Homosexual marriage

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

True. However, there are general trends of similarity between almost all men, and different trends of similarity between almost all women.

Just like there are biological and cultural trends of similarity between almost all Asians for instance. However we allow inter-racial marriages to take place and we don't apply different marriage laws here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Men and women are biologically different from one another, in brains as well as bodies. I see evidence for this all the time in my family and college. Most people agree that the differences between men and women are not merely society differences but also gender and biology differences.

Yet we give men and woman the same rights.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Where on earth did you get that idea? I COMPLETELY do not follow your reasoning . Everywhere you look in biology, you can see that differences=strength!

I was being very tongue-in-cheek there, sorry, I should have been more clear.

I completely agree that diversity equals strength. So why not have the greater diversity of gay and straight people being able to marry?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's quite possible, that said, that our society might be better off in some ways if there were a few more discriminatory laws between men and women, in certain areas where biological differences have an extreme effect.

Who would decide these "discriminatory laws"? And how would you fairly implement them without an instant law suit? Personally Im opposed to "discriminatory laws between men and women" as a rule. I think it sets a bad precedent and frankly its unecessary. Women have already been discriminated against in the past theres no need to continue that tradition. If there are physical occupations (you mention the SEALS) that women want to enter we shouldnt make laws to ban them from them we should simply be fair in our approach. Any female who can succesfully pass the rigurous training qualifications it takes to engage in such an occupation should be considered qualifed as far as Im concerned. Needless to say a lot less females will be able to do this then males but those that DO should be given the chance. Barring them all as a rule is a bad idea.

This in turn relates to the concept of gay marriage in that we shouldnt be making or KEEPING any discriminatory laws for gays either.

[Rían]

(general question) - aren't there different entrance/qualification standards (physically) in the military for men and women?

[Count Comfect]

I think so, but they have to pass the same basic training regardless.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(general question) - aren't there different entrance/qualification standards (physically) in the military for men and women?

Those aren't laws though, they are rules the military made based on the different biology of men and women.

For fire fighters in BC, the physical test you have to pass is the same for everyone.

Lief (or anyone who cares to field this one), what law/s would you enact that would be different for men and women?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief (or anyone who cares to field this one), what law/s would you enact that would be different for men and women?

men should have the inalienable right to occassionally leave the seat up and not get yelled at

[Insidious Rex]

Careful... the women will retaliate by petitioning to have 80% of all bathrooms be for females.

[Rían]

Now THAT is VERY reasonable!

[The Gaffer]

Well, if you've ever been to a festival and seen the queues to the bogs I think there is an argument to be made there. Let's face it, us blokes would have a slash in our boots if there was no-one looking.

[Nurvingiel]

I actually understood all that! That's hilarious Gaffer. (I know someone who actually did do that, in front of people (who mostly looked away), in a can. He had significant to drink. But never mind that.)


This post is in response to Inked's comments in the GLB thread (here):

Originally Posted by inked

These girls wanted to so badly they had to sue the KoC for injury for refusal to rent the hall!!!! OH CANADA!

http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/...-columbus.html

They wanted what so badly?

I heard about this story. From what I understand, the two women wanted to rent a hall from the Knights of Columbus for their wedding. All was in order until the KoC found out they were gay and getting married in their hall, which they were not cool with. So they said they couldn't rent the hall, somewhat at the last minute, and gave them their deposit back.

The problem here is not hurt feelings IMO, but the fact that KoC jammed out of a contract at the last minute for a non-essential reason, possibly threatening the wedding plans.

I think religious beliefs are essential to this organisation (and there's nothing wrong with that), but they are not essential for business. If the KoC found out the two women wanted to rent the hall to do something outside of KoC's insurance, for example, that would have been another matter entirely.

The KoC would have been wiser to put in their hall rental agreement that they do not rent the hall for gay marriages, practicing idolatry, and whatever else they wouldn't rent the hall for due to religious reasons. Being upfront would be far superior than jerking people around.

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, Nurv, is that Canadian policy now - since it isn't law- to get 1000 $(Canadian) for injured feelings? I could get a load off entmoot if my skin wasn't so thick!

edit: then I found these less radical comments:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003054.html

I think these things are determined on a case by case basis (though previous cases would be considered). IOW, it isn't a law that you get $1000 if someone cancels your hall rental because you're gay.

You, however, get $1000 Moot dollars in compensation for getting slapped with a cold, slimy trout.

So, this guy isn't being radical? (He's posting a comment to the linked article.)

Originally Posted by Mike

For the life of me I can't understand how come the majority of "normal", healthy, hetrosexual, white Canadians need to bend over backwards to accomodate the fringe groups.

Aw, ickle muffincakes can't be a racist homophobe in public anymore. Aww, what a hardship! [/sarcasm] Here random guy on the internet, have an empty box. It contains no sympathy!

