Homosexuality

[Tipsy]

Yes, but you've yet to prove that it's unconstitutional to allow it.

Yes, I have. If there is no present reason showing how allowing same sex marriage 'provides for the general welfare' of society it is a legislative abuse for it to be passed. My argument is that it is an abuse to 1) ban it and 2) allow it. If either of these are done it is a complete abuse of legislative power. This is because, even with the broadest interpretation of the Constitution, the power to create same sex marriage is not in their power. Since it is unconstitional for same sex marriage to be banned or allowed (because the abuse of legislative powers is unconstitutional), same sex marriage cannot constitutionally exist.

Also, if you are admitting that there was complete equality before C-38 was passed (and same sex marriage legalized in Canada), then the reasoning from which C-38 is wrong.

And just to clear it up because I am slightly confused at the moment, are you or are you not saying that homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals when same sex marriage is not legalized?

 

[Laharl]

I'm saying I don't care; so long as I get what I want. Which I have. There is actually previous little reason to ban same-sex marriage, or to merely not allow it.

I am as likely (emotionally and physically) to find a member of the opposite gender attractive as I am to vote conservative.

The ultimate question: Heterosexual couples would have the ability to marry somebody they actually find attracted, homosexual couples would not.

Side note: What self respecting woman would marry somebody who is physically repulsed by her anyways?

 

[Tipsy]

I'm saying I don't care; so long as I get what I want. Which I have. There is actually previous little reason to ban same-sex marriage, or to merely not allow it.

So you are saying you don't care if you have to break the constitution to get what you want?

The ultimate question: Heterosexual couples would have the ability to marry somebody they actually find attracted, homosexual couples would not.

Attraction holds no weight in civil marriage. That question should hold no weight in this debate because we are discussing a state sponsored institution.

Side note: What self respecting woman would marry somebody who is physically repulsed by her anyways?

Perhaps love or something along those lines, but this shouldn't have anything to do with the same sex marriage debate because the government has no business of if you find or spouse attractive, do you love your spouse, etc.

 

[Forged]

it is not unconstitutional to deny a right that is not embodied in the constitution

That is a logical fallacy sir. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but in the United States we are allowed to do this thing called amend the constituion. We have done it quite a few times in the last 200 years.
On that note in my reading of the constituion and constant lecturings in goverment class, I don't recall anything in the constituion about civil rights either. Where civil rights created wrongfully?

 

[Tipsy]

That is a logical fallacy sir. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but in the United States we are allowed to do this thing called amend the constituion. We have done it quite a few times in the last 200 years.
On that note in my reading of the constituion and constant lecturings in goverment class, I don't recall anything in the constituion about civil rights either. Where civil rights created wrongfully?

If you put that quote in context it should be seen that I was referring to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cannot amend to Constitution and it cannot create rights that do not exist. Civil rights would be created wrongfully if they were created by the Supreme Court (and this is speaking of the civil right as a whole, not spreading equality for preexisting civil rights already given to other people).

Quote in context:
"It should be completely clear now that the courts have no reason to be sanctioning same sex marriages at the current time because that is something for, as another dissenting judge put it when speaking of the courts, that they have the "authority to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes." There is no civil rights issue here. And this is the process in which a large portion of the 'Gay Rights Movement' wishes to gain their special right.

The point of all of that – it is not unconstitutional to deny a right that is not embodied in the constitution. There is no right for the courts to be protecting, and it is an abuse of judicial power to legislate from the bench."

The entire post in which the portion you quoted dealt solely with the judicial branch attempting to break the checks and balances by legislating from the bench.

 

[Laharl]

Actually, it was added by the House of Commons of Canada, and that is their job. Pure and simple - their job is to pass laws, and they alone can create rights and freedoms. They passed the law, approved by the senate. Now it's in. Everything else is null & void. Hell, the court ruling was just them checking if they CAN do it; it has no legal weight aside from that.

 

[Tipsy]

Actually, it was added by the House of Commons of Canada, and that is their job. Pure and simple - their job is to pass laws, and they alone can create rights and freedoms. They passed the law, approved by the senate. Now it's in. Everything else is null & void. Hell, the court ruling was just them checking if they CAN do it; it has no legal weight aside from that.

It is their job to create rights and freedoms. The key to it is that they cannot create any right or freedom they want, they are only vested with a certain amount of power by the constitution. With the broadest possible interpretation of the constitution, the interpretation giving the most possible power to the legislative body, they can pass anything that provides for the general welfare (along with other restriction that don't apply to this situation).

C-38's only justification was about equality and that has been completely shown as wrong. The current law in Canada is not constitutional because there is no reason stated for its' existence that is valid (see my responses to its' preamble).

