How would you vote on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[cinch]

It really doesn't matter what the internet vote says, nor does it really matter what the majority of the Canadian people say, period. It's a Charter issue; a matter of freedom, and as such, was entirely under the jursidiction of the courts.

It's good to see that it got through the legislature, though, even if the margin was far, far too narrow for a supposedly progressive country.

Ben:

Even after Mr. Chretien called for his party to vote along party lines. Let's see the actual legislation pass now.

When exactly did Mr. Chretien call for party discipline? Seems kinda weird, considering he let them have a free vote...

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


First, Why 'to the exclusion of all others?' If we approve of homosexual marriages, why not polygamy?

Secondly, Not helpful to the churches who oppose gay marriage. They will likely have tax exemptions cut off if they refuse to marry a couple. We see this in the Marc Hall case, and I see further precedents down the line.

Thirdly, we have a low birthrate. This will drop the birthrate further.

Fourth, immigration from other countries of people who cannot get married in their home countries, coming to Canada just to get married.

Fifth, what's going to happen with families? An affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman would finally show that a traditional family is something to be valued.

1. Approve polygamy. As long as it's consensual, I say go for it.

2. I'd like to see cold, hard evidence that this is what's going to happen, please.

3. That is scientificially unsound reasoning, there.

4. That makes no sense. Anyone with enough money to MOVE here (not just visit) just to get married is not likely to be a drain on the economy. Are all gay people extremely poor all of a sudden?

5. That's a harshly biased opinion, and really has no place within a discussion of Chartered rights & freedoms.

Tradition: Buck it!

[Ben Kenobi]

First question, and why this is a victory:

Mr. Chretien announced yesterday that he would impose party discipline. With 54, more than 1/3 ignoring his request, what does this mean for the Federal Liberals?


http://www.canada.com/national/featu...D-DCC8ED4C5242

OTTAWA - On the eve of a vote on gay marriage, Prime Minister Jean Chretien warned reluctant Liberals a failure to side with the government effectively means they will be authorizing Parliament to overrule the Charter of Rights.


Amid intense lobbying Monday on both sides of the issue, the federal cabinet agreed to a unified front against a Canadian Alliance motion that "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

The non-binding vote, which takes place in the House of Commons today after a summer of heated debate off Parliament Hill, is an early test of a divisive government bill that would make Canada only the third country in the world to allow gays and lesbians to legally wed.

MPs will be permitted to vote with their conscience on the motion instead of along party lines and the results are expected to be close.

Chretien, who is accused of putting his government in a potentially embarrassing situation by allowing a free vote that could fail, predicted Liberals will reject the motion because it sanctions Parliament's use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

The motion asserts Parliament "take all necessary steps" to preserve the definition of marriage.

The notwithstanding clause, which has never been used in the House of Commons, allows politicians to overrule court decisions on the Charter of Rights.

"It is something that we, promoters of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, never use, the notwithstanding clause," Chretien said after meeting with his cabinet.

The clause is unpopular in Liberal circles because it is viewed as a rejection of the charter, which the party brought in 21 years ago when Chretien was justice minister.

Chretien, however, voted in favour of the exact motion four years ago when it was introduced by the Alliance, as did most Liberal MPs, including Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. The 1999 vote against gay marriage passed easily by a margin of 216-55. Some MPs say they will not heed Chretien's warning to switch their votes.

"Nothing has happened to make me change my mind," said Liberal backbencher Julian Reed, of the southern Ontario constituency of Halton.

Reed said he is voting based on "my own personal conviction," but he noted he has received 500 letters from constituents against gay marriage, and only five letters in support.

Alliance House Leader John Reynolds said he's perplexed about why the federal cabinet is warning Liberals against the notwithstanding clause, when the Liberal party widely supported its use in the 1999 motion.

"The vote was very significant in favour of the motion, so I don't know why people would change their mind now." Many Liberals who will oppose the Alliance motion say they have been swayed by the courts in the three provinces -- British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec -- that have struck down the federal ban on gay marriage as a violation of the equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights.

