Same Sex Marriage

[4X4]

Lol. I wonder what the debate for inter-racial marriage sounded like back in the 50s and 60s? Probably quite similar to this one.

[corporatejay]

The problem with "polygamy" is it turns into a frakking legal nightmare if someone has more than one LEGAL wife. Who makes decisions when they are incapacitated? Who gets the estate when he dies without a will? How about RRSP contributions?

It becomes completely unsustainable, which is why only one of them can legally be married. Personally if two (or more) consenting adults want to be in a polygamous or polygynous relationship and there is no evidence of undue influence I could give two hoots.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Lol. I wonder what the debate for inter-racial marriage sounded like back in the 50s and 60s? Probably quite similar to this one.

I dont know about America but in the 1800s and 1900s inter-racial marriages were an integral part of colonization. For the colonists it was a way of getting the bloodline into the society. So not much of a debate there.

It seems the US is always behind the rest of the world in social issues.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the Quebec Seperatists certainly saw it as a rights issue, but its just one example.

Well even if they did I would have to say that's incorrect.

I think people try to muddy up the lines but I think there is a clear distinction.

Deciding how your province should govern itself (IE as a country or not) = Democratic choice.

Asking to have the same rights someone else in your country already has = Civil rights example.

I mean, I could declare MYSELF and my house a sovereign nation. But I doubt the government would let me. It's just a right I don't have. Which is fine.

But protecting (or correctly rewriting) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make sure everyone is protected the same way would be one of the most important principles of a democracy. Just because it isn't put to a vote, doesn't mean it's undemocratic. Protecting the freedoms of all, ESPECIALLY minorities is one of the hallmarks of democracy.

Democracy, and voting, is used to make choices that affect us all. Not to decide who gets what freedoms. And as much as some people argue, gay marriage is NOT going to affect them or the country as a whole.



And as for Stephen putting it to a vote, but knowng it wouldn't pass. Well I think that's a bad move. What if the ban did pass? I would say that law would be illegal and oppressive. Besides, we all do know there was a time when he WANTED it to pass. He's just warmed up to the idea like many people in the country have, as saw the will of the people.

MarchHare said it well just under your post.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think I agree with you (still pondering it).
But I think if you polled black people they would not think the fight is the same.

I am not comparing the amount of oppression between gays and blacks. But I am saying that comparing the oppression itself is the same, or at least very close to it.

You would surely get the argument of "I can't change the colour of my skin but I could change my sexual preference, you know the expression a girl turning a guy gay or a guy turning a girl lesbian."

I wouldn't call that an argument. It's maybe an anecdote. Either way the science is showing that being gay isn't anymore of a choice than being straight. The choice is whether to act on those urges or force yourself to the societal "norms" against what your biology is telling you. But of course like anything there is also people caught in the middle between gay and straight.

Sure those are fun jokes but I think alot of people need more education on this matter.

Agreed. But I think that education should come from sounds arguments and reliable science not "tradition" and superstition.

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't buy the notion of "if anyone should understand oppression, it's black people, so it is confusing why so many black people voted for this thing".

It's serious business and all, but same-sex marriage rights are pretty trivial compared to the oppression black people suffered (and perhaps still do in some respects) under.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's serious business and all, but same-sex marriage rights are pretty trivial compared to the oppression black people suffered (and perhaps still do in some respects) under.

Gay people get discriminated against, assaulted and murdered.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GGG

But the term marriage we use is not the term the state uses. The state only presents legal entitlements and consequences. What the state lincense does is not marriage (Religeous or secular).

Marriage is a word that has some common general definitions in society but is uniquely defined by each person hence all of the conflict about it. Therefore since there is no agreed upon definition between all the groups in the democracy and the state has no benefit from using the word why should the state bother.

As well you are not changing the word marriage for anyone. Anyone can call themselves married. You are changing the name of a form and freeing everyone from the states definition.

I agree with you about the state being involved with marriage but for different reasons. I am more of the libertarian bent when it comes to personal freedoms. "People are free to do anything they want as long as it doesn't impact my freedom or anyone else's". So if you want to abolish state control of marriage then your reasoning doesn't work for me. A gay couple getting married does not impact my freedoms or affect my life in any way (or anyone else's for that matter). People having different personal definitions of the word is inconsequential.

However practically, it is easier to grant the right for gay people to get married (thereby giving more freedom to more people) under the current legal setup than abolish the state control on marriage (which could come next).

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's serious business and all, but same-sex marriage rights are pretty trivial compared to the oppression black people suffered (and perhaps still do in some respects) under.

Trivial perhaps in terms of scope, abuse, and lives lost. But that doesn't mean it's not trivial to the people being oppressed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by troutman

Gay people get discriminated against, assaulted and murdered.

True, but that isn't state-sanctioned or institutionalized oppression along the lines of what black people suffered through before the civil rights movement.

All I'm saying is that I don't buy see the comparison between the two situations (or "minority groups") that has been suggested.

Gay people in California are being denied the right to marry, which I think is wrong, but it's not the same as being denied a proper education, a seat on a bus, employment, fair treatment in the justice system and all sorts of rights enjoyed by the majority of the population.

