Mr. Speaker, once again, I must express my surprise at this kind of reasoning, “If it is not done in other places, it cannot be done here.” The way the result is achieved is not as important as the result itself.
Although Belgium and the Netherlands made their decisions to permit marriage between same sex couples on a different basis than ours, they are now examples of respect for minority rights when it comes to homosexual marriage.
And that leads me to say a few words about the consequences of allowing same sex marriages. In fact, people have been saying that if we permit such marriages, society will self-destruct, morality will fly out the window and grave danger will threaten our society.
But when we look at the figures—they are recent but they are the only ones available for same sex marriages in the Netherlands—there has been no decrease in the number of heterosexual marriages nor has there been a drop in the birth rate. Holland is still there and the Earth still turns.
Thus, despite all those who point to same sex marriage as a threat to the rest of society, we can see that society continues to function.
Moreover, to everyone who says that the fact of allowing or recognizing rights for homosexuals leads to societal decadence, I would like to remind them that the examples of Greece and Rome were often mentioned in committee. First of all, when Greece was in its golden age, homosexuality was very widespread. Secondly, Rome was first sacked in the year 410 A.D. and fell in 476, not while it was pagan, but when it was Christian.
Thus, the survival of a civilization has nothing to do with the rights of a minority, even a homosexual minority. On the contrary, I stand with those who believe that a society is judged on its treatment of its minorities.