Jump to content


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

Details in this thread

Toronto legalizes gay marriage

Same sex marriage Toronto Canada

  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

#21 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:34 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 10 2003, 09:21 PM, said:

It would mean only the people who *could* and *would* have children would get married.
More than THAT, even. How about only those who HAD children and were essentially signing a contract with the government to raise them? Marriage becoming so upon the birth of the first child? (That would eliminate some of the other objections I see down here and be entirely consistent with the real purpose for which marriage exists.)

Edited by Delvo, 11 June 2003 - 02:36 PM.


#22 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:37 PM

^

I agree with Lil and Rhea. By disallowing gay marriages, the government is only giving the impression to gay couples everywhere that they are disapproved of on an official level and really, we don't need any more fuel to give the homophobes.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#23 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:40 PM

But why does marriage have to be about children anyway?  I tend to think of marriage as a thing borne out of love.  If someone wants to declare it to all the world, government and otherwise, what should stop them?  "For two are coming who would be one" or "till death do we part" or any other declaration of love in whatever faith (or lack thereof)?  Or should only people who plan on having kids have the privilage of declaring themselves bound together?

Quote

QUOTE (Javert Rovinski @ Jun 10 2003, 09:21 PM)
It would mean only the people who *could* and *would* have children would get married.

More than THAT, even. How about only those who HAD children and were essentially signing a contract with the government to raise them? Marriage becoming so upon the birth of the first child? (That would eliminate some of the other objections I see down here and be entirely consistent with the real purpose for which marriage exists.)

Then what happens if one partner wants to leave?  Are they considered to be breaking a contract?  Does a wife only get her husband's insurance (or the other way around) after the first kid is had?

And if there is no government saying someone is married or isn't, how are insurance companies to know before a kid is had?  I could say that my roommate and I are in love, give us the benifits, and bah to the fact we're screwing the company.

Edited by Nikcara, 11 June 2003 - 02:45 PM.

We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#24 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:41 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 10 2003, 09:36 PM, said:

Homophobia is not a pleasant word but there it is.
It also isn't an HONEST one when it's flung at somebody who has no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality.

#25 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:44 PM

Rhea, on Jun 10 2003, 09:37 PM, said:

any two adults that are willing to go to the trouble of making a long-term commitment ought to be able to make that commitment without having to worry about not being able to own property together, be covered on each other's insurance, basically have their union recognized in a legal way.
Unmarried people already CAN own property together. And insurance companies' behavior is a separate issue from the government's.

#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:44 PM

As I said before.
I agree that after a vote by the general populas or their elected  officals  that any changes to a system of governemnt  is at least as fair as it can be made today.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:45 PM

And denial ain't just a river in Africa.

IMHO (and again this is my opinion) you can't be opposed to gay marriages unless you've got some kind of problem with gays.

Period.

Lil
Posted Image

#28 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:47 PM

Josh, on Jun 10 2003, 09:41 PM, said:

By disallowing gay marriages, the government is only giving the impression to gay couples everywhere that they are disapproved of on an official level
The fix, then, is to alter the other imperfections to the "marriage system" that have been brought up here, to bring marriage back to its true purpose of establishing a family to raise kids in, thus making it obvious to everyone that it's not about approval or disapproval or love, but simply society's way of facilitating the perpatuation of society's future.

#29 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:49 PM

Quote

Posted on Jun 11 2003, 03:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 10 2003, 09:41 PM)
By disallowing gay marriages, the government is only giving the impression to gay couples everywhere that they are disapproved of on an official level 

The fix, then, is to alter the other imperfections to the "marriage system" that have been brought up here, to bring marriage back to its true purpose of establishing a family to raise kids in, thus making it obvious to everyone that it's not about approval or disapproval or love, but simply society's way of facilitating the perpatuation of society's future.

But in my, and I'm sure many, many others, marriage IS about love.  Kids can come out of marriages, but that's not necassarily their purpose
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#30 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:49 PM

^

Sorry, but I do not believe that the sole purpose of marriage is to raise kids. It's about love, pure and simple. Which is why it should be allowed for all genders and sexualities.
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#31 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:51 PM

Delvo, on Jun 10 2003, 08:51 PM, said:

Josh, on Jun 10 2003, 09:41 PM, said:

By disallowing gay marriages, the government is only giving the impression to gay couples everywhere that they are disapproved of on an official level
The fix, then, is to alter the other imperfections to the "marriage system" that have been brought up here, to bring marriage back to its true purpose of establishing a family to raise kids in, thus making it obvious to everyone that it's not about approval or disapproval or love, but simply society's way of facilitating the perpatuation of society's future.
Why should straight people have all the fun coping with the "imperfections" in the system? :p :p
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

#32 Alex

Alex

    I'm gay, yay.

