Gay Marriage

[ENasty]

Yay, even though I'm religious I don't think people should be able to stop others from being fully committed. Obviously, preventing marriage won't stop them from being together so it's pointless to disallow their marriage. A marriage is between two people, and only those people, and other people shouldn't get involved in other people's business.

[Farnhamia]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

I don't want your approval or your god's. They are irrelevant to my rights as a citizen.

[Femnipotent]

We get it... You think you're the only one allowed to act that way.

No, you don't get it. Do not attack me for not being "moderate" (which is clearly about tone in this context and not opinion) while engaging in the same level of aggression. It's frankly hypocritical and bullying.

Do not take this out of context. The poster in question did not address my points, but only demanded to know "what I was doing about it". Follow up demonstrated that this poster was not interested in engaging the material. The "I will wait for the results of your efforts" or whatever was said highlighted that.

If the only point was to comment on my tone, then tone and tone alone clearly became the discussion between us.

Perhaps now you get it.

[Femnipotent]

How is that irrelevant? Femnipotent seems to feel that I bullied her by pointing out her bullying tone.

Actually, I wished to point out that if your intent is to encourage me to speak softly and carry a big stick, "Do as I do not as I say" is always a better educational tool.

[Femnipotent]

I think her tone is unnecessarily belligerent. As I told her, I don't disagree with what she said, just the way she says it. That's a legitimate criticism, don't you think?

As is me pointing out that in my opinion, you are guilty of the same.

If you object so strongly to my tone, why do you adopt an aggressive and belittling form of address?

I am fine with the way I talk, for the record. I simply can't abide lectures from hypocrites. I don't care "how you say it" if your message isn't clearly in opposition to your complaint.

[Femnipotent]

Apparently not...
Apparently if you agree with her at all (or apparently even if you don't) you have to agree with not only everything she says, but also how she says it....
*nods*

Yes. Let's rework all of this to make it seem like I accosted Farmhania and complained that she was speaking in a rude tone. Let's ignore the way it actually happened. Thus we can create a myth about myself that will be carried into all further interactions.

That is, after all, how the internet is played.

Score 1 for you!

[Farnhamia]

I think her tone is unnecessarily belligerent. As I told her, I don't disagree with what she said, just the way she says it. That's a legitimate criticism, don't you think?

As is me pointing out that in my opinion, you are guilty of the same.

If you object so strongly to my tone, why do you adopt an aggressive and belittling form of address?

I am fine with the way I talk, for the record. I simply can't abide lectures from hypocrites. I don't care "how you say it" if your message isn't clearly in opposition to your complaint.

And here I thought I was being quite civil to you. Oh well. I'm fine with the way I talk, too.

[Soheran]

yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it,

The Fairy Queen loves gay acts, though, and offers to all gay people an afterlife far more fun than that stuffy one all the rigid right-wing Christians go to.

[Orcoa]

yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it,

The Fairy Queen loves gay acts, though, and offers to all gay people an afterlife far more fun than that stuffy one all the rigid right-wing Christians go to.

Plus she makes great cupcakes!

[Edmund Spenser]

yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it,

The Fairy Queen loves gay acts, though, and offers to all gay people an afterlife far more fun than that stuffy one all the rigid right-wing Christians go to.

Oh really?

[Soheran]

I have involved myself in the legal debate and advocacy related to the current Supreme Court deliberations regarding Quebec's system of 'conjoint de fait', supporting the Attorney General of Quebec's argument that such a relationship is a conscious choice and should not be overriden by turning romantic relationships into common-law marriage (as practiced in other provinces) wherein legal obligations are imposed upon couples who have lived together for a certain period of time regardless of the fact that they deliberately did not get married.

I'm a bit curious, if you'd be willing to elaborate: what legal differences between the statuses are you concerned with preserving? The US is very all-or-nothing about marriage, which means that my usual inclination is to support broader "automatic" rights for cohabitants--and there are some obvious, and I think largely unproblematic, ones, like domestic partner health benefits, family leave rights, and the right to sue for wrongful death. But the concern you raise here is one I've recognized abstractly, and I'm interested to know what kinds of issues arise in places where there's actual experience with relationship rights outside of marriage (or marriage-lite statuses like civil unions.) If you don't want to elaborate, but would be willing to suggest reading material, that would be helpful too.

[Tekania]

Ah yes. Differences between men and women in this new, enlightened era in which we live are purely biological .

Yes, they are, at least that is all I am arguing for. For example (and I will raise your own, to basically proove, to put it bluntly exactly how fucked up you are) that in the case of a lesbian couple where the non-birthing partner is classed a "father" for the purpose of establishment of paternal right is one purely extrapolated of the normal biological nature of procreation and parentage... because just like in a heterosexual bonding the non-birthing member is in fact the father. The purpose is to convey a system of rights and responsibilities which are equivocal to the order established with normal biological parentage... You might as well be Eric Idle's character from Life of Brian talking about his right to have babies... There are certain things which happen in the biological realm which need to be established equally in the legal realm and in some cases been to be equated to cases which are not precise matches.

