# Gay Marriage Ok: Supreme Court



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> OTTAWA (CP) _ Canada's top court says Ottawa has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada refused to say whether the traditional definition of marriage _ between one man and one woman _ violates equality rights.
> 
> ...


Well, it's about bloody time!  

This is fantastic news and I hope that Justice Minister Cotler tables the enabling legislation in the House of Commons before parliament rises for the holidays!


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Great news!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's good to see some sense in the courts. The churches have a right to decline to perform ceremonies and that is recognized in the ruling, but no one has a right to use marriage as a discriminator. This is a progressive and fair move, not meant to challenge the sanctity of marriage but to extend it. Love is all you need, indeed.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I am really proud to be a Canadian today!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

The court resisted the temptation to be intrusively activist. The ruling could have been clearer in saying what was right and wrong, and could have chosen to rule on the existing definition of marriage in terms of discrimination.

I find this reassuring. It is up to parliament to make laws, not the court. The court has pushed this back on Parliament with little guidance. The politicians are going to have to bite the bullet and legislate rather than have the court do it for them.

Too often our politicians are tempted to eye the opinion polls and refuse to legislate, preferring to let courts decide cases.

Whether or not one agrees with the decision, it is good news in the way it was handled.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Canada leads the way. The Charter now this. Here's hoping it passes with a huge majority


----------



## New Coke (Jul 13, 2004)

Good. It's also good that they can't make churches perform the ceremony. Things would have been messy otherwise. Would have clogged the courts. 

People are sue happy,


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> Here's hoping it passes with a huge majority


I have no objections, but there seems to be a stumbling block. There's a great deal of pressure on MPs not to pass it. Many are being threatened by some of their constituents. We'll see which have the guts and which don't.

Now if only I could see as much happiness regarding the vote to scrap the gun registry...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> There's a great deal of pressure on MPs not to pass it. Many are being threatened by some of their constituents.


Yep, there is very real opposition to this in rural areas, not unlike the gun registry.

Many MPs will pay with their seats if they vote in favour. This is an issue that is not condoned by all Canadians.

And before anyone takes issue with me, I am just making an observation based on interviews I have done on the subject in various parts of the west.

As for my view, let them form any union they want. Just don't redefine marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

No doubt our MP will be against it (Lanark Carleton riding- the majority seems to be a real bunch of hicks alot of the time). If I recall correctly our riding is one of only two in the whole of Ontario to vote in a PC MP (I think Renfrew did too). Not that the PC's are bad, but they are very conservative, and it seems very unlikely that they would go for this, much less support the liberals and go for it


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

> Here's hoping it passes with a huge majority


At this point, given the ruling of the lower courts and the ruling today, this is no longer a question of choice but a point of law. The final shape of that law is still to be determined.

To not pass it, agree or not, would be in direct contravention with the charter of right's and freedoms. It will pass, that is a guarantee. Who chooses not to show the backbone required to vote on a rule of law, will in and of themselves, prove their character. 

It takes courage to lead. It takes courage to do the right thing in the face of those who protest. It takes courage to support a law that you disagree with for your own religious or moral reasons. It takes courage to lead in a just and fair society.

This will separate the courageous from those who pander, the women from the girls, the men from the boys.

This is a great time to be a Canadian!


----------



## _Outcast_ (Oct 17, 2003)

Watch out Sinc, you're in danger of being shouted down or branded a "hick" if you don't embrace this with open arms. 

Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with something like this they are called down for it? Are people not allowed to have their own opinions? The same underlying principles and ideals that provide the freedom for the gay marriage thing to go forward suggest that people are entitled to their opinions. So if someone doesn't sgree with it they should be allowed to express that viewpoint. Of course in practice this will never be the case. As soon as someone says that they don't agree with it they will be shouted down as a ******* or a heretic or worse, a religious zealot.

I guess the only smart people are the ones who agree with you, eh?

Waiting to see what happens with respect to Sinc's comment.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Rumour has it that Elton John might come to Toronto to marry
his long time Canadian partner David Furnish.

Most likely It'll be a very secret wedding and it'll be over
before you find out it even started.

It was mentioned on CTV News earlier.

Older story of Elton John and David Furnish 


Dave


----------



## jrtech (Sep 24, 2002)

Don't worry SINC we Westerners can handle a bit of flack. Say what you want and live as you want just don"t tell me how to think. Thankyou!!


----------



## megabassjosh (Dec 7, 2004)

I'm with *SINC* on this one. 

I submit that I believe that every Canadian citizen deserves equal rights and treatment. I absolutely support the notion that homosexuals should not be denied the right to spend their lives with one another.

But I also submit, respectfully, that I would opt for defining marriage as the exclusive union between a man and a woman.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

> Watch out Sinc, you're in danger of being shouted down or branded a "hick" if you don't embrace this with open arms.


Absolutely not by me. Everyone is entitled to there opinion and this is a contentious issue. I'm not 100% comfortable with gay marriage but the reality is that to not include a group of people from one of societies institutions is exclusionary and some would argue racist. This is an institution which is governed not by laws of religion, but of, in our case, the federal government.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians equality under the rule of law. With such a charter in place, you have to be willing to accept the uncomfortable in order to preserve your own individual rights. We can't have it both ways, exceptions to the spirit of the charter would weaken everyone's individual freedoms.

Should one of our children be gay, how would you feel if they had a life partner and wanted to marry? Would you penalize them for something of which they have no control? How would you then feel about their exclusion then. 

What if we excluded people based on the fact that they were left handed, or suffered from a neural disorder, or anything really. We can't as a society, decide to draw a line in the sand at homosexuality. When we do that, we are then open to re - drawing that line at the whim of politicians of any current or future government.

So, to qualify my earlier statement. It is not a great time to be a Canadian because we allow gay marriage, but because the charter works for all Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Say what you want and live as you want just don"t tell me how to think. Thankyou!!


You just don't get it do you?

I repeat, I am not against gay unions, nor do I want to try and convince you that you should or should not be. Is that clear enough?

I stated that many westerners have voiced their opposition to gay marriage period, with no qualifiers, and that in my opinion is wrong, but hey, they are entitled to that opinion.

And for the record, one more time, I have no objections to equal spousal benefits under law. I simply do not agree it should be called "marriage". Define it any other way and it may find more acceptance among many Canadians who now reject it. Marriage is still a union between a man and a woman in the great majority of the countries of the world. 

Still think I am trying to tell you how to think?

Cheers


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

I agree with you on this Sinc. I have no problem with Gays having all the legal "advantages" of marriage but call it something else. Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and woman for hundreds of years or more. For anyone to change that with the stroke of a pen just doesn't seem right.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> And for the record, one more time, I have no objections to equal spousal benefits under law. I simply do not agree it should be called "marriage". Define it any other way and it may find more acceptance among many Canadians who now reject it. Marriage is still a union between a man and a woman in the great majority of the countries of the world.


This pretty much expresses my views. It feels wrong to deny spousal benefits to anyone based on their sexual orientation. It also feels wrong to define these unions as marriages. 

I am not sure the decision makes me proud the be Canadian. But I am proud to be one because we can debate it and have the rights necessary to make these decisions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This morning when I logged on to the Telus home page, I found the following survey. It pretty much backs up what I have been saying about the views of westerners I speak with:

"Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has vowed to fight same-sex marriage, even threatening to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution should Parliament make the unions legal. Do you agree with his position? 

60% Yes 
37% No 
2% Don't know/not sure"

See the actual page here:
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1789645

Cheers


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

The Supreme Court made it clear that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. Therefore, the notwithstanding clause cannot be invoked.

This was explained carefully be Alberta's Attorney General last night on CBC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> This is a great time to be a Canadian!


That is IF you support the ruling.

If you don't, (and many Canadians don't), in their view, it is a time to be ashamed to be a Canadian. 

I have no objections to equal spousal benefits under law. I simply do not agree it should be called "marriage". Define it any other way and it may find more acceptance among many Canadians who now reject it. Marriage is still a union between a man and a woman in the great majority of the countries of the world. 

Cheers


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Interesting poll Sinc, though as a web poll it is questionable in how accurately it reflects the will of Albertans.

Today's Edmonton Sun has a poll that suggests Albertans are not the ******** they are made out to be and are among the most accepting of gay unions and marriages.

Also in today's Star, polling firm EKOS suggests that Canadian opinion is such that the Liberals could frame the issue to their advantage as less than 10 per cent of voters see it as an election issue and those voters are more likely to be committed Conservatives anyways.

Personally, I have no problem with gay unions or marriages, and I question how those churchs that refuse to recognize civil marriages as marriages can oppose and be upset over civil marriages for gays.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

As soon as the debate is drawn into the traditional definition of marriage as being only that occuring between a man and a woman, the legal and ethical argument is lost and it becomes strictly political.

What precisely is lost by allowing same sex unions to be called marriages? Does it somehow reduce the value of existing heterosexual bonds? Are these bonds weakened?

In my opinion, the current divorce rate has done more to devalue the sanctity of marriage than anything else. I'd far rather true love be the definition than some societal moniker that allows heterosexuals to call themselves something in the name of tradition. We understand marriage as a public demonstration of commitment between two people. Is there something else to it? Should we demand that childless couples be un-married after a period of time? Are we saying that homosexuals cannot provide a nurturing family environment?

I realise there are sensitivities but I have heard not one compelling argument for retention of the current "definition" other than "tradition" (which I find as compelling as watching Bill O Reilly).

P.S. I respect the views of people who disagree with my position and realise it is a significant fraction of the population of this country. I would like to hear why you are opposed as this would further the debate and perhaps help to resolve the differences in opinion.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> ...the current divorce rate has done more to devalue the sanctity of marriage than anything else...


To that I would add marriages of convenience (e.g. for immigration or any purpose wherein either or both of the spouses stand to gain _something_ due to their matrimony), celebrity junk marriages that are publicised to death and last only days, and so on. 

I for one am happy with this Supreme Court decision, and proud that my country is at the forefront of societal evolution.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Personally, I'm bemused that the gay community - who are generally so far ahead of the straight community on social issues - want any part of this obsolete tradition. My partner and I were effectively forced to get married by the US government so she could be declared my 'spouse' and given a visa, but neither of us ever wanted to get married. But if they want to get married, why should anyone be botherd about it?

