Klein wants Referendum

[Claeren]

A horse cannot form a contract. Neither can a child (although young adults can with parental backing) and neither can a group of people if the state is not willing to endorse it. Further, barren/infertile couples, old couples, and couples on birth control with no desire to reproduce are all allowed to marry.

Simple as that.

And it is not like straight people have done a good job protecting the sanctity of marriage.... yeish....




In regards to a referendum, can you imagine slavery in the south US in 1860 going to a vote? Even in 1950 or NOW?!

How about women getting the vote? In 1900? 1920? NOW (If they didn't already of course)?!

Human rights issues should NEVER go to a vote.



Lastly, gay people already live together, get benefits, pensions, and other gov status and can even adopt childern but they can't have a little piece of paper that says 'married' on it? Stupid stupid stupid.


And NOTE: No religious group will EVER be forced to marry gay people. This is simply a state-individual issue and has ZERO to do with the church.


Claeren.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Dec 11 2004, 02:23 AM
It's not only christians that are against it I'm sure.# My point is that if anyone, of any religion, paid to administer marriage certificates to two people legally entitled to them refuses to do so then they are in the wrong job and should either quit or be canned because they can't/won't do their job.# You wouldn't hire someone who won't sell liquor to work in a liquor store.

What a fine example of the new, more tolerant society we're establishing!

In other words: "I don't care what your world-view is, just do things my way or you're out of here."

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 11 2004, 01:28 AM
The reason "Adam and Steve" are lumped in with "Adam, Eve, and Steve" or "Adam and Fido" is simple... legal precedence.

If gay marriage is approved, all these yahoos have to say is, "if they get this, its discriminatory if you don't give us the same treatment."

At least with a tough fight (ie: Referendum) its gonna show that changing anything is extraordinarily difficult. Right now, its a matter of convincing a few people, not a few million.

That's my point -- wasn't the precedence set with allowing hetero marriage in the first place? You could apply the same to logic to hetero marriage couldn't you? "If they (men and women) get this, it's discriminatory if you don't give us the same treatment"?

The wonderful thing about Canada (for me when it comes to these sorts of arguments) is that I'm not arguing against the majority. Everyone knew the Liberal party's stance on this issue but lo and behold they won again. The NDP and (I believe) the BQ are of the same opinion.

If I was against gay marriage I wouldn't be too confident about my side winning in any referendum.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 11 2004, 02:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 11 2004, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Dec 11 2004, 02:23 AM
It's not only christians that are against it I'm sure.# My point is that if anyone, of any religion, paid to administer marriage certificates to two people legally entitled to them refuses to do so then they are in the wrong job and should either quit or be canned because they can't/won't do their job.# You wouldn't hire someone who won't sell liquor to work in a liquor store.

What a fine example of the new, more tolerant society we're establishing!

In other words: "I don't care what your world-view is, just do things my way or you're out of here." [/b][/quote]
No one is going to be forced to marry gay people unless they work in the registry dept, in which case they already have to process gay-common-law related paper work in various situations and it has not been an issue thus far and so it shouldn't in the future.

CHURCHS WILL NOT HAVE TO MARRY GAY PEOPLE.

Claeren.

[moon]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 11 2004, 01:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 11 2004, 01:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 11 2004, 01:28 AM
The reason "Adam and Steve" are lumped in with "Adam, Eve, and Steve" or "Adam and Fido" is simple... legal precedence.

If gay marriage is approved, all these yahoos have to say is, "if they get this, its discriminatory if you don't give us the same treatment."

At least with a tough fight (ie: Referendum) its gonna show that changing anything is extraordinarily difficult. Right now, its a matter of convincing a few people, not a few million.

That's my point -- wasn't the precedence set with allowing hetero marriage in the first place? You could apply the same to logic to hetero marriage couldn't you? "If they (men and women) get this, it's discriminatory if you don't give us the same treatment"?

The wonderful thing about Canada (for me when it comes to these sorts of arguments) is that I'm not arguing against the majority. Everyone knew the Liberal party's stance on this issue but lo and behold they won again. The NDP and (I believe) the BQ are of the same opinion.

If I was against gay marriage I wouldn't be too confident about my side winning in any referendum. [/b][/quote]
In alberta I wouldn't be all that worried about the against gay marriage winning. I think they would win.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 11 2004, 01:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 11 2004, 01:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Dec 11 2004, 02:23 AM
It's not only christians that are against it I'm sure.# My point is that if anyone, of any religion, paid to administer marriage certificates to two people legally entitled to them refuses to do so then they are in the wrong job and should either quit or be canned because they can't/won't do their job.# You wouldn't hire someone who won't sell liquor to work in a liquor store.