[Norstal]

No, but if the state bans marriage, then the state can't make legal unions or it will be a catch-22.

Therefore, anyone can define what "marriage" is. Which can be every set of two or more people together, straight or gay. Giving the state a reason that these types of set is marriage. You forgot that, marriage too, can exist outside of legal unions.

So congrats, you have a dystopia full of social recluse.

At first, I was sure you didn't want this. Which is why I thought you meant that by banning marriage, you mean the removal of state recognition of marriage. Which mean anyone can proclaim themselves as married, even if they didn't have a matrimony. E.G, two people living together. E.G, romantic relationship.

But if you want to ban marriage, then this is what will happen.

I have been speaking specifically of legal marriage and legal civil unions, not romantic relationships where people consider themselves to be spouses in an unofficial sense. Legal marriage cannot exist outside of a legal system that legitimises and recognises the marriage. I am saying that no such relationship should be recognised by the state. Not for the ridiculous reason brought up by homophobes, which is that marriage is a religious union or whatever they wish to argue, but rather that once the state gets involved, it formalises rights and obligations according to cultural norms which are inescapably (at this point in time) shaped by gender inequality.

Well, alright then. That's a little better.

[Tekania]

I am not against gay marriage, if they want to get "married" get a civil partnership or maybe a non-religious ceremony

Why can't they simply get married and have a religious ceremony.... Or, do you hate freedom of religion?

[Femnipotent]

And here I thought I was being quite civil to you. Oh well. I'm fine with the way I talk, too.

That's okay, I felt I was being quite reasonable myself.

Glad that's been cleared up.

[Farnhamia]

The Fairy Queen loves gay acts, though, and offers to all gay people an afterlife far more fun than that stuffy one all the rigid right-wing Christians go to.

Oh really?

That is what you said, Mr. Spenser. Of course, you were rather in your cups at the time.

[Femnipotent]

I'm a bit curious, if you'd be willing to elaborate: what legal differences between the statuses are you concerned with preserving? The US is very all-or-nothing about marriage, which means that my usual inclination is to support broader "automatic" rights for cohabitants--and there are some obvious, and I think largely unproblematic, ones, like domestic partner health benefits, family leave rights, and the right to sue for wrongful death. But the concern you raise here is one I've recognized abstractly, and I'm interested to know what kinds of issues arise in places where there's actual experience with relationship rights outside of marriage (or marriage-lite statuses like civil unions.) If you don't want to elaborate, but would be willing to suggest reading material, that would be helpful too.

I'm typing this with one foot out of the door so if it's truncated I apologise. Here is the context.

In most of Canada, we have something called 'common-law marriage'. It's confusing a little for us in Quebec because there are two legal systems in Canada, one is common-law (anglo tradition) and one is civil-law (french tradition). Anyway it refers not to the system of law, but rather is a legal situation of rights and responsibilities towards someone to whom you are not legally married or in a civil union with. Case-law has developed with gives many of the same rights/obligations to these couples as those who are officially married, and this impacts things like the division of matrimonial property and so forth. More and more, "common-law" couples are becoming equal to couples who are officially married.

The provinces have different ways this relationship happens. It can be a period of time, from one year of cohabiting to three years. In Alberta they have this weird Adult Interdependent Act where you can have similar rights as a romantic couple, or even as a child taking care of an elderly parent, or roommates who are not romantically engaged. Anyway, that's a bit of a sideline.

In Quebec we have no "common-law" marriage. You are either married or in a civil union, both of which are official. Very many Quebec couples are conjoint de fait which means they live together, unmarried. The Attorney General is arguing that these couples have consciously chosen not to take on the rights and obligations of married or civil union couples and should not have these things forced up on them. Thus, they should not have to get a separation agreement when they split up, they should not have the same rules for division of property and so on.

They receive many of the same social benefits as married couples already, so it cannot be argued they are disadvantaged.


Dammit, I'm sorry I have to run. I can't think of more specific things to tell you quickly so I will try to come back to this tomorrow.

[Draculesti Romania]

Why would anyone want to marry...It's cheaper (taxwise) to partner-up!

[Farnhamia]

Why would anyone want to marry...It's cheaper (taxwise) to partner-up!

Oh, gosh, I don't know ...

[Draculesti Romania]

Why would anyone want to marry...It's cheaper (taxwise) to partner-up!

Oh, gosh, I don't know ...

Oh...So you're implying when 'Gay marriage' is legalized, then the same taxes will apply, as with Hetero couples...Fine, but in the end, it's cheaper to partner-up....

[Lowtovia]

I'm a bit curious, if you'd be willing to elaborate: what legal differences between the statuses are you concerned with preserving? The US is very all-or-nothing about marriage, which means that my usual inclination is to support broader "automatic" rights for cohabitants--and there are some obvious, and I think largely unproblematic, ones, like domestic partner health benefits, family leave rights, and the right to sue for wrongful death. But the concern you raise here is one I've recognized abstractly, and I'm interested to know what kinds of issues arise in places where there's actual experience with relationship rights outside of marriage (or marriage-lite statuses like civil unions.) If you don't want to elaborate, but would be willing to suggest reading material, that would be helpful too.

