# Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes

What do you say, ehMac members?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The right idea









I'm PROUD of Canada :clap:


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Frank E (Mar 17, 2004)

sad, very sad day for Canada


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Link requires registration to view the site, so try out BugMeNot if you don't feel like registering.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Chealion said:


> Link requires registration to view the site, so try out BugMeNot if you don't feel like registering.


Whoops, I forgot about the registration thing, thanks Chealion!


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

Excellent! It is a matter of human rights. I don't understand why people feel threatened by this, but give it a chance (you will probably not even notice a difference)


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Frank E said:


> sad, very sad day for Canada


Amen  

MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This is what real equality is.


----------



## theonly_bandever_ (Jun 7, 2005)

I'm so, so glad that it passed. I'm 10 times more proud of Canada now.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

i think its a great step forward in canadas cultural diversity. CANADA ROCKS!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Frank E said:


> sad, very sad day for Canada


Likewise.

Society will be worse for this bill.


----------



## theonly_bandever_ (Jun 7, 2005)

I can almost hear a flame war coming on. NOOOOOOOO


We all have different opinions, so no one do any insulting, or else there will be hell to pay. Or money, because I'm pretty broke.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

This is a great advancement for Canada. I'm proud my MP that I voted for voted for this. Finally someone is representing my views!  Go Jack!
 
Canada will only be stronger because of this. Equal marriage will help to end discrimination against gays (wich is what this is all about).
 
I only wish they passed this before the pride march in Toronto! That would have given them even more to celebrate.

Shame on Harpur for promissing to have another vote if he gets elected.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Likewise.
> 
> Society will be worse for this bill.


I am happy the bill passed. I think society has moved forward.

Sinc, in what way do you think society is worse off for this bill?


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Good on Canada! This is the kind of thing I like to hear about in the news! Finally


----------



## 32bitJesus (Jun 3, 2003)

I'm very proud to be part of such a progressive county that recognizes minority rights and one that doesn't confuse church and state.

Go Canada!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I am proud to be a Canadian today. Every time human rights are advanced there is a glimmer of hope shining amongst so much darkness in the world. Today that glimmer is over Canada.

History will prove that this was the right thing to do, just as it has every time in the past when we have woken up and recognized the basic human rights of other minorities. I stand today in celebration with my gay and lesbian friends and fellow citizens. This is a great day for Canada and the world.


----------



## Sekio (Jun 28, 2005)

I somehow doubt that the average straight Canadian's life will be affected by this in any way.


----------



## Myradon (May 13, 2005)

I think if people are serriously concerned that Gay Marriage represent a down turn in society, they haven't been to west hastings in a while. There are more important matters than allowing every one to express their love, or create a family.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Canada's not the first country to allow same-sex marriage...Denmark has allowed it for around a decade...we don't see lurid stories of their society breaking down.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

IronMac said:


> ...Denmark has allowed it for around a decade...


Belgium too, since 2003. 

I'm so proud of my country.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I am a firm believer in equal rights for all people in all aspects of life. What wonderful news to wake up to this morning!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Doing the right thing is always good, even if it hurts.

Now, I hope we can focus on important issues.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*It's about time...*

Oddly enough, my marriage doesn't feel any different than it did the night before.


----------



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

I echo both Mrs. F's and Manny P's comments. My rights are strengthened when the rights and responsibilities of others in Canada are protected and strengthened. We all win. Paix.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Frank E
> sad, very sad day for Canada
> 
> ...


Somewhat sadly ironic usage of the language macguiver... I actually found your response humourous... thanks for the laugh.


----------



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

At least this disgraceful and sordid parliamentary session (from all perspectives and political viewpoints) ended on a very positive note. Clearly, there are some deep-seated divisions among society on this issue and I, for one, hope that the hyperbole will now be tempered. Canada is a multicultural, tolerant and progressive society: we are judged not by what we say but by what we do - and "we done it right".


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Somewhat sadly ironic usage of the language macguiver... I actually found your response humourous... thanks for the laugh.


Your welcome
 

MacGuiver


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

It's been said, but I'll add to it anyway – (1) it's a human rights issue, we done the right thing; (2) this does not take anything away from anyone's dual-sex marriage; (3) complies with separation of church & state. 

What's the big deal, anyway …?… (aside from some people who think other people's business is their business)

& the Conservatives (especially Harper) have demonstrated their mean-spiritedness & committed divisiveness right to the very end.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

duosonic said:


> What's the big deal, anyway …?… (aside from some people who think other people's business is their business)
> 
> & the Conservatives (especially Harper) have demonstrated their mean-spiritedness & committed divisiveness right to the very end.


I believe a lot of the fuss about same-sex marriage and other such issues is based on a lot of fear and ignorance out there regarding gays and lesbians...
I will never understand why they must be judged based on what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms - straight people certainly aren't judged on this basis.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Could those who think it is a sad day for Canada please explain why it is so.
I really want to know what the problem is.
Thank you.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I wonder if we will see manny Marriges on Pride Day here (ns), maybe even a float of all those who want to get Married, That would be great. The Parade goes right by my apartment so that is always a fun time!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

duosonic said:


> complies with separation of church & state.


Where in the Charter of Rights do you see reference to separation of church and state? Its often brought up here on this forum but I'm not aware of any reference to this in our Charter? I think you're confused with the Constitution of the United States. These are the only references to religion in the Charter of Rights:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
*a) freedom of conscience and religion;*
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, *religion*, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

These Charter Rights are what people of faith fear will be trampled for many Christians, Jews and Muslims that hold religious convictions that homosexuality is against the will of God. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

freedom of conscience and religion..... So could Lesbians and Gays have started their own religion and thus, circumventing the Government!? I know, it's a strech, and why would you ask people to change religion, but it's just a thought I had yesterday while watching the Debate.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Does the freedom of religon supercede freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression? Where does one draw the line... why must one rule over the other?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Does the freedom of religon supercede freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression? Where does one draw the line... why must one rule over the other?


Exactly. The Charter of Rights is never going to please everyone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> 15. (1) Every *individual* is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and *equal benefit of the law without discrimination* and, in particular, without discrimination *based on* race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, *sex*, age or mental or physical disability


Comprehension difficulty??? 

What you choose to do in your clubhouse in private is up to your "beliefs" as long as it's not covered in the criminal code.

If you operate in public or accept public funding or by inference funding via tax relief then then charter applies.
The law is gender neutral - deal with it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Bingo!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Manny ...... YOUR freedoms stop at MY nose.

A difficult concept it seems for some. Believe what you want - don't try and impose practices based on your belief on others who don't share those beliefs.

YOU don't believe in marrying another person of the same sex - great don't do it. 
That's where YOUR rights stop.

••

There is also "Freedom from".........it's a secular government.


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Where in the Charter of Rights do you see reference to separation of church and state?


A couple places...



MacGuiver said:


> Its often brought up here on this forum but I'm not aware of any reference to this in our Charter? I think you're confused with the Constitution of the United States. These are the only references to religion in the Charter of Rights:
> 
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:


Right here ------>


MacGuiver said:


> *a) freedom of conscience and religion;*


<--------


MacGuiver said:


> b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> d) freedom of association.
> 
> 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,


 And right here ------>


MacGuiver said:


> *religion*,


<-----


MacGuiver said:


> sex, age or mental or physical disability.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Did it ever occur to you that there are many people in the world that do not want a religion force fed to them through their state... and that it is in their rights to have their own beliefs not have those of others forced opnon them.... in a poll released in 2002 done by the Pew Research Centre gives the number of people who think religion is important is a mere 30% of the population... also in the 2001 census the number of atheists in Canada was 16.2% of the population and rising by about 4% every decade...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Comprehension difficulty???


Gee how embarassing! Thanks for sharing your wisdom. Next time I fill in a job application or a form and I come to that reference to "sex" I'll make sure I indicate that I'm "Straight" and not make the error and indicate that I'm "male".

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

robert said:


> Could those who think it is a sad day for Canada please explain why it is so.
> I really want to know what the problem is.
> Thank you.


"When the same-sex legislation was first introduced in late January, a national poll showed about two-thirds of Canadians favoured the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. 

At the same time, more than half of the traditionalists said they would support creating a new "civil union" that would give gay couples the same rights as married heterosexuals. 

Five months later, despite all the deafening debate and over-heated rhetoric that has accompanied the same-sex bill through its awkward parliamentary passage, despite all the religious and political shrieking -- despite it all, pollsters report public opinion has barely budged."

The will of the majority of Canadians was ignored. That's the problem.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks Sinc.
I was under the impression that churches still had the right to deny a marriage if they chose. Thus the second paragraph of your post were achieved. Non? What am I missing here. Also, polls are tricky. I like the "correct within 2% 8 times out of 10" caveat they give. That and the small base which they poll. An election result is the best poll.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

robert said:


> Thanks Sinc.
> I was under the impression that churches still had the right to deny a marriage if they chose. Thus the second paragraph of your post were achieved. Non? What am I missing here. Also, polls are tricky. I like the "correct within 2% 8 times out of 10" caveat they give. That and the small base which they poll. An election result is the best poll.


