From a governmental point of view there is indeed plenty of reason to encourage strong family and breeding units. But I think that discussion would almost deserve its very own thread.
Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage: Have the Floodgates Opened?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
From a governmental point of view there is indeed plenty of reason to encourage strong family and breeding units. But I think that discussion would almost deserve its very own thread.
Marriage is a fundamental human right? Don't make me laugh, the ceremony of marriage is a privilege enjoyed by a man and a woman, who promote a proper environment for procreation (since procreating is one of our innate purposes as human beings).
A4NoOb, marriage may not be a fundamental right, but protection from discrimination is. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination and against the Charter.
The Constitution does not shed light in any respect to marriage nor it's definition.
You are right, it does not. But it specifically forbids discrimination. Banning gay marriage is discrimination and is against the Charter.
This is strictly assuming that the government has an obligation by the law to entitle gays to their "right". If it is their "right" to redefine marriage to their liking, then by default all other definitions should apply.
Not at all, gays don’t have the right to redefine the marriage. However, they do have the right not to be subject to discrimination. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be allowed to marry as well.
Once again, the privilege to marry is a privilege, not a right.
Again, I agree, it is a privilege. However, freedom from discrimination is a fundamental right. Once the privilege is granted to heterosexuals, it must be granted to homosexuals, otherwise it is discrimination.
I am in agreement with most of your post; I don’t think marriage is a fundamental right. That is why if government want to get out of marriage, wants to leave marriage to churches, no big deal, I don’t think courts will have a problem with that.
However, once it is permitted for heterosexuals, it must be permitted for gays, otherwise it is discrimination. In Canada it would be against the Charter. If government recognizes marriage for heterosexuals, it also must recognize marriage for gays.
A4NoOb, marriage may not be a fundamental right, but protection from discrimination is. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination and against the Charter.
The Constitution does not shed light in any respect to marriage nor it's definition.
You are right, it does not. But it specifically forbids discrimination. Banning gay marriage is discrimination and is against the Charter.
This is strictly assuming that the government has an obligation by the law to entitle gays to their "right". If it is their "right" to redefine marriage to their liking, then by default all other definitions should apply.
Not at all, gays don’t have the right to redefine the marriage. However, they do have the right not to be subject to discrimination. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be allowed to marry as well.
Once again, the privilege to marry is a privilege, not a right.
Again, I agree, it is a privilege. However, freedom from discrimination is a fundamental right. Once the privilege is granted to heterosexuals, it must be granted to homosexuals, otherwise it is discrimination.
I am in agreement with most of your post; I don’t think marriage is a fundamental right. That is why if government want to get out of marriage, wants to leave marriage to churches, no big deal, I don’t think courts will have a problem with that.
However, once it is permitted for heterosexuals, it must be permitted for gays, otherwise it is discrimination. In Canada it would be against the Charter. If government recognizes marriage for heterosexuals, it also must recognize marriage for gays.
Quite right, Tracy. That is why when A4NoOb said that marriage is not a fundamental right, I agreed with him.
The government could get out of the marriage business altogether and just register civil unions for everybody. That will be nondiscriminatory, and I don’t think courts will have a problem with that.
However, when government recognizes marriage, grants certain benefits to married couples, it is discrimination not to permit it for homosexuals, and it is against the Charter.
Not even that, Unforgiven. Adultery is quite common, so it is clear that a substantial minority of people don’t really believe that marriage is a vow to abide in an exclusive relationship between two people.
Or how about swinging couples? They have sex with other people with each other’s knowledge, and each other’s perfect blessing. I understand if one spouse doesn’t approve of a person, the other spouse won’t have sex with that particular person.
I think marriage means pretty much what two people want it to mean. But from government’s point of view, meaning of marriage is clear. Marriage is union of two people, which is granted certain benefits by the government. It is discrimination t deny those benefits to a segment of the population (gays).
"A4NoOb, marriage may not be a fundamental right, but protection from discrimination is. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination and against the Charter."
What's this? Earlier in this thread, and elsewhere, you have said that gay marriage is a 'basic human right' in the same way that women suffrage or freedom (from slavery) is. You said it was in the Canadian charter.
I have looked here and I cannot find where this is the case.
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Also, just as the gay movement is, in my opinion, being cunning and deceitful in attaching themselves to the right to life, liberty, etc, I think the use of the word 'gay' itself is often used for manipulating arguments. No one defines marriage as the union of two heterosexual people. It's the union of a man and a women. To say there is discrimination against 2 men marrying is to redefine marriage. It's not a ban on gay marriage. It couldn't possibly be. The reason is that two heterosexual men may want to marry. What rights do they have? Being gay should have nothing at all to do with your argument. A binary 0 and a 1. You cannot get more basic than that and the gays are attempting to redefine it to two zeros or two ones.
What's this? Earlier in this thread, and elsewhere, you have said that gay marriage is a 'basic human right' in the same way that women suffrage or freedom (from slavery) is. You said it was in the Canadian charter.
I have looked here and I cannot find where this is the case.
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Also, just as the gay movement is, in my opinion, being cunning and deceitful in attaching themselves to the right to life, liberty, etc, I think the use of the word 'gay' itself is often used for manipulating arguments. No one defines marriage as the union of two heterosexual people. It's the union of a man and a women. To say there is discrimination against 2 men marrying is to redefine marriage. It's not a ban on gay marriage. It couldn't possibly be. The reason is that two heterosexual men may want to marry. What rights do they have? Being gay should have nothing at all to do with your argument. A binary 0 and a 1. You cannot get more basic than that and the gays are attempting to redefine it to two zeros or two ones.
