 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
It is the law of the land. You may not like it, but we have a Constitution, a Charter of Rights, and courts charged with overseeing them. This is how we govern ourselves, finding it preferable to the rule of mobs, or worse.
The state of being gay was already protected by prior court rulings
Gay marriage was already legal in seven or eight provinces due to court rulings.
Parliament has merely given the rubber stamp to what the courts have been telling us all for over ten years. |
Yes, and the courts keep telling us that people are born gay, in saying that it is a human rights issue. What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada?
I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment. They already are treated as any other individual, and are already protected by the laws of the land without this ruling on gay marriage, so to say that they are second class citizens without gay marriage is a red herring.
quote:
It won't be just you standing up should things go haywire. Many of the same people who could not abide shunting Asher off as some kind of second class citizen will be standing right beside you if your rights are being infringed.
|
NYE, you are a good man, but I must disagree with you here. I have seen the Catholic church on campus spraypainted with my own eyes. I cannot count on the courts protecting my rights to practice religion in the manner that I see fit, nor can I count on those who support human rights to find a place for freedom of religion.
quote:
Now you reach hairy ground.
If the hall is available to be leased by the public, but they choose to exclude asian people from renting, would you not see a problem?
|
Let's reword this example. Suppose a Chinese society that owned a hall, and rented it out to chinese folks within their society, would they be required to lease it to, say, Klansmen? No, of course not. They would feel violated to see their hall used in such a manner. This is the way the Catholics feel when a Knights of Columbus hall hosts a lesbian reception.
If the ruling requires the Knights to only lease the hall to Catholics, and not to the public, than that is prefereable to hosting a lesbian reception. Leasing it to everyone is less important than the mission of the Knights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, and the courts keep telling us that people are born gay, in saying that it is a human rights issue. What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada? |
Not much, and you shouldn't. It's not your lives, pensions, or other fruits of matrimony that are being affected.
I should also point out that the largest religious denomination in Canada, The United Church, is fully supporting gay marriage and has been for some time.
This isn't just your religion, Ben. This is also the religion of others, but I've never seen you acknowledge that.
This is why this has been a freedom of religion argument to me, on the side of Asher, for a long time.
It would be quite a bit different if there were no religious ceremonies available to Asher, wouldn't it?
quote:
I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment. They already are treated as any other individual, and are already protected by the laws of the land without this ruling on gay marriage, so to say that they are second class citizens without gay marriage is a red herring. |
What you say is not true if they are not allowed the same rights accorded by the state to recognition of a matrimonial union between two adults of the opposite sex.
All that has happened in the last few years is that legal teeth have been added to gay marriage. The state has been forced to recognise the unions that the United Church has wanted to perform for a long time before that.
quote:
NYE, you are a good man, but I must disagree with you here. I have seen the Catholic church on campus spraypainted with my own eyes. I cannot count on the courts protecting my rights to practice religion in the manner that I see fit, nor can I count on those who support human rights to find a place for freedom of religion. |
Acts of vandalism can hardly be equated with repression by the government, the courts, or the country at large.
Are there anti-religious idiots and bigots out there? You bet there are. Probably roughly as many as there are homophobic bigots out there.
quote:
Let's reword this example. Suppose a Chinese society that owned a hall, and rented it out to chinese folks within their society, would they be required to lease it to, say, Klansmen? No, of course not. They would feel violated to see their hall used in such a manner. This is the way the Catholics feel when a Knights of Columbus hall hosts a lesbian reception.
If the ruling requires the Knights to only lease the hall to Catholics, and not to the public, than that is prefereable to hosting a lesbian reception. Leasing it to everyone is less important than the mission of the Knights. |
Discrimination against racist groups is not a practice proscribed by the Charter.
Discrimination based on sex, race, age... and sexual orientation of an individual is.
You might be right, and I suspect the SCoC would agree that they do not have to rent, IF their premises are only open to members of affiliated Catholic parishes. But that is not how hall rentals go AFAIK. Churches have been participating in the open market, and helping to finance their halls, by making them open to booking by anyone who wants to rent them. That makes them a service offered to the public, and that makes them Charter territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Not much, and you shouldn't. It's not your lives, pensions, or other fruits of matrimony that are being affected.
|
Then why does Parliament have a say at all? Why does the Supreme Court of Canada, affirm that the Parliament of Canada are the ones who determine the marriage laws of the country? The answer to this, is that it is up to the people of Canada, and that the marriage law is something of concern to everyone.
quote:
I should also point out that the largest religious denomination in Canada, The United Church, is fully supporting gay marriage and has been for some time.
|
Largest Protestant denomination, NYE. Sloppy. 
quote:
This isn't just your religion, Ben. This is also the religion of others, but I've never seen you acknowledge that.
|
Acknowledge that there are some churches that do want to marry gay people? Yes, they do. This is religion to other people, but as you have also said, their religion ought to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people.
quote:
This is why this has been a freedom of religion argument to me, on the side of Asher, for a long time.
