I think it's important to reply to the people who commented, and disagreed with or questioned my post on same-sex marriage. I think short answers in the comments section are not really enough.
All who disagreed with me did so respectfully, and in a debate that can become so emotionally charged, I want to thank them. Thanks to all those who answered supporting my POV.
Question Period said...
You've stated what the "true meaning and intention" of marriage is not ("to legally recognise the relationships of people who love each other") but you haven't told us what the meaning is (other than that it is discriminatory). Can you tell us what the true meaning and intention of marriage is?
As stated by a couple of my commenters, the purpose of marriage is the procreation and nurturing of a new generation. The only interest the state has for promoting (supporting or legislating) with regard to marriage is for the protection of children. If marriage were a purely adult institution, based entirely on sexual intimacy, the government would have no business in it at all . . . lest we forget the famous advice of PET -- the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.
The state's interest in marriage is as the starting point of the family. That some people never have children is irrelevant -- the potential for children is always there in any opposite-sex relationship and is never there in any same-sex relationship.
VF said... Indeed, what is the true purpose of marriage and why do you think this discrimination is justified? You never answer either question in this post.You point out reasons for discrimination based on age being valid and I agree with them, but you point out no reasons for discrimination based on gender here being justified.
I have answered part of your question above.
Not allowing same-sex marriage is not discrimination on the basis of gender. It is exclusion based on not having met the criteria -- the criteria being an opposite-sex component. I have used the word discrimination in the broadest sense, meaning 'choosing' rather than the commonly assumed meaning of prejudice which implies 'bigotry'. Gay people are not prohibited from marriage, but in order to conform to the definition, they probably wouldn't be very happy.
What reason does the state have to support or promote gay marriage?
For the betterment of society? No. Society is not better for it (argue if you will that it is not worse for it either, but even if it's effects are neutral, the state has no obligation or motivation to support it.)
So gay people will feel better about their relationships? The state should not be in the business of self-esteem building.
To give same-sex couples the same benefits as opposite-sex married couples? In most ways, gay couples already have the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. The compromise solution would be civil unions, but gay-rights activists have rejected this.
Rights are subject to restrictions but there should be a justification for the restrictions, as there is with age.
The restriction on marriage is based on an opposite-sex requirement. The opposite-sex component is the one universal requirement -- it crosses cultures and religions. While cultural and religious differences allow for polygamy, child marriages, arranged marriages or marriages of close family members -- the one constant has been that those who are to be the spouses must be of opposite gender.
This is justified because marriage is, and should be child-centred institution. What you're really trying to say is that you don't see that as a valid requirement.
Well, what are valid restrictions? Number of people? A person can be sexually intimate with and in fact can love more than one person at a time -- if marriage is about love and copulation what difference does the number make?
Familial relationship? That restriction is based on religious prohibitions, not secular ones. The secular arguement is based on inbreeding and genetics -- but with the advent of effective birth control, one could argue that in a progressive society birth defects are no longer an issue. And what about same-gender familial relationships -- they can never procreate, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
What about age? In the Catholic church, a child takes his first communion at seven. The church presumes the child to be old enough to know right from wrong. Okay, that's too young? Why not ten then. Many children go through puberty at this tender age, isn't that an indication that they are old enough? Well, why not twelve -- that's the age at which society acknowledges a person can be held accountable should they commit a crime. Still not comfortable? Okay fourteen. The age of consent for sex is fourteen. If marriage is about love and sex, then fourteen should be reasonable.
If we are going to change the definition to include same-sex couples, what justification do we have to stop there? None. Any reasons we could use to justify the limitation of marriage to two people, of a certain age, not of close familial relationship -- these are all arbitrary, cultural rationalizations.
My point is that you can justify any position. If there is not just one, right, proper, true meaning of marriage, than any meaning is just as valid as its presenter makes it appear. Suggesting these truths are invalid because it's a 'slippery slope' argument is just laziness.