I'm typing this with one foot out of the door so if it's truncated I apologise. Here is the context.

In most of Canada, we have something called 'common-law marriage'. It's confusing a little for us in Quebec because there are two legal systems in Canada, one is common-law (anglo tradition) and one is civil-law (french tradition). Anyway it refers not to the system of law, but rather is a legal situation of rights and responsibilities towards someone to whom you are not legally married or in a civil union with. Case-law has developed with gives many of the same rights/obligations to these couples as those who are officially married, and this impacts things like the division of matrimonial property and so forth. More and more, "common-law" couples are becoming equal to couples who are officially married.

The provinces have different ways this relationship happens. It can be a period of time, from one year of cohabiting to three years. In Alberta they have this weird Adult Interdependent Act where you can have similar rights as a romantic couple, or even as a child taking care of an elderly parent, or roommates who are not romantically engaged. Anyway, that's a bit of a sideline.

In Quebec we have no "common-law" marriage. You are either married or in a civil union, both of which are official. Very many Quebec couples are conjoint de fait which means they live together, unmarried. The Attorney General is arguing that these couples have consciously chosen not to take on the rights and obligations of married or civil union couples and should not have these things forced up on them. Thus, they should not have to get a separation agreement when they split up, they should not have the same rules for division of property and so on.

They receive many of the same social benefits as married couples already, so it cannot be argued they are disadvantaged.


Dammit, I'm sorry I have to run. I can't think of more specific things to tell you quickly so I will try to come back to this tomorrow.

for tomorrow: does canada have an uncodified constitution or a codifited constitution?

[Farnhamia]

Oh, gosh, I don't know ...

Oh...So you're implying when 'Gay marriage' is legalized, then the same taxes will apply, as with Hetero couples...Fine, but in the end, it's cheaper to partner-up....

If all you care about is taxes, then yes. If, however, you think

- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
- Legal status with stepchildren
- Making spousal medical decisions
- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
- Right of survivorship of custodial trust
- Right to change surname upon marriage
- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
- Right to inheritance of property
- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

are important, too, then we need "marriage." It will cost you a pretty penny to have lawyer draw up papers covering these things, and the state has no obligation to honor them, or may be slow in doing so.

[Farnhamia]

I'm typing this with one foot out of the door so if it's truncated I apologise. Here is the context.

In most of Canada, we have something called 'common-law marriage'. It's confusing a little for us in Quebec because there are two legal systems in Canada, one is common-law (anglo tradition) and one is civil-law (french tradition). Anyway it refers not to the system of law, but rather is a legal situation of rights and responsibilities towards someone to whom you are not legally married or in a civil union with. Case-law has developed with gives many of the same rights/obligations to these couples as those who are officially married, and this impacts things like the division of matrimonial property and so forth. More and more, "common-law" couples are becoming equal to couples who are officially married.

The provinces have different ways this relationship happens. It can be a period of time, from one year of cohabiting to three years. In Alberta they have this weird Adult Interdependent Act where you can have similar rights as a romantic couple, or even as a child taking care of an elderly parent, or roommates who are not romantically engaged. Anyway, that's a bit of a sideline.

In Quebec we have no "common-law" marriage. You are either married or in a civil union, both of which are official. Very many Quebec couples are conjoint de fait which means they live together, unmarried. The Attorney General is arguing that these couples have consciously chosen not to take on the rights and obligations of married or civil union couples and should not have these things forced up on them. Thus, they should not have to get a separation agreement when they split up, they should not have the same rules for division of property and so on.

They receive many of the same social benefits as married couples already, so it cannot be argued they are disadvantaged.


Dammit, I'm sorry I have to run. I can't think of more specific things to tell you quickly so I will try to come back to this tomorrow.

for tomorrow: does canada have an uncodified constitution or a codifited constitution?

Does it make a difference?

And you could this stuff up:

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as consisting of the Canada Act 1982 (including the Constitution Act, 1982), all acts and orders referred to in the schedule (including the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act), and any amendments to these documents.[1] The Supreme Court of Canada held that the list is not exhaustive and includes unwritten components as well.

[Dyakovo]

We get it... You think you're the only one allowed to act that way.

No, you don't get it. Do not attack me for not being "moderate" (which is clearly about tone in this context and not opinion) while engaging in the same level of aggression. It's frankly hypocritical and bullying.

I didn't. I am not Farnhamia, nor did she "attack" you for "not being moderate". She suggested that maybe you should tone down the rhetoric a bit if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say. Then you decided to accuse her of bullying you...

[Lowtovia]

for tomorrow: does canada have an uncodified constitution or a codifited constitution?

Does it make a difference?

And you could this stuff up:

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as consisting of the Canada Act 1982 (including the Constitution Act, 1982), all acts and orders referred to in the schedule (including the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act), and any amendments to these documents.[1] The Supreme Court of Canada held that the list is not exhaustive and includes unwritten components as well.

it does make a difference to the ease of changing laws and rights. also i was curious. and your quote: do you mean you could 'look' this stuff up? if so, thanks for the quote