Gay Marriage

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

Some however will not (for example sisters). What possible benefit is there to society in forcing the surviving person to sell the home they lived in together, because she shared it with her sister not her husband or her same sex partner?

So why should sisters be able to get rights that other people not in sexual relationships should get?

And if they can get that right, why shouldn't other rights of mariage be open to them, such as court redistrobution of property upon seperation?

 

[tsg]

I want the government to treat people on the basis of the reality of their actions, not what paperwork they have filled in.

Why?

More strawman nonsense that I have advocated the abolition of paperwork or contracts. Unless of course you can point to where I have said I see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions clear, or that people should not be allowed to do so.

It was a question. That's what the "?" means. Do you or do you not see any benefit for two people making their intentions known in order to avoid complications later?

 

[Segnosaur]

The situation is not changed by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If you rent your space to the public, you have to follow the law.

But part of the issue is that church property (either the church itself, or reception halls that they happen to own) are rented "to the public". The example I pointed out earlier (the gay couple who wanted to rent the catholic-based Knights of Columbus hall) is an example. The hall itself is church property. The question is, should the religious organization who owns the property be forced to rent to the gay couple.

This issue is whether a church can be forced to marry a couple who does not have the same beliefs as the church. Churches have always had the right in Canada to decide what they want to do in their church as the courts accept that church CANON law applies to activities within the church.

Right now, you're CLAIMING that churches can do what they want... but right now, that is ONLY a claim. Remember though, when we're dealing with marriage and/or the use of church space, we start dealing with activities that affect the government and/or general public. The government cannot say "you must accept gay marriage", but they may be able to say "since you run a building that is open to the public, you have to let them use it for their ceremonies".

I am not saying that the courts will automatically force gay weddings at the local catholic church. But, at this point we can't rule that out. It would have been very easy for the government to simply add a little extra to the bill to clarify the situation.

See: Donoghue v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa, 2007 at:
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight....c/doc/2007/2007canlii4857/2007canlii4857.html
for a very recent example.

Not exactly a very good example, since:
- The issue seemed to be dismissed because it was a financial issue
- A religious organization closing its church is not discriminating against any particular race or sexual orientation

This is not a Canadian precident and, if you read up on the case, you will find that the issue is not the simple one you seem to think it is.

Actually, I have read up on it a while ago, and yes, indeed it is that simple:
- Many home coffee makers make coffee just as hot as the stuff served at McDonalds
- A similar case was thrown out in Britian (i.e. they got the situation right) after experts showed that even if the temperature of the coffee was reduced (to the temperature recommended by the defence), the same amount of burning would have happened.

And yes, it was an American court case. But, do we have a reason to believe our court system is automatically better than the U.S.? Are our judges super genetically modified hybrids that can make no wrong decisions?

Canadian court?

Yes, ineed,.

All you would need is one judge, when presented with a case of homosexuals wanting to use a church or reception hall, to decide that the building serves a public function and thus cannot discriminate.

And if it was a reception hall, even without the legalization of same-sex marriage, he would be right. If it was a church, he would be wrong because he should have recognized church canon law and be overturned on appeal.

Reception halls and similar property are often owned by churches and serve religous purposes (even if they don't have a cross on the roof and stain glass windows.) Do you think relgious groups should be forced to rent their property for those purposes just because its not used Sunday morning worship (but is used every other day?)

As for the church itself... it IS just a building. If the Catholics can be forced to rent the "St. Idiots Catholic Hall", why won't they be forced to rent out the church too? They're not being forced to preach acceptance of gay marriage, only let their property be used.

I don't "worry" about judges or human rights tribunals. They are what keep our society free and open. I guess you don't approve of juries either?

I don't "worry" about judges (ok, bad wording on my part). I worry about bad decisions by those judges. (And by bad, I mean decisions that seem to make no common sense.) I'd rather laws be made as clear as possible in order to prevent judges from 'interpreting' what they think the law should say or do. The government had a chance to do that when they passed the law allowing gay marriage but for some reason decided not to do it.

