Homosexuality

[Venice_native]

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

It's ok, it adds to my collection of split posts I am making in the void. It grows fast.

Now, some people believe homosexuality to be a compulsive thing. As; people have no control over it, but with treatment it can be changed.

I believe that to a point. I do not think that you can change the way somone thinks quite so easily, but it could be as simple as as compulsive disorder.

 

[The King]

I agree to some extent on that. I do believe that there are ways to treat homosexuality, but they've yet to be discovered. True homosexuality, after all, is part of your genetic makeup. Until someone finds a way to change specific traits of a person, there won't be a "cure" for it.

However, I do believe we are getting close with this issue. Because, we now are working on the process of being able to choose what we want with an unborn child. Hair color, eye color, body stature without any traning, even gender. It's only a matter of time before someone unlocks the key to man, and when that happens I fear for the human race.

 

[Venice_native]

The end of the humam race is inevitable. Genetic Engineering could very well be the predecessor to that, but it is also a completely different topic that I won't get into right away.

 

[Forged]

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.

You're right, legally speaking. The Federal goverment has no right mandating marriage at all really. However, I feel the reasons behind states outlawing it is flawed. Not only that, but having the general public vote on the issue seems to be democracy at its worse. The majority legislating over the few on an issue that doesn't really concern them.

 

[Laharl]

As I keep repeating, in Canada we had a indirect vote on it (Via elected officials), and it was put through. There's no way around it, up here. It is universally allowed, even in provinces that banned it.

 

[Tipsy]

You're right, legally speaking. The Federal goverment has no right mandating marriage at all really. However, I feel the reasons behind states outlawing it is flawed. Not only that, but having the general public vote on the issue seems to be democracy at its worse. The majority legislating over the few on an issue that doesn't really concern them.

Legalizing homosexual marriage is just one more legislative abuse that hurts society. I completely agree it shouldn't be voted on or dealt with at all. It has never existed in our country and because of that it never should because 1) the legislature is not granted the power to do so and 2) the court system cannot create a right that has never existed.

As I keep repeating, in Canada we had a indirect vote on it (Via elected officials), and it was put through. There's no way around it, up here. It is universally allowed, even in provinces that banned it.

So if Canadians voted to legalize slavery as a way to help their economy would that somehow make it legal and just? That's the logic you are using (with a much less extreme topic, but the same logic). I am not saying that it should be banned or it should be allowed. It simply shouldn't exist because the federal government does not have the power to create that right. At one time marriage in general provided for the general welfare of society, but as I was talking about in the thread about generic marriage it is simply starting to fail as an institution.


I don't see why people just cannot see that it has no place in our society as a federal institution. Key words being ‘as a federal institution’ as opposed to ‘in general’.

 

[Laharl]

Naturally, the government does not force churches that oppose to wedding same-sex couples morally to wed them. A church can still say no and refuse to wed them, if they so choose. It's the fact that it CAN and WILL happen, specific church likes it or not. That's the whole point.

Also, your example is beaten by the charter of rights and freedoms.

 

[Forged]

Legalizing homosexual marriage is just one more legislative abuse that hurts society

That is a completlly invalid statement, a little proof in how it would harm society would be nice.

. It has never existed in our country

That is piss poor reasoning. Untill 1920 most women could not vote, voting for women was a right that had never existed. Do you think women should not be able to vote?

1) the legislature is not granted the power to do so

When has that stopped them?

2) the court system cannot create a right that has never existed.

If the supreme court considered it discrimination they most certainlly could.

I don't see why people just cannot see that it has no place in our society as a federal institution. Key words being ‘as a federal institution’ as opposed to ‘in general’.

To each his own I guess, I see no harm in it, and I see it as blatant discrimination.

 

[Tipsy]

Naturally, the government does not force churches that oppose to wedding same-sex couples morally to wed them. A church can still say no and refuse to wed them, if they so choose. It's the fact that it CAN and WILL happen, specific church likes it or not. That's the whole point.

Who cares what churches think? This is a civil marriage, not a religious one. Last time I checked Canada, like the United States, was not a theocracy and religion had absolutely no bearing on civil marriage whatsoever. Here's the phrase again - Civil marriage is a secular state sponsored institution, not a civil right.