I have seen nothing that shows me that legalizing same sex marriage provides for the general welfare. Even at that, it is completely debatable if heterosexual marriage provides for the general welfare (which I support the abolition of as well), but that is another discussion all together.

If there is no equality issue which it has been shown there isn't, there is nothing in the constitution that allows for the legislative body to create that specific right/freedom because nothing has been shown as to how it provides for the general welfare. The legislative body only has so much power, and allowing same sex marriage is a power they do not possess.

 

[Laharl]

All that matters is that the court system declared the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, and therefore allows the same-sex marriage bill to be passed.

[/debate]

 

[Tipsy]

All that matters is that the court system declared the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, and therefore allows the same-sex marriage bill to be passed.

[/debate]

It said that there was an equality issue. They were wrong as has been pointed out in multiple posts.

 

[Laharl]

According to the Canadian legal system there was, but not anymore [/debate]

 

[Tipsy]

According to the Canadian legal system there was, but not anymore [/debate]

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. "They said there is inequality so there must be some". I have given an argument why there is no inequality. Please flaw the argument because as it stands now it seems there is a definite argument of why there is no inequality.

 

[Laharl]

Because both hetero and homosexuals can marry a woman? Yeah, right. As if that's going to happen any time soon. Let's see:

1. A heterosexual is able to marry somebody they actually care about in an emotional, and physical sense.

2. Homosexuals can not.

And yes, the ability to marry somebody you care about in that way is the entire point.

 

[Tipsy]

Because both hetero and homosexuals can marry a woman? Yeah, right. As if that's going to happen any time soon. Let's see:

1. A heterosexual is able to marry somebody they actually care about in an emotional, and physical sense.

2. Homosexuals can not.

And yes, the ability to marry somebody you care about in that way is the entire point.

Whether you care about someone or not has no influence on the decision. Love, attraction, caring, etc is not a factor in civil marriage.

 

[Laharl]

Then that defeats the entire purpose of marriage, apart from the legal benefits. Which, of course, under the traditional definition of marriage same-sex couples are denied.

 

[The Subtle Knife]

The entire purpose of marriage is for two people of the opposite sex to join in a legal and spiritual union. Nothing more. If you want to have sex with dogs, inanimate objects, or other men, do it in the privacy of your own home and leave it out of the churches. It's that simple. Just because you want something it doesn't make it more legitimate.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

I don't know if this has been said, but...

You're right, T.S.K. , marriage is a legal binding. The moment it became a legal binding, it seperated it from the whole church thing. Well, you can have marriages in churches and what not..but it is 'owned' by the state, not churches or religion. The christian religion obviously doesn't like the idea of gay marriage..but good for them. As far as I'm concerned, once marriage became a legal issue, it's out of their hands completely.

 

[Tipsy]

Then that defeats the entire purpose of marriage, apart from the legal benefits. Which, of course, under the traditional definition of marriage same-sex couples are denied.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with love. Perhaps if we would examine the roots of civil marriage, which would be religious marriage, where love and so forth were involved, we would see its' inclusion. But, as has been pointed out, the minute marriage became a federal institution, it became separated from religious marriage. Not involving love defeats the point of religious marriage, not civil [and secular] marriage.

Which, of course, under the traditional definition of marriage same-sex couples are denied.

Do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same sex? Do homosexuals? The answer is the same for both, there is no lack of equality and there is no discrimination.

 

[Laharl]

Do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Yes.

Do homosexuals?

Yes.

The answer is same for both, there is no lack of equality and there is no discrimination

 

[Tipsy]

Whether or not the rights are the same now is besides the question. If the rights were equal before, the legalization of same sex marriage was an abuse of legislative, should be ruled constitution, and nullified. You keep saying, "

Just give me a yes or a no and tell me why. Do you, or do you not see that from the perspective of the law put into place by the government [before same sex marriage was legalized] there was equality? I don't want an "I don't care", I want a completely forward yes or no with a completely forward why.

(I will once again point out love, attractive, etc are not taken in account whatsoever in civil marriage).

 

[Forged]

Do you, or do you not see that from the perspective of the law put into place by the government [before same sex marriage was legalized] there was equality? I don't want an "I don't care", I want a completely forward yes or no with a completely forward why.

Here is my answer, same sex marriage was never truelly banned, it wasn't untill recentlly when 'them fags' wanted to get married that we came up with all this marriage = man + women bullshit. Seeing as when the marriage laws where written into existance they felt no need to elaborate. Does this mean the recent or semi-recent laws banning homosexual marriage are just as unconstiutional as the attempts at re-legalizing it?