Will Canada Abolish Marriage ?

[48Highlander]

We are being forced to tolerate it - and that is bad enough - however, I am recruiting my first platoon of wives, send your picture and info.

If I were you, I'd focus on trying to get a date first  ;D

 

[Trinity]

Midgetcop,
There is a precedent for that, when Massachusetts ordered everyone to gay marry in 2004. See the story here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
Bart

I love ONION

(its a joke site people.. dont take it seriously)

 

[Redeye]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp

Perhaps the change in government might put the brakes to this nonsense. This may not be fair but I sense that Canadian values have been steadily eroded from 40 years ago. The left in the US is attempting to impliment the same agenda. They cannot get legislation passed so they use leftist judges in the judiciary to erode US values which is why the dem's have been fighting Bush's nominee's for the federal judiciary.

Have Canadian values "eroded"?  No, I don't think so.  They've definetely changed, and I think that's fine.  My grandmother was a strictly Catholic woman.  She raised my mother Catholic, and over time my mother began to move away from the faith seeing that there were too many things in it that didn't appeal to her.  She still thinks religion has a place in the world, but doesn't really know where.  She, in turn, raised me and even put me in Catholic school, but I didn't accept any of the theology and moved to a public school for high school.  I don't particularly espouse any religion with any sort of devotion, I do have a great interest in Buddhist ideas, but that's as close to religion as I get.

The article you posted references and article that looks at the issue in purely legal terms.  I've seem some interesting discussions about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether that are interesting.  In Canada as it is, the law affords most of the rights and protections to non-married couples as married couples get anyhow.  In fact, in situations where there is an unequal distribution of the wealth of the couple, not getting married actually can make some sense to avoid property division rules in the event of a divorce.

The way I see it, marriage is what you make it.  I don't think that gay people being able to be married in any way "cheapens" my own marriage.  I don't care if gay people can get married, that's the long and the short of it.  I might be ahead of the curve but I get the sense that on the broad scale Canadian values are moving in that direction.  I simply can't see how or why it should matter to me.  I don't think the sky is going to fall, nor do I think that the broad spectrum of Canadians are suddenly going to embrace polygamy, bestiality, or whatever insane ideas the ultraconservatives trot out as being on the slippery slope.

 

[clasper]

I am against the gay marriage "law" not because I am morally opposed, but because it was simply forced upon all Canadians without their consent. Unlike a lot of Canadians, I believe in government deriving its power from the "Consent of the Governed", not the "Will of the PMO", and having some unelected and unaccountable oligarchy dictating law and morality is more attuned to some ancient, agrarian, slave owning society rather than a 21rst century liberal democracy.

Actually our elected representatives voted 158 to 133 to legalize same sex marriage.  How is this not consent of the governed?  Or are you just against the law because your MP was one of the 133?

As for the polygamy debate, if 3 or more people want to share their lives (and whatever else) together, more power to them as long as they all can make that decision independently (and the logistics of kids, divorce if necessary, inheritance, etc. can be worked out).  But when a 13 year old girl basically has the option to become the 3rd wife of her 40 year old neighbour, or run away from home, then I have a big problem with the concept.  The idea of polygamous or polyamorous relationships isn't offensive, but the way it is practiced in communities like Bountiful is disgusting.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Sallows - Please... as you stated.. tell the "implications of worshipping concensus"
I'd love to hear your points on this.

If concensus is a sufficient basis for a law and you have a system and custom of government with the power to force concensus on an unwilling minority, you have the foundations of injustice.  There is no assurance that the concensus will always be a rational, just, and moral position.  The safeguard is to have a system of government which is resistant to decision-making on the basis of mere concensus and has strong built-in biases against reduction of freedoms, no matter how inconsequential.

 

[Long in the tooth]

There's an interesting scenario that has less to do with marriage and common law relationships and more to do with benefits for dependents.

Let's take a man and two women in a relationship we'll call 'three's company'.  Both women conceive and give birth at the same time.  Would both children become beneficiaries under DNDs medical/dental?  Regardless of marital status they would both be children of the member, and the intent of the medical/dental plans ARE to provide coverage....

This is not a difficult scenario to imagine.  Once we go down this route military recognition of polygamy is inevitable.  I've seen enough common law relationships established and terminated by fax before and after deployments in order for members to receive benefits....

