# Fall vote on same-sex issue



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday his government plans to hold a vote on the same-sex marriage issue in the fall.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060602.wharper0602/BNStory/National/home

Just disgusting... 

The issue has already been decided by the courts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

C'mon AS--you'd be down on Mr. Harper if he DIDN'T keep his election promises.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> C'mon AS--you'd be down on Mr. Harper if he DIDN'T keep his election promises.


But would he go d...ooops, too early. 

Yes, AS is just angry about everything. He'll cheer up when the natural ruling party returns to power.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pandering to the Neanthertals in his party? This is stupid.

Homophobes should be happy by this, lets hope he lets his MPs speak on this - should show their real colours... Nothing like taking away the rights of Canadians...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Piss-off Beej


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Pandering to the Neanthertals in his party? This is stupid.
> 
> Homophobes should be happy by this, lets hope he lets his MPs speak on this - should show their real colours... Nothing like taking away the rights of Canadians...


He's keeping an election promise. This was a 'deal-breaker' for me voting Conservative (not to mention the rest of their platform), but he's just following through on something he promised that I didn't like. At some point, you're just wailing and moaning over the same thing over and over again. When the promise was made, when the timing is announced, and when the debate and vote happen (presumably). We get it: you don't like Harper.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Piss-off Beej


:baby: 

Just ignore my posts.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> :baby:
> 
> Just ignore my posts.


Instead of stroking yourself, just post your opinion - makes it a lot easier than your fence sitting all the time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Instead of stroking yourself, just post your opinion - makes it a lot easier than your fence sitting all the time.


Quite the pattern developing. Try anger management. It's Friday and Harper will probably still be around on Monday.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I agree with the comment that this should draw out the "wackos" in parliament... 

As is well known this issue is a pet peeve of mine. The issue is settled. It is Law. You cannot open this issue up without redefining rights as they are stated in the charter.

So unless this is what the conservatives want... to open up the Charter and all the messy issues around that... if they get a quorum on this vote they will end up being the dog who caught the bus.

I have to think that this is nothing short of pandering to an ultra right wing conservative base and that Harper would like nothing better than to lose this issue as in no way do the Conservatives come off as noble or in any way appear to have the moral high ground in this argument.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

No really Beej - what kind of kick to you get derailing post? 
That is your pattern lately, no matter what the subject or how you feel about it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No really Beej - what kind of kick to you get derailing post?
> That is your pattern lately, no matter what the subject or how you feel about it.


Really? Some conversations just wonder off in a different direction. I'm glad to participate in such conversations. In this type of case, maybe crying wolf isn't the best idea. People tend to point it out and give you less consideration when there is a wolf. But who knows, I've got a fence post up my a**, and it's difficult to think clearly. What's your excuse?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Like it or not AS, court decisions can be overturned. And it should be patently obvious to you that this is one of those hot-button topics which effortlessly generate controversy. However, just because you don't agree with reopening the subject doesn't make this promise a case of Harper pandering to neanderthals. Many of those who voted him in are uncomfortable with same sex marriages... Harper's merely doing what his supporters expected of him - and that, in politics, is remarkable in and of itself.

By the way, for the record: I'm all for same sex marriages myself.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Max said:


> Like it or not AS, court decisions can be overturned. And it should be patently obvious to you that this is one of those hot-button topics which effortlessly generate controversy. However, just because you don't agree with reopening the subject doesn't make this promise a case of Harper pandering to neanderthals. Many of those who voted him in are uncomfortable with same sex marriages... Harper's merely doing what his supporters expected of him - and that, in politics, is remarkable in and of itself.


Here is the issue... To change this law will require a change in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This isn't going to be some simple legislation that the house passes... this will be full on "lets open up the Charter... and oh, by the way, since we are here, lets change some other things".


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

You speak as if this is a done deal. I'm betting the vote will go to keep things the way they are now. It's a free vote. Harper has a minority government. The majority are comfortable with same sex marriage. 


BTW, I don't consider myself a neanderthal even though I'm against same sex marriage. I do believe in majority rule. If it's what the people want, then they should get.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would say one thing about AS's posts--he's managed to convince more people on EhMac to speak out in favour of Mr. Harper than could ever have been achieved by promoting the Conservative agenda--no small achievement.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF - get a grip.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I would say one thing about AS's posts--he's managed to convince more people on EhMac to speak out in favour of Mr. Harper than could ever have been achieved by promoting the Conservative agenda--no small achievement.


Yep, and he keeps starting them day after day after day . . . well you get the picture. Good on Harper for keeping his promise, and I feel the same way Adagio does about it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

adagio said:


> BTW, I don't consider myself a neanderthal even though I'm against same sex marriage. I do believe in majority rule. If it's what the people want, then they should get.


But what if the majority don't want black people to marry white people? 100 years ago that was the case.

The majority does not mean the moral authority to decide what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> The majority does not mean the moral authority to decide what is right and what is wrong.


* First, Mr.Harper does not have a majority. 
* Second, whatever Same Sex policy has already been instituted was done so by a majority of political representatives. 
* Third, the majority, except in few cases DOES decide--right or wrong--what is considered moral during any given time period.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, and he keeps starting them day after day after day . . . well you get the picture.


Go live in your little fantasy world called the SHANG... 

Care to answer the handgun question? Seems you like your little fantasy world....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I trust that if and when this bill is defeated, the issue of same-sex marriage will be put to rest. The courts have ruled that this is legal and if a free-vote in the House of Commons concurs, then we should accept this right for all to marry, regardless of the gender of the partner. Paix.

An interesting related note -- Pres. Bush has said that he will support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I don't think that it will get the needed two-thirds support in the US Senate, but this is a dramatic move backwards (in my opinion) if, somehow, it should get through both houses of Congress and be ratified by 38 state legislatures, which is needed for an amendment to be added to the US Constitution.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Go live in your little fantasy world called the SHANG...
> 
> Care to answer the handgun question? Seems you like your little fantasy world....


Bringing the Shang into it? Why do you keep derailing? 

Next we'll have a bunch of doxies running around here (whose sexual orientation and equal participation is their right) and I'll have to get the wolvies (who will kill the doxies without discriminating based on sexual orientation). And then G may repeat information from the Doxie Disinformation Squad, and then we've got 2 Shangs. I blame Harper.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lol.

btw, the last time I was in the Shang, I was quite civil.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Go live in your little fantasy world called the SHANG...


I don't get the reference. The Shang Dynasty, 1766-1050 BC?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> * First, Mr.Harper does not have a majority.
> * Second, whatever Same Sex policy has already been instituted was done so by a majority of political representatives.
> * Third, the majority, except in few cases DOES decide--right or wrong--what is considered moral during any given time period.


But you didn't even answer my question... look at the shiny object people!

I have no idea how Harper's minority position relevant since he's says it will be an "open" vote. The issue here was that it was already decided and put into law...

The Charter and the Courts clearly stated that preventing people from marrying was unconstitutional and violated the Charter before the policy was instituted by Bill C-38.

And your third point is ludicrous as by that argument any number of horrible human rights issues can be argued that they were legitimate because the majority decided them to be so... Ask any woman how they feel about not having the right to vote until this century.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Third, the majority, except in few cases DOES decide--right or wrong--what is considered moral during any given time period.


Subject to the Charter which some people seem to want to ignore entirely.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jonesy: I didn't say that the majority was always right--I said that the majority almost always gets to define "moral." 

All decisions can result from an interplay between courts, charters and government. Nothing is ever fully and permanently decided.

Mr. Harper feels Liberals were coerced into voting for gay marriage and that theire vote didn't reflect the will of a majority of Canadians. We'll find out soon enough. I suspect that the status quo will be maintained.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The constitution limits the power of the majority (and their government representatives) but can be changed by the representatives. The majority is constrained and delayed, especially marginal majorities, but it wields ultimate power.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This is good politics for Harper and Bush*

Harper is keeping his promise. He knows fully well that there are only two possibilities:

1) He'll loose in the House
2) He'll win in the house but it will be overturned by the Supreme Court on the basis of the Charter.

Either way it will have been a big (expensive) charade to appease the knuckle-draggers in his constituency who are so sexually insecure that they can't tolerate diversity in relationships. After the dust has settled he'll be able to say 'hey, we kept our promise, and we did our best.' So it's a win-win for Harper.

For Bush, it's even better, because he _is_ one of the knuckle-draggers. If he actually pulls it off he'll be one step closer to achiving his ideal theocracy.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - it would be very difficult to actually alter the Constitution as it's interlocking - the not withstanding clause could be used but that has a sunset timing I think.
Be an awful scrap to open up the Constitution for something as mundane as this. 

I think it might be possible to add rights and responsibilities and protections but difficult to overturn embedded ones without not withstanding being invoked.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - it would be very difficult to actually alter the Constitution as it's interlocking - the not withstanding clause could be used but that has a sunset timing I think.
> Be an awful scrap to open up the Constitution for something as mundane as this.
> 
> I think it might be possible to add rights and responsibilities and protections but difficult to overturn embedded ones without not withstanding being invoked.


I agree. The practicalities are rightfully difficult (although in our federation, maybe a little too much so...darned reality). I was just pointing out that the constitution is only the authority of the moment, ultimate authority into the future resides with the majority as represented by elected officials (and the constitution they accept/make however they choose). They define the nation's 'morality' but never personal morality (although politics imitates life imitates politics comes to mind). 

This is important when looking at a country's developing history (case in point: charter), although 'in the now' the constitution (interpreted by the courts) rules.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

If, IF, The House voted in favor of this, the Conservatives could use the notwithstanding clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

which would put a hold on gay marriage for a maximum of 5 years.

It was part of Harper's election platform, so I don't know why AS is getting bent out of shape. You should have known this was coming.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Go live in your little fantasy world called the SHANG...
> 
> Care to answer the handgun question? Seems you like your little fantasy world....


No question to answer, like I said hand guns have been tightly controlled since the thirties. End of story.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The motion will actually be whether the house wishes to re-examine the issue, since that is the procedue required by Bourinot's rules. After which, should it pass, there would then need to be a second debate on whether to change the law. At that point, he would have to specify whether they intend to do so by using the notwithstanding clause, or by proposing changes to the Constitution. Or not, knowing that it would be killed by the Supremes quickly.

I'm not surprised, but my lack of surprise does nothing to mitigate my deep sadness at the continued damage being done to a nation that I used to be proud of, to say nothing of the pain that this will cost to many of my friends. My only consolation is that keeping this promise moves Harper further from an eventual majority.

What saddens me most, is that his government is doing some noteworthy things, and showing some backbone. I just wish one of the parties that had respect for humanity as a whole could show such leadership.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'll give Harper fairly high marks for keeping his promises so far. I just disagree with most of his promises, and have even more fear of what he will do if he gets free reign in the form of a majority.

I do wish the Liberals had as much integrity as the Conservatives are showing. I'm fairly confident that the NDP have as much or more integrity as the Conservatives, but they're a long way from gaining a mandate, so it's irrelevant.

Cheers


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

adagio said:


> BTW, I don't consider myself a neanderthal even though I'm against same sex marriage.* I do believe in majority rule. If it's what the people want, then they should get. *


What if we change a couple of words: "I don't consider myself a neanderthal even though I'm against interracial marriage. I do believe in majority rule. If it's what the people want, then they should get."

or

"I don't consider myself a neanderthal even though I'm against non-white's holding public office. I do believe in majority rule. If it's what the people want, then they should get."

No. The people should not get that, no matter how many want it. A principled, free and democratic society does permit the tyranny of the majority to oppress others.

Majorities regularly turn against minorities, for a variety of (bad) reasons. Sometimes, small minded, unprincipled garbage, running for public office, will pander to the worst instincts of the electorate by divisive attacks against a minority. Mike Harris, for instance stirred up hatred against welfare recipients. And, oh right, Stephen Harper attacked gays.

Fortunately, when Canadians think in terms of larger principles, we get it. Canadians, in a constitutional amendment ratified by the federal government and 9 of 10 provinces, enshrined the principal that all Canadians are to be treated equally under the law. Accordingly, Parliament does not have the power to pass a law that says, for instance, blacks can't marry whites. If Parliament passed such a law, it would be the duty of our courts to strike it down.

While the issue of gay marriage has more nuance to it, it is clearly the state of the law that laws cannot be made that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The supreme court has several cases on this point, they don't make these decisions on a whim, and it is extremely rare for a supreme court of canada decision to be reversed - I am not, by the way, talking about 2 or 3 years later either, not even 30, 40 or 50 years later.

So, by "keeping his promise", Harper is not only divisive and unprincipled, but stupid as well. If he were to succeed in passing a law forbidding same sex marriage, he would be knowingly passing a law that violates the Charter. Some leader.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> So, by "keeping his promise", Harper is not only divisive and unprincipled, but stupid as well. If he were to succeed in passing a law forbidding same sex marriage, he would be knowingly passing a law that violates the Charter. Some leader.


It is time for Canadians to take away the power given to judges who put themselves on lofty pedestals and make laws. The sooner we elect them, the better. If that is Harper and the Conservatives' intent . . . :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> So, by "keeping his promise", Harper is not only divisive and unprincipled, but stupid as well.


Wrong frame of reference regarding "stupid". He is a politician. Seemingly stupid things make sense in politics. This may be stupid in a political sense, but considering his base, the base that is always at risk of being alienated in a centre-right government (that focusses on QC...oh the inevitable irony :lmao: ), I think bryanc got it right a couple posts back. 

