Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

What you are missing is that SSM is an issue of minority rights and the others are not, tibear.

NAMBLA will fail because they are talking about having sex with children. They are treated the same under the law as men who want to have sex with girls...it's illegal. No discrimination.

Polygamy is not restricted to religion...I could say that I want to have more than one wife (not sure why anybody would want to, but...). It is not a minority rights issue. Same with incestuous marriages. Not a minority rights issue.

If they go to court counting on the SSM ruling as a precedent they will lose. I do believe they can win if they go in on their own merits looking for individual rights and freedoms as long as they stay away from trying to get each spouse equal benefits. How those benefits are divided can be an issue, but nobody is going to go for a guy with three wives getting three times the benefits as a guy with one wife.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

What you are missing is that SSM is an issue of minority rights and the others are not, tibear.

NAMBLA will fail because they are talking about having sex with children. They are treated the same under the law as men who want to have sex with girls...it's illegal. No discrimination.

Polygamy is not restricted to religion...I could say that I want to have more than one wife (not sure why anybody would want to, but...). It is not a minority rights issue. Same with incestuous marriages. Not a minority rights issue.

If they go to court counting on the SSM ruling as a precedent they will lose. I do believe they can win if they go in on their own merits looking for individual rights and freedoms as long as they stay away from trying to get each spouse equal benefits. How those benefits are divided can be an issue, but nobody is going to go for a guy with three wives getting three times the benefits as a guy with one wife.

 

[tibear]

RB,

In your view what makes a group a minority??

 

[tibear]

RB,

In your view what makes a group a minority??

 

[tibear]

RB,

In your view what makes a group a minority??

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

Having a distinct characteristic that they did not choose that differentiates them from the majority of the population.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

Having a distinct characteristic that they did not choose that differentiates them from the majority of the population.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

Having a distinct characteristic that they did not choose that differentiates them from the majority of the population.

 

[tibear]

RB,

From your definition I take that if a Christian was to convert to the Sikh religion and then began to wear a turban you would not classify him as part of a minority because he chose to join.


Out of curiosity I looked up the term minority on the net and came up with the following:

Webster definition: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

Amer Heritage: 1 a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

2 a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups.

Cambridge: any small group in society that is different from the rest because of their race, religion or political beliefs,
or a person who belongs to such a group


Oxford: 1 the smaller number or part; a number or part representing less than half of the whole.
2 a relatively small group of people differing from the majority in race, religion, language, etc.
3 the state or period of being a minor.

Law.com(legal) 1) in voting, a side with less than half the votes.
2) a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, such as the United States
where Caucasians comprise the majority and the minorities include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,
indigenous Americans (Indians) and other so-called "people of color." This ironic term is used despite the
fact that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to
include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to
assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law.
3) the period of life under legal age.

Lectric Law: 1) The state or condition of a minor; infancy.
2) In another sense, it signifies the lesser number of votes of a deliberative assembly; opposed to majority.

Online Plain: 1) (a. & n.) State of being less or small.
2) (a. & n.) The smaller number; -- opposed to majority; as, the minority must be ruled by the majority.
3) (a. & n.) The state of being a minor, or under age


You will notice that not one of these specify that a lack choice must be part of the definition to include an individual in a minority.

Therefore, someone may choose to be part of a minority if they which. If you go through each of the definitions listed above or any other definition you wish to look up, I think you will find that polygamists, paedophiles and people who engage in incest would indeed be minority groups.

So could they not also use the Charter claiming minority rights??

 

[tibear]

RB,

From your definition I take that if a Christian was to convert to the Sikh religion and then began to wear a turban you would not classify him as part of a minority because he chose to join.


Out of curiosity I looked up the term minority on the net and came up with the following:

Webster definition: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

Amer Heritage: 1 a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

2 a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups.

Cambridge: any small group in society that is different from the rest because of their race, religion or political beliefs,
or a person who belongs to such a group


Oxford: 1 the smaller number or part; a number or part representing less than half of the whole.
2 a relatively small group of people differing from the majority in race, religion, language, etc.
3 the state or period of being a minor.