I'd much prefer to see changes made to the legal system such that 'marriages' weren't necessary. However, failing that, you can't say that some people can get married and others can't.

The fact that Ralph Klein and George Bush - intellectual giants and paragons of compassion that they are - oppose gay marriage should be reason enough to pass this, but it seems so obviously fair that I'm stunned that there is any debate at all. Being the tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist that I am, I suspect the excitement in the media regarding this trivial issue is a smoke screen for some evil deals being made in back-rooms somewhere. Stay alert!

Cheers


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

I have been thinking a lot about this 'definition' and must say, I did agree with Sinc. That is DID agree with Sinc. As times change, so do definitions. One example most of us have experienced would be 'house'. I used to live in a 'house' and it was just that, a HOUSE, a freestanding structure. But when people come to my 'house' now, they are entering a building and coming to my condo/apartment. It is just part of the vernacular, 'house' has morphed into a meaning it did not have in the past. Why? Because society and times have changed. Perhaps marriage will be the same.

But things change because the people in society let them, or want to let it. Anyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. (well some are just crazy, but that is another topic  )


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So 

"Love" is universal but marriage is not

"Lifetime" is universal but marriage is not

"Children" are universal but marriage is not

"Family" is universal but marriage is not

"Familial property" is universal but marriage is not

"Sharing" is universal but marriage is not

"Inheritance" is universal but marriage is not

Good times and bad, sickness and health are universal but marriage is not

"Vows" are universal but marriage is not

Gays are ALMOST equal but maybe not

Give me a break............


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

So what it comes down to is:

Is marriage a religious institution or a contract of law?

Answer this question and you'll solve most of the problem.

- Martin.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

> Is marriage a religious institution or a contract of law?


As history goes, I believe it is a religious institution backed up by legislation. Liberals insisting to use the term marriage is demanding "equality!" for equality's sake. Why would one demand to be recognized by an institution that they flatly reject as much as they are rejected by? 

Oh, BTW, I don't oppose gay unions at all (it's just wonderful, isn't it, that I will be assumed a bigot if I oppose the smallest liberal-democratic progression? Contradiction perhaps?)

Anyhow,


> As soon as the debate is drawn into the traditional definition of marriage as being only that occuring between a man and a woman, the legal and ethical argument is lost and it becomes strictly political.


That is pretty fallacious. You think that after three-hundred years or so one can be so sure that a 2000-year-old tradition was based upon nothing but politics? No philosophical and theological grounding? No system of ethics that thought itself out pretty damned well that no one here, I think, probably understands much of it other than what they've been told by the age we live in? Come on. Political how? When even by the most "liberal" polling, only 30% oppose gay unions, who would flatter the losers here?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

> Is marriage a religious institution or a contract of law?


Unfortunately, it is both, and untangling what consequences of the rights we ascribe to married people descend from what aspects of 'marriage' is likely to be impractical if not impossible.

If we could take the term 'marriage' out of our legal lexicon, and have all taxation law, immigration law, benefits etc. apply to designated partners regardless of sex or other characteristics, this would be much less of a problem. As much as I think it would behove us to do so, until it is accomplished, it is simpler, and for many, more desirable, to simply allow any consenting adults to marry each other.

A fringe benefit of this parsimonious solution is that it aggravates the dinosaurs among us who fear change and cling desperately to their myths and misanthropic social agendas. The only drawback that I can see is that having gays get married may breath life into what ought to be a dying tradition.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

very very well put........

Pair bonding is a social/sexual phenomena that far preceded religious or social "arrangement". 2000 years is an eye blink for the species.

How do you think we go here parthenogenesis??









The bonding can be heterosexual or homosexual in species other than our own. 'Tis in the genes and the womb and perhaps mum's martini.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Tedj, I said that if it comes down to the definition of marriage as only occuring between a man and a woman, then the ethical and legal issues are moot. I didn't mean there cannot be other arguments made on legal or ethical grounds. In Canada, the legal position is that its a political matter. I'm not sure where ethics come into play in opposition (but I can think of a number of ethical reasons to allow gay marriage).

"Tradition" is a rather fallacious argument since the tradition of many groups is to allow a man to marry multiple wives. 

I would like to hear the reasons why people oppose gay marriage. Please.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Tedj, I think calling marriage a 2,000 year old tradition is a bit of a stretch, especially if one compares what marriage was 2,000 years ago to what it is now.

Back then as far as cultural historians know, marriage was basically just couples deciding to live together or arrangements being made for them to live together. And they were hardly lifelong arrangements, at least no more so than today.

The first "legal" marriages in western culture were property agreements between rich Roman families. But there was no religion involved in these agreements.

The church didn't get involved in marriages until about 500 A.D., but it wasn't a very serious effort. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that it initially accepted same-sex marriages. 

The Church didn't really get serious about marriage until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when it decided Catholics had to be married by a Catholic priest.

And even from then to now marriage has evolved a lot. Not so many years ago interracial marriages weren't recognized.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Alfred Korzybski once wrote that "There are two ways to slide easily through life. Namely, to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." A pioneer in semantics, Korzybski founded a new school of psychological-philosophical semantics which he named "general semantics" (GA). Widely credited with having expanded semantics from its ordinary concern with only the meaning of words into a new system of understanding human behavior, Korzybski held the conviction that "in the old construction of language, you cannot talk sense." 

He contended that because of Aristotelian thinking habits, which he thought outmoded, men did not properly evaluate the world they talked about and that, in consequence, words had lost their accuracy as expressions of ideas, if ever they had such accuracy. He by-passed the mythological dogmas and enquired, “What is the unique characteristic of humans which makes them human?” He observed anew that each human generation has the potential capacity, unlike animals, to start where former generations left off. He analyzed the neurological and socio-cultural processes by which men can create, preserve, and transmit what they have learned individually to future generations. This unique neurological capacity he called "time-binding". 

The premises of the non-Aristotelian system can be given by the simple analogy of the relation of a map to the territory: 

"A map is not the territory. 
A map does not represent all of a territory. 

Applied to daily life and language: 

A word is not what it represents. 
A word does not represent all of the 'facts' about anything in our world."


Korzybski's theories pertaining to language in turn led to a general consciousness of understanding as the necessary basis for the achievement of socio-cultural maturity. Thus, when we use the word "marriage" as ONLY being a union between a man and a woman, we violate far more than the Canadian Charter of Rights (or the US Bill or Rights). By declaring that the word "marriage" has only one accepted meaning, we are making unconscious over-generalizations in our use of language and committing what is knowns in linguistics as“illegitimate totalities.”

I am a heterosexual who is happily married to a woman. However, I do not "own" or "possess" the word "marriage" (i.e., The word 'marriage' is not the thing we consider to be a marriage.). I have no problem with a gay or lesbian couple using this word "marriage" to try and describe their union. As my grandfather would say, "You can put a shoe in the oven, but it won't come out a bagel." You can call a homosexual union something else, but it is still a marriage. Thus, why not call ALL unions between two consenting adults a marriage? Or, let's NOT use the word marriage for anyone. From now on, by Dr.G. decree, by the power vested in my by The Great One in Salt Spring Island, all such unions between two heterosexual or homosexual couples shall be henceforth be knows as "whizpops". 

In the final analysis, it should make no difference what we call something so long as, linguistically speaking, we mean the same thing. I would be firmly against any law that did not allow my wife and I to use the word "marriage" if this what was being used by a gay or lesbian couple. In the same way, I am against not allowing a gay or lesbian couple to use the same word to describe their union as I use to describe my union. 

Lincoln once said when asked to define slavery, "As I would not be a slave, so too, I would not be a slave holder." I do not want to be forced to use a word denied to someone else, or to force someone else to use a different word to describe the same basic "thing", because THE WORD IS NOT THE THING!!!!!!

So endeth the lecture.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

I do not think that words have "lost their accuracy as expressions of ideas", but that words are thought to have no meaning because of this very very movement away from the "Aristotelian system"--that is, I assume, teleologically-directed understanding of what man is.


> A map is not the territory.
> A map does not represent all of a territory.


I'm not sure where Aristotle says anything to the opposite. His arguments for what is best for man do stand on certain axioms--i.e. man is a rational animal, and his actions are best in accord with his particular function-- true, but that says nothing about semantics.

Marriage, I suppose for ol' Aristotle, is the smaller community, one which ought to inculcate rational thought, etc., and let those without magnanimity be relatively content in the affairs of lesser men and women-- the many. I don't think that he'd be against homosexuality, even unions, other than the fact that if universally willed the species would come to a quick end. Marriage, then, as a word, represents certain actions fulfilled by certain people who best fulfill what intimate unions are purposeful for. But marriage is not an arbitrary word, for it is still connected, for better or worse, with a certain social function that some argue homosexual relations cannot bring about. This may be false, but it is not to be argued that ALL have the title to the word-- rather, the word DOES have meaning, and those that wish to have entitlement to it must argue that they can fulfill the requirements for it-- not to mention actually decides what marriage means! My girlfriend and I, although we sleep, eat, love, live together, do not desire to be called any name that describes any more than what we really are, although we have legal entitlement to it. Rather, the meaning I take from a "mere" word is more than I feeel I can invest in at the moment. Just because I take a form does not mean that I have the substance to which the word marriage ideally, for some "religious folks", means. 
So, to take any word and apply it to anything does not raise people to a standard, but lowers the standard to the democratic mediocrity. That is how morons come to be presidents, and how bad people come to be married-- usually hetero, I'm sure. But, again, that does not lead to some semantic relativism that cuts teleology off from words, and consequently life.
Other than that, Aristotle was most likely "homosexual" too.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"...the word DOES have meaning, and those that wish to have entitlement to it must argue that they can fulfill the requirements for it-- not to mention actually decides what marriage means! My girlfriend and I, although we sleep, eat, love, live together, do not desire to be called any name that describes any more than what we really are, although we have legal entitlement to it." tedj, I see your point. However, what if there was a designation for what you and your girlfriend share that you wanted, but were denied to use this term until you "can fulfill the requirements for it"? What if your relationship was deemed "immoral" or "against the laws of nature"? Would you not rebel against these words which inaccurately describe all the reality that you and your girlfriend share? Or, you could tell the world "Think what you will, for my girlfriend and I share what we call ______ (you fill in the blank)." Thus, we are actually in agreement, because the word you use in the blank is NOT the thing you share. What you share is what you share, regardless of what you call it. The government could pass a law forbidding the use of your word to describe what you share, but you would still feel the same way towards each other. They may outlaw what you share, but you would still feel it deep inside.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

