Klein wants Referendum

[Hakan]

I'll put my logic up against your logic any day.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha!

You have to know something about logic first before you start hedging on it.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 13 2004, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 13 2004, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You really don't consider or want debate the thoughts of people you disagree with, do you? You just take little parts of comments people make out of context and ridicule that person. It may surprise you to know you speak for far fewer people than you claim. I'll put my logic up against your logic any day. The rights of a society must take precedence over the rights of the individual. If any changes are to be made to the way a society the society should make that decision, not some minority and not the court.

There has been plenty of debate in this thread.

When someone says "I don't care about their rights and what I believe is the truth whether you like it or not" the time to debate is obviously over.

You can try to put your logic up against mine all you want. You are not using logic when you trot out some religious cliché and declare it an absolute universal truth that everyone should live by.

As for "society should make that decision", I think the horse is out the barn for you on that one. Not so long ago Canadian society voted in another 138 Liberals, 19 NDP and 54 BQ members and everyone and their dog knew the party line on the same-sex marriage issue. You moral-majority is a serious minority.

So what's next? After this passes into law the sitting government, the people and the courts will have decided pretty overwhelmingly to see this change through. Who will you call out next to be the final authority on this? The clergy? Yourself? [/b][/quote]
I think you're trumpetting a decisive victory too soon... last I heard, the Liberal Party was pretty split, even Cabinet ministers are talking about breaking rank...and the vast majority of the 99 strong Conservatives are voting no... it will be very close, and maybe Harper and the boys will be able to shoot it down.

And as for this rhetoric that people opposed to gay marriage are homophobes, bigots, religious or incompetent... wow is all I can say. Last time I checked, I've hung out with gays, not a bigot, on the outs with most of organized religion, and nearly on the Dean's list at the University, and I'm opposed to gay marriage. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't fit your exacting mold.

I think this is nothing but tyranny of the minority... selfish people with enough time and money to ram something through the court and down society's throat with a government in office thats handcuffed by minority status desperate to do something they hope will make everyone feel good about them, forget about their shady past, in order to win the next election.

The real argument, and some of the brighter posters have alluded to it, its the rights of the individual v. the rights of society and tradition. Yes...democracy defends minorities, yes... discrimination of someone because they are gay is protected... Those are all facts. That being said, this is not a slam-dunk case yet... the fact is marriage is technically open to everyone so long as they follow its protocol (ie: marry someone of the opposite sex) and if they do not, they can live in common, legally change their last names, share finances, and live as a couple by every sense of the word, just as many, many heterosexual couples do today rather than marrying. This is not a case of persecution... this is a case of saying, hey... we're not getting our cake and eating it too, so we want so change it. Slavery was persecution (and we knew it in Roman times), women were persecuted (we knew that one for a long time too, so it wasn't an epiphany), Blacks and other minorities including gays were attacked for who they are, and that was wrong and addressed, and that is the spirit of these declarations that some of these posters posted. This is someone whining about semantics.

Discrimination naturally exists in some way, shape or form... earlier in this thread I demonstrated that affirmative action is itself, discriminatory. The real problem is when to draw the line. A lot of people are just like me saying, look, we have to draw a line somewhere because once we go down this road, we can never look back. This will set a precedent that every nutcase down the line can point to, and since we haven't drawn a line on enforcement of discrimination, they'd win.

Think some dude can't marry his horse?? think again... if we fail to allow him this, we will be discriminating him by sexual orientation, which is also protected under the charter, and not specific enough to preclude bestiality... Thats why I'm opposed to gay marriage. Call it the slippery-slope fallacy if it makes you sleep better at night, but as anyone who has examined law knows, every precedent matters, and this one is a doozy to let some very disturbing things pass in the future. The line has to be drawn... if precedence was not valid, I'd say, sure, why not, go nuts, and join the couples in divorce court... I plan to be a lawyer, I'll make a killing off gay divorces if I choose... but there's too much else riding on this, and call me paranoid or whatever, but its there clear as day. Remember, frivolous US lawsuits began with one goof getting lucky in a court. That McDonalds case with the hot coffee is damning every corporation in lawsuits now.

[Hakan]

Discrimination naturally exists in some way, shape or form... earlier in this thread I demonstrated that affirmative action is itself, discriminatory. The real problem is when to draw the line. A lot of people are just like me saying, look, we have to draw a line somewhere because once we go down this road, we can never look back. This will set a precedent that every nutcase down the line can point to, and since we haven't drawn a line on enforcement of discrimination, they'd win.

Has the slippery slope argument not been completely disproven through the course of this thread yet? Maybe it's your self induced myopia instead of the inherently fallacious slippery slope which you keep reverting back to which is the stumbling point here.