What you are missing is that two thirds of Canadians want the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. (Which has nothing to do with the second paragraph.)

Sure churches have the right to refuse marriage, but with the passing of this bill, that too will erode over time. And in the longer term, it will leave open the possibility of marriages that will be even more controversial. But that's another problem.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

I don't really care. Marriage doesn't seem to be as big an issue as it once was. I have friends with kids who have no intention of getting married. Call me old fashioned but I've always thought that the point of marriage was to settle down and have kids. So the whole concept of "Gay Marriage" escapes me.

Now it's become an "equal rights" issue. You'd think the government has more important issues on their plate that would affect a larger majority of Canada. I think this bill passed because most Canadians don't care either way. As usual.

A big step for individual rights? If it makes you happy then go ahead and keep thinking that.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Win-win situation.*

The will of the majority of Candadians was heard and marriage equality for homosexuals now exists federally.

While I do not know what the future will hold I am grateful that our constitution is being applied justly and laws of social equality are being made.

Religious institutions were protected every length of the way of this bill. It's a win-win situation. Homosexuals can get married and various religious institutions don't have to recognize them or be forced to include them in their organizations.

What's not protected is religion's "ownership" of marriage. And that is as it should be.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I too am proud of Canada. I really, really don't understand why some people feel threatened by this. If you're heterosexual then I don't know what difference this makes to you, or your relationship, at all. The part about whether we call it marriage or civil union is way too subtle for me. All marriages are registered with the state and are therefore a civil unions. Many people who are in common-law relationships refer to themselves as married. What's the difference?

I think this can only make Canada stronger, especially if it reinforces a separation of church and state.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Bosco said:


> I don't really care. Marriage doesn't seem to be as big an issue as it once was. I have friends with kids who have no intention of getting married. Call me old fashioned but I've always thought that the point of marriage was to settle down and have kids. So the whole concept of "Gay Marriage" escapes me.


I have the same thoughts much of the time. Though many straight people get married and can't have kids or choose not to. Marriage is definitely not a requirement to have children. For alot of people I know it's the reverse, they're getting married because a child is on the way. 



Bosco said:


> Now it's become an "equal rights" issue. You'd think the government has more important issues on their plate that would affect a larger majority of Canada.


Basically this Bill didn't need to get passed. All we required was for someone who was denied marriage on the grounds of sexuality to challenge the constitutionality of that. The legislative route was much quicker to what was obviously a human rights equality issue.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Fud*



SINC said:


> Sure churches have the right to refuse marriage, but with the passing of this bill, that too will erode over time. And in the longer term, it will leave open the possibility of marriages that will be even more controversial. But that's another problem.


Churches always had the right to define their own membership and rules. No one is forcing religious organizations to perform the marriage ceremonies on those they do not want. The idea that government or the courts are going to force clergy to perform CIVIL ceremonies is just spreading FUD.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sure churches have the right to refuse marriage, but with the passing of this bill, that too will erode over time.


You mean in the same way as the Catholic Church's right to refuse to marry the divorced or anyone seen as unready or unfit has eroded over time?

As for the separation of church and state, I always thought that came from the Magna Carta and ensuing English common-law constitutional tradition, but history is not my strongest subject.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I am aware of the poll results, just suspicious of the poll. You could have asked "what IS your definition of marriage" and people would respond man/woman. Now, if you asked "what SHOULD be the definition of marriage" you might get another poll result. Plus, what was the base of the poll, across Canada, Alberta only, Toronto only????? This is my difficulty with your 2/3rds result. Longer term results are like the lotto, you might win, you might not. No sense worrying about what might happen because it might not. If it starts to happen, then take action, but change/evolution is necessary for the growth of our country and humanity. Stagnation=death.
Bosco, "gay marriage" also allows the two involved, the same rights married people have. IE dying without a will, last wishes be recognized, benefits, tax exemptions/write offs... It is so much more than just saying "I do" . I have those rights under "common law" marriage where gays didn't.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Manny ...... YOUR freedoms stop at MY nose.
> 
> A difficult concept it seems for some. Believe what you want - don't try and impose practices based on your belief on others who don't share those beliefs.
> 
> ...


Am I misunderstanding something?
I could be wrong, but I think Manny is actually *for* same-sex marriage...
??


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> And in the longer term, it will leave open the possibility of marriages that will be even more controversial.


Sorry, but are people opposed to this really that worried that allowing same sex marriage will lead to allowing people marry animals? or trees? or whatever other object they want?


----------



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

I don't care if a poll showed that 90% of the Canadian public was for the "traditional definition". This issue is about minority rights. Removing discrimination against same-sex marriages was the right thing to do.

Marriage is under threat, but not from same-sex couples. The divorce rate, arranged marriages and marital abuse are all indicators that the term "institution of marriage" has enormous societal problems. IMHO, marriage should be based on an expression of genuine love. All other considerations come a distant second.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Marriage is under threat, but not from same-sex couples. The divorce rate, arranged marriages and marital abuse are all indicators that the term "institution of marriage" has enormous societal problems. IMHO, marriage should be based on an expression of genuine love. All other considerations come a distant second.


Hear hear.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> arranged marriages ... are all indicators that the term "institution of marriage" has enormous societal problems.


Arranged marriage was the norm even here till relatively recently. I don't think arranged marriage is a threat to "the instition of marriage". 

Arranged marriages have a much higher success rate by the way.

PS I still think arranged marriage is kind of wierd but that is just my modern Canadian bias.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

There still is a lot of arranged marriages between people here and their families nation of birth. I believe they have a higher success rate because there is little a woman from another country can do to get out of the marriage. Their society keeps them "locked away" and segregated from the rest of the town. Not to meantion the language barrier.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

arranged marriages in Canada have a higher success rate. Much higher.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

robert said:


> There still is a lot of arranged marriages between people here and their families nation of birth. I believe they have a higher success rate because there is little a woman from another country can do to get out of the marriage. Their society keeps them "locked away" and segregated from the rest of the town. Not to meantion the language barrier.


I believe it's also very frowned upon by quite a few of these cultures to divorce and there are consequences if a woman does divorce....that would certainly explain the so-called "success rate".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> marriage should be based on an expression of genuine love.


Therein lies the problem. You used sociological terms in a LEGAL workfield.

For the law, love has nothing to do with it - marriage is a set of rights and responsibilities between two persons of legal age. It could be two monks or two matriarchs or two who happen be of the opposite gender.

The two parties enter into this agreement mutually, are then entitled to certain rights and are encumbered with certain responsibilities under law - just as shareholders who enter into an aggreement in a corporate setting.
And there are laws that guide dissolution and well as engaging in marriage.

It's the baggage of social differences that clouds the legal situation.

If people would simply deal with it as bringing an overdue gender neutrality ..."Why yes Charlotte a woman CAN be a judge or police officer, or a firefighter........etc. 

A PERSON can be any of those. Most people got over THAT.

A MARRIAGE can be between any two PERSONS. THAT's the law. Get over it.

Gender begone.

•••••

Now sociologically.........given MY predeliction for curvaceous representatives of the opposite sex - the more spice and variety in life the merrier.....leave the dry as dust lawyers out it.
You wanna get married in space ....go for it. You gifted by Ma nature to be attracted to the same sex - enjoy and have the exact same rights and responsibilities to your partner as I can have with mine.

Leave jurisprudence to the lawyers and enjoyment, ritual, tradition to society....and whatever "tribe" you happen to cotton to.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Mrs. Furley said:


> Am I misunderstanding something?
> I could be wrong, but I think Manny is actually *for* same-sex marriage...
> ??


Mrs. Furley,

I think MacDoc is expounding on the point I was trying to make with my post (in a rhetorical sort of sense.) At least I hope he was.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Mrs. Furley,
> 
> I think MacDoc is expounding on the point I was trying to make with my post (in a rhetorical sort of sense.) At least I hope he was.


***whoooosh***

...right over my head!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Where in the Charter of Rights do you see reference to separation of church and state? Its often brought up here on this forum but I'm not aware of any reference to this in our Charter? I think you're confused with the Constitution of the United States. These are the only references to religion in the Charter of Rights:
> 
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> *a) freedom of conscience and religion;*
> ...


I applaud your research into the Charter, however... how can you think that same sex marriage in any way impinges on anyone else's freedom of religion? I don't see the gay and lesbian community holding a gun to anyone elses head and telling them they must marry someone of the same gender. If anything Bill C38 protects them even further saying that those religious organizations do not have to marry anyway outside of their own doctrines?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> "When the same-sex legislation was first introduced in late January, a national poll showed about two-thirds of Canadians favoured the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


And I am sure that two thirds of Canadians feel that immigration policies should be tightened... and that less money should be spent on social programs, and that...

Luckily Canada is not governed by polls. I have on several occasions been polled by the Environics people, a poll is highly dependent on the question being asked, the wording of the question, the timing of the question, etc... This is real psychological profiling going on with the way these polls are being constructed... you can creating a poll to say anything you want to hear.

What do you think the polls said about Canadians attitudes to the islamic community after 9/11? Thank god we are not governed by polls.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep, there is nothing like being forcably confined in a strange land to make a marriage successful.
I suggest you volenteer at a womens shelter and see first hand how successful arranged marriages CAN be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Manny Mrs. F yes - just illustrating where rights stop and responsibilities begin.

There are exceptions even there such as driving laws.

You are legislated to drive on one side of the road to avoid harming others as well as yourself.

You are legislated to wear a seat belt - a restriction of personal freedom - because it has been deemed in the public interest ....ie we pay your health bills so smarten up.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

SINC said:


> "When the same-sex legislation was first introduced in late January, a national poll showed about two-thirds of Canadians *favoured the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.*


This does not mean that they favoured refusing other people the right to use a slightly different definition, which is your implicit assumption when you say that the views of the majority of Canadians were ignored. The fact is there has been plenty of public debate on this issue for many years. Even if someone favours the traditional definition, it does not mean they want to put their favoured definition into law for the purpose of removing rights from others. 
If this Liberal government falls now, it will not be because of a public will to reverse this decision. On the contrary, it will be because the public has gotten what they wanted out of this corrupt government and now feels free to dispatch them.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

And if you did a poll in the mid-1800s, what percentage of eligible voters would state that women should be allowed to vote?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*OMG!!!!oneon3eleven11one!! The sky is falling!*

After all the hyperbole over this issue, can we drop it now? The good guys won (for a change) and now all the churches and other dinosaurs that predicted the collapse of civilization that would ensue if (heaven forbid) homosexuals were given the same legal rights as everyone else can sit back and wait for the right moment to say "I told you so!"

This was one of the most idiotic wastes of time I've ever been aware of, but at least it finally got dealt with. And, as much as I think they're generally a bunch of scum-bags, I grudgingly acknowledge a well-played political game on the part of the Liberals to get this off the table. Now can we get on with doing some real work?!?!?

Personally, my definition of a 'marriage' is of a bond between me and my partner, and I couldn't give a damn about what definition anyone else uses. It's none of my business, as my relationship is none of theirs. How this ever got to be a 'political issue' is beyond me... the solution was obvious and inevitable, and I'm happy to see the end of it.

And Sinc, MacGuiver and the others who've described this as the the 'erosion' of the rights of the church... well, welcome to the twenty-first century... I'm afraid the church you're so enamoured of started eroding a couple of millennia ago, but good on ya for recognizing the ongoing process (personally, I'm all for giving up on these pick-axe legeslative approachs in favor of full-scale demolition techniques, but I don't really want to tramatize anyone). Civilization is leaving the superstitions of the bronze-age behind (ever so slowly, admittedly), and this is just another step. Hopefully, you'll get over it. If not, your children will. Progress waits for no one.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I don't see the gay and lesbian community holding a gun to anyone elses head


That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


I guess it's payback time for all those millenia of homophobic persecution huh?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


Owned! Nice one, Sinc. They have also pointed a gun to our heads by constantly going to court and bitching that their "rights are violated." Maybe now they'll shut up about it.



> I believe a lot of the fuss about same-sex marriage and other such issues is based on a lot of fear and ignorance out there regarding gays and lesbians...


Or maybe because some (or many) live their life close to how God would of liked us all to be and that's why they oppose this bill and the change of the term marriage. But I guess religion just never crossed your particular mind? God does oppose homosexuality and any hal-devoted Christian will therefore oppose this bill. A religon which rejects homosexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with "fear and ignorance" of people that swing that way. And, in regards to the question of, "Then how do these people affect YOUR life?" - Directly, they don't. But Christians are notorious for spreading & promoting "they way of God" among society and this bill is another blow to their efforts, which is exactly why it matters to us others. And whether or not you think that's a decent or stupid reason, that's just how it is.

As a Christian myself, I also reject this bill as acceptable or fair, and personally believe that people that are homosexual have no right whatsoever to have the definition of marriage changed to suit their lives.

As stated earlier in this thread, everyone has the right to their own personal opinion, so anyone who's thinking twice of flaming my opinion can shove it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


I'm sure they feel the same way about the straight community pushing heterosexuality in their face every day.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Lars said:


> As a Christian myself, I also reject this bill as acceptable or fair, and personally believe that people that are homosexual have no right whatsoever to have the definition of marriage changed to suit their lives.


Puuuuuhhhhlllllleeeaaassseeee (spelt phonetically so anyone of sub intellect can comprehend the sarcasm).

They have every right... you have NO right to deny them that. You know it is that exact kind of attitude that would have prevented my wife and I from being married at the turn of the last century. She is a visible minority and back then they called it miscegenation (the mixing of the races)... and it was illegal, society was against the "mixing" of the races, and it was plain out and out wrong.

There is no difference between how society looked upon miscegenation back then and how people who are against same sex marriage behave today. It was wrong then... it is wrong now. Bigotry is Bigotry, only the century changes.

Thankfully, intelligent rational people sit in office and passed what should have been passed long ago. Or don't you think we should support the Charter of Rights and Freedom?




Lars said:


> As stated earlier in this thread, everyone has the right to their own personal opinion, so anyone who's thinking twice of flaming my opinion can shove it.


I consider it shoved... consider yourself labeled a bigot (my personal opinion). Otherwise If you don't want someone to flame your personal opinion perhaps you should keep it to yourself.

PS. I hate responding to trolls... but something just keeps me from letting them get away with their ****e.

PPS. Feel free to flame away back at me... I stand by my convictions so feel free to bring it on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lars


> as a Christian myself


.........and a fine elucidatory example you ARE INDEED....

••••
Bryanc


> I couldn't give a damn about what definition anyone else uses. *It's none of my business, as my relationship is none of theirs*. How this ever got to be a 'political issue' is beyond me


Socially .....damn right :clap:........legally however, you and your partner form a relationship under law which IS guided by law and has defined rights and responsibilities and the nature of that relationship IS the law's and greater society's "business".

Just as a corporation is a distinct entity beyond the individuals involved so is marriage and has a governing body of law. That governing body of law has just had gender bias removed.

You are right in the sense it should NEVER be a political question it is ENTIRELY a judicial question under the Charter....equal is equal without regard to gender.

••

DJ :clap: .....THEY......you know THEY.....would still outlaw your marriage given free rein.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> You know it is that exact kind of attitude that would have prevented my wife and I from being married at the turn of the last century. She is a visible minority and back then they called it misogyny (the mixing of the races)... and it was illegal, society was against the "mixing" of the races, and it was plain out and out wrong.


Perhaps, but in that case, you marrying a minority didn't involve changing the definition of marriage, did it? I don't hate gays and lesbians; what I hate is the changing of the definition of marriage. If homosexuals had their own term for marriage, then _that_ would float my boat.



> Or don't you think we should support the Charter of Rights and Freedom?


I won't get so deep in answering this question, because in this particular situation with homosexuality, the "proper" answer to that question, which would be, "Yes," conflicts with my belief/religion. Though to be awfully blunt about it, for this particular issue, no, I don't support the Charter of Rights and Freedom, because my belief clearly states it's wrong. Plain and simple.

And let's leave it at that, because bashing anyone for leveling their belief higher than "society's rules" will start offending people left, right, and center.



> .........and a fine elucidatory example you ARE INDEED....


No one's perfect, MacDoc. Even Christians can be an ass. I think you're just under the massive misconception that religious people are perfect people that never say or do anything wrong. We're all still in the same reality.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Lars said:


> I don't hate gays and lesbians;


Why do I get the feeling you're just saying that to avoid being labelled a homophobe? I've heard a great many homophobes say "I don't hate gay people..."


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

SINC said:


> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


Wow. Now THAT, my friends, is homophobia. It must be difficult to live with such anger.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Mrs. Furley said:


> Why do I get the feeling you're just saying that to avoid being labelled a homophobe?


Believe what you want, but I _do not_ hate gays & lesbians. And even if I did, take a good guess to see if I cared what you or other people labeled me as?

I don't support gays, and I don't support the definition change of marriage, but that in no way makes me have a personal level of hatard toward the specific individual(s). I know more than one gay male that I don't mind at all.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

as long as he doesn't marry your son........ ............ a bigot for the 21st Century.

Recommended reading http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html


----------



## beagleyguy (Nov 9, 2004)

If gays and lesbians can't or don't want to change themselves, then they need to be able to live just as freely as anyone else. There's simply no excuse for trying to deny them of any right. cough*Lars & SINC*cough. 