His denigration of those who disagree seemed unnecessary. I used to think of it that way but have talked to many people who disagree with me and no longer think of them as 'knuckle draggers' anymore than luddites, anti-change labouristas etc. are knuckle draggers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> The sooner we elect them, the better.


Politically chosen experts. What could possibly go wrong? XX) On this, we very much disagree with each other. Still, given enough beers, Beej's Brainwashing Beverage could cure you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

You still don't understand this, with more nonsense about lofty pedestals? Judges don't make this stuff up and do what they feel like. They have a serious and important duty, and the idea that a high court would be staffed by elected judges is horrifying. Maybe we should elect doctors, too?

Read a case some day, and get an idea of the intellectual process involved in making these decisions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Politically chosen experts. What could possibly go wrong? XX) On this, we very much disagree with each other. Still, given enough beers, Beej's Brainwashing Beverage could cure you.


I am not exactly surprised, but hey, what the heck. The present system sucks. Why not give it a shot? 

I tire of stupid judges, and they are plenty of "them" too, it's not exclusive to politicians or leaders ya know.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I am not exactly surprised, but hey, what the heck. The present system sucks. Why not give it a shot?
> 
> I tire of stupid judges, and they are plenty of "them" too, it's not exclusive to politicians or leaders ya know.


As I said before, elected officials with law degrees? Sounds familiar. Sorry nxnw, but I think it's a handy jab to use, even if you get a glancing blow. Feel free to criticise what happens with an economist as PM. XX) In my defense, it's just one. Try 100s and see if they're worse than lawyers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> As I said before, elected officials with law degrees?


Who said they would have to have law degrees? 

Hell _that's_ what wrong with most of 'em!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Wrong frame of reference regarding "stupid". He is a politician. Seemingly stupid things make sense in politics. This may be stupid in a political sense, but considering his base, the base that is always at risk of being alienated in a centre-right government (that focusses on QC...oh the inevitable irony :lmao: ), I think bryanc got it right a couple posts back.


Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to get at. Harper knows this is a non-starter, constitutionally, but he's playing it up because, even by loosing the debate, or having it overturned by the courts, his actions will appeal to his core voters. It's a sacrifice gambit that will gain support from his religious supporters (not that all religious people are aginst same-sex marriage, but the ones supporting Harper largely are).



> His denigration of those who disagree seemed unnecessary. I used to think of it that way but have talked to many people who disagree with me and no longer think of them as 'knuckle draggers' anymore than luddites, anti-change labouristas etc. are knuckle draggers.


Oh come on, Beej! You, of all people, should be forgiving of some provocation now and then.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Oh come on, Beej! You, of all people, should be forgiving of some provocation now and then.
> 
> Cheers


Nuh-uh poopy head.  

Sorry, I missed your intention, but thanks for pointing it out. I really did think you thought that way of those who disagree. 

Still, it's a little strong given that you know one or two people in the thread would be defined as such, you pot-head tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, Marxist, luddite hypocrite.  I'm just kidding to make the point that 'knuckle dragger' seems a little strong.

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> you pot-head tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, Marxist, luddite hypocrite.


Can I use this as my sig file?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, but the invisible hand may slap you around randomly and, on occasion, with malice.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said, bryanc... especially the bit about sexual insecurity.

I can appreciate that opening up the Charter is potentially fraught with peril... establish a precedent and the temptation to tinker with this and that could well be irresistible.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> you pot-head tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, Marxist, luddite hypocrite.


Oy! I thought that was MY honourific?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Oy! I thought that was MY honourific?


Jealous?

You're far too cranky to have a bleeding heart.  

Besides, we agree on many social goals. We even agree that you're wrong in how to accomplish them. :heybaby: Oh wait, I'm Beejrailing the whole thread. 

Darned Beej, someone give him Wealth of Nations to keep him busy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> You still don't understand this, with more nonsense about lofty pedestals? Judges don't make this stuff up and do what they feel like. They have a serious and important duty, and the idea that a high court would be staffed by elected judges is horrifying.


Only to a lawyer. Imagine losing all that dough and prestige and the right to order regular folks around by making laws? Dreadful concept, is it not?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MPs make the laws, and judges interpret these laws against the Charter. Senators.................well, enough said about this group of unelected persons.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Besides, we agree on many social goals.


Of course we do. You are a bleeding heart, too, you just try and bury it under the invisible hand. Those brief moments when the blood seeps out between the fingers keep me highly entertained.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think we are missing the issue here.

The Conservative bill is meant to define what a marriage is (i.e. between a man and a woman). It is not meant to outlaw same sex marriage, nor take away any rights. A same sex marriage will still be allowed as a civil union.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

But this was a Supreme Court decision. It can't be overturned. Any law enacted that goes against this decision will be overturned on its first challenge.

I doubt that Harper wants to be remembered as the homophobic prime minister who used the notwitstanding clause to discriminate against gay people.

What is more likely is that this issue is just being floated and discussed to distract us from other issues, like financial decisions being made, orders in council changing our system without vote or discussion, set terms for elections, and so on.




Max said:


> Like it or not AS, court decisions can be overturned. And it should be patently obvious to you that this is one of those hot-button topics which effortlessly generate controversy. However, just because you don't agree with reopening the subject doesn't make this promise a case of Harper pandering to neanderthals. Many of those who voted him in are uncomfortable with same sex marriages... Harper's merely doing what his supporters expected of him - and that, in politics, is remarkable in and of itself.
> 
> By the way, for the record: I'm all for same sex marriages myself.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave, part of why this thread so quickly degenerated into silliness, is we've been around this horn so many times before. I, and many others (and the courts) emphatically reject the notion that "equal but different" is good enough. I understand that you disagree. You've made that point very clear before, many times. I am quite certain that no one is really "missing the issue here".

Of course, technically, the Conservative bill is meant to find out whether parliament wants to re-debate the meaning of marriage. So it's two steps at least removed from recognising same-sex civil unions. But never mind that technicality. 




"degenerate" and "horn" both in one post about gays :yikes:


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> What is more likely is that this issue is just being floated and discussed to distract us from other issues, like financial decisions being made, orders in council changing our system without vote or discussion, set terms for elections, and so on.


Combine that with the previous post about how Harper can't lose on this one, and I think we are getting as close to all the REAL reasons as we will ever get.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Vandave, part of why this thread so quickly degenerated into silliness, is we've been around this horn so many times before. I, and many others (and the courts) emphatically reject the notion that "equal but different" is good enough. I understand that you disagree. You've made that point very clear before, many times. I am quite certain that no one is really "missing the issue here".[/SIZE]


For the record, I don't agree with equal but different. I think we only need one definition.

I do think some people are missing the point. Nobody wants to take away anybody's rights. So, why are we discussing this?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> For the record, I don't agree with equal but different. I think we only need one definition.
> 
> I do think some people are missing the point. Nobody wants to take away anybody's rights. So, why are we discussing this?


From my point of view, and from the point of view of the court system, removing the right for same sex couples to be married in all the same ways, INCLUDING in name, IS taking away a right. That's why it keeps getting discussed. Bah. You haven't really forgotten the previous hundred iterations of this, have you? You're just egging me on, right?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Real Insight*



HowEver said:


> this issue is just being floated and discussed to distract us from other issues, like financial decisions being made, orders in council changing our system without vote or discussion, set terms for elections, and so on.


:clap:
This is a brilliant insight. One thing that has been made very clear is that the conservatives, both north and south of the border, are superior politicians. This sort of Machiavellian tactic is exactly what we should be watching for from Harper.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite Lilly Tomlin quotes: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up."

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> No question to answer, like I said hand guns have been tightly controlled since the thirties. End of story.


The "end of story" SINC, is that you willfully distort the truth to appease your little mind. Everything from misquoting what Martin said and re-arranging it in your head, to the SSM issue that is froth with anger and lies. One wonders about the festering anger that you have about anything that does not fit your bigoted world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The "end of story" SINC, is that you willfully distort the truth to appease your little mind. Everything from misquoting what Martin said and re-arranging it in your head, to the SSM issue that is froth with anger and lies. One wonders about the festering anger that you have about anything that does not fit your bigoted world.


There you go calling me all kinds of bad things again.

No control again tonight eh?

Go start another thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> The people should not get that, no matter how many want it. A principled, free and democratic society does permit the tyranny of the majority to oppress others.
> 
> Majorities regularly turn against minorities, for a variety of (bad) reasons. Sometimes, small minded, unprincipled garbage, running for public office, will pander to the worst instincts of the electorate by divisive attacks against a minority. Mike Harris, for instance stirred up hatred against welfare recipients. And, oh right, Stephen Harper attacked gays.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Really? Some conversations just wonder off in a different direction. I'm glad to participate in such conversations. In this type of case, maybe crying wolf isn't the best idea. People tend to point it out and give you less consideration when there is a wolf. But who knows, I've got a fence post up my a**, and it's difficult to think clearly. What's your excuse?


interesting tho' how MacFury isn't around to remind "le beej" to keep to the topic on hand

as for a fence post up your a$$, well, only your proctologis knows for sure


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Really? Some conversations just wonder off in a different direction. I'm glad to participate in such conversations. In this type of case, maybe crying wolf isn't the best idea. People tend to point it out and give you less consideration when there is a wolf. But who knows, I've got a fence post up my a**, and it's difficult to think clearly. What's your excuse?


interesting tho' how MacFury isn't around to remind "le beej" to keep to the topic on hand

as for a fence post up your a$$, well, only your proctologist knows for sure


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: I was out supporting NAFTA by eating Mexican Food and enjoying an art show, so I couldn't reign in "the Beej."

Bad Beej.

I don't happen to support any government definition of marriage, by the way--gay or straight. It's sad that this debate is framed by ways to convince government to create some sort of hammer-blow definition that will knock out the opponents of either camp. 

Government's the problem here, because if it had been left to individuals to decide what marriage is, there would be no national debate or strife about the issue.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

My... did this topic take off...

Here is a cynical thought, and in honour of our departed friend, I'll even give Harper the benifit of the doubt.

By proposing this vote in the fall, Harper is seeking to quiet the vocal minority of the right wing, long enough to to get his own agenda rolling. Harper knows full well, that: 

1. the deal is done and no "debate" is going to change things.
2. He only promised a vote on "if" the debate should restart.
3. He has loosely timed it close to Liberal leadership race so that either the race will distract from the debate or the debate will distract from the race.
4. As soon as the Liberals pick a new leader, the minority will fall, so the real race for a majority can begin. {thereby killing off the debate for some time}


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 
Bravo Mr. Prime Minister, you show a level of sutlety, I did not give you credit for. Claim to hold a free vote that will likely never happen or change anything if it does....
Bravo
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Government's the problem here, because if it had been left to individuals to decide what marriage is, there would be no national debate or strife about the issue.


Another good post in this thread! My faith in the electorate is again renewed in a most unpredictable manner.

Props, too, to nxnw for pointing out what's meant by that succinct phrase, 'the tyranny of the majority.'


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

With all of the injustices and improvements and potential for this country, with there never being enough time to debate issues of national security and life and death (of our soldiers), why-o-why does pampering to a political ploy that would, if pursued successfully, remove a right, be given so much air play? This is a diversionary tactic that places political expediency above the rights of a minority.

This is not leadership, it is unnecessary pandering.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> This is not leadership, it is unnecessary pandering.


Welcome to politics. beejacon 

More seriously, that fine balance between leadership and pandering is always interesting. Ignoring voters' wishes is anti-democratic, but being 100% beholden to every whim is not leadership. 

To a certain extent politicians need to be thought leaders and convince the public of a good idea. Still, while I'm all for criticising shameless pandering, it should always be kept in mind that democracy is fundamentally intended to pander to the voters. That's representation.

Wow, is that ever beer talk.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> This is not leadership, it is unnecessary pandering.


Given the large number of Canadians, shown poll after poll, that oppose same sex marriage, it is in fact leadership. The last "leaders" shoved it through.

The only pandering going on is by those who support gay marriage.

This should settle it once and for all, but what will same sex marriage supporters do if they lose?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Given the large number of Canadians, shown poll after poll, that oppose same sex marriage, it is in fact leadership. The last "leaders" shoved it through.
> 
> The only pandering going on is by those who support gay marriage.
> 
> This should settle it once and for all, but what will same sex marriage supporters do if they lose?


I wonder what polls would have said about abolition of slavery, recognition of hate crimes, women's right to vote and other social changes that weren't "popular" during their day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> This should settle it once and for all, but what will same sex marriage supporters do if they lose?


Given that those opposed to equal rights for all Canadians (and what is in fact law at the moment) seem hellbent on opening out this debate, I find this ironic coming from you.... 
It's been decided, you are the one wanting to open it up.
Tell me, how has the fact that SSM is legal in Canada affected you in the last year?
Have you been oppressed by gays? Have your rights been stomped on?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We seem to be back in the ol' debate. Maybe it's new for some viewers. In that case, enjoy the show. 

If this vote settles it in favour, it is over. If it doesn't, it is not over. Same-sex marriage rights will happen and, in the not too distant future, new generations becoming politically aware will wonder why it ever had to be a fight.

They will also wonder why there are still no mass-produced flying cars.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Tell me, how has the fact that SSM is legal in Canada affected you in the last year?


I used to know and understand the term marriage. It used to be a union between one MAN and one WOMAN.