Law.com(legal) 1) in voting, a side with less than half the votes.
2) a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, such as the United States
where Caucasians comprise the majority and the minorities include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,
indigenous Americans (Indians) and other so-called "people of color." This ironic term is used despite the
fact that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to
include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to
assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law.
3) the period of life under legal age.

Lectric Law: 1) The state or condition of a minor; infancy.
2) In another sense, it signifies the lesser number of votes of a deliberative assembly; opposed to majority.

Online Plain: 1) (a. & n.) State of being less or small.
2) (a. & n.) The smaller number; -- opposed to majority; as, the minority must be ruled by the majority.
3) (a. & n.) The state of being a minor, or under age


You will notice that not one of these specify that a lack choice must be part of the definition to include an individual in a minority.

Therefore, someone may choose to be part of a minority if they which. If you go through each of the definitions listed above or any other definition you wish to look up, I think you will find that polygamists, paedophiles and people who engage in incest would indeed be minority groups.

So could they not also use the Charter claiming minority rights??

 

[tibear]

RB,

From your definition I take that if a Christian was to convert to the Sikh religion and then began to wear a turban you would not classify him as part of a minority because he chose to join.


Out of curiosity I looked up the term minority on the net and came up with the following:

Webster definition: a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment

Amer Heritage: 1 a. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
b. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

2 a. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
b. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
c. A member of one of these groups.

Cambridge: any small group in society that is different from the rest because of their race, religion or political beliefs,
or a person who belongs to such a group


Oxford: 1 the smaller number or part; a number or part representing less than half of the whole.
2 a relatively small group of people differing from the majority in race, religion, language, etc.
3 the state or period of being a minor.

Law.com(legal) 1) in voting, a side with less than half the votes.
2) a term for people in a predominantly Caucasian country who are not Caucasian, such as the United States
where Caucasians comprise the majority and the minorities include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians,
indigenous Americans (Indians) and other so-called "people of color." This ironic term is used despite the
fact that the majority of the world's population is not Caucasian. Sometimes the term is employed to
include women and homosexuals. "Minority" carries with it a certain patronizing tone even when used to
assert rights of peoples who have been discriminated against, either socially or by law.
3) the period of life under legal age.

Lectric Law: 1) The state or condition of a minor; infancy.
2) In another sense, it signifies the lesser number of votes of a deliberative assembly; opposed to majority.

Online Plain: 1) (a. & n.) State of being less or small.
2) (a. & n.) The smaller number; -- opposed to majority; as, the minority must be ruled by the majority.
3) (a. & n.) The state of being a minor, or under age


You will notice that not one of these specify that a lack choice must be part of the definition to include an individual in a minority.

Therefore, someone may choose to be part of a minority if they which. If you go through each of the definitions listed above or any other definition you wish to look up, I think you will find that polygamists, paedophiles and people who engage in incest would indeed be minority groups.

So could they not also use the Charter claiming minority rights??

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

I must say, you made the point for me rather nicely...if a law goes against the Charter, it can be challenged, and repealed...but I have to ask you, how is preventing perverts from having sex with children going against anyone's Charter rights? In fact, if the courts were to allow this sort of sick crap to happen, they would be infringing on the rights the children not to be molested by dirty old men...I wonder which group Tibear would support then...

I've always known that sodomy was illegal, and still is, if it's between more than two people, and if it's not performed in private...but in case you didn't know, or were at some point misinformed, sodomy is not the same as homosexuality.

As to the comment about killing your slaves...slavery was abolished because good people stood up and said that it wasn't right...the Bill of Rights was enacted because some more good people stood up and said that it wasn't right for people to be discriminated against based upon their race...I'm sure there were a lot of right-wing Christian nutjobs that tried to stop the process by using fear of this or that to try to convince people that allowing black people the same rights as white people would be a slippery slope...but in the end, justice prevailed...and the same will happen in Canada with SSM, whether the churchy-folk want it to or not...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

I must say, you made the point for me rather nicely...if a law goes against the Charter, it can be challenged, and repealed...but I have to ask you, how is preventing perverts from having sex with children going against anyone's Charter rights? In fact, if the courts were to allow this sort of sick crap to happen, they would be infringing on the rights the children not to be molested by dirty old men...I wonder which group Tibear would support then...

