 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
NYE:
Section 15 has that side clause that says ameliorative benefits are not to be provided on the basis of equality. This means things like preferential treatment can be given, provided the idea is to bring others up to par.
The obvious case of this is wheelchairs for disabled. My argument is that marriage is the same way. There is a benefit to society from encouraging marriage, but that there are also burdens placed upon those engaged in marriage. The most obvious of these are the care and raising of children.
A family that takes care of it's members is not going to be as reliant upon the social safety net, of welfare and the rest. The reverse is also true. The disintegration of the family will increase the burden on these safety nets.
However, this means that the burden is placed upon the parents in raising and taking care of their children. In this, the parents are handicapped, by their desire to have and to raise children, particularly early on.
Now, my argument is that traditional marriage qualifies for the ameliorative benefits clause. That we are not required to distribute the benefits of marriage to all people, because of the significant advantage society accrues from families that have children and raise them, and the disadvantage incurred by these same parents who have their children and raise them.
If this is true, than that makes traditional marriage immune to the vagarities of section 15, and thus, it can be justified to provide marital benefits only to those who qualify; in this case, marriage between a man and a woman.
Now I know we can also argue marginal cases, such as the case of two 70 year olds who marry each other. However, I am looking not at the fringes, but at the meat and potatoes. The heart of the batting order, and not the pitcher who bats last.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with what I am referring to:
quote:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
Bumped for spec
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now I know we can also argue marginal cases, such as the case of two 70 year olds who marry each other. However, I am looking not at the fringes, but at the meat and potatoes. The heart of the batting order, and not the pitcher who bats last.
|
Ok well lets look at the heart of it. My lesbian friend plans to have children and she has a committed partner. They will have children whether permitted marriage or not BUT on your own argument should they not be permitted marriage as ameliorating the disadvantages to them of having said children.
Lets say I could show that 70% of Lesbian couples planned to have children versus 60% of heterosexual couples. ( The numbers are fictious but assume them for a moment). Then on your own argument should you not ENCOURAGE their marriage???
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-04-2005 12:09
|