I do have concerns about human rights tribunals. I'd prefer issues to be decided by people with better training (i.e. through the courts), which often doesn't happen with such tribunals.

A school is not a church.

No, but it was a catholic school, which was designated to teach catholic principles to its students. Some might consider the ability to receive a religious education (and for a church to provide such an education consistent with its beliefs) as a significant part of the freedom of religion.

There is no way a church can be forced to do anything.

Well, the knights of columbus feels differently, since they were forced to rent to a gay couple.

Secondly, saying "you must be a member to get married here" would only work if you told that to EVERYONE. If you told that to a gay couple, but told a hetero couple "Sure, you can marry here even if you're not a member", then that is discrimination.

So they tell it to everyone.

Tell what to everyone? Tell everyone that they can get married there? Or tell them only hetero couples can get married there? Or tell them nobody can get married there?

The Roman Catholic Church has criteria for marriages one of which is that you: "Must be of opposite sex as your partner". Religions are allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but at this point its still your opinion. And until we actually see a precident, it will continue to be just that... your opinion.

Until now, the Catholic churches have been able to avoid marrying gay couples (or allowing their property to be used by them) because Canadian law didn't provide for gay marriage. There was no conflict between church rules and government law. Now that the law has changed, the possibility DOES exist for conflict between the two.

 

[Matteo Martini]

An argument I just don't understand. Does anyone really believe that children are better off in care than with a couple who have been screened to ensure they are suitable adoptive parents?

Well, I also would feel unconfortable with a child raised by two men

 

[Complexity]

Well, I also would feel unconfortable with a child raised by two men

Why do you feel that way?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why?

Because the perceived benefits that are thought to come from encouraging stable relationships arise from the actions, not the paper trail.

It was a question. That's what the "?" means. Do you or do you not see any benefit for two people making their intentions known in order to avoid complications later?

It followed in no way whatsoever from the comment you were replying to and was wholly unrelated to anything I have posted as I have never suggested that people would not be allowed to make their intentions clear, or indeed to get married if they chose to. Putting a question mark at the end does not excuse a deliberate misrepresentation of my views.

For the avoidance of doubt (or more accurately to avoid you misrepresenting me yet again) - I do not propose that paperwork should be abolished, that marriage should be abolished, that people will be prevented from making a legal statement of wishes, etc. They will be completely free to do so. Does that finally put this derail to rest?

However, as with the situation of a shadow director, you can't avoid your responsibilities by simply not doing the paperwork. They are based on your actions. The principle that actions are more important than documents is already in place in relation to marriage (see previous examples in relation to immigration) - do you oppose this treatment? After all the intentions are quite clear.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, I also would feel unconfortable with a child raised by two men

I once had similar concerns. While I wasn't worried about the child being molested, I was worried what the long term psychological effect would be if the child lacked both a male and female influence in their life.

However, in season 3 of the series Bullsh*t, they pointed to studies done with children raised in same sex marriage homes. The result? The only statistically significant problem was the way the family was treated by outsiders. (The parents themselves did just as well as hetero couples). It was, in a way, a self fulfilling prophecy... people distrust same sex couples, so they look at them differently, and because they're looked at differently, the children get negatively affected.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I once had similar concerns. While I wasn't worried about the child being molested, I was worried what the long term psychological effect would be if the child lacked both a male and female influence in their life.

However, in season 3 of the series Bullsh*t, they pointed to studies done with children raised in same sex marriage homes. The result? The only statistically significant problem was the way the family was treated by outsiders. (The parents themselves did just as well as hetero couples). It was, in a way, a self fulfilling prophecy... people distrust same sex couples, so they look at them differently, and because they're looked at differently, the children get negatively affected.

Certainly in the UK, a more useful comparison would be with children raised in council care as there is a significant shortage of adoptive parents, so the likely outcome of not allowing homosexual couples to adopt is not that the child will be raised by a heterosexual couple, but in a care home or with a succession of foster carers.

 

[tsg]

Because the perceived benefits that are thought to come from encouraging stable relationships arise from the actions, not the paper trail.

