Board logo

Bigotted rant of a Canadian regarding American issues
mr_mysterious2 - 2-22-2004 at 08:11 PM

It seems the almighty Mods closed the same sex marriage debate before I had a chance to chime in.

I found Kyle's "bigotted Canadian" comment rather Ironic as it was a Canadian decision that was cited in order to justify the Mass. Court's ruling in favour of same sex marriage.

Yeah, Canadian opinion is on the cutting edge, and now that you Americans are starting to follow our lead, the world may start to soften its image of you as a cretinous horde of bigotted neanderthals. (I think that's what you call trolling:-)

Anyways, Krydor, you may have chosen to draw a distinction based on the type of sex that gay couples have, but more important than your opinion, is that of the courts. So, from that Halpern decision, in the words of the Court of Appeal for Ontario...

quote:
[A] law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples. While it is true that, due to biological realities, only opposite-sex couples can "naturally" procreate, same-sex couples can choose to have children by other means, such as adoption, surrogacy and donor insemination. An increasing percentage of children are being conceived and raised by same-sex couples…

Importantly, no one… is suggesting that procreation and childrearing are the only purposes of marriage, or the only reasons why couples choose to marry. Intimacy, companionship, societal recognition, economic benefits, the blending of two families, to name a few, are other reasons that couples choose to marry. …[S]ame-sex couples are capable of forming "long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships". Denying same-sex couples the right to marry perpetuates the contrary view, namely, that same-sex couples are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships, and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships.

Accordingly, in our view, the common law requirement that marriage be between persons of the opposite sex does not accord with the needs, capacities and circumstances of same-sex couples. This factor weighs in favour of a finding of discrimination.


There's much more to be said from that ruling, and the various rulings that are confirming this one across Canada, but I think that quote sums it up nicely.


Krydor - 2-22-2004 at 10:07 PM

It's law by judicial fiat. The problem I have with it is that the government refused to challenge the ruling. That's not how pressing issues should be solved.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-23-2004 at 05:00 AM

So you think the Government should have wasted the tax payers money on an appeal that would have been inevitably dismissed by the Supreme Court?


Krydor - 2-23-2004 at 07:22 PM

That's not really the point, is it? They took David Millgard to the Supreme Court for a verdict that they would eventually vacate because he was not guilty. Milgard is finally getting his much deserved money. They took tobacco companies to the supreme court, even though the ban on tobacco advertising was blatantly unconstitutional.

This is an issue that should be decided at the polls or in the house of commons. It should not be decided by a lower court judge in Ontario.

Don't get me started on government waste. Doing what we hired them to do isn't waste. A billion dollars to the gun registry is a waste. A billion dollars missing from CIDC is a waste. A hundred million to Liberal cronies is a waste. Royal comissions that explain to the great unwashed that yes, Health care (or whatever governtment program) is underfunded are a waste. 8 billion dollars to special interests are a waste.

Unwillingness to defend a law that was approved by both sides of the house isn't a waste, it's borderline treason.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-23-2004 at 08:17 PM

Approved by both sides of the house or not, the law was clearly unconstitutional. The tobacco advertising ban wasn't blatantly unconstitutional in that there was a legitimate section 1 argument to be addressed, but in the case of the Halpern decision, all the jurisprudence and all the legal analysis pointed in the same direction, there was no way this ruling would have been overturned in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the government took the only sensible course of action by preparing a reference to ensure that all future legislation concerning the matter will conform to constitutional requirements.

Some people like to refer to the striking down of legislation by the courts as "judicial activism". In a case as clear cut as Halpern, I think its much more reasonably referred to as upholding the rule of law.


Krydor - 2-23-2004 at 10:02 PM

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. The government has passed unconstitutional laws in the past that have been overturned only by going to the supreme court (our McCain/Feingold, fer instance). It's how the system is supposed to work.

The Charter!

I see plenty of grounds to take this to the level of the Supreme Court.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-24-2004 at 12:06 AM

OK, you could start by naming one.


Krydor - 2-24-2004 at 12:21 AM

Well, I don't see a sexual preference clause.

quote:


15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.