Speaking as a Jew of a European background, I know that a lot of injustice has been done to my family- no one can defend any "reason" that the Nazis had for the mistreatment and near-extermination of 11 million people. (including homosexuals, too) 

I'm obviously not implying that anyone here wants to kill homosexuals, but I do think that trying to control what they can and can't do is a start in the wrong direction. 

"I know more than one gay male that I don't mind at all"- Lars

Furthermore, I don't think that it is enough to just tolerate a people, you really need to try to put a positive light on anyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mrs. Furley said:


> Wow. Now THAT, my friends, is homophobia. It must be difficult to live with such anger.


Dead wrong Mrs. F.

When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade?

It's not anger. Rather it is a growing tired theme that needs to be put to rest.

Leave me alone, and I leave you alone. I employed many gays in my 40 years in business and most were fine average people. But not one of them ever flaunted their lifestyle. THAT is not homophobic, but it is what I object to.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

A bigot. Lol. I'm a bigot for standing by what I believe rather than what society would like me to believe? Haha. Good one.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Wow. Sinc and Lars have such anger. I can see this isn't a case of rights and freedoms for you both. Homophobia is as ugly as an human can get. Blind ignorance mixed with blind faith. Sorry to tell y'all this, but Canada is not the place for you. Try moving south about 6 or so states. You all will fit in real nice.
Wow.
PS: Lars sinks to yet a new low.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Isn't the Christmas/Santa Claus parade a straight parade?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You don't have to justify your beliefs Lars, that's what they are....beliefs.

You DO have to deal with the laughter........at your syntax AND your ignorance.

•••

Robert.....straight parade...very sly.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*You just broke my clueless meter...*



Lars said:


> A bigot. Lol. I'm a bigot for standing by what I believe rather than what society would like me to believe? Haha. Good one.


Um, yeah, actually. You see, Lars, a bigot is someone who *believes* people who are members of minorities should not have the same rights as the rest of society.

You use your Christian *beliefs* as a reason to discriminate against gays (interestingly, not all Christians agree with you on this issue, but that's beside the point). So your beliefs *do* make you a bigot.

Of course, this is hardly the first time that Christianity has been the basis of bigotry and intolerance, and I'm sure it won't be the last, but being unable to recognize one's own bigotry is one of the strongest indicators of it's presence.

I really hope more Christians make a point of illustrating how irrational their beliefs are about this issue, as it really helps showcase the need for our society to keep our legal/legislative systems well insulated from the insidious influence of the church.

Cheers


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Wow, all of this because the government chose to not to exclude a group based on their disposition. Whether it be sexual, racial, or religious, since the Charter, it is not legal to do so in this country. In ten years this won't even register as an issue.
Homophobic, guess what, I'm a straight as they come and I admit freely that the Pride festivities make me feel a little uncomfortable. Guess what, I don't go. I have many gay friends and they don't bother me in the least in any way. But the pride thing does, I don't know why but it has never crossed my mind that it should not take place.
My phobias aside, this is part of being a member of a progressive, caring and just society. Get used to it, embrace it if you will, because the charter guarantees that there is no going back. 
.... or leave!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> You see, Lars, a bigot is someone who *believes* people who are members of minorities should not have the same rights as the rest of society.


First, are you atheist? If you are, I won't be surprised at what you say from now.

Secondly, why are you bent on the belief that I believe that minority groups don't deserve equal rights? It has absolutely nothing to do with gays being a minority. If gays were the majority, for all I cared, I'd _still_ have the same opinion - because it's against what I believe is right - not because gays dominate less of the population than straights.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc....enlighten me........we give churches a tax break to........ promote bigotry, refute science and to overturn the Charter and now get politically active. WHY!!!!!!!??????

Isn't that taking "minority" tolerance a tad far  Let's lose the tax breaks at least. 

I think we should circumscribe their rights in case they "infect" children. Pernicious n all.

•••••

Hey Lars - fill in the blank of the implication....



> because it's against what I believe is right


...for _________________?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> Homophobic, guess what, I'm a straight as they come and I admit freely that the Pride festivities make me feel a little uncomfortable. Guess what, I don't go. I have many gay friends and they don't bother me in the least in any way. But the pride thing does, I don't know why but it has never crossed my mind that it should not take place.


Well put iPetie. That is just how I feel, except for that "we're here and we're queer" rant they use on gay pride day.

If gays would stop that behaviour, I could accept gay marriage. But until they do, I will continue to feel like a gun is being held to my head.

No malice, no hate, no homphobia. Just leave me the hell alone, like I leave them alone.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Quite tired of right wing neo-cons hijacking the term "Christian" and claiming their views represent Christ's views, which in fact, they don't. 

Christ mentions about helping those in poverty *hundreds of times*, yet neocons can write off Africa in a sentence because its a silly rock-star cause about a worthless continent led by corrupt leaders. Thousands upon thousands die a day in Africa and across the world due to poverty. Again, Christ talks about poverty hundreds of times, but a lot of neo-cons barely pay lip service to the issue. 

But hey, two people want to get married... well hey, let's fire up those church petitions and email campaigns! Let's raise a huge stink, society is going to fall! :

Scripture only talks in condemning homosexual acts in the context of idolatry, promiscuity, violent rape... not a loving, committed relationship. If it was a big deal to Christ, I'm sure he would of mentioned it hundreds of times. 

I don't want to debate. The truthful fact of the matter is, there are about a thousand more important issues to me than pretending to think I represent Christ's opinion on the matter. As a Christian, I have some pretty clear instructions about what Christ thinks is important. 

I'm sick and tired of a few vocal, self appointed guardians of values speaking out as representing all "Christians". 

This is not about tolerance. I hate the word tolerate. Is that the best we can do as a society, is to tolerate each other? Christ's greatest commandment was to love each other. He specifically says, the greatest commandment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well put iPetie. That is just how I feel, except for that "we're here and we're queer" rant they use on gay pride day.
> 
> If gays would stop that behaviour, I could accept gay marriage. But until they do, I will continue to feel like a gun is being held to my head.
> 
> No malice, no hate, no homphobia. Just leave me the hell alone, like I leave them alone.


Not sure we're on the same page here Sinc. You seem to be offended by behaviour to the point that you would wish people to alter thier freedom of expression. That is not what I am saying at all. Simply, I'll take a pass thanks, but fill your boots if that's what turns your crank. So to Speak.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


While we're at it... let's get those damn Irish and their parades, too! Stupid shamrocks and leprechauns! 

Green beer indeed...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> If it was a big deal to Christ, I'm sure he would of mentioned it hundreds of times.


And if it wasn't a big deal to Christ, I'm also pretty sure the churches wouldn't be against gay marriage and gays in general. Let me guess; you're going to argue the churches don't know what they're talking about?



> I'm sick and tired of a few vocal, self appointed guardians of values speaking out as representing all "Christians".


I'm also pretty sure that was directed to me, and, FYI, I'm representing my OWN opinion here, not anyone elses. 



> Christ's greatest commandment was to love each other.


Yeah, and the term 'love' can be used in numerous contexts. When Christ's commandment was to love each other, he didn't mean it for two men to love each other _sexually._ You can use the term 'love' in non-sexual ways to express appreciation, for example.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> While we're at it... let's get those damn Irish and their parades, too! Stupid shamrocks and leprechauns!
> 
> Green beer indeed...


Damn Irish!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> Bryanc....enlighten me........we give churches a tax break to........ promote bigotry, refute science and to overturn the Charter and now get politically active. WHY!!!!!!!??????
> 
> Isn't that taking "minority" tolerance a tad far Let's lose the tax breaks at least.


FWIW, I belong to a church that gets a tax break. We work very hard with the local YMCA and several other organizations to do amazing work in the city. We do not promote bigotry, but exactly the opposite. Our church is a cultural mosaic of people from the Philipines, Sierra Leone, Burundy, Nigeria and many other countries. We love the Charter. 

Right wing, left wing... who gives a crap when the whole bird is dead.  

I must say, I totally understand... I see how joe-average Canadian looks at this big, all encompassing religious establishment and can have under distain for it. Just beware of stereotyping.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Lars said:


> Yeah, and the term 'love' can be used in numerous contexts. When Christ's commandment was to love each other, he didn't mean it for two men to love each other _sexually._ You can use the term 'love' in non-sexual ways to express appreciation, for example.


You're sure about that are you? I don't recall reading that during bible class.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm pretty sure that to love and embrace your fellow man doesn't include discriminating against them in anyway, whether you're factoring sex into it or not.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> First, are you atheist? If you are, I won't be surprised at what you say from now.


What do my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have to do with your religiously-motivated bigotry?



> Secondly, why are you bent on the belief that I believe that minority groups don't deserve equal rights?


Because you said 


> As a Christian myself, I also reject this bill


Given that this bill extends the right to get married to gays, it is clear that you oppose equal rights for gays. That is bigotry. That you justify this bigotry with your religion simply makes it religious bigotry (one of the most common and pernicious forms of bigotry, judging from history).



> It has absolutely nothing to do with gays being a minority.