What a fine example of the new, more tolerant society we're establishing!

In other words: "I don't care what your world-view is, just do things my way or you're out of here." [/b][/quote]
It's got nothing to do with a new tolerant society. People who refuse to do their job generally don't get to keep their job.

If issuing marriage licenses is your job and you don't issue marriage licenses then you should be fired. Do you disagree?

[Claeren]

If you didn't like jewish, muslim, or christian (gasp!) people and refused to marry them should you lose your job?


I would hope so...

Claeren.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 02:46 AM
A horse cannot form a contract. Neither can a child (although young adults can with parental backing) and neither can a group of people if the state is not willing to endorse it. Further, barren/infertile couples, old couples, and couples on birth control with no desire to reproduce are all allowed to marry.

Simple as that.

And it is not like straight people have done a good job protecting the sanctity of marriage.... yeish....




In regards to a referendum, can you imagine slavery in the south US in 1860 going to a vote? Even in 1950 or NOW?!

How about women getting the vote? In 1900? 1920? NOW (If they didn't already of course)?!

Human rights issues should NEVER go to a vote.



Lastly, gay people already live together, get benefits, pensions, and other gov status and can even adopt childern but they can't have a little piece of paper that says 'married' on it? Stupid stupid stupid.


And NOTE: No religious group will EVER be forced to marry gay people. This is simply a state-individual issue and has ZERO to do with the church.


Claeren.

Why are you trotting out that drivel? Pray tell who is the supreme one who is so all-wise and all-perfect so that we too can go and prostrate ourselves before that omnipotent being in glorious worship and learn the prefect way to live that you speak about so fervently?!

[moon]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 01:59 AM
If you didn't like jewish, muslim, or christian (gasp!) people and refused to marry them should you lose your job?


I would hope so...

Claeren.

No you shouldn't if you are a private worker. If you work for the government than you should.

[Claeren]

I don't know which of you is more crazy.

The one who thinks i am crazy for suggesting horses can't form contracts or the one who thinks people who hate jews should be allowed to discriminate against them if they work in a privatized registry.

You people make me sick. (Assuming you are saying what i think you are saying.)

Claeren.

[Claeren]

The irony behind your statement Sammie is that you think YOUR GOD is allowed to tell others how to live but when i go and try to make logical statements i am trampelling on your rights?

I don't understand why you want to live in a state of hate so badly?





Claeren.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 03:07 AM
I don't know which of you is more crazy.

The one who thinks i am crazy for suggesting horses can't form contracts or the one who thinks people who hate jews should be allowed to discriminate against them if they work in a privatized registry.

You people make me sick. (Assuming you are saying what i think you are saying.)

Claeren.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ALERT!!!

Translation: "You SHALL assimulate or cease to exist!"

[moon]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 02:07 AM
I don't know which of you is more crazy.

The one who thinks i am crazy for suggesting horses can't form contracts or the one who thinks people who hate jews should be allowed to discriminate against them if they work in a privatized registry.

You people make me sick. (Assuming you are saying what i think you are saying.)

Claeren.

why shouldn't they be allowed to to if it is privatized?

they can refuse me service because I have too many freckles all they want. I will go to either a government registry or a private registry that will allow me to do it.

Why would anyone want to go someone that doesn't want them there and only has them because the law forces them?

[Claeren]

You can say whatever you want in your own home or in privacy with your likeminded friends but a coherent and peaceful society depends upon public and functional tolarance.

No one is telling you to assimulate, there is simply a minimum public standard that should be maintained to allow everyone to get their sh*t done in peace.

How can you tell the difference between two gay people living together and two gay people living together married?

You can't, but your scared anyways... Why?

Claeren.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by moon+Dec 11 2004, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Dec 11 2004, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 02:07 AM
I don't know which of you is more crazy.

The one who thinks i am crazy for suggesting horses can't form contracts or the one who thinks people who hate jews should be allowed to discriminate against them if they work in a privatized registry.

You people make me sick. (Assuming you are saying what i think you are saying.)

Claeren.

why shouldn't they be allowed to to if it is privatized?

they can refuse me service because I have too many freckles all they want. I will go to either a government registry or a private registry that will allow me to do it.

Why would anyone want to go someone that doesn't want them there and only has them because the law forces them? [/b][/quote]
Because 'HATE' is illegal in this country.

While there is a vague gray area for certain circumstances, if you are working in most industries and refuse to help customers because you hate their race, religion, sex, etc., then i am pretty sure you could be fired, at least after a couple warnings.