Now it seems it can develop to be between any two things. Frightening to say the least given some people's affection for other species of animals.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I wonder what polls would have said about abolition of slavery, recognition of hate crimes, women's right to vote and other social changes that weren't "popular" during their day.


Exactly, what Sinc et al fail to understand is that just because the majority feel a certain way does make something morally right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Exactly, what Sinc et al fail to understand is that just because the majority feel a certain way does make something morally right.


Conversely, it can be argued that those who support it are morally wrong.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I used to know and understand the term marriage. It used to be a union between one MAN and one WOMAN.
> 
> Now it seems it can develop to be between any two things. Frightening to say the least given some people's affection for other species of animals.


You know something that is a load of crap... My 73 year old mother hit the nail right on the head this evening when she said that marriage was not just used to describe the relationship between a man and a woman... Her example being that when two companies merged it would be commonly referred to as a marriage of two companies.

Case in point...

http://www.businessjournalism.org/pages/biz/2006/01/disney_pixar_give_marriage_sec/

This is a common usage of the word in the language and in NO way refers to ONLY the union of a man and a woman.

As a journalist I would have thought you of ALL people would understand that Sinc.

PS... here were my google results... Results 1 - 10 of about 65,400 for "marriage of" "two companies".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Exactly, what Sinc et al fail to understand is that just because the majority feel a certain way does make something morally right.


If you're in the objective morality crowd, good luck. If you're in the subjective morality crowd, you can see the basic weakness in the statement. Morally right merges with a large degree of --  -- pragmatism. Bloody social contract.

Sinc:
......
I used to know and understand the term marriage. It used to be a union between one MAN and one WOMAN.
......

Change sucks, but you've seen a lot. Please don't bring animals into this. The concept of consenting adults is pretty clear (although anti-polygamists would disagree beejacon ).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I used to know and understand the term marriage. It used to be a union between one MAN and one WOMAN.
> 
> Now it seems it can develop to be between any two things. Frightening to say the least given some people's affection for other species of animals.


Before you know it, people will be marrying their pets. Oh wait...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Conversely, it can be argued that those who support it are morally wrong.


 Just like allowing interracial marriages (commonly known as Miscegenation) was morally wrong?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Sinc:
> ......
> Change sucks, but you've seen a lot. Please don't bring animals into this. The concept of consenting adults is pretty clear (although anti-polygamists would disagree beejacon ).


Sorry, but one has to consider all the ramifications, and in case you have lost sight of the fact, WE are indeed animals. THAT opens the door to inter-animal marriage, does it not?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Before you know it, people will be marrying their pets. Oh wait...
> 
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html


Mental healthcare funding is important, if only to save the dolphins.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Just like allowing interracial marriages (commonly known as Miscegenation) was morally wrong?


Then let me rephrase that statement:

Instead of:

"Conversely, it can be argued that those who support it are morally wrong."

Make it:

"Conversely, can it be argued that those who support it are morally wrong?"


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> If you're in the objective morality crowd, good luck. If you're in the subjective morality crowd, you can see the basic weakness in the statement. Morally right merges with a large degree of --  -- pragmatism. Bloody social contract.


Is this the same "objective morality" crowd that claims the defense of their argument based on the sanctity of marriage? If so, then why do they tolerate and allow divorces? Where are the adultery laws?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Mental healthcare funding is important, if only to save the dolphins.


Brings a whole new meaning to blow jobs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but one has to consider all the ramifications, and in case you have lost sight of the fact, WE are indeed animals. THAT opens the door to inter-animal marriage, does it not?


Only if future generations change the laws. Animals, like children, do not have the mental capacity to consent to marriage. Consenting adults is the requirement. Could it change? Sure, but not, as far as I know, under our current laws. You can have a ceremony with anything (within the limits of certain laws) but that marriage has no legal meaning without a meeting of minds...adult minds. I'm not sure what age 'adult' is for marriage. 

nxnw could help out with the facts instead of just Beej's mix of memory and dream.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Brings a whole new meaning to blow jobs.


You are a sick man. Funny, but sick. 

:lmao: :lmao: and a XX) just to keep you in line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Is this the same "objective morality" crowd that claims the defense of their argument based on the sanctity of marriage? If so, then why do they tolerate and allow divorces? Where are the adultery laws?


The moral objectivity crowd appears all over the place. Right, left, conservative, progressive, marxist and not crazy. beejacon


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I used to know and understand the term marriage. It used to be a union between one MAN and one WOMAN.


SINC, that definition has not changed for you. It's still valid in your frame of reference.



SINC said:


> Now it seems it can develop to be between any two things. Frightening to say the least given some people's affection for other species of animals.


A little exaggeration no? Gays are not "things". I don't see what's frightening except maybe some prejudice here. 

I personally don't see why two gays would want to marry but I'm going to defend their right to do so.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> nxnw could help out with the facts instead of just Beej's mix of memory and dream.


Not for me he can't. nxnw is an astute lawyer and a sincere guy, but his views are severely tainted by the profession. Besides he likes judges and I never trust a man who gives judges carte blanche. There are too many judges who make terrible decisions and deserve absolutely no respect. nxnw will tell us we MUST respect all judges and therein lies the folly of his views.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, that definition has not changed for you. It's still valid in your frame of reference.


No, is is not. What part of one man and one woman don't you get? Anything else changes the definition.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Then let me rephrase that statement:
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> ...


I don't think you are bringing morality into this as much as religion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Not for me he can't. nxnw is an astute lawyer and a sincere guy, but his views are severely tainted by the profession. Besides he likes judges and I never trust a man who gives judges carte blanche. There are too many judges who make terrible decisions and deserve absolutely no respect. nxnw will tell us we MUST respect all judges and therein lies the folly of his views.


Why don't you let nxmw speak for himself. 
I think you take some creative licenses when you speak for him...

It would figure that I like our supreme court judges - that explains it all...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Anything else changes the definition.


So what?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't think you are bringing morality into this as much as religion.


Not a chance. 

Other than a marriage (one man and one woman) or a funeral, I have not been in a church since the mid sixties.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, is is not. What part of one man and one woman don't you get? Anything else changes the definition.


Back the truck up... You cannot use that argument. The definition of the word has been and is used in the language to represent relationship between two entities (and not necessarily a man and a woman).

"_You know something that is a load of crap... My 73 year old mother hit the nail right on the head this evening when she said that marriage was not just used to describe the relationship between a man and a woman... Her example being that when two companies merged it would be commonly referred to as a marriage of two companies.

Case in point...

http://www.businessjournalism.org/pa..._marriage_sec/

This is a common usage of the word in the language and in NO way refers to ONLY the union of a man and a woman.

As a journalist I would have thought you of ALL people would understand that Sinc.

PS... here were my google results... Results 1 - 10 of about 65,400 for "marriage of" "two companies"._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Back the truck up... You cannot use that argument. The definition of the word has been and is used in the language to represent relationship between two entities (and not necessarily a man and a woman).


Oh yes I can, and many others will as well. By the way, is an animal an entity? I think yes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

1) This is a great civil discussion.

2) Go Oilers.

3) beejacon

4) AS says this derail rules.

5) 4 may or may not be true.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh yes I can, and many others will as well.


Well argued oh wise journalist from the west... 

That is at about the same level as kids in a play ground saying _ "i know you are, but what am I?"_



SINC said:


> By the way, is an animal an entity? I think yes.


I think Beej argued that one quite nicely by pointing out that in fact these laws applies to consenting adults of this species.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> 1) This is a great civil discussion.
> 
> 2) Go Oilers.
> 
> ...



"Ummmm... I pick what's behind door number 3, Bob"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Oh yes I can, and many others will as well. By the way, is an animal an entity? I think yes.


The only thing that you are doing is taking away rights that you enjoy to some that are different. Call it discrimination, call it bigotry, call it homophobia it's all the same.

There already has been a vote, laws have been passed. The world has not stopped spinning. I don't see the need to trample the rights of a minority.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why don't you let nxmw speak for himself.
> I think you take some creative licenses when you speak for him...
> 
> It would figure that I like our supreme court judges - that explains it all...


nxnw (note correct spelling) is perfectly able to speak for himself. I did not quote him, I simply gave my opinion as to what I believe he will say from my past experience of reading his posts. That is NOT speaking for him. Have any other silly questions?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> "Ummmm... I pick what's behind door number 3, Bob"


Cue cheap 70s porn music.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The only thing that you are doing is taking away rights that you enjoy to some that are different. Call it discrimination, call it bigotry, call it homophobia it's all the same.
> 
> There already has been a vote, laws have been passed. The world has not stopped spinning. I don't see the need to trample the rights of a minority.


Unless of course, that vote which was ordered "yes" by party hard liners who did not give Liberal MPs the right to vote as their constituents wished, was passed against the will of a majority of Canadians. If that was the case, and a majority overturns it, then the game changes and the law is rescinded.

Like it or not, that is a very real option for Canadians this fall.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Cue cheap 70s porn music.



Hey hey sexy!  Don't get all Brokeback Mountain on me... not in this thread at least. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey hey sexy!  Don't get all Brokeback Mountain on me... not in this thread at least. :lmao:


If I recall, that movie was expected to win the Academy Award and didn't.

An omen perhaps for the same sex marriage law in Canada?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Unless of course, that vote which was ordered "yes" by party hard liners who did not give Liberal MPs the right to vote as their constituents wished, was passed against the will of a majority of Canadians. If that was the case, and a majority overturns it, then the game changes and the law is rescinded.
> 
> Like it or not, that is a very real option for Canadians this fall.


SINC this is a questions of rights. Public sentiment (or mob rule) should not sway the decision. I find it ridiculous that we should even re-open this.

The Liberals were split on the vote. In Harper's regime do you actually think they will be free to vote the way they want or even reflect their constituents? We can easily look at the Afghanistan "debate" for that answer. 

Do you actually understand what was previously passed? 


As for the silly question: Boxers or briefs?


ps - Brokeback won 3 Oscars....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Unless of course, that vote which was ordered "yes" by party hard liners who did not give Liberal MPs the right to vote as their constituents wished, was passed against the will of a majority of Canadians.


Every MP has the right to vote any way they want on any item. 

They may lose their party affiliation and/or cabinet post, but that's all about tough political choices. If they think that standing up for their constituents isn't worth it or won't get them re-elected, that's their choice. 

It is not the best of choices, but it certainly isn't a dire set of choices by any stretch. If you gain from being associated with a historical national party, you must expect costs. You do, however, get the option of gaining and then turning your back on them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC this is a questions of rights. Public sentiment (or mob rule) should not sway the decision. I find it ridiculous that we should even re-open this.
> 
> 
> Do you actually understand what was previously passed?


I and almost half of Canadians want it re-opened because we find the law itself "ridiculous".

I clearly understand what was passed and it changed the definition of marriage. We want that definition reinstated. Nothing more and nothing less. And no one is asking for gay unions to be annulled, just properly defined as "unions" and not marriage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What about the silly question?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> If I recall, that movie was expected to win the Academy Award and didn't.
> 
> An omen perhaps for the same sex marriage law in Canada?


Ha ha ha... you so clever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/awards

Not that you would care... 

BAFTA - Best Picture
Golden Globe - Best Picture

Maybe losing that Oscar means that Bush's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will pass?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Ha ha ha... you so clever.
> 
> 
> Not that you would care...


You are right, I don't care. I believe the definition needs to state marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. All others to be called unions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> You are right, I don't care. I believe the definition needs to state marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. All others to be called unions.


Clearly stated, as I've seen before. We disagree, as you know. But isn't the discussion fun?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Clearly stated, as I've seen before. We disagree, as you know. But isn't the discussion fun?


Absolutely. But a man is nothing if he does not stand for his beliefs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Absolutely. But a man is nothing if he does not stand for his beliefs.


But what does that make him if he is intransigent?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You are right, I don't care. I believe the definition needs to state marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. All others to be called unions.


Stop the presses! Come one come all... watch the wise journalist of the west take on hundreds of years of literary tradition as he tries to change the English language so that the word "marriage" only refers to the "union between one man and one woman"...

May I make a suggestion that you start with the style syllabus of the Financial Post (aka the business section of the National Post) first. I'm sure they will be completely open to your suggestion that they never refer to the merger of two companies as a marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> But what does that make him if he is intransigent?


Surely a guy as astute as you AS, understand uncompromising. That could easily be applied to your own position on this issue, and a rather weak attempt at a retaliation on your part.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Stop the presses! Come one come all... watch the wise journalist of the west take on hundreds of years of literary tradition as he tries to change the English language so that the word "marriage" only refers to the "union between one man and one woman"...
> 
> May I make a suggestion that you start with the style syllabus of the Financial Post (aka the business section of the National Post) first. I'm sure they will be completely open to your suggestion that they never refer to the merger of two companies as a marriage.


Spare me please.

A marriage of convenience (which is what the Post is referring to and you are hanging on to as a glimmer of hope in your fading argument) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the traditional reasons of love or family. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose.

Surely you can come up with something more solid than that, or can you?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> That could easily be applied to your own position on this issue, and a rather weak attempt at a retaliation on your part.


If you read a few post back, I personally don't care for SSM.

The only thing I see it that you are saying "I want what I want when I want it and screw everyone else". Any argument about rights or any other valid point will not sway you. This is not so much a debate as SINC having a fit over gays getting married because in his day it was not done.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> This is not so much a debate as SINC having a fit over gays getting married because in his day it was not done.


