 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
I'm unsure of the allusion. The argument goes back to the old constitution of Canada that describes the role of parliament as a caretaker of marriage. That description seems to rule out the capacity of parliament to redefine marriage. |
Vicky Windsor = Queen Victoria. Why should her government have been able to define marriage for 21st century Canadians, but not the current parliament?
quote:
Marriage, for Christians is an important part of exercising their religion. To limit their ability to marry limits their ability to be a Christian. If marriage has nothing to do with religious practice, why does the Catholic church have such strict rules about believers marrying unbelievers?
|
Rastafarians can't legally smoke weed, Wahabbists can't beat their wives, and perhaps the most apt example, Mormons can't marry multiple people. Civil laws can trump forms of religious expression.
quote:
Equality is not the issue. |
Yes it is. You said that a prohibition against interracial marriage is not ok, but a prohibition against gay marriage is. You have to justify that because you haven't yet.
BTW, what do you think of prohibitions against inter-religious marriage?
quote:
I'll make the case again. One can inherit a predisposition to homosexuality, but the predisposition does not determine behavior. To argue that one has no control over sexual urges would excuse every rapist. |
The point again is that the state is discriminating against gay sexual unions. You said that's ok since homosexuality isn't biological; but it is.
If you want to worry about semantics, race is more a social than biological construct.
quote:
Over the entire sample. These are exceptions and should not prove the case for the norm. Society can reasonably expect children to come from a marriage, but cannot reasonably expect children to come from gay marriage. |
You totally ignored the point again (and I've asked you about this before). Please answer the question:
Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids (biological or adopted)?
Furthermore, the number of kids straight people get can vary. So why should the benefit be constant?
quote:
And you also have to note I make the qualifier, 'within the union.' The obvious exception is adoption, but the problem is that it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities. . |
So what are you saying? That gay people who raise kids that straight married people throw out shouldn't get marriage benefits?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. I'm only talking about Christians, and what role marriage plays in how they exercise religious freedom, at least in that particular post.
Some non-christians do value marriage. I would be a fool not to talk about the Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. |
I just want to know why your Church, and others like it, get to enforce their views on marriage on other Christian Churches, and people who want to get married in them.
Face it Ben, your days of puritanism are numbered. If Parliament doesn't get this done on equality for gays under federal human rights statutes, then someone is gonna get it done under freedom of religion provisions before the Supreme Court.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Ramo:
quote:
Why should her government have been able to define marriage for 21st century Canadians, but not the current parliament?
|
Did the Constitution define marriage, or did they simply recognise a common definition of marriage that was already existing in law for quite some time. It is not as if Vicky Windsor came down from on high in 1867 and declared the definition, as the courts of Canada are doing so right now.
quote:
Rastafarians can't legally smoke weed, Wahabbists can't beat their wives, and perhaps the most apt example, Mormons can't marry multiple people. Civil laws can trump forms of religious expression.
|
That's an argument for getting rid of marriage altogether. No dice in supporting gay marriage.
quote:
The point again is that the state is discriminating against gay sexual unions. You said that's ok since homosexuality isn't biological; but it is.
|
Why is homosexuality biological? I gave my argument, you need to defend yours, rather than just saying that it is.
quote:
If you want to worry about semantics, race is more a social than biological construct.
|
Irrelevent. You want to do away with race under those provisions, go right ahead. It does not affect the issue of homosexuality.
quote:
Gay couples are perfectly capable of adopting. Straight couples are perfectly capable of not having kids. Why not seperate this benefit from whether or not one is straight, and tie it to whether or not one has kids (biological or adopted)?
Furthermore, the number of kids straight people get can vary. So why should the benefit be constant?
|
I answered these already. Please address my answer. Over the entire sample.... On average, whichever you prefer. You cannot gage the norm by the extremes.
quote:
So what are you saying? That gay people who raise kids that straight married people throw out shouldn't get marriage benefits?
|
How many straight married couples put their children up for adoption?  It is just as bad to overemphasize procreation and childrearing over love, as it is to emphasize love over childrearing and procreation. Both aspects should be part of marriage, one not seperated from the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why is homosexuality biological? I gave my argument, you need to defend yours, rather than just saying that it is. |
http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html
quote:
In 1991, newspapers primarily on both coasts trumpeted the discovery of a brain difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Although the research finding itself was reported fairly accurately, the accounts universally concluded that the discovery had social-policy implications. Commentators triumphantly claimed that the discovery would halt any remaining uncertainty that homosexuality was either a choice, or a consequence of factors in upbringing. Therefore, they claimed, to continue to support anything less than full acceptance of homosexual behavior would be proof positive of prejudicial hatred.
What precipitated this outpouring? In August of 1991, a San Francisco neuroanatomist, Simon LeVay, published an article in the respected journal Science. It reported his finding that a localized cluster (a "nucleus") of cells in the brains of "homosexual" men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in "heterosexual" men.{2} "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are in quotations here because in this particular study the definitions of each were extremely imprecise, nor was there any way of verifying sexual orientation, as the subjects were dead.
But this was not the first such discovery. One year before a group reported in Brain Research that they had found a similar difference in both volume and number of cells in a different brain nucleus.{3} The media did not report this first study because Brain Research, unlike Science, is read only by neuroscientists. And in contrast to journalists, the neuroscientists themselves genuinely understood the research and its limitations, and saw no reason to make grand pronouncements.
More recently, yet another difference in another part of the brain was reported, also in a prestigious publication, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. This study claimed that a difference between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was found in the anterior commissure, a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain. The authors found that the anterior commissure was larger in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:33
|
|
Ben. You are just proving how ignorant and pathetic the arguments against Gay Marriages are. From a religios point of view. I'm surprised Asher and all them are still bothering trying to argue with you. Its pretty obvious that you will never be swayed cause of your hmmm obsolete religious convictions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Starchild
|
 |
a raving alcoholic drama queen with a penchant for the biosciences
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1) Marriage, as an institution, cannot be redefined or limited by parliament, because parliament does not have the authority to redefine or limit marraige. This would render this change null and void, as well as ruling out gay marraige.
|
quote:
Parliament would not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to restrict this definition. |
quote:
The argument goes back to the old constitution of Canada that describes the role of parliament as a caretaker of marriage. That description seems to rule out the capacity of parliament to redefine marriage |
Sorry Ben, but you're wrong. The concept of Parliamentary sovereignty, which Canada inherited from the UK, means that Parliament is free to create any law or definition it damn well feels like. Also, since each individual sitting of Parliament is in itself sovereign, current Parliaments can neither be bound by nor bind past or future Parliaments. If the House of Commons in Canada wanted to, it could dissolve all the courts and Provincial parliaments, repeal all past legislation, and rule by dictate just like the UK House of Commons creates and dissolves other bodies (London Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Supreme Courts) as it sees fit.
So Parliament can define marriage in Canada any way it wants. No prior law can restrict its ability to do this. Hell, if it wanted to, the Canadian Parliament could define marriage to be exclusively between a man and an oak tree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You have precisely the same rights as I do, to marry a woman of your choice, should she also consent. |
I can't believe anyone would would field this absurdity around here, not once ... but twice!
I gotta question for you:
Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man? Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar? And enjoy that honeymoon? And set up a life-long love nest with him? Could you really do that? I'm not kidding here, I want to know.
quote:
Therefore, gay marriage will reduce the birthrate. |
Still rolling over this one. If only that were true, please, somebody, inform the leadership of China!
Seriously, do you think that if a couple is considering having kids, their decision will be influenced by whether or not lesbians can marry in their country?
quote:
it is not like gay people cannot have children, they are fertile, but have chosen not to exercise these capacities. |
 You aren't aware that some gay people (male and female) sire children?
quote:
Why is homosexuality biological? |
Well, for starters, the animal world is rife with it, especially mammals. Hard to imagine that those male giraffes screwing each other are acting on something other than biological impetus.
quote:
Rather than letting a small segment of society decide, be they judges or priests, let everyone have their say. |
Basic civil rights should never, ever be decided through popularity polls.
And rights don't get much more basic than the right to marry, a right most would consider far more important than the right to vote.
Most Americans were against interracial marriage when it was legalized in 1967. Ben, do you think the US should have waited until the general population voted its approval before allowing interracial couples to wed?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2004 12:54
|