Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Couple Elope to Canada

LGBT Canada same-sex marriage eloped

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#41 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 09:08 PM

Well lets see. Legalizing adults having sex with children is already covered by both statatory laws and the fact that a child being married to an adult is covered by laws that require the consent of the parents for such a circumstances. So that covers pedophiles.

Polygamy. So what if all the parties give consent then what is the problem. Heck the bibles allows for such things. Remeber Abrahm and his two wives. Jabob working for his relative and being tricked into marrying first one sister then the other. So the bible is not to upset my multiple partner marriages.

It's only the fact it is hard to get the other partner willing to allow for another man/woman to enter thier marriage that has been the delaying factor there. That is fine as long as the partners now can give consent before such a new arrangement takes place.

Basically the situation is accepting that people one way or the other are going to live their lives with or without the consent of Churches  The Faith is not bad it's only the powers that claim to speak for it that bother me.

#42 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 09:56 PM

What is "marriage"? And what does this word do that "civil union" doesn't?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#43 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 10:07 PM

Frankly Civil Union would work just fine for me.  Hell, it would help really illustrate the fact that it's NOT religious.  Frankly I agree with Cardie that the government should never have gotten involved.  But now that they have, now that there are all kinds of LEGAL benefits to having an officially recognized union, the government is obligated to provide equal protection under the law.
Posted Image

#44 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 10:15 PM

Drew, on Dec 18 2003, 09:56 PM, said:

What is "marriage"? And what does this word do that "civil union" doesn't?
One's a sacrament. The other's a legal term.

I'm personally all for civil unions being extended to any pair of persons who think they have what it takes to live together for, presumably, their natural lives. I can reconcile my moral conscience with the legal definition of a "civil union".

But a marriage and a civil union are two different things--- ostensibly, because one is a promise before the law, the other a promise before God. And I'm a practicing Catholic. So I have to --pardon the pun-- divorce the two concepts.

It's a narrow definition, to be true. Being in a civil union and being married are probably interchangeable to everyone else--- but if I'm going to be joined to someone, I'd rather do it in a way that's in keeping with both what's rendered unto Caesar and rendered unto God.

But that's me. And I don't pass judgement on what other people do. Or so I keep telling myself.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#45 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 10:24 PM

Wow, what a thread.  

So many issues wrapped into one.

My feelings.... although I find homosexual sex to be nauseating (my neighbor was into to gay porno and would have it on when I would visit) I know that there are heterosexual sexual practices I find equally nauseating.  While that does play a part in my perceptions, I have many, many gay friends, many who are in committed, loving relationships.

So, while I have my very personal feelings on certain sexual practices and therefore do not partake in them, I still can accept that others have different needs, desires, tastes.

I see no reason to not allow committed relationships of any gender to be recognized by the law.  In fact, silly aside... Before I got married, my husband got a job at the University.  He wanted to get me benefits (being self employed, this is a big deal).  So he filled out the paper work and claimed me as a "domestic partner"  Well, it turns out that in order to get benefits from UC under the "domestic partner" status, we would have to be the same sex!!!!  It was a bit embarrassing for him there for a moment.  So, as it happened, we had to be married to get the benefits for me.  That is a reverse discrimination for sure, but there it is.  Good news is, that we are much happier after being married as society does look at couples completely differently due to the level of commitment and partnership that marriage requires.

Of the gay couples I know, some are more devoted and supportive than heterosexual couples I know.  So why is it not a good idea for them to marry? (I don't accept "because the Bible says so either, since there are many religious books, who is to say there is only one that is the end all be all)  Some gay couples raise children, if they do, why can they not marry?

One of the gay guys I know, seems to be a magnet for young boys, especially ones that think they are "different"  He could be seen as a pediophile, but he knows how it could look and has gone out of his way to not allow things to get out of hand (or look like they have gotten out of hand!).  He is very clear about what he wants, and doesn't want.  He sees himself as a mentor to some of the boys that are attracted to him, goes hiking with them, gives them acceptance that they can't get from their fathers.  And yes, I believe him when he says he hasn't touched them!!! I had many women throughout my life that took me under their wing, treated me like a daughter, loved me and accepted me in a way that I didn't get from my own mother.  So I do know why it is important for younger people to bond with older ones not of their family.  It doesn't mean that there is a sexual situation automatically.  In fact women bond with each other quite deeply and emotionally without a hint of sexuality all of the time.  So it is very conceivable to me to think that a gay man could bond with a younger man without a sexual connection.  