Outside the Commons, there was fierce lobbying on Parliament Hill Monday, with supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage holding duelling news conferences.

Robbie Barnett-Kemper, an 11-year-old Toronto boy whose lesbian parents married in June, presented MPs with a 20,000-name petition supporting gay marriage, compiled by the group Canadians for Equal Marriage.

The 63 Canadian Alliance MPs are all expected to vote for their motion. They will be backed by the majority of 15 Tories. The 14-member NDP and 34 Bloc Quebecois MPs are expected to oppose the motion. Its fate, therefore, hinges on the 170 Liberal MPs.

Liberal caucus chairman Stan Keyes said he expects many Liberals who oppose gay marriage will still reject the "undemocratic and irresponsible" motion because it forces a vote now instead of waiting for the federal bill.

The bill has been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a non-binding legal opinion on whether it passes constitutional muster. It is not expected to be introduced until at least the fall of 2004, after Chretien leaves office.

"The MPs recognize that the Alliance party is playing a game, that the Alliance party is trying to discredit the government of Canada," said Keyes. "They know the legislation is pending, they know it's at the Supreme Court, they know that it's a gut-wrenching issue for Canadians coast to coast."

Chretien had considered holding a vote on his bill this fall in response to pressure from many Liberal MPs, including Keyes.

But Chretien said Monday the Alliance motion will suffice for now. "Some wanted to have an early vote and the Alliance provided us with an early vote," he said.

[David Floyd]

Ben,

Honest question. How much of your opposition to gay marriage rests on the Bible and Christianity?

[notyoueither]

Mr. Chretien announced yesterday that he would impose party discipline. With 54, more than 1/3 ignoring his request, what does this mean for the Federal Liberals?

Quote:

MPs will be permitted to vote with their conscience on the motion instead of along party lines and the results are expected to be close. Chretien, who is accused of putting his government in a potentially embarrassing situation by allowing a free vote that could fail, predicted Liberals will reject the motion because it sanctions Parliament's use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

What?

[Ben Kenobi]

cinch:

It really doesn't matter what the internet vote says, nor does it really matter what the majority of the Canadian people say, period. It's a Charter issue; a matter of freedom, and as such, was entirely under the jursidiction of the courts.

Hardly.

Show me where the charter endorses gay marriage, please.

The legislature has the power to make the laws, hence the courts can only interpret the laws.

1. Approve polygamy. As long as it's consensual, I say go for it.

Not just polygamy, any combination of any number of people, male or female would then qualify as a 'marriage' under your argument. If you take one piece out of the definition of marriage, than why keep the rest?

2. I'd like to see cold, hard evidence that this is what's going to happen, please.

You want charter evidence? Everytime there has been a conflict between section 3 and section 15, section 15 has won out. Religious freedom counts for very little to our supreme court.

3. That is scientificially unsound reasoning, there.

Why?

4. Anyone with enough money to MOVE here (not just visit)

Precisely my point. They come to visit, get married, and then leave. Is this really the intent of this legislation?

5. That's a harshly biased opinion, and really has no place within a discussion of Chartered rights & freedoms.

Tradition: Buck it!

Two points, there is no charter justification for gay marriage, even under equality rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

How much of your opposition to gay marriage rests on the Bible and Christianity?

Some on the bible, the rest on personal experience, what I have seen, and what I have read regarding homosexuality.

It is not a healthy lifestyle; an endorsement here will not help matters.

If it helps, it's not just Christians who oppose gay marriage here in Canada. Jews, muslims, most East Indians do so as well, on the grounds that this is either incredibly offensive, or has no precedence in their culture.

[David Floyd]

Some on the bible

So you don't think there is a free will argument to be made here? Stipulate homosexuality is wrong. The Bible and God still allow for free will - why should the government get in the way of what appears to be a God-given right?

