Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition compares Same Sex Marriage to Fleeing Jews?

[matt_mcl]

@Muffin

Marriage is fundamental to religion, as the present debate over same sex marriage illustrates.

Sharia law is gaining inroads in Ontario.

These are obviously the chokepoints in the argument. Were I assigned the task of arguing against it, I would argue 1) that religious marriage is irrelevant to civil status – as demonstrated by the fact that the courts repeatedly rejected the arguments of religious officiants that same-sex marriage being banned was required by their religion; and 2) the only situation in which Sharia law is “gaining inroads” in Ontario is that it is recognized as a way of arbitrating private disputes in certain fields, which is not the same as its holding sway over the application of provincial or federal law.

[Grey]

Argue that by denying them the basic dignity of their beliefs recognition in law they are unable to properly transfer property between survivors following the death of one of the members of the marriage?

Look it’s late.

[Muffin]

Matt and Grey, you are correct. I was back-assed in how I set it out. My apologies.

It is the Charter, and not the pending federal marriage law, that will force the provinces to respect religions when it comes to solemnizing marriages http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html

@Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Same-Sex Marriage

35 Section 2 of the Proposed Act provides:

 2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

36 Section 2 of the Proposed Act relates to those who may (or must) perform marriages. Legislative competence over the performance or solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

37 The Attorney General of Canada suggests that s. 2 of the Proposed Act is declaratory, merely making clear Parliament’s intention that other provisions of the Proposed Act not be read in a manner that trenches on the provinces’ jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The provision might be seen as an attempt to reassure the provinces and to assuage the concerns of religious officials who perform marriages. However worthy of attention these concerns are, only the provinces may legislate exemptions to existing solemnization requirements, as any such exemption necessarily relates to the solemnization of marriage under s. 92(12). Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament.

. . . .
56 Against this background, we return to the question. The concern here is that if the Proposed Act were adopted, religious officials could be required to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs. Absent state compulsion on religious officials, this conjecture does not engage the Charter. If a promulgated statute were to enact compulsion, we conclude that such compulsion would almost certainly run afoul of the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion, given the expansive protection afforded to religion by s. 2(a) of the Charter.

[matt_mcl]

@Grey

Argue that by denying them the basic dignity of their beliefs recognition in law they are unable to properly transfer property between survivors following the death of one of the members of the marriage?

Look it’s late.

We also have the problem that the Charter forbids discrimination on the basis of gender… not on the basis of number.

[Muffin]

@matt_mcl

We also have the problem that the Charter forbids discrimination on the basis of gender… not on the basis of number.

Then where would bi folks fit in?

[matt_mcl]

I don’t understand the question.

[Muffin]

Straight folk are not restricted from marrying the gender of their disposition. Gay folk are no longer (or will be no longer) restricted from marrying the gender of their disposition. Well what about the folks who are disposed to both genders? Should they not also be afforded the same protection against discrimination based on sex as gays and straights?

[matt_mcl]

@Muffin

Straight folk are not restricted from marrying the gender of their disposition. Gay folk are no longer (or will be no longer) restricted from marrying the gender of their disposition. Well what about the folks who are disposed to both genders? Should they not also be afforded the same protection against discrimination based on sex as gays and straights?

That falsely assumes that bisexuals wish, in general, to marry one of each. The idea that a bisexual will always hanker after people of the other gender from their partner is a stereotype.

[matt_mcl]

To put it another way, bisexual people want either; they don’t require both. (In general.)

[Muffin]

@matt_mcl

To put it another way, bisexual people want either; they don’t require both. (In general.)

It’s that “in general” that gives pause. After all, in general, Canadians are straight Christians.

At what point do we say that a minority, or a minority within a minority, is too small to bother about. On the religious end, how many followers of Islam are there in Canada who actually want poly marriages? On the sexual orientation end, how many bisexuals in Canada actually want poly marriages? Obviously very few.

But at what point is very few too few? Where do we draw the line at equal protection under the Charter for minorities within minorites?

[matt_mcl]

@Muffin

But at what point is very few too few? Where do we draw the line at equal protection under the Charter for minorities within minorites?

When the discrimination fails to be analogous to the enumerated grounds, which I believe to be the situation here (or when it becomes justifiable, free and democratic society, yadda yadda yadda).

[Hamish]

@Balduran

I take it from this that you’ve never lived out west. Western alienation runs so deep for some that they’d vote for anybody as long as they were a westerner.

As matt_mcl pointed out, I grew up in BC. The small town outside of Victoria where I grew up went Reform every year. But even their candidate (Keith Martin) gave up on the merged Conservatives. He thought they were too extreme.

I’m aware of the anyone-but-the-Liberals attitude out there, and the sense of Western alienation (I take a dim view of it now that I’ve seen the other side of things). But there have to be limits – I have trouble believing that someone stupid enough to vote for Harper has enough brain to have the motor skills to mark an X on a ballot.

[Grey]

Who knew 30% of the electorate needed to be spoon fed? :rolleyes:

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

@Muffin

Well what about the folks who are disposed to both genders? Should they not also be afforded the same protection against discrimination based on sex as gays and straights?

That was phenomenally offensive. Although matt very conservatively (not that way!) said “generally”, I have never met a bisexual person who defined their sexuality as wanting relationships with both genders rather than either.

[Miller]

@LaurAnge

That was phenomenally offensive. Although matt very conservatively (not that way!) said “generally”, I have never met a bisexual person who defined their sexuality as wanting relationships with both genders rather than either.

I wasn’t offended by it.

[Muffin]

@LaurAnge

That was phenomenally offensive. Although matt very conservatively (not that way!) said “generally”, I have never met a bisexual person who defined their sexuality as wanting relationships with both genders rather than either.

I have met such persons. Don’t be so quick to take offence simply because what some others are does not match with what you think they should be.

[Grey]

@LaurAnge

That was phenomenally offensive. Although matt very conservatively (not that way!) said “generally”, I have never met a bisexual person who defined their sexuality as wanting relationships with both genders rather than either.

Ok I have to admit I don’t understand where the offense comes in. Little help please?

[Muffin]

Bisexual means you like males and you like females.

Polyamorous means you like to have more than one relationship at a time.

Being bisexual does not mean that you are polyamorous, and being polyamorous does not mean that you are bisexual. Similarly, being hetrosexual does not mean that you are polyamorous, and being plyamorous does not mean that you are hetrosexual.

I did not lay this out step by step, so I expect that offence was taken on the assumption that I was setting out that being bi necessarily means being poly, which, of course, it does not.

[Grey]

No, I got the bi/poly bit but I’m still unclear on how being labeled bi and polygamous can be considered offensive when apparently being labeled bi and monogamous aren’t.

[Muffin]

My guess is the offence was over an assumption that I was labelling all bisexuals as being polyamorous. If that is the case, then I will have to take greater care in my wording in the future to avoid such misunderstanding.

Whether or not LaurAnge has a problem with polyamory per se, I don’t know, but I somehow doubt it.

In any event, LaurAnge will kindly clear it up, and if I said something out of line, then I will apologize and be better for having learned something.