What I'm saying, Dr. G, is that I can claim one thing, which I feel, and I can realize another, that may be different. There ARE other words, like union, which should be good enough. "Partner", which I personally dislike --primarily because it is so vague-- is what everyone seems to use now. "Marriage", though? That may be a meaning already taken. So, like others, I'm not opposed to unions, or partner-ings, or whathaveyou. I just realize that some use the term "marriage" as something other than what describes me and mine, and homosexual unions as well. Where and why do all-out liberals lose respect for Christianity? I'm not the hated "dinosaur" (western protestant), but I do see that it would be a very hush-hush topic if we were talking about another religion altogether.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc:


> A fringe benefit of this parsimonious solution is that it aggravates the dinosaurs among us


I will have you know I represent that remark.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

tedj, no one may "take" a word. They may say what a particular word may mean to them, but this meaning is not static. Thus, "marriage" is more than the word, and has room to expand in meaning.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

meaning is static, at least in part.

what you say "large truck about to run you over" can't be subjectively interpreted to me as "everything's a-okay".

words can be "taken" because in social atmospheres, meaning must be conveyed so that others may either agree or disagree with one's account of the nature of a thing.

I'm not opposed to someone arguing "a homosexual union is a marriage because one's telos in life is to direct him/herself in accord with charity, and both hetero- and homosexual relationships fulfill this end. Marriage is the most constructive and practical arena in which most people will both display charity and give cathartic release to physical desire; homosexual relations have the potential to fulfill this purpose, and therefore ought to be considered candidates for 'marriage'." 

But, I've not heard any debate along these lines. Rather, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater-- "Christianity is old, therefore wrong. Marriage is emancipated from the old, and because marriage never meant anything progressive, then it may be reinterpreted as anything we so desire." You see, I'm not against. But if someone wants to be something, they've got to know what it IS, and why they should be apart.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

tedj, you have provided an excellent definition for marriage with your comment that " Marriage is the most constructive arena in which most people will both display charity and give cathartic release to physical desire; homosexual relations have the potential to fulfill this purpose, and therefor ought to be considered 'marriage'." In this, we are in agreement.

Re your "large truck", I screamed this to you, but it was actually a large Tonka toy truck. You did not hear me and it bumped in to you, without causing you any harm.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

LOL. very good.

TO finish, though; It is not the prospect of gay marriage I dislike, but the lack of intelligent, learned debate from both sides. I guess thats the nature of the game though. 

G'night.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_There will always be some who feel that a homosexual relationship is wrong, period_

Yep and that's one major reason NOT to use different terms - it feeds and "state sanctions" bigotry.

If you apply your reasoning to race - you would not even think of making a distinction based on skin colour -now - tho that would have been the case 100 years ago - and some would do so now.

Would you have the laws say man or woman and then other terms saying Chinese Man, black woman for the same laws......NO.

The court not only has said equality is equality in the strongest terms but clearly as in the most important of laws against discrimination, equality must be SEEN.

Remember we are discussing laws here

what's the image










Blindfolded - so as NOT to differentiate on appearance - this is a "before the law" issue.

Some would make it a "moral issue" - they are welcome to do that - BUT not in law. The courts have made that clear by exempting religious institutions from being forced to carry out ceremonies in conflict with their "teaching of mores".

Individuals and couples are free to choose their venue providing they abide by the rules of the "congregation". If I want a Jewish wedding I would need to become instructed in Judaic principles, mores and laws - be accepted in the community and then could be married under the conditions set by that religious community having fulfilled the requirements.

But this is not the overarching "before the law" of the wider secular community. There - it's a legal issue NOT a religious one. State and church separation. 

If you use race as a similar discriminator I think you can see - *equal MEANS equal period - no caveats.*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've said this before...and I'm gonna say it again, right now.

It's none of my business who is with whom. Or what their arrangements are. NONE!!

It doesn't matter what I think...or what anyone else thinks...because _WE_ are not _THEM_ . Just because I happen to like girls doesn't mean for one single minute that I expect eveyone else to like girls. Nor would I expect everyone to like the sort of girls that I happen to like. 

I also wouldn't give two hoots what anyone thought about my choice of partners. Nor should ANYONE ever worry about "what the others think".

Because it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!

Sexual preferences, skin colour, religion, language...it just doesn't matter. We are ALL human. No one else has a right to tell us what we can and can't choose. In fact, no one else even has a right to make any comments on this. Because it's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

The deeply-entrenched herd mentality in humans is always looking for obvious weaknesses or "bad differences" and trying to cull them out. It's been going on for millenia.

It's high time we moved beyond that. We ARE beyond that now. Wayyy beyond that. Time to grow up.

Just my thoughts on this. Simple as that.

[ December 11, 2004, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: MacNutt ]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, we agree on your contention that "It's high time we moved beyond that. We ARE beyond that now. Wayyy beyond that. Time to grow up." Amen, brother.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> What happens to the terms “husband” and “wife”?


Interesting question Peter. They certainly cannot be applied to gay unions given their present definitions, being gender based.

How do supporters of gay "marriage" plan to get around that significant difference?

Just one more reason to use two different terms for two very different types of union.

Cheers


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Sinc,

The two gay couples I know are both female. They do refer to each other as Wife. I can't speak for gay males as I don't know. Let it also be said that they are not married, it has only been a dream until now. Yet they still call each other Wife.

A non starter in my book.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Are they wifing as a facetious inside joke perhaps? You should ask them. They may be poking fun by using the term wife, maybe not, but it could be. 

Why not 'partner'? My 'wife' and I use that term all the time. No gender bias, and no possesive conotations to it. 'My wife' sounds like property. 'My partner' sounds like someone that you are doing something together with. To us anyway.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex, until you can find another word to replace "my", both terms carry equal possessive connotations. 

My book, my love, my wife, my partner, my car, my son, my daughter, etc.

I get around lots of those by using "our" when referring to jointly owned items, ie "our" car, or "our" sons or daughter.

But I can't get around the wife or husband thing. Rather than view it as possessive, why not think of the "my wife" as "one and only" wife?

Cheers


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

> Are they wifing as a facetious inside joke perhaps? You should ask them. They may be poking fun by using the term wife, maybe not, but it could be.


I don't think so, but I've never asked.

One of the women has been one of my dearest friends for 20 years( Since University ). When she says wife, it is almost as though she is putting it out there to gain acceptance. Something, she does not need to do with me.

She and her friends may be an exception, but I don't think so.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I prefer the term _mate_, myself. Doesn't carry baggage, and is quite egalitarian.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Good food for thought, Dr. G. and Ted. The issue is not so black and white as some would suggest, at least not to me. If words are open to redefinition as one feels the urge, then I guess, as of now, I am now a "woman", because I'm feeling the need to considered equal and no one can stop me from being called one. Both genders shall henceforth use the title Ms, as both sexes are equal and to use separate designations is discriminatory.
The part of the argument that bothers me is how some are so "open-minded & modern" as to think that those who are traditionalists have no right to hold the definition of "marriage" in it's long-held state. It is quite clear that many are uncomfortable with having the same name to describe heterosexual and homosexual unions. Having said that, it has been clearly stated by those in this forum who share that view that they don't feel any discrimination to the social rights of gay couples...they just don't feel that a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union should share the same descriptive word. They're the same and yet different. A doxie and a poodle are both dogs and have the same animal rights, but they are different and have different descriptive names. 
What happens to the terms “husband” and “wife”? Are they now obsolete so that we will in the future be obliged to use generic terms such as “spouse” or “partner” so as not to be embarrassed for a faut-pas.? 
Maybe the term “marriage” should be thrown out all together, instead of re-defining it. We can now be “unionized” or “legally partnered”. Maybe there could be a prefix or suffix to a term to distinguish the relationship types…who knows!?
There will always be some who feel that a homosexual relationship is wrong, period. There is a larger segment of the population that is only uncomfortable with the re-defining of marriage and don’ want the two types of sexual relationships “blurred”. Does it HAVE to be the same term?? Is there not a compromise to diminish this debate? Is there any valid reason why two different terms can’t be seen as equal social contracts?
I’m just thinking out loud, hoping that dialogue will bring about a happy ending for all. Whatever happens will not shake my world. I’m a Gemini and look at both sides of an argument. I often take the role of Devil’s advocate. On this issue, I’m trying to add some balance to the debate in favour of those who feel threatened or bullied by the “enlightened liberals”. I hate being dictated what I should think or do, so I can fully empathize (that magic word that too few seem to know). Open to feedback, just not attitude.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

For the record, I'm fully in agreement that all peoples are equal under the law. The point I was raising about terminology was not in conflict with that, I don't think. All races have equality, but they still call themselves black, Indian, Chinese, or whatever...they're equal but have distinguishable differences (in many cases). Men and women are equal but have different terminology to distinguish them. Could the argument not be made that a relationship between a man and a woman could be called differently than a relationship between same-sex couples and yet their social/legal rights be the same?
Carex, the term “partner” is currently widely used by unmarried couples (both types of relationships), so that’s not the the generic term I’d use for “spouse” Do we have tohomogenize terms so as not to be clear, but yet be “politically correct”? 
Our society has come a long way in a relatively short time in accepting the notion of same-sex marriage. I think that’s a good thing and I wish all gay couples the very best in life, just as I do anyone else. But here IS a difference in the relationship makeup, and for that reason I believe the part of the population that opposes the use of the traditional term “marriage” has a valid point. They may not ultimately be correct, or win the debate, but they have the right to their feelings. Equality means they have rights too. 
Personally, given the openness of the gay community (e.g. Gat Pride) and the victory it is for them to obtain full legal relationship rights, why the big fuss over using a different designation for their legal union? I suspect that many would be proud to be identified as having a legal union with another gay person.