I've always known that sodomy was illegal, and still is, if it's between more than two people, and if it's not performed in private...but in case you didn't know, or were at some point misinformed, sodomy is not the same as homosexuality.

As to the comment about killing your slaves...slavery was abolished because good people stood up and said that it wasn't right...the Bill of Rights was enacted because some more good people stood up and said that it wasn't right for people to be discriminated against based upon their race...I'm sure there were a lot of right-wing Christian nutjobs that tried to stop the process by using fear of this or that to try to convince people that allowing black people the same rights as white people would be a slippery slope...but in the end, justice prevailed...and the same will happen in Canada with SSM, whether the churchy-folk want it to or not...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Vanni,

Now that you know that sodomy WAS illegal, doesn't that show that simply because something IS illegal it doesn't automatically mean that it will or should stay illegal. It was once legal in the US for man to kill his black slave, should they have simply left the law there because it was the law?? If the law itself is unconstitutional or goes against the Charter than the law itself is invalid. Does that make it any clearer?

I must say, you made the point for me rather nicely...if a law goes against the Charter, it can be challenged, and repealed...but I have to ask you, how is preventing perverts from having sex with children going against anyone's Charter rights? In fact, if the courts were to allow this sort of sick crap to happen, they would be infringing on the rights the children not to be molested by dirty old men...I wonder which group Tibear would support then...

I've always known that sodomy was illegal, and still is, if it's between more than two people, and if it's not performed in private...but in case you didn't know, or were at some point misinformed, sodomy is not the same as homosexuality.

As to the comment about killing your slaves...slavery was abolished because good people stood up and said that it wasn't right...the Bill of Rights was enacted because some more good people stood up and said that it wasn't right for people to be discriminated against based upon their race...I'm sure there were a lot of right-wing Christian nutjobs that tried to stop the process by using fear of this or that to try to convince people that allowing black people the same rights as white people would be a slippery slope...but in the end, justice prevailed...and the same will happen in Canada with SSM, whether the churchy-folk want it to or not...

 

[peapod]

But thats the point is it not....using the word sodomy over and over again?? trying to equate sodomy with homosexuals, and toss in a few pedaphiles and a dash of pologmy.

 

[peapod]

But thats the point is it not....using the word sodomy over and over again?? trying to equate sodomy with homosexuals, and toss in a few pedaphiles and a dash of pologmy.

 

[peapod]

But thats the point is it not....using the word sodomy over and over again?? trying to equate sodomy with homosexuals, and toss in a few pedaphiles and a dash of pologmy.

 

[tibear]

vanni,

I'm glad we agree that whether there is a law in place doesn't have any bearing as to whether the law is valid. Finally!!! We've now established that the legality of a situation has nothing to do with whether it should continue to be illegal, if it is violates the Charter, the law should be repealed. Which means that we shouldn't ever hear the difference between SS couples and polygamists, "teenage" paedophiles and adult incest is that SS isn't illegal.

By the way I do know the difference between sodomy and homosexuality but I think we can agree that this law was directly aimed at homosexuals.

NAMBLA, isn't interested in furthering a cause which would allow adults to have sex with young children but rather with teenagers. Teenagers are technically children, however, NAMBLA argues that since teenagers have the choice to have sex with their peers, these same teenagers then have the choice to have sex. Period.

As I pointed out to RB in an earlier post, I think we can all agree that paedophiles, polygamists and adult incest are certainly within the minority of Canadians. They are certainly persecuted(some legally) and ostracized.

If you can show me a legal definition that would exclude these groups(either specifically or not) as forming a minority group please find one. RB claimed that to be part of a minority group the individual had to have no choice and every definition I found didn't have that stipulation. Happy hunting!!

Without using the "having sex with children" (which I question because they want sex with teenagers) or "they choose to be paedophiles"(because the legal definition of minority doesn't require lack of choice) or "it's illegal"(because we all know that the law doesn't matter if it is a charter minority right), please show me how paedophiles and SS couples are treated differently so that one would be a minority group and the other wouldn't.

