Readers’ Responses to Our Question (623)

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say.

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say.

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness.

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say.

Homosexuals' rights are not denied, nor are their freedoms. If a homosexual wishes to be married, they may be married to a woman and it is perfectly legal.

Getting to marry whom you love, that's never been guaranteed to anyone. In fact, in the history of marriage it has only been a recent thing that basis of marriage is "love" (the modern definition, anyway), as opposed to marrying for land, for status, for business, or for property. Love is fleeting- if you no longer 'love' someone, you leave them. That's not what marriage was ever supposed to allow. Raise the family. Run the business (or the country).

I am a proponent of homosexuals somehow gaining legal rights to protect each other's property, declare a partner as a beneficiary, etc.

But this is more than that. In using this tactic, those who "promote gay marriage" are attempting to actively disrupt the man-woman only religious marriage. They would either seek to make marriage legal for them, or pointless for anybody. The goal of eliminating marriage is in the Communist Manifesto, if anyone cares to read it. (It's a short read, and quite illuminating.)

But that's aside. That partners can't get benefits or insurance from another's work is not a problem for the church to solve, nor is it a problem for the government to foist on churches. Certainly the government can legally recognize same-sex partnerships without using the word marriage. How they would choose to celebrate their legal partnership is entirely up to them, much in the same way couples may or may not get married in a church, on a beach, in Vegas, at a ranch... whatever. Leave the word 'marriage' to the churches.

And besides, lawyers would still make money off of dissolving same-sex legal partnerships. It's good for the economy?

I don't care what people do in their bedrooms or bathrooms. I have the same problem with gay rights as I do with religious fundamentalists, and that is simply:

"Stop forcing your beliefs on me!"

(Hey, look at that! I managed to post to this thread without calling anyone stupid, evil, or wrong!)

Of course they should be able to marry!!!!! I can't think of one reason why they should not be allowed.

For the "family values" crowd, gay people have no effect whatsoever on anyone's family other than their own.

Take a good look at what heterosexuals are doing. How could gay people be any worse?

I do not have a problem with people who are gay. I am a heterosexual who has friends that are gay, but I do not condone it. Life flurishes from heterosexual relationships, they cannot from a homosexual relationship. Two homosexuals cannot give life while heterosexuals can. This seems very simple to me, why not anyone else. Marriage is meant to be something that life flurishes from. People without a dad or a mom in their life tend to reach out for attention their whole life and that is what will happen with homosexuals that are granted marriage and then granted the rights to adopt their children will not have complete lives. They will never be a true father or mother figure in their life. Its truly a sad situation.

Five words people...separation of church and state! It doesn't matter how we personally feel about homosexuals. In the 14th Amendment the Constitution guarantees us all equal protection under law. It is as simple as that. And speaking to all you "religious" people out there, we are all sinners in the eyes of God (no different from the gays) so does that mean our rights shouldn't be protected?

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81.

Oh Lord, what an extremely important issue for our
county to be discussing!!! Here we are, being of one with God's mind, determining who should go to Heaven. Luckily, so many of
us know, exactly, what God's mind is in this regard. He
overlooks everything but love. As it turns out, He only
recognizes certain typ;es of love. Odd, isn't it, really. given
Christ's example of spending time with sinners - oh, that's
right...he spent time with sinners in order to convert them
to heterosexuality.
Heterosexuals spin on the top of a needle in order to get
themselves into Heaven. That is all they are interested in.
Love, ourside their own parameters, means nothing what
ever. Poor things. They love war, they love killing, they love,
love, love, attacking homosexuals.

Oh Lord, what an extremely important issue for our
county to be discussing!!! Here we are, being of one with God's mind, determining who should go to Heaven. Luckily, so many of
us know, exactly, what God's mind is in this regard. He
overlooks everything but love. As it turns out, He only
recognizes certain typ;es of love. Odd, isn't it, really. given
Christ's example of spending time with sinners - oh, that's
right...he spent time with sinners in order to convert them
to heterosexuality.
Heterosexuals spin on the top of a needle in order to get
themselves into Heaven. That is all they are interested in.
Love, ourside their own parameters, means nothing what
ever. Poor things. They love war, they love killing, they love,
love, love, attacking homosexuals.

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery.

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery.

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US.

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery.

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US.

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery.

Against gay marriage? Great... then don't get one and shut the hell up.

It seems to me that it should be illegal to deny the same legal rights that one group enjoys to another group simply because one thinks their sexual orientation is...icky. Harldly a reason to deny tax paying citizens their rights.

Now, I have no problem denying gay, flag burning, sharks who attack white women their rights. I'm only willing to go so far.

During biblical times, people did not know about homosexual people. Biblical Jews were distrustful of anything that was out of the ordinary. For instance, Fish had fins and scales so you could eat them. Shellfish were off limits because they did not fit the description. Most of us understand that God's creation is not limited to men and women but is far more diverse. Jesus came to tell us that God does not care about our sexuality or the numerous laws that Jews were supposed to keep. We only need to love one another and help those who are less fortunate. People who attempt to enforce narrow viewpoints are no better than the Pharisees whom Jesus chastised for "practicing the law without the heart." The state needs to get out of the marriage business altogether and let people who are committed to one another enjoy the same rights as anyone else regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

No matter how anyone FEELS about gay marriage, the fact of the matter is that the government does not have the right to dictate who a person can or cannot marry. The constitution does not give equal rights to everyone except gays. The supreme court doesn't want to address the issue because they know that it's an unpopular prospect but legally, there is no choice in the matter. There is no way to 'tweak' the words of the constitution in order to exclude gays from having equal rights. The constitution allows them the freedom to persue happiness just like the rest of us. Someday society will look back on this time and think how uncivilized we still were in this country back when women couldn't vote, blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, and gays couldn't marry! Let's evolve as a society and quit hanging on to these barbaric rules. We're descriminating just as much as if we were making them ride on the back of the bus!

God visited me in a vision last night and told me that America alone must stand as a bastion of hope against the dark army of the homosexuals. He gave me a flaming sword of riteousness, and now i am flaming as well. Thuper!

