Marriage in Canada (break away from Morals)
- Thread starter Avesther
- Start date
Avesther
New Member
Easy, I want to know Ghandis position and I want him to support it. So, if you want to argue for him, well, ok.
Avesther
New Member
If you are willing to argue for or at least beside him, are you up on the recent Supreme Court of Canada's rulling on Gay marriage? Are you aware of the politics, debates, arguement and positions of the pro and anti same sex camps in Canada?
We are not talking general here, I want to talk very specifically to the issues affecting Canadians.
So, here we go:
According to your definition of love, do you agree with current pretext the pro-same sex camp is basing its arguements on, that the decisions of gay people to get married have no effect on other societal members? While they also arguing that their decision is beneficial to society without giving any evidence for it? Do you believe that the marriage covenant affects society or is exclusive from society having no affect upon it?
Given the text and context of the recent Supreme Court of Canada, what are your thoughts of the current government pushing that this is a minority rights issue? If the government is correct in saying that this is a minority rights issue, is it reasonable to expect that people that have different relationship preferances will begin to press for their rights to be protected as well? When do we say, enough is enough? Why should I not be allowed to marry my mother or, cat for that reason?
Do you believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms effectively protects the rights of clergy of any religion from being forced to marry gay couples, or providing the churches resources to gay couples for thier ceremonies, in any part or form? Also make discussion on religious freedoms, such as the current lobbying of having charitable designations removed from churches that do not support gay marriage, what of personal religious freedoms and convictions. Its not only christianity that champions hetro-sexual marriage, how do we protect competing rights, our right to teach our children that marriage is between man and women? Will they be forced to accept something they don't believe in?
Is a minority government enough to signal a clear mandate to a government that it can change the definition of marriage? The current split in the government is overwhelming evidence of the nations people own split on the issue. The only party in government that is actually allowing its members a free vote on the issue is the conservative party. The NDP and Bloc are forcing its members to support the bill and the Liberal party is forcing its cabinet members to support the bill. The actions of the current government agree with assertment that they cleary do not have a mandate to be moving this forward. The liberal government always has the option to hold a public referandum on the issue so that the people of Canada can have a true democratic vote on an issue of societal importance, why doesn't it?
And, have you read the expose I posted in January?
---Edit---
While I took of to get a snack, I thought of another few questions:
How is gay marriage beneficial to Canadian society? Is it beneficial to all Canadians or to a select few?
--Further Edit--
Where do you get the idea it should be restricted to between two people?
We are not talking general here, I want to talk very specifically to the issues affecting Canadians.
So, here we go:
According to your definition of love, do you agree with current pretext the pro-same sex camp is basing its arguements on, that the decisions of gay people to get married have no effect on other societal members? While they also arguing that their decision is beneficial to society without giving any evidence for it? Do you believe that the marriage covenant affects society or is exclusive from society having no affect upon it?
Given the text and context of the recent Supreme Court of Canada, what are your thoughts of the current government pushing that this is a minority rights issue? If the government is correct in saying that this is a minority rights issue, is it reasonable to expect that people that have different relationship preferances will begin to press for their rights to be protected as well? When do we say, enough is enough? Why should I not be allowed to marry my mother or, cat for that reason?
Do you believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms effectively protects the rights of clergy of any religion from being forced to marry gay couples, or providing the churches resources to gay couples for thier ceremonies, in any part or form? Also make discussion on religious freedoms, such as the current lobbying of having charitable designations removed from churches that do not support gay marriage, what of personal religious freedoms and convictions. Its not only christianity that champions hetro-sexual marriage, how do we protect competing rights, our right to teach our children that marriage is between man and women? Will they be forced to accept something they don't believe in?
Is a minority government enough to signal a clear mandate to a government that it can change the definition of marriage? The current split in the government is overwhelming evidence of the nations people own split on the issue. The only party in government that is actually allowing its members a free vote on the issue is the conservative party. The NDP and Bloc are forcing its members to support the bill and the Liberal party is forcing its cabinet members to support the bill. The actions of the current government agree with assertment that they cleary do not have a mandate to be moving this forward. The liberal government always has the option to hold a public referandum on the issue so that the people of Canada can have a true democratic vote on an issue of societal importance, why doesn't it?
