|
Post by markymark on Feb 1, 2005 19:40:00 GMT -6
The debate over same sex marriages is raging in Canada with the tabling of legislation in the House of Commons granting marriage equality for same sex couples. The Supreme Court of Canada, and several provincial supreme courts have already ruled in favour of same sex marriage. This debate is about human rights, the right to equality. Opponents of same sex marriages are attempting to make the argument that they are not against gays and lesbians, but rather against changing the "historic" definition of marriage. It is felt by some that gays and lesbians should accept the lesser state of "civil unions." I would really like to know what threat same sex marriages present to straight marriages? It seems like heterosexuals have done enough on their own to cast a shadow over the institution with its high rate of failure, domestic abuse, infidelity, etc. It is very clear in the court rulings and in the legislation that individual churches would be free to make their own decisions about whether they would allow same sex marriages. Religious freedom is an over used argument against gay marriage...this matter WILL be left up to the churches, and what about churches that WISH to allow gay marriage? (for example, the United Church of Canada) Homophobia is well and alive in Canada. I expect to hear many more lies and distortions of facts over the next few weeks and months as this debate continues. For more information check out some of the following pages: www.equal-marriage.ca/www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Feb 1, 2005 21:17:47 GMT -6
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR EVEN POLYGAMY OR POLYGINY SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE, NOT THE STATE'S
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Feb 1, 2005 21:57:05 GMT -6
This debate is about human rights, the right to equality. This is the exact argument promoted by the Liberal Party, interesting. I take offence to that remark, I AM NOT against gays and lesbian by any means, yet I do not support current proposed legislation. I am all FOR equality and my own opinion would be for the state to get out of the marriage bussiness all together. Let marriage be a strickly religious institution, where each church can decide whether to marry straights only, gays only or whatever. Why does the state have to regulate marriage anyway? Despite the fact that I heard very bad arguments from both sides... Really... The main fear (incidentaly not at all my reason to oppose) would be the obligation to marry gay couple against their religious belief. Another fear goes as to where it stops, what's next bigamy... Myself, I have no such fear, nothing much has changed in The Netherlands since they allowed it. I oppose the bill because of my own beliefs and the fact I am certain the majority of the Canadian population is opposed to it. The current government made absolutely no effort to seek the public opinion before submiting the bill. Hence the opposition to it from within their own party. Regardless of the fact the law states that it can't happen, many believe that years from now someone could be charged for discrimination for refusing to marry a gay couple that would have attended their church regularly. I agree with you there, but please don't think that everyone opposing the bill is homophobic, trust me, you'd be wrong. So do I, from both sides, yet I also expect to hear very good arguments from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 1, 2005 22:01:55 GMT -6
I do not believe that you are homophobic and my apologies if any of my comments caused you offence.
The argument that the majority of Canadians do not support same sex marriage is of no concern to me. When it comes to equality and human rights, we cannot allow the majority to oppress a minority- the courts have already ruled on this. Polls do not matter, however I think the most reliable polls show that the country is about evenly divided on the matter of same sex marriage.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Feb 1, 2005 22:31:02 GMT -6
I do not believe that you are homophobic and my apologies if any of my comments caused you offence. Don't worry about it. But that is just the point, based on courts decisions it is already law of the land in seven provinces, and instead of preserving the status quo and letting the provinces decide, they want to impose their views on the remaining ("minority") provinces. Now to answer you comment, how is keeping the definition of marriage between a man and a woman "oppressive"? I could possibly, maybe concede discrimination but "oppressive", please! If you look at the country as a whole, yes. But the interesting part is the analyze of the polls: 67% of Canadians under 35 are in favor while 69% of Canadians over 54 oppose it. We really have a clash with age here. But as you said, polls don't matter...
|
|
|
Post by jj on Feb 2, 2005 8:47:11 GMT -6
"It seems like heterosexuals have done enough on their own to cast a shadow over the institution with its high rate of failure, domestic abuse, infidelity, etc." Which is why I am quite ambivalent on the whole subject. Who in their right mind would want to get married anyway, gay, straight or in between? As someone who works with family law situations daily (well, not on weekends , I see enough to convince me never to get married, even if it were allowed. That said, I am more or less in agreement with Marc Moisan. "Marriage" should be a religious institution, and to force churches to marry individuals against their belief system would be criminal and ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 2, 2005 16:19:23 GMT -6
I do not believe churches should be forced to marry anyone that they do not wish to, whether they be gay or straight; and no one that I know of believes they should either. This proposed legislation does not contain anything in it that would force churches to marry same sex couples; in fact, it contain provisions to exempt churches from this.
The whole argument that churches may someday be forced to marry same sex couples is simply fear mongering by those opposed to gay marriage. Many churches, for example the Roman Catholic Church, will not marry divorced persons. Divorce has been legal in Canada for decades, no one has attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to marry divorced persons. The situation of same sex marriage is no different.