Bottomline, no matter what NAMBLA says or does, it doesn't mean that gay marriage automatically means pedophiles run amok.  It just doesn't.  

People who are devoted to each other should be able to create a life together.

BTW, polygamy in the Middle East happened mostly because due to war there were many more women than men.  There was nothing worse than being an unmarried middle eastern women mostly because it was the men who supported the women (in most countries that is, the Berbers I think were a matriarchy) and an unmarried women could not make a living or have children.  So if a man had enough riches to support more than one woman he could marry as many as he could support.  This was seen as a good thing as the women would be beggars or worse if they could not marry.  As for the Mormons, I can't remember why they have many wives.  And if I  remember correctly they are the ones marrying off their kids when they are prepubescent!!!!!!

Ack, this post has gotten way too long...  :blush:
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#46 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 11:43 PM

Now on the fact of accepting that someone is allowed to use a book of faith to set their own moral code I agree a 100% I may disagree with part of your code but that does not change it is a code.

#47 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,624 posts

Posted 18 December 2003 - 11:48 PM

Drew, first, congratulations on the baby. He already looks like he's ready to take on the world. Secondly, I do think the only solution for this problem is for the word marriage to be reserved for unions blessed by a church, and for a different term to be used to define the secular and legal aspects of committed domestic partnerships. "Partnered" might work.  I do understand why there is resistance to that in some sectors of the gay community, simply because the term marriage is so over-determined with cultural meanings of what is romantic, good, and "normal."  And since a heterosexual atheist couple can go get hitched at City Hall and still announce themselves married with no objections from religious people, one does suspect that there is a little more to it than the sacrament/non-sacrament argument would explain.

Nevertheless, if the religious are willing to cede civil unions and the gay community to accept them being called that, we could have a happy compromise. Knowing this country, however, I fear that we'll instead have cultural wars with one side campaigning against even civil unions and the other being unwilling to settle for anything that isn't called marriage.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#48 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 12:00 AM

^ The problem there is that you're setting up a two-tier system. Civil union and marriage should be interchangeable in lay terms. But they're still not.

I don't know that there is a solution to that.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#49 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 12:53 AM

Can i offer a thought.

Dutch law recognises a concept which roughly transelates into 'same front door' policy, where any two people over the age of consent living in the same house, can get many (but not all) of the same legal and tax benefits of married couples.

I'm not going to speculate on the whys and wherefores of how the law was introduced, but what it essentially means is that sinlings living in the same house (as my sister and I did for two years as we both worked at the same place and it was cheaper than owning seperate property) friends, college dorm-mates, parents and children.

It was simply a living arrangement that recognised that sex is not a requirement to living together, and that there are societal benefits to extending legal and tax protection to these people

of course, this is also the country that has legalised homosexual marriages, as the mother of one of my friends married her long term girlfriend two years ago

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#50 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 09:37 AM

Quote

Rhea: I don't know why you throw in pedophiles (a pederast IS a pedophile, but one who is specifically fixated on sex with boys), because I can't think of an instance or a culture in which adults having sex with children is considered normal or acceptable (and I was an anthro major, so that's not an uninformed statement).

Speaking as only a uninformed anthropology minor I can tell you that your statement is false.  

Their happens to be numerous cultures throughout the world that fit that bill.  The one I can think of thinks of it as more healthy and normal than heterosexual relations.  I would suggest you look up the Etoro of New Guinea if you don't want to believe me.  Basically as a culture they believe that heterosexual relations happen to actually be dangerous and thus over 250+ days out of the year they aren't allowed.  So instead the men are encouraged to have sexual relations with young boys and it is seen as a rite of passage to manhood for the boys.

I can't recall off the top of my head if there is a similar occurrence for women. This isn't a single fluke among one culture either.  I can't think of names off the top of my head but several such cultures exist.  Several exist where if a man is too poor to take a female for a wife he can take a boy instead.  So in truth your statement is false because their are multiple cultures worldwide who don't consider it to be normal.  

Quote

Rhea:  I can't imagine any sane cuture/ethos that condones any behavior harmful to others, especially to children.

Well since they exist I think it is a valid question Rov asked.  You have an interesting moral quagmire there.  So what would be the answer to Rov's question?