Wrong again AS.

It IS a debate on whether or not the majority of Canadians want it to be THEIR law. That decision will be made this fall.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Spare me please.
> 
> A marriage of convenience (which is what the Post is referring to and you are hanging on to as a glimmer of hope in your fading argument) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the traditional reasons of love or family. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose.
> 
> Surely you can come up with something more solid than that, or can you?


What bizzaro twilight zone world do you live in? By your own argument you have shown us that in fact... the word marriage is NOT just used to describe the union between a man and a union.

You are right, I can not come up with anything better than you torpedoing your own argument by example.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What is a marriage SINC? 
Your definition is one Man + one Woman. 
Other parts of the world, it polygamy, polyandry and sometimes monogamy. 
It can be civil, religious or moral. There is often a legal contract attached to this.

My Canada is multicultural and I don't think we should limit the definition to a judeo-christian viewpoint.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> What bizzaro twilight zone world do you live in? By your own argument you have shown us that in fact... the word marriage is NOT just used to describe the union between a man and a union.


Talk about bizzaro twilight zones . . . QUOTE: "used to describe the union between a man and a union".

Oh great, now men can marry unions? Call in the NDP. Unions are being screwed!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> What is a marriage SINC?
> Your definition is one Man + one Woman.
> Other parts of the world, it polygamy, polyandry and sometimes monogamy.
> It can be civil, religious or moral. There is often a legal contract attached to this.
> ...


And so we shouldn't. But any joining has to be defined, and "one man and one woman" will never be the same definition as "two men" or "two women" or any combination of "people and their pets" this might evolve into in the future.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong again AS.
> 
> It IS a debate on whether or not the majority of Canadians want it to be THEIR law. That decision will be made this fall.


Well I hope they have their erasers (sorry we use ink these days... get your "white out") ready and their constitutional ink wells filled up... because any law which may or may not pass this fall regarding this issue will be unconstitutional.

What amazes me Sinc, is the disdain you have for the documents that define our rights and freedoms. Do you think so little of our country that you can take away our citizens rights on nothing more than a whim over a interpretation of a word?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Talk about bizzaro twilight zones . . . QUOTE: "used to describe the union between a man and a union".
> 
> Oh great, now men can marry unions? Call in the NDP. Unions are being screwed!


Crap... I hate when my good point is brought down by my dyslexia.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Wrong again AS.
> 
> It IS a debate on whether or not the majority of Canadians want it to be THEIR law. That decision will be made this fall.


SINC, this we are going in circles.
The law has been passed and SSM is legal in Canada. It is our law. Opening up the debate to please a few and removing those rights would be a legal nightmare.

Religious officials don't have to perform SSM if it goes against their beliefs. I don't see why you want to roll-back equality.

You have not answered how these equal rights has oppressed you? What's in changed and how as it affected you directly?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Do you think so little of our country that you can take away our citizens rights on nothing more than a whim over a interpretation of a word?


The right was given under a stacked vote by a dictatorial PMO and in the time this country has existed, is but for mere seconds. Some laws enacted are just plain wrong and this might very well be one of them. It is far from entrenched in the fabric of Canadian culture.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> But any joining has to be defined, and "one man and one woman" will never be the same definition as "two men" or "two women" or any combination of "people and their pets" this might evolve into in the future.


Why the obsession with zoophilia? Do you have something for plushies?

The definition has "evolved". You'd like to go backwards.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, this we are going in circles.
> The law has been passed and SSM is legal in Canada. It is our law. Opening up the debate to please a few and removing those rights would be a legal nightmare.
> 
> Religious officials don't have to perform SSM if it goes against their beliefs. I don't see why you want to roll-back equality.
> ...


It has distressed me to have a 40 year plus marriage dragged down to be no more than a joke now that the term applies to two males or two females or to a human and an animal in the future, because that is where it is heading.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The right was given under a stacked vote by a dictatorial PMO and in the time this country has existed, is but for mere seconds. Some laws enacted are just plain wrong and this might very well be one of them. It is far from entrenched in the fabric of Canadian culture.


you mean like the majority of Canadians that oppose military action, yet the current prime minister chose to extend the Afghan mission by one year regardless of what the house of commons decided?

okee dokee


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you mean like the majority of Canadians that oppose military action, yet the current prime minister chose to extend the Afghan mission by one year regardless of what the house of commons decided?
> 
> okee dokee


Uh oh, call in the derail police chief. AS where are you?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The right was given under a stacked vote by a dictatorial PMO and in the time this country has existed, is but for mere seconds.


Bill C-38 was passed when The Liberals, Bloc and NDP voted in favour of the bill. Five Bloc Québécois, 93 Conservatives, 32 Liberals and one NDP voted against it, and only three Conservatives--James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C.) Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, Alta.) and Gerald Keddy (South Shore-St. Margaret's, N.S.)--voted for the bill.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> It has distressed me to have a 40 year plus marriage dragged down to be no more than a joke now that the term applies to two males or two females or to a human and an animal in the future, because that is where it is heading.


If you think a legal definition of marriage makes your marriage a joke, then you have bigger issues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why the obsession with zoophilia? Do you have something for plushies?
> 
> The definition has "evolved". You'd like to go backwards.


Not at all, but watch the extremists push for just such "rights" in the future and if society keeps granting more and more questionable practices normal status, their task will grow easier each decade.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> It has distressed me to have a 40 year plus marriage dragged down to be no more than a joke now that the term applies to two males or two females or to a human and an animal in the future, because that is where it is heading.


I don't see where your marriage is a joke - I'm really trying to understand your point of view on this one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> If you think a legal definition of marriage makes your marriage a joke, then you have bigger issues.


Well, at least I have my pants.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not at all, but watch the extremists push for just such "rights"


I'd like to ask your wife how she likes her right to vote. Last century, the "extremists" pushed for woman's rights.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't see where your marriage is a joke - I'm really trying to understand your point of view on this one.


You may never get it. I am very uncomfortable having to ask if one's "spouse" is male or female. I used to know if you were married, you had a spouse of the opposite gender. That assurance is now gone, and that makes me most uncomfortable. I never know what to say or if I am going to make someone feel bad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I'd like to ask your wife how she likes her right to vote. Last century, the "extremists" pushed for woman's rights.


My wife who spent 6 years in university and is retiring as an RN next year happens to have the very same misgivings about SSM.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> My wife who spent 6 years in university and is retiring as an RN next year happens to have the very same misgivings about SSM.


Doesn't change anything. I'd still like to ask her how she'd feel if we decided her right to vote was something we could just take away.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

If gays want to marry what does it have to do with anyone else? Just because it isn't my lifestyle doesn't matter. It isn't my life. If white marries black who does it hurt? I'm not racist - they are people just like anyone else and I can't see a problem with it. We all breathe air, need to eat, we all bleed when cut.
It's their life. Doesn't affect mine. Doesn't hurt anyone else. Nothing is forced, both parties are acting under consent. Why it seems to affect others is beyond me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Doesn't change anything. I'd still like to ask her how she'd feel if we decided her right to vote was something we could just take away.


She did not get the right to vote last year. Does not even compare to a new law opposed by nearly half of Canadians. Some laws passed are repealed. It remains to be seen if this one will stand the test of time.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Not for me he can't. nxnw is an astute lawyer and a sincere guy, but his views are severely tainted by the profession. Besides he likes judges and I never trust a man who gives judges carte blanche. There are too many judges who make terrible decisions and deserve absolutely no respect. nxnw will tell us we MUST respect all judges and therein lies the folly of his views.


I have explained this to you over and over. One more time: 

It is important that respect the _institution_ of the courts, as well as the _office_ of judge. This is a cornerstone of democracy. If we don't respect the courts, we won't trust them adjudicate issues affecting our freedom (or others' freedoms), we won't trust them to adjudicate our disputes, and then what do you have? Vigilantes? Lynch mobs? Settling disputes with fists and guns?

Moreover judges deserve respect without specifically persuading you that they deserve it, if only by virtue of earning their appointment.

This is not synonymous with having a blind obedience to the decisions or views of a given judge or lawyer. It does mean, however, that when a judge makes a decision that appears to be wrong, grown-ups don't make uninformed slanders that all/most judges and courts and lawyers are all egotistical morons. No, what we do is appeal the decision, a rational exercise where the appellant sets out cogent criticisms in an effort to overturn the decision.

Expressing generalized disrespect for all Courts and judges is simply ignorant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Cameo said:


> Why it seems to affect others is beyond me.


Conversely, that is the opinion of you and nearly the other half of Canadians. One half has issues with the whole SSM policy and the other does not, thus the pressing need to put it to a free vote in Parliament.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Moreover judges deserve respect without specifically persuading you that they deserve it, if only by virtue of earning their appointment.


See, I told you nxnw would say just that. We MUST respect even the bad ones. Funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Does not even compare to a new law opposed by nearly half of Canadians.


The right for women to vote was opposed by nearly half of all Canadians. The men.

But while we're at it, I'd like you SINC to give up your driver's license. You being allowed to drive makes my being allowed to drive a joke. Like really, if old people are allowed on the roads, what's next?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> The right for women to vote was opposed by nearly half of all Canadians. The men.


You are talking history. The SSM issue is a recent introduction to law and vulnerable to change when it is put to a free vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> The right for women to vote was opposed by nearly half of all Canadians. The men.
> 
> But while we're at it, I'd like you SINC to give up your driver's license. You being allowed to drive makes my being allowed to drive a joke. Like really, if old people are allowed on the roads, what's next?


Oh puleeze, either put forward a valid comment on the subject of go look for your pants.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

No.

It isn't.

The Supreme Court says so, no matter how little respect you, or the Prime Minister, have for its decisions.




SINC said:


> You are talking history. The SSM issue is a recent introduction to law and vulnerable to change when it is put to a free vote.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> You are a sick man. Funny, but sick.
> 
> :lmao: :lmao: and a XX) just to keep you in line.


It gets worse...

If you went down on a dolphin, would it smell like Tuna?

Have I derailed this thread yet? Banned?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're all banned, Each of the last 25 posters are going to be enrolled in an enforced group marriage and will live in a tumbledown shack near Fort McMurray--with television cameras broadcasting everything to a hungry public.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> You're all banned, Each of the last 25 posters are going to be enrolled in an enforced group marriage and will live in a tumbledown shack near Fort McMurray--with television cameras broadcasting everything to a hungry public.


They already have that in place. It's called "OUT" the TV channel.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Or should we all live and die by your morality and not others'?


Not at all, just stop shoving your version down my and many others throats. At least we are being given a chance to right the wrong via a free vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> No.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> The Supreme Court says so, no matter how little respect you, or the Prime Minister, have for its decisions.


Judges are mere people and very capable of making wrong decisions. The sooner we elect them the better, so we can weed out the bad ones.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> See, I told you nxnw would say just that. We MUST respect even the bad ones. Funny how that works, isn't it?


Sinc, when you distort my meaning by quoting me out of context, is it because you really don't understand what I said, or are being deliberately misleading?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Sinc, when you distort my meaning by quoting me out of context, is it because you really don't understand what I said, or are being deliberately misleading?


Neither nxnw, this is exactly what you said:


nxnw said:


> Moreover judges deserve respect without specifically persuading you that they deserve it, if only by virtue of earning their appointment.


I interpret that as MUST in spite of any shortcomings they may have. And believe me, far too many of them have faults. Either that or judges are perfect human beings. Is that the case nxnw? Are they ALL perfect?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/02/060602155817.4608d3f6.html

I think I would prefer dolphin.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Not at all, just stop shoving your version down my and many others throats. At least we are being given a chance to right the wrong via a free vote.


Sorry about how we are shoving the Charter of Rights down your throat. Sorry you don't like the principle of equality.

Actually, I am being unfair. You do believe in equality (except for gays) and the Charter (except when it has an effect you don't like).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/02/060602155817.4608d3f6.html
> 
> I think I would prefer dolphin.


Thanks Vandave. I rest my case.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Not at all, but watch the extremists push for just such "rights" in the future and if society keeps granting more and more questionable practices normal status, their task will grow easier each decade.


Come on SINC, you're being paranoid. Nothing like that will happen in a progressive country like Canada, just look to our tulip loving friends and our often-sited role models in the Netherlands.
They just got the Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party (NVD). Geez with a name like that they must be pretty decent folks. Here's some details from the platform.

*-The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.
"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper.
"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.*

Strangly the Dutch are not too warm and fuzzy to the plight of these poor guys (not yet but give them time and they'll come around). 82% of the Dutch want these guys stopped. (But that begs the question, how could 18% support them? eek: ) 67% of the dutch also think promoting pedophilia should be illegal. Boy thats good news! (But how could 33% think promoting pedophilia is OK?  )

So Sinc, your concerns about society going into the moral toilet and granting rights to more questionable folk are unfounded. Look to our Dutch friends and you'll see where the train of progress is taking us. They only have a minority of 33% that support promoting pedophilia... so far.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Sorry about how we are shoving the Charter of Rights down your throat. Sorry you don't like the principle of equality.
> 
> Actually, I am being unfair. You do believe in equality (except for gays) and the Charter (except when it has an effect you don't like).


Yes you are, since I assume the charter and its recent amendments were written by lawyers. They become judges and you know where that leads. Making laws and bad decisions and released criminals and parolees re-offending and the list goes on and on. All sanctioned by lawyers and judges. turn 'em loose to kill or rape or plunder the unsuspecting public again appears to be their motto.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Neither nxnw, this is exactly what you said:
> 
> 
> nxnw (out of context) said:
> ...