And, have you read the expose I posted in January?
---Edit---
While I took of to get a snack, I thought of another few questions:
How is gay marriage beneficial to Canadian society? Is it beneficial to all Canadians or to a select few?
--Further Edit--
Where do you get the idea it should be restricted to between two people?
Last edited:
Genesis1315
Ladies
It is not. In all honesty, it seems to be very self serving to benefit a few, instead of the majority. Based on the information you provided in your post, I do not see any way that gay marriage would benefit anyone other that those participating in it. Once the line is crossed (or even erased), the line that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I think that other unions, those slightly less orthodox would also gain ground. And in order to gain ground, someone must give up ground.
Gen
Gandhi
New Member
To start off Same sex marriages are now legal in canada now, the bill has been passed.
I said I can't put words to describe love, I love my mom and dad, and my friends, but a gf I love differently.
I guess people I love I care about and would die for with no second thought. Romantic love is the same as the above but, also someone u want to be with intimatly. To me its someone u want to raise a family with, but thats not for everyone.
And as u can see I'm not the best at putting my thoughts in words.
I think churches have the right to choose who they want to marry, if they don't want to perform same sex marriages they have the right. But if they want to stay as a charitable tax free organization they have to follow the canadian charter of rights. Which means they have to perform same sex marriages. If they don't want to do that thats fine, all they have to do is start paying taxes.
Which is not a big deal.
How is your personal marriage beneficial to Canada?
And how are gay marriages not beneficial to Canada?
I said I can't put words to describe love, I love my mom and dad, and my friends, but a gf I love differently.
I guess people I love I care about and would die for with no second thought. Romantic love is the same as the above but, also someone u want to be with intimatly. To me its someone u want to raise a family with, but thats not for everyone.
And as u can see I'm not the best at putting my thoughts in words.
I think churches have the right to choose who they want to marry, if they don't want to perform same sex marriages they have the right. But if they want to stay as a charitable tax free organization they have to follow the canadian charter of rights. Which means they have to perform same sex marriages. If they don't want to do that thats fine, all they have to do is start paying taxes.
Which is not a big deal.
How is your personal marriage beneficial to Canada?
And how are gay marriages not beneficial to Canada?
Gandhi said:
Actually they wouldn't need to be married in a church at all. People are married by lawyers all the time.
I'll post more tommorow, but for now I have to second Ghandi's last two questions. It seems to me that gay marriages benefit homosexuals, and are not detrimental to society while doing it. You imply that gay marriages are detrimental. So, if you would, please elaborate on why gay marriages hurt society.
Avesther
New Member
Not sure how it works were you live, but lawyers do not have the authority to marry in Canada.
This would be answering my question with an opposing question, side stepping actually ever answering my question. So, we will take things in order. I asked 5 questions, and thats were it will start. After you actually answer the questions on the table , you can poss a counter questions.
Because something has happened, doesn't make it right. The line from Jurassic Park comes to mind: People were too busy figuring if the could, nobody ever stopped to think if the should. King Paul promissed a cross country debate, holding townhall meetings where members of the public could have their voices heard. Those meetings never happened, King Paul also extended the current session to pass this bill specifically before having to go home and face the constituents. Are these the actions of a trustworthy, moral and ethical government?
Well, maybe to help clear your thoughts on what love means to you, you can start by describing the difference you say exists between your love for your parents and your love for a girl friend. But if you want to run around saying two people who love each other should be able to marry each other, then you better have a good idea of what kind of love you are talking about. What happens when people start arguing that they should be able to marry their brothers? It looks like you are discriminating based on a difference you can't define.
This is, about the most unintellegent arguement people use to distract from the real issue at hand, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. You have just removed freedom of religion from the charter you so called just defended. That puts you in the camp of hypocrites. First off, the supreme court of canada RULED that gay marriage is not a Canadian Charter of Rights issue. Secondly, the supreme court of Canada ruled that the churchs can not be forced to marry people against their teachings, in otherwords, you CAN NOT EVEN THREATEN to remove their charitable status if they choose to not marry gay couples.
