Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
I'm in a lazy mood today so I'm not going to read all the preceding pages. My apologies if this has been covered.tibear said:peapod,
Your avoiding the question. You claim that same-sex relationships involves two consenting adults. Could you then please explain the difference between a same-sex relationship and two 25 year-old twins who want to have their relationship recognized.
Similarly, if 5 adults(2 men and 3 women) all want to get married, how is this different from a same-sex relationship.
Please limit your arguement to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. The same-sex proponents claim that this is a human rights debate and not a moral debate, so from their perspective morality is not an issue when it comes to recognizing various sexual relationships.
tibear...what exactly do you have against SSMs?
Please limit your argument to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. :wink: I don't want to hear about your morals. I'm sure they're lovely ones and they've stood you well over the years, but they're not mine or anyone else's, so they have no bearing on this argument.
I eagerly await your response.
I'm in a lazy mood today so I'm not going to read all the preceding pages. My apologies if this has been covered.tibear said:peapod,
Your avoiding the question. You claim that same-sex relationships involves two consenting adults. Could you then please explain the difference between a same-sex relationship and two 25 year-old twins who want to have their relationship recognized.
Similarly, if 5 adults(2 men and 3 women) all want to get married, how is this different from a same-sex relationship.
Please limit your arguement to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. The same-sex proponents claim that this is a human rights debate and not a moral debate, so from their perspective morality is not an issue when it comes to recognizing various sexual relationships.
tibear...what exactly do you have against SSMs?
Please limit your argument to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. :wink: I don't want to hear about your morals. I'm sure they're lovely ones and they've stood you well over the years, but they're not mine or anyone else's, so they have no bearing on this argument.
I eagerly await your response.
I'm in a lazy mood today so I'm not going to read all the preceding pages. My apologies if this has been covered.tibear said:peapod,
Your avoiding the question. You claim that same-sex relationships involves two consenting adults. Could you then please explain the difference between a same-sex relationship and two 25 year-old twins who want to have their relationship recognized.
Similarly, if 5 adults(2 men and 3 women) all want to get married, how is this different from a same-sex relationship.
Please limit your arguement to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. The same-sex proponents claim that this is a human rights debate and not a moral debate, so from their perspective morality is not an issue when it comes to recognizing various sexual relationships.
tibear...what exactly do you have against SSMs?
Please limit your argument to a human rights standpoint because that is the issue that I have problem with. :wink: I don't want to hear about your morals. I'm sure they're lovely ones and they've stood you well over the years, but they're not mine or anyone else's, so they have no bearing on this argument.
I eagerly await your response.
LadyC, peapod, Andem, etc..
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
LadyC, peapod, Andem, etc..
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
LadyC, peapod, Andem, etc..
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
Personally, I am against same-sex marriage however, on a moral basis. Similar to incest, polygamy and paedophilia.
However, the point I'm making is that the government and SSM proponents are not arguing this from a moral standpoint but from a human rights standpoint. As Mr Martin said this afternoon, "I will stand up for the minorities that are discriminated against." He further went on to say(paraphrase), "We cannot pick and choose which minority groups wish to approve and which we want to frown upon. All minority groups MUST be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Since Mr Martin and the SSM proponents want to use the Charter to further their cause, where in the Charter would we find a section that would prevent adult incest, polygamy and even some forms of paedophilia from being recognized.
BTW, Reverend, why are you so concerned about the offspring of adult incest. There is a much higher probability of health issues of children born to someone with MS then incest. Should people with MS also be prevented from having children??
You've never seen Deliverance, have you?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
You've never seen Deliverance, have you?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
You've never seen Deliverance, have you?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
Don't think I didn't notice you blew me off, tibear. Your only response was you were against SSMs morally... and then went to compare it to paedophilia and incest.
First off, paedophilia is a crime... for good reason. There's an imbalance of power involved, and a child isn't old enough to make that sort of decision.
Incest may not affect the first generation, but it can have a cumulative effect. Plus, there's that imbalance thingy again. Kids that were raised in the same household have certain dynamics. The older child usually has more privileges/responsibilities, etc. It would make holidays a lot easier though... no problem deciding where to spend Christmas dinner.
But I digress.....
Try again... morals aside, what's it to you if a same sex couple wants to marry?
LadyC,
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
LadyC,
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
LadyC,
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
Firstly, let me ask you your question, "What's it to you if 4 woman want to marry 1 man??"
Yes, paedophilia is a crime but so was homosexual relationships at one time. What your point? When I talk about paedophilia, I'm not talking about someone with an 8 year old. I'm referring to say a 40 year old with a 14 year old. The man-boy group has been quietly trying to get support for their "relationships".
As for your incest point, are you saying that if there hasn't been an incestual relationship in the family for a while then you would be OK with it. If two 25 year twins want to get married, where in the Charter would this be prevented??
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference between the twins and two homosexuals. Please show me the difference??
Sorry, but at this time our laws aren't based on your morals. You demanded peapod answer your question based on a human rights standpoint.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
Sorry, but at this time our laws aren't based on your morals. You demanded peapod answer your question based on a human rights standpoint.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
Sorry, but at this time our laws aren't based on your morals. You demanded peapod answer your question based on a human rights standpoint.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
You can't do that yourself.
Duly noted.
LadyC,
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???
LadyC,
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???
LadyC,
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???
That is my whole point. You can't argue this position from a human rights standpoint.
The SSM debate when argued from a human rights standpoint is a mute point because everyone should have the same rights when it comes to marriage. We all agree on that point.
HOWEVER, even Mr Martin acknowledges that we can't pick and choose which relationships we want to sanction. My point is that by sanctioning SSM from a human rights standpoint and NOT a moral standpoint you leave the door wide open for other relationships which you find morally offensive!
So from where I see it, once SSM is recognized the other relationships(adult incest, polygamy and teen paedophilia) are also valid.
The SSM proponents like to yell at their opponents that they can't push their morality onto others, yet it is the same SSM proponents who then tell everyone that will listen that SSM will NOT lead to polygamy, adult incest or teen paedophilia because those relationships are immoral!
Am I making my point any clearer???