Is your attention span so short that you did not make it to the next sentence?


Me said:


> This is not synonymous with having a blind obedience to the decisions or views of a given judge or lawyer. It does mean, however, that when a judge makes a decision that appears to be wrong, grown-ups don't make uninformed slanders that all/most judges and courts and lawyers are all egotistical morons. No, what we do is appeal the decision, a rational exercise where the appellant sets out cogent criticisms in an effort to overturn the decision.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Come on SINC, you're being paranoid. Nothing like that will happen in a progressive country like Canada, just look to our tulip loving friends and our often-sited role models in the Netherlands. (But how could 33% think promoting pedophilia is OK?  )
> 
> So Sinc, your concerns about society going into the moral toilet and granting rights to more questionable folk are unfounded. Look to our Dutch friends and you'll see where the train of progress is taking us. They only have a minority of 33% that support promoting pedophilia... so far.
> 
> ...


Geez MacGuiver, we've got about 49% support here for SSM and that is only the tip of the iceburg. That should get us into total depravity much quicker than the Dutch. Go Canada!


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Yes you are, since I assume the charter and its recent amendments were written by lawyers. They become judges and you know where that leads. Making laws and bad decisions and released criminals and parolees re-offending and the list goes on and on. All sanctioned by lawyers and judges. turn 'em loose to kill or rape or plunder the unsuspecting public again appears to be their motto.


OK, Archie. Say goodnight to Edith for me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> OK, Archie. Say goodnight to Edith for me.


Sure thing. And the Jeffersons next door if you like. Want me to alert Meathead to your cause?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Geez MacGuiver, we've got about 49% support here for SSM and that is only the tip of the iceburg. That should get us into total depravity much quicker than the Dutch. Go Canada!


SINC
The Dutch are far more progressive than us. We have some catching up to do. They're well beyond two lads getting married, legal prostitutes, legal drugs etc. etc.. They've run out of victims of discrimination so the next batter has just stepped up to the plate. Give them about 10 to 15 years of campaigning and I'd bet the farm they'll be having legal sex with children in Holland. The cog of progress only travels in one direction, and it won't stop. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> SINC
> The Dutch are far more progressive than us. We have some catching up to do. They're well beyond two lads getting married, legal prostitutes, legal drugs etc. etc.. They've run out of victims of discrimination so the next batter has just stepped up to the plate. Give them about 10 to 15 years of campaigning and I'd bet the farm they'll be having legal sex with children in Holland. The cog of progress only travels in one direction, and it won't stop.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Yeah, but try and tell that to some of the enlightened members of this board and you will immediately be branded as "pick your favourite trendy ****/whatever" label they read about last week.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The Charter and the Courts clearly stated that preventing people from marrying was unconstitutional and violated the Charter before the policy was instituted by Bill C-38.


Maybe I should keep my mouth shut since I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread, but has anybody actually read the Charter (maybe this has already been covered).............


> According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government.


So I don't see where the courts come in or where the Charter states that preventing people from marrying is unconstitutional.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yes you are, since I assume the charter and its recent amendments were written by lawyers. They become judges and you know where that leads. Making laws and bad decisions and released criminals and parolees re-offending and the list goes on and on. All sanctioned by lawyers and judges. turn 'em loose to kill or rape or plunder the unsuspecting public again appears to be their motto.


This is quite weak. Documents with significant legal importance written by lawyers and approved by politicians (representatives of the voters). I'm sure government could save money by having telemarketers write these documents, but then they likely wouldn't be legally sound. 

As for the stuff after "All sanctioned....", do you really think that?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> Maybe I should keep my mouth shut since I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread, but has anybody actually read the Charter (maybe this has already been covered).............
> .....
> So I don't see where the courts come in or where the Charter states that preventing people from marrying is unconstitutional.


Is marriage in the Charter or the constitution that identified federal/provincial powers? 

The courts come into it because various passages of the Charter are a balancing act (quite possibly with the original BNA too) and the document as a whole isn't crystal clear (there are limits to how clear something so far reaching can be).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Politicians have the power to amend the Charter, but that would require strong support from the people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> As for the stuff after "All sanctioned....", do you really think that?


No, I don't "think" that, I know that. Time after time one reads about repeat offenders being released on parole only to be charged again with a similar or worse crime including murders.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> ... Time after time one reads about repeat offenders being released on parole only to be charged again with a similar or worse crime including murders.


Do you know the difference between anecdotal evidence (the kind of stuff you base your views on, like "Report: Aspirin cured my cancer!" = Sinc: "Aspirin cures cancer!") and real evidence?

For every sensationalist report you read about a (perceived) inadequate sentence, there are thousands upon thousands that are beyond criticism. Even the harsher sentences that are reported are likely missed by your radar, as they don't engage you and feed your uninformed and prejudiced beliefs about the justice system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The fact remains that there are hundreds of well documented cases of botched paroles and murderers turned loose who kill again. That is the fault of the system. And you defend that? Incredible.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....4608d3f6.html
> Thanks Vandave. I rest my case.


Gay marriage in Canada is the same as a woman marrying a snake in a foreign country?

Comparing homosexuals to snakes is no more legitimate than comparing you to a [slang]donkey[/slang].

Be wary of the slippery slope! Next thing we know, SINC's wife will want to bare her ankles in public. It's amazing we even gave her the right to vote.

Oh, and speaking of marriages being a joke, Canada's divorce rate is 45%. Maybe SINC wants to ban divorces just so his marriage won't be considered a joke. http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml

Add to that, adultery is the largest cause of divorce. Adultery makes a joke of marriages. Maybe SINC will want to outlaw adultery. I say stone anybody who cheats!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The fact remains that there are hundreds of well documented cases of botched paroles and murderers turned loose who kill again. That is the fault of the system. And you defend that? Incredible.


something about "not biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind

SINC, did you ever hear of tobacco executives criticize their own product for causing severe health problems in the face of mounds of scientific evidence?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Gay marriage in Canada is the same as a woman marrying a snake in a foreign country?


Not currently, but it does open the door for the very same thing to happen here if laws are not changed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> something about "not biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind
> 
> SINC, did you ever hear of tobacco executives criticize their own product for causing severe health problems in the face of mounds of scientific evidence?


Gee Michael, you draw great comparisons. Never thought of it in that manner, but you're right.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not currently, but it does open the door for the very same thing to happen here if laws are not changed.


Good ol' slippery slope argument.

Just to recap folks:
SINC is opposed to gay marriage because it will make his 40 years of marriage a joke.
Since he doesn't want his marriage to be considered a joke, anything that could possibly tarnish it should be illegal.
Therefore, SINC also supports the abolishment of divorce. Once you get married, you stay married.
SINC also supports the criminalization of adultery. If you cheat, you go to jail.

SINC! Progressive! Liberal! The Future! Make sure to cast your ballots today!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

You mean he's running against you guytoronto?

Please don't use negative ads - it did not work for the libs in the last election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Good ol' slippery slope argument.
> 
> Just to recap folks:
> SINC is opposed to gay marriage because it will make his 40 years of marriage a joke.
> ...


That's a pee poor recap guy.

SINC is opposed to calling gay unions marriage.
SINC believes calling gay unions marriage tarnishes all marriages between a man and a woman.
SINC never mentioned divorce, so don't put words in his mouth. Divorce is legal and necessary.
SINC said no such thing about adultery. Again you make stupid accusations.

The biggest insult of all is being called a Liberal.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> Maybe I should keep my mouth shut since I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread, but has anybody actually read the Charter (maybe this has already been covered).............
> 
> So I don't see where the courts come in or where the Charter states that preventing people from marrying is unconstitutional.


You are confusing the Charter with the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Charter asserts overriding principles that governments do not have the power to violate (subject to limitations like the notwithstanding clause). The Federal government, for instance, has exclusive jurisdiction over banks and banking, but it does not have the power to make a law that forbids banks from employing Catholics. Such a law would offend the Charter.

If you want to understand how the Charter applies to same sex marriage, I suggest you read Halpern and Egan (you can find it on canlii.org). They are not easy reads, but mandatory if you want to understand the issue.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacSpectrum, it's pathetic that you would rather take a shot at me than be true to your own stated views on equality and individual rights. Let's be clear - you now attack the courts for applying the Charter to uphold equality rights for gays?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> The fact remains that there are hundreds of well documented cases of botched paroles and murderers turned loose who kill again. That is the fault of the system. And you defend that? Incredible.


Well, as long as anyone is ever released from jail, there is a possibility that they will reoffend. Since you are blaming judges (as opposed to the parole system, the prison system or the police), what is your answer? 

So, _are you_ saying that every crime requires a life sentence? If not, are you saying that it is the judge's fault every time someone he sentences reoffends after getting out of jail? You know, most crimes don't even provide for a life sentence - the judge doesn't have the power to impose it. It would be refreshing if you would think these things through before posting.

As for murderers killing again: the sentence for murder is life. It is mandatory.The only discretion a judge has is how long the prisoner must serve before being eligible for parole, and even that discretion is limited. So, are you saying that, when a prisoner who was sentenced to life for murder is released by the parole board and reoffends, it is the judge's fault.

Are you principled enough to examine your beliefs against the harsh light of reality and admit when you are wrong?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Are you principled enough to examine your beliefs against the harsh light of reality and admit when you are wrong?


By all means, IF I was wrong. There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta. It was a judge who made that decision and it is wrong in many people's opinion. I haven't heard a judge admit he or she was wrong lately, have you?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> SINC is opposed to calling gay unions marriage.


Hence, you are opposed to gay marriage.



SINC said:


> SINC believes calling gay unions marriage tarnishes all marriages between a man and a woman.


And since you are opposed to things that tarnish all marriages, it stands to reason that you are opposed to divorce.



SINC said:


> SINC never mentioned divorce. Divorce is legal and necessary.


You'll let one thing tarnish marriages, but not something else? Now you are being hypocritical.



SINC said:


> SINC said no such thing about adultery.


Adultery tarnishes marriages, so it stands to reason that you would want to criminalize it. Unless you are being hypocritical on this issue too.



SINC said:


> so don't put words in his mouth


Just like you put words into the mouths of people who want to marry? You were the first one to bring up "marriage to animals".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

krs said:


> Maybe I should keep my mouth shut since I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread, but has anybody actually read the Charter (maybe this has already been covered).............
> 
> 
> So I don't see where the courts come in or where the Charter states that preventing people from marrying is unconstitutional.



It is here...

_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. _

The key part being that the law cannot discriminate based on sex. To simplify the matter prior to Bill C-38 most provinces would only allow people of opposite gender to marry. These practices were challenged and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that those practices were in fact in violation of Section 15 Rights as laid out in the Charter.

Hope that helps.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> You were the first one to bring up "marriage to animals".


And it will happen if we stay the course. All your other statements are but assumptions and poor ones at that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not currently, but it does open the door for the very same thing to happen here if laws are not changed.


It doesn't... As Beej pointed out long ago in this thread... 



Beej said:


> Only if future generations change the laws. Animals, like children, do not have the mental capacity to consent to marriage. Consenting adults is the requirement. Could it change? Sure, but not, as far as I know, under our current laws. You can have a ceremony with anything (within the limits of certain laws) but that marriage has no legal meaning without a meeting of minds...adult minds. I'm not sure what age 'adult' is for marriage.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> And it will happen if we stay the course. All your other statements are but assumptions and poor ones at that.


It can't... Don't you ever read your Beej anymore?



Beej said:


> Animals, like children, do not have the mental capacity to consent to marriage. Consenting adults is the requirement.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> By all means, IF I was wrong. There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta. It was a judge who made that decision and it is wrong in many people's opinion. I haven't heard a judge admit he or she was wrong lately, have you?


Yet the MANDATORY sentence for murder is life. How can you possibly be right?

Judges get appealed all the time and higher courts often say the decisions under appeal were wrongly decided.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> nxnw could help out with the facts instead of just Beej's mix of memory and dream.


Since he never answered this question, and it is in my area of knowledge, the age of consent for marriage is a Provincial matter. In Ontario, one must be 18. If one is 16 or 17, one may be married with written consent of a parent. Under 16 cannot be legally married without court approval.

Not sure about any other provinces. For what it's worth, here is a synopsis. I am at work on dialup, I'm not surfing for more than one source 

As for the greater issue, since nothing new has been brought up in this thread, I'm not going to bother with the endless mudslinging. I have not yet heard a new argument to convince me to change my support. And since everyone else thus far has been madly distancing themselves from religion, let me say that my support for same-sex marriage is something that I believe is fully supportable as a Christian minister, and what's more, my denomination, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, agrees (although hardly unanimously). So I am hardly alone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Yet the MANDATORY sentence for murder is life.


Not if the killer happened to be 17 years, 364 days and 23 hours of age it isn't.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> It is here...
> 
> _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. _
> 
> ...


Yes - I read that. 

But the question is what was the intent when these words were written. If they were meant to include same-sex marriage, there would have been no need to create bill C-38 to make it legal since it's already guaranteed by the Charter.

What I mentiuoned earlier was a straight quote from the wikipedia (not my own words)...here it is again:

According to the Constitution of Canada, the definition of marriage is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government—this interpretation was upheld by a December 9, 2004 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

All that said to me is that the federal government has the right to define "marriage" as anything they wish...could be limited to a union between man and woman.