And why would people go there if people hated them? Because what if all/most private companies in any industry refused service? Jewish peolpe couldn't catch a taxi? Christians couldn't use a bank (used to be a mortal sin you know.), or muslims couldn't get on a plane? Society breaks down and ceases to function.

It is just selfish and short sighted to extend all the rights of societal access when it is convienent, only until one of your views is compromised, even though it will never effect you.

Claeren.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 03:09 AM
The irony behind your statement Sammie is that you think YOUR GOD is allowed to tell others how to live but when i go and try to make logical statements i am trampelling on your rights?

I don't understand why you want to live in a state of hate so badly?





Claeren.

Fill me in on this logic. If "a" then. . .?

I'm not getting the full picture of this orderly world of your's.

[moon]

Originally posted by Claeren+Dec 11 2004, 02:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Claeren @ Dec 11 2004, 02:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

why shouldn't they be allowed to to if it is privatized?

they can refuse me service because I have too many freckles all they want. I will go to either a government registry or a private registry that will allow me to do it.

Why would anyone want to go someone that doesn't want them there and only has them because the law forces them?

Because 'HATE' is illegal in this country.

While there is a vague gray area for certain circumstances, if you are working in most industries and refuse to help customers because you hate their race, religion, sex, etc., then i am pretty sure you could be fired, at least after a couple warnings.

Claeren. [/b][/quote]
I understand that you can be fired, but if it is my company I should be able to refuse service to whomever I want whether it is because they are drunk, naked, fat, gay, black, jewish whatever, it should be my choice and the punishment to me would/should be that people who don't like it chose to not support my store/business.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 03:17 AM
You can say whatever you want in your own home or in privacy with your likeminded friends but a coherent and peaceful society depends upon public and functional tolarance.

No one is telling you to assimulate, there is simply a minimum public standard that should be maintained to allow everyone to get their sh*t done in peace.

How can you tell the difference between two gay people living together and two gay people living together married?

You can't, but your scared anyways... Why?

Claeren.

You realize, of course, if the gay community hadn't made such a big spectacle of the whole issue nobody would have given a damn what two men did to get their jollies in the privacy of their own home. Why does the gay community insist on forcing their way on normal society?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 03:19 AM
Because 'HATE' is illegal in this country.

Okay. I'm still working on this logic of your's. Who hates who?

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 11 2004, 03:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 11 2004, 03:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Dec 11 2004, 03:09 AM
The irony behind your statement Sammie is that you think YOUR GOD is allowed to tell others how to live but when i go and try to make logical statements i am trampelling on your rights?

I don't understand why you want to live in a state of hate so badly?





Claeren.

Fill me in on this logic. If "a" then. . .?

I'm not getting the full picture of this orderly world of your's. [/b][/quote]
OMG..... which part do you disagree with? Seems pretty straight forward to me...

A horse cannot form a contract.

Neither can a child (although young adults can with parental backing)

and neither can a group of people if the state is not willing to endorse it.

That is all true.

Further, barren/infertile couples, old couples, and couples on birth control with no desire to reproduce are all allowed to marry.

Some people who are straight and marry do not do it to reproduce, they do it for love. So why can straight people marry for love and not gays?

straight people have done a good job protecting the sanctity of marriage

Pretty straight forward; divorce and adultry are the norm and in christian times marriage represented ownership, where women were no better then cattle. It was not a matter of whether you could beat your wife but whether you could beat her to death.... wow, sanctity indeed....

-in regards to a referendum, can you imagine slavery in the south US in 1860 going to a vote? Even in 1950 or NOW?!

-what about women getting the vote? In 1900? 1920? NOW (If they didn't already of course)?!

-Human rights issues should NEVER go to a vote.

Again, pretty straight forward academics here. Our entire constitution and charter are designed to prevent exactly what you want to happen. Americans can carry firearms at will for the same reason gays should be able to marry. Because it is in our constitutions, consitutions designed to be above the people and their government of the time.

If you want to fight this get a constitutional ammendment... oh yeah, you can't!

-Lastly, gay people already live together, get benefits, pensions, and other gov status and can even adopt childern but they can't have a little piece of paper that says 'married' on it? Stupid stupid stupid.

What is the difference? There is not one. And as such if you think there is one then you must be stupid.

-No religious group will EVER be forced to marry gay people. This is simply a state-individual issue and has ZERO to do with the church.

Well, not only is this widly acknowledged by even gay rights groups, but the supreme court confirmed it today. The reason gays can marry is almost exactly the same reason churches cannot be forced to do it. Each to their OWN!



So what is your point again?
Claeren.