• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

corksens said:
Can you think of other legal definitions that have been changed in the past? I can't.
Click to expand...



Canada has a same-sex law....Civil Marriage Act. I am not sure if they changed the definition of marriage or simply re-interpreted it.

Just grabbed this off of wiki

Marriage - certain aspects of capacity
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
Click to expand...
 
hockeylover said:
Seriously? The "what if I wanted to marry a kid?" argument?

... :facepalm
Click to expand...

Pretty despicable and shows a complete lack of logic and reason. Dumbest argument against it you will ever see, and kinda proves the point that anti-gay marriage proponents are unable to mount an effective argument against it once the religious component of it is taken off the table.
 
corksens said:
As an aside, when all of this nonsense is dealt with and gays have the right to legally spend their lives with someone in a long and unhappy relationship, can we please do away with the ass-less chaps water gun fights that they call "gay pride" parades? Can we also do away with "gay districts" in certain cities? Is it really necessary?
Click to expand...

It should be part of the agreement.
 
corksens said:
As an aside, when all of this nonsense is dealt with and gays have the right to legally spend their lives with someone in a long and unhappy relationship, can we please do away with the ass-less chaps water gun fights that they call "gay pride" parades? Can we also do away with "gay districts" in certain cities? Is it really necessary?
Click to expand...


Itchin to bust out the leathers, ain't ya cork?
 
corksens said:
I'm just not sure why it needs to be called "marriage". The legal definition of "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

I believe they should have all the same legal and financial rights as everyone else - but I'm not sure why the definition of "marriage" needs to be altered.

Isn't there another way of guaranteeing their equal status?
Click to expand...

The provincial statutes for marriage pertain specifically to those rights you think should be equal. It is those sets of laws that need to amended.

So, it is marriage in that context. As such, the legal definition of marriage is not just between a man a women. It can't be the case without violating the statutes.
 
SundinsTooth said:
Pretty despicable and shows a complete lack of logic and reason. Dumbest argument against it you will ever see, and kinda proves the point that anti-gay marriage proponents are unable to mount an effective argument against it once the religious component of it is taken off the table.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that the laws that are amended to include gays and lesbian adults have very strong provisions for the protection of minors.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
for most people of your age (i'm suspecting most of you are between 18-30), morality has very much become intensely individualistic. morals are what a person says they are, all morals are relative and equally valid, and as long as i am happy and following my own moral code, i'm fine, i'm moral, and no one has a right to tell me differently. it is intensely, intensely selfish, and it is a product of this age. so when people of your generation look at a thousands of years-old institution of marriage, you choose to see it entirely from your own personal perspective. how does it affect me, and me only, what do i, and i alone want out of it, does it benefit me, and me only, and anything on top of that is irrelevant to you. it is seen purely in the light of how it affects you and benefits you, and anything on top of that is irrelevant and superfluous. and to protect that viewpoint, you try to mask it with fake "tolerance" by arguing that "everyone is free to do what they want without anyone else telling them they are right and wrong". that isn't "tolerance", that is intense selfishness masked by self-proclamations of "tolerance" and "progress", and protected by labeling anyone who disagrees with you "hateful" or "bigoted".
Click to expand...

The ironic thing is you are describing only how YOU treat this issue. No one arguing for gay marriage here, with the exception of Leafovic, is arguing for it because of how it affects them. It doesn't affect us at all. On the other hand, you are selfishly arguing that two people shouldn't get married because of how it affects you.
 
SundinsTooth said:
Pretty despicable and shows a complete lack of logic and reason. Dumbest argument against it you will ever see, and kinda proves the point that anti-gay marriage proponents are unable to mount an effective argument against it once the religious component of it is taken off the table.
Click to expand...

no, it's NOT "pretty despicable", and lacking logic and reason. of course i don't want to marry my 15 year old neighbour, or my aunt, or my cousin. i use those examples to point out that society has drawn reasonable lines around relationships, so we are perfectly able to do that now. it many cases it's taken many, many centuries to draw those lines, those lines were drawn for perfectly valid moral, social, and religious reasons, and if we try to erase them now, we damn well better do so very carefully and not be so arrogant as to assume our own "personal morality" is able to trump the collective wisdom and morality of hundreds of generations before us.

society took a long time to erase the lines around bi-racial relationships, for example, and with good reason. i think much of modern western society is able to come to terms with erasing the line around LGBT people being in relationships. but how DARE anyone smugly sit back and call anyone else "despicable" or "stupid" or a "bigot" for saying that, no, marriage as sanctioned by religion and the state is between a man and a woman.
 
leafman101 said:
The ironic thing is you are describing only how YOU treat this issue. No one arguing for gay marriage here, with the exception of Leafovic, is arguing for it because of how it affects them.
Click to expand...

wrong. go back up and find the examples where people argued some variation of "if i feel what i'm doing is fine no one else can tell me differently".
 
no its not. it absolutely isnt. i am arguing for a definition of "marriage" that respects thousands of years of social, religious, and moral tradition and thought, and that serves the greater public and social good. i have argued consistently and repeatedly that because a primary need for our species is to survive and replace itself, the very special and difficult pair bond between a man and a woman to produce children rightfully needs to be held up, respected, and preserved because it is critical for the survival of humanity. not MY OWN survival, my SPECIES' survival.
 
we damn well better do so very carefully and not be so arrogant as to assume our own "personal morality" is able to trump the collective wisdom and morality of hundreds of generations before us.
Click to expand...

ha.
 
Now the survival card is played.

Pretty weak arguments all around but at least it is a smidge more realistic than the marrying children angle.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no they arent. they most certainly arent. especially when you consider that much of our modern law is based on judeo-christian principles, whether we choose to accept that or not.
Click to expand...

Our system of laws, above everything else, ensures that citizens are treated equally regardless of it's antecedents. Besides, other secular documents, such as the Magna Carta, have influenced our perceptions of justice (relations between the soverign and its subjects) as well.

You arguments are totally irrelavant. If you want to discuss cultural more of metaphysics, that's fine. But this is about civil rights under the law in 2012. Your appeals to thousand year old instituions are besides the point.
 
Come to think of it, technically you can get married at 15 in many states with parental or judicial permission making it even worse of an example.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
no, it's NOT "pretty despicable", and lacking logic and reason. of course i don't want to marry my 15 year old neighbour, or my aunt, or my cousin. i use those examples to point out that society has drawn reasonable lines around relationships, so we are perfectly able to do that now. it many cases it's taken many, many centuries to draw those lines, those lines were drawn for perfectly valid moral, social, and religious reasons, and if we try to erase them now, we damn well better do so very carefully and not be so arrogant as to assume our own "personal morality" is able to trump the collective wisdom and morality of hundreds of generations before us.

society took a long time to erase the lines around bi-racial relationships, for example, and with good reason. i think much of modern western society is able to come to terms with erasing the line around LGBT people being in relationships. but how DARE anyone smugly sit back and call anyone else "despicable" or "stupid" or a "bigot" for saying that, no, marriage as sanctioned by religion and the state is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


You argue so unfairly....hilariously bad...it's so hard to take any of this seriously when you can't even keep the points straight.

You are despicable for saying that a man wanting to marry a child is somehow on the same level as same-sex marriage.....you should just bust out the beastiality angle to complete your plunge into nonsense. P.s. why am I not surprised that you would find the grudging, drawn-out acceptance of mixed-race marriages a positive thing in our history?

Also, in this country we have a pretty good law that I would say is not based on Judeo-christian values (thank god) and same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits of marriage that you enjoy. So in essence you are still barking up a tree that has been felled, stripped, and burned. It's not coming back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top