[ December 11, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A very well thought out and interesting post Peter. You have stated my case for me far better than I ever could.

Thank you.

Cheers


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Peter
Thanks for taking the time to craft your last 2 posts. They express much of what I feel in a very eloquent way.

Saves me a lot of typing too!


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Peter Said,


> They may not ultimately be correct, or win the debate, but they have the right to their feelings. Equality means they have rights too.


Agreed, and I think the debate here on all levels has shown respect.
As for terminology, in the wake of the new bill, Gay people will define their own terminology, and we will have to accept that. If they choose to be called married, so be it.
The only way around this issue is to deem all marriages "Legal Unions" and let any group, be it religious or ethnic, define terminology themselves.
Much as groups of different race define themselves, and other groups accept it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ANY distinction under law = sanction of the state for discrimination.
This is a legal issue. Marriage is a legal term in this case.

It MAY also carry other meaning for individuals and religions.
Equal is equal without caveat in the law.

If you take away the heat and just look at it as a legal term like "contract" it's far easier to deal with.

••

Now discussing what is wrong or right with human/family/pair relationships - those are social and moral issues and there is much food for discussion and difference there.

Women's rights still have issues but most







accept the absolute equality under law even tho reality is far different and has far to go to be true in fact. Those are moral and social issues, not legal. many churches have a ways to go there too, others are paragons.
It'll take time on the gay issues as well.

In my mind the court HAS to go very far to make a strong statement to overcome the bias that exists in the social realm.
EQUAL PERIOD.....in law.

•••

Now anyone care to tackle kids rights.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Counter thought...

man + woman = married
man + man = married
woman + woman = married

"I'm married" means what? Will it mean I'm legally contracted with another person of an unknown sex that you'll have to figure out without embarrasing anybody. 
In an age where clarity and transparency is a mantra, doesn't this fly in the face of clarity? Even "Married -A" and Married -B" could solve the debate....... maybe not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One person and another person - why are you bringing sexual descriptions into legal concepts.

A contract between one person an another or one person and a corporation etc

These are legal terms.

The Charter forbids discimination based on sex.....period. ( amongst other things )

These "persons" have property, these persons have pensions, these persons in this legally defined relationship have legal obligations and rights...........take the sex out just like you take the race out.

You don't say this Caucasian person, this Roma person..........









Take the modifier out of the legal terms. Marriage is a legal term.
It is ALSO functional in religious and social milieus but for the purpose of the ruling it's a legal term.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Umm... so you want to reserve the term marriage to avoid the possibility of the embarrassment of having to explain to someone you are heterosexual? Pity.

I've still not heard a compelling argument for denying same-sex couples the right to become married. All I've heard is "sensibilities" and "it doesn't seem right", etc. These people are not asking for a church wedding, just the right for societal recognition. And I also doubt there is any statisitcal differnece between the longevity of same-sex relationships compared with heterosexual relationships so the idea of a "constant" partner is not relevant.

Here's a deal: Let's let same sex couples become married and they'll promise not to use the term husband and wife? Fair compromise?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *One person and another person - why are you bringing sexual descriptions into legal concepts.*


Boy, we've dragged the institution of marriage to this low a common denominator















Maybe that's the root of the conflict...."what is marriage"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In the law it's two persons....for the moment.

Beyond that - what you make of it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> for the moment


Hold that thought.

Cheers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I've still not heard a compelling argument for denying same-sex couples the right to become married.*


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing aginst same sex legal unions, although it's been noted that there is a large number of people in this country (and the rest of the world) that do. This part of the discussion is centred on sharing the term "marriage" or creating an equal but distinguishing term.
It appears that "marriage " is only a legal contract to some. To others it is a revered institution whose description excludes gay relationships. Other have opinions somewhere in between. As oposed to an invasion of the designation, some would prefer a separate one, but still legally equal. Can you blame them for being a bit protective of something that is so personal to many? Then, of course, there's the religious side of the debate, but I'm not going there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I've still not heard a compelling argument for denying same-sex couples the right to become married.


And you are not likely to.

As Peter states, the definition of marriage is in question.

That's all.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

> "I'm married" means what? Will it mean I'm legally contracted with another person of an unknown sex that you'll have to figure out without embarrasing anybody.


Close. It means I have chosen to spend the rest of my life with another person, and wish to accept the societal and legal obligations that go along with that choice, and the sex of that person is irrelevant to some other person's dealings with me.

I'm married, and tend to use the word spouse to refer to the person I married--especially online. Our genders are not relevant to most situations. I don't see why I need to reveal that where it does not make a difference.

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where gender is relevant--just that there are many situation where gender is not relevant and yet is brought into the issue. Example: if I post a story about my spouse making me dinner online, neither of our genders matter. Granted, not everyone feels that they're gender is irrelevant to every situation, but I see that as a personal decision about what people choose to reveal about themselves.

A civil union, as I think most people mean it in this context, is functionally equivalent to a marriage. Why differentiate on the genders of the people involved? Unless there is a difference that I simply don't see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why is it so hard???? - "marriage" is a legal term like "contract", person, corporation, township.

No sex. No race. ........









What YOU personally view it as is really nothing to do with the legal term.

It's a term in law which the court is ruling on.

A Catholic synod can rule on it as a religious institution within the confines of it's hierarchy and purview.

YOU can make it what YOU and your chosen wants.

The LAW has a definition. Persons - the charter forbids discrimination on the basis of gender. Deal with it.









••

December 25th to many is loaded with all sorts of overlays of joy, sorrow, religious meaning, commercial excess, the list goes on.

To the law it's a statutory holiday......end of story, none of the rest applies.

To YOU it may, to the law it's one amongst several statutory holidays requiring businesses to act in a certain way towards employees.
The 25th has no more weight than August 1st or May 24th.....to the law.

What YOU bring to the institution as you view it is up to you.
Dress it up with anything you want in the way of ritual, ceremony, oath - it's your right.

The LAW defines the civil aspects of the union...period.
Equal is equal. Two persons.....for now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> for now.


Hold that thought.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think it might have been easier to define "marriage" as a union in a religious ceremony and "civil union" as the civl portion only

after all, marriage usually consists of the religious part and then the civil part


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Not having read this thread in it's entirety, 
If marriage is a union within the church and a legally binding contract, how is it that couples who live together [heterosexual couples] are treated equally in the eyes of the law. 

As a financial planner working with gay couples, it was very important to me and my clients to ensure that they had a good will drawn up, and made sure that their partners were taken care of financially. Family members who disagreed with the relationship could potentially dispute the will. 

A stable relationship is hard enough to come by these days. Call it marriage, call it cucumbers or willie nillie.. I don't care. There are so many more important issues to deal with.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Why is it so hard???? - "marriage" is a legal term like "contract", person, corporation, township.
> No sex. No race. ........
> What YOU personally view it as is really nothing to do with the legal term.[b/]
> *


*Why is so hard for YOU? Marriage is MORE than a legal contract to many, maybe not to you. And of course sex is a part of it...it always has been. Many people have abstained from pre-marital sex because of the esteem in which they held the instution of marriage. 
Opening the Webster's Intermediate Dictionary, the definition printed there states: "the mutual relationship of husband and wife: the institution whereby a man and a woman are joined in a special social and legal relationship for the purpose of making a home and raising a family." A watered down definition would be " an intimate and close union"
Setting aside discussion of couples who don't have families after marriage, It is obvious that the term "marriage" would hold a special and explicit definition of the type of relationship. 
I would argue that those who view persons that hold this view of marriage in a contemptuous manner are the ones who don't get it. 
Sure, marriage has a legal aspect to it...that's part of the social order of our society. But it goes much further than that and deserves respect and consideration. To state that it's merely a contract like a corporation is an affront to those who hold it more seriously as a relationship with legal guidance. Are you suggesting that the gay community is wanting "marriage" just for the legal protection and social rights? Isn't it also because they want to publically recognized as being committed in a loving relationship?
I now toss the ball back into the court....... *


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

seperating marriage from civil union just seemed to be politically expeident


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The court is ruling on the *legal* aspect. 

The dictionary is NOT the legal definition - you are dragging all the social and religious aspects into what is a LEGAL definition.
Why is it so hard to separate the two.
Geez









You can put all the "importance" you want on any given holiday - to the law it's a "statutory holiday.

Whether it's meaningful or meaningless to YOU, the law only is only concerned that the holiday confers certain rights and obligations.

You're not concerned about "holy day" being used for an entirely secular purpose in the legal definition.

YOU can think whatever you want about marriage, the LAW treats it in the way the court outlined.
Equal is equal.

You are trying to create a distinction between THIS two persons and THAT two persons under the law. The Charter denies that.

Common sense should too.









What gays want or don''t want, what weight or lack of weight they give to the term is just as meaningless to the legal term as what you want or don't want.

The law does not care about that aspect - you do - the law deals with rights and obligations of two persons ....for now.

It matters not in the least if a gay couple want it for the legal protection or any other reason THEY determine.
The law only deals with the rights and obligations and you cannot discriminate between the rights of two groups based on gender according to the Charter which is the over arching document.

You have every right to foment for change in the Charter in which case the courts will interpret according to the changes you have managed to incorporate.
For now - it's what we have and I for one am very proud of the Charter and it's wide ranging implications.

[ December 12, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *you are dragging all the social and religious aspects into what is a LEGAL definition.
> Why is it so hard to separate the two.
> Geez
> .*


That's the point that you refuse to accept...it IS more than a legal definition and you're hung up on that it has that aspect only. I'm merely defending those who feel their institution of marriage is being invaded and don't want the social and traditional aspect of the marriage definition separated from the legal. You see it as simple black and white, but not all agree. The courts and Paliament will do what they want, but that doesn't make it the will of all the people. The Young Offenders Act is a good example of that.
Lesbian and gay couples seek the right to marry because their relationships, even under domestic partnership laws, are not given the same recognition or benefits as heterosexual married couples, despite their responsibilities and commitment. In fact, lesbian and gay couples often face intense discrimination in such areas as "family" health coverage, child custody, insurance and inheritance benefits, taxation and community property rights. A lesbian or gay man may be turned away at the hospital if her or his partner becomes seriously ill, because they are neither married nor blood relatives. For those reasons, I support them having equal legal rights.
I'd like to hear a legal opinion on whether there is a problem having different legal names/titles for the different relationships and yet have the same legal rights. Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't buy the child and holiday comparisons with the topic at hand, but debating them will go nowhere. I'd like to hear what others have to say now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter, when I read this part of an editorial in this morning's paper, I thought of your statements made in the thread regarding the legal vs marriage issue:



> Since the advent of the charter, freedom of religion in Canada is being increasingly defined by the courts to mean "freedom from religion." Courts are declaring that faith is essentially a private matter that must be increasingly kept out of the public sphere.
> 
> Remember, it was only in 1995 that the Supreme Court declared that "marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be legally possible to define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie traditional marriage."
> 
> ...


