It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will The Same-Sex Marriage Question Ever Go Away?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
During the election campaign, the Conservative Party made a promise to revisit same-sex marriage. It started off as a commitment to reopen the debate, but softened slightly to become a free vote on whether or not the debate should be reopened. It hasn't been brought up in Parliament yet (to my knowledge), but it has to be coming soon.

The Bloc and the NDP have both stated that on this issue MP's will follow the party line and vote against revisiting it. The Liberals haven't said anything yet, but they're a complete mess at the moment and nobody actually expects them to know what they're doing. Same-sex marriage is the least of their concerns but chances are they'll vote against it on party lines just because the Conservatives promised it. Even if they don't take this position as a party, I can't imagine a full third of them would vote to in favour of this. Any vote called on this issue is doomed before the vote is even held.

Which leads us right back to where we started. A free vote that's not free, leaving the whole thing open for yet another round of election promises.

When will it end? Or will it?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Duzey]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
It is complex and as such, it shall never go away as long as we have government interfering in the private lives of citizens. As long as they keep writing laws granting benefits to married couples, they are offending some other party. Natually, the other party, whether single or homosexual are going to complain about the lack of benefits. The opposite reaction which goverments are now attempting is re-writing the laws to make them more fair and undo the damage, however just as soon as they do change laws and make it more fair, the other party will now be very offended. So the debate will go on - back and forth.

The solution is to take the goverenment out of our personal lives - to remove the laws and all priviliages given to married couples. Goverments need not be involved with matters of love and marriage - very personal matters. In this situation, there is no need to have laws in the first place and the people cannot complain about unfairness now can they? For example, normally a Minister or a Priest has the right to decide if they wish to support a marriage or not, as they are entitled to say no they cannot support something they think violates their vows. But on the other hand, a problem is now being presented because Gay people are still having less privilages (less tax breaks) than married couples and if they cannot get maried, then how can they save money? So Gay people could essentially continue to demand their fair share and will demand that churches "marry them" which may very much offend the majority of those in the church including the Ministers etc.

But this not the fault of the Religious institution but rather the fault of the government granting privilages to married couples. Now suppose all goverments of the world decided to grant benefits to gay couple (as they do to married couples) what do you think might happen next? More lawsuits from those people who are single and think that gay couples may just be trying to save some money? Many will be complaining that they think it's unfair.

So the answer starts and ends with the government itself and no matter what they decide, it changes nothing unless they leave themselves out completely.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Depends people here in the US used to ask the same question about slavery then segregation. Now the society recognizes the right of equality regarding race and gender under the law. And the vast majority of society now agrees with that. The debate over sexual-orientation is just another hurdle on the way to a more enlightened society.

The fact that we are debating the issue is a victory in its self. Because 40-50yrs ago this topic being publicly debated would have been not only unheard of but unthinkable. Now I see gay/lesbian couples walk around freely and openly practically everyday. It may take another decade or two but the writing is on the wall same sex marriage or union is almost a certainty whoever likes it or not.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
There has never been a question that has gone away from everyone’s minds. Hell some people still think slavery should be reintroduced!!
But regarding the same sex marriage debate I think a referendum is the ultimate way to dampen down these sort of issues.

Personally I believe there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage providing they don't get any of the benefits for incentivising-helping deal with child birth. Child production is good thing to encourage because apart from being good for the economy it is essential for the demographics of a country. You can always invite foreigners in to boast the size of your population and the great thing is that you don't have to bring most of them up from scratch.
But a society which is full of different nationalities has a strong tendency to become socially polarised; and eventually creating explosive political problems.

You see this in the U.K. Nearly every area where our leading racist party (the BNP) has a strong footing also has a far higher than average immigrant population. It's a fact that the areas with the least immigrants are the most politically correct in their outlook. Paradoxically it’s also true they can also be the most hostile. But even so the only exception to the general rule that the more immigrants you have the higher the social tension is; are the rich central parts of the cities. And this is probably only because most of the foreigners there are all middle class plus employers or employees.

Homosexuals should (and do) rightfully argue that whilst marriage benefits intended to encourage child production are a reasonable thing; it is perfectly possible for a childless heterosexual couple to enjoy many of these benefits. There are only two solutions to this problem; ether you give these benefits to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, or you make these benefits more efficient by linking them directly with directly with children.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I dont like it.
I dont like having it rammed down my throat constantly.
Why do gay people need parades? To affirm to themselves that its "ok"?
Why do they need their own places to hang out?
Why do they need rainbows on their cars?

Should i put a big sticker like "certified muff divah" on my GTR? Hell no.

It starts with one and then they all start crying bloody murder. Then the socialist welfare district that the world knows as "canada" (ontario and quebec) give in to anyone screaming loud enough.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
During the election campaign, the Conservative Party made a promise to revisit same-sex marriage. It started off as a commitment to reopen the debate, but softened slightly to become a free vote on whether or not the debate should be reopened. It hasn't been brought up in Parliament yet (to my knowledge), but it has to be coming soon.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Duzey]


My understanding is this:

Canada's charter of rights discusses equality between female and male sexes but does not mention sexual orientation at all.

Without that promise in writing the only way laws and precident can be crafted to give gays what they want is via lies and deceptions in parliament.

The charter has to be changed in order to make such social issues the law of the land but this is not easy to do. It would be similar to changing the decleration of independence in the US for example.

Many Canadians do not want marriage laws changed nor is there need to change everything to make at most 5% of the population happy at the expense of everyone else. Especially since at best only a fraction of gays will marry anyways and most of those marriages do not hold promise of surviving beyond a few years.

This publicity stunt is best managed as a CIVIL UNION if gays want to save face.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
"I dont like it.
I dont like having it rammed down my throat constantly.
Why do gay people need parades? To affirm to themselves that its "ok"?
Why do they need their own places to hang out?
Why do they need rainbows on their cars?

Should i put a big sticker like "certified muff divah" on my GTR? Hell no.

It starts with one and then they all start crying bloody murder. Then the socialist welfare district that the world knows as "canada" (ontario and quebec) give in to anyone screaming loud enough."

ROFLMAO! Classic ......Donk, I love that reply




top topics



 
1

log in

join