What about couples that know they are infertile, should they be allowed to get married? Or couples with no intention of ever having children? As these couples are allowed to get married, to draw the line that same sex couples are not allowed to get married for this reason would be arbitrary and inconsistent.Bob - You say that it minimized the role of creating families, but same sex couples can adopt children and raise them. Is this not creating a family? Should opposite sex couples who adopt be allowed to get married? If so, then why not allow same sex couples to get married when the situation is, for all intents and purposes, the same? Same sex couples have been shown to be as good at parenting as opposite sex couples in several studies by credible organizations, so the argument that they are inferior parents is not backed by any evidence that I have seen.
Almost everyone would agree that whenever possible, a child's best interests are served by being raised within a family consisting of both biological parents. Nature it seems is the biggest discriminator. It takes people of both genders to make a baby. Whether you believe in God, or evolution, or both -- the opposite sex requirement for procreation is natural.
Most societies share the belief that the responsibility for children should rest with natural parents. Who would or wouldn't be a good parent is not the point. The state has the obligation to support natural parents whenever possible. It isn't always possible, and the state intervenes. Should opposite-sex couples who are infertile be allowed to adopt? Of course. They reflect the natural, biological origins of the child.
But by enshrining gay marriage into law, the state is creating a class of children who will -- by design -- not be raised by at least one of their natural parents. Government endorsement and facilitation of 'legal' rather than 'natural' parenthood, is state sponsored social engineering.
Rhetoric said... You make an interesting argument. I feel though that I should point out that:1. Slippery slope arguments like "...the government has not only opened the door for the definition to altered again and again as various groups argue their rights are being violated by exclusion..." are a logical fallacy. Policy choices (e.g. SSM) should be made on their merits alone not based on the preceived likelihood that they might make another less-palatable choice more possible;
My pointing out a logical consequence of allowing same-sex marriage is not the same as using that as an argument against same-sex marriage. I have made my case against same sex marriage by stating that I believe people should be required to fit the definition, the definition should not be altered to fit the special needs of a specific group.
2. I think that the religious nature of marriage puts it in the realm of natural rights (freedom of religion). Would you not object if the government refused to recognise religious marriage ceremonies? Obviously natural rights can be limited where they are over-ruled by the common interest (e.g. jailed criminals loose their right to freely associate) but I think this requires a much higher standard.
I have difficulty answering this one because I'm not quite sure what you mean. It would seem that you are saying that marriage is essentially a religious thing and therefore a natural right. I would have to disagree with that because not all religious rites are also 'human rights'. Nothing of what I have said is based on the bible or any religion. As for the state not recognising a religious marriage - most worries about state recognition are financially motivated.
Your premise is that marriage is a natural right. If that's true, then unlike other human rights or natural rights, marriage is not necessary to live a full and satisfying life.
This bill is likely going to pass, if not now, then in the fall. The government has drawn on the equality provision of the Charter, and I believe the rights of individuals to voice dissent might be at risk because teaching against same-sex marriage, if one does so from a secular perspective, might be perceived as 'hate speech'. Also, the protection this bill offers to religions and clergy who refuse to marry same-sex couples will be at the mercy of the judiciary. Which will be the more important right -- the right of a priest to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, or the right of two congregants to fully participate in the rites of their religion? Freedom of religion cuts two ways. Whose religious rights will be upheld?
I don't think this debate is over yet and the questions on both sides are important. This is societal changing legislation. For politicians to say that we've talked enough, devalues the concerns of those on the opposing side. Let's stop putting timeframes on it, and strive to get it right.
canadianna
23 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly, there has NOT been enough debate. The general public will glance at headlines, catch pieces of the evening news, etc. They will not think past the headlines.
And I'm speaking from experience. It wasn't until Brault's testimony was under a publicity ban that I went looking for info on the Gomery commission. I'd never read a blog. I'd never looked past the headlines. I didn't see a big deal about SSM, but figured the CPC compromise was a good idea, more as a balm to those who seemed pretty agitated about it not passing.
Now I see the CPC compromise as one that has been, apparently, proven to work, as that's what they do in Quebec.
As Duceppe would say "if it's good for Quebec, we will vote in favour of it."
Which begs the question why the BQ didn't support Harper's motion to amend the bill? Hmmmmmm....