The Charter just says that all individuals have equal protection and equal benefits of the law - different thing. 

If I remember right, that whole issue started because some same-sex couples were upset about not benefitting in some financial way as married couples could. It was all triggered by dollars and cents. That should have been changed.

Where we are now or were we are headed would also legalize Polygamy with a little help from the lawyers.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> YWhere we are now or were we are headed would also legalize Polygamy with a little help from the lawyers.


Explain to me why polygamy is illegal, but having a wife and a mistress is not.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> All that said to me is that the federal government has the right to define "marriage" as anything they wish...could be limited to a union between man and woman.
> 
> The Charter just says that all individuals have equal protection and equal benefits of the law - different thing.


Yes and no. The Charter overrides all other laws. Every other law exists, or allocation of powers, exists only so far as it fits within the bounds of the Charter.

We needed a bill to change the definition, because of the way the court challenge went. Courts all across the land agreed that the current definition violated the charter. When a court does that, they have the choice of simply killing the old law, ordering the government to replace it, or both - ie, change by x date, or the law dies completely. The courts cannot make new law, so they can't replace a bad law. Only kill it and leave a vaccuum. For the most part, the courts chose to give the government time to make a new law, so that there would be no vaccuum, but that time was limited. The government had to act, and so they did.



krs said:


> If I remember right, that whole issue started because some same-sex couples were upset about not benefitting in some financial way as married couples could. It was all triggered by dollars and cents. That should have been changed.


Yes and no. It was about ALL spousals right, which does include the monetary ones. But it also includes things like the rights to control medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. There was also the third strand, which was the right to equal treatment in name, not only in substance.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Not if the killer happened to be 17 years, 364 days and 23 hours of age it isn't.


1. Not necessarily.

2. You said that there are "There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta". That is patently false. If you are now amending that to say that there are "many cases where *under* 18 year olds get three years for murder in Alberta", it is still false. You tried to sell this false claim before, and when you were forced to put up, all you were able to come up with was an incident that (1) was not murder, and (2) involved a sentence that was longer than three years (5 or 6, if I recall correctly).

You persistently demonstrate that your opinions are are founded on groundless assumptions and false claims.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The sky is falling...... SSM has been legal in Canada for a year. Society is falling apart. Men are marrying goats. Women are marrying bananas. My marriage is weakened. We're all doomed.

Wait a minute..... SINC's imagination has gotten the better of him. Canada is a slightly better place because of same-sex marriage because the principles enshrined in the decision are consonant with equality as a human right, not human bias. Equal but different is not equal. Equality has no qualifications.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I, for one, look forward to the day when I can marry my cat. We don't have a sexual relationship, but it is deeply spiritual, and I just know in my heart of hearts he'd say YES! if only he could give informed consent. And that's good enough for me. 

Best of all, though, and the main reason I so eagerly anticipate inter-species marriage, is that I will be able to claim him as a dependent. See, the little bugger refuses to take gainful employment. Just loafs around sleeping and eating. There might have been a little hunting to do around the house once upon a time, but it's all done, the vermin won't come back, and kitty's resting on his laurels. And nobody will hire him for his skills in digging, pooping, barfing, looking cute, etc.

But that tax deduction...whoa. I guarantee it: when (not if!) we get interspecies/same sex/polygamous marriage (really, we'll need all three to make pet weddings feasible -- I mean, what if I have TWO cats someday?), people will be lining up to tie the knot with their furry friends, budgies, snakes, etc.! And I -- I will proudly stand first in line. 

_But seriously, folks..._ Interspecies marriage and pedophile marriage (or any other form of acceptance for pedophilia) cannot and will not happen because of the consent issue. Period. Being is legally or inherently unable to give informed consent? No marriage, no sex for being. This is in NO way analogous to SSM, which by definition involves consenting adult humans. Unless you want to argue that homosexuality somehow impairs a person's capacity to give informed consent, but I know nobody here would make such a ridiculous claim.

Consent is also a stumbling block to polygamy/polyandry, because there are serious questions about coercion and consent among communities that currently buck the law and practice it. But as long as every partner is a fully and freely consenting adult human, why not? My personal objection would be that only fools would go for it, considering the added layers of complication in terms of property questions and emotional issues. Divorce lawyers would have a field day. But those are not fundamental reasons why fools shouldn't have their way. Besides, the Bible has lots of pro-polygamy stuff, and the Bible is always right.

In the end, probably only a tiny minority of people would take advantage of the opportunity to sanctify a multiple marriage -- most people from western cultures who are so inclined would likely find it even harder than gay people to "come out" to their parents and community. No, they will just continue to shack up in threesomes etc. as they do now. I guess everyone's OK with that as long as they don't call it marriage, eh? Tough nuts for the third or fourth or _n_th partners, who have no spousal rights whatsoever.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Women are marrying bananas.


Well, good. Women have been dating bananas for years. About time they settled down! beejacon


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> ...All that said to me is that the federal government has the right to define "marriage" as anything they wish...could be limited to a union between man and woman.
> 
> The Charter just says that all individuals have equal protection and equal benefits of the law - different thing.
> 
> If I remember right, that whole issue started because some same-sex couples were upset about not benefitting in some financial way as married couples could. It was all triggered by dollars and cents. That should have been changed....


This is all incorrect. 

- The Charter has everything to do with it. The issue was that same sex couples were being denied access to the institution of marriage due to the restrictions contained in marriage statutes. As such, they were not being treated as "equal before and under the law" and were denied "the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".

- Halpern, particularly, dealt primarily with the issue of the institution of marriage, as opposed to financial issues which could have been dealt with by a civil union concept. 

I reiterate, if you want to understand the issue, rather than assert uninformed speculations, read the Egan and Halpern decisions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> 2. You said that there are "There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta". That is patently false.
> 
> You persistently demonstrate that your opinions are are founded on groundless assumptions and false claims.



Is that so? What do you call this:

Quote: "The teenager, who was sentenced to three years in a youth jail for his crime, told the Calgary Young Offender Centre that he might not have killed had his computer, which he used to play violent video games, not crashed that day."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/10/09/taber031009.html


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> There was also the third strand, which was the right to equal treatment in name, not only in substance.


Doesn't this go back to what the concept of marriage is in the first place?

The way I see it, marriage is not a natural state of the universe. It was created by mankind to create a family unit which was required to provide a secure environment for children to grow up in.
A same-sex union cannot create natural offsprings, so that union shouldn't really be called a "marriage". A key element is missing.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> Doesn't this go back to what the concept of marriage is in the first place?
> 
> The way I see it, marriage is not a natural state of the universe. It was created by mankind to create a family unit which was required to provide a secure environment for children to grow up in.
> A same-sex union cannot create natural offsprings, so that union shouldn't really be called a "marriage". A key element is missing.


By that logic, hetero marriages where one party is sterile also aren't marriages. Arguably, a marriage where there is ability, but no willingness, is also null and void. Also, since you mention "create", a marriage with adopted children also doesn't count. I understand that you are presenting your perspective, but I feel fairly confident saying that this society rejected that perspective many years ago, for the reasons I have stated.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> If you want to understand how the Charter applies to same sex marriage, I suggest you read Halpern and Egan (you can find it on canlii.org). They are not easy reads, but mandatory if you want to understand the issue.


That site has an invalid security certificate. 

In any case - all this is just legal wrangling back and forth. Today's interpretation by lawyers and judges what the thinking was back when the Charter was created.
That could be right or wrong - nobody will ever know.
What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want and that, theoretically at least, is done through parliament.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want and that, theoretically at least, is done through parliament.


Maybe, but on the broader scale. The majority are committed to the principles of the charter. It turns out that a significant number (maybe a majority, maybe not) don't like one aspect of how those principles are administered. The devil is in the details. But sometimes on the specifics, the majority have to suck it up, rather than terrorise the minority. (Hence the phrase: tyranny of the majority)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I understand that you are presenting your perspective, but I feel fairly confident saying that this society rejected that perspective many years ago, for the reasons I have stated.


Actually, I was trying to very briefly summarize why the concept of marriage was created in the first place many moons ago.
Maybe I'm way off base on that - I didn't research it............it's also not really my perspective. 
In my opinion a loving committed relationship is what counts...but society doesn't see it that way, both from a moral and financial point of view.

And seriously - isn't the current argument re same-sex marriages purely financial?
You can't truly legislate morality or control what people think.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> Doesn't this go back to what the concept of marriage is in the first place?


Ok, let's go back to the concept of marriage.

Women must honor and obey their husbands. OBEY!

Since the Church is largely responsible for the institution of marriage in Western society, no atheists are allowed to marry.

Depending on what your cultural history is, either the Bride's family, or the Groom's family must pay a dowry. You choose, but money better change hands!

Dare we get into the arranged marriages?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> That site has an invalid security certificate.
> 
> In any case - all this is just legal wrangling back and forth. Today's interpretation by lawyers and judges what the thinking was back when the Charter was created.
> That could be right or wrong - nobody will ever know.
> What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want and that, theoretically at least, is done through parliament.


You can find both cases on canlii.org.

Again, why don't you make the small effort to educate yourself in the issues by reading those two cases so you can comment more intelligently on the subject. "all this is just legal wrangling back and forth" reads more like, "I won't bother to inform myself".

Secondly, please consider doing some reading about individual rights and the concept of "tyranny of the majority", and consider how well that fits in with, "democracy is what the majority of the people want". It would not surprise me if today in Ontario, a lot of people could be persuaded that it is appropriate to restrict the freedom of Moslems in some way — curfews, for instance — in response to the arrests over the weekend. If that was what the majority wanted, would it be fair? Would it be your idea of democracy?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You mean the majority isn't always right?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Ok, let's go back to the concept of marriage.
> 
> Women must honor and obey their husbands. OBEY!
> 
> ...


I'm thinking of the original concept of marriage - centuries before the church was established.
Tried a bit of googling, but that didn't bring anything concrete - just a bunch of contradictory opinions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Besides he likes judges and I never trust a man who gives judges carte blanche. There are too many judges who make terrible decisions and deserve absolutely no respect.


Seems your old Con buddies have had a change of heart on judges....


> Toews' verdict on judicial appointments changes now that Tories in power
> 
> Justice Minister Vic Toews, who lobbied in opposition for changes to an appointments system that he said allowed the government to use prestigious federal judgeships as patronage plums, appears to have had a change of heart.
> The system is a ''relatively well-working mechanism,'' he now says, prompting accusations that the Conservatives, after 13 years of being sidelined, are anxious to appoint their friends to the lucrative postings.
> Federal judge positions will pay $232,000 once an anticipated raise is approved by Parliament.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/p...=00010d54-c948-48d6-a7cc-a3a49202cd8b&k=74518


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

krs said:


> What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want and that, theoretically at least, is done through parliament.



KRS, if that were the case... women would be property of men, women would not be allowed to vote, Blacks would be slaves... my wife and I would not be married because we are not of the same race.

The majority does NOT define what is moral.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You can find both cases on canlii.org.
> 
> Again, why don't you make the small effort to educate yourself in the issues by reading those two cases so you can comment more intelligently on the subject. "all this is just legal wrangling back and forth" reads more like, "I'm too lazy to to inform myself".


Well, I read Halpern - a bit more than a small effort.

But what I got out of it is nothing different than what I posted before.

A specific court's interpretation of that section of the Charter (the words "In our view" and "in our opinion" are used an awful lot) and legal wrangling with all the quoted other cases and opinions on those.
What's interesting is that this particular court seems to have already come to it's final conclusion at the very beginning of the arguments by both sides......doesn't exactly remind me of the picture of the justice system with the blindfolded lady holding the scales.

What really bothered me was the court's interpretation that same-sex marriage is legal because it can't be shown to have an adverse effect on hetrosexual marriages.

Man - if you use that interpretation that something is legal simply because it can't be proven to have an adverse effect on another group in society. then more than just one law needs to be changed. Polygamy is the first one that comes to mind since it's also marriage related.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> if you use that interpretation that something is legal simply because it can't be proven to have an adverse effect on another group in society. then more than just one law needs to be changed. Polygamy is the first one that comes to mind since it's also marriage related.


I'll ask it again. Why is polygamy illegal, yet it's perfectly legal to have a wife and a mistress?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> KRS, if that were the case... women would be property of men, women would not be allowed to vote, Blacks would be slaves... my wife and I would not be married because we are not of the same race.


I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
Are you for instance telling me slavery was abolished even though the majority of the population was against it?



> The majority does NOT define what is moral.


I never said anything like that, did I?
In fact I thought I posted specifically that morality cannot be legislated.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> ..............yet it's perfectly legal to have a wife and a mistress?


Is that actually true?
What happened to adultry...or is that not illegal?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> Is that actually true?
> What happened to adultry...or is that not illegal?


Adultery is a sin, not a crime.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Adultery is a sin, not a crime.


And I always thought adultry is considered by the courts as a valid reason for a divorce.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

krs said:


> I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
> Are you for instance telling me slavery was abolished even though the majority of the population was against it?


Certain States in the US South were totally against abolition... to the point they started a war because of it... 



krs said:


> I never said anything like that, did I?
> In fact I thought I posted specifically that morality cannot be legislated.


You said... "What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want"

Well that is akin to rule of the mob.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

krs said:


> And I always thought adultry is considered by the courts as a valid reason for a divorce.


