However, what if there is a majority of members in the House who mistakenly vote to change the definition of marriage? Categories : Communities in Norfolk Same sex marriage in canada pros and cons in Brantford, Ontario Former towns in Ontario Populated places established in Populated places disestablished in That is because no other social task can compare with the creation and nurturing of the next generation.
In this way, our fellow citizens would be justified in doubting the relevance of our role if they found that, while we espouse attachment to fundamental rights, we retreat when it comes time to adopt legislation to formally guarantee these same rights.
Each such case is another human tragedy, a tragedy that casts a shadow on our own dignity, as it is a sign that we are still not capable of rising to the level of human values that would allow every individual to feel accepted and recognized just as they are.
One does not enhance individual rights by attacking the individual rights of parliamentarians in one's own caucus. They believe in democracy and they believe in the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
There are many different definitions of marriage and it all depends on simply whom you are talking to about it. Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. More stable: Due to low divorce rates in same-sex marriages, they are more stable than heterosexual marriages.
Though the scientific reason for the people to indulge in the homo sex is not widely known by the doctors, the most common reason of the homosexuality is the complex combinations of the environmental, biological and genetic influences. By Rachael Pace.
They are gays for men and lesbians for females. By Sylvia Smith. When speak about abnormality of same-sex marriages, people forget that the norm is defined more by culture, than congenital human nature. And in professor Scott Titsho from Mercer School of Law has established that in the USA the civil marriage gains big attractiveness just because there is an example of mass homosexual unions and the state simply doesn't allow them to be legalized.
The current Liberal argument that this is purely a matter of human rights is, at best, one side of a legal opinion and, at worst, a cynical attempt to intimidate Canadians into supporting the government's legislation. Speaker, if I may indulge upon yourself and the members of the House of Commons, if I could seek unanimous consent to immediately send the bill to third reading it would be greatly appreciated by not only the people of my riding but the people of Canada as well.
It stands as the natural dimension of the union.