What to make of the Canadian same-sex marriage bill?

Recently discussed the Canadian same-sex marriage bill issue with a friend in Toronto, the Canadian symbol of gay pride.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Marriage was an instutition before governments, and governments have neither the right nor the power to change its definition.

And the reasoning that gays and lesbians were discriminated against under the previous definition of marriage between one man and one woman? Merrian-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) defines "discriminate" as: to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit. Well, as far as I can tell, we weren't discriminating against gays and lesbians under the old laws. Let's see: could straight people marry someone his/her own gender? I'm afraid they couldn't either. So how was not allowing gays and lesbians marry someone his/her own gender an act of discrimination? If nobody was allowed to do it, then there could not have been any discrimination going on, since discrimination presumes a "difference in treatment". And believe you me when I say that gays and lesbians could in fact marry under the old laws. Really, they could! They were as free as the rest of us to marry someone of the opposite sex! Where was the discrimination?!

One more example here. Suppose a Canadian wanted a say in American politics. He wants to vote in the next American presidential election. But - surprise, surprise! - he's told by the authorities that he's not allowed to vote, because he's not American. What do you say here? "Hey! That's discrimination!" Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? But that's exactly what's going on right now with this bill!

So if there was no discrimination, what the hell was this bill all about? What the hell was this bill supposed to fix, exactly? If you want to bring up the stuff about tax benefits for married couples, let's try to figure out why they exist in the first place. I would argue that married couples get tax breaks because they form families - the basic unit in a society - and are seen as beneficial to society in general for rearing and nurturing children - the next generation of society. Homosexual unions cannot bring forth such prosperity; rather, their failure to reproduce is particularly detrimental to society in general. In fact, I would even go as far as saying "homosexual unions are cancerous to society". Just as cancer cells consume nutrients but do no meaningful good to the body as a whole, so too do homosexual unions receive all the benefits but contribute nothing positive to society. Even children adopted into such "families" (for the lack of a better term) are bound to grow up with a twisted perception of the world.

So that's my controversial blurb of the week. If you share a similar view, I'd love to hear from you. If you disagree with what I said, well, you can take your opinion and shove it.