I would like to see homosexuals have the same rights as any other person because they are people to. How dose them getting married affect you. Let them live they're own life. If many say that this is a religious matter than let God be the one to have the last words.

I support homosexual marriage and polygamy between consenting adults of any combonation.

Anything less is simply the irrational behaviour of deluded people who believe in a 'magical daddy in the sky'.

having gone thru a divorce after a 19 year marriage in a so called "no-fault" state i would advise my gay friends to pass on this "right" all i can say is that i believe the state should refund the cost of the marriage license since it's not worth the paper its printed on..better to keep relationships as a matter of conscience..anything else is just more money for the lawyers

I'm tired of hearing about gay's rights. This country is in a moral meltdown the way it is. Every time this issue comes up it wears the moral views of America (under God) down a little bit more. It's just what the gays want. We now actually have let them infiltrate into our society to the point that it's commonplace to see and hear them. America has to start saying NO. No marriage unless your a man and a woman, in fact go back to the damn closet.

It seems to me that denying homosexuals the right to marry or have legally equivalent civil unions is denying them some basic human rights. Since allowing them marriage or the equivalent does not actually harm anyone, and actually benefits society as a whole, it seems extremely unreasonable to not allow it.

Hello world! I'm from Latvia, I now have a computer and Internet! It's so interesting here! But on some forums I see strange posts, they offer to buy some pills or something and they look very stupid. It is robots posting? I thought moderators should delete such posts. Maybe somebody will explain me what's going on? But at all it is very interesting to speak to all you people!
Kisses! :)

"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D

_____________________________
shemale bisexual

"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D

_____________________________
shemale bisexual

Great work guys. Good resources here, very useful. Your web site is helpful. I will bookmark!
- peopleinthesun.blogspot.com y
spaghetti alla carbonara

http://myblog.es/criscard christmas cards christmas cards

"They should have just as many rights as everyone else. . . ." (Alyssa) They have just as many rights as everyone else. The problem is that no one has the right to corrupt the meaning of marriage. Marriage is by definition the matrimony of man and woman, that is, the relationship of husband and wife. A man can no more marry a man than he can marry himself.

Alyssa said: "They should have just as many rights as everyone else and they shouldn't be told who or who not to love...sorry if these ideas were already stated, i haven't read through all of them. But they shouldn't be persecuted for loving someone."

Without enactment of "same-sex marriage", the homosexual individual has the same rights as the non-homosexual individual.

Affirming the man-woman criterion of marital status does not magically transform into persecuting people who freely choose the homosexed arrangement to which the core of marriage is extrinsic.

Choosing a one-sexed relationship is a liberty exercised, not a right denied. But marriage is the combination of 1) sex integraton and 2) responsible procreation.

For more on these points, read the last 3-4 pages, at least.

I am totally for gay marriage...nobody chooses to be gay or lesbian, that's just how they are and society has already created the image that it is bad to be gay or lesbian and that's why nobody tells anyone that they're gay, because they're afraid of what some radical is gonna do to them. They should have just as many rights as everyone else and they shouldn't be told who or who not to love...sorry if these ideas were already stated, i haven't read through all of them. But they shouldn't be persecuted for loving someone.

"We can't force people to do the right thing, but we should definitely not pave the way for them to do the wrong thing." (Jamil)

Exactly. Very well put.

Thank you.

Should a serial killer be allowed to kill? People are spoiled in their ways- a man can do most of what his mind entertains. And if he has a diseased inclinations, he must take measures to correct them. As human beings, its is extremely difficult to find one of our own that would put him/herself at some strain to make things easier for someone else.
Homosexuality is unnatural, and surely if anyone entertain homosexual thoughts, the more appealing those thoughts will be. We can't force people to do the right thing, but we should definitely not pave the way for them to do the wrong thing. And certainly, we as human beings that cannot even fathom so much as how the earth was created, are far to obnoxious to think we can override and overthink whatever Force has caused us to be here. Play by the rules, and everyone gets along- why do you think society is in such trouble now? Because we go along and make u our own rules with our own accords and whims, straighten up people, its not your call or his, its the universal script.

Lemo said: "So, preferential status is not available when the case being argued is based on equality"

I realize you didn't mean it this way, but that sentence is true where SSM is merged with marriage on a false claim of equality.

Marriage is demoted to a protected arrangement amongst a range of increasingy diversified arrangements. Nonmarriage is treated like marriage; treatment of marriage is limited by the common denominator of nonmarital arrangements.

So instead of a preferential status, the false claim of equality imposes the false equivalency that undermines the social institution that the state recognizes as benefitial to society. The end result is that marriage loses its unique status — and that has adverse effect on all of society regardless of sexual orientation or religious beliefs or whatever.

There are big issues to take up our attention, Lemo, but for some reason last summer the SSMers made their particular project the top priority for governmental attentation. Now that they got their way, it seems that marriage is no longer top of the agenda and revisiting it is off-limits. It is the same game played in other jurisidictions, as well.

There is no fatal flaw in marriage and nothing about marriage that SSM could possible "fix". Hopefully, Parliamentarians will reopen the SSM issue in Canada and fix it with reasonable accomodation based on the merits and demerits of the one-sexed arrangement. That would be far better than allowing SSM to piggyback on marital status to the extent that the preferential status is flattened.

Lemo: "Legally recognition of SSM, in my view as well as the view of Parliament, is necessary in order to strengthen the family."

I should add: it is not necessary and it is probably yet another way to weaken the family.

You might mean strengthen the "diversity" but that's another way of conceding that it waters down the family and undermines the social institution of marriage. The contradictions form more quicksand.

Lemo: "Your term "preferential" can not be used in the context of marriage when the government is involved. [...] So, preferential status is not available when the case being argued is based on equality."

You are profoundly mistaken. Marital status is a preferential status.

Marriage is not merely tolerated. It is not merely protected. The social institution of marriage is accorded preferential treatment.