Please, don't answer questions with questions. Show some common courtesy and answer my question first.
For that matter, answer all my questions first.
I possed five questions in my previous post, you haven't answered a single one yet.
---
My thread, I possed the questions, I would like them answered before I start answring counter questions, its common courtesy, its that simple.
Last edited:
Well my apologies GP, but as I am not Canadian, I am not aware to the ins and outs of gay marriage in Canada. Frankly, I think you are in the wrong forum to be insisting on questions like these. You might try finding one that is more heavily populated by Canadians, since I doubt that there are many here who are privy to Canadian happenings.
That said, I will make an attempt at answering your questions with what knowledge I do possess.
Here's what I think in this regard. I believe that same-sex marriages are very beneficial to homosexuals. I also believe that they have little/no negative effect on society at large. There's only a 3% population of homosexuals anyways. You could make the slippery slope argument, but I'll get to that next. The net beneficial/negative effect is, then, in the beneficial range. So yes, I believe it is beneficial to society. You have yet to say anything specific about why gay marriages are detrimental to society, which I still find odd, as it should be the fulcrum of your argument.
There's the slippery slope argument. Honestly, that's a perfectly valid expectation. We may see polygamy try to make a return, or incestual relationships. I do not think human-animal marriages will ever take place though, as the government will certainly limit, at least, marriages to human-human relationships. However, it is an unfair comparison to liken homosexual marriages to something like a farmer marrying his favorite horse. Homosexual relationships have been taking place throughout world history, despite their small numbers, despite cultural ridicule, and despite their inability to marry. Recent studies support homosexuality being at least in part due to natural causes. Clearly, this is a very different scenario than those in your examples. And homosexuals have been waiting a long time for this. They don't expect the world to suddenly like them, but they would at least like for their relationships to be treated as equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts. So yes. Yes, there may be a slippery slope after homosexual marriages are made legal. But no, that's not reason enough to make them illegal.
I had not heard of this aspect of Canada's gay marriage plight, and I must say that is unfortunate. In America the government cannot force churches to administer homosexual marriages against their will. And as I said before, homosexuals can get married by a lawyer here, if they so desire. Honestly I'm not sure what the solution is for that problem. You had best ask someone who is more aware of Canadian issues, since I can only speak out of ignorance.
As for the teaching of marriage to children, I don't believe that that's going to be much of an issue. For one thing, I don't remember being taught what marriage was all about at all during my education. It's not unlikely, however, that marriage may make it into the elementary school curriculum now that so much political light has been shed on this issue. But I feel that if homosexual marriages were included in the taught definition of marriage, it would be nothing more than a mentioning, as opposed to a liberal indoctrination, as you seem to imply. And of course, private schools and churches would still be able to teach whatever they feel is most appropriate.
It's tricky. Majority groups generally do not want to give more power or rights to minority groups if they can help it. If you will pardon the added extremity, this situation is similar to Blacks being given the right to vote in America. The majority of citizens did not want Blacks to be able to vote, and yet the government went against their wishes and made it so. Why? Because the Blacks were also citizens of this country, and so they were entitled to all rights that went along with citizenship. Essentially, the same thing is happening here with homosexuals and marriage. Heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals cannot. Of course it's much more complex than that, since we would have to get into the natural and/or environmental causes of homosexuality argument, among other things. But the principle of the thing is this: homosexuals should be able to marry, and they lack the power to make it happen themselves, being small in numbers and in political influence. This also gets back to their marriages being detrimental to society, which I feel they are not. And if they are not, why should they not be allowed to marry?
I think it's your turn to answer questions now, eh? So, for hopefully the last time, could you please elaborate on why you feel homosexual marriages are detrimental to society?
That said, I will make an attempt at answering your questions with what knowledge I do possess.