It is not a healthy lifestyle

Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE

However, the fact that something bad might happen, is no reason to continue to deny rights to others.

Tell me why this has to do with rights. Are homosexuals being repressed, discriminated against in Canadian society?

Affirmation of some over the denial of others is not a positive thing, is it?

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

[cinch]

Ben:

Not just polygamy, any combination of any number of people, male or female would then qualify as a 'marriage' under your argument. If you take one piece out of the definition of marriage, than why keep the rest?

Anyone who professes romantic/sexual love for one another, and wishes to be legally married to solidify that relationship should be allowed.

Of course, if someone tries to take advantage of this, and try to have some 43-way marriage or somesuch, just for kicks, then measures would have to be taken, but there will always be extreme cases in every aspect of legislation, so it's really besides the point.

You want charter evidence? Everytime there has been a conflict between section 3 and section 15, section 15 has won out. Religious freedom counts for very little to our supreme court.

Well, you're coming off a little paranoid here. You can't see into the future, and as NYE said, no one would stand for it if churches were FORCED to marry gays.

Why?

Because it makes NO SENSE. Just look at what Asher & NYE posted. Gays can now get married. Heterosexuals can still love as often and as freely as before. No restrictions are being placed on heterosexuality. Heck, marriage may even motivate more gays to adopt.

Why do you want orphans to suffer?

(See how easy it is to make insane extrapolations???)

Precisely my point. They come to visit, get married, and then leave. Is this really the intent of this legislation?

Tourism = $$$.

[David Floyd]

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

This is sorta like "separate but equal", isn't it? Under this doctrine, blacks and whites had separate schools, mandated by law, that were supposedly equal. Sounds nice until you get to the reality.

Same thing here. Everyone knows civil unions aren't the same as a marriage - they are simply a way of denying gays the right to raise a family together and enjoy the same legal status of a heterosexual couple.

[notyoueither]

It is not a healthy lifestyle

Exactly what about it is unhealthy?

Do gays have a shorter lifespan on average?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bible and God still allow for free will - why should the government get in the way of what appears to be a God-given right?

DFloyd:

Is there a right to marry? The government has no right to change the definition of marriage, since marriage does not fall under their jurisdiction.

However, the courts have overstepped their mandate, hence the need for correction.

Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?

Neither do we affirm promiscuity.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
NYE

Tell me why this has to do with rights. Are homosexuals being repressed, discriminated against in Canadian society?

Again, what are we denying from gay people, since they can have civil unions?

Well yes, as a matter of fact. Gays, and those small churches that want to marry them, are having their rights to enjoy the same rights as 'normal' people suppressed.

As for what we deny gay people, since they would still have civil unions... why don't we go Soviet, and ban the sacrament of marriage for everyone? Would you feel denied if that were the case?

[David Floyd]

Is there a right to marry?

Legally speaking, marriage is simply a contract, so yes, you have a right to contract freely with other adults.

The government has no right to change the definition of marriage, since marriage does not fall under their jurisdiction.

Of course not. Given that marriage is simply a contract as far as the government is concerned, then the parties to the contract set the definitions that are outside the purview of the government (that is, they can't redefine "murder", because murder is a crime within the government's purview).

Neither do we affirm promiscuity.

But you allow it.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Neither is promiscuous heterosexual sex with questionable partners - wanna make THAT illegal too?"

The issue of gay marriage is that goes beyond toleration of homosexual behavior to an endorsement thereof that. Many people don't want the government doing that.

Personally, I think the government should back out of the marriage realm. On one hand, it is not good to discriminate against a segment of the population. On the other, it should not take sides in a heated moral debate by affirming(or de-affirming) this type of behavior; which it would be doing were it to legalize gay marriage. I think the best soution is to get the government out of the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Marc Hall went to a publically funded school, this is entirely different and I'm sure you're bright enough to know it.

Then tell me the last time the courts ruled in favour of religious freedoms over Equality rights.

People are going to stop having heterosexual sex because they can legally marry a man?

