They could have done this in Alberta. In 2002 Alberta passes the Adult Interdependent Relationship act. They were so scared to say the work gay (or I guess same sex in this case) that they spread it far and wide. The short version is this:

There are two key elements that define an adult interdependent relationship.

First, an adult interdependent partner is a person who is involved with another person in an unmarried relationship of interdependence where they:

share one another’s lives
are emotionally committed to one another, and
function as an economic and domestic unit.
Second, to be considered adult interdependent partners, one of the following must apply to the relationship. The adult interdependent partners must be:

living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption, or
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement.
Note: Parties related by blood or adoption must enter into a partner agreement to become adult interdependent partners.

As a gay man, I have to agree with you that we probably would not have pursued marriage if there had not been actual cash and services benefits. Or rather not as actively. You are wrong when you say –most- homosexuals hate marriage. There is a vocal group, mostly in old leftist activist mold, with more in common with heterosexuals like former GG Adrian Clarkson and her husband JR Saul than most gays, that hate marriage.

They rest of us, the clean cut acceptable ones, who can be pointed out as “friends” to prove conservatives don’t hate gay. The non-scary ones who gentrify your neighbourhoods, (and to use a stereotype) do your hair and cloths. (sorry, just because I am a conservative doesn’t mean I don’t have some bitterness)

We want to get married, for the most part, (and I know as many straight men as gay who say they will never get married). When we were given the opportunity for our relationships to be validated and recognized we wanted it. The younger crowd is just as excited as their straight counterparts are about marriage.

But a lot of us are not rushing into it. I have no desire to pull a Britney. I would rather stay a bachelor than be a divorcé. And considering the straight divorce rate, including (especially?) with the soc con crowd, I don’t think conservatives have a lot of room to criticize.

I’m confused. What won’t stand up? Their request was denied, then denied again on appeal.

Unless you simply want to judge based upon the sexual atcivities of the people in question.

Sisters seeking marital benefits for a non-marriage (under ANYONE’s definition) are hardly a “special interest group.”

And we DID get a grip. The courts said NO. The Appeals Court said NO. Everyone in this thread, except for those adopting faux-naive position for rhetorical purposes, are saying NO.

That’s the problem with slippery slope arguments. The slope isn’t always that slippery. And every slope eventually ends.

I won’t deny that there is a dash mixed into the batter, but my principal point is to use this example to point a way forward out of this dog’s breakfast of civil unions for whatever reason. It is stupid to continue to cater to every little special interest group handing out tax breaks and benefits like they are candy and don’t actually cost every single taxpayer money. We need to get a grip, reduce this down to what the original legislation intended, and start dealing with it.

Certainly. Thus my use of the word “most”.

And yes, populations change, and the definition of “marriage” shifts as changing attitudes, demographics and cultural mixes change. For a long time the majority of the population of the terrirory now called Nunavut practiced a form of seasonal polygamy, as did Christians in Utah. Not so much any more.

“Most inhabitants of North America understand the concept of marriage to imply a monogamous sexual relationship. Better?”
That re-phrasing is only better for statistical reasons. Populations can change.
You probably know that many Muslims and a few weird people South of us are not in agreement with your generalization.

That’s correct.

‘“Most of us understand the concept of “marriage” to imply a monogamous sexual relationship,” which is false.”

Let me rephrase. Most inhabitants of North America understand the concept of marriage to imply a monogamous sexual relationship. Better?

“Nobody holds a monopoly on what should constitute a marriage — recognized by the state or not.”

Quite right. As I noted above, Shane is perfectly within his rights to decide that a “marriage” is only valid if entered into for the sake of reproduction, and to refuse to personally recognized any other “marriage”.

As to the rest of it, Shane appeared to be expressing another chorus of the old refrain: “SEE what gay marriage has led to?” (Before you indignatly rebut that, please read his first sentence).

My point is twofold:

a) This has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or same sex rights.

b) This incident rebuts Shane’s slippery slope argument: as I’ve pointed out, both lower and appeals court laughed this proposal out of the house.