Here's what I think in this regard. I believe that same-sex marriages are very beneficial to homosexuals. I also believe that they have little/no negative effect on society at large. There's only a 3% population of homosexuals anyways. You could make the slippery slope argument, but I'll get to that next. The net beneficial/negative effect is, then, in the beneficial range. So yes, I believe it is beneficial to society. You have yet to say anything specific about why gay marriages are detrimental to society, which I still find odd, as it should be the fulcrum of your argument.
There's the slippery slope argument. Honestly, that's a perfectly valid expectation. We may see polygamy try to make a return, or incestual relationships. I do not think human-animal marriages will ever take place though, as the government will certainly limit, at least, marriages to human-human relationships. However, it is an unfair comparison to liken homosexual marriages to something like a farmer marrying his favorite horse. Homosexual relationships have been taking place throughout world history, despite their small numbers, despite cultural ridicule, and despite their inability to marry. Recent studies support homosexuality being at least in part due to natural causes. Clearly, this is a very different scenario than those in your examples. And homosexuals have been waiting a long time for this. They don't expect the world to suddenly like them, but they would at least like for their relationships to be treated as equal to those of their heterosexual counterparts. So yes. Yes, there may be a slippery slope after homosexual marriages are made legal. But no, that's not reason enough to make them illegal.
I had not heard of this aspect of Canada's gay marriage plight, and I must say that is unfortunate. In America the government cannot force churches to administer homosexual marriages against their will. And as I said before, homosexuals can get married by a lawyer here, if they so desire. Honestly I'm not sure what the solution is for that problem. You had best ask someone who is more aware of Canadian issues, since I can only speak out of ignorance.
As for the teaching of marriage to children, I don't believe that that's going to be much of an issue. For one thing, I don't remember being taught what marriage was all about at all during my education. It's not unlikely, however, that marriage may make it into the elementary school curriculum now that so much political light has been shed on this issue. But I feel that if homosexual marriages were included in the taught definition of marriage, it would be nothing more than a mentioning, as opposed to a liberal indoctrination, as you seem to imply. And of course, private schools and churches would still be able to teach whatever they feel is most appropriate.
It's tricky. Majority groups generally do not want to give more power or rights to minority groups if they can help it. If you will pardon the added extremity, this situation is similar to Blacks being given the right to vote in America. The majority of citizens did not want Blacks to be able to vote, and yet the government went against their wishes and made it so. Why? Because the Blacks were also citizens of this country, and so they were entitled to all rights that went along with citizenship. Essentially, the same thing is happening here with homosexuals and marriage. Heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals cannot. Of course it's much more complex than that, since we would have to get into the natural and/or environmental causes of homosexuality argument, among other things. But the principle of the thing is this: homosexuals should be able to marry, and they lack the power to make it happen themselves, being small in numbers and in political influence. This also gets back to their marriages being detrimental to society, which I feel they are not. And if they are not, why should they not be allowed to marry?
I think it's your turn to answer questions now, eh? So, for hopefully the last time, could you please elaborate on why you feel homosexual marriages are detrimental to society?
PapaToad
Active Member
Side question where in The USA Can a lawyer marry someone.
Liscensed Minister, Chaplin, Reconized Spiritaul Advisor of some Kind
Ships Captain ( Some States)
Judge
Lawyer???
Liscensed Minister, Chaplin, Reconized Spiritaul Advisor of some Kind
Ships Captain ( Some States)
Judge
Lawyer???
PapaToad
Active Member
Ok, I just thought you had werid cool laws where you were 
Avesther
New Member
I'm going to be taking off for the Canada day long weekend tomorrow. So, I'll be busy packing and preping tonight and in the morning, unfortunatly, this means I am unable to form the required reply until I come back early next week. If I get a chance to reply tonight, I'll do so, if not, well you know why not.
Gandhi
New Member
Gay marriages are as benifeficial as a marriage between a man and a women. Do u think gay people will raise gay kids?
I really don't see the point of the question since I don't see how 2 guys/girls in ontario or calgary, or vancouver getting married would effect u, or any other canadia in a bad way. If they weren't married would u still see those 2 guys holding hands walking down the street, probobly.