It won't increase the birthrate, that's for sure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Personally, I think the government should back out of the marriage realm. On one hand, it is not good to discriminate against a segment of the population. On the other, it should not take sides in a heated moral debate by affirming(or de-affirming) this type of behavior; which it would be doing were it to legalize gay marriage. I think the best soution is to get the government out of the question.

Amen. This should be between two people, their spritual guide, and their Maker.

The day is long past when governments should be playing a hand in what goes on in front of an altar.

Let people who are not religious register their unions with the state for state purposes, and let the religious do the same and then follow through with vows, no matter who they may be.

[David Floyd]

Shi,

The issue of gay marriage is that goes beyond toleration of homosexual behavior to an endorsement thereof that. Many people don't want the government doing that.

The government is simply affirming the right of two people to contract freely. What's wrong with that?

which it would be doing were it to legalize gay marriage.

No, it would be affirming the right to contract freely.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

There are a number of sources, to which Boris, asher et al would call 'biased', so I'll try to find one that they will approve of.

In an article for the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra (September 27, 2002) Brian Gallant, Capital Xtra's publisher and editor in chief states:

It shouldn't be too difficult to convince you that gay men face greater health risks than our heterosexual counterparts. And if you're a sexually active gay man, there are health risks in our culture or subculture that healthcare providers simply don't understand, unless you're one of the more fortunate.

Mr. Gallant then proceeds to list the health problems resulting from the homosexual lifestyle. These problems include:

Eating disorders, such as bulimia or anorexia, resulting from body image problems which are more common among gay men than among their straight peers.
Alcohol abuse and dependency, which is higher than among straight men.
Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching 50% in some studies.
Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than people in the general population.
Gay men use chemical substances at a higher rate than the general population. These range from amyl nitrate (poppers), to marijuana, ecstasy and amphetamines.
There is an increased risk of HIV infection.
An article included in the March 2003 issue of the homosexual magazine, TO BE, by Ouri M. refers to a 2001 survey called "The Wellness Project," initiated by Pink Triangle Services in Ottawa, which found that the number one health concern for homosexuals is depression. The author blames this health problem on the loneliness caused by the gay culture. He states:

It is my opinion that many gay men are extremely lonely, and feel very isolated. Our gay culture has not celebrated the virtues of long-term relationships, love, faithfulness, and monogamy. The gay culture celebrates and worships youth, physical beauty, and sex. Being young and gay is fun, going out to clubs and cruising is adventurous and exciting. However as the years pass us by, and we do not settle down that adventure becomes less and less fun in my opinion. One begins to feel lonely, and frustrated, and in many cases seeks out many sexual partners to fill the void inside. Drugs are also often used to cover up the pain of ones [sic] loneliness, or reality.

… I believe we must change our focus and shift our culture from the sex, drugs, and physical we so dearly cherish. …

… We must help eradicate the loneliness and sadness many older gay men feel. There is a trap that may gay men fall into as they age, realising they are longer young and attractive and can't attract that hot guy anymore, they no longer want to go out to bars, then what?

[Asher]

How is the gay lifestyle unhealthy?

More gay men go to the gym regularly on average than your straight man, everyone knows that. They religiously keep fit in general.

I think the point here is the people who oppose gay marriage do so because they "disagree" with the "gay lifestyle". Hey, that's fine. I disagree with their rotten authoritarian arrogance, but you don't see me preventing them from getting married and spreading their intolerant beliefs to their kids.

[Asher]

Ben: What a great article!

It is my opinion that many gay men are extremely lonely, and feel very isolated. Our gay culture has not celebrated the virtues of long-term relationships, love, faithfulness, and monogamy.

So by banning marriage for gays, are you not making this worse?

Most of the article is complete shite, though. It's the straight guys I know that don't keep fit and wash their hands after the washroom.

It is also a blatant generalization fueled by stereotypes.