That's your charter challenge right there.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-24-2004 at 12:41 AM

Sorry Krydor, sexual orientation was recognised as an analogous ground of discrimination in Vriend v Alberta in 1998. As a result, it now sees equal status as a prohibited ground of discrimination along with the grounds that are listed in 15(1). Notice that the enumerated grounds are only a list of possible types of discrimination in order to guide the interpretation of the important part of the section, the part which states "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".


Krydor - 2-24-2004 at 06:03 PM

That's granted by the fact that women get to marry men and men get to marry women. That's equal protection...


OO Kyle - 2-24-2004 at 07:33 PM

...just as equal as the fact that both white men and white women were entitled to the front of the bus back in the days of Rosa Parks.


Krydor - 2-24-2004 at 07:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OO Kyle
...just as equal as the fact that both white men and white women were entitled to the front of the bus back in the days of Rosa Parks.


Red Herring


OO Kyle - 2-24-2004 at 08:12 PM

Read this carefully:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

What it basically says is that Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too by calling for a "Constitutional Amendment"- something that he knows damn well will never happen. Hey, toss it back on the House and Senate, and when they fail to amend the Constitution, he can at least say he tried.

To change the Constitution, a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate needs to pass the proposed amendment. From there, two-thirds of all state legislatures needs to ratify the amendment. The Demos have already put Bush on notice that they will NOT support an amendment that basically makes bigotry a part of the Constitution. Thus, it will not pass, and Bush knows this. The whole "Constitutional Amendment" thing is a smokescreen.

So, what's Bush really doing? Well, for one thing, he's refusing to endorse bills currently before the House and Sentate that would ban gay marriages! That's right- he's calling for the House and Senat to amend the Constitution, while he himself is refusing to actually touch the issue!

It's an interesting game- On one hand, Bush (and a lot of other politicians) want to cater to the anti-gay coalition- but on the other hand, they don't want to be embarrassed by endorsing laws that they know beyond doubt will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Especially Bush, who's going to have the Patriot Act thrown in his face about ten times a second during the next Election. The last thing the guy wants is another huge embarassment regarding his utter disdain for personal rights.

I find it interesting that NOBODY, not Bush, not Arnold, NOBODY has stepped forward to tstop San Francisco from issuing wedding licenses to gay couples. The reason why should be obvious: They're afraid.

When the High Court inevitably rules that States cannot legally deny equal rights to consenting adults based on sexual preference, anyone that stood on the other side of the issue is going to be politically crucified.

Five years from now, we'll look back on this the same way that people today look back on Segregation.


Krydor - 2-24-2004 at 08:25 PM

Kyle,

I'm not restarting this discussion with you. You managed to get the other thread closed, and I imagine that is your goal here.


Pistol Pez - 2-24-2004 at 08:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by mr_mysterious2
So you think the Government should have wasted the tax payers money on an appeal that would have been inevitably dismissed by the Supreme Court?


Yes. I can think of few better "wastes" of taxpayer money than upholding the rule of law.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-24-2004 at 08:56 PM

quote:
That's granted by the fact that women get to marry men and men get to marry women. That's equal protection...
The question is not one of gender equality, its one of equality between Heterosexual and homosexual couples, a seperate identifier group then the one that you're referring to.

Pez, the appeal would be to overturn a decision that upholds the rule of law, not the other way around.


Krydor - 2-24-2004 at 09:09 PM

How does one identify a homosexual? It isn't gender based, it isn't skin colour based, and apparently (if I read the decision correctly) it isn't sexually based.

The only way (realistically) we can determine who is gay is if we are told by that person that they are gay. The decision asexualizes marriage, in that sexual relations have no impact on what defines marriage. The one thing that differentiates homo and hetero sexual is sex.

Ok, here's something to ponder: men and women are different. The mechanisms for attraction are different. The growth of the relationship is different. The ultimate display of that relationship might therefore be different. Just using "love" as what defines marriage simply won't cut it.