As well, please give arguements that show how SS couples are a minority group but polygamists or adult incest couples aren't. Again, remembering that we've already established that choice isn't a exclusion and the legality of the relationship doesn't matter either.

If these relationships can show they are indeed minority groups would that then qualify them to use the Charter and argue for minority rights which our beloved PM wants to stand up and fight for???

 

[tibear]

vanni,

I'm glad we agree that whether there is a law in place doesn't have any bearing as to whether the law is valid. Finally!!! We've now established that the legality of a situation has nothing to do with whether it should continue to be illegal, if it is violates the Charter, the law should be repealed. Which means that we shouldn't ever hear the difference between SS couples and polygamists, "teenage" paedophiles and adult incest is that SS isn't illegal.

By the way I do know the difference between sodomy and homosexuality but I think we can agree that this law was directly aimed at homosexuals.

NAMBLA, isn't interested in furthering a cause which would allow adults to have sex with young children but rather with teenagers. Teenagers are technically children, however, NAMBLA argues that since teenagers have the choice to have sex with their peers, these same teenagers then have the choice to have sex. Period.

As I pointed out to RB in an earlier post, I think we can all agree that paedophiles, polygamists and adult incest are certainly within the minority of Canadians. They are certainly persecuted(some legally) and ostracized.

If you can show me a legal definition that would exclude these groups(either specifically or not) as forming a minority group please find one. RB claimed that to be part of a minority group the individual had to have no choice and every definition I found didn't have that stipulation. Happy hunting!!

Without using the "having sex with children" (which I question because they want sex with teenagers) or "they choose to be paedophiles"(because the legal definition of minority doesn't require lack of choice) or "it's illegal"(because we all know that the law doesn't matter if it is a charter minority right), please show me how paedophiles and SS couples are treated differently so that one would be a minority group and the other wouldn't.

As well, please give arguements that show how SS couples are a minority group but polygamists or adult incest couples aren't. Again, remembering that we've already established that choice isn't a exclusion and the legality of the relationship doesn't matter either.

If these relationships can show they are indeed minority groups would that then qualify them to use the Charter and argue for minority rights which our beloved PM wants to stand up and fight for???

 

[tibear]

vanni,

I'm glad we agree that whether there is a law in place doesn't have any bearing as to whether the law is valid. Finally!!! We've now established that the legality of a situation has nothing to do with whether it should continue to be illegal, if it is violates the Charter, the law should be repealed. Which means that we shouldn't ever hear the difference between SS couples and polygamists, "teenage" paedophiles and adult incest is that SS isn't illegal.

By the way I do know the difference between sodomy and homosexuality but I think we can agree that this law was directly aimed at homosexuals.

NAMBLA, isn't interested in furthering a cause which would allow adults to have sex with young children but rather with teenagers. Teenagers are technically children, however, NAMBLA argues that since teenagers have the choice to have sex with their peers, these same teenagers then have the choice to have sex. Period.

As I pointed out to RB in an earlier post, I think we can all agree that paedophiles, polygamists and adult incest are certainly within the minority of Canadians. They are certainly persecuted(some legally) and ostracized.

If you can show me a legal definition that would exclude these groups(either specifically or not) as forming a minority group please find one. RB claimed that to be part of a minority group the individual had to have no choice and every definition I found didn't have that stipulation. Happy hunting!!

Without using the "having sex with children" (which I question because they want sex with teenagers) or "they choose to be paedophiles"(because the legal definition of minority doesn't require lack of choice) or "it's illegal"(because we all know that the law doesn't matter if it is a charter minority right), please show me how paedophiles and SS couples are treated differently so that one would be a minority group and the other wouldn't.

As well, please give arguements that show how SS couples are a minority group but polygamists or adult incest couples aren't. Again, remembering that we've already established that choice isn't a exclusion and the legality of the relationship doesn't matter either.

If these relationships can show they are indeed minority groups would that then qualify them to use the Charter and argue for minority rights which our beloved PM wants to stand up and fight for???