It may shock you to know that I am not only monogamous and healthy, but celebrate the virtues of long-term relationships, love, faithfulness, and monogamy. But most important, I'm fit!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

First, Why 'to the exclusion of all others?' If we approve of homosexual marriages, why not polygamy?

I hate it when people use slippery slope arguments, don't you??

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, Not helpful to the churches who oppose gay marriage. They will likely have tax exemptions cut off if they refuse to marry a couple. We see this in the Marc Hall case, and I see further precedents down the line.

Never thought of this argument . . .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thirdly, we have a low birthrate. This will drop the birthrate further.

Um -- I got news for you. Gays do not decide to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, based on whether or not they will have legally recognized unions with someone of the same gender.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fourth, immigration from other countries of people who cannot get married in their home countries, coming to Canada just to get married.

There wouldn't be a point in this, since other countries cannot be legally compelled to recognize unions administered in another country. However, those countries might feel diplomatic pressure to change their own laws.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fifth, what's going to happen with families? An affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman would finally show that a traditional family is something to be valued.

I got news for ya -- gays value family just as heterosexuals value family -- just not in the homophobic, narrow sense.
To deny this, is to deny that gays have the same universal humanistic traits that heterosexuals have.

[notyoueither]

Wow. So being gay means craving sex and acceptance beyond what one would if they were straight?

I don't buy it.

Gay people cannot be monogamous, and committed? I think treating all by that rule would be as vile as treating all of any group according to any stereotype.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

WRT to your earlier question:

http://www.cprmd.org/Myths/Myth_Fact_003.htm

In the early 1960s, Berger attempted to draw a sampling of elderly homosexuals, but had to begin his scale at 40 years and only 34 of 112 were over the age of 59.

From 1969 through 1970, the Kinsey Institute surveyed homosexuals in San Francisco. Although they recruited respondents in eight different catagories, only 23% of male homosexuals and only 18% of lesbians were over the age of 45, despite the fact that the investigators tried for 25% from this age group. Their initial decision to draw only a quarter of their sampling from homosexuals over 45 indicates they already knew the problem existed, and they ended up omitting figures on age distribution from their report.

In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals reported 0.2% of lesbians and 0.8% of homosexual males were age 65 or older.

The Spada Report: The Newest Survey of Gay Male Sexuality, in 1978, reported the median age was 30, with only 2.5% over age 65. J. Spada was openly homosexual and polled 1,022 male homosexuals by mail.

An openly lesbian M. Mendola, in 1979, polled 405 homosexuals by mail. The median age of those polled was 34, and only 10% were 50 or over. Source: The Mendola Report: A New Look at Gay Couples.

[Asher]

I think the silliness of that article speaks for itself, Ben...

I wonder why lots of 70 year olds in the 70s didn't admit to being gay. Thinking hard now. hmm!

Not to mention the source of that...

The Natural Family

The ideal natural family is one man and one woman brought together by marriage, who enjoy a monogamous relationship, and with Gods' blessing are given children to raise and love.

Our Three Areas of Concentration


Working with and saving the natural family from divorce, separation and outside interference.


Defeating the homosexual agenda, because it is the biggest threat to the natural family.


Encouraging and developing Abstinence Education and programs!
Stop Sexual Anarchy NOW!!!
"Breathing New Life Back into
the Natural Family"

[MrFun]

God damn it -- I spent two minutes creating my last post.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
But most important, I'm fit!

How fit is Asher?

[MrFun]

Ben -- I'm interested to hear your replies to my post.

[David Floyd]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the state has some compelling interest in telling two individuals the can't freely enter into marriage contracts, but at the same time does not have the right to redefine the word "marriage". Doesn't make much sense, huh?

[Asher]

That site has some great other "myths" too, Ben!

Myth #8 - Homosexuals are "born that way"
Myth #11 - AIDS is not a homosexual disease in America
Myth #13 - Homosexuality should be taught in schools ( )
Myth #15 - Homosexuals deserve protection from discrimination
Myth #17 - Homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation