Homosexuality

[Lights]

Reproduction? Don't care.
Religion? Don't care.
Tradition? Don't care.

Tipsy is right, of course. A homosexual cannot marry his lover any more than a heterosexual could marry the same sex if he up and decided to. But, of course, this lack is only felt by the homosexual community.

My only question to if same-sex marriages should continue to be denied is.. why? Honestly, why? Is it your religious beliefs that keep you from wanting it? If so, you should be ashamed, as you well know America is for freedom from religous oppression. Just as you would HATE to be forced to follow Islamic daily practice, so do homosexuals HATE to be forced to live their lives according to the traditions of their Christian neighbors. If it isn't religion, is it the belief that homosexual marriage would somehow destroy society or weaken the "strength" of marriage (And how marriage is considered strong, with the divorce rates, I dont know)? Where is your backing for such extreme claims? Is it that you fear allowing homosexuals will somehow transmit to allowing men marrying their dogs? Now, honestly, no intelligent person has this fear, they just try to use it as a reason. Homosexuals are adult, consenting, and loving human beings that wish to be united in a legal, civil marriage, granted the same benefits as their heterosexual comrades. Why should this not be allowed? Because one of them doesn't have a vagina?

I just want to understand the real reason behind why same-sex marriages shouldnt be allowed, for right now I can find none.

 

[betaalpha5]

That was originally written by a site FOR same-sex marriage, Venice. It's all sarcasm! I love that, thanks Beta.

at least you got it thanks a bunch

and yes i did not write this, i just knew somebody was going to talk smack about it sooner or later. and don't kill the messenger

i have no problem with same sex marriage. my teacher got married during the san francisco thing a few months ago. when the supreme court at the time said that all marriage licences were void, i asked my teacher what she thought. she just said "i know we wouldn't be "married", i did it to make a stand"

something along those lines

 

[Laharl]

As I said previously Canada has ruled that it cannot disallow same sex marriage (Federal court ruling). Now it's on the opponents to prove their point.

 

[Venice_native]

Well it seemed to be fairly sarcastic, but I have to defend my views regardless.

 

[Tipsy]

As I said previously Canada has ruled that it cannot disallow same sex marriage (Federal court ruling). Now it's on the opponents to prove their point.

If I understand this correctly, it is a matter of pure law (as in judicial branch), not does it benefit the general welfare (which would involve legislative branch). When I was referring to the burden of proof part was for legislative branch purposes, not judicial branch purposes in regards to general welfare. I believe I have already clearly pointed out there is absolutely no discrimination or rights issue by law whatsoever and I have not seen a single person dispute that. If Canadian law is similar to United States law at all in this respect that ruling should be overturned.

If anything, the only thing people against same sex marriage in Canada have to do is show that the 'right' to same sex marriage never existed and because of this the court has absolutely no power in this matter.

My argument so far is that:
1) There is no civil rights issue at all because marriage is a secular state sponsored institution that is a privilege and not a right. Continuing on this point, heterosexual and homosexual people have the exact same rights. This means the judicial branch of government in any way allowing same sex marriage is abusing their position of power by legislating from the bench.

2) This makes same sex marriage a legislative issue because no court has any right whatsoever to make a ruling in favor of same sex marriage due to jurisdiction. It is now on the shoulders of pro-same sex marriage people to show how same sex marriage 'benefits the general welfare' of society (or however the legislative branch's power is defined in your country's constitution).

My only question to if same-sex marriages should continue to be denied is.. why? Honestly, why?

There is no answer to this needed beyond it is (for the US's purpose) un-American. Why is this? Morals? Values? Anything remotely close to this? No. It is simply against the basis of the United States - our constitution.

Men were not made to have sex with men, its common sense. Penis goes into vagina, repeat a couple hundred times, you ejaculate, and a baby may be concieved.

Ta-Da, my arguement about people bieng gay, based soley on the fact that men, biologically, are not born to have sex with men, but with women.

Plain and simple, the reproduction is benefited to state interests, but that is not the sole purpose of marriage.

Note: Keep in mind my knowledge of how the Canadian government works is extremely limited.

 

[Zerglite]

Plain and simple, the reproduction is benefited to state interests, but that is not the sole purpose of marriage.

Note: Keep in mind my knowledge of how the Canadian government works is extremely limited.

i said nothing of marriage, i said something of homosexuality itself

MEN are NOT born to have sex with MEN, but with WOMEN.

 

[betaalpha5]

Well it seemed to be fairly sarcastic, but I have to defend my views regardless.

i kow i know, i'm not trying to say you're wrong. i knew when i posted that somebody was going to attack it. i took the risk i don't really care. but..... :tnt

 

[Laharl]

Actually, the Canadian government passed a law (completely passsed now I believe) to allow Same-sex marriage.

How does the US government work? Bigotry, hatred and greed. I'm glad I live in a competently run (at home) country that respects the rights of minorities.

Note: I would rather be severly mutilated in many ways than marry a woman. Just a thought.

 

[Tipsy]

Actually, the Canadian government passed a law (completely passsed now I believe) to allow Same-sex marriage.

Let's take a look at that.

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to upholding the Constitution of Canada, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;

Homosexuals have exactly same rights as heterosexuals.

WHEREAS the courts in a majority of the provinces and in one territory have recognized that the right to equality without discrimination requires that couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex have equal access to marriage for civil purposes;

Since when do courts have the jurisdiction to take on the role of the legislative branch of government?