[peter12]

My only concern is what gay marriage could potentially do to the traditional definition of marriage. There is not enough evidence to prove that gay couples raising kids can do it in as stable a fashion as straight couples.


There could be a blurring of the defined sexual identities and a diminishing of the concept of lifelong commitment. Emotional bonding, critical to all human relationship, is also not given a priority. The concept of sexual purity, a critical fiber in the weave of lifelong commitment, is not given as important of a place. Marriage becomes falls short of its intent and potential and becomes little more than a convenient and loosely defined union. The result would be co-habitation and short-term relationships void of the potential for the common good.

Thats right, straight from my poli essay.

[Natt]

Originally posted by peter12@Dec 14 2004, 05:16 AM
My only concern is what gay marriage could potentially do to the traditional definition of marriage. There is not enough evidence to prove that gay couples raising kids can do it in as stable a fashion as straight couples.


There could be a blurring of the defined sexual identities and a diminishing of the concept of lifelong commitment. Emotional bonding, critical to all human relationship, is also not given a priority. The concept of sexual purity, a critical fiber in the weave of lifelong commitment, is not given as important of a place. Marriage becomes falls short of its intent and potential and becomes little more than a convenient and loosely defined union. The result would be co-habitation and short-term relationships void of the potential for the common good.

Thats right, straight from my poli essay.

There's TONS of evidence that gay couples are capable to raising children in an extremely stable and loving environment. My parents have known and worked with such couples. The news has recently featured stories on gay families as well. One specific gay couple with two young boys said that legalization of same sex marriages also made their family STRONGER because they could now consider themselves as a true family, like everyone else.

Regardless, your capabilities as a parent have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Ask all the straight parents who ended up having children who were gay.

Before you make statements or form opinions like that, you should really do some deeper research. I hope the person marking your poli paper thinks so too.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan@Dec 13 2004, 10:10 PM

Has the slippery slope argument not been completely disproven through the course of this thread yet? Maybe it's your self induced myopia instead of the inherently fallacious slippery slope which you keep reverting back to which is the stumbling point here.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. No one has disproved the slippery slope theory when it comes to legal precedent. Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Natt+Dec 13 2004, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Natt @ Dec 13 2004, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Dec 14 2004, 05:16 AM
My only concern is what gay marriage could potentially do to the traditional definition of marriage. There is not enough evidence to prove that gay couples raising kids can do it in as stable a fashion as straight couples.


There could be a blurring of the defined sexual identities and a diminishing of the concept of lifelong commitment. Emotional bonding, critical to all human relationship, is also not given a priority. The concept of sexual purity, a critical fiber in the weave of lifelong commitment, is not given as important of a place. Marriage becomes falls short of its intent and potential and becomes little more than a convenient and loosely defined union. The result would be co-habitation and short-term relationships void of the potential for the common good.

Thats right, straight from my poli essay.

There's TONS of evidence that gay couples are capable to raising children in an extremely stable and loving environment. My parents have known and worked with such couples. The news has recently featured stories on gay families as well. One specific gay couple with two young boys said that legalization of same sex marriages also made their family STRONGER because they could now consider themselves as a true family, like everyone else.

Regardless, your capabilities as a parent have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Ask all the straight parents who ended up having children who were gay.

Before you make statements or form opinions like that, you should really do some deeper research. I hope the person marking your poli paper thinks so too. [/b][/quote]
Actually I got a B+, so obviously it was good enough for the Political Science department.

My research showed that only 1 in 7 homosexuals have had less than 50 partners over their lifetime. I am not judging that at all, alot of straight people are the exact same way. But this points to a possible inability to maintain a stable relationship in which children can thrive.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

My research showed that only 1 in 7 homosexuals have had less than 50 partners over their lifetime.

Just out of curiousity, where did you get your numbers from?

But this points to a possible inability to maintain a stable relationship in which children can thrive.

Is it possible that having legalized same-sex marriage would make those relationships with children more stable?


*edited for totally screwed up post.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Hakan@Dec 13 2004, 11:10 PM

Has the slippery slope argument not been completely disproven through the course of this thread yet? Maybe it's your self induced myopia instead of the inherently fallacious slippery slope which you keep reverting back to which is the stumbling point here.

This discussion has disproved nothing yet because you've made a lot of statements but backed none of it up with evidence. The slippery slope cannot be disproved just because you say it's disproved.

If we look back on the history of gay demands the slippery slope is very evident. With each demand it's been, "Just give us the right to have a gay parade and we will ask for no more." The Vriend case is an interesting case. He had a teaching position at a Christian College when he declare he was a practicing homosexual. The college had no choice but to let him go according to their teachings. The question is, will the gay community next force their rights on every church as well? I would suggest that is one of the next steps on their agenda. The gay community doesn't seem to be able to tolerate anybody who holds a different life-view from them.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 10:23 PM
r it will be very close, and maybe Harper and the boys will be able to shoot it down.