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Grunt that's along the lines of what I was thinking.  Currently the gov't must provide certain benefits to the spouse in a contract that both parties signed when they got married (or declared common law).  If there are to be more contracts paying out more benefits to more spouses I think thats were the gov't may be setting their sights on.

 

[Sheerin]

Sodomy and buggery were also crimes according to the English ecclesiastical courts, but Toronto has a parade every year where thousands of men feel the need to simulate both on city streets.

I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Gay Pride in Toronto?  Or anywhere for that matter?  I have been many times in the last few years and have not seen 'thousands' of people simulating sodomy on the streets.  I have never seen thousands of men simulating sex in the open.  Unless by simulating you mean grinding then well, go to any club and you'll see many many many homosexual and heterosexual couples doing that too. 

We are being forced to tolerate it - and that is bad enough...

We're being forced to tolerate it?  That really doesn't make much sense, unless you'd rather we live in a country the persecutes citizens happen to be different from you?
I honestly don't see how gays being allowed to marry does anything to you.  How is 'being forced to tolerate it' making your life any worse?  Do you honestly go with a black could over your head because you might one day run into a married homosexual couple? 
Again I ask how does gay marriage make life worse for you?

 

[Jungle]

Canada will abolish marriage ??
Does that mean I'm back on the market ??

Bruce, pack your bags man, there are a few people we need to see at the Pub here !!  ;D

Sorry guys... carry on. 

 

[GO!!!]

Again I ask how does gay marriage make life worse for you?

Since you asked;

1) I find gay marriage, and open homosexuality offensive, and revolting.

2) Any time that a vocal minority is able to pervert the laws of our country to support an agenda with little or no merit, beyond their own self - effacing agenda, silencing all of their critics with shrill cries "intolerance" and "homophobia" against all who oppose them, it is indicative of a wider problem. In this case, that of a judiciary with extraordinarily wide definitions of "freedom", and lacking the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right.

3) I believe that our tolerance of homosexuals and their agenda will lead us into a situation in which demands from all special interest groups will be undeniable, due to the demonstrated power of the gay lobby. The next step will be polygamy, and given the rapidly rising numbers of vocal muslims in some of our major cities, almost certain use of Sharia law to resolve problems in those relationships.

Canada was not made great by special interest groups with narrow, self serving agendas.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I personally find that anyone who can't tolerate someone different appalling. Why don't we ban interracial marriages while we're at it. :

 

[48Highlander]

I personally find that anyone who can't tolerate someone different appalling. Why don't we ban interracial marriages while we're at it. :

Yeah you figure insecure white males would be more worried about blacks stealing all their women than they are about gay men stealing eachother....

 

[GO!!!]

I personally find that anyone who can't tolerate someone different appalling. Why don't we ban interracial marriages while we're at it. :

What does interracial marriage have to do with the gay lobby or polygamy? I find people with no opinion on anything other than to oppose the stands that others take to be spineless jellyfish - but carry on.

Yeah you figure insecure white males would be more worried about blacks stealing all their women than they are about gay men stealing eachother....

Judging by the state of your city, the black community is doing a fine job of depopulating itself, so I consider this to be of little importance  :.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Personally, i have no problem with homosexuals. i certainly dont condone what they do, in fact i hate what they do (but i dont hate the person doing it).

My major problem is, slapping the title "Marriage" on their unification (being a biblical sanctioned act, NOT State), all the while, the bible clearly and openly condemning Homosexuality. Its contradictory.

let them sign the papers, let them gather benifits as any other married couple, but dont call them married, and dont do so in the House of god (whom condemns what they do, and certainly doesnt condone their unification or actions).

 

[48Highlander]

Judging by the state of your city, the black community is doing a fine job of depopulating itself, so I consider this to be of little importance  :.

;D

You're just gunning to piss off EVERY minority group tonight, aren't ya?

Tell me, what's your secret?  How do you pull it off without a certain "B. Monkhouse"....no, that's too obvious...."Bruce M." hammering ya with a warning?  :-\

 

[Trinity]

GO

I find public affection of any type past a tiny bit of a kiss or cuddling..  Straight or gay. Its not on.


