The W
Views: 100262038
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.14 0330
The W - Current Events & Politics - Canada: Same sex law passed 158-133 (Page 2)
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.41
Pages: Prev 1 2
(715 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (36 total)
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2242 days
Last activity: 1109 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.74
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by DrOp
      The "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" stance sounds great and all, except that I remember one of my first Sunday School lessons being about how it wasn't/isn't man's place to judge, but rather, God's. There are plenty of other sins that aren't legislated against (my understanding is that there are over 600 sins mentioned in the Bible). Why do we feel so deeply threatened as to need to legislated this one?


    I don't know how exactly Baptism and Catholicism differ in ways such as this, so you may be correct. However, I see it differently. If a person where to say, "Person X is a sinner and surely he is going to hell for all eternity" that would be judging a person which is God's job. However, my understanding of my own religion is that a person should not sit idly by while other sin, but rather should work to lead others to do what is right.


Okay--I can agree with the religious premise there--that of helping lead people to do what is "right." Where I am still confounded, however, is how restricting choice helps "lead people to do what is 'right.'" Denying them the right to marry does not mean that they will somehow stop being what and who they are because we (some of us) think it's wrong. I guess the argument can be that homosexuals can be abstinent and thereby not ever commit the "sin," but I don't see how that's fair or reasonable?

If we are "all sinners, born into sin, imperfect as human felsh" (As I recall many sermons)--who gives those of us who don't commit the "sin" of homosexuality (all the while committing other sins) the leverage to point fingers and judge? If we are all sinners-how are those of us who are not homosexual on any higher moral ground than those who are?

Can't a gay person life his/her life in such a way as to be a positive, loving person and a great contributor to society? Can't an adulterer do the same? Where's the difference?

And who determines "right" anyway?

These questions are not targeted aty YOU persea--I've actually asked them of my pastor. Just wondering what your thoughts are.



Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3191 days
Last activity: 3191 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.55
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Uh, so then Congress (or perhaps Canadian Parliament) is full of zealots because they all want to force their beliefs on me, even those I may disagree with them? Or is there something I'm missing here?


No one is trying to force you to marry a gay man, BigSteve.



He was a popular attraction until he choked to death on a corn kernel.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2849 days
Last activity: 2577 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.89
    Originally posted by Stilton
    No one is trying to force you to marry a gay man, BigSteve.


I know. But I'm still wondering whether elected officials are zealots because they want to push their political agenda.


    Denying them the right to marry does not mean that they will somehow stop being what and who they are because we (some of us) think it's wrong.


I would suppose the rationale goes like this: "As a free society, we recognize you have the right to do in the privacy of your own home what you will without intrusion from anyone. However, we feel that what you do is morally wrong, and we are against the government granting recognition to those who participate in this type of activity (which is a defacto acceptance of said lifestyle)." Like I said before, I'm not really on board with this view of things, but I do understand the line of thinking.


    If we are "all sinners, born into sin, imperfect as human flesh" (As I recall many sermons)--who gives those of us who don't commit the "sin" of homosexuality (all the while committing other sins) the leverage to point fingers and judge? If we are all sinners-how are those of us who are not homosexual on any higher moral ground than those who are?


What gives us the right to say that murderers or thieves are wrong and committing sin? It's not that people are judging (well, some people definitely are judging, but that's another matter), but rather that they see sin and wish to rid society of it.

It all depends on your view as a religious person. I'd probably lean more to the side that says "Love thy neighbor" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Or I try to anyway.


    Can't a gay person life his/her life in such a way as to be a positive, loving person and a great contributor to society? Can't an adulterer do the same? Where's the difference?


Of course they can live a positive existence. Anyway that says otherwise is an idiot. But you living a great life wouldn't absolve you of whatever sins you have committed.

Very interesting points you brought up DrOp. I think that some religious people probably do make homosexuality out to be a bigger sin/threat than it actually is.

(edited by BigSteve on 1.7.05 1235)


SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3041 days
Last activity: 255 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I would suppose the rationale goes like this: "As a free society, we recognize you have the right to do in the privacy of your own home what you will without intrusion from anyone. However, we feel that what you do is morally wrong, and we are against the government granting recognition to those who participate in this type of activity (which is a defacto acceptance of said lifestyle)." Like I said before, I'm not really on board with this view of things, but I do understand the line of thinking.
    ...
    What gives us the right to say that murderers or thieves are wrong and committing sin? It's not that people are judging (well, some people definitely are judging, but that's another matter), but rather that they see sin and wish to rid society of it.


You need to separate the legal perspective from the moral perspective.

As a _person_, I can make whatever moral judgements I find to be appropriate. I can use any set of criteria I wish, religious or otherwise. I can apply the "morally wrong" and/or "sinful" labels to anything in my own mind.

