Spain ok's Gay Marriage...Europe is ahead of the times

[Phade]

I got this off of a mailing list that I am a member of, and thought that I would post it here. I think its interesting...and shows just how open minded Europeans are, and how they are ahead of the times, IMO. Now if only the U.S. could catch up...

Safe journes...

[Hitchhiker]

[Republican_Man]

[voy416]

NOW THAT IS WHATS UP see now the USA looks stupid once again MUHAHAHAHAHA
they Okayed something wonderful HA i tellin ya the world is going to change whether people like it or not MUHAHAHAHAHA

[Founder]

[Arellia]

[Dirt]

Erm, we (Dutchies) are not a secular nation, and we were one of the first to ok gay marriages...

[Phade]

Thank you Dirt. That is part of my point in stating that Europe is ahead of the times. And I completley agree that change is going to happen as well. Its one of the driving forces of the universe. If there is no change, things become stagnant, and wither and die! Also thank you Voy416 for that opinion, which I happen to agree with for several reasons.

And RM, I disagree with your opinion that this is wrong.
First I would like to point out, that we are of course in the process of voting to write a ban into the constituion against same-sex marriage (which I know you know about, as most here do). That being said: do you realize, that IF this gets passed, it will be the FIRST act of discrimination written into the Constitution? And aren't we a nation that is against discrimination? Aren't we the ones who wrote Amendments in the Constituion banning slavery, etc... Aren't my rights protected by the same Constitution that protects your rights? If this is written into the Constitution, where does it stop? Is the next step to ban gays from voting? Ban them from using the same drinking fountains as straights? Do we then have to go to seperate schools? and live in seperate neighbourhoods? Where does the discrimination end? All I am asking for here, is not special rights, just EQUAL rights...those that you take for granted. Do you realise that there are places out there that will fire a person just for the fact they are gay? Is this right? Does this palce have to right to deny that person a living just for a fact of thier existance? I don't think so,IMO. And according to our sacred Constitution, they don't.
Second: This is that gets me; Being a Star Trek fan, I would think that other Star Trek fans would be a bit more open-minded to others that are different than themselves. To me this boils down to the Vulcan ethic of the IDIC (Infinite Diversity, in Infinite Combinations). Meaning exactly what it says. I think that this is the main driving principle behind the whole idea of Star Trek;that is what Gene Roddenberry wanted. A world where everyone could get along peacefully, no matter what our differences were; in fact, a world where we embrace our differences and see the inherint strenght in each other because of that. A view that I heartily hold to, even in the face of people that hate me simply becasue I am who I am. (Now I am not saying that you do...just generalising here). I know that in none of there series, nor movies, is is specifically said that we should accept gays, but on the reverse of that, it is never said that we shouldn't. However, I think that it is very much implied, simply because of the IDIC for one, and the fact that humans have evoled beyond something so petty.
Third: If we go into the religous aspect of this, which I particularly don't like to do becasue religion is a persons opinion (essentially). But, religion supposedly says that this is wrong. Yes,I concede that religion says that (I was raised a Baptist, and know it was taught...). However, the same religion also says that you should love one another. (Hate the sin, but love the sinner, though I am NOT conceding that I am a sinner becasue of this; there are plenty of other things for that...though I don't believe in the traditional Christian faith {that is another story altogehter}) And said religion says not to judge one another as well. I could go on....I think the point here is that religion says to love your neighbour, and basically let them be, even if you disagree with them. And since we are talking about religion, I will point out that our founding fathers put a provision in the Constitution for a seperation fo Church and State. Meaning that laws, amendments to the Constitution, etc, should NOT be directly influenced by religion. The reason behind this, is that there are many different religions in the world, and not all of them agree on the same sets of "rules", and some even contradict what others say etc. And seeing that an elected offical could possibly have differing views than the public at large, they instituted this so that one persons view of religion would not reign. They set it up to where the public could vote to make things happen, believing that they people could decide matters. I believe that most peoples arguements against this issue are based in religion, and that is the only "proof" that they have that they are right. Who I am to say they are wrong in thier beliefs? I can't prove they are wrong, however they can't prove that they are right...its all based on faith. But, I digress.
Fourth: People talk about this as a way to protect the institution of marriage. To me that is just a bunch of clap-trap. Where are these people, when they have all these televison shows that exploit marraige, trivialising it,and boiling it down to a game? (Who wants to marry my dad? Who wants to marry a millionaire? The Bachelor, etc.) And where are these people when celebrity's get married, and end up divorced 2 days later? (al la Brittnay Spears..) Hmmm...oh wait! That's all right to do. It is all still traditional marriage. Its just not meant to be, if the get divorced. Such a shame they couldn't make it work. Bah! Rubbish! This is what is tearing up the sanctity of marriage. The trivial attitude that people have about it, because of these game shows, and how easy (relativley speaking) it is to get a divorce. Throw down a few hundred dollars, say I just don't love her/him anymore, wham, bam, thank you ma'am, its all over. Time to move on to the next one. Bah! Where in all this is the gay factor? No where. This is all straight marriages. I have heard a statistic, though as to how true it is, is up for debate, that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. To me, is these people want to protect marriage so badly, they should make it harded to get divorced. How about instituting a mandatory series of marriage counselling to have them try to work it out and save the marriage? Why not institute a mandatory waiting period of 90 days before it is finalized? Why not make it cost more than it does? Make the process more difficult, so that it takes longer, and makes them try to make it [the marriage] work more. (note: in the Middle Ages divorce was unacceptable, until a king of England [I think] just decided since he was king he could do what he wanted and made it to where he was able to get divorced, and did so, and then re-married; since then we have had divorce around) That brings up another idea: how about making it more difficult to get re-married? Seeing as you couldn't amke one work, why should consecutive ones work...and just make the process of a second/third/etc marriage harder? I think these would make people think a bit before getting married in the first place, and make it a more sanctified union, becasue then only the people who are serious about it would get married in the first place, and then it would most likely last. And in these suggestions, I think that when gay marriage is allowed (ok, I have to be positive here, at least for me) that they should apply to them as well. (Again, no special treatment, just equal) I was fully raised to believe in the sacred bond of marriage and that it is a very special thing that two people share; two people that are truly in love with each other, so much so that they want to devote thier lives to each other. I think that marriage is something truly special and is ever lasting, not something to be taken lightly. I think that anyone, that truly loves someone else should be allowed to expirence this truly wonderful thing.
Lastly: As to those that point out that if this is allowed, we will have to allow poly-marriages (and yes RM I know you are one of them...): I say, who?what?where?how?why? huh? That is totally out in left field. Why would allowing a gay couple to marry lead to allowing a poly-amorous group get married? As marriage is now, it is the bonding of 2 people. The only thing that would change in that, is that it would be either: a man and an woman, two men, or two women. As I see it, those are all couples, not more than 2. I know, you will say that by changing the definition of marriage to allow same sex couples, that eventually it will lead to redefining it to let more. I don't forsee that happening. Even with-in the gay community (though there are triads out there, true, though it is rare), most of them still see it as only a couple, not three members, or four, just two. So they won't vote to allow more than two to get married, and I know that most straight people wouldn't vote to allow it. Only a minority would vote to approve it, and as we all know a minority vote does not win. I know that I wouldn't personally vote for that. I also know that you RM wouldn't either. Can't blame you on that either. As for the other thoughts of people on it leading to allowing marriage to animals, and such. Poppycock! See the preceding thoughts for why. Won't happen, uh-huh, no way, no sir, no how!