It would seem to give your opinion some weight. I know it does mine.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The court has ruled on the legal definition. It's not "more than" - the legal definition is what the court is ruling on.

You can dress it up all you like in tinsel or tar - the court and charter is blind to gender. What you bring to the term marriage is entirely up to you - the court could care less until you breach it's provisions in the code. THEN it doesn't care what flavour of person you are - only that you have not abided by the rights and obligations.

The only real subtext is the strength of the ruling being unanimous and in no uncertain terms to counteract bigotry. The Supreme court has wagged a collective finger.

BTW do you see anything gender specific in "Supreme court" - no. Yet "traditionally" in the past - if you said "judge" it would autmatically be interpeted as a male person. 

Most don't think of a judge today as any specific gender even tho culurally being a judge is a terrifically powerful and iconic role. It's gender neutral - so is the legal term marriage.

Anything else YOU or the gay community bring to the term is incidental.
If no gay in Canada ever even used the term - it would have no impact on the legal definition.

Go down to the gay community and make your case about - not quite equal.









The copyright has run out on "marriage".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One again, regardless of the opinions of others, a heavy blanket has been tossed over the debate by MacDoc, whose self centered opinions are so "right" in his mind there is no room for compromise of any kind.

We can discuss this until doomsday, and no matter who thinks what, that condescending, "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude hangs over the arena like flatulence.

I give up. We're wrong, he's right.

Now depending on where you live, bow east or west to Mississauga.

I grow weary of it all.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter ask yourself if all persons are equal under the law??

It all flows from that.

A "child" has a legal definition. The definition has no modifier as to gender.
Is a "child" far more than the legal definition? - of course. But to the law it's a "person" under a certain age. Period.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I was going to make a conservative case for gay marriage but someone (a group within the US Republican party) already has so I'll post from their site. 

Link to The Case for Civil Marriage Equality, from where the text below is taken 

Link to Related Issues 

Civil marriage equality will benefit society by encouraging stable relationships, strengthening the institution of marriage, and providing important protection for gay and lesbian families. Let's take a look at some of the specific reasons why civil marriage will advance the cause of fairness and liberty.

-Gay civil marriage will lead to more stable relationships. This is a conservative argument that the religious right should support. You will often hear those on the right rail against homosexuality because they say gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Marriage is an institution that will encourage monogamy and long term committed relationships. That is a good thing. How can the religious right disagree with this point?

-Gay civil marriage will not threaten the institution of marriage. The religious right talks about "defending marriage" or "protecting marriage." From what? If gay people could marry tomorrow, that would not harm heterosexual marriage. This would only "threaten" heterosexual marriage if gay marriage was a viable alternative for straight people. Of course, this is patently absurd. You cannot "make" someone become gay or lesbian, just as you cannot make someone be heterosexual. Look at Vermont. Civil unions became legal there in 1999, but the sky has not fallen. Heterosexual marriage has not been adversely affected. In fact, one could argue, because this is something we have been denied, gay and lesbian couples will take the contract of marriage more seriously. Preliminary data from countries with civil unions supports this thesis.

-Throughout history, marriage has changed with society. Those opposed to gay civil marriage often talk about the "tradition" of marriage. Most have trouble articulating a good reason not to have it so they are left only with the flimsy argument that, "It has always been this way." If this argument sounds familiar, it is. Segregationists used to say the same thing during the Civil Rights struggle four decades ago. Those opposed to gay marriage never mention how the institution of marriage has changed during the last 2,000 years. As society has evolved, becoming better educated and more tolerant, the traditions and acceptable definitions of marriage have been altered. If marriage had not changed throughout human history:

1. An adult man would be allowed to marry a 12 year-old girl.
2. Someone could be forced into a marriage arranged by their parents.
3. A person would not be allowed to marry someone of another race.
4. Men could treat their wives as property to be disposed of at will.
5. A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives.
6. A person could not marry someone of a different religion.
7. A person could not marry someone from a different economic class.
8. It would be impossible to divorce, no matter how physically or emotionally abusive your spouse.

As society has changed, so too has the institution of marriage. With a better understanding of gays and lesbians, the time has come for another change to this institution. 

Committed gay and lesbian couples are being used as a scapegoat for the weakened institution of marriage. What is a bigger threat to marriage: Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage or a committed lesbian couple pledging to spend their lives together? You cannot blame gay and lesbian Americans for a divorce rate approaching 50%. There are many complicated reasons for the high rate of failed marriages. Instead of examining those causes, some on the radical right find it easier to blame gay and lesbian families. If those on the extreme right were really interested in “strengthening” marriage, they would be proposing a Constitutional amendment to prohibit no-fault divorce. Or they would be looking for ways to eliminate adultery.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

Aw MacDoc... Now you've gone and made Sinc 'weary'.  

Although I do agree with your 'legal' philosophy, the opinions Peter and others are sharing make for a very interesting discourse. There is a lot to think about and learn and I am very glad to hear these opinions.

Yes, it is 'slightly' OT, but certainly keeping in the spirt of this thread to discuss the social, as well as legal, aspects of this decision. I am delighted to see such a varied group share such an enlightened view. Even if it does vary from person to person.

If marriage were strictly a 'legal' issue, would not the separation of church and state require that religious ceremonies be halted. If it were just a legal issue, we could do away with a lot of things and just sign the paperwork. It is much more that that to ourselves as people and a society. Thus, should be discussed in that light.

As for this:



> 5. A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives.


Out of all the senarios in that list, this is the only one I wish was still allowed... Why? (Fade in to dream scene...)

Homer : I don't know, Flanders, having two wives could have its advantages.
[Homer's imagination conjures up himself lying in a hammock while Marge and the cocktail waitress chop wood and dig a hole, respectively]
Homer : Chop, chop, dig, dig, chop, chop, dig, dig, chop, chop, dig, dig ...
Marge : You know, Homey, there's so much more two wives could do for you ...
Homer : I hear digging, but I don't hear chopping


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fine Sinc - you have nothing to contribute - go away then and sulk. If you can't separate social issues from legal definitions too bad.

••

Witt - I did not say once marriage is JUST ______ fill in the blank.

What I said was the court ruled on *the legal definition* of marriage. That was the limit of its mandate.

People can chat and talk about what's good and bad socially, what makes a good relationship, the history ( as FN has done) there is a wealth of discourse and argument.

What the court did however has nothing whatsoever to do with all that.
Children are endlessly fascinating subjects - health, love, upbringing the list is endless and interesting.
But the court definition of a child is a "person under 16". Pretty flat and "uninteresting".
The legal definition in no way "diminishes" a child, takes away from the joy of a child or childhood - it's definition for legal purposes.
So too marriage in this ruling by the court. It's a definition that's all, it's done and short of an amendment to the Charter it's done for all of Canada









•••

Now if you don't like the definition, as this is a done deal - no vote will change anything.
You can gather your resources and money and get a Constitutional amendment passed.

While you're going about that stand and look Vertigogo in the eye and say "Your relationship is not equal to mine"  

Cuz bottom line that's what it's about - it's bigotry no matter how you sugar coat it with "tradition."    

The court made it very very clear. Equal is equal.
Stand and tell Vertigogo and any other gay you know otherwise..........that's a dare.

You want to stand on your "principles" then carry it through and tell Vertigogo, your fellow Canadian citizen - his relationship is not quite the equal of yours.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We should ALl be celebrating with Vertigogo the righting of an injustice.

Too many sound exactly like those that thought women should be property, should never have the vote, the Irish or black or Chinese were Not equal" even not human.

This should be celebration.........Vertigogo, from me to you and your partner .......*Congratulations on the elimination of a long standing injustice towards gays.*


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Gay men allowed to marry in Canada? You know, this is what happens when we have no hockey to watch.







 

--

When the court decision came through... I looked at Mrs. ehMax and said, "You know... our marriage still feels the same."


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

ehMax... I think that's how everyone should view the issue.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

Mr. Mayor: I take it you got to see SNL.

If not, more related laffs.

Vertigogo. Let me add my applause to your celebration as well.

But I will still enjoy open conversations about ideas.

MacDoc: I did read what you said, I was just respectfully stating the obvious: We aren't just talking about 'the legal definition' meaning, which you keep refering to.

And please stop lumping our disscussion about marrige in with discrimination and abuse. Although you can agrue the discrimination point, does it really qualify that we are discussing the 'definition' of a word? If you think we shouldn't differentiate between a hetro marrige and others, does that mean we shouldn't differentiate between hetero and other? Or that gays should not be able to define themselves as so? I believe everyone should have the same rights, but people are different. I am happy to define myself as married. Which makes me different from others... Know as single. Just definitions.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yeah, I heard Bret Hull stole my joke.   

I'm not sure why the term "marriage" has to be debated so much. Its a marriage... they'll be having a wedding, exchanging vows..(getting divorced in some cases as well)... its a marriage. 

If people are hung up about definitions, they can think of it as a gay marriage vs. heterosexual marriage if they want. But what difference is it? How does it affect your marriage?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

A question or two for Sinc and Peter, the two staunch defenders who prefer marriage's traditional definition as "a revered institution" between a heterosexual couple.

Do either of you object to the use of the word 'marriage" for heterosexual couples who are "married" by a justice of the peace instead of a minister? Or would you rather those be called civil unions?