OO Kyle - 2-24-2004 at 09:55 PM

Perhaps the answer is hidden in the question. Perhaps the ruling means that issues like race, gender, and sexuality have no bearing on the application of civil law. Perhaps it means that Marriage, as far as Law is concerned, is a contract, just like any other contract, and the laws that apply to contracts in general also apply to marriage.


mr_mysterious2 - 2-24-2004 at 09:57 PM

You assume that there cannot be an asexual marriage. Should someone who has lost their capacity to have sex from injury be unable to marry? Should a couple who decide to live a celibate lifestyle be unable to marry?

Furthermore, should a couple who choose to only engage in anal or oral sex be unable to marry? The only way we can determine if heterosexual couples are engaging in typical sexual activities is if we are told by that couple that they are.

We have never placed a burden of proof upon couples to justify their marriage on the basis of their sexual lifestyle (well, not in recent history at least). To that extent, marriage can and does exist without any prerequisite sexual lifestyle requirements. Why should the case be any different for homosexual couples?


Krydor - 2-25-2004 at 01:57 AM

Ok, let's just go one step farther. Is "love" the only requirement for marriage, or are there other factors at play? Are arranged marriages fine, or because they don't meet the love requirement, they aren't valid? Does that make Anna Nicole Smith's marriage invalid because she married for money? Does marrying for love invalidate prenuptual contracts?

Now that the notion that marriage isn't about sex is the stand taken, I must provide a counterpoint. Brothers and sisters should be allowed to get married, because we allow others to marry in spite of the possibility of passing on genetic diseases.

There is only one single consession that I have asked for in this debate. That being that the word "marriage" be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. My argument is that marriage describes that state. No one has been able to tell me why that should change.

I've laid out that male/female attraction is, by necessity, different as male brains and female brains function differently. No one has bothered to address this.

I've laid out that the function of sex is children. If it isn't for procreation, then it is simply recreation. There seems to be a disconnect on this very simple matter as well.

The claim has been made that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love. If my first point is correct, and my second point is correct, then it follows that homosexual love is different.

I sure would appreciate if these points would be addressed at some point.


chretienbabacool - 2-25-2004 at 02:33 AM

You still haven't addressed whether you think barren women should be prevented from marrying.


Operation Pajama Pants - 2-25-2004 at 03:01 AM

i'm gonna go krydor style with the point by point quoting.

quote:
Originally posted by Krydor
Ok, let's just go one step farther. Is "love" the only requirement for marriage, or are there other factors at play? Are arranged marriages fine, or because they don't meet the love requirement, they aren't valid? Does that make Anna Nicole Smith's marriage invalid because she married for money? Does marrying for love invalidate prenuptual contracts?


arranged marraiges are shitty, but still valid. marrying for money is skany, but still valid. prenups i dont see how they're are an issue here in any way.

quote:
Now that the notion that marriage isn't about sex is the stand taken, I must provide a counterpoint. Brothers and sisters should be allowed to get married, because we allow others to marry in spite of the possibility of passing on genetic diseases.

this is just a case you taking a ridiculous unreasonable extreme. there is scientific evidence to show that incestual relationships causes genetic problems. once again this has nothing to do with the subject of gays.

quote:
There is only one single consession that I have asked for in this debate. That being that the word "marriage" be reserved for the union of a man and a woman. My argument is that marriage describes that state. No one has been able to tell me why that should change.

all i can say to this is why shouldn't it? for everytime someone's said "it should change just cause" you've said "it shouldn't change just cause". "that's the way it's always been" is not a valid arguement. of course that's the way it's always been. there wouldn't be thought of changing it if it wasn't.

quote:
I've laid out that male/female attraction is, by necessity, different as male brains and female brains function differently. No one has bothered to address this.

well i'm no brain science guy, so i dont know about this. what i will say is perhaps whatever "works different" in the brain that makes you attracted to the opposite sex in in fact "working" like the opposite sex and that is why they are attracted to the same sex.

quote:
I've laid out that the function of sex is children. If it isn't for procreation, then it is simply recreation. There seems to be a disconnect on this very simple matter as well.

so a traditionally married couple, who no longer want anymore children, should at that point stop having sex? cuz at that point, it's just rectreational. you can't honestly believe that. is that it is or gonna be in your marraige? as soon as you and your wife decide you've had enough kids that you will cease to ever have sex with her again?

quote:
The claim has been made that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love. If my first point is correct, and my second point is correct, then it follows that homosexual love is different.


i try to stay away from calling you a bigot because i honestly believe you're not trying to be. but when you constantly say that homosexual love is not the same, and that a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual relationship, then i just can't help it. you obviously feel you're above homosexuals and deserve more rights than them.