If you'd read my comments (even just the comments in our exchange, Lemo) you'd see the example of unwed cohabitation which is tolerated, in some places also protected, but not preferred.

You've confused an equivalency claim (one-sex-short is equivalent to both-sexes present) with equality (each individual is treated the same). The preferential treatment is for the conjugal relationship, not for the individual of this or that self-professed sexual orientation. The example of the unwedded relationship does not depend on orientation, anyway, so perhaps you can see the point more clearly with that example in mind. Nonmarriage is not treated as marriage; the status is not equal because the relationship type is not equivalent.

Lemo: "Further, [homosexuality] is equal to heterosexuality in its importance to society."

That is mere assertion and it is irrelevant to marriage.

Two men, or two women, are incapable of forming a marriage together — whether or not the relationship is sexualized and whether or not sexual orienation is the defining feature of that relationship. I.e. the one-sex-short arrangement cannot integrate the sexes and combine that with responsible procreation.

Homosexuality is not relevant to state recognition of the social institution of marriage. It is not relevant to the preferential status of marriage. Marriage is likewise irrelevant to tolerance and protection of the civil rights of the homosexual individual.

Maybe your thinking is based on group rights or some presumption that sex is irrelevant to the social institution of marriage. Sex, as in man and woman — both sexes. Sex, also, as in conjugal relations of husband and wife. Sex, as in mom and dad. Sex, as in the two-sexed nature of humankind; and the both-sexed nature of human generativity.

Why should sex-segregation be treated like sex-integration? If sex is only relevant when attempting to equate heterosexual and homosexual, is the sexualized relationship preferred to the asexual relationship? Why? Is sex not important to the government, but only when it involves the private romance of two persons of the same sex? How come?

Lemo: "If loving gay couples want to marry and raise children, adopted or otherwise created, society must recognize their relationship as equal to the traditional family."

Mere assertion. And why do you refer to the "traditional" family? That is irrelevant to the fact that marriage requires the equal participation of both sexes.

Two men may want to "marry" but they are incapable of doing so. It is not the law that prevents this. It is their choice, freely taken, to form a nonmarital alternative that is sex-segregative and to which responsible procreation is extrinsic.

Adoption does not lead marriage law. Third party procreation is extramarital when a husband and wife partake of it, and it is extramarital when a lone individual or a lone-sexed pair partake of it.

The mere presence of children does not bestow marital status on the adults.

Lemo: "Legally recognition of SSM, in my view as well as the view of Parliament, is necessary in order to strengthen the family."

Maybe. But that is also irrelevant. No matter what change you wish to make to the status of the one-sexed arrangement, it can never be marriage. You can rename the nonmarital, with the label marriage, but that would be the merger of which I have already written about here. The merger is based on the intrinsic limitations of the one-sexed arrangement and jettisons the core of marriage in society's recognition of the social institution.

Lemo: "Government can certify the action as legal and within the laws of the country. That is the role of government. [...] Equality would also be achieved because government would treat all adults equally before the law.

Without enactment of SSM all adults are treated equally before the law. SSM adds zilch to equality. Equal participation of both sexes is equality.

You argue for equivalency between SSM and marriage. You have failed, Lemo, to explain why such a things must be done. "Equality" is not a magic word that does whatever you wish it to do.

Enactment of SSM does not expand marriage one iota. Rather, it limits marriage as per the merger of the sex-segregative and the sex-integrative.

Also, the man-man pair is not equal to the woman-woman pair, as I described earlier. Neither is equal to the both-sexed pair. You have already hinted you comprehend this when you point at adoption and (implicitly) at third party procreation. I have already mentioned presumption of paternity. A double-male pair has no right to an abortion; a double-male pair cannot make use of ova or embryo "supplies" with all the rights that a lone woman (let alone two women) can make use of sperm "supplies". The claim of equivalency is false. The claim for equal treatment is also false. Refer to my previous comments about parental status and the change that has already been implemented in Canada.

Lemo: "Most of the people who are against SSM are religious."

Even if only one person in the entire world is religious, marriage is both-sexed. Gutting marriage of its core, for the sake of calling the presumptively homosexed relationship a "marriage" is tyrannical even if only 1% of the people disagreed with it.

Like I said, the SSM claim is based on falslehoods. And falsehoods are quicksand.

Lemo: "Defence of the realm and taxation are the issue that Parliament was formed to deal with and not who sleeps with whom."

Lemo, I've said it before, to form a one-sexed relationship is a liberty exercised and not a right denied. But you have just confirmed that for you this is about the sexualized relationship that is presumptively homosexed.

Again, what is the purpose of creating a preferential status (in your case you seek the merger of SSM with marital status) for the one-sexed arrangement? How do you distinguish the homosexed from the non-sexualied variations of such an arrangement? Please reconcile your two answers to these questions.

Lemo: "Marriage is in trouble and allowing more types of families to be legally recognized may be part of the solution."

Before C-38 was enacted, Canada did not disallow "more types of families". As I said, in various ways the alternatives are tolerated or protected. Marriage is preferred.

If that preference is wrong, please explain.

Chairm said: "Falsehoods are poor substitutes for the foundations of a well-ordered society. This is true, perhaps at their most truest, when an activist minority pushes and pushes to get its way no matter the cost to society. The most obvious cost is in the harm done to self-governance. It harms the judiciary. It harms the legislative authority of a country. It harms the connection between the People and their social institutions."

Lemo: "A minority that wishes to take part in society and be viewed as equal doesn't concern me."

Which minority is not permitted to take part in society? Distorting marriage for the sake of a homosexed minority (of which only a tiny minority bother to partake in same-sex householding, let alone SSM where available) is based on false equivalency. Like I said, you have tried to wave a magic wand and transform that claimed equivalency into an equality claim.

I don't care about sexual orientation. Two persons of the same sex, homosexed or not, do not form a relationship type that is the equivalent of the conjugal relationship. The objective truth stands no matter how much some people wish it away.

Lemo: "I also have faith in the future that reasonable accommodation of minority rights makes us stronger."

Reasonable accomodation is a better goal than abolishing the core of marriage. Reciprocal beneficiaries is the reasonable solution.