Also do either of you object to the use of the word "marriage" for heterosexual couples who cohabitate and acquire the legal status of a common-law marriage? Or would you rather those be called common-law unions?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Witt - the topic is Supreme Court decision re marriage..
Tangling legal and social in my mind makes it harder to discuss the topic at hand.  

You wanna light the place up - title a thread and a Poll
* "Is being against Gay marriage discrimination?"*.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Here's a thought,

The argument for gay marriage is based on the claim that a homosexual relationship is natural and equal to heterosexual relationship in every way and therefore gays should have the right to claim the word marriage as well to define their union as it has described the heterosexual union for thousands of years.
But the gay community also claims that bisexuality is also genetic and natural.

Therefore is it not discriminatory to restrict marriage to one partner if your natural born sexuality is attraction to both sexes? If a bisexual want to have a spouse of both sexes, would it not be discriminatory to refuse them as well? I believe it would be discriminatory under the Charter. If we can change the gender requirement to the definition of marriage to include gays why not the number of participants to include bisexuals and polligamists? The new definition of marriage is also in violation of the Charter's freedom of religion in many instances of polligamy. Shouldn't it be changed to accommodate these people as well? I've heard it argued here that the only thing that matters is that two people love each other, so why be so discriminatory and limit it to two? In a secular society, this is blatant discrimination, No?

Cheers
MacGuiver


[ December 12, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I certainly cannot speak for Peter, but I have no problem expressing my own opinion:



> Do either of you object to the use of the word 'marriage" for heterosexual couples who are "married" by a justice of the peace instead of a minister?


No.



> Also do either of you object to the use of the word "marriage" for heterosexual couples who cohabitate and acquire the legal status of a common-law marriage?


Yes. 

A man and woman are either married, OR live in a state of "common law" and legally have the same benefits under law as those men and women who are married. A man and woman who choose to live common law, have the option of changing their moral status by marrying.

I repeat the words of the Supreme Court:

"marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be legally possible to define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie traditional marriage."

And while I accept and applaud gay unions and the rights that go with them, those words of the Supreme Court are forever burned in my mind, namely "this would not (make that will not) change the biological and social realities that underlie traditional marriage."

Cheers


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Tangling legal and social in my mind makes it harder to discuss the topic at hand.*


We noticed!! 

[ December 13, 2004, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## interact (Mar 11, 2004)

Odd that this quote also worked in the "Greatest Movie Quotes" post ...



> We need a witness to our lives. There's a billion people on the planet...I mean, what does any one life really mean? But in a marriage, you're promising to care about everything. The good things, the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things...all of it, all of the time, every day. You're saying 'Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed because I will be your witness'."
> 
> - Beverly Clarke (Shall We Dance)


Don't know why, but it felt like it should be posted here.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

> While you're going about that stand and look Vertigogo in the eye and say "Your relationship is not equal to mine"
> 
> Cuz bottom line that's what it's about - it's bigotry no matter how you sugar coat it with "tradition."


A.) that is stupidity
B.) Sinc has reminded you probably a dozen times now that he is not arguing equality. He is arguing, essentially, SAMENESS. This is an alien argument to you since you believe differences are essentially inequalities. 
D.) you are, ironically, talking down to someone who has an opinion that differs from yours. That old liberal cliche, "understanding" seems to have escaped you, along with many others here. You do not understand, but forget that the age we live in has its own slant, a all do. We are not above other ages in all ways, especially when it comes to "understanding".

Have some goddam respect. Sinc/Peter/(and myself--yes, I am a no-one here) have tried to state too many times that we do not believe the argument is against gays, nor do we believe that gays are not equal citizens/persons. (I'm sure the aforementioned don't object to my using "we")


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

tedj, thanks for supporting Peter and I, and for understanding so clearly what we are trying to state. As you so aptly put it, there are those who choose not to even try.

And Brainstrained, as I said I had no problem answering your questions, and I am pleased to see that you too fully understood my intent in voicing my opinion. Thanks for having an open mind on the subject, unlike those who choose not to even try.

Cheers


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

Personally, I don't feel that I have the right to tell two people how to live their lives. (provided of course they are both of legal age) There are so many problems in this world that need our focus and two people who love each other and want to get married is not one of them. It's not my business and if two people just want to happy, then that's a good thing.

B


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *It's not my business and if two people just want to happy, then that's a good thing.*


There was never any argument there....we're all in agreement with that aspect.

[ December 13, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Peter Scharman ]


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Long-time debater here. Tend to avoid most such debates online because I'm not in this to be right or wrong--I'm just here for interesting lines argumentation.

First rule of debate: you can't begin to argue the issue until you all agree to some common definitions. Remember that definitions of words are neither right nor wrong, they are simply collectively agreed to. A rose is a rose only because we all agree that it's a rose--if we all agreed to another name for it, then it could be something else.

In this case, the hotly debated definition is the word marriage. In this argument, some choose to define this as primarily a legal term, whereas others view the legal and social aspects to be inextricably intertwined. No one is right or wrong here; these are just definitions. 

The legal-only side does not deny that there is a social aspect to marriage, but essentially, they see that the social side is separate from this issue. The legal-social side does not deny that there have been legal inequalities that are now being corrected, but they argue that there are social issues that they do not agree with. (There's a third side, who frankly does not care what you call it as long as the inequalities are addressed.)

We're just arguing over definitions here. So if you all want to keep debating the issue, you have to stop and calmly examine the definitions involved, what they mean, and come to a better understanding. Then you either have to agree to a common definition, or simply agree to disagree. 

Otherwise, we are all going to keep banging our heads against the wall trying to make people see, and we're all going to get angry or weary or both. This is what happens when you debate an issue from different definitions. No one wins, and more importantly, no one comes to a better understanding of the issues.

I think I can confidently state that everyone on this thread agrees that the rights and benefits granted to straight married couples should also be granted to gay couples in a similar relationship--whatever you call it. Let's stop for a second and think about how great that is. Yay us!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Thank you Sinc for answering those questions.

Though "common-law marriage" is part of our vernacular, you're right to note that Canadian law bestows "common law status" on couples who live together in a relationship for more than a year. Incidently those laws are applicable to both heterosexual and gay couples.

Common-law marriage is also a common term in Britain, thought there is no basis in law for it. Many U.S. states do have provisions for common-law marriage and do call it marriage, though no U.S. states apply the law to gays.

The reason I asked is that I was uncertain how "traditional" you viewed traditional marriage.

As I said in an earlier post I don't have much sympathy for those churchs opposed to same-sex marriages that don't even recognize civil marriages to begin with (the Catholic church springs to mind). Their involvement in the debate is almost offensive. 

I do have sympathy for those churchs and individuals who do recognize civil ceremonies, but I believe that even if they manage to win the debate and we end up calling gay marriages something less offensive to them like civil unions it won't make a difference.

People will still call it marriage. Though I'm not sure how many gays will buy into it at first, I can see a unintentional movement to use the word marriage -- just as people use the phrase 'common-law marriage', rather that 'common-law status'. Gay civil unions would become marriages in all but legal terminology.


----------



## khummsein (Sep 12, 2003)

macspectrum said and others said, somewhat similarly:



> i think it might have been easier to define "marriage" as a union in a religious ceremony and "civil union" as the civl portion only


i agree...fat chance of it happening right now, but the difficulty does seem revolve around a word rather than a concept.

PS., i think "equal but different" opens a slippery slope to segregating people so that's why this solution appeals to me...



> I think I can confidently state that everyone on this thread agrees that the rights and benefits granted to straight married couples should also be granted to gay couples in a similar relationship--whatever you call it. Let's stop for a second and think about how great that is. Yay us!


that IS great. you're right


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_"equal but different" opens a slippery slope to segregating people_ 
- so did the court think that


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Like I said before, from now on I'm a woman and you can call me Ms., unless, of course, the females object. In That case I'll work out a mutual compromise. If terminology isn't important, then there should be no reason why we couldn't find a compromise, keep our identity and keep on being who we are. As long as we're treated equally. But I'm really not a woman, so I should be called a man, as long as I'm still equal.
I have no idea if that made any sense...it just comes out.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Still nobody going to speak up about the blatant discrimination of the new definition of marriage excluding bisexuals and polygamists from having more than one spouse? They should be equally entitled to marry given the arguments made to support gay marriage. We can change the defining gender of those that are married so why not the number of participants. Seems discriminatory don't ya think? After-all, if they love each other who are we to say they can't all be married? Heck some even have religious beliefs that support polygamy but they have no right to live that out despite the charter recognizing freedom of religion. Since we are a secular society, why the heck not? Seems like someone's getting left behind here.

Cheers
MacGuiver



[ December 13, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacGuiver... The drive behind a large portion of the Canadian population that is gay to get married is because they desire to share in the spirit of marriage... which is to commit to a single person to the exclusion of others.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *.....they desire to share in the spirit of marriage... which is to commit to a single person to the exclusion of others.
> *


Actually, ehMax, that's getting back to the social aspect, of which we've been informed has nothing to do with the the legal definition of marriage. The legal aspect gives equal social/legal rights to gay couples, which is what the real issue appears to be, not showing dedication to another person. That can be done without being "married". 
The Charter (and supporters) doesn't give two hoots about the social or traditional aspects of marriage and that is where the "distinction" and "sameness" debate has sprung from.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

(Darn, that never works when you get booted to the top of a new page!)

What Peter said!

Cheers


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yeah... When I met Mrs. ehMax, I couldn't wait to get down on one knee and ask if she would enter a legal contract that would be mutually beneficial to our finances.







The first thing we did before our honeymoon was file our tax return together and open up a joint account for all that money. 

_"A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying people in same-sex relationships access to that most basic of institution violates their dignity."

"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for granted. Same-sex couples do not; they are denied access to this institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation."

*"Preventing same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual couples."*_ 



> The court found that the present marriage acts offends the dignity of all gays and lesbians, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and violates their equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Canada's constitution. The court changed the definition of marriage in the province from being "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman" to "the voluntary union for life of *two persons to the exclusion of all others.*"


There's no slippery slope to polygamous marriages or legalized incest like some would like to suggest.