OO Kyle - 2-25-2004 at 04:00 AM

Yow. OpPjammies, that was as quixotic as my response to Pez regarding his belief that Iraq flew planes into the WTC.

You could stick "negro" in place of "gay" in every one of Krydor's arguments, and they'd play out exactly the same way. The plain fact is that there's really no reason to defend the concept of equal treatment under law, especially not to Krydor, who's had the concept described to him enough times that he really ought to be able to understand it by now.

It's odd that most of Krydor's examples are so self-evident that you'd think even he would be embarrassed to post them. NOW he's saying that there's no difference between incest and homosexuality. Just out of curiosity, Op, WHY won't you call him a bigot? If he were saying that letting blacks marry whites was the same as incest, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have a problem with the "bigot" moniker.

Hate speech is hate speech, no matter how it's presented. Just to drag Godwin into this: The Pogroms that wiped out the Jewish populations of Poland were based on similar rhetoric. What exactly is the difference between hating someone for their race or religion and hating them for their sexuality?

What bugs me is the undercurrent of dishonesty running through all of Krydor's posts. He's Canadian- yeah, except that all he ever posts about is American politics. He's an Atheist- yet he seems awfully concerned that gay marriage will somehow mystically devalue his marriage, and then informs us that sex for recreation is wrong- a notion I've NEVER heard outside of fundamentalist circles.

Now, I like Atheists. I'm often mistaken for one myself. I like them because they tend to take rational, logical world-views. Thus, I cannot imagine an Atheist that would oppose gay marriage. Seems like a pretty clear case of "live and let live".

There's only one issue here: whether or not basic rights can be denied to homosexuals, merely because they ARE homesexuals. It's no wonder that the people who oppose it want to make it about incest or beastiality or child-marriage- it's because if the came right out and said "I oppose equal rights for homosexuals", they'd sound exactly like what they are: bigots.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by OO Kyle]


Operation Pajama Pants - 2-25-2004 at 04:57 AM

i try to refrain from calling him a bigot cuz i dont think his arguement comes from blind hatred. just blind stupidity. or maybe just short-sightedness.

krydor, you have your beliefs of what marraige means. and that's perfectly fine for your life. but it has nothing to do with how other people want to live their life or what the state should or should not recognize. if you dont believe that men should marry other men, then quite simply, dont marry any dudes. your problem solved.

religions have the right to be against same sex marraige. those are their beliefs and they dont have any bearing on those who dont follow those beliefs and they have nothing to do with any law making bodies. any church has all the right in the world to refuse to marry any couple they dont feel follows their beliefs.

individuals have the right to be against same sex marraige as it pertains to them. and they can practice that right my marrying someone of the opposite sex.

the state can NOT tell anyone that they dont have the right to do something others have the right to do.

if a guy wants to marry another guy, whether it's for love, money, or to aquire a green card, that's their business. both you and the state should stay out of it.

and if a straight guy wants to marry another guy for nefarious reasons, well he's the one who has to walk around saying he's married to a dude. i think that's punishment enough.


ModSquad - 2-25-2004 at 09:44 AM

Everyone has made their positions clear, and no one wants to budge either way. Do we need to keep this discussion going? Will anything other than flames come from this? I totally disagree with Krydor, but do we need to pummel him any more? He doesn't think he's wrong, and two or ten more posts aren't going to change that. Also, him firing back at all of you isn't going to change anything, and will probably only make things worse.

I don't want to close this, because it sprang up because of my closing the other thread. But is there ANY reason to keep it open? Seriously?


mr_mysterious2 - 2-25-2004 at 09:59 AM

Its as current as current events get Mod. If you close this thread, it'll just pop up in another. There's a good chance that this is going to be one of the major issues in the coming election. I think this is going to be one of those cases where we just have to accept that rhetoric is going to be heated, much the way it frequently was during the war in Iraq.