Okay, I'll give you this one... you'd probably be just as bigoted against gays if they were a majority.

And, Mr. Mayor, I applaud your ability to adapt _your_ Christianity to cope with modern times and our modern society. If more Christians were like you, I'd have much less cause for complaint.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Quite tired of right wing neo-cons hijacking the term "Christian" and claiming their views represent Christ's views, which in fact, they don't.


I agree. I'm certainly no bible expert, but my reading didn't leave me with the impression that Jesus was a 'tax-breaks-for-the-rich' kinda guy. How the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians inevitably side with the free-market capitalists is a subject I've given considerable thought. I've come up with some ideas, but none of them are very complementary to either group.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Yo... religious zealot dudes

Is not man made in God's own image? Now last I looked The Bible doesn't discriminate in this regards.

So by default isn't a gay man made in God's image?

doesn't that make God gay for some people then?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Da_jonesy, don't try to mix logic and the bible, or religion. It just won't work.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ehMac I was being just a TAD sarcastic tho with a nugget of truth embedded.

IF religious groups would do "good works" as you indicate without the proselytization I'd be all for it. ( Adobe thread )

Lead by example in other words and let people arrive at their own conclusions. Memes based on "interpretation" and "translation" - get hijacked for a variety of purposes.

I admire monastic orders that as adults choose a life of service to their fellows.

The secular world has little to compare to the community aspects of "churches" and that is a loss to society - somehow the relevancy needs to return without the dated ideology. Tough road to hoe for the religious community.

THAT is a social issue. THIS is a legal issue. Gender neutral.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Lars said:


> Perhaps, but in that case, you marrying a minority didn't involve changing the definition of marriage, did it? I don't hate gays and lesbians; what I hate is the changing of the definition of marriage. If homosexuals had their own term for marriage, then _that_ would float my boat.


At the time is sure as sh*t did mean changing the definition of marriage. So let me get this straight (pardon the pun)... Just because YOU don't like THEM using YOUR word... you will deny them their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedom?

Opposition to miscegenation was a very real thing... it affected peoples lives. People died because of it. Those who oppose same sex marriage practice a modern version of anti miscegenation... anti sexual miscegenation.



Lars said:


> Though to be awfully blunt about it, for this particular issue, no, I don't support the Charter of Rights and Freedom, because my belief clearly states it's wrong. Plain and simple.


So because of your belief, you will deny those Rights and Freedoms to others? Look the Charter is their so you don't ever have to marry a man against your will... see it protects you. It is also there so that you can't stop two men from getting married... see it protects them.

You can believe whatever you want... you simply cannot impose your beliefs on others.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> A difficult concept it seems for some. Believe what you want - don't try and impose practices based on your belief on others who don't share those beliefs.


Pot: Kettle, you're black.

MacDoc - There is no need to attack Lars for his belief. If I recall correctly that same Charter that allows minority rights to protects also happens to protect Lars' right also.

robert - I don't see anger in Sinc's and Lars' posts. In Sinc I see one who doesn't agree with same sex marriage and is tired of the issue in how the only thing being heard is extremists from both side rather then your more moderate and quieter majority. Lars is simply standing up for something he believes isn't right, he doesn't hate people but doesn't agree with what they are doing. Is that so wrong? If it's wrong then I think I need to move to the States so I can have a system that I know will screw the little guy and anything remotely underdog.

iPetie - The biggest problem most people have had with the gay legislation was the first overly vague definition of marriage (there were some who were fine with same sex marriage but felt marrying your dog is too far but provisional under that definition) combined with the fact that sexual orientation is not in the portion of the Charter so often quoted (see MacGuiver's post).

ehMax - Thank you for a voice of reason. I'd have to say that along with the first simple agreement or disappointments with the decision were the best of this thread.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Da_jonesy, don't try to mix logic and the bible, or religion. It just won't work.



Ya, but it is so fun to troll... There is just so much material in the Bible to work with.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Chealion said:


> Lars is simply standing up for something he believes isn't right, he doesn't hate people but doesn't agree with what they are doing. Is that so wrong?


The reason Lars is getting jumped on is not because he's standing up for something he believes in, but because he's opposing the rights of _others_. He (and anyone else) can believe whatever he likes as long as he doesn't interfere with the rights of others. But this is explicitly about the opposition of equal rights for gays. Fortunately, now that the legislation has passed, we should be able to move on.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Ya, but it is so fun to troll... There is just so much material in the Bible to work with.


Yeah, I know. But fish-in-a-barrel are only so much fun.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> So by default isn't a gay man made in God's image?


Well, I think he's a pretty damn good designer.  

"Yo...religious dudes..." 

ROFL....  



> There is just so much material in the Bible to work with.


I agree.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Chealion said:


> MacDoc - There is no need to attack Lars for his belief. If I recall correctly that same Charter that allows minority rights to protects also happens to protect Lars' right also.


Chealion, as always your posts look to moderate a contentious issue. 

The problem with this issue is that in a very real way it affects the lives of those seeking a legalized recognition of their same sex union as defined in the way that society usually defines a union between two people... that being a marriage.

Now here is why there is so much passion in it, and why Sinc and Lars are taking so much heat in regards to it. Same sex marriage affects their lives in no real substantive way. They will likely never choose to marry someone of their own gender, however because of their personal beliefs they feel that no one else of the same gender should marry. That is wrong, and they are being put to task for this (and rightly so in my opinion).

Now if same sex marriage affected them in some real substantive way... (ie. it costs them money or some hardship) then maybe they have reason to contest it. But, there is NO way that same marriage affects them other than it somehow offends their beliefs. Given the degree to which they are offended by this, their reactions and attitudes assume the guise of hatred and bigotry... which by all rights needs to be stamped out in a successful thriving society.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No Che you've never understood the difference. You cling to some kind of equivalency factor.

Chemisty and Thaumaturgy are the same taking your stance. They're not and 'til you get past that nothing I can say will make any sense.

Lars did not answer my question to finish his statement about what he believes is right for............._______________

The answer from looking at his approach in the thread would be ......."right for everybody". In other words an absolute.......this is right all else is wrong.

When it comes to societal values it simply will not fly.
Nation states, post industrial and in particular multicultural ones fly on a diversity of viewpoints and tolerance of a wide range of customs.

You see religion and no religion as equivalent......it's not.

Unfortunately most religions do NOT admit to the possibiility of others ALSO being "correct" in their world view....what ever that term is taken to mean.

There is an inherent dichotomy between one view and multiple views that lies at the heart of the conflict between states and most religions.

The sacred and the secular are immiscable.

••
DJ - once more good clear post. :clap:


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Well, I am honestly surprised and happy to see that by page 11, this thread is actually still going on in a somewhat civil manner and has not turned into an all-out flame war. Must be because we're Canadian, eh?

ehMax, thank you. It is so good to hear that you represent what I consider to be a true believer and follower of Christ, compared to most of the 'Christians' that I have personally encountered. Karl Marx said "I am not a Marxist", and just the same way, I find (most of the time) a huge difference between those who follow the teachings of Christ, and Christians. This, of course, applies to many religions, not to just pick on Christians here.

I think also that your comment on how we should all love each other was misinterpreted by some. How I take it is that we should have respect and compassion for our fellow people, regardless of any classifications or other criteria that is labeled on them. We are all human, and we all co-inhabit this planet. Thus we all should have an equal right to all that our lives have to offer.

Now, as for the religious and legal implications. Yes, to who ever said it, our common law system does carry forward the Magna Carta, which means that there is a separation between the church and the state. You can also simply look at the study of modernity, and the difference between Old Power and New Power. But that's a different discussion. 

Now, as mentioned, all 'marriages' are civil unions, and that is the state's part of the union. You can choose to have only a civil union, without the marriage component. What has this bill changed? It now allows everyone to have equal standing and rights to be joined in a union by the state under the word 'marriage' which the state has adopted from a history of the church and state being one. Those times are over, but the word has carried on. And that is exactly what it is, a word. I know plenty of people that say 'Bless you' when someone sneezes. Do all of these people believe that the soul of the person is being shot out of their mouth and are doing what they can to protect them from Satan snatching it up? No. But yet the phrase is part of our language, and has it's basis in religion. Same with the word 'marriage'. 

Now, because the state has maintained that word, we have religious organizations complaining that their word is being applied to people that they don't recognize has having the right to marry. Never mind going into the blatant problems with saying that, but nonetheless, no one is forcing them to marry gay people. A Christian church does not have to grant the status of a 'Christian marriage' on a gay couple. But the Canadian government now does have to grant the status of a 'marriage'. Why? Because we are not all Christians, but we are all Canadians. 

That's my take on it. And not that it matter, but for those who think is does, yes I am an atheists, but only in the technical, specific meaning of the word : atheos, the Greek word meaning 'without god'. I do not believe in God, but that has very little affect on my other personal and spiritual beliefs. But I will not go into discussion of that here; that for another thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Chealion said:


> I don't see anger in Sinc's and Lars' posts. In Sinc I see one who doesn't agree with same sex marriage and is tired of the issue in how the only thing being heard is extremists from both side rather then your more moderate and quieter majority.