It is wrong, but it is not on the same level of wrong.

"You were treated terribly for centuries, enslaved, lynched, denied education and dignity, so you should understand how we feel, not being issued a marriage license".

That's how it sounds to me when people say "black people should understand".

[photon]

On the flip side racism against black people is at least underground.. you can't turn on the TV and find people on the news or with their own TV networks boldly saying how blacks are bad for society.

Gays can though.

[BuzzardsWife]

it doesn't affect anyone personally, so why would anyone care if it was legal or not? if its not affecting your life at all i say its none of your business really

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

it doesn't affect anyone personally, so why would anyone care if it was legal or not? if its not affecting your life at all i say its none of your business really

Originally Posted by Burninator

Agreed. But I think that education should come from sounds arguments and reliable science not "tradition" and superstition.

The church has been told this for thousands of years from astronomy to industrialization. It's always their business!

[Calgaryborn]

Marriage is not a right. It is an ancient religious and social institution that provided a safe and equatable arrangement for cohabitation and the raising of children. It provided a degree of certainty for the man that the children he was providing for and would leave his estate to were his. It provided protection and a degree of financial certainty for the woman who wanted to have children of her own.

The State got involved for two reasons. The first was to provide more protection for the women and children. For most of our history men have held the wealth and the means of generating wealth. In the event of a break down in the marriage that leads to separation or divorce the State wanted financial provisions made for the women and children. In the beginning the State also had a hand in defining what justified a divorce. The second reason for the State's involvement in the institution of marriage and probably the one which still is most relevant today was to nurture the family. Successful marriages more often then not lead to children. These children are supported and cared for by two adults. They get both a male and female perspective on the world. They generally do better in school, get into less trouble with the law, and eventually marry and have children themselves. Children with both parents in the home are more likely to live above the poverty line and less likely to be molested on their way to adulthood. The institute of marriage was the original special interest group that benefited from the largeness of the government. There is no other good reason to give special tax and retirement benefits to this one segment of our society. Men and women living together in secure relationships tend to produce children. A society that doesn't produce the next generation dies.

Same sex unions do not tend to produce children. The government has no reason to involve themselves in such arrangements. They can have whatever legal contractual protection they want privately without the government's intervention. They also can conduct whatever religious ceremony they desire without government involvement. There is no reason for government to provide special financial benefits to same sex unions. They don't provide them for platonic relationships either.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A society that doesn't produce the next generation dies.

Ya think?

How does any of what you said change if a few people are allowed to call themselves married?

What's the difference? Will people stop procreating or looking after their children as best they can if same-sex marriages are allowed? Do people get divorced when they otherwise would have not?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage is not a right. It is an ancient religious and social institution that provided a safe and equatable arrangement for cohabitation and the raising of children. It provided a degree of certainty for the man that the children he was providing for and would leave his estate to were his. It provided protection and a degree of financial certainty for the woman who wanted to have children of her own.

The State got involved for two reasons. The first was to provide more protection for the women and children. For most of our history men have held the wealth and the means of generating wealth. In the event of a break down in the marriage that leads to separation or divorce the State wanted financial provisions made for the women and children. In the beginning the State also had a hand in defining what justified a divorce. The second reason for the State's involvement in the institution of marriage and probably the one which still is most relevant today was to nurture the family. Successful marriages more often then not lead to children. These children are supported and cared for by two adults. They get both a male and female perspective on the world. They generally do better in school, get into less trouble with the law, and eventually marry and have children themselves. Children with both parents in the home are more likely to live above the poverty line and less likely to be molested on their way to adulthood. The institute of marriage was the original special interest group that benefited from the largeness of the government. There is no other good reason to give special tax and retirement benefits to this one segment of our society. Men and women living together in secure relationships tend to produce children. A society that doesn't produce the next generation dies.

Same sex unions do not tend to produce children. The government has no reason to involve themselves in such arrangements. They can have whatever legal contractual protection they want privately without the government's intervention. They also can conduct whatever religious ceremony they desire without government involvement. There is no reason for government to provide special financial benefits to same sex unions. They don't provide them for platonic relationships either.

Your arguments about the family are irrelevant because many gay people can adopt or get children through a host mother. And it isn't like we are about to slowly die off. Either way this planet is overpopulated as it is.

This also rules out your arguments that healthy families are better because it has been shown that gay couples raise just as normal, healthy, responsible children.

The government has no reason not to get involved. Also platonic friends don't usually live together, have children and have sex. That would be the exact difference between platonic and romantic relationships.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage is not a right. It is an ancient religious and social institution that provided a safe and equatable arrangement for cohabitation and the raising of children. It provided a degree of certainty for the man that the children he was providing for and would leave his estate to were his. It provided protection and a degree of financial certainty for the woman who wanted to have children of her own.