The bottom line is the government does not have the power to create that right. I would be the first person on the forums to support a very powerful federal government (due somewhat to my incredibly left wing economic views), but only as powerful as the Constitution allows. Allowing homosexuality is pushing the constitutional past broad interpretations and is clearly an abuse of legislative powers.

Is homosexuality natural? Is homosexuality socially acceptable? Is God for/against homosexuality? For this situation, it simply does not matter. Creating homosexual marriages is unconstitutional, that is all there is to it.

On a side note, whether you are doing it intentionally or not, the strategy of ‘demonizing’ (no pun intended) people against civil homosexual marriages as a purely religious matter has actually worked quite well in the United States and many people believe that not allowing civil homosexual marriages is religious oppression.

Also, your example is beaten by the charter of rights and freedoms.

Sure, nitpick the analogy. If you fail to see the meaning of it please inform me and I will explain it step by step.

Naturally, the government does not force churches that oppose to wedding same-sex couples morally to wed them. A church can still say no and refuse to wed them, if they so choose. It's the fact that it CAN and WILL happen, specific church likes it or not. That's the whole point.

Who cares what churches think? This is a civil marriage, not a religious one. Last time I checked Canada, like the United States, was not a theocracy and religion had absolutely no bearing on civil marriage whatsoever. Here's the phrase again - Civil marriage is a secular state sponsored institution, not a civil right.

The bottom line is the government does not have the power to create that right. I would be the first person on the forums to support a very powerful federal government (due somewhat to my incredibly left wing economic views), but only as powerful as the Constitution allows. Allowing homosexuality is pushing the constitutional past broad interpretations and is clearly an abuse of legislative powers.

Is homosexuality natural? Is homosexuality socially acceptable? Is God for/against homosexuality? For this situation, it simply does not matter. Creating homosexual marriages is unconstitutional, that is all there is to it.

On a side note, whether you are doing it intentionally or not, the strategy of ‘demonizing’ (no pun intended) people against civil homosexual marriages as a purely religious matter has actually worked quite well in the United States and many people believe that not allowing civil homosexual marriages is religious oppression.

Also, your example is beaten by the charter of rights and freedoms.

Sure, nitpick the analogy. If you fail to see the meaning of it please inform me and I will explain it step by step.

=== Below this line has been edited in ===
​

That is a completlly invalid statement, a little proof in how it would harm society would be nice.

It is destroy the limits put on the legislature by the Constitution.

That is piss poor reasoning. Untill 1920 most women could not vote, voting for women was a right that had never existed. Do you think women should not be able to vote?

The Supreme Court has the ability to allow women to vote for a reason. It has this power because there was discrimination, the rights were not equal and the Supreme Court made them equal. How what I am saying applies to this is that the Supreme Court does not have the ability to create new rights. For your example, it did not have the ability to create voting as a whole, however, once voting existed, it had the right to make it equal. As a side point, institutions are different from civil rights.

When has that stopped them?

That really doesn't make sense in an argument. Since the legislature abuses its' power it somehow gains the ability to defy the Constitution?

If the supreme court considered it discrimination they most certainlly could.

That is what the court system in Canada did. However, I have clearly pointed out there is no discrimination.

 

[Forged]

I have clearly pointed out there is no discrimination.

Not really

 

[Laharl]

Actually, the creation and removal of laws is exactly what the legislature is there for. They make the laws for the judicial system to support. That's all there is to it.

Note: In Canada the Legislature (The House of Commons) is all but all powerful.

 

[Tipsy]

Not really

Yeah, really:

"Not allowing same sex marriage is not denying a homosexual person marriage. There is not a single person by law [here in the United States] that can marry any person he wants. Every single person, whether homosexual or heterosexual has exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage. Do you love the person you marry? Do you hate the person? Do you find them attractive? None of these have any weight in civil marriage.

Marriage is not a civil right, it is a institution granted by the state. There is no discrimination or injustice here – everyone has the same rights. For this reason, the courts have absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter currently. As one of the dissenting judges from the Massachusetts same sex marriage case put it when legalizing it, "Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of individual rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent."

It should be completely clear now that the courts have to 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."

Actually, the creation and removal of laws is exactly what the legislature is there for. They make the laws for the judicial system to support. That's all there is to it.

Note: In Canada the Legislature (The House of Commons) is all but all powerful.