Thanks for that Chealion. You nailed it. I guess it sometimes takes youth to teach elders, or at least to see through so called homophobia. And you're right, I AM sick and tired of it all. From both sides. Let it rest is all I ask. Go about your lives in whatever manner pleases you. Just don't shove it at me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Waka - Another good post :clap: - excellent. I'd forgotten the Magna Carta link - there was a handfast tradition as well that goes way back.

Taking exclusive control of marital unions was a good money maker for religions. 
Times change.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Chealion said:


> combined with the fact that sexual orientation is not in the portion of the Charter so often quoted (see MacGuiver's post).


The Charter is a living document and every time a court rules on a subject whether written in the document or through interpretation it changes.

The lower courts ruled, the documents interpretation changed. The Supreme Court upheld, therefor cementing the interpretation. Every ruling becomes an interpretation of the document and therefor becomes law under the umbrella of the Charter.

You cannot quote the charter unless you quote the ruling. The charter is purposefully vague in order that it may be opened to interpretation and allows courts to rule based on where society finds itself today, or for the social challenges we face in 2025.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah like can you marry your clone of the opposite sex 

( good post BTW )


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I think that the smug triumphalism expressed by some in this thread is dangerous and put the accomplishment at risk. I'm not convinced that the majority of Canadians support this move yet and the best way to inflame opposition is to act like an ass. Instead, this is the time to build bridges and address the concerns of all sides. 

Contrary to what's been said, I don't see Christianity as the root of homophobia. As has been pointed out, Christianity opposes adultery, promiscuity, usury and lots of other behaviour but none of them excite the same level of passion. I think some people use Christianity as a crutch to support their own anti-gay beliefs and I think others have concerns about how changing the institution of marriage will affect society. Expressing those concerns does not make you a bigot and to throw those terms at people is hypocritical. It's worth pointing out too that United Church has been one of the leaders in supporting same-sex marriage in Canada.

It's a natural human reaction to suspect and fear "the other"... someone who is different from you. It's at the root of racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. As a society, we've covered some distance in overcoming prejudices and we have some distance to go. Hopefully, same-sex marriage will survive in Canada and in a few years times everyone will see that society hasn't collapsed and they'll look back on this day and wonder what all of the fuss was about.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An excellent and well thought out post Fink-Nottle. :clap:

And so it begins . . .

From an editorial in today's Edmonton Sun:


Thu, June 30, 2005
EDITORIAL: Balancing rights


We honestly cannot understand the complaining from some members of the gay community over the Klein government's talk about protecting clergy from having to perform gay marriages.

Because religious officials already have the right to refuse to perform weddings. A Catholic priest would not, for instance, be legally compelled to wed a Jewish couple, should that couple insist for whatever reason that it wanted a Catholic ceremony. Two Muslims would be refused their request to be wed in an evangelical Christian church. And, no doubt, there are not a lot of Hindus celebrating their nuptials in synagogues.

And even within a religious denomination, pastors and priests can still refuse to marry a couple if, say, the couple was not following the doctrines of the church by living together and engaging in premarital sex. And some churches won't marry anyone who has been divorced.

In short, clergy of all faiths and denominations are allowed to refuse to perform weddings without it turning into a big court battle over "rights."

So what the government of Alberta is talking about is hardly revolutionary or controversial. But you'd never know it from listening to the carping of some in the gay community. Noted gay activist Murray Billet told the Sun that the province's strategy is a "cop-out." Said Billet: "It's either equal rights unfettered or not." 


And gay Edmontonian Mickey Wilson echoed those remarks, saying, "(Churches) have a right to impose their beliefs only as far as it impinges on my right to equality under the law."



As I have stated here before, it is my belief that the radical element of the gay community will not rest until they have torn every shred of straight's rights from the courtrooms of Canada.

Less than 1% of our population is trying to dictate and impose, what I consider their lifestyle on the rest of us.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

*Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages*

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country to allow same-sex unions nationwide. Jubilant gay activists blew kisses to lawmakers after the vote.
The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.
The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week. But it is an advisory body and final say on legislation rests with the Congress of Deputies.
After the final tally was announced, gay and lesbian activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses.

Several members of the conservative opposition Popular Party, which was vehemently opposed to the bill, shouted: "This is a disgrace." Those in favor stood and clapped.
The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that allow gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage; its Senate is expected to pass the bill into law by the end of July.
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero noted this in debate before the vote.
"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," he told the chamber.
Zapatero said the reform of Spanish legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese but means much more.

He called it "a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives."
Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies.
Spanish gay couples can get married as soon as the law is published in the official government registry. This could come as early as Friday, or within two weeks at the latest, parliament's press office said.
Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn't call them marriage. Rajor said that if the vast majority of countries in the world don't accept gay marriage, including some run by Socialists, there must be a reason.
"I think the prime minister has committed a grave act of irresponsibility," Rajor told reporters.

Beatriz Gimeno, a longtime leader of the gay rights movement in Spain, held back tears as she hugged her partner Boti after the vote.
"It is a historic day for the world's homosexuals. We have been fighting for many years," Gimeno said. "Now comes the hardest part, which is changing society's mentality."
The gay marriage bill was the boldest and most divisive initiative of the liberal social agenda Zapatero has embarked on since taking office in April 2004. Parliament overhauled Spain's 25-year-old divorce law on Wednesday, also irking the church, by letting couples end their marriage without a mandatory separation or having to state a reason for the split-up, as required under the old law.
He has also pushed through legislation allowing stem-cell research and wants to loosen Spain's restrictive abortion law.
The Roman Catholic Church, which held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power, had adamantly opposed gay marriage. In its first display of anti-government activism in 20 years, it endorsed a June 18 rally in which hundreds of thousands marched through Madrid in opposition to the bill. Some 20 bishops took part in the June 18 rally.
On Wednesday, a Catholic lay group called the Spanish Family Forum presented lawmakers with a petition bearing 600,000 signatures as a last-minute protest.
Late last year, the spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino said that allowing gay marriage was like "imposing a virus on society - something false that will have negative consequences for social life."
Despite the street protests in Madrid and elsewhere and the petition drive, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage.
A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on this issue, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> As I have stated here before, it is my belief that the radical element of the gay community will not rest until they have torn every shred of straight's rights from the courtrooms of Canada.
> 
> Less than 1% of our population is trying to dictate and impose, what I consider their lifestyle on the rest of us.
> 
> I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.


That is a risk that we take every day insofar as extremists in all factions of society will push their agenda. That in no way makes it "OK" to deny the rights of all people within a faction or group.

Extremists rarely if ever get there agenda forwarded. The reality is that the charter protects the right of religions to follow their beliefs within the letter of the law. To think that the government could force say the Catholic Church to perform weddings is not possible under the charter.

More sensationalist crap, with all due respect Sinc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> As I have stated here before, it is my belief that the radical element of the gay community will not rest until they have torn every shred of straight's rights from the courtrooms of Canada.


What rights???..... to be bigoted and ignorant about a minority??? 

The exact same phrasing could be said about radical religion and I have to put up with them getting a tax break to do so.  
If it takes in your face to get the point that the law is gender neutral and equal is equal then so be it.

I've had quite my fill of CANADA IS WASP TURF and religious absolutism and ignorance.....to last a millenia or more. 

You wanna a Red state? - move south. Canada is something else.
••••

Good for Spain to throw off the bloody....and the case of Spain that's literal - church. :clap:


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

This is about legal rights, period. I don't understand how Lars and Sinc can oppose this move and still look themselves in the mirror. You are denying fellow Canadians their due rights under the law. Rights that you obviously take for granted. 

Try not being a white male for a while and see how it feels to survive in society.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What rights???..... to be bigoted and ignorant about a minority???


For the record, once again I state I am not a bigot. Gay marriage is now a fact of life. I can accept that. I don't have to like it, but I accept it.

The point you are missing is that gays will not stop at this point. They will want more and more changes to dictate their agenda to the entire land as witnessed by the two Edmonton gay spokesmen who are now wanting to change the charter to force churches to marry them.

What's so hard to understand about that, and why does holding that view make me a bigot? Hell, I haven't been near a church in 50 years, except for a funeral or wedding.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> As I have stated here before, it is my belief that the radical element of the gay community will not rest until they have torn every shred of straight's rights from the courtrooms of Canada.
> 
> Less than 1% of our population is trying to dictate and impose, what I consider their lifestyle on the rest of us.
> 
> I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.


I think it's a bit early for that, Sinc. 

The right to refuse to perform a marriage is something entirely different from pride parades, civil marriage and the like.