I think you mean Harper and the good ol' boys.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 09:50 PM
Perhaps you weren't paying attention. No one has disproved the slippery slope theory when it comes to legal precedent. Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.

Here you go: the Federal Human Rights Commission, addressing the gay marriage issue, states flat out that that the justification for legalizing gay marriage wouldn't apply for polygamy:

This Committee has also heard arguments that a change in the legislation would prompt unions of various sorts, including polygamy and others. The reason we see the ban on same-sex civil marriages as discrimination is because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is included in our Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as unlawful because Parliament chose to include it in the legislation. Canadian human rights law has not extended the definition of sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions

And even if you ignored this, the fact that it's been 40 years since we legalized gay sex and no one has challanged the incest or polygamy laws in court is proof enough that it's not naive to assume that it won't happen with gay marriage.

Now would you please drop this stupid argument.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by peter12@Dec 13 2004, 10:05 PM
Actually I got a B+, so obviously it was good enough for the Political Science department.

My research showed that only 1 in 7 homosexuals have had less than 50 partners over their lifetime. I am not judging that at all, alot of straight people are the exact same way. But this points to a possible inability to maintain a stable relationship in which children can thrive.

Normally, using an argument in a B+ paper for an undergraduate university class would be rock-solid proof that your argument is bulletproof.

Unfortunately, here you overlooked the fact that gay partners already have adoption right across most of Canada, and can reproduce via surrogate mothers or sperm donors. That means that gay marriage will have absolutely no influence on whether children are raised in "unstable" gay relationships or not.

Conclusion: Your B+ argument is baseless

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 14 2004, 12:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 14 2004, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 09:50 PM
Perhaps you weren't paying attention. No one has disproved the slippery slope theory when it comes to legal precedent. Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.

Here you go: the Federal Human Rights Commission, addressing the gay marriage issue, states flat out that that the justification for legalizing gay marriage wouldn't apply for polygamy:

This Committee has also heard arguments that a change in the legislation would prompt unions of various sorts, including polygamy and others. The reason we see the ban on same-sex civil marriages as discrimination is because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is included in our Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act recognizes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as unlawful because Parliament chose to include it in the legislation. Canadian human rights law has not extended the definition of sexual orientation beyond heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions

And even if you ignored this, the fact that it's been 40 years since we legalized gay sex and no one has challanged the incest or polygamy laws in court is proof enough that it's not naive to assume that it won't happen with gay marriage.

Now would you please drop this stupid argument. [/b][/quote]
Thank you for bringing up that source... but it doesn't solve anything except state where we stand today. All one has to do is challenge the definition of sexual orientation... which has clearly been done before to include bisexuality and homosexuality, cause you know that wasn't around since day 1. We are creating a roadmap to irreversible change. Step one, challenge the definition of sexual orientation...remember, you only need one ultra-liberal (liberal as in free thinking, not the political party) judge to say so once, and suddenly, this statement that "Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions" becomes as irrelevant as "women are not persons" stated many moons ago. Next, you follow the gays to demand legal marriage... and there's precedence all the way down the line. Thats why this needs to be put in perspective.

The reason no one has challenged polygamy is because the government is scared of it and are letting it slide for now. Polygamy is being quietly tolerated, but you know they are licking their lips at the idea of gays getting this... here's some bedtime reading on it:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/polygamy/polygamy.html

Note this paragraph:
"It soon became evident that the BC government would not proceed with charges. The government concluded that if charges were laid against the polygamists, they would raise the issue of their religious freedom as a defense under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end, the BC government was afraid they would lose such a challenge says BC Attorney General, Geoff Plant."

But yeah, I'm out in outer space here... they are afraid to bring this to life, cause they know they will lose this one, and the definitions will be changed, just like I've been saying. Now, once the gays are allowed to marry, thats gonna seriously tip the scales in the polygamist favor, and don't try to pretend it won't. Every piece of legislation helps, especially one where a minority group demands special rights and gets it. Technically, according to the Charter, it would be illegal for the government to grant special privledges to one group and not another.

Incest is something that god willing, will never be legalized or decriminalized. But, who knows... we go down this road, get gays and polygamists married... maybe the brothers and uncles might get ideas and form associations. Just because it won't happen within 10 minutes of gay marriage approving doesn't mean it won't happen as a direct or indirect result of it down the line. The population might be staunchly opposed to it, 99% to 1%, but politicians and lawmakers have to adhere to the charter...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 10:50 PM
Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.

I can't offer anything that proves that so instead how about you find me an animal trainer that is talented enough to coerce a donkey or a parakeet to consciously sign a marriage certificate and demonstrate they know what they are getting into and then we have something to debate.

