Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Tipsy]

As for the idea that 'equally disallowed is still equal'. That is simply not true.

Well tell me how it is not true? How do two people with the exact same rights, not have the exact same rights?

And as for the government needing the 'right' to do something. They are the government, they don't need an excuse to do anything. If we don't like what they do, we vote them out. But the fact that they were voted in to represent us, the Canadian people, by us, makes it so that they don't need an excuse to vote for whatever bill they want. In fact, the Canadian government (as an example) could pass a bill saying that cats are dogs, and dogs are now cats and they would be completely within their right to do so. They are the law of the land, and it is meaningless to go and pick a fight with them.

It is meaningless to pick a fight with them? We are given the right to protest for a reason. Take a look at it as a whole. The legal system in Canada is for it, and the legal system in many parts of the United States is against it. For the sake of argument, we won't say who is right and who is wrong. Does that mean that because the United States government says it is illegal here then it is completely wrong. But if that is so, and it is 'meaningless to pick a fight with them', then what is this magical rift between the United States and Canada that makes one thing wrong in one place and right in another for people who are exactly the same.

My point is that the legal system is for it, I'm not talking about the government.

This is probably just me not understanding what you mean, but what exactly do you consider to be the difference between the legal system and the government. Then again, it just may be my complete lack of knowledge of the Canadian government because down here our government contains our legal system.

 

[Laharl]

When I speak of "government", I speak of the elected officials who sit in parliament (our MP's). When I speak of the "court system/legal system" I speak of the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that I have that settled, onwards.

The Supreme Court of Canada has officially decided that the "opposite-sex requirement" for marriage is unconstitutional. To undo this the government would have to use a clause known as the "Not-withstanding clause", which was written into our constitution to prevent the court system from running _EVERYTHING_. However, the official leader of opposition, and the leader of the National Conservatives (Steve Harper), refuses to use the not-withstanding-clause on this ruling. In other words, he refuses to do the one thing he can do to get rid of same-sex marriage in Canada, but he speaks against it. Smart, isn't he?

 

[Tipsy]

The Supreme Court of Canada has officially decided that the "opposite-sex requirement" for marriage is unconstitutional. To undo this the government would have to use a clause known as the "Not-withstanding clause", which was written into our constitution to prevent the court system from running _EVERYTHING_. However, the official leader of opposition, and the leader of the National Conservatives (Steve Harper), refuses to use the not-withstanding-clause on this ruling. In other words, he refuses to do the one thing he can do to get rid of same-sex marriage in Canada, but he speaks against it. Smart, isn't he?

So in other words, you are saying since the Supreme Court of Canada declared the “opposite-sex requirement†unconstitutional and the person that has the power to stop it didn't, then it is right? If the exact same situation was turned around, with the Supreme Court of Canada saying that the “opposite-sex requirement†was constitutional and the person who had power to stop the court from making it constitutional refuses to do so, then wouldn't that be right too by this logic?

The reason for me saying this is that a lot of people down here believe that it is constitutional, so it would just be a matter of the people deciding one way or the other. Does this mean that by this logic it is right for one country to leagalize it and another to not?

 

[Laharl]

I have a little bit of a history lesson for everyone here. Back in the 70's when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being written we had EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE in parliament contributing to it. One of said people was our first openly gay MP (his name escapes me right now, but that is irrelevant). He fought HARD to have "sexual orientation" put in the charter as something that would be protected, but was repeatedly shot down. Why? The time was simply not right.

That was recently added.

As for your question, yes it is. If our constitutional rights are different from yours (which the most likely are), then it is legal for one country to legalize same-sex marriage, and not another.

Note: As for muslims they had homosexual sultans in the past (yes, they are MASSIVELY against homosexuality), who had HAREMS (sorta like boy-toys that you sleep with [it's their job]) and nobody said a peep about it. Wow, the hypocrisy.

 

[Snagg]

...

1% of the population in Canada is homosexual.

Why should we change the constitution simply because a minority wants it?

Should we start changing the constitution so that people can marry their relatives? What about little kids? Or having multiple spouses? Or even an object? If these are not acceptable, why should same sex marriage be? We need a firm definition of marriage if we ever want to stabilize this marriage business. If we don't provide a firm definition of marriage, we are going to cause a chain reaction of many other activists wanting to change the constitution.

WE -CANNNOT- LET GAYS MARRY. It will be the death of society.

Our country heavily depends on the traditional family values of a mom, dad and a child. IT IS OUR BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF SOCIETY. How can we change this simply because of 1% of the population?

The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

So all you people who want gays to marry, think again. You're making the a bad choice.

EDIT: GG No reply.

 

[Laharl]

Snagg, please stop begging the question. You have said much, proved little.

I won't give a proper response until you start backing up the garbage you've spewed.

 

[-Azrael666-]

What are you talking about? He gave as much, if not more, support than you did. You simply have no valid response because he's right, and his point is very much true. Maybe you don't understand him because of your mental handicap, but his statements are sound.

If you don't give him a "proper response" to his "garbage" (I love how any opinion that differs from yours is automatically garbage :rolleyes), then you're acknowledging that he is right and you are not. Either debate the point or surrender, don't try to say "I'm not going to reply because you're wrong and I'm right," that's not how debates work, and in doing that you're just saying you lack the ability to argue his points and prove your opinions to be legitimate.

Stop trying to leave the discussion without ceding the point, because it's not possible.

 

[Snagg]

oh I'm sorry.

http://www.challies.com/archives/000387.php

to back up the percentage of homosexuals.

Please ask what else you need specified.