I think the community at large -- we secular folk who aren't churchgoing but for weddings and funerals -- will mostly stand for the freedom of religion, including the freedom of religious organizations to decide whom to marry or admit to other rites and rituals. Radicals can only make it so far on rhetoric alone; they do need substantial public support in order to advance their agenda. On this question, I don't think they'll get it. 

There will no doubt be loud debates where congregations have large numbers of openly gay members but a hierarchy that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. Seems to me that's essentially a private matter, and I would hope the courts and legislatures will say so whenever asked to intervene.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

*Parades and free expression*

A few notes on parades, because the topic has come up a few times here.

I'm not a big fan of gay-pride parades, so I don't attend, but I think they have to be defended on the grounds that they're freedom of expression. Plain and simple. Defending freedom of expression is, as the cliché goes, most important when it comes to expression you dislike -- so long as it isn't inciting hatred and violence, in which case it's freedom abused and should be shut down.

A St. Patrick's Day parade is also freedom of expression and so are the accompanying manifestations of drunken rowdiness that we tolerate and even encourage -- I dislike those too, and steer clear. 

Portuguese Catholics have a "marching season" when over several weeks they hold about a half-dozen solemn parades through the streets, with marching bands that play a loud, mournful oom-pah music. Sometimes the march is followed by a party in the church parking lot, with loud music and smoky, large-scale barbecuing late into the evening. 

All of these expressions can be "in your face" and downright obnoxious, but in none of these cases is it my job to ask them to shut up and keep their pride bottled up. They're positive expressions, not against anyone. (In the case of St. Patrick's, this represents a transformation, as historically these were anti-Orange demonstrations, often degenerating into violence.) They're a minor nuisance at worst, and they're temporary. If I'm bothered, there's always somewhere to go and get away.

Sinc and possibly others asked why there are no straight-pride parades. I think the point is that every day is straight-pride day, in that simple acts such as walking down the street hand-in-hand or kissing on a park bench are welcomed by most, albeit not effusively celebrated. Those same acts can still put gay people's lives in jeopardy in many places, which is why the gay community and its leaders see a need to organize a positive expression of pride.

Nevertheless, if people who feel the lack of straight-pride events are able to stage them as genuine manifestations of pride (and not simply as anti-gay hatred), then why not? Could it be that we straight people, being the vast majority and completely free to celebrate heterosexuality daily, don't feel a need to organize a special event?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> We honestly cannot understand the complaining from some members of the gay community over the Klein government's talk about protecting clergy from having to perform gay marriages.


What's not to understand? In a moment of spiteful mean-spiritedness, Klein has managed to disenfranchise a minority. It does nothing but show exactly how petty Klein and the anti-gay community is. 



SINC said:


> And even within a religious denomination, pastors and priests can still refuse to marry a couple if, say, the couple was not following the doctrines of the church by living together and engaging in premarital sex. And some churches won't marry anyone who has been divorced.


Which is fine, however if the Government of Alberta no longer issues marriage certificates and performs civil ceremonies then where are people seeking same sex weddings to go? So what I gather is that Alberta will no longer recognize marriage as a legal institution... Or this is another example of insidious privatization? Where marriages are only performed by religious organizations? What are the rules by which Alberta recognizes a religious institute? Talk about a slippery slope... well done Ralphie boy... Say hello to "The Church of the Blessed Trinity and Hot Pants". And you can't stop that, can you Ralphie boy. 



SINC said:


> So what the government of Alberta is talking about is hardly revolutionary or controversial. But you'd never know it from listening to the carping of some in the gay community. Noted gay activist Murray Billet told the Sun that the province's strategy is a "cop-out." Said Billet: "It's either equal rights unfettered or not."


Nice editorial... "carping", no we don't have any bias in our press out west do we?



SINC said:


> As I have stated here before, it is my belief that the radical element of the gay community will not rest until they have torn every shred of straight's rights from the courtrooms of Canada.
> 
> Less than 1% of our population is trying to dictate and impose, what I consider their lifestyle on the rest of us.


What rights are you talking about? Talk about fear mongering. PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A RIGHT OF YOURS THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATES?



SINC said:


> I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.


You told us nothing.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> For the record, once again I state I am not a bigot. Gay marriage is now a fact of life. I can accept that. I don't have to like it, but I accept it.


Acceptance is half way there buddy... I expect the hot man on man monogamy will be at your doorstep in a fortnight.  xoxoxoxo 



SINC said:


> The point you are missing is that gays will not stop at this point. They will want more and more changes to dictate their agenda to the entire land as witnessed by the two Edmonton gay spokesmen who are now wanting to change the charter to force churches to marry them.


And you don't think that will be defeated?, c'mon have a little common sense please. I think the Supreme court has enough common sense in that regards, or else we will have Catholics performing Hindu ceremonies (which by the way is a marathon for those of you who have never been to one).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> And you don't think that will be defeated?, c'mon have a little common sense please. I think the Supreme court has enough common sense in that regards, or else we will have Catholics performing Hindu ceremonies (which by the way is a marathon for those of you how have never been to one).


Sure it will be defeated, no question, but the fact remains radical gays will try, again and again until they get their way or the courts says bugger off (if you will pardon the pun).


----------



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

Oh SINC..... if this is your idea of the sky falling, then you must lead a sheltered life. Please do not generalize homosexual people based on the hard-liners. You, yourself, said that many of the gays you worked with were not flamboyant about their sexuality. Recognize that there is diversity among all people and sectors of life. The gay community has been victimized over many, many years. Part of that victimization is due to society looking the other way when a kid was bullied or humiliated. Jews, visible minorities and Muslims continue to experience discrimination that you or I have little idea of. Of course there are "extremist" gays but I don't think the straight population is bereft of imbeciles by any stretch of the imagination.

Tolerance is not enough. People have been brought up with biases - these can be unlearned - unlike sexuality.

Equality is unconditional.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It breaks down to rights and responsibilities.

IF a church performs a public service and is compensated to do so via the public purse either directly or through tax breaks - then it must be open to all and subject to the Charter.

IF it is a private function not open to the public and not compensated then Bob's your uncle or aunt so to speak. ( that's Klein's approach )

What IS forming up is not restricted to this marriage issue.

It's a wider question of allowable discrimation within religious communities that have a publically funded aspect to them.

THAT's in my mind the ongoing aspect. Can religions which receive tax breaks act in a discriminatory manner in any way for religious reasons? ( ie hiring practices ).

The churches can't have it both ways, public largesse and "look the other way" when they flout the charter.

It's about bloody time they were tackled on this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> And if it wasn't a big deal to Christ, I'm also pretty sure the churches wouldn't be against gay marriage and gays in general. Let me guess; you're going to argue the churches don't know what they're talking about?


I would say the church has a very poor track record for knowing what they are talking about. 

I guess the earth is still flat, the universe revolves around us, the earth is only 6000 years old, etc....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Boy the hatred and bigotry toward Christians is just amazing on this board. Funny after 14 pages of Christaphophobic comments and not one word against Muslims or Jews who are equally opposed to gay marriage for similar reasons. Funny that is. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Boy the hatred and bigotry toward Christians is just amazing on this board. Funny after 14 pages of Christaphophobic comments and not one word against Muslims or Jews who are equally opposed to gay marriage for similar reasons. Funny that is.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Actually I'm an equal opportunity religious dissenter... Funny that three religions all based on worship of the SAME God can be so at odds with each other... to the point that they are the main cause of suffering and conflict in the world today.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Christaphophobic..........ever think it MIGHT just be deserved.

I'm influenzaphobic for similar reasons.......viral memes can be just as deadly or more so than their biological counterparts.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Thanks da-jonesy

Your jackboots are in the mail. Oh and MacDoc they have a pair for you too.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I think it would more likely be Christianophobic - fear of Christians, though I'm not sure how to word it for fear of extremist Christians...

But Christophobic...fear of Christ? Nah, I can't see that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nah MacGuiyver they fit too well with your chosen religion's history.........Aryan Christians, KKK, why the RCs themselves. Don't track in the blood please...........transubstantiated or not.....

My crowd tends to Birkenstocks.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> viral memes can be just as deadly or more so than their biological counterparts.


Yes those damn Christian's and their third world aid programs, homeless shelters, food banks, hospitals, community projects, old age homes, refugee support programs, disaster relief, etc etc. is the downfall of Canadian society and it must be stopped. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Nah MacGuiyver they fit too well with your chosen religion's history.........Aryan Christians, KKK, why the RCs themselves. Don't track in the blood please...........transubstantiated or not.....
> 
> My crowd tends to Birkenstocks.


LOL!!!!! Oh MacDoc you are more paranoid than I thought!
You just keep painting with that huge bull **** brush of yours and you may get to be head of the the propaganda department someday. 

Heck maybe Birkenstocks would be more comfortable to wear working around the crematoriums and all. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Christians freaking out about discrimination make me laugh. Christians dominate Canada and the US and are NOT discriminated against. Every time Christains Zealots don't get their way lately they cry discrimination but I have yet to see an example. 
Why are Christians being singled out in this thread? Because there are no Jews or Muslims in this thread hiding behind a missunderstanding of their religion to push bigotry. If any people of other faiths care to post to this thread intollerant views they too will be shot down and revealed to be bigots also.