Ironically, the only cases I could Google of people requesting legal polygamous marriages in Canada was some religious fringe group in BC.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Good retort, ehMax. Actualy, I was just yanking your chain. My post was a tongue-in-cheek refrral to previous arguments on the meaning/definition of "marriage". If you've read the whole thread you'll know where my facetiousness came from.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The drive behind a large portion of the Canadian population that is gay to get married is because they desire to share in the spirit of marriage... which is to commit to a single person to the exclusion of others.


You missed a few word there Mr. Mayor, so I have inserted them for you:

"The drive behind a large portion of the Canadian population that is gay to get married is because they desire to share in the spirit of marriage... which is to commit to a single person *of the opposite sex* to the exclusion of others."

(Just in case you have missed the definition of marriage by hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast, and for that matter, most people in the majority of the world's countries.)

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Ehmac you took the words right out of my mouth. Well sort of.

"A person's sense of dignity and self worth can only be enhanced by the recognition that society gives to marriage and denying people in polygamist and bisexual relationships access to that most basic of institution violates their dignity."

"The ability to marry, and to thereby participate in this fundamental societal institution, is something that most Canadians take for granted. Bisexuals and polygamists do not; they are denied access to this institution simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or religion."

"Preventing multiple people from marrying perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming loving and lasting relationships and not worthy of the same respect and recognition as heterosexual couples." 

See my point, well actually your point.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Ironically, the only cases I could Google of people requesting legal polygamous marriages in Canada was some religious fringe group in BC.


Dare I say homosexuals are also a fringe group in the big picture? A recent Statistics Canada survey puts the numbers of gay men at 1.3% of the population and lesbians at 0.7%. They're more rare than us mac users but thats not the point. As everyone here will attest to, the Charter is supposed to protect MINORITY rights. That would include big and small minorities would it not? Are the rights of 10 people not as legitimate as the rights of 100000? So lets redefine marriage to be a little more inclusive shall we so we don't offend the dignity of other minorities. How about "the voluntary union for life of a number of people to the exclusion of all others". That should cover just about everybody.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Sinc... Yes, marriage has been defined as the commitment just between the opposite sex. That's why they've felt excluded. As pointed out ad nauseam. things like slavery and the exclusion of women to vote were once felt as normal by most of society. 

MacGuiver, yes I understand your argument that you think its a slippery slope and that changing the current definition will lead to changing it for polygamists, people who want to marry horses, people who want to marry planets etc... I totally disagree that its a danger. 

Aside from some compound in western Canada and in Utah, nobody is seeking this marital structure. 

Could it be, that this is a group of people who just want somebody to love and to hold, and to make a public commitment to... just the same as heterosexual couples do? Nah, must be some evil ulterior motive to destroy the family. 

Really, its not like anyone's mind is really going to be changed no matter what I say. All I have to say is, if 1/10th of the energy went into real problems in the world as opposed to fretting about this issue...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Yeah... I would call it quite daring (Or prehaps even ignorant) to say that 2 percent of Canada's population or approx. 641,518 Canadian Citizens are considered to be fringe and not deserving of the same rights that you and I have.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Ehmax

I don't recall mentioning horses and plants? Could you be trying to detract from the credibility of my argument by stating the absurd and attributing it to me? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

That was horses and *planets... *









It was humour in reference to your general argument that changing the current definition is just a slippery slope that will lead to other forms of fringe marriage where no demand exists. Maybe there's a group in rural, western Canada that wants to marry 20 wives, or maybe there's some geek in a Toronto apartment who want to marry Saturn.... 

Nobody's talking at all about changing marriage from being a commitment between two people. The only people who are, are conservative-married-heterosexual people who somehow think their marriage will be null and void or cheapened if two guys get married and commit their lives to each other. Or, from people who think they're representing God's feelings on the matter, when really they should be concerned with their own hearts and minds.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Yeah... I would call it quite daring (Or prehaps even ignorant) to say that 2 percent of Canada's population or approx. 641,518 Canadian Citizens are considered to be fringe and not deserving of the same rights that you and I have.


Ehmax,

I haven't said they don't deserve the same rights. I've been arguing for the rights of other minorities that have been overlooked here. You were obviously angry that I mentioned that gays are a small minority of Canadians. You obviously saw it as an attempt to somehow give their arguments less credibility yet you did the exact same thing when you marginalized the polygamists to some obscure compound in the West or Utah.
My point is that by the very reasoning we are using to endorse samesex marriage we should be giving the same dignity to other groups however small they should be. To do otherwise is discriminatory based on the Charter as far as I can see. You seemed to make a big deal about the fact that their rights should be recognized emphasizing there are 650,000 of them. Would their rights not be valid if their were only 650? 
That was my point.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I would call it quite daring (Or prehaps even ignorant) to say that 2 percent of Canada's population or approx. 641,518 Canadian Citizens are considered to be fringe and not deserving of the same rights that you and I have.


Using numbers is short sighted, (Or perhaps even ignorant) to try and compare who should get equal rights. All of us should enjoy equal rights, which is what many of us have been saying ever since this thread started.

As Sonal so astutely observed, we are arguing over the definition of the word "marriage". Our side's definition is: "the union of a man and a woman". With only a few other countries in the world sanctioning gay "marriage", it would seem that so far the score is World 1, Canada 0.

Cheers


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

On a different but related note... as a (liberal) Christian, I find the ruling also great in that it also affirmed freedom of religion (faith) in this country. Something which far too many people of faith in this country take for granted. I can say "God loves gays and lesbians" without fear of being put in jail.  










Peace & Love... got to get some work done.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ok... so you're for equal rights, so why are you getting hung up over the word marriage? What is your beef about them using the word marriage? That's what they're doing, getting married. Why can't they use the term? Why do you get exclusive rights to it?

Sinc, again.. slavery used to be common place. Women in Canada used to not be defined as human. Had you been in that era, would you be using the same arguments?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> On a different but related note... as a (liberal) Christian, I find the ruling also great in that it also affirmed freedom of religion (faith) in this country. Something which far too many people of faith in this country take for granted. I can say "God loves gays and lesbians" without fear of being put in jail.


Yes Ehmax but your religion is in line with the state. Try saying " God loves gays and lesbians but homosexual activity is sinful". I guarantee you many loving and caring people will be going to jail for just such statements in the years ahead despite the courts assurances of freedom of religion. This is the fear of many Christians and Muslims that believe this to be true based on the teachings of the Bible and the Koran. A recent incident in a Toronto school where they wanted to introduce gay education to muslim students resulted in the muslim children being forced to participate despite their religious beliefs and the objections of the parents. The State has little or no regard for religious values that don't fall in line with their secular agenda.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Ok... so you're for equal rights, so why are you getting hung up over the word marriage? What is your beef about them using the word marriage? That's what they're doing, getting married. Why can't they use the term? Why do you get exclusive rights to it?


Try and get your mind around this:

1. Ok... so you're for equal rights, so why are you getting hung up over the word marriage?
Answer: Because I believe in the traditional definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

2. What is your beef about them using the word marriage?
Answer: Because marriage always has, and always will be the union of one man and one woman by popular social definition. The overwhelming majority of countries world wide still support that definition.

3. That's what they're doing, getting married.
Reply: No they're not, because they are not of the same gender. They are formalizing a relationship similar to, but not exactly like marriage.

4. Why can't they use the term? 
Answer: Because they are not of the same gender. It defies the definition.

5. Why do you get exclusive rights to it?
Answer: I don't. Any man and woman who choose to marry get to use the same term, as it has been for millenia. No exclusivity involved whatsoever.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Well said Sinc.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

I see! Everyone will reject Christianity, but no one wants to oppose Islam? Typical. And cowardly, too. Yet, familiar. Since the sixties, the "fight" for equality has not been about truth, but about equality. Is equality the highest good for man? Is freedom equality? I think that it isn't; equality, although at times blessed and just, is a shark that will die if it stops swimming. Where does equality stop and a human being's good take up the slack?

Ay real thoughts, besides rudeness?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada 1 : World 0.

We LEAD...not follow.

Good comments ehMax.

A person can take whatever view they want of marriage..... they are the one undertaking it. This law has no impact upon their or YOUR personal view.

You will do as you feel comfortable with.....so will gays in EXACTLY the same manner under law....now  

It's done deal....get used to it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It will certainly be interesting to see if Canada LEADS...or is laughed off as one of the last bastions of political correctness in this whole same sex marriage debate. Just as we have already been summarily dismissed and left behind, with regards to the whole "multiculturalism" experiment that so many European countries are now busily and actively rejecting. En Masse.

Having said that, and made that point known...I should also like to re-state that I, personally, couldn't give two hoots WHO is married to WHOM. Or what sort of arrangements they have made between themselves.

It's none of my business. It's none of anyone's business who hooks up with whom, as far as I'm concerned. Nobody's opinion or thoughts carry any weight on this subject...save for the people who are actually involved.

I mean it.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dear Ms macnutt, Ms Macdoc et al (I know you won't mind me calling you this because gender is irrelevant and this term is eqaul to Mr). I have found it quite interesting, putting the opinions aside, that every response to the dicussion of the meaning of "marriage" always pulls the dicussion off the track and back to "equality" or "it doesn't matter what anyone does", which has never been the issue. Please give arguments that actually have some substance (like ehMax's) and relevance to the actual focus of the debate.
For the last time, it should be clear by now that:
A--nobody (in this thread) is oposing legal gay unions 
B--it should not so difficult to understand why some people oppose the changing of a long-held definition of a such an important social and religious institution.
C--there has been no convincing argument by anyone as to why there can't be a different term for the newly accepted legal union that would satisfy the parties and hold them in social esteem and respect.
D--derailing the real discussion off track and implying that there is an attempt to be intolerant or discriminatory is very annoying and disrespectful to others' right to opinion and discussion.

Discussion of any topic allow us to understand that we don't hold domain to perspective or correctness. We broaden our understanding of our world by listening to and having empathy for the thoughts of others. To hold or assert that one person's point of view is more intelligent or logically more superior to anothers is in itself ignorance.
The issue of calling same-sex unions a "mariage" (or for that matter legalizing same-sex legal unions at all) is a widely discussed topic that needs a common resolution. Yesterday, I listened to a CBC program with Rex Murphy on this topic and heard very intelligent opinions from highly educated persons. There was no flaming, no disrespect, no asserted discrimination, and in the end, no concensus. This NOT a black and white issue to most, but yet needs a resolution. Sinc's view would have probably been the middle ground in the discussions heard.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Sinc wrote:


> the traditional definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.