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that many Canadian couples of the same sex have married in reliance on those court decisions;

People acting on a Supreme Court decision that never should have happened in what way justifies that decision?

WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

I have yet to see any evidence that homosexuals do not have the exact same rights meaning there is no lack of equality and there is no discrimination.

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Parliament of Canada has legislative jurisdiction over marriage but does not have the jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex;

The wording here is somewhat strange, but from what I am gathering from what it says, it looks like the court just protected (created) a right that has never existed before which is not in its’ jurisdiction.

WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

This doesn't actually apply to the legalizing same sex marriage part of the document, but to the "It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."

WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;

Once again applies to the "It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs" part.

WHEREAS, in light of those considerations, the Parliament of Canada’s commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil purposes;

There were the exact same rights before this was passed, I fail to see how this is in anyway a matter of equality or discrimination.

WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;

This is the part I have been waiting for someone to debate. How exactly is this providing for the general welfare of society or the institution of marriage. You can say it strengthens it, but the burden of proof is on pro-same sex people to show why.

AND WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended by legislation to couples of the same sex;

All of these are already present before this was passed.

1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

This is just the body of what is happening for the reasons I just attacked in the preamble for C-38.

If the only reasons they have are the ones listed above, then this law does not seem to be within their power to pass because it is not providing for the general welfare of [Canadian] society.

How does the US government work? Bigotry, hatred and greed. I'm glad I live in a competently run (at home) country that respects the rights of minorities.

I fail to see how the United States is not respecting the rights of its' minorities considering they are the exact same rights.

 

[N[U]TS]

What are your thoughts on homosexuality in general? Do you think it should be outlawed or what? Personally I dislike anything the state does for homosexuality rights such as gay marriage.

1. i dont think outlawing homosexuality would be successfull...it would be like Prohibition all over againg except dealing with sexuality.

2. I look at it from a christian point of view and a productive point of view. christianity forbids it and just seeing it from a productive point of view sorry to say but 2 penis' does not equal a baby.

3. I dont understand why homosexuals want to prove their love with a sheet of paper...if they truely loved eachother then it really wouldnt matter to them.

 

[Venice_native]

1. i dont think outlawing homosexuality would be successfull...it would be like Prohibition all over againg except dealing with sexuality.

Well that is true, so I don't see why it shouldn't be embraced

2. I look at it from a christian point of view and a productive point of view. christianity forbids it and just seeing it from a productive point of view sorry to say but 2 penis' does not equal a baby.

It doesn't, but 2 teenagers do, and all too often are babies forced to grow up in foster homes, going from home to home quite frequently. At the least, homosexual marriages would allow children to be adopted and put into homes with loving parents.

3. I dont understand why homosexuals want to prove their love with a sheet of paper...if they truely loved eachother then it really wouldnt matter to them.

Well, there are a lot of protest rallies where homosexuals marry each other in front of large crowds (the marriage license is usually invalidated by court), so it doesn't really make a difference to most homosexuals, but it couldn't hurt to have that option legalized.

 

[Forged]

The question is, does same sex marriage help provide for the general welfare of the country?

It is a matter of civil rights, I personally feel civil rights provide for the general welfare of the country.

 

[Tipsy]

It is a matter of civil rights, I personally feel civil rights provide for the general welfare of the country.

You’re right, civil rights do provide for the general welfare of the country. However, where you are wrong is that same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. There is a phrase I have been using throughout this entire thread – "secular state institution", "secular institution", "secular state sponsored institution", etc. And a portion of this phrase I call upon once again. Marriage is an institution, plain and simple.

Maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal, but let’s start demanding everyone must have the right to be involved in every institution. For this example, I'll use the Congress of the United States. Congress, like marriage, is an institution, an 'exclusionary institution' at that. Are you saying it is a civil rights issue to say let me be a representative from, let's say Nebraska? I mean, I've got tons of opinions on legislative matters and could clearly express them with probably millions of other Americans. For that matter, let’s just knock out elections all together because since it's a civil right to be a member of an institution, it is a civil right for me to be a member of Congress. Would this be inefficient and not provide for the general welfare? Most likely, but if being in the institution of marriage is a civil right, so is this.

Hopefully that example put it in perspective. I will close this post with my most repeated phrase of this thread – Civil marriage is a secular state sponsored institution, not a civil right.

 

[CelestialBadger]

The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Next.

 

[Laharl]

I'm sorry, Tipsy. But it was passed quite a while ago here, and it isn't about to go anywhere.

Badger, the bible is hardly a moral piece of writing. In fact, it is nothing more than a faulty and biased history book, which glorifies the history of the Hebrew people via propaganda, and blatent lies.

Next.

 

[The King]

The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Next.

And what of those who don't believe in such things?

 

[Forged]

it was sarcasm...

 

[Tipsy]

I'm sorry, Tipsy. But it was passed quite a while ago here, and it isn't about to go anywhere.

Just because something is passed or deemed constitutional does not actually make it constitutional.

 

[Snagg]

It's impossible to satisfy everybody. There will always be a small percentage of the population unhappy. If you satisfy these gay people (1% of population) why do you guys discriminate those who like marrying to marry several wives? Just shows the power of these darn lobbyists.

Cool new edit button.

Just don't see how you guys can allow gay marriage and now allow other kinds of marriages.

There should be one kind of marriage, and one kind of marriage only. Any more and it'll open several paths to alter the definition of marriage. Definition of marriage must be strong if we are to have a strong society.

 

[The King]

If you're saying that ever homosexual is that way because of choice, you are grossly mistaken, sir.