  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:56 PM

Rhea, on Jun 11 2003, 03:55 AM, said:

Why should straight people have all the fun coping with the "imperfections" in the system? :p :p
Yeah! That's not fair! What about me? :(
Click here to know more about me. There's even picture of me there! Wow.

#33 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 02:59 PM

Nikcara, on Jun 10 2003, 09:44 PM, said:

But why does marriage have to be about children anyway?
Because that's just what it is. Other relationships are fine, but they're not THAT one. Just don't call it what it isn't, just like you wouldn't call business partners a married couple, or call friends siblings, or call artistic rivals a pet and its owner. Each relationship is its own thing.

Quote

love...  If someone wants to declare it to all the world, government and otherwise, what should stop them?... Or should only people who plan on having kids have the privilage of declaring themselves bound together?
Anyone can declare himself/herself/themselves whatever they want. The issue here is whether government has any legitimate reason to listen, and then treat them differently because of that delcaration. And there is only one legitimate, non-intrusive justification for that to happen.

Quote

Then what happens if one partner wants to leave?  Are they considered to be breaking a contract?
Yes, but that's nothing new. That's already what leaving a marriage is.

Quote

Does a wife only get her husband's insurance (or the other way around) after the first kid is had? And if there is no government saying someone is married or isn't, how are insurance companies to know before a kid is had?
I can think of several ways I'd answer this from the company's perspective, but the key phrase there is "from the company's perspective". The insurance companies are free to set whatever policies they see fit. Trying to keep insurance or any other industry acting like it does now is not an issue around which government policy can legitimately revolve.

#34 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:00 PM

Delvo-- How would you feel about a union that wasn't called marriage but gave all the same rights and privelage to the two parties involved?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#35 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:02 PM

one more question then:

Quote

my accepting homosexual couples with children as families would depend exclusively on my being convinced that this is a sanction-worthy way for the children to be raised

Why WOULDN'T gays with kids be 'sanction-worthy'?
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#36 Alex

Alex

    I'm gay, yay.

  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:03 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 04:04 AM, said:

Delvo-- How would you feel about a union that wasn't called marriage but gave all the same rights and privelage to the two parties involved?
I hope you don't mean something like a civil registration, like they have in the UK.
Click here to know more about me. There's even picture of me there! Wow.

#37 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:05 PM

Alex, on Jun 10 2003, 09:07 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 04:04 AM, said:

Delvo-- How would you feel about a union that wasn't called marriage but gave all the same rights and privelage to the two parties involved?
I hope you don't mean something like a civil registration, like they have in the UK.
I'm afraid I'm not terribly familar with civil registration in the UK.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#38 Alex

Alex

    I'm gay, yay.

  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:08 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 04:09 AM, said:

Alex, on Jun 10 2003, 09:07 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 04:04 AM, said:

Delvo-- How would you feel about a union that wasn't called marriage but gave all the same rights and privelage to the two parties involved?
I hope you don't mean something like a civil registration, like they have in the UK.
I'm afraid I'm not terribly familar with civil registration in the UK.
Well, I can't really go into details, but it's something like being registered as a couple, but no marriage things going on or anything. I don't know...
Click here to know more about me. There's even picture of me there! Wow.

#39 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:10 PM

Rhea, on Jun 10 2003, 09:10 PM, said:

Delvo, it is entirely possible to state an opinion without attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you. You might try it some time.
False accusation... and somewhat hypocritical in this case, since it basicly is joining USL in her attacks on me in this thread... which began before I even was in it, since I am a member of a category (those who disagree with her on this issue) that she was already taking prejudicial potshots at the instant she finished her first message in here by claiming we think and feel things that we obviously don't.

All I did was call her on it. If she thinks that's an attack, then she's denying that her own behavior is what it is. One shouldn't do something for which a simple honest description strikes one as an attack; it means that one doesn't even really approve of one's OWN behavior, in a way...

#40 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 11 June 2003 - 03:11 PM

I'm with Josh, Lil, Rhea, and anyone else who agrees with them on this.

As for the article:  :cool: :D

Edit: Yay! It's also my 1000th post. :D

Edited by The Sisko, 11 June 2003 - 03:13 PM.

"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Same sex marriage, Toronto, Canada

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users