I may be mistaken, but from this I am gathering that the Canadian Supreme Court does not have judicial review (declaring something in the legislature as unconstitutional and making the passed thing void). I've been thinking this whole time it would be the Canadian judicial branch's job to declare the law unconstitutional because it breaches the limits placed on the legislature.

Question though. If your Supreme Court doesn't have the power of judicial review how are unconstitional laws removed? Or, to put is maybe a bit more clearly, who interprets your constitution and then applies it in removing laws that the legislature passes if they are unconstitutional.

However this works, that law you speak of should be declared unconstitional because your legislature is abusing its' power.

My ignorance of the Canadian government makes it sort of hard to apply what I am trying to say in terms that fits your government.



For anyone:
Does anyone not see that it is constitutional to allow civil same sex marriage to not exist?

 

[betaalpha5]

i'm gonna take a passage from one of my friend's sig

"Texas Senator John Cornyn's argument against gay marriage is, 'If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn't affect your everyday life. But that doesn't make it right.' I myself was not a psychology major, but i think it is safe to assume that at one point or another, Senator Cornyn has thought about making love to a box turtle"

 

[Laharl]

The "Supreme court" (Federal branch of the court system) can review laws, it can advise, but it cannot pass or tear down laws. That power is solely in the hands of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons put it to a vote, it passed. The Senate (The "Sober Second Thought") gave the new bill due process, passed it as well. It's now a law, all thanks to P.M. Martin. End of story.

 

[Tipsy]

"Texas Senator John Cornyn's argument against gay marriage is, 'If your neighbor marries a box turtle, it doesn't affect your everyday life. But that doesn't make it right.' I myself was not a psychology major, but i think it is safe to assume that at one point or another, Senator Cornyn has thought about making love to a box turtle"

Must I say once again straw man?

The "Supreme court" (Federal branch of the court system) can review laws, it can advise, but it cannot pass or tear down laws. That power is solely in the hands of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons put it to a vote, it passed. The Senate (The "Sober Second Thought") gave the new bill due process, passed it as well. It's now a law, all thanks to P.M. Martin. End of story.

So any unconstitutional law passed by your legislative body is here to stay? If that is so your government needs much more regulation. Anything that has less than United States' government's regulation, which really does need more as it is, needs to step up.

 

[Laharl]

Actually, the law is constitutional. In fact, the Canadian government includes sexuality in the bill of rights and freedoms.

 

[Tipsy]

Actually, the law is constitutional. In fact, the Canadian government includes sexuality in the bill of rights and freedoms.

Equality Rights​

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(Quote from: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/charte/const_en.html#libertes)

If this is what we are going by, there is still no discrimination. See my first post in this thread, #15:

"Not allowing same sex marriage is not denying a homosexual person marriage. There is not a single person by law [here in the United States] that can marry any person he wants. Every single person, whether homosexual or heterosexual has exactly the same rights when it comes to marriage. Do you love the person you marry? Do you hate the person? Do you find them attractive? None of these have any weight in civil marriage.

Marriage is not a civil right, it is a institution granted by the state. There is no discrimination or injustice here – everyone has the same rights. "

I fail to see how there is any discrimination whatsoever if everyone has the exact same rights. There is complete equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals in regards to the ability to obtain a civil marriage. Since there is complete equality, then it is impossible for anyone to not have "equal[ity] before and under the law" and having "the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." Name anything that a homosexual can't do that heterosexual can that the government has any business in regards to marriage. For example, saying a homosexual cannot marry the person he or she loves is something the government has no business in because it has no weight in civil marriage.

There is no discrimination because homosexuals have the exact same rights as homosexuals.

 

[Laharl]

We sure do now, especially as same-sex marriage is now completely allowed . Never thought I'd have to say this, but I win.

Edit: Right, wrong, both. It matters not. The side I was debating on behalf of... won.

 

[Tipsy]

We sure do now, especially as same-sex marriage is now completely allowed . Never thought I'd have to say this, but I win.

Exactly what were homosexuals not allowed to do that heterosexuals were that the government has any business in?

Edit: Right, wrong, both. It matters not. The side I was debating on behalf of... won.

And as I pointed out when attacking the preamble of C-38, it was with a false argument.

(Edit: The copy of C-38 is on post #49)

 

[Laharl]

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