What are the horse-humpers and koi-inserters waiting for? Would a few same-sex adults getting married really give them the courage to come out of their barns and ponds to pubilically profess their undying devotion to the animals that they wish to sexually violate?

Just arguing the point makes me feel like I've swallowed some bad bait. Same-sex marriage and bestiality have about as much to do with each other as heterosexual marriage and , umm, screwing a badger.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 14 2004, 01:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 14 2004, 01:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 13 2004, 10:50 PM
Find me something that proves that if gay marriage passes, we won't have to legalize polygamy or bestiality, and don't say because no one will try, cause thats just being naive.

I can't offer anything that proves that so instead how about you find me an animal trainer that is talented enough to coerce a donkey or a parakeet to consciously sign a marriage certificate and demonstrate they know what they are getting into and then we have something to debate.

What are the horse-humpers and koi-inserters waiting for? Would a few same-sex adults getting married really give them the courage to come out of their barns and ponds to pubilically profess their undying devotion to the animals that they wish to sexually violate?

Just arguing the point makes me feel like I've swallowed some bad bait. Same-sex marriage and bestiality have about as much to do with each other as heterosexual marriage and , umm, screwing a badger. [/b][/quote]
my answer to your question of people coming out of the woodwork is "god, I hope not..." but the argument could be made in the 50s and 60s that who would come out of hiding, admit they are gay and ask for marriage??

As for Parakeets signing licenses... animals don't have rights... it would be the right of the person to have the animal be his wife? you know, like a shotgun wedding...

Jeez, now I feel sick to my stomach... maybe we should all let this argument go for a while... at least until the vote.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 14 2004, 01:26 AM

my answer to your question of people coming out of the woodwork is "god, I hope not..." but the argument could be made in the 50s and 60s that who would come out of hiding, admit they are gay and ask for marriage??

Thud.

Thats the sound of your argument hitting the bottom of the barrel.

[Mike F]

Step one, challenge the definition of sexual orientation

Wrong. Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation includes gay, hetero and bisexual. If you want to play the bestiality card it would come under sexual orientation I suppose, but polygamy doesn't.

To reiterate from my previous quote: Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions

remember, you only need one ultra-liberal (liberal as in free thinking, not the political party) judge to say so once, and suddenly, this statement that "Sexual orientation does not include polygamy or other types of unions" becomes as irrelevant as "women are not persons"

Wrong. If a BC provincial Court Judge made that ruling you would then need the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada to agree. That's a minimum of 9 judges. But again, that's moot since you clearly misunterstood what the quote said.

The government concluded that if charges were laid against the polygamists, they would raise the issue of their religious freedom as a defense under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

If you read the quote I provided carefully you would realize that gay marriage was legalized on the bases of non-discrimination against sexual orientation, while the quote you provided clearly states that the polygamy law would be challanged under the freedom of religion laws.

Polygamists couldn't raise gay marriage in support of their claim any more than a murderer could point to another man's acquittal for tax evasion to support his defense. These two issues are not at all legally linked, and don't pretend they are.

Once again: please drop this stupid argument.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Dec 13 2004, 10:14 PM
Bottom line is................................and people wont like it.........but...............those who are opposed to Gay marriage are either: a) religous extremists b)homophobes c)biggots d) or they just dont understand basic human rights, equality or the canadian charter or rights and freedoms.

Get into the 21st century, this kind of discrimination is sick.

well thats a lovely statement...personally I could care less...HOWEVER...since when has marriage become a right? Marriage is a religous "event" as far as Im concerned.
We do NOT discriminate against Gays living together or practising whatever they want to practise.
All of this yak about people being HOMOPHOBES because they do not agree with the practise of homosexuality or the marriage of same is pure and complete bunk. It is simply an antagonistic way to force people to shut up. Put to vote I would think that it would be just as easily overturned here as it was in the US elections.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by GerryCheevers@Dec 14 2004, 05:00 PM
well thats a lovely statement...personally I could care less...HOWEVER...since when has marriage become a right? Marriage is a religous "event" as far as Im concerned.

There are civil marriages that have nothing to do with religon. In fact, my sister was married by a judge, not a religous leader. I suppose you're against that also.

[peter12]

Originally posted by KootenayFlamesFan@Dec 14 2004, 12:13 AM
My research showed that only 1 in 7 homosexuals have had less than 50 partners over their lifetime.

Just out of curiousity, where did you get your numbers from?

But this points to a possible inability to maintain a stable relationship in which children can thrive.

Is it possible that having legalized same-sex marriage would make those relationships with children more stable?


*edited for totally screwed up post.

I deleted my reference list so I can't find the address. As I remember it was either a Danish or Dutch study on their respective populatons.

I definitely think your second point is a good one. All I really want is for society to take a bit more time to figure out if this is the best thing. I personally am all for civil unions as well.