Wildrose vs PC Same Sex Marriage Debate

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at my examples. Government services are often restricted by ethnicity, mental or physical condition, or gender. They target areas of need.

Government involvement in marriage came about because they saw a specific needs. Before homosexuality was even legal there were lots of instances of adults living together as a means of cutting expenses or for companionship. Some were extended family and some were friends. These groups never demanded then or now to have the special benefits a marriage offers. They aren't being discriminated against any more than you are by not having a government agent helping to find you lodging or a job.

A marriage license isn't a right. It is a service the government administers to a select group of society. Ask yourself why the government even offers the legal protection and tax breaks to married couples.

Homosexual roommates shouldn't recieve those benefits and protection any more than an adult child living in his mother's basement should.

Your understanding of rights and equality are so fundamentally incorrect that it's not even worth having a debate with you.

Homosexual roommates should receive teh same benefits and protections as heterosexual roommates. Homosexual partners should receive the same benefits as hetero couples.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at my examples. Government services are often restricted by ethnicity, mental or physical condition, or gender. They target areas of need.

You took examples of groups who had been marginalized in society from a historical standpoint (immigrants and the disabled) and those who need assistance for their own safety and wellbeing (abused women).

I fail to see how heterosexuals have been so hard done by that you would even consider them putting them into the same group. In fact I would argue that out of homosexuals and heterosexuals the group which seems to have been discriminated against in the past (homosexuals of course), would be those who require the assistance.

Government involvement in marriage came about because they saw a specific needs. Before homosexuality was even legal there were lots of instances of adults living together as a means of cutting expenses or for companionship. Some were extended family and some were friends. These groups never demanded then or now to have the special benefits a marriage offers. They aren't being discriminated against any more than you are by not having a government agent helping to find you lodging or a job.

People figured out how to procreate without the government endorsing them as being married. Comparing people who are in a relationship to someone who is renting a room is offensive and just plain stupid as all hell.

A marriage license isn't a right. It is a service the government administers to a select group of society. Ask yourself why the government even offers the legal protection and tax breaks to married couples.

You obviously don't know what a right is.

What legal protection does marriage offer? I guess it offers tax benefits so that people can save for retirement? Can gays not retire?

Are you trying to say that the government administers marriage licenses so that people will have kids? What if someone can't have children or decide not to have children?

Homosexual roommates shouldn't recieve those benefits and protection any more than an adult child living in his mother's basement should.

You are an awful human being. Plus I don't know who you have had for roommates in the past but if they are pounding each other and living together, make the assumption that they are a couple.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It's not discriminatory to provide language classes to new Canadians. It's not discriminatory to help find housing and jobs for mentally ill Canadians. It's not discriminatory to provide counciling services and safe houses for abused women. Why? Because it is in the best interest of society to help in these situations.

It is not discriminatory to provide legal protection in the form of a marriage contract and tax benefits to heterosexual couples who want to commit to a life together. it has been a huge benefit for women who economically have had built in and cultural disadvantages. This is compounded if and when they have children. It has been a huge benefit for children who benefit from the advantage of a 2 parent home.

1. Education is offered to all Canadians, sometimes it isn't effective though.

2. Health care services are available to all Canadians and in the case of the mentally ill, that does involve finding safe secure housing when possible... it is primary health care that reduces long term costs.

3. Counseling is available for men and women who have been in domestic abuse situations - it just happens to be that women are abused more often than men and thus there is a greater demand.

In all three of scenarios you presented I don't see any discrimination at all... except the marriage scenario in which homosexuals are deemed less worthy because they can't have children on their own. Also to say that marriage is used in order to defend the rights of women is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard for saying gays shouldn't marry... does two dudes getting married nullify this supposed benefit... what about two women getting married... in that case it is twice the benefit!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I have been going through the Wildrose' policies and can't find anything that references marriage. In fact the google search 'marriage site:wildrose.ca' brings up only one page with an article about merging the Wildrose and the Alliance parties. I am sure that there are some members of the party who don't think marriage commissioners should be forced to perform same sex marriages but they do not represent the majority.

It comes from an interview with the WRA leader - the person the majority of the party chose to represent them.

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I'd actually like an answer to my questions though. In your opinion, should the Catholic Church (as an example) be allowed to refuse to host a lesbian wedding reception? Should a Catholic Priest be forced by the government to Marry a gay couple?

This is gonna seem like a cop out, but I'm not entirely sure. But I think there are different issues at play there that do not apply to civil unions performed by marriage commisioners.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Look at my examples. Government services are often restricted by ethnicity, mental or physical condition, or gender. They target areas of need.

Government involvement in marriage came about because they saw a specific needs. Before homosexuality was even legal there were lots of instances of adults living together as a means of cutting expenses or for companionship. Some were extended family and some were friends. These groups never demanded then or now to have the special benefits a marriage offers. They aren't being discriminated against any more than you are by not having a government agent helping to find you lodging or a job.

A marriage license isn't a right. It is a service the government administers to a select group of society. Ask yourself why the government even offers the legal protection and tax breaks to married couples.

Homosexual roommates shouldn't recieve those benefits and protection any more than an adult child living in his mother's basement should.

Considering you don't need to have kinds to qualify for those tax breaks, and that homosexual couples can adopt children (and lesbians can use sperm donors), and that single parents don't get the same breaks, I'm gonna go with "to buy votes from married couples and social conservatives".