Although I can understand I.M.'s views on marriage, that does not change the fact that to some same sex couples marriage is important. To deny them this right is discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by jj on Feb 2, 2005 16:29:11 GMT -6
"Although I can understand I.M.'s views on marriage, that does not change the fact that to some same sex couples marriage is important. To deny them this right is discrimination." Yes, that is true (the fools! . Anyway, same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legally-binding agreements and have some recognition of such agreements by other institutions, they should have "civil unions" which carry much the same importance and "weight," as it were, of marriages. I think "marriage" itself, however, can and should remain between two people, one male, one female. This saves a LOT of hassles and problems down the road. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in Canada. As for the US, well, it seems the vast majority of citizens have problems (religiously, morally, ethically, etc.) with the concept of same-sex marriages. But, we do have civil unions - at least in some states - remember, we're a Federal Republic composed of states - and others do not. States get cranky when their being told they have to accept things from other states that they don't like. Well, 'nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by kri on Feb 2, 2005 16:38:05 GMT -6
Many people get married almost entirely because of the legal and health benefits involved. The left-wingers and the right-wingers should just sit down and come to a mutual agreement: the left will give the right its legal definition of marriage as "a man and a woman," and the right will give the left universal access to health care. That should solve the problem!
Ben (far too reasonable to be taken seriously)
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 2, 2005 17:57:54 GMT -6
I do not support the concept of "civil unions" if we are to deny marriage to same sex couples. Although this argument is seldom raised, NOT allowing same sex marriage violates the religious beliefs of MANY people. Thumbs up for universal health care too!
|
|
|
Post by kri on Feb 3, 2005 10:05:01 GMT -6
> Although this argument is seldom raised, NOT allowing same sex marriage violates the religious beliefs of MANY people. This is a slippery slope, though... the world has a sorry history of religious groups demanding that their views be written into law. As a Latter Day Saint, for example, I regard "sprinkling" and "pouring" as invalid forms of baptism (baptism must be by immersion). But do I want the US (or Talossan) governments to pass laws officially declaring that only immersion counts as baptism? The halls of the legislature are not the place for religious debates. That being said, I guess the wimpy "civil union" cop-out position is probably closest to my own. I think Marc has a point about getting government out of the marriage business entirely, the same as it's out of the baptism or communion business. Ben
|
|
|
Post by islensk on Feb 4, 2005 5:14:15 GMT -6
Thankyou Marcüs for bringing up this topic. It's interesting to see what is happening around the world in regards to gay marriage legislation. I, for one, am all for gay marriage, and believe it should be legal. But, I also believe it is up to the individual churches to decide whether or not they will marry a same-sex couple. Unfortunately, the Australian prime-minister is openly against same-sex marriage.
Thanks again Marcus, Geof
|
|
|
Post by misterkaygee on Feb 4, 2005 5:25:04 GMT -6
Opponents of same sex marriages are attempting to make the argument that they are not against gays and lesbians, but rather against changing the "historic" definition of marriage. It is felt by some that gays and lesbians should accept the lesser state of "civil unions." Hello. I just registered, unable to pass up the opportunity to respond to the above. I don't understand why you think that a civil union should be regarded as a "lesser state". I think that gay people should be allowed to form legally-sanctioned unions with all the legally bestowable rights and privileges that now accrue to married people. However, I also believe that the word "marriage" (and the concept) has a meaning that it has acquired over many years, tied to heterosexual behavior. The word itself denotes (and connotes) a relationship between a heterosexual couple who have entered into a civil and/or religious union; hence the need to prepend "gay" to "gay marriage". If it's gay, it's not marriage. It's "gay marriage", and it will probably always be "gay marriage", because "marriage" does not by itself suggest (or even, in the common mind, usually allow) the concept of a homosexual relationship. So, call it what you will. However, insisting on combining "gay" with "marriage" will obviously generate resisitance among people who for one reason or another cannot accept the juxtaposition. If you want to continue to alienate those people, continue to insist. I think that working towards legal equality might, in the long run, prove more valuable than working towards making a cultural point that many folks are bound to find offensive.
|
|
|
Post by misterkaygee on Feb 4, 2005 5:40:05 GMT -6
"Marriage" should be a religious institution, and to force churches to marry individuals against their belief system would be criminal and ridiculous. Marriage should be a religious institution? Where does that leave atheists? As I understand it, marriage, under common law, was a COMMUNITY institution. If the members of your community regarded you as married, you were married. Over time, churches and states assumed the power of the community in this and other regards, which I think is okay if the community accepts it. I was married outside of the U.S. The question arose among my American relatives as to whether the marriage was "legal". After researching the law, I discovered that a bona fide (that's "good faith", not legally sanctioned) marriage is generally recognized by ALL governments, regardless of where or by whom it is performed. The function of the duly constituted authority is to RECOGNIZE the good faith of the principals, not to "pronounce" them man and wife. I agree that churches should not be forced to marry people. However, I also believe that marriage is a de facto condition, not a condition bestowed by a religious or civil authority. In some countries, couples who wish a religious and legally recognized marriage must go through two ceremonies: one civil, one religious. No arguments here. Just some perspective.
|
|
|
Post by kri on Feb 4, 2005 10:34:50 GMT -6
> No arguments here. Just some perspective. Welcome to Wittenberg, and thanks for your perspective! A couple of questions: Who are you, and why are you here? Wittenberg is a discussion group for Talossans and prospective Talossans. For more information about joining Talossa, see our website at www.execpc.com/~talossa/immigration.htmlWe would love to have your join and participate, but remind you that Wittenberg is for Talossans and prospective Talossans. Thanks! R. Ben Madison Talossan citizen since 1979
|
|