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 19 December 2003 - 09:38 AM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#51 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:47 AM

Cardie, on Dec 18 2003, 10:48 PM, said:

Drew, first, congratulations on the baby. He already looks like he's ready to take on the world.
Gender confusion already! Let's wait until she's a teenager first!  :cool:  

Quote

Secondly, I do think the only solution for this problem is for the word marriage to be reserved for unions blessed by a church, and for a different term to be used to define the secular and legal aspects of committed domestic partnerships. "Partnered" might work.  I do understand why there is resistance to that in some sectors of the gay community, simply because the term marriage is so over-determined with cultural meanings of what is romantic, good, and "normal."  And since a heterosexual atheist couple can go get hitched at City Hall and still announce themselves married with no objections from religious people, one does suspect that there is a little more to it than the sacrament/non-sacrament argument would explain.

That's what I was thinking, exactly. Which is why I asked the question. I don't see that the word "marriage" bestows any special rights, and therefore I'm not sure why there's a battle over this word--except for the perception that a union is somehow religiously as well as legally sanctioned.

Quote

Nevertheless, if the religious are willing to cede civil unions and the gay community to accept them being called that, we could have a happy compromise. Knowing this country, however, I fear that we'll instead have cultural wars with one side campaigning against even civil unions and the other being unwilling to settle for anything that isn't called marriage.

I suspect you're correct.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#52 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,624 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 10:58 AM

^^Oops, sorry about the gender confusion. I missed the birth announcement.  :blush:

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#53 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 11:15 AM

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 06:13 PM, said:

Rhea, on Dec 19 2003, 01:01 AM, said:

... I know many gay couples who have raised healthy, happy families without the endorsement of the church or the state ...
If it could be left there, then I could be happy.  Yes, even I have a "live and let live 'gene'" that kicks in every now and then.  My question is, given what you write above, why do they need the "sanctity" of marriage?

Probably the best way of summing up my issue with supporters of gay marriage is that they are imposing their moral viewpoint on others even as they deny the rights of others to impose the moral viewpoint that gay marriages are wrong on them.  And what I find extremely "funny" is that every argument in support of gay marriage can be used to support pedophilia, polygamy or whatever.

And yes, as a very real example of that, I do use NAMBLA.
I suspect that henceforth any argument about gay marriage which persistently drags in an unrelated topic into the discussion will be known as the NAMBLA argument.  ;)  So let me speak for most if not all the rest of us when I say that I don't give a rat's ass how a bunch of pedophiles try to justify their sickness. It has nothing to do with gay marriage (or any other kind of marriage).

And for the record, nobody who advocates gay marriage is forcing their morality on you. Your church doesn't have to marry them - no church will be forced to do so. You don't have to socialize with them. You don't even have to like it. To deny them this boon is imposing YOUR morality on an entire country composed of many millions who don't share YOUR religious viewpoint.

When we were given freedom of religion, nobody designated *which* religions were included - it extends to all religions. I may think that New Age folks are airy fairy (and while I try to respect their views, I sometimes do :p). I may think that dancing naked around a bonfire at a full moon doesn't constitute a religion. I think Satanism is a disgusting religion, but it also exists freely in this country.

I don't think the government has any more right to legislate what KIND of marriage people enter into any more than it has the right to say what kind of religion a person practices.

Edited by Rhea, 19 December 2003 - 11:20 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#54 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 11:20 AM

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 09:58 AM, said:

^^Oops, sorry about the gender confusion. I missed the birth announcement.  :blush:
S'okay. I probably shouldn't be imposing gender roles on her already anyway.  :D
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#55 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 11:26 AM

Drew, on Dec 19 2003, 09:20 AM, said:

Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 09:58 AM, said:

^^Oops, sorry about the gender confusion. I missed the birth announcement.  :blush:
S'okay. I probably shouldn't be imposing gender roles on her already anyway.  :D
LOL! I hope you leave the avatar for a while, because it makes me smile every time I see her.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#56 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 11:39 AM

Rhea, on Dec 19 2003, 04:15 PM, said:

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 06:13 PM, said:

Rhea, on Dec 19 2003, 01:01 AM, said:

... I know many gay couples who have raised healthy, happy families without the endorsement of the church or the state ...
If it could be left there, then I could be happy.  Yes, even I have a "live and let live 'gene'" that kicks in every now and then.  My question is, given what you write above, why do they need the "sanctity" of marriage?