Yes it is, love is love, and society has nothing to do with it. What does society have to do with 2 people in love.
I might be wrong, but I believe u can't marry your siblings or imediate family because of genetic reasons.
And as for your dog or any other animal, there is no way in knowing if the animal has given its concent. Unless u understand dog.
And maybe love was the wrong word, since I don't think all marriages are between 2 people that love each other, take arrange marriages. Maybe marriage has nothing to do with love.
I'm still thinking about it so I'll get back to u.
Odale
Active Member
Hold on.... im thinking of a good answer
Last edited:
Odale
Active Member
Gods_Peon said:
The people who have the hammers and chisels in hand are not the people you speak of. They are the people who do not value marriage for what its for. Take Hollywood, Ca. I read once that Hollywood is made up of serial Monogomists. I dont think that they could be more correct. They are the people that are detremental to the foundation of marriage and the pillar you speak of. Marrying once twice, mabye even three times, and our kids watch this. The children all want to be famous and known, so they grow up with this mind set, and this set of Morals... Hmmm morals... that sounds familiar
GP, this little argument is not going anywhere fast. I believe that you need to clearly state what the question is, and then ask them to answer it. Badgering someone because they are answering your question with more questions isnt very nice; and not to mention you did it in the previous thread too, bucko
. All he is trying to do is better answer your original question. Mr.Bill has already asked you to elaborate. Gods_Peon said:
Is that your original question?
Avesther
New Member
Mr. Bill:
Ghandi:
Eon:
Mr. Bill:
Proponants of moral evolution advocate that morality originated and evolves based on survivability of the human race, rules that sprang up to dictate interactions amongs our kindred spirit. The logical conclusion of thier argument is that morals evolve based on interactions that benefit society. Issues such as not murdering, raping, stealing or lying are common themes of morality in because of the benefits to society.
The traditional definition of marriage is one of morality as well. The major components of marriage revolve around moral themes such as trust, honour and integrity. The traditional covenant of marriage also provides society its single largest source of benefits. No other institution created by man can make such a claim. Marriage provides society links to the past and to the future. It represents a decisive 'dedication' or covenant that bridges the sex divide. It earned respect because it involved, in Chesterton's words, real fidelity and demanding duties. The marriage vow was a public commitment to a dedicated and difficult monogamous journey. The vows publicly embraced the future suffering and sacrifices necessary to sustain this bond. The vows committed the couple to a resilient and stable form of life to meet the unique challenges of heterosexual bonding, procreation and child rearing. (Chesterton, 228-29)
Marriage itself is defining feature of hetrosexuality, one even the advocates of changing the definition of marriage in Canada. Ladell McWhorter puts it well. She points out that if gay people are "allowed to participate as gay people in the communities and institutions they [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same. They [heterosexuals] are right, for example, that if same-sex couples get legally married, the institution of marriage will change, and since marriage is one of the institutions that supports heterosexuality and heterosexual identities, heterosexuality and heterosexuals will change as well." (McWhorter 1999. 125).
We see an admittance that gay marriage, even in theory, is harmful to society in that in order for it to come to fruition, it must stomp upon the identity rights of others. This change in the Canadian moral fabric starts off harmful to Canadian society. It is not an addon - its a take away. And its not a small take away, it a major reduction and changing of the recognition and identity of entire, and fully majority (minimum of 97%) subset of Canadians.
Ontario Judges agree with the deep seated value of Marriage in Canada: "'marriage' represents society's highest acceptance of the self-worth and the wholeness of a couple's relationship, and thus touches their sense of human dignity at its core."
Any change of the definition of marriage is at heart, a change in the moral stance of a society. Given that the advocates on this forum beleive that morals evolve based on the benefit to society, I have tried (I guess failed miserably) to give them a chance to show how this change in Canada indeed is an evolution based on the benefits to society.
So far, we have this statement on the beneifts of this change to Canadian society from Mr. Bill:
And just like those that advocate the change in definition of marriage in Canada, no evidence, no cases, no quantifiable proof of any such benefit, despite the fact that no benefit has been listed. Just whole hearted faith that it does. There is no meat provide support for your position. I made the statement that non-theist morals "evolves based on what feels good or is politcally correct today." So far, you haven't provided any meat in a real case presented to you for me to consider any different.