Lemo, you have been civil and have commented in reply to my comments, and I appreciate that effort.

However, you leave without substantiating the purpose of elevating the one-sexed arrangement with a preferential status of any sort. You have hinted at homosexuality being some part of the purpose, but that is irrelevant to marriage. Thus, the merger is unreasonable; and the civil union notion that you brought up is what the enactment of SSM has already put into place in Canada. The government no longer recognizes the social institution of marriage; instead it has misappropriated the word, marriage, and the social esteem for marriage, and has attempted, under false pretenses, to graft it onto the one-sexed nonmarital arrangement.

The merger replaces state recognition of marriage. It abolishes preferential treatment of the social institution. As I said, this will further diminish the status of marriage throughout family law and beyond.

That SSM may prove to be a fait accomplis does very little to support enactment in other jurisdictions. Canada's example is a very poor example: both in terms of the lower courts and in terms of the betrayal of the federal government of the 2/3rds of the population which expected the Liberals to act on the 1999 resolution that had affirmed marriage as the union of man and woman and which had reasserted the constitutionality of that recognition. It is a poor example that the Prime Minister at that time chose to force SSM on the country with a vote that was not a free vote in the House and which has been defended on the basis of misrepresenting the Constitution and the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on marriage.

These are the additional falsehoods that form the quicksand upon which enactment of SSM as if it was marriage.

Look, if SSMers would just own-up to their goal of diminishing marital status, it would at least make for an intellectually honest argument. If they'd just explain the purpose of a preferential status for one-sexed arrangements, that would add substance to the "me-too" repetitions.

But SSMers haven't done that here. They are for SSM. Great. But why should society go along with what SSMers want?

[SSMers are not just those who would participate in SSM if it became available. SSMers are those who argue in favor of treating SSM as if it was marriage.]

Thanks for the exchange Lemo. Unfortunately, we cannot agree to disagree because, though you have made a few assertions and repetedly said you favor SSM, you haven't outlined the actual disagreement.

The one-sexed arrangement is not banned. It is recognized and it is tolerated in its various forms — not all of which are sexualized. In some forms the arrangement is also protected. But marriage is preferred. You haven't explained why SSM should likewise be preferred. I don't see the objective connection with marital status. All I've seen discussed is the me-too-ism that evades the core of the social institution of marriage.

Sex integration. Responsible procreation. Combined.

Cheerio.

"Most of the people who are against SSM are religious. You may or may not be. I don't know because you haven't made a religion-based argument. If you are against SSM and are not religious, you are in a minority position." (Lemo)

This may be true. I suppose there are more people that are "religious" than there are atheists and agnostics in the world. But I suspect that there are more people that are not religious who oppose homosexual "marriage" than there are non-religious people that support it. The non-religious people tend to oppose it more quietly. Strangely enough they may form a silent majority over the ss"m" supporters that are not religious.

The vast majority of religious people see it as such an affront to all of the world's religions and to human decency that they tend to very vocally and actively oppose this abominable act against human nature where the sexual organs are used in ways clearly incongruous to their design. Non-religious people also recognize the perversity of the act but they may not campaign against it. They merely vote in opposition to the obvious oxymoron and absurdity of same-sex "marriage."

"1. What is the purpose of a preferential status for the one-sexed arrangement?
2. What makes the homosexed version of such an arrangement more preferred than the other versions of it?
An independant claim, please, which is not me-too-ism."

1. Your term "preferential" can not be used in the context of marriage when the government is involved.
The government in social issues (as opposed to tax issues, which is quite another matter) must be even handed in its approach. The notion of "equality" is at the heart of most charter challenges before the courts. We see some outwardly silly things such as girls wanting to play on boys sports teams etc. Is the team ruined when the girls play on school teams with the boys? I don't know the answer.
The only preferential status that is available is that of two unrelated adults. Can cousins marry? Yes, in some circumstances and so can sixteen year olds and so on. All things that I, personally, would rather not have happen. But they do happen.
So, preferential status is not available when the case being argued is based on equality.
2. You answered this question when you said, "...your opinion that homosexuality is of as much importance to society as is heterosexuality." It is. Further, it is equal to heterosexuality in its importance to society. If loving gay couples want to marry and raise children, adopted or otherwise created, society must recognize their relationship as equal to the traditional family. There are all types of families in society and you have argued, very persuasively, that some are tolerated and others are preferred. Legally recognition of SSM, in my view as well as the view of Parliament, is necessary in order to strengthen the family.
I offered the idea that the government could get out of the marriage business. This is not my preferred result. I'm comfortable with the SSM law in Canada as it now stands. The reason I mentioned this alternative is because I feel that it is the logical conclusion to the debate and a reasonable compromise. Why? Because the churches retain the right to marry or not. That is their right. Religion can deal with love and relationships. They are the experts in this field.
Government can certify the action as legal and within the laws of the country. That is the role of government. The result would be that those who wished to be wed in a traditional marriage would be able to do so in church. The rest would have a civil ceremony and the word marriage would not be used. This should solve the issue as marriage would still remain in its traditional format. Equality would also be achieved because government would treat all adults equally before the law.
Most of the people who are against SSM are religious. You may or may not be. I don't know because you haven't made a religion-based argument. If you are against SSM and are not religious, you are in a minority position. So what? Well, that puts your position that the government must remain in the marriage business and not allow SSM, to be less important than the other two camps. This is based not on the quality of your argument, but rather on the number of people who ascribe to it. John Stuart Mill's argument about the "tyranny of the majority" is one you may wish to use.
You are unhappy in the way Parliament dealt with the SSM issue. I understand this and sympathize. Parliament seldom does a very good job dealing with complicated social issues. Tax issues are where Parliament excels. (I say this in jest, of course) Defence of the realm and taxation are the issue that Parliament was formed to deal with and not who sleeps with whom. Parliament is very reluctant to deal with divisive issues such as abortion, capital punishment and SSM. So, don't expect the issue to come before the House before the next election. If it does come to a vote, don't expect to be happy with the result.
Chairm said, "But marriage needs to be protected, strengthened, and preferred. If not by the government (including the judiciary) then by the rest of us, despite governmental intrusions."