Hmmm, I think that's all my thoughts on the issue at the moment. At least, its late. So, I'll close for now, and await replies. Take care all!!

Safe journeys,
Phade��

[Hitchhiker]

^That's pretty good, I used similar arguments in the Opinion Essay I wrote for English class last year about Same-Sex Marriage.

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

I'm still hovering around this polygamy point just because it seems a topic of hot debate. Again, I bring up the fact that homosexuality and polygamy are completely unrelated.

Okay, so some states are trying to legalize polygamy. It's still a separate debate from gay marriage. Maybe the pro-polygamy activitists are inspired by the gay marriage supporters.

Now, I know that the possibility of legalizing polygamy is not your only reason for not supporting gay, but I might as well confront your arguments one at a time rather than all at once, so I am only dealing with this argument.

Let me use an analogy. Nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons are much closer related than gay marriage and polygamy. Do you advocate that we stop using nuclear power plants because they could be turned into bombs?

What about online dating? Should we ban that as well?

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

I see.

Ontario hasn't legalized polygamy, and we allow same-sex marriages. As far as I know, there is no such bill being proposed in either Provincial Parliament or Federal Parliament.

We're making it work.

Maybe same-sex marriages do mean change. Maybe in the future, polygamy will be a possibility. But I don't like using discrimination as a preventive measure for only what could be, not what will be.

And it is discrimination. You are removing particular rights of people based on their sexual orientation.

Marriage is an institution that should be extended to everyone
Or else it is meaningless, hollow, and false
It should not be a tool of the elite
A mark of conformity
It should be a union, a joining.

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

[Valathous]

And this is what makes Trudeau the best leader a country has ever had.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It guaruntees that you will not be discriminated against for anything!

(Note, that sexual orientation was read into when it said you can't be discriminated based on your sex. The Supreme Court deemed that "sex" included your orientation)

I'm not gay, but I do believe in equal rights for all. If 2 men or 2 women wanna marry, let them. Let them be happy. Don't discriminate them because a book based on an imaginary being says it's not allowed.

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

Yeah, the imaginary book thing was kind of over the line. The Bible clearly exists, and according to the many-worlds theory, even if this universe was not created by God, it is scientifically possible that another universe identical to our own was, so be assured in that.

But I digress.

Banning same sex marriage will not take away all rights, no. What I was trying to point out is that removing a right is like playing with Jenga. You remove one, the entire tower of Human Rights collapses. You start opening yourself up to the possibility that we can change the definition of human rights whenever something becomes unpalatable to the majority of the public. Once you have removed one right, it is a slippery slope.

[Valathous]

It was not an insult, it is my beliefs.

Section 7 of the Charter guaruntees the "right to life, liberty and security of person."

No if you read into that, it could mean, "right to live your life the way you want"

right to liberty would be the same thing.

Security of person... Maybe you feel more secure with a same sex partener.


Now these of course are only Canadian rights. I don't know if your constitution offers all the same rights or not. But in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the #1 document to be followed, even above the criminal code. It guaruntees these things, as it should. The gays should be allowed to marry if they want to.

Gay marriages is another step towards total equality, the dream of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the greatest Canadian.

[Republican_Man]

[Republican_Man]

Forgive me--those ARE your beliefs, and I respect that, but in the context that you stated it, it was HORRIBLE. I take it as a COMPLETE insult to my religion, God, self, family, friends, life, and more.

[Valathous]

Oh, look at that. You called my beliefs idiotic....

I never said you can't believe in him.

Why is it so wrong for two people that love eachother to be able to get married? Give them their rights, let them get married.

[Republican_Man]

[Valathous]

Notice the time between the 2 posts. I started posting before that other post of yours went up.

I do know where you stand, and it is in a very small room with no open doors, constrained by religion and a closed mind.

[Hitchhiker]