So far you have likened the plight of the homosexual to that of the black slaves, while you acknowledge that the case is extremely loosly related, the two are completely different and the extreme stretch to link them are beyond resonable expectations. We are not talking about a culture that does not have any rights, that is being degrading or being denied access rights. The courts in Canada, including the highest Court in Canada have all ensured that gays and lesbians are treated as equal under applicable laws (such as property, taxation) and under common law.
This is an issue of the definition of marriage, which in Canada, has been agreed to be a moral issue. Its not a rights issue, the Supreme court of Canada said it has nothing to do with rights. Its most recent ruling was that: Churches could not be forced to marry same sex couples against their believes, the Canadian government has the authority to change the definition of marriage and that the current definition of marriage does not need to be changed in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So what is the purpose behind changing the definition of marriage? Its not based on the rights of minorities. Its not based on what is benefiical to society.
How is gay marriage a detrement to society? Simple: It attacks the covenant of marriage. It reduces the value and importance of marriage in society to an issue solely of sexuality. In order to be recognized, it must reduce or remove an identifiable feature of hetereosexuality. Persons of diverse sexual identities and communities have a right to fight for tolerance and respect. However, persons of heterosexual identity also have rights to respect and recognition. They also have the right to maintain and foster their own unique institutions. And no institution is more central, more vital, to heterosexual identity than marriage. This point is conceded on all sides of the debate. It sets up a society to accept further moral degredation, it reduces moral evolution (as you put it) to personal choices that benefit the few.
Ghandi:
Eon:
Mr. Bill:
Proponants of moral evolution advocate that morality originated and evolves based on survivability of the human race, rules that sprang up to dictate interactions amongs our kindred spirit. The logical conclusion of thier argument is that morals evolve based on interactions that benefit society. Issues such as not murdering, raping, stealing or lying are common themes of morality in because of the benefits to society.
The traditional definition of marriage is one of morality as well. The major components of marriage revolve around moral themes such as trust, honour and integrity. The traditional covenant of marriage also provides society its single largest source of benefits. No other institution created by man can make such a claim. Marriage provides society links to the past and to the future. It represents a decisive 'dedication' or covenant that bridges the sex divide. It earned respect because it involved, in Chesterton's words, real fidelity and demanding duties. The marriage vow was a public commitment to a dedicated and difficult monogamous journey. The vows publicly embraced the future suffering and sacrifices necessary to sustain this bond. The vows committed the couple to a resilient and stable form of life to meet the unique challenges of heterosexual bonding, procreation and child rearing. (Chesterton, 228-29)
Marriage itself is defining feature of hetrosexuality, one even the advocates of changing the definition of marriage in Canada. Ladell McWhorter puts it well. She points out that if gay people are "allowed to participate as gay people in the communities and institutions they [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same. They [heterosexuals] are right, for example, that if same-sex couples get legally married, the institution of marriage will change, and since marriage is one of the institutions that supports heterosexuality and heterosexual identities, heterosexuality and heterosexuals will change as well." (McWhorter 1999. 125).
We see an admittance that gay marriage, even in theory, is harmful to society in that in order for it to come to fruition, it must stomp upon the identity rights of others. This change in the Canadian moral fabric starts off harmful to Canadian society. It is not an addon - its a take away. And its not a small take away, it a major reduction and changing of the recognition and identity of entire, and fully majority (minimum of 97%) subset of Canadians.
Ontario Judges agree with the deep seated value of Marriage in Canada: "'marriage' represents society's highest acceptance of the self-worth and the wholeness of a couple's relationship, and thus touches their sense of human dignity at its core."
Any change of the definition of marriage is at heart, a change in the moral stance of a society. Given that the advocates on this forum beleive that morals evolve based on the benefit to society, I have tried (I guess failed miserably) to give them a chance to show how this change in Canada indeed is an evolution based on the benefits to society.