I was going to rebut this on-going fallacy, yet again, and some of the other more fanciful claims when I remembered this story on the history of marriage on the history news network.

Some interesting quotes:



> Marriage as Americans know it today didn't exist 2,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago. Rather than an unbending pillar of society, marriage has been an extraordinarily elastic institution, constantly adapting to religious, political and economic shifts and pliable in the face of sexual revolutions, civil rights movements and changing cultural norms.


and:



> What constitutes a marriage is so fluid that many anthropologists sidestep the word altogether, preferring "unions" or "alliances," said Roger Lancaster, a professor of anthropology and cultural studies at George Mason University in Virginia. Other scholars refer to same-sex unions throughout history -- in cultures as varied as ancient Greece, tribal Africa and native North America -- as marriages.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

> Dear Ms macnutt, Ms Macdoc et al (I know you won't mind me calling you this because gender is irrelevant and this term is eqaul to Mr).


For the record, feel free to call me Mr. Sonal or Ms. Sonal.







I have been called both by people who have never seen me, since my name (in this culture) does not reveal my gender. And frankly, I don't mind that since in most contexts, my gender should not be relevant to the discussion. 

This is not to say that gender is unimportant. My gender is a part of who I am as a person. There is societal baggage that goes along with my gender that I need to deal with. But in most dealings with people--for example, at work--I'd rather people ignored that societal baggage and dealt with me as a person. 



> B--it should not so difficult to understand why some people oppose the changing of a long-held definition of a such an important social and religious institution.
> C--there has been no convincing argument by anyone as to why there can't be a different term for the newly accepted legal union that would satisfy the parties and hold them in social esteem and respect.


For some people, the argument is simply that it is pointless to have two terms to describe unions that are functionally equivalent except for gender--basically, if they're pretty much the same thing, why not call it the same thing? What difference does it make?

I don't completely subscribe to this argument, as I don't think it's a convincing way to make this case. Opposers to this argument tend to see this as simply trivializing a social institution they take very seriously.

A better argument for using the word marriage to describe both gay and straight unions actually stems from the fact that the word _is_ so important. Even if everything else was equal, the fact remains that the majority gets to use one word, while the minority has to use another word. For gays, calling it a marriage is an important social recognition that their unions are as socially legitimate as straight unions--even if both gay and straight unions are the same in every way except the name. 

I think the fact that many straight people really want to protect the definition marriage as they understand it is actually a demonstration as to why many gay people want the use of that word. It's because the word is so important that the gay community would like to use the same, important word.

I can understand, however, that this kind of a change to an important word makes a lot of people uncomfortable or unhappy.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> D--derailing the real discussion off track and implying that there is an attempt to be intolerant or discriminatory is very annoying and disrespectful to others' right to opinion and discussion.


Hi Ms Scharmin 

I'm not saying people are purposefully being intolerant or discriminatory, bisexuals and polygamists rights just haven't been considered. Tell me why bisexuals and polygamists should be excluded from the new definition and I promise to shut up. The refusal to refute this concept with some facts pretty much backs my assertion. You can't exclude these people for any legitimate reasons without being discriminatory.

How have I been disrespectful to others rights to opinion and discussion? I've never told anyone to silence their opinion but I'm getting the message loud and clear to stop swimming against the current here. Gee isn't that what these forums are all about? 

The point I am making is simple. If we are to change the definition of marriage as we and 99% of the world know it for the reasons stated, it should equally apply to other minority groups as well in the same spirit of equality and respect for all. 

Cheers
Ms MacGuiver


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

> The point I am making is simple. If we are to change the definition of marriage as we and 99% of the world know it for the reasons stated, it should equally apply to other minority groups as well in the same spirit of equality and respect for all.


I agree. Minorties should be able to get married too.  

The most effective solution is to get rid of the term altogether outside of the church, but that is impractical and darned near impossible to do.

But the real and practical solution is to accept that marriage now includes same sex couples. Words change meaning all the time to reflect the culture. Since western culture now accepts homosexual unions then the word marriage should be updated to include them. The only reason that "traditionally" (which is only a couple hundred years), marriage insisted it must be a man and a woman is because society didn't accept homosexuality and didn't even consider the prospect of same sexes wanting to marry. It was an arbitrary restriction in the first place. It's not "tradition" at all. There's nothing about the institution that says it *has* to be opposite sexes. It's just an arbitrary restriction based on ignorance and bigotry of the past.

If you remove gender from marriage, it still pretty much has the same meaning. Two people, love each other, come together to form a family unit. Go back a couple of years and nobody would protest that definition. It's only once you say two homosexuals that people get upset. Why? Let them get married. They show the same love and committment as hetero couples. It doesn't make hetero marriages any more or less strong - it doesn't affect them at all.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Something kind of amusing just occurred to me (maybe it was mentioned earlier in the thread - I didn't read it all).

Those against gay marriage are hung up on the definition of marriage saying "it is defined as union between man and woman." So it must stay that way. They disagree that the definition of a word can or should change.

But yet, they have no problem with changing the definition of the word "gay." Gay traditionally meant happy. Only less than a few decades ago did the definition change to mean homosexual.

Why is it ok to change the definition of "gay" but not the definition of "marriage"? This seems a tad hypocritical to me.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

A little more on "traditional" marriages. . . 

Until 1967, less than 40 years ago, traditional marriages in many U.S. states excluded couples from different racial backgrounds. If that were the case today, I could see opponents of mixed race marriages suggested that "those" people be allowed civil unions but not marriages, since traditionally marriages occurred between a man and a woman of the same race.

before the civil war in the U.S., it was illegal for blacks to marry, perhaps because blacks were not only different, they were not equal. Not until after the war did it become legal for blacks to marry.

No doubt this upset supporters of traditional marriage because traditional marriage had to be between a white man and a white women. So perhaps because they were now equal, but different, they should only have been allowed civil unions.

Blacks, however, seemed to like the idea of marriage because it was one of the few area in which government actually recognized that they had the same rights as whites. Do you think this might be why some gays want to marry? A recognition of equality?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think the tactic of making an analogy between gender-specific terms (like 'Ms.' and 'Mr.') and marriage may have back-fired here.

If there were no [legal/social] difference between these terms, I don't think people would object as much to being Ms-identified (sorry - couldn't help it).

I'm currently in the job market, and it would definitely help me if I could get categorized as a female: there are currently about a dozen jobs in Canada that I am eminently qualified for, except that I'm the wrong sex (faculty jobs at Canadian universities funded by the NSERC University Faculty Awards program - which foots the bill if and only if a department hires a woman or aboriginal person...here are a few examples).

So by all means feel free to call me Ms. Crawford. It might help.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Why is it ok to change the definition of "gay" but not the definition of "marriage"? This seems a tad hypocritical to me. *


Good question. Some words can have multiple meanings..."gay" is one of them. No one _changed_ the meaning; it developed an additional one.
Words can seem so superficial to us, like the preposition noted, but some words are deeper in their connotation. The position that been argued here is that "marriage" has a deep importance to many people as a fundamental part of the traditional (heterosexual understood) family structure and for some as a religious sacrament as well. That's why the currently understood meaning of the word "marriage " is so important to them....it's an identity. 
Some, myself included, have empathy for them, other do not. 
I and others fully understand the argument in favor of calling a gay union a marriage. For some, it's a non-issue, for others, it's a big issue. On a simple legal level, any union could be the same, but because the meaning and importance to many runs so deep, it's NOT just a "term". 
It's good to get different people's perspectives on issues...that's how we learn to get along and understand what's important to other people. I suspect there will be some debate in parliament before this legislation is passed. The legalization may be a done deal, but the terminology may not.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

> Good question. Some words can have multiple meanings..."gay" is one of them. No one changed the meaning; it developed an additional one.
> Words can seem so superficial to us, like the preposition noted, but some words are deeper in their connotation.


And the old definition of gay is dropping rather quickly. Good response, though.

But regardless, I agree people do consider some words to have a deeper connotation, but I have no sympathy for them in this case. Basically it's none of their business, as it doesn't affect them other than their overly fragile sensibilities. If it did affect them, then I'd have sympathy. Word meanings evolve with culture, and marriage is one of those words.

Some people want things to stay like the "good ol' days", but they don't realize that those days were only good for part of the population.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_No one changed the meaning; it developed an additional one._

Why that's what the court said too.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *I'm not saying people are purposefully being intolerant or discriminatory*


MacGuiver, I wasn't making reference to you. Nothing to be apologetic about.

Ms. Scharman


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No comment on your insight........?????
You agreed perfectly with the court - no reaction????


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well folks, we are now into page 10 of this debate, and not another word has been heard from the originator of the thread.

At this point, I surrender my soapbox as I hope many of you will, and eagerly await what VertiGoGo has to say about our collective opinions. We all seem to agree on the equality and rights issues, but not the definition of the word marriage.

I am truly interested in VertiGoGo's reaction to 10 pages of debate, and his take on the subject from his perspective.

The floor is yours, sir! 

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_It will take time but it is inevitable in a society that values all of its citizens equally._

From a legal stand point the court has said that "equality" is now.

From a social and religious standpoint the court has acknowledged "it will take time".

After all there are still some "seat belt" hold outs and "smokers rights" types.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think its pretty obvious that the main reason some people are against the idea of same-sex marriage is based on long-held views of this societal tradition. The definition is practical and served the world well during the era when homosexuality was looked upon as deviant, evil and despicable behaviour that was persecuted. Thankfully, much of the world now realizes the error in those views (with some exceptions, unfortunately). So, as time goes by the practical definition will change, in the same way that banning of inter-racial marriages disappeared. It will take time but it is inevitable in a society that values all of its citizens equally.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Made me laugh, nice irony  



> North Vancouver -- Opening my Globe to the Comment section I was immediately drawn to Stephen Harper's article Don't Rush Into A Marriage Decision. What a disappointment that the piece was about same-sex marriage rather than the joining of the Tories and the Alliance


----------