You've been tagged:
http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/2005/06/childrens-books-tag.html
You make very intelligent and thoughtful posts. I really enjoyed this one. Will read the other when I get time. I'm heading off to work now.
Brilliant, Canadi-anna! Have you ever considered writing for magazines? You are a wonderful communicator.
Well done, Canadianna. Well done indeed.
I'll be linking to this I think.
Rhetoric: The 'truths' I was refering to were the truths of debating -- that any alteration to the meaning of marriage can be justified, or rationalised by a skillful debater.
I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear.
My statement that 'slippery slope' arguments are valid, stands. As does my assertion that people who try to refute an argument by saying 'oh, that's a slippery slope argument' are being lazy. Instead of coming up with a valid argument to support their cause, they are just arguing that my argument is invalid. Shooting down another person's argument, does not make yours valid.
Again, I have said that the natural consequences (slippery slope) of this legislation should be considered because they are societal consequences -- and are part of the merits/or detriments of this legislation -- but I have not used the consequences as a singular argument against same-sex marriage.
Bottom line, C., is that marriage was once a child-centered, society-sustaining institution. SSM would wrench the focus of marriage from the children to adults, which is a dangerous slope well greased.
Check out Suzanne Fields' column today at Townhall for more on that part of the debate.
rhetoric, on your two points -
First, you are right - the definition of marriage has changed in law - but one thing that has remained constant as Canadianna has said, is the man and woman part. That is the part that makes it marriage. If it is not a man and a woman it is not marriage. Marriage is not about recognizing the love two people have for each other - if it were, then the government should butt out - it has no right to license love. Dig into it - look at what marriage REALLY is. It isn't about love, it isn't about rights. What does marriage do? The efforts the SSM crowd go through on this subject are as ludicrous as the Monthy Python movie, "The Life of Brian" - where the People's Front of Judea agree to fight for the right of a man to have a baby, even though it is impossible, he still wants "the right" so he can be "equal" to a woman.
On your second point, if marriage is truly a religious issue, then again, the separation of church and state, which pro-SSM people LOVE to throw in our face, should dictate that the government have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever, and just let religions do what they want. If a gay couple wants to get married, then they should simply find a church willing to marry them, and not bother trying to force EVERYONE to marry them. See the difference? One is coercion, the other is simply personal choice.
Whoops! Sorry.
Here's the correct link.
QP --As for marriage not being required to have babies -- well, duh. The choice not to be married is an entirely different issue. The point is, the government should not be supporting or promoting this choice because it is not the best circumstance for raising children. A government might recognise the existance of these choices and offer assisstance to those who are single parents, but to encourage it would be wrong because governments know that single-parent families often have children living in poverty and can lead to the instability of revolving door step-parents.
The state has an interest in stable families, because stable families create a stable society.
Although, like you say, wedlock is not required to nurture children, I would argue (like recent studies show) that children need both parents. The fact that they are sometimes raised without one or the other, is not the same as the state engineering a situation where, as in same-sex couples, it will always be the case that children are raised without a legal parent of one gender.
As for marriage being more to do with taxation than children -- that's just wrong. Single people pay more taxes than married people. I don't really get your reasoning here.
QP -- I've told you before, I don't mind being challenged, but don't characterise my statements.
I make every effort to avoid framing these sorts of issues in an offensive manner. Just because some people are infertile, does not render offensive, my statement that all opposite-sex couples have the potential for procreation.
It is neither offensive, nor wrong. It is fact. Take a biology class. There have been women who have gone through menopause who have conceived and carried to term. Infertility is not necessarily a permanent, nor is it a completely understandable condition. Infertility is certainly painful for those who are infertile, but my statement regarding the potential for having children remains true.
As for the 'slippery slope' of infertile people not being allowed to marry etc., is just pathetic. Not only is fertility sometimes undetermineable, it would also require changing the definition to do so. It would mean putting in a restriction against the infertile. If one is against changing the definition of marriage at all -- why would one agree to it for the purposes of excluding people.
Agree or disagree, QP -- but do it on fact, not emotion.
I'm sorry you're offended QP. My daughter just suggested 'what about women who've had a hysterectomy.'