So far, we have this statement on the beneifts of this change to Canadian society from Mr. Bill:
And just like those that advocate the change in definition of marriage in Canada, no evidence, no cases, no quantifiable proof of any such benefit, despite the fact that no benefit has been listed. Just whole hearted faith that it does. There is no meat provide support for your position. I made the statement that non-theist morals "evolves based on what feels good or is politcally correct today." So far, you haven't provided any meat in a real case presented to you for me to consider any different.
So far you have likened the plight of the homosexual to that of the black slaves, while you acknowledge that the case is extremely loosly related, the two are completely different and the extreme stretch to link them are beyond resonable expectations. We are not talking about a culture that does not have any rights, that is being degrading or being denied access rights. The courts in Canada, including the highest Court in Canada have all ensured that gays and lesbians are treated as equal under applicable laws (such as property, taxation) and under common law.
This is an issue of the definition of marriage, which in Canada, has been agreed to be a moral issue. Its not a rights issue, the Supreme court of Canada said it has nothing to do with rights. Its most recent ruling was that: Churches could not be forced to marry same sex couples against their believes, the Canadian government has the authority to change the definition of marriage and that the current definition of marriage does not need to be changed in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So what is the purpose behind changing the definition of marriage? Its not based on the rights of minorities. Its not based on what is benefiical to society.
How is gay marriage a detrement to society? Simple: It attacks the covenant of marriage. It reduces the value and importance of marriage in society to an issue solely of sexuality. In order to be recognized, it must reduce or remove an identifiable feature of hetereosexuality. Persons of diverse sexual identities and communities have a right to fight for tolerance and respect. However, persons of heterosexual identity also have rights to respect and recognition. They also have the right to maintain and foster their own unique institutions. And no institution is more central, more vital, to heterosexual identity than marriage. This point is conceded on all sides of the debate. It sets up a society to accept further moral degredation, it reduces moral evolution (as you put it) to personal choices that benefit the few.
Avesther
New Member
Gandhi said:
In response to:
Point 1: Actually it does. It takes away from my identity, it takes away from an "institution" that defines heterosexuals. You arguement is tantamount to me having a slave from India and saying: I'm not enslaving you, so why should you care. You care because reduces the value of your heritage and people to that of slaves. I doubt very much you would standby idle as Canadian began to take on East Indian slaves and justifying it as a means to control the out of control population growth in India. No matter how you cut it, I am personally affected by the change in definition. As a matter of fact, this is a point even the pro-gay movement agrees to be a fact in reality.
Point 3: I'm kind of glad Bill posted the dictionary.com definition of love, because you haven't determined what love means for you, I will apply the dictionary definition of Love as to your own. You may not like the idea of having somebody else tell you how to define love, much like I don't like the government telling me how to define marriage. Anyway, the deep affection that Karla Humolka and Paul Barnodo invlovled sex play that resulted in the death of three innocent teenaged girls. This is a case of love between two people that intentionally sought to live "out of peace" with society. Try telling the parents of those kids that what Paul and Karla had between the two of them did not affect society.
Point 4: Actually, pets tend to show more signs of love and affection towards their human owners then humans show between each other. Do you need consent to get married? See point 5.
Point 5: Arranged marriages takes away the requirement for consent. Interesting that you actually provided the counter arguement for point 4 all on your own. Do you believe marriage does or does not require consent?
Point 6: Well, better rethink your arguement that anybody who loves each other should be allowed to marry each other. You are now further down along the path that marriage should be between anybody, regardless of anything.
Point 7: Keep thinking. But maybe you should define some boundaries for yourself so you don't think yourself into circles.
Last edited:
Odale
Active Member
Arranged marriages usually take place in very powerful families. The Royal Families of Europe in the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, and even beyond had arranged marriages. The parents could care less if the princess and the prince actually loved each other. They arranged the marriages to make the families and the countries even more powerful. Love was certainly NOT one of their concerns. And consent... HAH!! As if the parents asked their kids if they wanted to marry the prince of France or Spain.... lol Thats funny just thinking about it.