Thus, there is no moral defense of why a “married” couple should receive state-benefits that are denied to “non-married” couples. That is Shane’s point. He is examining the validity of ascribing state-benefits.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed your married dolls example. Very amusing but beside the point.

But probably not.

And in the case cited by Shane – probably not.

If marriage is like any social construct that reflects the values of a given society at a specific time, the incident Shane cites could arguably represent a transition in values which certain overlap values that have everything to do with marriage.

Marriage is a social construct, not a biological act or a law of nature. Like any social construct, it reflects the values of a given society at a specific time.

The incident you cite has nothing to do with marriage. The courts agreed. So did the appeals court.

Full stop.

It’s okay though. I’ll keep letting you make a fool of yourself if you want to.

Ummm…sexual preference has nothing to do with this case. There’s no sexual relationship involved.

That seems to be escaping you, Shane.

I have said it before: the one point of agreement I had with Trudeau is “the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. But same-sex marriage benefits have begun to force government into the bedroom, or render marriage benefits meaningless. What is the point of marriage if it is just two (or more) people cohabiting (or not) and relating sexually (or not) and agreeing to be related by contractual bonds (which are assumed in common-law cases by 6 months of cohabiting) for the purpose of collecting the benefits and legal rights of married people?

Because that’s where this is heading. If same-sex partners deserve the rights, why not partners without a sexual relationship? If same-sex partners without a sexual relationship, why not blood relatives? If blood relatives not relating sexually, why not sexually? If couples, why not threesomes? Foursomes? Unlimited-somes? How do you say no to anyone, once you attach rights to “feelings”?

See, this is the problem with opposite sex rights, and marriage and all that. You have physical, governmental, and tax benefits being passed to people on the basis of who touches who with what body parts. It just doesn’t make any sense.

A brother and sister, who have lived together for years and years, want to claim opposite-sex partner rights.

Do they love each other? Yes.

Are they loyal to each other? They are blood. Of course.

Do they share assets? Yes.

Gee. They look like a heterosexual couple to me.

Oh wait. They don’t engage in coitus. They’re out.

This is what I mean. It is stupid.

This is a “gay rights” question…how, exactly?

I am all for gay rights and they shopuld be treated as equals, no question about it. They can be as valuable as any other citizen and I happoen to agree that is there wasn’t mioney involved they wouldn’t have gotten out of bed.

Canada, like the rest of world is morally bankrupt and almost completely devoid of any ethical values that this once great country stood for…sad.

Not that this is a bad thing. But as long as we keep looking past the purposes of legislation and keep pandering to special interests, government is going to get more and more bloated and pathetic.

Personally, I can’t see a moral distinction between two sisters having sex and two unrelated women. Can someone please show me how that can be a problem? i.e. On what basis could you argue that adult, consenting, same-sex sibling carnal relationships should continue to be illegal?

Indeed, but it does raise the question. Are the limits on marriage enough? It is clearly a nonsense to allow those too old to adopt or have children to marry. It would be simplicity itself to write a clause into the relevant legislation banning women from getting married after a certain age. Would this not be the first logical step to tackle? After all, homosexuals are currently able to adopt, but not the aged.

It’s pretty simple. A couple of sisters are trying to scam some money. The courts didn’t fall for it.

Ah, but what if they were sexually involved?

What logical ground would there be to deny them benefits (not that having sex with somebody automatically gives you government benefits has any logic)?

The “benefits” of having a child already exist: the child.

Most of us understand the concept of “marriage” to imply a monogamous sexual relationship, which was not the case in this instance.

You, of course, are free to define “marriage” in any way you wish, and add as many of your own personal criteria as you like (e.g., for the purpose of procreation). You can, if it amuses you, personally refuse to recognize same sex marriages, or marriages between older couples with no further interest in having children. Totally up to you. Irrelevant, in terms of the law and our changing social perception, but it’s certainly your prerogative.