It followed in no way whatsoever from the comment you were replying to and was wholly unrelated to anything I have posted as I have never suggested that people would not be allowed to make their intentions clear, or indeed to get married if they chose to. Putting a question mark at the end does not excuse a deliberate misrepresentation of my views.

I was asking you to clarify your views, because, up until now, the position you appeared to be taking is one against formal declarations of marriage. For the record, you may wish to consider the possibility that the reason people are "misrepresenting" your views is that you haven't communicated them clearly.

For the avoidance of doubt (or more accurately to avoid you misrepresenting me yet again) - I do not propose that paperwork should be abolished, that marriage should be abolished, that people will be prevented from making a legal statement of wishes, etc. They will be completely free to do so. Does that finally put this derail to rest?

Then what exactly are you arguing against?

However, as with the situation of a shadow director, you can't avoid your responsibilities by simply not doing the paperwork. They are based on your actions. The principle that actions are more important than documents is already in place in relation to marriage (see previous examples in relation to immigration) - do you oppose this treatment? After all the intentions are quite clear.

No, I don't oppose this treatment. But, as has been pointed out, there are common law marriages where the treatment as a married couple exists without a formal declaration. Are you suggesting people who have no desire to be married be treated as married without their consent?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

So you don't think that the sisters in your previous example should be allowed the rights of marriage then? Or is there something special about blood relations that would make their non sexual relationship so different legally from other non sexual relationships?

You are not presenting a coherent view of what you are advocating, you want formal marriages removed, and an informal system, well describe the informal system you are advocating then.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I was asking you to clarify your views, because, up until now, the position you appeared to be taking is one against formal declarations of marriage. For the record, you may wish to consider the possibility that the reason people are "misrepresenting" your views is that you haven't communicated them clearly.

I would, if the questions they were asking suggested they were interested in clarification, not misrepresentation.

Then what exactly are you arguing against?

Not treating people according to their actions, as opposed to the paperwork.

No, I don't oppose this treatment. But, as has been pointed out, there are common law marriages where the treatment as a married couple exists without a formal declaration. Are you suggesting people who have no desire to be married be treated as married without their consent?

Can you give examples? Certainly does not exist in the UK, although many people think it does.

If people act in a manner that society decides carries certain responsibilities, they get those responsibilities (and rights) - in exactly the same way as already happens for shadow directors. They cannot avoid those responsibilities by not doing the paperwork.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

 

[tsg]

I would, if the questions they were asking suggested they were interested in clarification, not misrepresentation.

Don't blame me for your inability to communicate your position clearly.

Not treating people according to their actions, as opposed to the paperwork.

This is a vague statement that doesn't clarify your position at all. I won't ask any questions for fear of "misrepresenting" your view.

Can you give examples? Certainly does not exist in the UK, although many people think it does.

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

If people act in a manner that society decides carries certain responsibilities, they get those responsibilities (and rights) - in exactly the same way as already happens for shadow directors. They cannot avoid those responsibilities by not doing the paperwork.

Yes, you've said this a number of times. It doesn't explain what you feel is wrong with marriage licenses.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

I see, well I guess you can't actualy articulate your belief, and as you never will, I guess I should concider ignoreing you.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Why do you feel that way?

No " evidance ".
Just a suspect that we may have in our genes something that makes us requiring a maternal figure from the age of 0 to the age of ..??

 

[Matteo Martini]

I once had similar concerns. While I wasn't worried about the child being molested, I was worried what the long term psychological effect would be if the child lacked both a male and female influence in their life.

However, in season 3 of the series Bullsh*t, they pointed to studies done with children raised in same sex marriage homes. The result? The only statistically significant problem was the way the family was treated by outsiders. (The parents themselves did just as well as hetero couples). It was, in a way, a self fulfilling prophecy... people distrust same sex couples, so they look at them differently, and because they're looked at differently, the children get negatively affected.

That may be true, and that may well be a stereotype.
I really do not know much about it, to say a definite word.
Mine, is just the common Italian and Japanese lay man' s thinking..
But, it may well be just a stereotype..
For what I know..