I agree with this statement. Marriage is in trouble and allowing more types of families to be legally recognized may be part of the solution.

Chairm said: "Falsehoods are poor substitutes for the foundations of a well-ordered society. This is true, perhaps at their most truest, when an activist minority pushes and pushes to get its way no matter the cost to society. The most obvious cost is in the harm done to self-governance. It harms the judiciary. It harms the legislative authority of a country. It harms the connection between the People and their social institutions."
I also agree with this statement. Where we differ is where we would draw the line. With you, it's SSM. I am more concerned with the unfortunate results of lobbying that leads to such results as Enron and other economic and military disasters. You are probably concerned with this as well but this is my starting point and not SSM.A minority that wishes to take part in society and be viewed as equal doesn't concern me.
In Canada, we allow women to take part in combat. We lost a fine young officer in Afghanistan a couple of months ago. She was leading an armoured column that was attacked by religious fanatics. We also allow gays in our armed forces. In short, we go a long way in pursuit of equality and I am proud and happy about this aspect of our society. I also have faith in the future that reasonable accommodation of minority rights makes us stronger.
I will read your reply, if you choose to make one, but I'm afraid that I won't be continuing this conversation. I don't wish to be repeating myself on this topic. It has been interesting and I have learned a great deal. All the best! Lemo

Lemo also said: " You cited earlier a vote upholding marriage as being between a man and a woman. Parliamnet has now decided-and it was Parliament that decided-to change the definition of marriage."

The earlier vote reflect the country more closely since it was a free vote of Members of Parliament. The C-38 vote that enacted SSM as if it was marriage was not a free vote. It would have failed if it had been a vote that was based on Members of Parliament acting on their consciences, or on the advice of their constituents, instead of party solidarity — especially the former PM's order to his cabinet members to vote for C-38. There were cabinet ministers who would have sunk C-38 before it got to third reading.

You seem to speak as a Canadian. Did you not notice this lack of a free vote? Also, did you notice the rush and push to get it through with very brief public hearings and abreviated parliamentary debate? I noticed it from here.

Also, Lemo said: "The reference to the Nothwithstanding Clause is relevant because I wanted to finally bury the notion of judicial activism being the cause of SSM. Parliament can overrule the courts on many aspects of the constitution. SSM is one of those issues. Parliament has not acted and I doubt that it will."

You have not buried it.

As I said above, the SSMers have misrepresented the Supreme Court and the judiciary. They have said that the law MUST be changed. This is false. You can see that so you must acknowledge that judicial activism is central to the SSM argumentation that has imposed SSM in Canada.

1. The lower courts were activist.

2. The Liberal Prime Minister did not defend the marriage law as they should have — as per the previous vote in the House of Commons. They did not live up to their commitment. Their policy was to follow the lead of the judiciary and they let (2?) years pass without appealing. Meanwhile the judiciary's role led to administrative compliance.

3. The Liberal Prime Minister went further, based on his deal with the NDP, and brought legislation for SSM. His main claim? That the constitution forced his hand. That the court decisions forced his hand. That he had to impose SSM even over the wishes of two-thirds of the country; against the freely held views of his own party members; against the freely held views of elected representatives — the senior people in his own government. And that was because of the judicial activism of the lower courts. He misrepresented the judiciary even in this.

4. He sent a series of questions to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion. The Court answered all but the question about the constitutionality of the man-woman criterion of the marriage law. The court even speculated (uncharacteristically) that Parliament could bring legislation for a nonmarital alternative for the one-sexed arrangement. It confirmed that Parliament was empowered; the Court showed deference to the elected branch of government. But what did the former Prime Minister claim? That the Supreme Court had forced his hand. That he must repeal the marriage law. That he must do so on the basis of an non-existing equality decision by the Supreme Court. He depended on the lower court which had imposed SSM.

Your are correct, Lemo, the Supreme Court did not impose SSM on the country. But C-38 was enacted in the name of the judicial activism that was present in the lower courts and that was, misleadingly, attributed to the Supreme Court — by SSMers themselves.

As I said, SSM argumentation depends on this sort of nonsense. It cannot stand on its own two feet. So it rides on the back of marriage. it rides on the back of the silence of the constitution. It rides on the back of judicial activism.

Actually, the Canadian constitution was not silent on marriage. It recognized marriage and mentioned it explicitly as the purview of the federal government. And, as I said, the Supreme Court showed deferrence to Parliament.

Now, that might have been a political ploy on the part of the Court. Afterall, the Prime Minister had asked for an advisory opinon about the basis for his proposed SSM legislation. So he had already signaled to the Court that he would abolish the common meaning of marriage and replace it with something else. In other words, the Court was not blind — the former Liberal government was clearly going to impose SSM and confirm the lower court's activism.

You know, in Vermont the Court imposed SSM (disguised as civil union) by requiring the legislators to write the legislation for it. That, too, was as much the result of activism as was the enactment of SSM in Canada.

Surely you cannot claim that judicial activism played no part in this? That even the SSM campaign even today claims to see into the crystal ball and predict a judicial role that would impose SSM. They argue it to avoid a free vote on revisiting the issue. They argue it to demotivate the 2/3rds of the country that oppose the enactment of SSM as if it was marriage. They argue as if judicial activism was their trump card — to deter MPs from even showing up to vote one way or the other. It is the heart of the SSM campaign in Canada.

You are in Canada, yes? Have you not seen the predictions based on the 100 or so SSM legal types who say the constitution demands the enactment of SSM? That the only way to prevent the Courts from imposing SSM on an unwilling country would be to over-ride a Supreme Court decision that (they predict) would favor SSM? You have brought it up yourself — the Notwithstanding clause — as if you have bought their claims hook, line, and sinker.

So, as with the SSM campaign, so with your comments here. You depend on judicial activism, one way or another, to buttress your false equivalency claim. Since the facts cannot support such a claim, you dress it up as an equality claim — which must be based on treating two different relationshp types as if they were the same.