It is a valid reason for divorce and if proven then proceedings can be started immediately. It is a valid reason but not illegal.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> And I always thought adultry is considered by the courts as a valid reason for a divorce.


Adultery may be the leading cause of divorce, but it is irrelevant when considering benefits, custody, or alimony. The courts won't have any of it.

If you pull in $5 million a year, support your wife in everything she does, give her the opportunities that she would never have had before, and she goes behind your back for Paulo, to pool boy, too bad for you.

The courts will give her half of everything you have, plus she gets the pool boy. You get the shaft.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You said... "What should count in a democracy is what the majority of the people want"
> 
> Well that is akin to rule of the mob.


All right, all right - that's not what I meant. The basic rules of law and order apply as well.

All I wanted to say that democracy literally means rule by the people - the people through their elected representatives establish the laws, not the courts.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> All I wanted to say that democracy literally means rule by the people - the people through their elected representatives establish the laws, not the courts.


Right. The courts step in when two laws clash. So, we had a charter that said one thing, and a definition of marriage that said another. So the courts had to resolve which law took precedence. As I said earlier, they could not, then, simply declare what the new definition of marriage was, only aks the politicians to make one. Parliament could have done nothing, which is the long standing approach to abortion. We have no law governing abortion. I suspect that approach would not have worked as well here, but it was an option, technically speaking. But the main point is, the courts did not invent this problem, parliament did by having two contradictory laws. The courts did their job, which was to decide which took priority. That is all.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> But the main point is, the courts did not invent this problem, parliament did by having two contradictory laws. The courts did their job, which was to decide which took priority. That is all.


And thank goodness they went with what is right and fair. Not what is hypocritical and biased.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> I'm thinking of the original concept of marriage - centuries before the church was established.
> Tried a bit of googling, but that didn't bring anything concrete - just a bunch of contradictory opinions.


There have been many forms and obligations. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> MacSpectrum, it's pathetic that you would rather take a shot at me than be true to your own stated views on equality and individual rights. Let's be clear - you now attack the courts for applying the Charter to uphold equality rights for gays?


no. I attack your silly view that all judges are somehow to be immediately respected

judges/lawyers are just as biased, bigoted and stupid as most of the population

I think Danny Devito's character in the movie "Other People's Money" put it best;

*
Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. They have 'em so I have 'em."
*


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> judges/lawyers are just as biased, bigoted and stupid as most of the population


I question your read on 'most of the population', especially considering your nearest frame of reference and past 'reads'. But hey, whatever feels best. Professional duties...bah. No connection to their 'biased, bigoted and stupid' human characteristics as they pertain to their jobs.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> Well, I read Halpern - a bit more than a small effort.
> 
> But what I got out of it is nothing different than what I posted before...


It gets easier with practice and experience. Good for you for making the effort, but what you think it says, is not what it says. As well, you seem to perceive that you were reading a record of the hearing - that is not so. The many parties that made submissions did so over 5 days in April and the judgment was reserved and eventually released two months later.

What you say about, "What really bothered me was the court's interpretation that same-sex marriage is legal because it can't be shown to have an adverse effect on hetrosexual marriages" is absolutely not the basis for the decision. I don't want to oversimplify, but the key elements are the following:

1. Individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the law, regardless of sexual orientation. This had been determined previously by the Supreme Court of Canada in several decisions, and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern was bound to follow that precedent:


> Sexual orientation is an analogous ground that comes under the umbrella of protection in s. 15(1) of the Charter: see Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, and M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3. As explained by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 52-53:
> 
> 
> > In Egan...this Court unanimously affirmed that sexual orientation is an analogous ground to those enumerated in s. 15(1). Sexual orientation is “a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs” (para. 5). In addition, a majority of this Court explicitly recognized that gays, lesbians and bisexuals, “whether as individuals or couples, form an identifiable minority who have suffered and continue to suffer serious social, political and economic disadvantage” (para. 175, per Cory J.; see also para. 89, per L’Heureux-Dubé J.).
> ...


2. The traditional definition of marriage infringed the equality rights of same-sex partners under s. 15(1) of the Charter. This is the major issue in the case, in my view, and much is said about it. The following is a key passage:


> [104] First, we do not agree that same-sex couples are afforded equal treatment under the law with respect to benefits and obligations. In many instances, benefits and obligations do not attach until the same-sex couple has been cohabiting for a specified period of time. Conversely, married couples have instant access to all benefits and obligations.
> 
> [105] Additionally, not all benefits and obligations have been extended to cohabiting couples. For example, in Walsh the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Nova Scotia’s legislation that provides only married persons with equalization of net family property upon breakdown of the relationship. Ontario’s Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, similarly excludes cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex couples from equalization of net family property. Opposite-sex couples are able to gain access to this legislation as they can choose to marry. Same-sex couples are denied access because they are prohibited from marrying.
> 
> ...


After the Court concludes that the Charter rights of same sex couples are infringed, the last element of the inquiry is whether this is a reasonable infringement (in paras. 109 to 142).

The case was a very sincere and cogent analysis of the issues and is not appropriately characterized as wrangling. The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision was unanimous, not appealed further, and (for what it's worth) penned by Mr. Justice McMurtry, a former Conservative cabinet minister in Ontario, appointed to the bench by Brian Mulroney.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

nxnw said:


> What you say about, "What really bothered me was the court's interpretation that same-sex marriage is legal because it can't be shown to have an adverse effect on hetrosexual marriages" is absolutely not the basis for the decision.


It wasn't the sole basis, but neither was anything else. That statement was part of the rationale that led to the final judgement - it just bothered me that the concept that something is legal because it can't be shown to have an adverse effect on a different part of society even entered into the thought process to determine the final judgement.

There is also a comment in this document that children raised by same-sex partners suffer no negative consequences. The court just ignores how important a mother figure and a father figure are in that respect during different parts of a child's adolescense.
Actually, the court seems to recognize it, but since neither party brought it up in their submission, it's just being ignored.

You quoted:


> [8] Historically, same-sex equality litigation has focused on achieving equality in some of the most basic elements of civic life, such as bereavement leave, health care benefits, pensions benefits, spousal support, name changes and adoption. The question at the heart of this appeal is whether excluding same-sex couples from another of the most basic elements of civic life - marriage - infringes human dignity and violates the Canadian Constitution.


Throwing 'marriage' into the same pot as 'bereavement leave', 'health care benefits', 'pension benfits' etc. is just not appropriate in my opinion. The consequences are totally different.

Rather than the courts deciding, the decision should be made by parliament and reflect what the majority of Canadians want. I personally really don't care one way or the other (although I bet everyone thinks I'm for the traditional definition of marriage).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> There is also a comment in this document that children raised by same-sex partners suffer no negative consequences. The court just ignores how important a mother figure and a father figure are in that respect during different parts of a child's adolescense.


The state should only interfere in parenting in the most extreme circumstances (e.g. permanent physical damage). Prejudging abilities based on likelihoods would hit many more hetero couples than **** couples. 

I do agree that, by construction, we are probably best raised in a multi-gender household but, if you're going to talk about "no negative consequences" then you've got government in a lot more homes than just homosexual ones. We are also, by construction, probably best raised by parents with many characteristics that arne't legally required. 

Dr. Phil will tell you how it's done or you will lose your kids. That argument just ignores way too much and focusses on way too little.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> \[No adverse effect on hetrosexual marriages] wasn't the sole basis, but neither was anything else. That statement was part of the rationale that led to the final judgement - it just bothered me that the concept that something is legal because it can't be shown to have an adverse effect on a different part of society even entered into the thought process to determine the final judgement.


You need to understand the step by step analysis. The lack of harm you have keyed on to has nothing to do with:
Step 1 - the determination that the Charter prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; or
Step 2 - the determination that the traditional definition of marriage discriminates against same sex couples.

It's materiality relates solely to the _next_ question of whether this discrimination against same sex couples was a "reasonable limit ... as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (aka the section 1 inquiry). In other words, legislatures do have the power to pass laws that discriminate, if the discrimination may be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". For instance, children are not permitted to drive cars, get married, etc. - this discriminates by age, but it is obviously justified in a free and democratic society - ample evidence would show that they don't have the maturity, responsibility and other qualities one should have to engage in these activities, _because_ of their age, and that it would be harmful to them and to society were they permitted.

This is where the harm analysis comes in. The attorney general argued the discrimination is justified because same sex marriage would destabilize the institution of marriage and cause harm to society. The Court rejected this argument, stating:


> *We reject the AGC’s submission as speculative. The justification of a Charter infringement requires cogent evidence.* In our view, same-sex couples and their children should be able to benefit from the same stabilizing institution as their opposite-sex counterparts.


In other words, the AGC argued that the discrimination was justified due to alleged harm to society. The Court rejected the argument because limits of Charter rights must be *demonstrably* justified (there must be evidence to support the argument) but the ACG had no evidence at all.


krs said:


> Rather than the courts deciding, the decision should be made by parliament and reflect what the majority of Canadians want.


Back to the whole starting point - what if the majority of Canadians wanted to take the vote away from Catholics, or require that all judges were men? Do you not agree that it is a good thing that we have a constitution that forbids these things and a court system with a duty to uphold it?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> no. I attack your silly view that all judges are somehow to be immediately respected


Actually, my silly view is that every individual is entitled to respect unless they have done something that gives you a reason not to respect them.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Actually, my silly view is that every individual is entitled to respect unless they have done something that gives you a reason not to respect them.


Oh, come now. Now you ARE just being ridiculous. What's next, we have to presume they are innocent, too?


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

What are they guilty of?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Man nxnw..........you are really patient with me!

I obviously don't look at this from a purely legal or Charter perspective.

As to the "harm argument" and it's rejection.



> The attorney general argued the discrimination is justified because same sex marriage would destabilize the institution of marriage and cause harm to society. The Court rejected this argument, stating:In other words, the AGC argued that the discrimination was justified due to alleged harm to society. The Court rejected the argument because limits of Charter rights must be *demonstrably* justified (there must be evidence to support the argument) but the ACG had no evidence at all.


I don't follow the logic of the court here (or of the Charter for that matter). How can anyone have any evidence of harm about something that hasn't happened yet. It's all conjecture at this point.
Maybe same-sex marriage destabilizes the institute of marriage, maybe it doesn't. Nobody knows one way or the other.

"Children not being permitted to drive cars or get married, etc." - for all that we have ample historic evidence - but as to the effect of same-sex marriage on the institution - there can't be any evidence one way or the other, so that should not even enter the discussion.

What we do have plenty of evidence on is raising children without either a father or a mother, but I didn't see that as a factor that was considered.



> Back to the whole starting point - what if the majority of Canadians wanted to take the vote away from Catholics, or require that all judges were men? Do you not agree that it is a good thing that we have a constitution that forbids these things and a court system with a duty to uphold it?


I don't know why you bring that 'What if' discussion up. Would the constitution not try to reflect what the society as a whole wishes at any point in time?

Rather than "what if", take a real example - an immigrant coming to Canada today is expected to pay taxes just like everyone else but cannot vote to have a voice how these tax dollars, that he/she funded, are being spent. 
I suggest that is discrimination but it is obviously allowed by the Charter.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

krs said:


> What we do have plenty of evidence on is raising children without either a father or a mother, but I didn't see that as a factor that was considered.


As it shouldn't be. If you want to start considering this as cause, then you will need to make single-parent families illegal. You'll force single mothers to give up their children. You'll make getting pregnant out of wedlock a crime. You'll make teenage pregnancies a criminal offence. You'll make accidental pregnancies something to hide.

All this to protect the sanctity of marriage? Never in this country I pray.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> ...I don't follow the logic of the court here (or of the Charter for that matter). How can anyone have any evidence of harm about something that hasn't happened yet. It's all conjecture at this point.


Evidence may come from various sources. There can be empirical evidence from experience in other countries. There can be expert opinion evidence. The key is that, in order to limit a constitutional right, it has to be *demonstrably* justified - compelling evidence is required to support the contention that the limitation is justified.


krs said:


> I don't know why you bring that 'What if' discussion up. Would the constitution not try to reflect what the society as a whole wishes at any point in time?


 The constitution reflects core values. Now, the constitution can be changed but, it requires considerable consensus: the House of Commons, the Senate, and a 2/3 majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the national population. This, of course, is by design. It shouldn't be easy because, as noted, it reflects enduring values and should not be discarded lightly. This degree of consensus (the Charter, in fact, was ratified by parliament and 9 provincial legislatures) certainly reflects "what the society as a whole wishes". 

The "what if" scenarios are very germane. The examples I gave were more remote, but Canada interned Canadian born Japanese during World War II - not so long ago - solely because of race. Do you think a simple Act of Parliament should be permitted bring such a thing about?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I've been staying out of this so far, as I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on SSM.

It seems there are a few posts in this thread that express something along the lines of:


da_jonesy said:


> The majority does not mean the moral authority to decide what is right and what is wrong.


If this is your position, what *should* we as a society use to calibrate our moral compass?

In a theocracy this should be reasonably easy, as you would simply defer to the teachings of the dominant religion.

Once you separate Church and State, things get a bit more complicated. In Canada we have the Charter, but it is open to interpretation and subject to change. I understand why some people might be leery of the "tyranny of the majority", but if we give government the right to override a decision supported by the majority "for the greater good", who can say that the government is morally justified in doing so? And what is to stop them from using this power for less than noble purposes?