But if I become a judge, or a Congressman, or a police office, or someone else dedicated to making and upholding public law, the concept of "sin" is no longer relevant to the argument when on taxpayer's time. The law is about protection of rights, about fairness, about prevention of harm. It is not about moral rightness and wrongness, particularly since all morals are subjective. "It's morally wrong," particularly when that's determined from an explicitly religious perspective, is _not sufficient_ reason for something to be banned or restricted _under law_.

Can a church make such a pronouncement for its congregations and expect them to abide by it? Of course. Religions have moral codes that go above and beyond what the law restricts, and are opt-in.

But there are a hell of a lot of moral issues on which churches disagree widely, homosexuality being one of them. Banning same-sex marriage because Churches A, B, C and D disapprove of it violates the rights of Churches E and F that may approve of it, if that religious endorsement is the reason for the ban. And if it isn't, then where is that "morally wrong" judgement coming from?

I'm still waiting for a case to be made as to why same-sex marriage should be banned that doesn't boil down to the same two arguments:
1) God wants it that way.
2) It's how it's always been.

If it's "morally wrong," WHY is it "morally wrong?" What harm does it cause? Why should it be frowned upon? It's either because "[religious text/organization] says so" (see #1 above) or it's based on an argument I haven't heard yet.





Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2242 days
Last activity: 1109 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.74
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I would suppose the rationale goes like this: "As a free society, we recognize you have the right to do in the privacy of your own home what you will without intrusion from anyone. However, we feel that what you do is morally wrong, and we are against the government granting recognition to those who participate in this type of activity (which is a defacto acceptance of said lifestyle)." Like I said before, I'm not really on board with this view of things, but I do understand the line of thinking.




See--this is where I don't get it. You can't do whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home without intrusion. You can't batter your wife, you can't abuse your children, you can not committ crimes that are otherwise illegal or harmful to others. If the "harmful to others" is the measurig stick, then it the scenario of gay marriage harms no one. This whole argument boils down to "I don't want to see it and deal with it, therefore I will legislate against it." Any government that would seek to (un?)intentionally make outcasts of between 10-15% of its citizens is treading on thin ice, IMO.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    ...Of course they can live a positive existence. Anyway that says otherwise is an idiot. But you living a great life wouldn't absolve you of whatever sins you have committed.

    Very interesting points you brought up DrOp. I think that some religious people probably do make homosexuality out to be a bigger sin/threat than it actually is.

    (edited by BigSteve on 1.7.05 1235)


Exactly my point-no of us is absolved. And I would personally have a gay, amrried couple with adopted kids living next to me to hold up as an example than a traditionally married couple with tons of dysfunction.

The hard part ofr me is that I feel like similar arguments were once used against women and minorities (and sometimes still are). And in all cases, I think its just wrong.



BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2849 days
Last activity: 2577 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.89
    Originally posted by DrOp
    See--this is where I don't get it. You can't do whatever you wish in the privacy of your own home without intrusion. You can't batter your wife, you can't abuse your children, you can not committ crimes that are otherwise illegal or harmful to others. If the "harmful to others" is the measurig stick, then it the scenario of gay marriage harms no one. This whole argument boils down to "I don't want to see it and deal with it, therefore I will legislate against it." Any government that would seek to (un?)intentionally make outcasts of between 10-15% of its citizens is treading on thin ice, IMO.


You're absolutely right, and I don't doubt that that's some people's attitude on the issue.

    Originally posted by vsp
    I'm still waiting for a case to be made as to why same-sex marriage should be banned that doesn't boil down to the same two arguments:
    1) God wants it that way.
    2) It's how it's always been.

    If it's "morally wrong," WHY is it "morally wrong?" What harm does it cause? Why should it be frowned upon? It's either because "[religious text/organization] says so" (see #1 above) or it's based on an argument I haven't heard yet.


    Originally posted by me earlier in the thread
    People have brought up quite a few interesting points so far. Personally, I think that here in the US, gay marriage ought to be left up to individual states to contemplate. I don't think that judges should decide this issue because I really don't see why we must have gay marriages in this country (as I generally think that marriage is for procreation ; yes, I am aware that not all married people have children). I also don't think that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage because I don't see why we absolutely must not have them in this country.


I don't believe that there is a fundamental, inalienable right to marry. People have the right to associate freely with one another and have relationships with whomever they choose. However, there is no reason for the government to codify a same-sex relationship in the way that they do with a heterosexual marriage, as the reason to do so in the latter case is to promote stable families (i.e. with children).

Ive always wondered, what about if three people love each other very much and want to get married? Would you object to the government marrying three people to one another?





SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2300 days
Last activity: 2297 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.00
It's more complicated than merely shacking up with someone, though. It's about things like health coverage, the right to file a joint tax return/marriage tax incentives and breaks, hospital visitation rights, life insurance, rights to community property, SRAP benefits, etc. In other words, all of the things you would want a spouse to have and right now are off-limits for the vast majority of gay couples.



(edited by Blanket Jackson on 1.7.05 1450)


"Did you get your Journalism degree from a box of Cocoa Puffs?"
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2849 days
Last activity: 2577 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.89
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    It's more complicated than merely shacking up with someone, though. It's about things like health coverage, the right to file a joint tax return/marriage tax incentives and breaks, hospital visitation rights, life insurance, rights to community property, SRAP benefits, etc. In other words, all of the things you would want a spouse to have and right now are off-limits for the vast majority of gay couples.



    (edited by Blanket Jackson on 1.7.05 1450)


Agreed on that point, and I meant to mention that in my post because I think that that is a very big problem.



SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3041 days
Last activity: 255 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I don't believe that there is a fundamental, inalienable right to marry. People have the right to associate freely with one another and have relationships with whomever they choose. However, there is no reason for the government to codify a same-sex relationship in the way that they do with a heterosexual marriage, as the reason to do so in the latter case is to promote stable families (i.e. with children).


One word: adoption. Homosexuality does not preclude stable family life and/or children.


    Ive always wondered, what about if three people love each other very much and want to get married? Would you object to the government marrying three people to one another?


Won't happen in our lifetimes.

Not because I have a huge moral quandry over it, not because the churches would collectively shit themselves, not because a change as minor as recognizing same-sex couples is causing such hysteria, not because most three-way relationships _are_ doomed to jealousy and failure, but because it would cause a MASSIVE clusterfuck in America's legal and economic systems.

If polygamy is okayed, how are the tax forms revised to account for >2-partner households? When one person leaves a three-person marriage, are the other two still married? How are the divorce settlements handled between the parties? What if there are kids -- how does custody work out between three or more? When applying for a loan or mortgage, how many spouses can pool their resources? Could two marry and then decide to add a third or more later on, or would they have to marry all at once? The questions write themselves.

Same-sex marriage is more of a moral disruption than a legal disruption, so to speak. A lot of two-party contracts designed to be between a man and a woman can be revised to handle same-sex couples with little difficulty. Extending it to groups is another matter entirely, and an extremely unlikely "slippery slope" effect.




Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2849 days
Last activity: 2577 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.89

    One word: adoption. Homosexuality does not preclude stable family life and/or children.


The rates of a traditional family in a same-sex partnership is by its nature lower than that in a heterosexual partnership. It isn't the norm, it isn't the expectation, and it will never be. And that is a whole different issue anyway.


    Won't happen in our lifetimes.

    Not because I have a huge moral quandary over it, not because the churches would collectively shit themselves, not because a change as minor as recognizing same-sex couples is causing such hysteria, not because most three-way relationships _are_ doomed to jealousy and failure, but because it would cause a MASSIVE cluster fuck in America's legal and economic systems.

    If polygamy is okayed, how are the tax forms revised to account for >2-partner households? When one person leaves a three-person marriage, are the other two still married? How are the divorce settlements handled between the parties? What if there are kids -- how does custody work out between three or more? When applying for a loan or mortgage, how many spouses can pool their resources? Could two marry and then decide to add a third or more later on, or would they have to marry all at once? The questions write themselves.

    Same-sex marriage is more of a moral disruption than a legal disruption, so to speak. A lot of two-party contracts designed to be between a man and a woman can be revised to handle same-sex couples with little difficulty. Extending it to groups is another matter entirely, and an extremely unlikely "slippery slope" effect.


So then marriage rights for those people that find themselves in another non-traditional relationship between consenting adults should not be recognized because it will cause an inconvenience? Most of those questions are fairly easily answered anyway (is there a fair way to determine custody in a normal marriage?; How are divorce settlements handled between two parties).

The very argument that you are making (marriage is the way that it has always been so why change now) is the exact same argument that you rejected in your other post. You can't deny people fundamental rights because it poses a burden on the government to accommodate those rights.



SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3041 days
Last activity: 255 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    The rates of a traditional family in a same-sex partnership is by its nature lower than that in a heterosexual partnership.


"Rates?"

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    So then marriage rights for those people that find themselves in another non-traditional relationship between consenting adults should not be recognized because it will cause an inconvenience?

    The very argument that you are making (marriage is the way that it has always been so why change now) is the exact same argument that you rejected in your other post. You can't deny people fundamental rights because it poses a burden on the government to accommodate those rights.


I'm not saying that it _should_ remain illegal because it would be a massive shock to the American legal system. I'm saying that it _will_ remain illegal because it would be a massive shock to the American legal system.