Probably the best way of summing up my issue with supporters of gay marriage is that they are imposing their moral viewpoint on others even as they deny the rights of others to impose the moral viewpoint that gay marriages are wrong on them.  And what I find extremely "funny" is that every argument in support of gay marriage can be used to support pedophilia, polygamy or whatever.

And yes, as a very real example of that, I do use NAMBLA.
I suspect that henceforth any argument about gay marriage which persistently drags in an unrelated topic into the discussion will be known as the NAMBLA argument.  ;)  So let me speak for most if not all the rest of us when I say that I don't give a rat's ass how a bunch of pedophiles try to justify their sickness. It has nothing to do with gay marriage (or any other kind of marriage).

And for the record, nobody who advocates gay marriage is forcing their morality on you. Your church doesn't have to marry them - no church will be forced to do so. You don't have to socialize with them. You don't even have to like it. To deny them this boon is imposing YOUR morality on an entire country composed of many millions who don't share YOUR religious viewpoint.

When we were given freedom of religion, nobody designated *which* religions were included - it extends to all religions. I may think that New Age folks are airy fairy (and while I try to respect their views, I sometimes do :p). I may think that dancing naked around a bonfire at a full moon doesn't constitute a religion. I think Satanism is a disgusting religion, but it also exists freely in this country.

I don't think the government has any more right to legislate what KIND of marriage people enter into any more than it has the right to say what kind of religion a person practices.
Rhea maybe you should pay attention to what pedophiles are saying.  Because, whether you like it or not, it is the argument you are using.

"YOUR  church doesn't have to marry or condone sexual relations between children and adults -- no church will be forced to do so."

"You don't have to like pedophiles."

"You don't have to socialize with pedophiles."

"You don't even have to like pedophiles."

"To deny them this boon is imposing YOUR morality on an entire country composed of many millions (okay, maybe "only" thousands) who don't share YOUR religious or ethical viewpoint on pedophilia."

And by the way, given the information both CJ AEGIS and I provided about cultures that approve of pederasty and pedophilia, why don't you answer Javert Rovinski's question?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#57 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 12:18 PM

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 08:13 PM, said:

Personally, I think the "God says so" defense is pretty good.  For a different issue, it was what got Dr. King involved with the civil rights movement.  (For the uninitiated, I am referring to the "coffee cup" incident.)
You're free to think that.  However, don't go trying to create a solid argument out of it, since it's a well-known logical fallacy.

#58 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 12:28 PM

prolog, on Dec 19 2003, 05:18 PM, said:

Yama, on Dec 18 2003, 08:13 PM, said:

Personally, I think the "God says so" defense is pretty good.  For a different issue, it was what got Dr. King involved with the civil rights movement.  (For the uninitiated, I am referring to the "coffee cup" incident.)
You're free to think that.  However, don't go trying to create a solid argument out of it, since it's a well-known logical fallacy.
prolog, can you prove the logical fallacy?

I mean without you inserting your own personal opinions and/or moral or religious beliefs into the argument.

And since you also quote my reference to Dr. King, are you saying that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s involvement in the Civil Rights movement based on a logical fallacy?

Just curious.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#59 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,624 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:09 PM

Yama, let me turn your argument around on you. I am assuming that as a Christian you consider rejection of the notion that Jesus Christ was the son of God a moral failing. A non-Christian rejects that notion.  You therefore argue on moral grounds that this non-Christian must be excluded from a secular practice, say voting. The non-Christian argues that your church does not have to accept non-believers as members, you don't have to socialize with non-believers or even like non-believers, but that your church has no business using its beliefs to determine eligibility to vote in a secular state. You counter that there is an excellent basis for denying the non-Christian the vote because these are the precise arguments used by NAMBLA to justify pedophilia.  Do you see why this sounds like a reductio ad absurdum to us now?

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#60 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 19 December 2003 - 01:13 PM

I've tried to read this thread all the way through, but I'm still puzzled. If two consenting adults want to get married, what is the problem?

On another related topic, the discussion of civil unions vs. marriage has brought up a very good point that never occured to me. There should be a seperation between the legal definition of marriage (or civil union, or whatever it's called) and the religious concept of marriage. Perhaps the reason this topic generates so much controversy is because relgion and law are all tangled up, and seperating them might make things easier. A legal acceptance of same sex unions shouldn't be the same thing as a religious accceptance of the concept. That's something the individual religions should decide for themselves.

Edited by Kevin Street, 19 December 2003 - 01:14 PM.

Per aspera ad astra



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Canada, same-sex marriage, eloped

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users