Lemo, you have raised the key SSM points and done so in the Canadian context. But these points are unchanged from those raised in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, and so forth. When it comes to SSM argumentation, the are only three chords played: false equivalency, false equality, and false inevitability. When looked at with the eyes of an old man who has seen facism, stalinism, and authoritarianism up close an personal, these three chords make the same noise.

Falsehoods are poor substitutes for the foundations of a well-ordered society. This is true, perhaps at their most truest, when an activist minority pushes and pushes to get its way no matter the cost to society. The most obvious cost is in the harm done to self-governance. It harms the judiciary. It harms the legislative authority of a country. It harms the connection between the People and their social institutions.

If you can prove these falsehoods are something else, then, do so and at least attempt to answer the two questions I asked earlier. They are basic questions that can be applied to just about any proposed change. What justifies preferential treatment? How is the new thing different from other things that look very similair?

I suspect that you probably do not wish a preferential status for marriage, but would rather the government get out of the marriage business. You may see that happen in Canada.

First, if the SSM law is not repealed, then, a substitution will become entrenched and in time this will diminish the special status.

Second, as that status becomes less and less meaningful, and it has already had direct impact on parental status, there will be a widening seperation between the social institution and the social shadow, civil marriage. This will lead to lower participation rates in marriage and in an erosion of public support for discrimination on the basis of marital status.

Third, the strongest defenders of marriage, the religions, will seek a seperation because of the intrusions on the freedoms of religion, speach, association, and so forth. As these defenders withdraw from the public policy arena, the social institution will become marginalized, but better defended, in the nongovernmental spheres of public life. The government may still intrude there, if the gay activists past behavior is any indication, and that will not bode well for the esteem of government in the lives of a self-governed society.

Fourth, these things will converge and eventually all kinds of other forms of relationships and family types will demand equivalence of treatment. No preferential treatment will stand as more than mere tokenism. Even that will be attacked, just as SSMers have decried civil unions as an option. The divided between the People and their government will lead to the no-win compromise — abandonment of marriage as recognized as a special status. Tax law to "legal parent", the distinctions will be abolished.

So, if your sympathy for SSM is based on the notion that 1) the courts haven't imposed SSM in Canada and 2) the People want SSM to be treated as marriage and 3) doing so will not delute the preferential status and 4) the government might as well get out of the marriage business anyway, then, I can see why you might propose civil union to be enacted as if it was marriage in all but name.

It adds up.

But marriage needs to be protected, strengthened, and preferred. If not by the government (including the judiciary) then by the rest of us, despite governmental intrusions.

Remember, Lemo, early in our discussion I did say I'd consider your compromise if you could answer the basic questions convincingly. You haven't even made the attempt, as far as I can see. So it is time to put your cards on the table: would you rather that the government abolish the special status accorded the social institution of marriage?

I think your answer is yes. You 'd rather some form of civil union apply to all of society. That this be based on the overlap between the both-sexed relationship type and the one-sexed relationship type — the sexualized versions at least — on the basis of your opinion that homosexuality is of as much importance to society as is heterosexuality.

I don't think this is about sexual orientation, really, but your comments point to the center of your viewpoint being based on orientaton rather than on the core of marriage and its importance to society.

Lemo said "The preamble states that it is acceptable to have more than one view of marriage. This is acceptable because it does not, as you fear, water down the other definition(s)as long as the marriage is between two adults."

Sure, and the same is said about abortion. But you know that only one view stands as the view taken by the law. In this case, it is either a law that prefers marriage or a law that does not. Enactment of SSM does indeed water down marriage.

You say the number two makes all the difference. I don't see why two closely related siblings should be prohibited from this special treatment that would be accorded the nonmarital one-sexed arrangement. It could not be about sexual behavior, surely, as what concern is it of the government what two people might do in private? Incest? What is wrong with incest — according to your claim for equivalency? Two closely related people might never engage in sex; they might never create children together; they might just want their relationship type — asexual and nonprocreative — to be treated like, say, two elderly people who are married.

And what about the individual who would rather be married to two others at the same time? Why not? That's a popular question among SSMers. Afterall, discrimination on the basis of marital status means preferential treatment that sorta backfires, right? Why should this guy and his second wife (or second husband?) together be denied a relationship status on par with the relationship he enjoys with his first wife (or first husband)? He might have children with both relationships. He might have need of protections for both. He might want tolerance, at least, but more importantly, he might want acceptance for his way of life and his preference for two wives (or two husbands, or one of each). Why not?

Complexity is one thing that SSMers bring up. But they tend to avoid the issue of complexity when it comes to things like third party procreation, the misaplicaiton of presumption of paternity, and so forth. Complexity is common to the relationship type that tends not to be based on sexual monogamy. No, the tax laws are cited, too, and complexity is not really discussed much there.

So what is left? That the nature of humankind is two-sexed; that the nature of human generativity is both-sexed; that society flourishes when the two sexes are integrated and that children do best when their moms and dads stick together as a single family community. Yes, we can see how the number two works there. But the one-sexed arrangment is not so dependant on that magical number two. In fact, I doubt we can presume a sexualized relationship, let alone a binary relationship, when it comes to the one-sexed variety.

No individual alone can create children. Sure, an individual might be referred to as fertile, but the silent part is the key — i.e. fertile with the other sex. So the solo person is never fertile, truly, unless combined with the other sex. Likewise two persons of the same sex. It does not matter how many more persons of the same sex is added to the line-up. The one-sexed arrangment of one person, two persons, or more persons, is never fertile — without the other sex.

So, we must remove the notion of human generativity and the idea of integrating the sexes. These are no longer valued as intrinsic to the preferential treatment of the social institution of marriage. That institution might coexist with some nonmarital alterntives, such as the man-man and the woman-woman types of relationships. But its core is demoted to some peripheral option when it comes to the value to society that is mirrored in the law.