It would be quite a bit different if there were no religious ceremonies available to Asher, wouldn't it?
|
The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.
So, it really isn't an argument that we require gay marriage in order to respect the religious freedoms of everyone here in Canada. If one were to follow the logical chain of argumentation, Canada would have to allow polygamy, since that is the practice of certain religious groups.
quote:
What you say is not true if they are not allowed the same rights accorded by the state to recognition of a matrimonial union between two adults of the opposite sex.
|
That's not an individual right, NYE. That is a collective right. One cannot get married to oneself. To say that it is a human right, assumes that it is an individual right and not a collective. All the other rights, freedom of speech, religion, conscience, and the equality provisions are all based upon the status of an individual and not a collective.
quote:
All that has happened in the last few years is that legal teeth have been added to gay marriage. The state has been forced to recognise the unions that the United Church has wanted to perform for a long time before that.
|
Fine argument. Now, should the state add legal teeth to the recognition of marriages performed by Muslims, to multiple wives, that they have been performing for a long time.
quote:
Acts of vandalism can hardly be equated with repression by the government, the courts, or the country at large.
Are there anti-religious idiots and bigots out there? You bet there are. Probably roughly as many as there are homophobic bigots out there.
|
I for once, would like to see a ruling in the court that sides with the religious folks, in terms of their beliefs. The last big one I saw was the Trinity Western case, that permitted them to retain regulations barring sexual activity, among their students, as a Private university.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people.
The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.
|
First -- even with a majority of various religious denominations opposing gay marriage, it doesn't justify denying other religions their freedom to decide where they stand in regards to gay marriage.
Second -- since the couple you mentioned did not have the a marriage recognized by the government where, in this instance, was this particular church forced to play by the rules of the state?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why does Parliament have a say at all? Why does the Supreme Court of Canada, affirm that the Parliament of Canada are the ones who determine the marriage laws of the country? The answer to this, is that it is up to the people of Canada, and that the marriage law is something of concern to everyone. |
No, actually, it is the Constitutional order. The fed has power over marriage. The provinces have power over the granting of licenses.
It actually is mentioned in the BNA Act. It was that important.
As far as it being the concern of everyone, and up to the peoiple... civil rights have never lent themselves well to popular politics.
Rights are either there, or they are not. They should not ever be subject to popular opinion.
quote:
Largest Protestant denomination, NYE. Sloppy. |
Big enough for my argument. That being that some zealots from other sects are attempting to stamp their vision of marriage on all of us, including a very large number of religious people who disagree with them.
How can you say this is a state vs religion issue when it has been religion vs religion for a long time?
quote:
Acknowledge that there are some churches that do want to marry gay people? Yes, they do. This is religion to other people, but as you have also said, their religion ought to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. |
No, Ben. Your religion is irrelevant to the laws that effect other people. And theirs to yours.
quote:
If I am to acknowledge that there are some who support, it also behooves people to understand that it isn't just Christians who are opposed. You have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, among others who are all opposed to marrying gay people. |
The number of the mob opposed to civil rights are not relevant.
quote:
The churches are free to marry people, but if they wish their marriage to be recognised by the state, then they have to play ball by the rules of the state. I know a couple who have done just that, refused to have their own marriage recognised by the government, even as they pledged to each other in church.
So, it really isn't an argument that we require gay marriage in order to respect the religious freedoms of everyone here in Canada. If one were to follow the logical chain of argumentation, Canada would have to allow polygamy, since that is the practice of certain religious groups. |
Pish tosh.
That is like saying we would be compelled to allow slavery based on contract law. It is simply silly.
quote:
That's not an individual right, NYE. That is a collective right. One cannot get married to oneself. To say that it is a human right, assumes that it is an individual right and not a collective. All the other rights, freedom of speech, religion, conscience, and the equality provisions are all based upon the status of an individual and not a collective. |
Sorry, Ben, this is just jibberish.
All I'm going to say ATM is it sure as hell is an individual right.
Think about the rights of whites and blacks to marry each other.
quote:
Fine argument. Now, should the state add legal teeth to the recognition of marriages performed by Muslims, to multiple wives, that they have been performing for a long time. |
See above re pish tosh, but let me add...
