Canada Votes to Keep Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidGonzalez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DavidGonzalez

Guest
The votes are in and… the debate over same-sex marriage will not be revisited in Canada. 😦
Of course, we all knew that the Conservatives had no chance to begin with. Especially since the Bloc and the NDP whipped the vote.

Hopefully you Americans will do a better job.

Just remember that although you can come up with great theological arguments against same-sex marriage (see chapter 19 of the Gospel of Matthew, for example), these are quite worthless when dealing with a secular state; especially since there are some powerful religious denominations (such as the Untied Church) that claim to support same-sex marriage on theological grounds. The state cannot support one religious view over another.

Similarly, philosophical arguments are quite useless as well. You can say that marriage is, and always has been, a child-centred institution. You can say that only the union of a man and a woman is life-giving. You can say that a same-sex “marriage” is not a marriage at all because it isn’t directed towards the continuation of the species. This is all true but, ultimately, such philosophical arguments carry no wieght in a secular state.

If you want to win, you have to show that same-sex marriage will cause harm to society. Focus on this, and you may have a chance.

For example, I would argue that we don’t know enough about the development of homosexuality to make such a drastic change. Some people say that homosexuality is something that you’re born with; but this can’t be true. Otherwise, I don’t understand why homosexuality was universally practiced in certain ancient Greek societies. Of course, the men of such societies still married for the sake of procreation and for the sake of making political alliances with the family of the bride; but homosexual acts were the norm. The same can be said of pre-modern Japan and some other societies throughout history.

My point is that homosexuality is probably somethiong that is developed, usually at a young age, and that it depends on many factors, but especially ENVIRONMENTAL factors. I’m not saying that homosexuality is a choice; I know that many homosexuals struggle with their orientation. However, I do think that it is developed during the early years of life.

What’s going to happen if in 20 years we look at the statistics and find out that children raised by same-sex couples are five, ten, or 15 times more likely to develop homosexuality themselves? By then, there’ll be nothing that we can do about it.

Is there anything to what I’m saying?
 
I don’t think same-sex marriage has any dramatic implications for same-sex couple child adoptions. Same-sex couples were already free to adopt and already have been adopting. So these contentions are not, in and of themsevlves, enough to form a real argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage exists to provide secuirty to long-term monogomous relationships. If anything, this will benefit the children involved in these families (by that I mean, as opposed to these children living with same-sex couples that have no legal recognition as a unity).

Even if one could show that Same-sex couples should not be adopting, it wouldn’t actually mean that same-sex marriage should not be implemented. As many have pointed out before, people don’t have to get married for the express purpose of raising children.
 
I guess that makes sense. Oh well… I’m tired of debating this. I’m gonna go have dinner! 👍
 
I am ashamed at my country. This is the second time it has voted to allow same - sex - marriage. I hope that in time God will intervene and set things right. I pray that it will happen before to many children are hurt. 😦
 
I am ashamed at my country. This is a second time that it has voted to allow same - sex - marriage. I hope that in time God will correct this. I pray that the children will not be hurt because of these errors. 😦
 
Although the goverment declares it as ‘marriage’ those of sound mind know this is not so.

Only the relationship between a man and a woman can create life and continue a society and thus this relationship is deserving of a special status within society.

Let me ask you this to my fellow canadiens;

If Catholics for say, begin calling their marriages by a different name, say ‘sacrament union’ simply put. Then say this term spreads to society and many parts of society begin to use it but only for relationships between men and women. Will there come a point when homosexual couples will cry foul and calim discrimination and try to claim that term for themselves as well?

And when then have claimed that term, and a new one is made, will they try to claim that new term as well?

Seems to me homosexuals are playing a childish little game, trying to deny the reality that no matter how much crying, pouting and screaming they do their relationship cannot bring new life and thus cannot be equal in importance to a ‘real marriage’ between a man and a woman.
 
I agree. They are trying to force acceptance of a disordered relationship. They are unaware or in disagreement that there is a difference between marriage and living together. 😦 I will pray for them and all of us that this mistake is not spread to other countries and peoples.
 
Crow said:
Although the goverment declares it as ‘marriage’ those of sound mind know this is not so.

Only the relationship between a man and a woman can create life and continue a society and thus this relationship is deserving of a special status within society.

Let me ask you this to my fellow canadiens;

If Catholics for say, begin calling their marriages by a different name, say ‘sacrament union’ simply put. Then say this term spreads to society and many parts of society begin to use it but only for relationships between men and women. Will there come a point when homosexual couples will cry foul and calim discrimination and try to claim that term for themselves as well?

And when then have claimed that term, and a new one is made, will they try to claim that new term as well?

Seems to me homosexuals are playing a childish little game, trying to deny the reality that no matter how much crying, pouting and screaming they do their relationship cannot bring new life and thus cannot be equal in importance to a ‘real marriage’ between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
I agree with you fully. But in my experience, such arguments do not win debates. After all, the United Church, which supports same-sex “marriage”, can simply claim that a denial of same-sex marriage is an attack on their religious (cough) beliefs.

I still think that in order to win this debate, we have to show that same-sex “marriage” will cause harm to society. And I DO think that it will cause harm to society; but we will not be able to see the negative effects for at least a few decades.

Again, I bring up ancient Greece. If homosexuality is something that you’re automatically born with, then why were homosexual acts universally practiced in certain ancient Greek societies? Obviously, homosexuality is something that is developed and it depends on many factors, but especially environmental factors. My fear is that same-sex marriages provide the idea environment in which to foster the development of homosexual inclinations among children.

Too bad the debate’s over in Canada. Hopefully America will stay strong.
 
I see what you mean that it is required to show harm from homosexuality in order to win this debate.

And I fully agree with you that this law makes the ideal environment for children to experiment and viably choose the gay lifestyle. It is obvious to anyone who objectively looks at homosexuality that genetics cannot be the only factor towards homosexuality and that the environment plays a major factor; but to say so means you’re a biggot.

The negative impact is being seen as we speak, empirically, with a combination of factors (collected in the culture of death). Every liberal nation in the world has an unsustainable child birth rate.

Liberals will claim overpopulation, technology and comfort and a bunch of **** but the truth is humans in those nations are self centered and do not care enough to procreate and thus the societies that have opened themselves to these liberal lifestyles are headfirst into a dying mode.

Just have to hold on tight, the storm will eventually pass. We’ll be old men and woman by then I fear, but our presence will bear witness to waht we see and hear now, and hopefully be recorded to avoid such a storm again.
 
What is the most frustrating as a Canadien is that the first time it was forced down for a favorable vote; MPs where told to vote in favor of gay marriage.

And the second time around was not a serious attempt at re-opening the question, just a ‘on paper’ attemt by the Prime Minister to say ‘there, we voted again, now shut up and put up with it’ sorta thing.

Canadiens where had twice, by two different goverment with this issue.

Had it gone to referendum I believe there was a good chance that the traditional marriage definition would have been kept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top