So what is it about the number two when it comes to the one-sexed arrangment? It must be something quite different than for the both-sexed relationship type. Afterall, society has a huge interest in encouraging men and women to stay together to provide contingency for responsible procreation and to provide equality of the sexes in a key social institution. But what is the big interest in the one-sexed arrangement?

Sex? That two person of the same sex might engage in sexualized behavior? Is that it? Well, we know that poses no true limitation. First, as I've said above, the relationship might be asexual. A father and daughter, for example, or an aunte and nephew. No restriction based on the children they might produce, surely. Besides, they could use contraceptives or other forms of birth control — including abortion. SSM argumentation makes much of both as ways to treat the both-sexed relationship as if it was a one-sexed relationship. You know, the fertility strawman that I have already described above.

So if it is not the core of marriage, but something else, perhaps it is not about sex at all. But it must be. Afterall, haven't you (like most SSMers) talked about equality between the presumptively heterosexed and the presumptively homosexed couples? If it is not about sex, but is about sexual orientation, then, would this not setup yet another preferential status (a replacement for marriage) that discriminates against other twosomes on the basis of sexuality? Again, too closely related people cannot be presumed to be engaging in incestuous sexual relations. That would be wrong, right? Unfair to pry into their private affairs, too, as we could make no claim that their relationship is inferior. There is equivalency, supposedly, and that should mean equal treatment.

Lemo, if that was your point, then, it was not even an attempt to answer the two very basic questions I had asked.

That's okay, as most SSMers do not make that effort because they rely, utterly, on a rights-based claim which is identitical to what you have now referred to as an equality claim.

I have responded to that claim, already. It is one that is premised on equivalency of relationship types. It is not a matter of opinion, Lemo, that while not all both-sexed relationships are marriage, no version of the one-sexed relationhip type can 1) integrate the sexes and 2) provide the contingency for responsible procreation and 3) combine these two key purposes of marriage. Can't be done. No equivalency exists.

Now you have skipped over that (as most SSMers do before changing the subject) to making an equality claim on mere assertion. Your opinion is that the two relationship types — one combining both sexes and the other excluding one or the other sexes — must be treated equally.

This is not a claim to expand marriage but to demote marriage to a protected or tolerated status. It is a claim that the preferential treatment accorded marriage is to be abolished.

But, you might say, I do not wish for the preferential treatment to be abolished. No matter, that is the effect.

When marriage is merged with non-marriage, marriage is no longer treated as a unique social institution. The merger enacts a replacement. If no distinction can be made based on one-sexed versus both-sexed when it comes to fundamental social institution of society, then, any both-sexed relationship that would be recognized by the state as "marriage" would be restricted by the limitations of the single-sexed relationship type. Maybe, in your opinion, that's fine. More equivalency imposed. But this blatantly discounts the importance to society of the core of marriage and instead moves state recognition to the peripheral aspects that marriage and non-marriage might share.

For example, you point to the two-individuals-at-a-time provision in marriage law. But why would the law restrict an individual to just one partner at a time? Remember, the core of marriage would not be what it has been for millenium; instead it would some new fangled concept based on what ... romance? But you disagree with regulating romance. Is it the private contract between two individuals that now rises to forefront? If so, then, there was no need to call for treating SSM as if it was marriage. Due to the false claim of equivalency which is the basis for the false claim for equal treatment, you lead yourself, and I guess the rest of society, to the logical conclusion that the state should not be in the marriage business.

In other words, SSM is about replacing recognition of marriage — one way or another — with something else or with nothing at all.

The law certainly does discriminate — on the basis of marital status. But that is also unequal, if you follow the SSM argumentation's logic, because nonmarital arrangements are not so special, really. Nothing unique about integrating the sexes and responsible procreation. So much diversity in families dictates that preferential treatment be abolished.

"However, because government is involved in marriage, marriage must be equally available to all adults." (Lemo)

Hence, an adult father can marry his adult daughter or son, two adult sisters can marry, etc. Bisexuals demand "equality" and should be allowed to marry a man and a woman. That leads us right into polygamy which has been around as long as monogamy, if not longer. And of course this leads us clearly into the need for government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether, which I support as soon as governments impose the oxymoron of homosexual "marriage" and make marriage meaningless.

Remember that the imposition of homosexual "marriage" begins at the very bottom of the slippery slope with the unmarriageable, so nothing above it can be rationally denied or "discriminated" against.

Chairm, My point by posting the parts of the preamble to the law was that I agree with these statements. You are right about how you define marriage. The preamble states that it is acceptable to have more than one view of marriage. This is acceptable because it does not, as you fear, water down the other definition(s)as long as the marriage is between two adults.
Can Parliament change its mind on an issue? Yes, and it does so on a regular basis. You cited earlier a vote upholding marriage as being between a man and a woman. Parliamnet has now decided-and it was Parliament that decided-to change the definition of marriage.
As far as SSM being a rights issue, I am not sure it is. To me it is more of an equality issue. If the government was not involved in marriage, there would be no recourse to the courts. I would suggest that the logical alternative for you is to suggest that the government get out of the marriage business. This is not an ideal solution in your eyes. I understand that and respect it. However, because government is involved in marriage, marriage must be equally available to all adults.
The reference to the Nothwithstanding Clause is relevant because I wanted to finally bury the notion of judicial activism being the cause of SSM. Parliament can overrule the courts on many aspects of the constitution. SSM is one of those issues. Parliament has not acted and I doubt that it will.
Final note: It seems that some gay groups are now asking the Harper government to have a free vote in Parliament on the issue. They say they can win. As they say, it remains to be seen.

The preamble to C-38 is "me-too-ism".

There is no independent claim made for the one-sexed arrangement. It puts SSM on the back of marital status.

To paraphrase, "Marriage is recognized as a worthy social institution; therefore nonmarriage must be treated as marriage, provided that it is one-sexed."

Also, the reference to the Nothwithstanding Clause is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on an SSM case. There is no constitutional right to SSM. The lower courts judged on common law, not on statutory law.