The State got involved for two reasons. The first was to provide more protection for the women and children. For most of our history men have held the wealth and the means of generating wealth. In the event of a break down in the marriage that leads to separation or divorce the State wanted financial provisions made for the women and children. In the beginning the State also had a hand in defining what justified a divorce. The second reason for the State's involvement in the institution of marriage and probably the one which still is most relevant today was to nurture the family. Successful marriages more often then not lead to children. These children are supported and cared for by two adults. They get both a male and female perspective on the world. They generally do better in school, get into less trouble with the law, and eventually marry and have children themselves. Children with both parents in the home are more likely to live above the poverty line and less likely to be molested on their way to adulthood. The institute of marriage was the original special interest group that benefited from the largeness of the government. There is no other good reason to give special tax and retirement benefits to this one segment of our society. Men and women living together in secure relationships tend to produce children. A society that doesn't produce the next generation dies.

Same sex unions do not tend to produce children. The government has no reason to involve themselves in such arrangements. They can have whatever legal contractual protection they want privately without the government's intervention. They also can conduct whatever religious ceremony they desire without government involvement. There is no reason for government to provide special financial benefits to same sex unions. They don't provide them for platonic relationships either.

Such BS. You sound like my parents. Where do you people get this stuff from? Your pastor? Where does he get it from? Does he just make it up? Ugh. Just reading this gives me the shivers. How you religious types cannot see your own hypocrisy amazes me.
Thousands of years you've been herded like sheep into different organizations and buildings and told that "this is the true way" all the while you're out there committing the same sins that you preach against.
But of course it's all excused under the guise of religious freedom. What about the freedom of gays to believe whatever they want to believe? Lemme guess, the Bible calls it a sin and therefore it's wrong.
Just listen to yourself for a minute. You're trying to tell the world to believe in stories that are no different from Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. "Be good, or else".

Greek mythology has been antiquated, ditto for Egyptian mythology. It's high time the rest of it gets filed under 'G' as well.

[Itse]

Marriage is all about tradition, and tradition never makes sense, which is why I think there should be only one approach to this: how do we make this question go away?

Answer: legalize same sex marriages and wait a hundred years. After that, it'll be mostly a non-issue.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage is not a right. It is an ancient religious and social institution that provided a safe and equatable arrangement for cohabitation and the raising of children. It provided a degree of certainty for the man that the children he was providing for and would leave his estate to were his. It provided protection and a degree of financial certainty for the woman who wanted to have children of her own.

The State got involved for two reasons. The first was to provide more protection for the women and children. For most of our history men have held the wealth and the means of generating wealth. In the event of a break down in the marriage that leads to separation or divorce the State wanted financial provisions made for the women and children. In the beginning the State also had a hand in defining what justified a divorce. The second reason for the State's involvement in the institution of marriage and probably the one which still is most relevant today was to nurture the family. Successful marriages more often then not lead to children. These children are supported and cared for by two adults. They get both a male and female perspective on the world. They generally do better in school, get into less trouble with the law, and eventually marry and have children themselves. Children with both parents in the home are more likely to live above the poverty line and less likely to be molested on their way to adulthood. The institute of marriage was the original special interest group that benefited from the largeness of the government. There is no other good reason to give special tax and retirement benefits to this one segment of our society. Men and women living together in secure relationships tend to produce children. A society that doesn't produce the next generation dies.

Same sex unions do not tend to produce children. The government has no reason to involve themselves in such arrangements. They can have whatever legal contractual protection they want privately without the government's intervention. They also can conduct whatever religious ceremony they desire without government involvement. There is no reason for government to provide special financial benefits to same sex unions. They don't provide them for platonic relationships either.

My gf and myself both in our late 20's, have fairly high levels of education, and have both just started good careers. We have been together for over 5 years, and are NOT planning on EVER having children.

Should we not be allowed to get married too? (We aren't planning on ever getting married either, but thats not the point).

Even though we are not planning on having a family, we could easily go out and get married tomorrow, your post is ridiculous.

I really really don't understand why gay marriage is even an issue. Really who cares, I really fail to see any negative impact on society by allowing gay marriage.

I agree with 4X4 on religion, its antiquated and your post just goes on to support that idea. It was originally to ensure that children were produced, women took care of the child, and the man supported the family, well thats simply not the case these days.

If you truly believe the garbage you just posted then, the only people who should be allowed to get married, are those heterosexual couples that are religious and planning on having a family.

So I guess we should have marriage cops that go around and make sure that those who are married are raising normal, healthy, responsible children or else they lose their right to get married..

Finally, the argument about raising normal children, is asinine. At this point there are WAY more examples of hetersexual couples abusing and neglecting children. Obviously there will be those who do not make good parents, on both sides, homosexual and heterosexual, so thats a silly argument either way.

You have to think about it this way. Its generally a more difficult process for a gay couple (at least men) to get custody of child. Therefore those gay couples that have a child, have to REALLY want a child, which would likely mean they will really care for the child. Of course there would be challenges along the way, but thats the case for every couple. Now for heterosexual couples, its much much much easier to have a child you did not intend to have, and may not want. You see that EVERY day. So you tell me which is worse?

[Thor]

Best said by this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44J3G_llV-E

Keith Olbermann on California's Prop 8