So you are right, the potential is sometimes not there - but issues like this take a broad view -- and make general assumptions because getting into details of social minutia makes for absurd policy.
Under current marriage law, all adults who have reached a certain age are entitled to be married. Taking issue with this kind of point is what muddies the thinking around these kinds of issues. The slippery slope doesn't go both ways.
Your personal circumstances are obviously painful, but your argument still doesn't hold water.
Taking away rights from infertile people would be like taking rights away from any minority -- it would be unacceptable -- and I would fight vigorously against it.
I will concede the point that some people are irreversibly infertile. I am sincerely sorry, both that you were offended and about your situation.
Huh? So you're saying that the exception proves the rule? Because a small segment of women and men are infertile and there is "nothing" that can be done, then fine, let's just blow up the whole thing? No... it doesn't work that way.
On youre quote, "I will concede that it can be debated that the institution can make a difference to the nurturing of children, but there is no requirement for an opposite-sex relationship for that."
There is no requirement for an opposite sex relationship to nurture children to adulthood from infancy, but it has been proved that the best chance of success is when a child is raised in a stable home (ie. not divorced or remarries or separated) with 2 biological opposite sex parents. Marriage is meant to ensure and encourage that situation, to produce the best chance for children. It doesn't guarantee successful children, but it produces the best odds. Hence, it needs to be protected and supported, and watering it down so a fraction of the 2% of the population that is gay who actually WANT to marry may do so is ludicrous.
The argument put forward by advocates for same-sex civil marriage is that they want in to the institution of marriage and that they have been unjustly excluded until now. Framing the debate in this way has been very effective, though disingenuous in my view.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not allow them into the institution; rather it tranforms the marriage state into something else and the transformation takes place for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.
The state can, of course, continue to call it marriage, but that does not make it so. If this matter is settled on the terms demanded by same-sex mariage advocates (and I believe it will be)then civil marriage in Canada will cease to exist.
We'll be left with the form without the substance.
QP -- I took your statement that marriage is tied to taxation to mean that the government has an interest in it so they would receive more taxes. Are you saying that people have an interest in marriage because it will reduce their taxes -- because I think most people would say that wasn't an issue in their deciding to tie the knot.
The concept of rights is really not that difficult but you have to remember that there are different kinds of rights. There are 'human rights' which as a society, we believe no government has a right to revoke. And there are 'legal rights' which the government has a right to add to, remove, deny or alter depending on circumstances.
The Canadian government has written a bill that implies that the right of marriage is a human right, which cannot be denied to any citizen based on the Charter equality provision.
This is just not so -- marriage is a legal right and subject to restrictions by the government. They can't have it both ways -- they can't use the charter to include gays in marriage, and then say the charter doesn't apply when we're talking adult/child marriage because age is one of the basis of discrimination expressly forbidden in the Charter.
Either it is a 'human right' for all, or it is a legal right, subject to reasonable restrictions. You may or may not agree that my interpretation of the restriction (not meeting the gender criteria) is valid -- but the fact remains that by continuing to impose restrictions based on age, marital status, familial relationship and consent, -- the government is conceding that it is a 'legal right' subject to governmental restriction.
QP -- QP- you needn't agree with me, but my arguments follow a logical path. Your challenges however, don't.
The state's interest in everyone paying their allocated portion of tax is there, regardless of marital status or parental status. Taxes are part of life, married or not and they are not the issue.
You are suggesting taxes are as important to the state's interest in marriage as children are, and that just doesn't wash. The two things are not linked. If taxes could only be derived from married couples, then you might have a case, but taxes apply to everyone.
I'm answering your questions/ challenges because I think you are genuinely asking, but some of the issues you are comparing are not comparable even in a complex argument.
Ontario allows same-sex marriage, but Ontario does not have the jurisdiction to define marriage. The provinces solemnize marriage, the federal government defines what marriage is. This is part of our Constitutional divisions of powers. This is one of the reasons why a federal law advocating same sex marriage, while suggesting it can protect religious freedoms is disingenuous. The provinces have jurisdiction in the performing of marriages, so they are the ones who will or won't protect religious freedoms as they see fit.