Ultra Magnus - 2-25-2004 at 10:18 AM

Benefits of marriage ~impossible to establish by private contract (cribbed):

quote:
*Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

*Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

*Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

*Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

*Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

*Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

*Receiving public assistance benefits.

*Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

*Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

*Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

*Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.

*Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

*Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

*Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

*Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

*Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

*Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).

*Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

*Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

*Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

*Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


Krydor - 2-25-2004 at 03:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Operation Pajama Pants
i'm gonna go krydor styile with the point by point quoting.



The Krydor Style means that I can't unintentionally miss anything.

quote:




arranged marraiges are shitty, but still valid. marrying for money is skany, but still valid. prenups i dont see how they're are an issue here in any way.



It points to the notion that "love" (undefinable as it is) is not the only thing involved in marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.

quote:

this is just a case you taking a ridiculous unreasonable extreme. there is scientific evidence to show that incestual relationships causes genetic problems. once again this has nothing to do with the subject of gays.



This very thread has already brought up different kinds of issues (Magnus mentioned all kinds of tax benefits). Why can't these benefits be extended to other couples? Is marriage simply based on sex?

quote:

all i can say to this is why shouldn't it? for everytime someone's said "it should change just cause" you've said "it shouldn't change just cause". "that's the way it's always been" is not a valid arguement. of course that's the way it's always been. there wouldn't be thought of changing it if it wasn't.



Ok, so I'm of the mind that in order to change the status quo, there should be a compelling reason to do so. The case isn't mine to make.

quote:

well i'm no brain science guy, so i dont know about this. what i will say is perhaps whatever "works different" in the brain that makes you attracted to the opposite sex in in fact "working" like the opposite sex and that is why they are attracted to the same sex.



That may well be. At least this is an answer that doesn't veer off into the areas that managed to get the other thread shut down.

quote:

so a traditionally married couple, who no longer want anymore children, should at that point stop having sex? cuz at that point, it's just rectreational. you can't honestly believe that. is that it is or gonna be in your marraige? as soon as you and your wife decide you've had enough kids that you will cease to ever have sex with her again?



No, of course not. Now you're just being silly. Roles change within a marriage. From husband and wife, to mother and father, to grandma and grampa.

quote:

i try to stay away from calling you a bigot because i honestly believe you're not trying to be. but when you constantly say that homosexual love is not the same, and that a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual relationship, then i just can't help it. you obviously feel you're above homosexuals and deserve more rights than them.


I love my father. Is that not different than the way I love my wife? I love my children, is that not different than the way I love my best friend? Those are "givens", based on the dynamics of each relationship. However, when I bring up that the dynamics of gay love are different than the dynamics of straight love, I'm branded with all sorts of different epithets.

At no point have I said that homosexual relationships shouldn't be granted the same rights as heterosexual relationships. What I have been saying is that whatever you call that gay relationship, it legally shouldn't be defined as marriage.

I'm not sure if you remember a vehicle called an El Camino, Ford had a similar one called a Ranchero. It wasn't a truck, even though it had a box. It wasn't a car because of the box. It was something different.


Eli - 2-25-2004 at 10:59 PM

It's good to know that you post that way so you don't miss anything. Meanwhile, the poor sap who has to read it is missing a lot trying to wade through that mess. Mostly, his time.


benoitbrokemyneck - 2-25-2004 at 11:08 PM

(off topic)

I understand why you quote everything, but at times it just to much when you quote a quote within a quote thats in a quote, seriously. Ever thought about doing like me and just copy/pasting quotes in italics instead? I started doing that and it seems to help cut the thread size down a bit. Just open another window from the "This is a long topic, click here to review it" note at a thread's bottom and then copy and paste. Just a thought...

Carry on


OO Kyle - 2-26-2004 at 02:08 AM

Since we're all offering formating suggestions, I'll give mine.

Replace the Quote tag with the Bold tag. Then your posts would look like this:

Quote by the person you're responding to
Reply to person you're responding to.

The biggest problem with how you're doing it now (aside from content, of course) is that the Block Quote format eats up yards of space, and is difficult to read.

Just a thought.


Krydor - 2-26-2004 at 01:52 PM

Well, I'll try my darndest to change the way I respond. I misrepresented Magnus' position on something or another awhile back because I didn't quote his post.