Parliament could enact a statute reaffirming marriage as the union of man and woman as well as enacting some alternative setup for nonmarriageable combinations, such as Reciprocal Beneficiaries. All of that would be constitutional, probably, and there would not arise any need to consider using the Notwithstanding clause to over-ride a court decision. No decision has been made; none might ever be made against a statutory clarification.

Lemo, what is the point of the preamble, in terms of your answering the questions asked? It is probably better to use your own words rather than post a quote like that and expect others to guess what you meant by it.

Lemo, campaigns may be messy around the edges, but are you implying that it is better to be ruled by the judiciary?

Either we have campaigns to elected representatives who vote on this or that issue, in the context of a slate of issues of governance, or we have campaigns focussed on single issues seperate from the selection of representatives. Or we have a good mix of both representative and direct democracy. I think all liberal democracies have the mix.

There are advantages and disadvantages, however, to diss all campaigns as frought with "tricks, lies and other nasty tactics" does not foreclose the same sort of messiness in, for example, the courtcentric campaign that pushed SSM in Canada and pushes it elsewhere.

It is a trick, and a falsehood, to make the marriage issue into one of "rights". And it is a nasty tactic on the part of SSMers (not you, thusfar, Lemo, but others in previous pages) to declare disagreement to be bigoted.

In Canada, the People have been at a disadvantage in both the courts, where judicial activism imposed SSM, and in the House, where a free vote was not held on a matter of conscience.

That is an important point.

The lower courts in Canada depended on the common law definition of marriage; that is to say, the judges reassessed judge-made law. But a principle of common law systems to see the case through the eyes of the common person, if you will.

The judges really went astray of this. First, in imposing the falsehood that common-law marriage could possibly be construed as sex segregative. Second in seeing the case through the eyes of outliers, rather than the common person. Community standards are the basis for establishing that a couple hold themselves out to be husband and wife. Third, the judiciary went astray by reading into the constitution something that is not there — sexual orientation. In fact, as I said earlier, that was explicitly discussed and rejected by the country a shortwhile before the judges conjured SSM.

But then, the elected representatives who favored SSM went further and claimed that the lower court opinions about the judge-made law dictated what would be judged in the future should Parliament enact statutory law to define marriage as the union of man and woman. Statutes take precedence over common-law in Canada, and in most libral democracies (see my point about US jurisdictions that abolished common-law marriage). The judiciary does not have the first, and the last, word.

That little slip was a trick by SSMers, such as former PM Martin; and it was backed with nasty accusations in parliamentary hearings, in the House, and in the election campaigns — again see PM Martin's performances as exhibit A.

The judiciary did not decide the matter cleanly; and the judiciary did not lift the issue out of the messiness of democracy. In fact, it is not desirable that judiciary even attempts to do that.

I think that faith is generally better placed with the People than with an unelected oligarchy. The judiciary must integrate with the democracy. It cannot stand apart as if it were some sort of priesthood reading the entrails of chickens and deciding big policy issues for the whole of society.

Lemo, you said: "Since SSM has already existed in Canada for a short period of time without negative consequences. I asked you to tell us what signs we should look for that will indicate the weakening of society due to gay marriage. So far, you have provided no answer to this question."

Lemo, there were two prominent tactics used in earlier parts of this now 12-page discussion and which now have crept into your comments.

First, the false proposal of treating SSM like a brief social experiment.

Second, the old "why not" diversion.

Rather than my repeating myself, again, please take some time to review what I have already said in response to these two approaches by SSMers in previous pages.

In the meantime, consider that "why" is the relevant question and the onus belongs to the SSMers to justify the replacement of recognition of marriage with this other thing that would be based on the limitations of the one-sexed arrangement.

* * *

Lemo, with respect, you also ought to review our own exchange, in the latter part of this thread. There I have answered the question about the harm done by imposing SSM as if it were marriage.

You might also note that I have said that if you can justify the replacement, as per your proposed compromise, then, I might consider it on its merits. So rather than ask me, why not, please answer, why?

Lemo, I'll respond to the preamble, but please attempt to plainly state your own answers to the two specific questions I've asked above.

Afterall, you have said your mind is made up and you cannot imagine changing your opinion. I thought you would have very good reasons, but surely this preamble did not convince you.

1. What is the purpose of a preferential status for the one-sexed arrangement?

2. What makes the homosexed version of such an arrangement more preferred than the other versions of it?

An independant claim, please, which is not me-too-ism.

I'm sorry Lemo but ex cathedra pontifical statements from courts or governments do not define marriage or produce necessarily reasonable conclusions.

To the 1st WHEREAS I say, "So what?"

Of the 2nd WHEREAS I say, "Non sequitur!"

Of the 3rd WHEREAS I say, "Sooo? Marriage is a 'foundational institution' because it has always been complementary, that is, between man and woman, and because it does not foreclose but rather fosters the possibility of procreation."

Of the 4th WHEREAS I say, "non sequitur, nonsense and sheer reckless absurdity."

You will not be able to see the signs because all the signs will be immediately rationalized as being good rather than harmful. This has been done with all the marriage fragmentation experiments that have been perpetrated already on marriage.

But, 1. Marriage will become increasingly meaningless. 2. Families will become increasingly fragmented. 3. Divorces will become even more commonplace. 4. Children will increasingly grow up without the benefits of having both a mother and a father. Would it make no difference to you to have two "fathers" rather than a mother and a father? 5. Intense indoctrination of all children will be happening in public schools to have them affirm homosexual relationships. 6. More children will be experimenting with homosexual relationships. 7. Promiscuity will greatly increase but this will not be clearly noted because it is so common now. 8. Protestant churches will further fragment as the sheep separate from the goats. 9. Hate crime laws and enforcement will greatly expand to persecute those who do not approve of homosexual behaviors. 10. Government will condemn biblical teaching as "homophobic" and not tolerate it outside of the church. 11. Embryonic experimentation will increase to facilitate homosexual "parenting." 12. "Gay pride" parades will become increasingly debauch, though it's hard to believe they can get much worse.

The list can be greatly expanded and the affirmation of homosexual practices is but one problem among a legion of problems. From all this grave depravity crime and violence greatly increase and