The laws of a country must not contradict each other, which is why the same-sex issue has to be remedied eventually. The inconsistency doesn't change which rights are 'legal' and which rights are 'human rights' -- eventually, the two laws will jibe, but in my opinion, marriage will still be a legal rights issue because the state can and does impose restrictions on it.
It doesn't matter whether you are willing to accept that a right is what the government says it is. It's a fact. If you disagree, and feel you are being deprived of a right, you have redress through a constitutional challenge. Legal rights are what a government says they are. Challenge them and they might change - -they are not fixed. Only human rights are fixed -- and even then, there are people who would argue, like in the case of the death penalty, that they are not inviolable.
Protecting your rights as a minority: I am trying, politely as I can, to answer your non sequitur arguments.
All people have the right to breathe. Should they try to take that right away from you, regardless of their justification, I would vigorously oppose that as a human rights issue.
All adult citizens have the right to vote. If they were to try to take that right away from you on the basis of your race, your country of origin, your gender, your ability to walk, your level of education, or whatever -- I would vigorously oppose that on a 'legal rights' basis. If the government were to deny blind people the right to vote, I would challenge that because being blind and voting have nothing to do with each other. Being blind does not negate a person's ability to decide how to vote and to do it.
Bernardo has the right to vote. If the government were to try to revoke that right, I would applaud it, as I believe criminals have forfeited most of the 'legal rights' of a free society.
If the same prisioner were going to lose his right to breathe, I would vigorously oppose that on the a 'human rights' basis. There are some who would disagree with me and say he's forfeited his right to live, but people were given the gift of discernment so we could follow our own consciences on these issues.
I have opinions on rights issues. I would only fight for those rights with which I agree. How does that paint me into a corner, or make me any different from anyone on the other side of the debate?
Wow. Those are some of the best arguments I have read against SSM - dispassionate, logical and somehow compelling.
Still, I think people are getting all worked up over a word. There is broad, though not complete, agreement that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as married couples of the opposite sex. The disagreement is over their "right" to use the word married.
In my view, the CPC position of equal but different is an honourable compromise for the time being, even if it is not fully understood by the Canadian public. It is a courageous position for which they take a lot of unfair criticism. I just wish they would not invest so much effort in the issue. There are other things far more important.
However, over time, common use of the phrase same-sex or gay marriage will render the whole argument against SSM moot. Eventually, SSM will be recognized in law whether we like it or not.
Bill C-38 contains the text: "NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:".
Do you believe "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" will enact legislation that is contrary to the Christian faith?
According to the Christian faith, marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) whereas homosexual relationships (Romans 1:26-27) are not honourable. Also, "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife" and "she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband" (1 Corinthians 7:33-34).
By enacting Bill C-38, Queen Elizabeth II will have broken her coronation promise to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.
The Lawful Definition of Marriage in Canada
www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/marriage.htm
Thanks Steve. This debate is important though, because it has far reaching reprecussions. If there is never a Charter challenge against a RC Church or priest, and if that challenge doesn't end with the church being obligated to perform a SSM, I will be surprised. Anyone who argues that SSM is a human right, better be prepared for religious freedoms to take a full-frontal assault.
Yes hermit, your grandparent's marriage should be anulled immediately. No wait, it's invalid anyway, so why bother?
I don't believe you really think that marriage being a child-centred institution, and still being allowed for infertile or non-procreating couples is inconsistent. Governments make broad laws. Marriage in the universally accepted sense involves men and woman with procreation being the desired (expected) outcome of the relationship. Because people choose not to, or are incapable of having children does not change the societal role of the institution, nor the government reason for supporting it.
You're trying to make this about individual cases. It isn't.
As for the Quaker's support of SSM -- The number of religions that have been prevented from performing doctrinally mandated SSM -- none. SSM would never even have occured to a Quaker 30 years ago. There is no historic or biblical basis for it within their church or society. Acceptance of SSM by some religions, is not the same as saying that some religions have been prevented from excercising this as part of their established relgious practises and ideology. If they have now, because of provincial laws, changed their ideology, it is they who are refecting society, not the government dictating to them. If they were forced to revert back to their previous system of marriage, I agree, this would be a sticky situation.