Originally Posted by inked

edit 2: then there's this for jolly old E
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...910542,00.html

I'm assuming that Magnus Linklater is talking about American gay marriage laws in this article [edit: whoops, British law]. He brings up some very interesting points, especially this:

Originally Posted by Magnus Linklater

In [Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss'] lecture to the Bar Council this week, she said that the Government had introduced measures whose effect was to undermine marriage — and there was no doubt which kind of marriage she meant. Married couples were no longer being given tax incentives to stay together, and heterosexuals in common-law relationships had been omitted from the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act. The implication was clear: gay relationships were favoured, while “real� marriage was being downgraded.

Ah, the old "gay marriage undermines traditional marriage" argument. It's tired, boring, and usually not backed up by any useful statements.

This time though, there are useful statements. However, I think that the effect of no more tax incentives and the change to common-law marriage is being highly exaggerated. Inferences are being made based on a dislike of gay marriage rather than actual logic and reasoning.

Firstly, common-law marriage is useless IMO and should be done away with altogether. If I had a male roommate for four years, why would we be suddenly married? Common-law marriage serves no useful purpose and should be scrapped.

Secondly, I don't know why Americans are getting rid of tax incentives in marriage, but this action doesn't undermine marriage, it merely removes the financial benefits. I think tax incentives are beneficial in marriage, because it encourages people to take care of each other. Note that in Canada, tax incentives are only given when one spouse makes significantly more than the other (there's complicated rules about combined income and such). Two wealthy people don't get tax breaks just because they're married.

Besides, how would taking away tax incentives undermine marriage? Is Butler-Sloss actually suggesting that most people get married for money, thus removing the financial benefit of marriage will undermine the institution? Some people do get married for money, but most people in our society marry for love.

Therefore, since most people marry for love, legalizing gay marriage and making it completely equal to straight marriage will only serve to strengthen the institution.

What do people generally mean anyway when they say gay marriage will undermine straight marriage? Undermine how? Undermine what, the numbers of people involved? Values of marriage? If it's values, why is it one group/person's values instead of another group/person's? These things need to be qualified.

I look forward to discussing this. (Especially since I've finished two exams. Go me! )

[Count Comfect]

Actually, Nurv, that's Brit law. Civil Partnerships Act and whatnot.

But the elimination of tax incentives for marriage is a separate policy choice - it is a choice of either A) giving homosexual marriage the same tax incentive or B) eliminating the tax incentive for heterosexuals as well. Doing the latter in no way makes the homosexual marriage "favored" - it levels the playing field by bringing the heterosexual marriage down to the homosexual marriage'sl level, rather than bringing the homosexual marriage up. As for commonlaw marriage, I agree about its declining (to nonexistent) usefulness. Not sure what they mean by "heterosexuals in common-law relationships had been omitted from the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act" except that it appears (reading the text of the act from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040033.htm) that perhaps common-law married people may actually ALSO engage in a civil partnership? It only exempts those "lawfully married" or engaged in a civil partnership. Again, not sure how that would be a bar, since if you're common-law married you'd sort of assume you don't plan to have a civil partnership...

[Nurvingiel]

Oh my bad about the law. But my comments still stand since I wasn't aiming them at Americans. (I should have realized it was British since I quoted a Dame!)

We have common-law marriage in Canada too and I think it's dumb.

I actually don't understand the whole civil union/marriage thing. What is the big fat difference anyway?

I don't really think eliminating the tax incentive is bringing heterosexual marriage down at all, but it was a great benefit that encouraged people to take care of each other. I think, of course, that gay couples should have the same incentive to take care of each other.

I'm not completely sure on the fine points of Canadian marriage laws, but I think gay couples do get the same tax benefits, visitation rights, etc. that married straight couples get. That would be consistent with the Supreme court ruling.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

men should have the inalienable right to occassionally leave the seat up and not get yelled at

That just makes it clear that same-sex couples work much better

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Nurv

I don't really think eliminating the tax incentive is bringing heterosexual marriage down at all

Neither do I in a larger sense: I just meant that usually people think of "equality" as raising up a homosexual relationship to all the legal benefits of a hetero one, and here it is the hetero one losing a benefit (not necessarily a necessary one, but certainly a benefit) to make the playing field leveler.

[Nurvingiel]

Oh yeah I get what you're saying now.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Aw, ickle muffincakes can't be a racist homophobe in public anymore. Aww, what a hardship! [/sarcasm] Here random guy on the internet, have an empty box. It contains no sympathy!

LOL! Nice one, Nurv.

As CC said, the tax thing is an entirely unrelated issue.

I too look forward to hearing how gay marriage undermines marriage in general.

[inked]

Hey-ho, hey-ho, it's a plurality for ...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...pqobc.asp?pg=1

Told ya this would happen! Is it a homosexual marriage, a bisexual marriage, a menage a trois legalized, a shack-up with legal protections, or what?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Told ya this would happen! Is it a homosexual marriage, a bisexual marriage, a menage a trois legalized, a shack-up with legal protections, or what?

Nope. Seems to be a "same-sex cohabitation contract" according to Dutch law. So whats your problem? And what has this got to do with gay marriage? They didnt get married legally. Im thinking same-sex cohabitation has been going on for years... So whats with the 'told you so!' nonsense?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So whats with the 'told you so!' nonsense?

dramatic license