It would not be legal for a man to marry a six year old girl. Nor will it be legal for a gay man to marry a six year old boy. Nor will it be legal for anyone, ever, to marry multiple people.
Another red coloured, fishey substance.
quote:
I for once, would like to see a ruling in the court that sides with the religious folks, in terms of their beliefs. The last big one I saw was the Trinity Western case, that permitted them to retain regulations barring sexual activity, among their students, as a Private university. |
What about the beliefs of those from the United Church?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What recourse do people who disagree with the rulings of the courts with respect to gay marriage have here in Canada?
|
The law was not passed by the Supreme Court. It was passed by Parliament.
Canada is a democracy. You can try to get a Conservative government elected since Harper promises to overturn the law. The Conservatives could then have to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree that gay people ought to receive the same benefits and protections as anyone else. What I object to is them receiving special treatment.
|
Since you believe that people choose to be gay or lesbian then same sex marriage is not special treatment. It is now a right that any Canadian can choose to use.
Just as you choose to practice your freedom of religion while I do not. That doesn't mean you are receiving special treatment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
No, actually, it is the Constitutional order. The fed has power over marriage. The provinces have power over the granting of licenses.
It actually is mentioned in the BNA Act. It was that important.
|
Thank you. If the constitutional act places the authority to Parliament, then yes, it is the concern of everyone. If it were solely a rights issue, then the courts would have said that parliament does not have a role.
quote:
Rights are either there, or they are not. They should not ever be subject to popular opinion.
|
quote:
Big enough for my argument. That being that some zealots from other sects are attempting to stamp their vision of marriage on all of us, including a very large number of religious people who disagree with them.
How can you say this is a state vs religion issue when it has been religion vs religion for a long time?
|
It is a state vs religion issue, because, as you have said, the state decides what it shall recognise as marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage, don't appreciate having gay marriage shoved down their throats.
As for it being religion vs religion, the stance of the United Chruch wrt to gay marriage is a very recent innovation. Up until then, all of the churches would have agreed.
quote:
No, Ben. Your religion is irrelevant to the laws that effect other people. And theirs to yours.
|
Thank you. Then the stance of the United Church is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
quote:
The number of the mob opposed to civil rights are not relevant.
|
Then so is the stance of the United church, which you brought up.
quote:
That is like saying we would be compelled to allow slavery based on contract law. It is simply silly.
|
You laugh, but this is what is happening in BC right now as we speak. No one is enforcing the provisions with respect to polygamy, and soon someone is going to ask the question why we should just have two people in a marriage?
I don't see why it ought to be considered the same as slavery, when you are dealing with consenting adults, who choose this arrangement. And there would be plenty more precedence for polygamy than there is for gay marriage.
quote:
Sorry, Ben, this is just jibberish.
All I'm going to say ATM is it sure as hell is an individual right.
Think about the rights of whites and blacks to marry each other.
|
Yes, that is because race is irrelevant to the union in marriage. Gay marriage is different, because you have to change the meaning of the union in order to establish it.
quote:
It would not be legal for a man to marry a six year old girl. Nor will it be legal for a gay man to marry a six year old boy. Nor will it be legal for anyone, ever, to marry multiple people.
Another red coloured, fishey substance.
|
Why not, if this is what consenting adults want, why should they be prevented from doing so? It is hardly slavery then, and you are discriminating against them for the way in which they want to live their life. Are they not second class citizens because they all cannot get married to each other?
quote:
What about the beliefs of those from the United Church?
|
They've had plenty of rulings. I'd like one that protects the rights of all religious people, and not just a few.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Religious groups, however, are trying to force people to live by their standards. Ignoring that and claiming it's just an issue of forcing people to attend church is pretty disingenuous.
|
How are they forcing people to live by their standard? Are they stopping gay people from forming relationships?  I see plenty of billboards and advertisements, for a 'man line' and the rest, encouraging gay folks to get together. If religious folks are dictating to the lifestyle of the gay folks, then none of that would be there. Yet this is what I see. Should the same billboard be an advertisement for Focus on the Family, it would be vandalised, but not before every single gay person complained about the sign, and tried to get it taken down.
I'd love to be a gay person in Canada. I'd have better treatment than I would otherwise. The city would throw a parade once a year saying that I am cool ****, and folks would have to tiptoe around me, lest they be accused of being homophobes.
quote:
Legalizing gay marriage isn't forcing religious people to participate or live by a "gay standard." But prohibiting it IS requiring gay people to live by a religious standard. Or, at least, one religious viewpoint.
|
That asks the question, why should society care about marriage? I think society derives certain benefits from marriage between a man and a woman, which is why society wants to encourage this, over other arrangements.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-06-2005 10:38
|