QP -- I will try to put this as simply as possible. Yes, married people pay taxes, but not because they are married .
Tax fairness for families is another issue altogether. You're mixing apples and oranges and trying to make lemonade.
Everyone pays taxes. Period. Does that have an affect on the state's interest in marriage? NO. Your arguement just doesn't make sense.
The two statements you have pulled from my arguments may be ones you disagree with -- fine. Disagree. I do not concede the first statement is wrong, it is flawed. I should not have used a universal qualifier. It doesn't change the argument.
Again, with the second statement. I've used a universal qualifier -- it makes my statement an overreach, but not wrong.
You are drawing inferences from what I'm saying, and assuming your inferences are correct, but you are using your reasoning, and not mine.
Again, legal rights are given and taken away by governments. Period. I will support those legal rights I agree with.
Human rights are given by God, nature, a creator -- whatever you want to call it. Those rights are rights that a government doesn't have the authority to take away -- I would oppose the revoking of those rights for anyone.
I have been consistent through this, but you are still unclear on the concept of 'legal' and 'human' rights. Your difficulty with these concepts is your limitation, not mine. No corner.
I've said, agree or disagree. Opinions are subjective. I'm not expecting the whole world to accept my view of this, but you seem intent on trying to sway my opinion or have me retract my arguments by continually suggesting my reasoning is wrong or inconsistent.
When I am aware that I've made a mistake, I admit it. I overstated about all people having the potential to procreate. Change all to the vast majority and the underlying argument doesn't change. I've conceded overuse of generalizations.
But I've noticed that you have difficulty conceding your limitations, QP. You've failed to grasp the underlying premise of my post.
Your challenges don't follow any consistent logic. They are not based on law or fact, but conjecture and emotion.
You draw from unrelated statements and attempt to forge a connection. You consistently quote out of context or attempt to draw parallels between your own statements and my arguments. All this because you are attempting to pull a 'gotcha!'
I suggest you use all this energy of yours and start a blog.
You're right and you're wrong.
The premise of my argument is that same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue and therefore, restrictions are legitimate -- and yes, you are right, I've said that if, as the government has decided that SSM is a human rights issue, then any restrictions violate the human rights of those excluded.
If you understood all along, why are you arguing in such a scattered manner?
My resisting changes to marriage, doesn't mean that I would deny gays or anyone else other rights, which is what you have implied.
You simply disagree with my premise, and the arguments I've used to support that, but beyond stating the obvious, that some people can't have kids, you haven't tried to explain why marriage shouldn't be a child centred institution or why it should be a human rights issue. You seem bent on catching me being anti-minority rights.
I'm not being facetious about your getting your own blog. You have a lot of opinions. Why not give them a home?
QP -- Once it's changed, I don't think it could be changed back -- even if I secretly hoped it would. If people started pushing for it to be changed back, I would not fight on that team. I can't honestly answer if I'd be on the team to keep it, either. But it would be like taking away the vote for women. I think once this issue is done, it should be done.
If it's wrong that I'm not standing up for a right that I don't agree with, I'm afraid it's the way I feel.
You're right about my using absolutes, and your pointing that out is a constructive thing and I appreciate it.
The truth is whether SSM is should or shouldn't be allowed will always be a matter of opinion. My fear is, that those against will no longer be allowed to express that opinion without fear of being hauled before a human rights tribunal.
You're avoiding the blog thing.
rhetoric -- I'm against SSM even without the 'what ifs', but the 'what ifs' are important. You don't wait until after something happens to manage the consequences. Responsible people contemplate the possible reprecussions of their choices. That part of it isn't a 'slippery slope' argument.
Your scenerio has a SS couple being allowed to marry within their own congregation. My scenerio is if the rite of marriage is refused to a gay couple by a their own church.
It would be irresponsible for people of faith who are against SSM not to anticipate potential challenges to their religious freedoms.
QP -- I think we'd have a better case for taking away the vote for men.
Look,you have a lot to say. I've seen you comments on more blogs than just mine, and I have faith in your blogging ability.
Do it.
Post a Comment