As stated above I really think gay or lesbian people are just merely unconformists, but I also have the intelligence to see that that opinion is coming from me, who is against same-sex relations. This is why I take my opinion in stride, and dont try to put down other peoples opinion.

Myself, being a straight every day homosapian, cant fathem how people can be attracted to their same gender, it just boggles my mind.