Last edited:
Strong family/breeding units and marriage are two very independent ideas. You can be married with a strong family/breeding unit. You can be married with NO family/breeding unit or a weak family/breeding unit. You can be unmarried with a strong family breeding unit. Strong family/breeding units don't need marriage to be recognized by the government.
I would agree with that. But, I also think its silly to give married couples rights unmarried couples don't have in general. I don't see what amazing benefits the government gets simply from a couple registering their coupledom that should entitle them to benefits other couples don't get. Someone will come in and argue that means they're more commited to eachother which makes them a stronger family, but with the divorce rate what it is I don't see how we can take that argument seriously. Imagine how much money the government could save if they didn't have to pay for divorce courts!:lol:
What's this? Earlier in this thread, and elsewhere, you have said that gay marriage is a 'basic human right' in the same way that women suffrage or freedom (from slavery) is. You said it was in the Canadian charter. I have looked here and I cannot find where this is the case.
RanchHand, gay marriage is indirectly a basic human right. It is not a basic right in the sense that if government gets rid of marriage for heterosexuals, gays don’t have any right to ask to be married in the eyes of the government.
But we know that is not going to happen, government will continue to recognize heterosexual marriage. Assuming that to be the case, then gay marriage is a basic human right; gays are entitled not to be discriminated against.
So marriage by itself is not a basic human right, but freedom from discrimination is. But since marriage is integrally linked to discrimination, that makes marriage a basic human right as well. If heterosexuals can get married, then gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination.
So when A4 was saying that marriage is not a fundamental right, technically he was correct, it is not a fundamental right for gays or for heterosexuals. But when it is made a basic human right for one, it automatically becomes one for the other as well.
RanchHand, gay marriage is indirectly a basic human right. It is not a basic right in the sense that if government gets rid of marriage for heterosexuals, gays don’t have any right to ask to be married in the eyes of the government.
But we know that is not going to happen, government will continue to recognize heterosexual marriage. Assuming that to be the case, then gay marriage is a basic human right; gays are entitled not to be discriminated against.
So marriage by itself is not a basic human right, but freedom from discrimination is. But since marriage is integrally linked to discrimination, that makes marriage a basic human right as well. If heterosexuals can get married, then gays must be permitted to marry, otherwise it is discrimination.
So when A4 was saying that marriage is not a fundamental right, technically he was correct, it is not a fundamental right for gays or for heterosexuals. But when it is made a basic human right for one, it automatically becomes one for the other as well.
I'm not just sure what "coolness" equates with. I think there's a lot of "cool" people "cooling" their heels in the slammer.
It's getting that way it seems, however I guess it's one method of keeping track of what kids belong to whom- in theory anyway.
I'm been discriminated against just about every day of my life. I've paid more insurance as a male than my wife does. I am not allowed to have white pride parades without being harassed by the authorities. My family was discriminated against in Kweebeck because we didn't speak French fluently. My kids can't go to a fully funded public school of my own particular religion.
Why is gay marriage so different of an issue? It isn't really. They just have a more powerful lobby than I do.
That said, I agree with Tracy and I think the term "marriage" should be removed from the books. If Churches want to keep the term to signify some religious sacrament, by all means have at it. I don't think who I live with or how we live is any of the government's business.
Quite right, JLM. But does government have to call it a marriage? One alternative will be to call it civil union, and not marriage. Government could register only civil unions, not marriages.
Marriages will be left up to the churches. Some churches will marry only heterosexuals, some will marry both gay and heterosexuals (an odd church may even marry only gays). That will be nondiscriminatory.
Indeed, if a government does not want to recognize gay marriage and still not fall foul of the constitution (at least here in Canada), this may be the only way to go.
From what I read in other forums .....Gays insist on the same name for their ceremony as for heterosexuals......any other term is in their eyes "discriminatory"...
I would be willing to bet that if all the heteros in the world were to get together and pick another name instead of "Marriage"........Gays would want it too....
From what I read in other forums .....Gays insist on the same name for their ceremony as for heterosexuals......any other term is in their eyes "discriminatory"...
I would be willing to bet that if all the heteros in the world were to get together and pick another name instead of "Marriage"........Gays would want it too....
Exactly, DaSleeper, gays want the same name as heterosexuals. But if government calls everything civil unions, does not recognize any marriages, gays will have to be satisfied with civil unions (same as heterosexuals).
The question is not whether you call it marriage, civil union or an old shoe, the question is, are you discriminating? That is not allowed, but the government may call it anything they want. They could say that these are all civil unions, that as far as government is concerned, nobody is married.
Let us suppose that sometime in he future the word "MARRIAGE" is surrendered to the gay/lesbian community to mean something it is not, the same way the word "GAY", meaning happy, was hijacked to denote something that it totally is not.
Let us suppose that the straight community invents and comes up with a brand new word, never hitherto heard or seen in print.
How long do you think the gay community would wait to hijack that word too?
Let us suppose that the straight community invents and comes up with a brand new word, never hitherto heard or seen in print.
How long do you think the gay community would wait to hijack that word too?
I don't think that to activist gays that it is a case of discrimination anymore ....the reason that they are not satisfied with anything less than the word marriage is that they are looking for complete social acceptance...nothing less......just as in the case of the marriage commissioner in the other thread.
Saying that you accept their "Marriage" is not enough....you also have to smile when you say it;-):lol:
Saying that you accept their "Marriage" is not enough....you also have to smile when you say it;-):lol: