Gay marriage legalized in Canada

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

You think Conservatives don't have at least one good argument up their sleeve ... ?

What's their good argument against gay people getting married?

[viscousmemories]

It's icky! Duh.

[D. Scarlatti]

That's one argument I've heard, to be sure. I hope it's not an example of a "good" one though.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/equal-marriage.htm

What I have lost touch with is whether or not it went to vote. How did that work.

It sounds like he promised it would go to vote, but then he's clear on his stance on the subject. The only question is whether or not it went to vote, and I think it did, correct?

I believe it was voted on three times. Whatever is normal for Canada's parliament.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

You just don't like it because the actual speculations are so low as opposed to the obviously bloated figures most like to toss around, the 10%.

I don't know what you are talking about, most women are only a margarita or two away from being bisexual anyway.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

What's their good argument against gay people getting married?

What's your good argument for it?

If we start with the assumption that traditional marriage is what marriage is, that it evolved this way for a reason, that it serves a unique function in our society and that we need it, what can you say to convince me that we also need homosexual marriage?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Warren

\I don't know what you are talking about, most women are only a margarita or two away from being bisexual anyway.

There are practicing homosexuals and there are not. We are concerned with practicing homosexuals.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

What's your good argument for it?

Didn't you just accuse vm of sidestepping your questions in another thread?

Anyway, who said I was for gay marriage? I want to hear these good conservative arguments against it.

If we start with the assumption that traditional marriage is what marriage is, that it evolved this way for a reason, that it serves a unique function in our society and that we need it, what can you say to convince me that we also need homosexual marriage?

Probably nothing. I don't "need" homosexual marriage either.

Now where are your good conservative arguments against it?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

It's icky! Duh.

Since I have already stated in the past that I am bisexual in one sense, I doubt that's my argument. I don't think it's icky but it's easy for you to think that's all there is to it, you don't have to exercise your brain much in that case and I know how well that works out for you.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Didn't you just accuse vm of sidestepping your questions in another thread?

Anyway, who said I was for gay marriage? I want to hear these good conservative arguments against it.

It's not a sidestep. If I take position A and you take position B, you have to demonstrate to me that I should go from position A to position B. My position is first, heterosexual has an obvious function and a purpose for it's evolution, so show me why I should accept position B. I already stated that the only reason to go from point A to point B is because that's what homosexuals want, there are no good arguments and the only real arguments normally proferred are appeals to emotion which is why I say I would prefer it if my government would utilize reason rather than emotion.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

What's your good argument for it?

Equal treatment under the law is enough of a good reason for me.

[D. Scarlatti]

So there are no good conservative arguments against gay marriage after all?

Or you just don't know any? Or you won't or can't answer the question?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Since I have already stated in the past that I am bisexual in one sense, I doubt that's my argument. I don't think it's icky but it's easy for you to think that's all there is to it, you don't have to exercise your brain much in that case and I know how well that works out for you.

Did I say that was your argument?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Warren

Equal treatment under the law is enough of a good reason for me.

First you should demonstrate to me why it is that anybody should be granted the right to marry anybody. Do you extend that right to incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc.

I would say that you would.

Now the problem with that is that you are fighting over the definition only to get marriage to the point where it has no real definition. You can see that problem inherent in the concept, you've already stated as much.

Now, if we take that thought further, we see that homosexuals are fighting against the very thing that they want on the one hand.

There's a way of putting thing that's tickling my tongue, I just can't put it together.

[Sweetie]

They aren't really fighting for marriage, they are fighting for the ultimate dissolution of marriage whether they or you recognize that or not. It's like hold here, or let go all reigns, that's what reason dictates. The problem is, heterosexual marriage served a necessary function in our society, and it was rewarded accordingly, reason can easily demonstrate that is the case so an acceptance of position A is a reasonable thing to do. From A to B though is where complications arise. What's next?

[Ari]

Sweetie: Maybe you can explain to me exactly what necessary function heterosexual legal marriage has that shouldn't be given to homosexuals?

[D. Scarlatti]

Ctrl+A, Del

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

First you should demonstrate to me why it is that anybody should be granted the right to marry anybody. Do you extend that right to incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc.

I would say that you would.

Within limitations, I would indeed grant that right. Once past child-bearing years, I don't see the harm in allowing siblings that choose to live together, whether of same or different sex, enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. I also see nothing wrong with two or more legally consenting adults making whatever sort of relationships they want.

Now the problem with that is that you are fighting over the definition only to get marriage to the point where it has no real definition. You can see that problem inherent in the concept, you've already stated as much.

I wish marriage really would get to the point where it has no real definition, at least as legally recognized by government. It's a simple issue of fairness. Why should someone that remains single be discriminated against just because they don't wish to get into a committed relationship? As for the ones that do want to, they can have at it, no government issued piece of paper makes a relationship, the two (or more) individuals involved are they only ones that can really make a commitment like that.

Now, if we take that thought further, we see that homosexuals are fighting against the very thing that they want on the one hand.

I'm not homosexual, I just recognize something that is inherently unfair, regardless of gender orientation. I've already said I would like to see marriage destroyed as a legal institution, or at least as one that has any legal or monetary advantages at all.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

If we start with the assumption that traditional marriage is what marriage is, that it evolved this way for a reason, that it serves a unique function in our society and that we need it

I only accept the first one of those assumptions.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

You just don't like it because the actual speculations are so low as opposed to the obviously bloated figures most like to toss around, the 10%.

Ahh, no. Actually Sweetie, like most intelligent people who have actually studied some of the surveys you and others use to quote said figures, I understand their flaws. The one commonly used for the "3%" figure made almost all the same mistakes as Kinsey did with his "10%" resulting survey, but without the sampling bias he was commonly criticised for. If you knew jack shit about the issue, you'd know this.

Also, maybe this might be difficult for your narrow pathed little mind to grasp, but some of us don't think of the plethora of human sexual practices in outdated, pathetic dichotomies.

I've argued this case over and over and over and over again. I've been able to detangle your entangling slavery on this issue

No, actually, you haven't. All you're done is said that you have, without providing any actual "detangling". How about you try again, this time with substance instead of you usual posturing. How is any argument that says a minority is not allowed to campaign for their basic human rights simply because they are a minority logical? As I said - if Catholics were denied the right to marry in the US, by your argument, they couldn't complain. If Latinos were denied the right to have a drivers license, again, by your argument, they couldn't complain. If your family were denied the right to leave your house by the government, by your argument, you wouldn't be allowed to complain, because your family is a minority.

Sweetie, admit it, your argument is shit. Please, just do us all a favour.

Ultimately, the only claim that stands in the end is that we should go from the traditional definition to an alternate one because that's what they want.

Traditional definition of what, and who wants it? You fail to answer my point that it's not only homosexuals who support and want gay marriage. Or are you going to tell me every single senator that voted the bill into the Canadian laws is a homosexual? And if we're talking true "traditional" definitions of marriage, then maybe you should do a little research on the topic. You know what the "traditional" definition means, don't you? Upper-class marriages for economic and tribal reasons, female being used as a bartering object in the ritual which is reduced to nothing more than a financial transaction in a social system where a church has as much power as a bank or government.

Or are you talking about "traditional" in a non-existant idealised 1950s kinda way? Cos honey, it wasn't even as perfect as you might like to think it was back then.

I'm not a narrow-minded feminist whore, or wanna be whore at the very least.

I think it's incredibly sad you use the word "feminist" as an insult.

You think Conservatives don't have at least one good argument up their sleeve and you think you've got it all figured out?

...

You. Just. Argh. Sweetie, this isn't a game of cards. No, conservatives don't have any decent arguments, because they're all based on outdated, archaic and barbaric ideals of gender relations that have never existed, and never will exist, except in their power-hungry little minds.

You think the crap you have proferred at the moment ultimately has any merit?

You haven't provided any actual arguments to counter it, so yes, actually, I do. Or are you hiding something up your sleeve you don't want us to know about?

I've managed to sway a few people to my side on this gay marriage thing, I could sway a few others.

Names and numbers, pls.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

It may or may not be...

No. It is false. Whatever you might believe you heard Martin say, or heard someone else say that he said, the record clearly shows Martin and his officials stating that the Liberal Party supported same-sex marriage in the run-up to the election. Nobody could have followed the news and been unclear on the matter.

...but coming deadline man, he was ambiguous. I fricken heard him, on radio, on tv at that time instead of saying yes or no, he was being obscure. The News reports were obscure too, the ones I encountered.

Memory is a tricky thing. I've provided the evidence from the record that Martin was not hiding his views.

Going to polls, as far as I knew and as far as things had been reported where I am, the question was still open.

Okay.

Even the Newscasters were saying that. Perhaps at some point, he lead us to believe as opposed to his other expressions, that there was still leeway on the subject within his party.

Which newscaster, and when?

I also remembered a Newcast saying that late 90's, the Liberal party had said that they would not vote in favor of gay marriage so those who voted for them then were also voting in favor of that. Grrrr, either I am getting sloppy reporting, you are or the Liberal party was indeed being ambiguous.

Wait, so you seem to recall hearing a reporter from 8 or so years ago saying that (at some time) the Liberals had said that...

I think the most likely options are not among the three you list. Certainly for you to include the prospect that I'm "getting sloppy reporting" when I've given you the recent specific sources for Martin's own words and you've given "I once heard a guy say..." is remarkable. Often people realize they're going to heroic lengths to defend an unwarranted belief, when they catch themselves doing things like that.

That doesn't matter because that's not what I meant. Marriage affects 100% of the population, 97% of the population being heterosexual. Whether the heterosexual population agrees with the decision or not does not mean that 3% hasn't dictated to the population what marriage is or isn't.

It means that if you speak any dialect of English. Or have those hungry people in Africa dictated to us, since we're sending them food?

Sheesh.

So far every substantial claim of your original post is conclusively falsified or just plain unwarranted. I recommend revising your beliefs about the election and the national politics of gay marriage rights, to make them consonant with what's actually happened.

[Farren]

South Africa's more or less certain to properly legalise gay marriage later this year.

Two courts, a regional high court and the supreme court of appeal, have more or less ordered government to change the wording of the relevant acts to give gay marriage full legal status and the case is now being appealed in the constitutional court as a last resort.

Section 9 of the SA constition specifically forbids discrimination based on sexual discrimination and every legal challenge to such discrimination has been successful since we adopted the new constitution. Gays can, for instance, adopt children without any hurdles and insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate in terms of benefits to gay dependents.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

There are practicing homosexuals and there are not. We are concerned with practicing homosexuals.

Sweetie, I know you're not Anglican, but you might want to hear what Nobel prize laureate Desmond Tutu has to say on homosexuality:

Originally Posted by Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Asked by ENI why he had adopted this stand, when most church leaders were reticent to speak or else branded homosexual behaviour as immoral, he replied: "The answer is straightforward. It is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about.

"It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present."

Originally Posted by Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"Our church [Anglican] says that the orientation is okay, but gay sex activity is wrong. That is crazy. We say the expression of love in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship is more than just the physical but includes touching, embracing, kissing, maybe the genital act. The totality of this makes each of us grow to become giving, increasingly god-like and compassionate. If it is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual, provided the relationship is exclusive, not promiscuous?

It is only of homosexual persons that we require universal celibacy, whereas for others we teach that celibacy is a special vocation. We say that sexual orientation is morally a matter of indifference, but what is culpable are homosexual acts. But then we claim that sexuality is a divine gift, which used properly, helps us to become more fully human and akin really to God, as it is this part of our humanity that makes us more gentle and caring, more self-giving and concerned for others than we would be without that gift. Why should we want all homosexual persons not to give expression to their sexuality in loving acts? Why don't we use the same criteria to judge same-sex relationships that we use to judge whether heterosexual relationships are wholesome or not?

I was left deeply disturbed by these inconsistencies and knew that the Lord of the Church would not be where his church is in this matter. Can we act quickly to let the gospel imperatives prevail as we remember our baptism and theirs, and be thankful?"

I love that old guy. He starts from the position that homosexuality is a condition of birth and reaches the obvious conclusion that a just and loving God would make people that way because he wanted them to be that way, instead of ascribing to his God a very human bigotry that has been around longer than Christianity.

[Sweetie]

Adora, once again I'll repeat, behave or don't bother speaking to me but I will question one of your ideas because it's so obviously meaingless. What is it to be outdated, what are outdated sexual practices? Homosexuality is not a new thing on the face of this earth, Rome practiced it publicly and I doubt there are any sexual practices that no society has seen before so, how could you use "outdated" as an insult? My sexual practices are no more outdated than any other. There are reasons to do one thing as opposed to another which is a concept some of you miss. At the very least, the question of preferrable. Now, I will say this, anything you are about is non-preferrable to me nor attractive so I'm not sure why it would be an insult to say I prefer one thing over another when the things you are presenting have no value to me, and are ugly in comparison to the thing I've found.

Clutch Munny, whatever. I did not say you were wrong in saying that Paul Martin said one thing, but I do recall laying on a table with CJWW broadcasting an at least half an hour interview with Paul Martin, and I do recall that everytime the subject of homosexual marriage came up, he would change the subject. Now, what are the chances of finding that broadcast? I had nothing better to do than lay on the table and listen to the broadcast, I was at an appointment. His right hand might have been doing one thing, but the left hand was at times, trying to distract, I remember it distinctly. I remember discussing it with the person I was with, and I remember feeling anger at his consistent evasive maneuvers come crunch time. Either way.

How about this, I'll say that you're right anyways. This is Conservative Saskatchewan and you live in Liberal Ontario.

[D. Scarlatti]

I'd find Adora's comment about outdated sexual practices meaningless too - if she ever made one.