Realistically speaking, as long as they're consensual and the laws are rewritten to accommodate them fairly, I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages. It's not like it's never happened in America before (hello Utah), much less in other countries. Since polygamy includes same-sex partners by definition, this current fight is one of the hurdles it faces as well. It's a tough road to walk, but if they can make it work, good for them.

However, the realities of politics show that getting people to accept changes to basic structures like marriage is a long and uphill battle. (It wasn't THAT long ago that miscegenation laws were still on the books in parts of this nation, for instance. Only FIVE YEARS AGO, Alabama still had a no-mixed-marriages law on the books and drew 40% support to keep it, even though it had been declared unconstitutional decades before.) If _two-person_ relationships are being fought tooth and nail, the chances of a three-man-three-woman commune being written into law any time soon are beyond miniscule.




Vanilla Ice on stardom: "I had a weekend that lasted a couple of years."
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 553 days
Last activity: 420 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.51
The rates of traditional families are lower probably because gay couples are not allowed traditional families. In many places, they are not allowed to adopt or keep a kid from a former marriage.

We can't judge whether gay couples would be good in a traditional family into we allow them the opportunity. And honestly, I don't see straight couples doing such a hot job right now, so I don't see how many of them can pass any judgement on whether gays are good parents or not.

Regardless, my fiancee and I plan to adopt, not give birth. This places me on par with a gay couple in terms of potential for a traditional family. Should I not be allowed traditional marriage benefits?

And the thing that seperates homosexuality from murder or pedophilia when it comes to government intervention is what I call the "do no harm" form of governing. The government should step in and legislate when harm against an individual, property or the environment is at stake, but not when a totally personal issue is at stake, whether self-harm is involved or not.

Pedophilia is wrong because it is taking advantage of someone who cannot make a rational decision to accept or deny the sexual advance. This is true whether straight or gay individuals are concerned.

A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults deals with strictly personal issues. The government codifying homosexual marriages is not a promotion of them. We (most people) would not say the government is promoting smoking cigarettes by keeping them legal, but rather is saying it's not their business to tell an adult what to do with their bodies. Or, let's go to a more personal example. The government allows two individuals into BDSM lifestyles to marry, yet many people (including me) find BDSM morally wrong.

Should we be preventing these two individuals from marrying and having the same benefits as two individuals not into BDSM?

In the end, this is not about asking the government to make moral judgements for homosexuality. It is about asking them to not make moral judgements against homosexuality. It is about asking them to pass laws only when harm against an individual is at stake, which is not the case with two adult homosexuals marrying.

To make this clear, let's look at the marriage law. Right now, the law concerning marriage boils down to "Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman." That is passing a moral judgement on what marriage is. It should be changed to "Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults." This is stepping aside from moral judgements and allowing individuals to decide what is right for them, as long as no harm is involved.

It is okay for you or I to make moral judgements. I make many of them every day, and live my life accordingly. But the government, to be a broken record, should only make moral judgements and laws dealing with violence and harm.



Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.44
By your logic, "Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults" ALSO contains a moral judgment. This leads me to believe your logic is flawed.

A lot of you have been repeating yourselves for a while now (and/or are inexplicably responding to every post), so let's try to wrap it up.




CRZ
Oliver
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: #YEG

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.02
It seems to be one step closer to gays and homosexuals being finally accepted as equals by society. Does that mean the parades can end?



I play chicken with the train, play chicken with the train train, uh-huh uh-huh!
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.08
    Originally posted by SOK
    It seems to be one step closer to gays and homosexuals being finally accepted as equals by society. Does that mean the parades can end?


I think I heard that the Pride parade in Toronto brings in something like $80 million annually. I don't think it'll be stopping anytime soon.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.52
    Originally posted by SOK
    It seems to be one step closer to gays and homosexuals being finally accepted as equals by society. Does that mean the parades can end?


Aw come on, everyone loves a parade!

Rejected one-liner #1: Aw come on, everyone has a gay old time!

Rejected one-liner #2: Just think, for every gay parade that is held, George W. Bush gets just a bit angrier.



"You can look the other way once, and it's no big deal, except it makes it easier for you to compromise the next time, and pretty soon that's all your doing; compromising, because that's the way you think things are done. You know those guys I busted? You think they were the bad guys? Because they weren't, they weren't bad guys, they were just like you and me. Except they compromised... Once." -- Jack Bauer
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.41
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: London hit by explosions
Next thread: Supreme court rules cities may seize homes for private devolpers
Previous thread: CU gives Ward "Shoot your officers" Churchill raise
(715 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Seen it last night... I've gotta say Easterbrook is at least fair about calling bullshit on both sides. Doesn't excuse most of Bush's environmental record, but he's innocent here.
- drjayphd, Air Still Getting Cleaner (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Canada: Same sex law passed 158-133 (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.695 seconds.