I'm sorry that I can't prove opinions and such.

 

[t.A.T.u97]

I don't get where people get off telling you how you should feel. Its love and no one should say "Nope sorry you can fall in love with him/her erase those feelings". Its bs and if you fall in love with someone the same sex then it just happens.

 

[Snagg]

The government's not going to stop you from falling in love with the same sex. But marrying is a different story. Marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. Why should we change that definition simply because you fall in love with the same sex? If I fall in love with my cat should I be able to marry it? How far do you go until we draw the line where we say, nope you cannot marry any more strange things. We need to draw the line now.

 

[t.A.T.u97]

The government's not going to stop you from falling in love with the same sex. But marrying is a different story. Marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. Why should we change that definition simply because you fall in love with the same sex? If I fall in love with my cat should I be able to marry it? How far do you go until we draw the line where we say, nope you cannot marry any more strange things. We need to draw the line now.

Thats just it, its not strange. People fall in love, people get married. PEOPLE, not animals.

 

[-Azrael666-]

So why don't we make it legal for a 60 year old man to marry his 8 year old daughter? They're both people. That doesn't make it right.

And don't say "Well they're related so it's just wrong" or something equally baseless. Two people of the same sex is 'just wrong', even moreso than my example. At least those two could still reproduce.

 

[Lights]

If I fall in love with my cat should I be able to marry it? How far do you go until we draw the line where we say, nope you cannot marry any more strange things. We need to draw the line now.

Except for the fact a kitty cat isn't a consenting adult. :dance

Strange things? Males/Females marry every day, and it's not strange. What makes this different? It's still males/females getting married, except into the same gender. It isn't like they are being transformed into something super extremely strange. Like a kitten or something!


"I think it's strange!"
"Well, I don't think it's strange!"
"Yea, but I do!"
"I don't!"


Thought I would post in the thread for old time's sake.


*Edit: @ above - gogo consenting adults!

 

[Zerglite]

my opinion - not contributed to any past arguements in this thread

i hate homosexuality - the act, not homosexuals

people who are gay are fine, keep your lifestyle to yourself and we wont have any problems

 

[Lights]

my opinion - not contributed to any past arguements in this thread

i hate homosexuality - the act, not homosexuals

people who are gay are fine, keep your lifestyle to yourself and we wont have any problems

Dude, I HATE heterosexuality! I don't want to see it ever! That's such a disgusting lifestyle! Ewww.

Keep it to yourself and I won't mind, though. Just don't come outside.

 

[-Azrael666-]

Oh, ok Lights. An 18 year old girl and her 60 year old father. Same difference. Don't be so literal, you knew what I meant

 

[Lights]

Bah, to tell you the truth, I see nothing wrong with it. Is it disturbing? Yea. But, hey, who's to say they cannot love one another in that way?

Is that even illegal? I thought I saw that shit on Jerry Springer every week.


The way I see it, two consenting adults should be allowed a civil marriage. That's it, that's all. No marriages to dogs or gold fish. None to little babies, and no polygamous "unions" (If you can't fuggin decide, marry one, marry the other, and then pick which was best).

Religion can stay out, the general public's opinions can stay out, and greasy politicians can stay out.


That is my opinion.

 

[Snagg]

Just because it is a monkey and a male they cannot marry? What kind of justice is this? They are in love. Why can't they marry? Oh right, it's strange.

Oh you don't want animals? How about a man having ten wives? They're all in love, why can't he marry ten wives? Because it's not part of the definition of marriage.

How about two relatives... are they allowed to marry?

you don't see anything wrong with it? if homosexuals are going to be able to marry simply because a small pressure group wants to, the possibilities of the next amendment of the constitution is endless. (A group wanting to marry their relatives, for example).

EDIT: Ah I was in a hurry typing this up lemme add something:

You say you want any consenting adults to be able to marry, but when do you draw the line? How are you able to say two gay couples are able to marry but two relatives are not? Why do you let only gays have an exception? I can so see other pressure groups protesting and wanting their way of marriage if this bill is passed.

 

[amrtin77]

Just because it is a monkey and a male they cannot marry? What kind of justice is this? They are in love. Why can't they marry? Oh right, it's strange.

the monkey has no way to show its love in the form of our language. how can you get consent from a monkey?

How about a man having ten wives? They're all in love, why can't he marry ten wives? Because it's not part of the definition of marriage.

How about two relatives... are they allowed to marry?

i see no reason for these things to be illegal (morality aside) besides obvious health problems.

now i think the ogvernment should completely get out of marraige. completely. completely. no one should be married in the eyes of the government. if someone wants their church to marry them, then so be it.

but people can just shack up with eachother, have as many people in that household as they want. gay straight or bi, it dont matter. its just the government adopting the churches definition of marraige that is a problem. government should exit the marraige buisness, and civillyunite EVERYONE who wants a marraige in the eyes of the government. these civil unions could have the same rights as a regular marraige has today. these civil unions could be set up for two human beings of consenting age. this would help make the whole marraige rights thing alot less complex. if you want 7 wives, just call them your wives. find a church that will marry you all. the government will not recognise it, but that shouldnt matter. 7 people sharing benifits could get REALLY ****ing screwy in courts. just live with the 7 women. no ones stopping you.

 

[Snagg]

How do you prove that two humans are in love? Is there really scientific proof that yes, these two are in love. No. It is simply a mutual feeling. There is no science in saying who is in love with who.

Polygamy is illegal in Canada. The government wants one partner only, because of tradition reasons and others such as what will happen in a divorce?

So BTW you're allowed relatives to marry?