The Online Onslaught Forums


By contributing to Online Onslaught, you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!

Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: Bigotted rant of a Canadian regarding American issues
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-22-2004 at 07:11 PM Edit Post
Bigotted rant of a Canadian regarding American issues

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.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-22-2004 at 09:07 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-23-2004 at 04:00 AM Edit Post
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?
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-23-2004 at 06:22 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-23-2004 at 07:17 PM Edit Post
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.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-23-2004 at 09:02 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-23-2004 at 11:06 PM Edit Post
OK, you could start by naming one.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-23-2004 at 11:21 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-23-2004 at 11:41 PM Edit Post
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".
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-24-2004 at 05:03 PM Edit Post
That's granted by the fact that women get to marry men and men get to marry women. That's equal protection...






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 2-24-2004 at 06:33 PM Edit Post
...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.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-24-2004 at 06:36 PM Edit Post
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






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 2-24-2004 at 07:12 PM Edit Post
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.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-24-2004 at 07:25 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Pistol Pez
I am a pathetic troll






Posts 723
Registered 5-11-2002
Location Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

posted on 2-24-2004 at 07:32 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-24-2004 at 07:56 PM Edit Post
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.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-24-2004 at 08:09 PM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 2-24-2004 at 08:55 PM Edit Post
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.





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 2-24-2004 at 08:57 PM Edit Post
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?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 2-25-2004 at 12:57 AM Edit Post
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.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
chretienbabacool
The Great One






Posts 3444
Registered 3-5-2003
Location Columbia, MO
Member Is Offline

Mood: Go Cubs!

posted on 2-25-2004 at 01:33 AM Edit Post
You still haven't addressed whether you think barren women should be prevented from marrying.





Go Cubs!

And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Operation Pajama Pants
Showstopper






Posts 997
Registered 2-23-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: Shmood

posted on 2-25-2004 at 02:01 AM Edit Post
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.





Official Poster Of The OOForum's 100,000th Post.

borntorun: getting punched in the cock by a naked guy is pretty arousing.

Visit OOWF.com!

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Operation+Pajama+Pants 's Aim
OO Kyle
The Rowdy One






Posts 2364
Registered 11-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: McIan-tastic

posted on 2-25-2004 at 03:00 AM Edit Post
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]





Stand back! There's a HURRICANE coming through! Several, in fact!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Operation Pajama Pants
Showstopper






Posts 997
Registered 2-23-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: Shmood

posted on 2-25-2004 at 03:57 AM Edit Post
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.





Official Poster Of The OOForum's 100,000th Post.

borntorun: getting punched in the cock by a naked guy is pretty arousing.

Visit OOWF.com!

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Operation+Pajama+Pants 's Aim
ModSquad
Hello, future girlfriend






Posts 3472
Registered 1-30-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Trumpy

posted on 2-25-2004 at 08:44 AM Edit Post
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?





"The moment that The Rick tells me that I am in the wrong then I will stop. And since I have 10 years of reading his work under my belt I feel fairly confident that he won't since he is a proponent of thinking differently. Save the threats."

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll


go to top


Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
Processed in 0.1101279 seconds, 21 queries