But I don't agree with your logic.  So help me out. 

We're talking about Gay Marriage.  Not polygamy, not sharia's law, not how the
black people are depopulating themselves in toronto.  These are all great things
to bring in and mix around and dance to seem a legit argument but they're not.

Sharia law was struck down in Ontario as a way to govern as well as all other
religious standards for resolving issues within the community. This was done
because it violates the charter or rights.

There is very little support for pologamy, nor a polygamy movement sweeping
the nation.  Its not on the radar.  I'm just glad you didn't' try to say bestiality is next.

2) Any time that a vocal minority is able to pervert the laws of our country to support an agenda with little or no merit, beyond their own self - effacing agenda, silencing all of their critics with shrill cries "intolerance" and "homophobia" against all who oppose them, it is indicative of a wider problem. In this case, that of a judiciary with extraordinarily wide definitions of "freedom", and lacking the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right.

3) I believe that our tolerance of homosexuals and their agenda will lead us into a situation in which demands from all special interest groups will be undeniable, due to the demonstrated power of the gay lobby. The next step will be polygamy, and given the rapidly rising numbers of vocal muslims in some of our major cities, almost certain use of Sharia law to resolve problems in those relationships. 

I'm confused on how such a small minority of people can amass such a such a huge demonstrated power.
Its probably due to the support of a large population of straight people.  So, despite the fact gays might
make a small minority of the population, there is sizeable support (not majority) but sizeable support.


You talk about perverting the law.  Strong words.  Its the difference between Freedom fighter vs Terrorist.
Same thing, just depends on what side of the fence you sit on (pardon the pun). I don't see using the
charter of rights and freedom and the judiciary system of a democratic society through legal means as
perverting the laws but using the system as it was laid out for all individuals to voice their concern. Equal
representation should have been given to both sides in this before the courts.  It appears you see the
courts as a way for whiny people to get their way when other people don't support them.  I would really
like to see Pologamy and the other "threats" I read from the anti-same sex movement to make it through
court. 

Canada was not made great by special interest groups with narrow, self serving agendas. 

Nope, IMO Canada was made great due to its Laws. Specifically The charter of rights and freedom.  And you're
complaining about special interest groups in politics, go down to Toronto city hall and see all the paid lobbyist.
Go to Ottawa and see the same.  Thats how this world works, from oil, trade, human rights, etc.  If there is no
interest group pushing for it, why would any government care or raise an eyebrow.

Like it or not.  Everything that this movement has done is legal. 



edit - correct repost and spelling

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

48th, I believe GO!!  already had one, but he took it like a man.....

Jungle,  I'm on the way, keep them busy till I get there.... ;D.   Huh, whats that dear?....oh nothing, just typing...

Ref: Gay Marriage
Hey everyone,....isn't the 100's of pages on this topic enough?

Original Topic,
Bruce"s answer?,
Its simple, allow everyone to claim one adult dependant,[cause its all about the money anyway]  everyone else costs ya, and then the Govt can get out of the game and allow whatever church one belongs to too set the rules that you wish to follow regarding consenting adults....

 

[winchable]

I dunno Bruce, I think after years and pages of debate we might actually be on the verge of completely resolving the Gay Marriage debate and we're somehow different from the other half billion people on the internet who have debated this issue into a steaming pile of childish attacks and hetero/gay bashing.


Oh hey a pig just flew past my window.

 

[GO!!!]

;D

You're just gunning to piss off EVERY minority group tonight, aren't ya?

Tell me, what's your secret?  How do you pull it off without a certain "B. Monkhouse"....no, that's too obvious...."Bruce M." hammering ya with a warning?   :-\

I'm not trying to piss anyone off - I'm stating my position - and I did'nt throw down the race card - someone else brought that up.

The mods do what they have to - and I don't think that any of them are treating me any different.

 

[kcdist]

Hmmmmm.

I've always had a problem with the term homophobic. I take the term to roughly mean 'fear of homosexuals'.

I certainly have a viewpoint on homosexuality, however, it is definitely not one of fear.

How about we coin some new terms.

homodisgusted - for some

homosupporter - for others

homointrigued -  for some on the fence

homoIdon'tcaresolongasyoudon'tdoitaroundme - for most of us

Just a thought.....