I think Churchill might have been onto something when he said "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> ... we had a charter that said one thing, and a definition of marriage that said another. So the courts had to resolve which law took precedence...


To clarify, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. The Court does not choose between them.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> To clarify, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. The Court does not choose between them.


Well, yes, it's a no-brainer for the courts.  I was just trying to make the process simple as possible.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PenguinBoy
You miss one of the key elements in the Charter which is protection of minorities.
The Gov does NOT have the right to override the Charter unless they use the not withstanding clause.

The Charter is a foundation that is different from the other institutions such as the judiciary and the houses of parliament.
Good reading here
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/freedom_e.cfm

Just as minority shareholders have rights within corporate law that trump certain actions by the majority shareholders so do minorities have rights under the Charter that trump majority wishes *in certain situations*.

No one body be it judiciary or parliament or the votes of the majority of citizens has a final say - it's a dynamic between the various elements.

Adding to the Charter is feasible, trying to overturn fundamental freedoms, protections and responsibilities embodied in the Charter would tear the country apart.

Be proud of the Charter and what it symbolizes to the rest of the world - especially in it's ground breaking protection for minorities.
We're ALL minorities.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> PenguinBoy
> You miss one of the key elements in the Charter which is protection of minorities.


What about areas in which the charter doesn't address, or in which it is vague?

How do we know that the ruling elite will interpret the charter appropriately, or that the charter itself is perfect in all cases?

I think that overriding the majority "for the greater good" is dangerous, and shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

So I suppose the latest issue I just read today - to have both lesbian partners registered as the parents on a child's birth record - is a no brainer.
I just wonder why they call her a co-mother rather than a sub-father (by "sub" I mean substitute, nothing else)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

krs said:


> So I suppose the latest issue I just read today - to have both lesbian partners registered as the parents on a child's birth record - is a no brainer.


Well, sure.



> I just wonder why they call her a co-mother rather than a sub-father (by "sub" I mean substitute, nothing else)


Because a) that's not what she is; and b) even if she were, the fact that you have to explain that "sub" is short for substitute and not the essentially derogatory prefix sub- should be reason enough not to use that formulation.

Having known a few gay parents over the years, I'll let you in on a secret: they don't live in a same-sex bubble where the children are exposed only to role models of one sex and one orientation. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends...all are likely to be present in the child's life, so the absence of a father or mother within the nuclear family is not necessarily a recipe for the children growing up in an environment that's hopelessly different from the norm. It would actually take a considerable effort to create such an environment.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> I think that overriding the majority "for the greater good" is dangerous, and shouldn't be taken lightly.


The Charter doesn't override the majority. It wasn't invented out of thin air. Rather, it is a supreme expression of our society's values, negotiated over many years and finally entrenched into the Constitution by majorities of the Senate, The House, and 9 of 10 legislatures. THAT is the will of the people.

So, if our societal values, such as equality under the law, have been established with such force and consensus, do you think those values should be overridden without similar consensus?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good summary nxnw :clap:

PengB - as nx stated and that's the idea of checks and balances that no one institution of democracy goes unchecked. Also any truly fundamental changesin the Charter and for that matter other instutions such as hte independnce of the judiciary, the existence of the Senate require a very high degree of consensus amongst the various parties.

Yes sometimes it's annoying to certain parties who want "their way" regardless.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

iMatt said:


> Well, sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It struck me that you wrote not *necessarily*.

In any case - I'll sign off on this subject now. 

It's just amazing, the Charter was ratified 24 years ago and these 'inequalities' are surfacing just now.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The Charter doesn't override the majority. It wasn't invented out of thin air. Rather, it is a supreme expression of our society's values, negotiated over many years and finally entrenched into the Constitution by majorities of the Senate, The House, and 9 of 10 legislatures. THAT is the will of the people.
> 
> So, if our societal values, such as equality under the law, have been established with such force and consensus, do you think those values should be overridden without similar consensus?


No, I don't think that a simple act of parliment should be enough to override the charter, and ammendments to the charter shouldn't be taken lightly.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there are areas that the charter doesn't address (for example, property rights), or areas where the language is vague, and an interpretation needs to be "read into" the charter -- these are the areas that are likely to be a bit more problematic. How should a situation where the charter is not crystal clear, and where the courts interpretation of the charter differs from the will of the people, be handled?

BTW - thanks for you many well well reasoned and well presented posts in this thread nxnw, as a layman they give me some insight into how legal arguements work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Same-sex marriage is a rather piddling matter that shouldn't be taking up so much of our national energy. 

The crux of this really is the definition of marriage--which is essentially a civil matter that may or may not have religious components. It strikes me as absurd that a federal government of either the U.S. or Canada (Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican) is attempting to grapple with what should, at best, be a matter reserved for local government--at worst, provincial or state. This is striking evidence that political power is far too centralized in both nations.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

From CNN.com

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

Republicans pushed the plan even though supporters conceded the measure did not have enough votes to pass."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - right on the money. 
Family law and corporate law should be similar in being entirely gender neutral and concerned only with the nature of the contracts and responsibilities between the parties involved.

There is an underlying religious issue that is driving this and it's a church/state wrestling for authority conflict. ...and yep...absurd to the nth degree.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

krs said:


> It struck me that you wrote not *necessarily*.


Nothing is guaranteed in life. I believe one should also use "not necessarily" in the following sentence:

"A child raised by upstanding, well-adjusted, heterosexual parents is not necessarily going to become an upstanding, well-adjusted, heterosexual adult." 



> In any case - I'll sign off on this subject now.


I thought I should respond to your point regardless -- I won't hold it against you if you wade back in as a result.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> On the other hand, it seems to me that there are areas that the charter doesn't address (for example, property rights), or areas where the language is vague, and an interpretation needs to be "read into" the charter -- these are the areas that are likely to be a bit more problematic. How should a situation where the charter is not crystal clear, and where the courts interpretation of the charter differs from the will of the people, be handled?


1. The Charter does not purport to be an all encompassing document. Property rights, as you point out, are not protected by the Charter. The courts would not read in property rights.

2. It is correct that there are certainly areas that require interpretation — it could not possibly be otherwise, given the imperfection of the English language and the intention of the drafters that certain areas (for instance, which characteristics are protected by equality rights) not be closed.

3. The Courts are given the duty of interpreting the Charter, and the Supreme Court of Canada has the final word on what it _means_. The public, however, has the power to change what the Charter _says_, by a constitutional amendment, and thereby really does have the last word. Changing the Charter, quite properly, requires a very high degree of public consensus.

I'm glad that I was able to explain a bit about this issue, and appreciate your comments.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

iMatt said:


> -- I won't hold it against you if you wade back in as a result.


I won't............I tend to agree with Macfury



> Same-sex marriage is a rather piddling matter that shouldn't be taking up so much of our national energy.


Just substitute "my" for "our national"


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

krs said:


> I won't............I tend to agree with Macfury


No problem. I just thought I'd give advance notice I wouldn't slam you for responding if you decided you wanted to.



> Just substitute "my" for "our national"


I agree it's an overblown issue. (Personally, I am not devoting a whole lot of time to it.) In the States, in particular, it's being used as a wedge for crass partisan purposes. To paraphrase Jon Stewart from last night, isn't it odd that this issue only seems to come up in even-numbered years? (i.e. election years). It's not quite so blatant in Canada, but I think the dynamic is similar.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

iMatt said:


> .......I just thought I'd give advance notice I wouldn't slam you for responding if you decided you wanted to.


Thanks - getting slammed actually never crossed my mind. Not on this site - ehMac is a very pleasant site to visit with a terrific group of individuals as members...but you're right - that is the exception on the net.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The Courts are given the duty of interpreting the Charter, and the Supreme Court of Canada has the final word on what it _means_. The public, however, has the power to change what the Charter _says_, by a constitutional amendment, and thereby really does have the last word. Changing the Charter, quite properly, requires a very high degree of public consensus.


Thanks -- that sums up things nicely!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This thread ended up being quite impressive and filled with great information.

Thanks :clap: .


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> 1. Not necessarily.
> 
> 2. You said that there are "There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta". That is patently false. If you are now amending that to say that there are "many cases where *under* 18 year olds get three years for murder in Alberta", it is still false. You tried to sell this false claim before, and when you were forced to put up, all you were able to come up with was an incident that (1) was not murder, and (2) involved a sentence that was longer than three years (5 or 6, if I recall correctly).
> 
> You persistently demonstrate that your opinions are are founded on groundless assumptions and false claims.





SINC said:


> Is that so? What do you call this:
> 
> Quote: "The teenager, who was sentenced to three years in a youth jail for his crime, told the Calgary Young Offender Centre that he might not have killed had his computer, which he used to play violent video games, not crashed that day."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2003/10/09/taber031009.html


nxnw's rely? "Not a word to date. Silence.".

Odd how when one who says my example was "patently false" has no comeback when I offer proof of my statement.

Makes me wonder if the legal profession, like their senior appointees (judges) only make accusations and never retract them?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

SINC - You're too late with this.

"This thread ended" 

Didn't you see Beej's post just above yours?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> SINC - You're too late with this.
> 
> "This thread ended"
> 
> Didn't you see Beej's post just above yours?


Ah, but a Beej ending is but a blip in time. He has a problem with premature expiration.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> nxnw's rely? "Not a word to date. Silence.".
> 
> Odd how when one who says my example was "patently false" has no comeback when I offer proof of my statement.
> 
> Makes me wonder if the legal profession, like their senior appointees (judges) only make accusations and never retract them?


I did not respond earlier because it was clear that no response was warranted, given what the article actually said. You claimed that, "There are many cases where 18 year olds get three years for murder, right here in Alberta". If you read the article you refer to in support for this groundless contention, you would see that, in this single (i.e. one, not "many") case:
1. The subject was 14 when he committed the offence;
2. He was clearly mentally ill;
3. During the trial, "he suffered a stroke and went into a coma"'
4. He had suffered from years of relentless bullying;
5. Last, but not least, here is the view of the parents of the victim, whose opinion you appear to disrespect, in the same vein as your groundless and prejudiced disrespect for the judge:


> The family of the boy he killed doesn't oppose his release, and have forgiven him.
> 
> "We have a desire that he get the help needed, and that he wouldn't hurt anyone else," Rev. Dale Lang said. "It was a profoundly sad boy that killed Jason. He was a hurting kid, with a lot of problems, a lot of challenges in his life."


I don't think it is decent to claim that this person should have had a long prison term, to claim that this was some kind of miscarriage of justice, much less to insult the judge. Also, I don't believe this is the case you previously (also inaccurately) referred to.

So, yes, you persistently demonstrate that your opinions are are founded on groundless assumptions and false claims. There's your response.

I regret that you felt it necessary to bring up this petty point, as the discussion had otherwise been a good one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> I regret that you felt it necessary to bring up this petty point, as the discussion had otherwise been a good one.


There are times when the injustice of our justice system must be pointed out.

Those within it, defend it without question. Those who live with the consequences of it, will ever question its validity.

Such is life, but living outside the system provides a clear view. Living within it is tainted by immersion itself. No one can provide a balanced, nor level perspective from within the system. Thus the lawyer/judge respect/worship compulsive behaviour.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> ...Such is life, but living outside the system provides a clear view. Living within it is tainted by immersion itself. No one can provide a balanced, nor level perspective from within the system. Thus the lawyer/judge respect/worship compulsive behaviour.


Such conceit. Your opinion is pure in its ignorance, while mine is tainted by education and experience.

Next time you need a doctor, I commend you to see the village idiot, whose medical opinion will not have been tainted either by medical school or intelligence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Such conceit. Your opinion is pure in its ignorance, while mine is tainted by education and experience.
> 
> Next time you need a doctor, I commend you to see the village idiot, whose medical opinion will not have been tainted either by medical school or intelligence.


Ah yes, yet another brow beating of the masses by the learned.

That type of advice is typical of a closely knit group of obsessive compulsives.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Ah, but a Beej ending is but a blip in time. He has a problem with premature expiration.


That's between me and my chosen spouse.  

Of course this whole marriage thing seems to have zero impact on me. They could ban heterosexual marriage and my life wouldn't change. :baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So does the fact that "The Beej" posted again re-open the topic--or re-close it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The topic could be considered *beejed* which could be many things to many people or anything to anybody or...........


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So does the fact that "The Beej" posted again re-open the topic--or re-close it?


Now you are being non-comittal like the Beej


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

see *beejed* is best sort of like HHG answer is 42


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't know if beejing is yet recognised by the courts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well - wiki is a start point


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaubeej

This world domination thing is moving fast. Maybe I should procure a historian to keep track of events.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> I don't know if beejing is yet recognised by the courts.


but "bee-jay" (BJ) has a definite meaning and requires knee pads


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> but "bee-jay" (BJ) has a definite meaning and requires knee pads


There are many ways, and only some require knee pads. :heybaby: 

Either way, a good marriage involves understanding and communicating wishes to your partner(s). How's that for a segue?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> There are many ways, and only some require knee pads. :heybaby:
> 
> Either way, a good marriage involves understanding and communicating wishes to your partner(s). How's that for a segue?


i was thinking more of how you get a raise out of your boss


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i was thinking more of how you get a raise out of your boss


Only the incompetent need to resort to that. I never have. beejacon


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Only the incompetent need to resort to that. I never have. beejacon


the DNA evidence on your blue suede shoes say different


----------