How many times does Jesus mention homosexuality? None.

Where is this intollerance comming from?

Discrimination against Christians indeed! This is just more of the new right's method of trying to push an extremist religious adjenda on the less orthodox. This is the tactic that the "Christain right" (read: Christian wrong) use extensively when they don't get their way (like Teri Schiavo).

Don't worry Christains are still in the majority in Canada and have no need to fear discrimination.

MacGuiver you come off as similar to white males who complain they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sex and colour.

Get over it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes those damn Christian's and their third world aid programs, homeless shelters, food banks, hospitals, community projects, old age homes, refugee support programs, disaster relief, etc etc. is the downfall of Canadian society and it must be stopped.


Yes, it should be stopped. Many religions, but most notably the evangelical sects of Christianity, have long utilized the strategy of offering help to those in need in order to capture an audience for their proselytizing. It's a very good strategy, as someone who's children are sick or dying, who's home has been destroyed, who is starving or otherwise under great emotional stress is much more vulnerable to their memes.

Having been the victim of Christian brain-washing attempts as a child myself (I went to a summer camp where we were feed nothing but sugar-puffs, allowed to stay up as late as we wanted, etc. and then isolated from the other kids if we didn't put up our hands when asked if we had accepted Christ as our Saviour... then it started getting ugly... it was really weird) I know how hard it is to resist the evangelists when you're not feeling your best.

I'm sure the Christians who participate in all of this charity work are doing so for the most honourable reasons, and really do want to make the world a better place. But it is important to recognize that religions have adapted to their environments like any other memetic system, and these techniques are part of their survival/reproductive strategy. From the religion's POV, any good that is done for people is secondary to converting more people to the faith.

I would much prefer to see these humanitarian efforts to be done by non-sectarian organizations. Christians and people of other faiths should, of course be encouraged to participate, but not proselytize. Of course, that's an uphill battle, as the religious organizations uses these activities as a cornerstone for their justification, and hardly anyone sees that as a bad thing. It's important work that corporations aren't interested in, so why not let the churches do it? Right? It'd definitely going to be hard to convince people that they should pay more taxes to do something churches want to do for free.

Cheers


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

From what I gather, the largest group "discriminating" agaisnt Christians are.... other Christians... the less up-tight bunch (independent of denomination).

What I mean by that, is basically it comes down to is us Christians can't rightfully claim discrimination, because we we can't discriminated against ourselves.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> From what I gather, the largest group "discriminating" agaisnt Christians are.... other Christians... the less up-tight bunch (independent of denomination).
> 
> What I mean by that, is basically it comes down to is us Christians can't rightfully claim discrimination, because we we can't discriminated against ourselves.


Actually it is possible to be self hating.
The truth is most Christians are fine with gay marriage so long as no one is forcing them into a gay marriage (which will never happen). Notice the Anglicans and the United Church now ordain gays and lesbians.
This is just more of this hijacking of the Christian faith by the Zealot faction who want you to believe that they are the only true representatives of the faith when in fact they are a minority in Canada. Christian Zealots are not the voice of Christianity and should stop pretending they are.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> How many times does Jesus mention homosexuality? None.


Martman

He never mentioned it specifically but other bible verses do. The one thing he did do was clearly define marriage and the way God intended it to be.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"
4
5 He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
5
and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

In one breath you are telling me to follow Jesus and accept homosexuality because he never made mention of it (although the bible clearly does) and in the next you are saying to go against his definition of marriage which he clearly stated.
Would I not be going against the will of God to redefine marriage any other way than he intended it to be?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Good works with questionable agendas have been used to mask power and influence grabs for millenia.

Religiously inspired intolerance has so much blood and strife on it's collective hands that no amount of anointing, baptising or or incense waving will eliminate the smell.

And accepting virtual cannibalism as a part of sacred rites for your precious Christian sect is unimagineably barbaric.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Not at all. If you need to take this stuff litterally (a cherry pick) then all you need do is make sure you are right with God.
Jesus came to free us from the law not to have you cherry pick it.
Jesus says judge not but no Zealots I've ever met follow this.

The definition doesn't matter so long as YOU conduct yourself with integrity. If you think gay marriage is wrong don't marry a man and you should be fine with Jesus. Judge folks for being gay and you too will be judged.

Jesus's emphsis is on helping the poor yet this anti gay crap is what is being pushed by many Christians. 
There are hundreds of references about helping the poor and most Christian Zealots ignore this to focus on hate (Something decidedly anti Jesus).
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/

I'm not a Christain but even I can see the hypocracy.
You want to make Jesus happy? Stop with the bigotry and go help the poor.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

There are so many contradictions in the bible, I don't really see how anyone can live their life by what it says. Too often (in my opinion), people interpret the bible to suit their own beliefs - how about all those who try to use the bible as an excuse for smacking their sweet little children around?

Although I'm not a religious person, I think the bible is an interesting read and lessons can be learned from it, but to take it too literally can be dangerous.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Christaphophobic..........ever think it MIGHT just be deserved.


No, not it isn't. Disagreeing with the church is one thing, but hatemongering/fearmongering/etc against them is entirely another. The former does not necessitate the latter, either.

And FWIW, while I support the whole gay marriage thing, if gays in Alberta are indeed going to attempt to force any church to marry them against said churches beliefs, well, let's just say they should prepare to be disappointed anyway.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I thought the Bible was a legend filled with metaphor and moral stories. Guess I read it wrong. 



> Having been the victim of Christian brain-washing attempts as a child myself (I went to a summer camp where we were feed nothing but sugar-puffs, allowed to stay up as late as we wanted, etc. and then isolated from the other kids if we didn't put up our hands when asked if we had accepted Christ as our Saviour... then it started getting ugly... it was really weird) I know how hard it is to resist the evangelists when you're not feeling your best.


Bryanc, the bible camp story raises an interesting side note. Yesterday in the NYT online, there was an article about an 'athiest' summer camp for kids. Isn't that just regular summer camp. Has it gone so far over the edge that you actually have to define your organization as athiest? Very sad that things are getting divided up this way. 
When I was looking into summer camp opportunities for my little one this year, the thought didn't even cross my mind. I was just looking for participation and fun.... silly me for being so naive.

FWIW, I think the newly passed legislation is a good thing for Canadians and it's about time.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Thanks da-jonesy
> 
> Your jackboots are in the mail. Oh and MacDoc they have a pair for you too.
> 
> ...


Hey Jackboots! Sexy! Do I get jodhpurs with them?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Nah MacGuiyver they fit too well with your chosen religion's history.........Aryan Christians, KKK, why the RCs themselves. Don't track in the blood please...........transubstantiated or not.....
> 
> My crowd tends to Birkenstocks.


transubstantiated... ha ha ha ROFLMAO


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Yes, it should be stopped. Many religions, but most notably the evangelical sects of Christianity, have long utilized the strategy of offering help to those in need in order to capture an audience for their proselytizing. It's a very good strategy, as someone who's children are sick or dying, who's home has been destroyed, who is starving or otherwise under great emotional stress is much more vulnerable to their memes.
> 
> Having been the victim of Christian brain-washing attempts as a child myself (I went to a summer camp where we were feed nothing but sugar-puffs, allowed to stay up as late as we wanted, etc. and then isolated from the other kids if we didn't put up our hands when asked if we had accepted Christ as our Saviour... then it started getting ugly... it was really weird) I know how hard it is to resist the evangelists when you're not feeling your best.
> 
> ...


WOW... excellent post. It would have taken me an hour to articulate that correctly, well said.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Martman
> 
> He never mentioned it specifically but other bible verses do. The one thing he did do was clearly define marriage and the way God intended it to be.
> 
> ...


Well it comes down to this... The Bible is written by who? Well it is written by men. Not God, not Jesus... men. Isn't the whole point of being a Christian is following the teachings of Jesus Christ? So if Jesus didn't teach you to hate gays and oppose same sex marriage... who did? Care to guess?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> And accepting virtual cannibalism as a part of sacred rites for your precious Christian sect is unimagineably barbaric.


I love trying to explain that one to my wife's family... they are Jain (and strictly vegetarian because of this.). Every time I tell them that the sacrament is (through transubstantiation) people very literally consuming the flesh and blood of christ... they get totally icked out.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Carex said:


> I thought the Bible was a legend filled with metaphor and moral stories. Guess I read it wrong.


No... it's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma... don't you get it?

OOOoooppsss sorry that was JFK.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and so they should.

I always found it ironic who was trying to enlighten whom in Papua New Guinea



> Certain tribes here like human flesh and do not see why they should not eat it. Indeed, I have never been able to give a convincing answer to a native who says to me, ‘Why should I not eat human flesh?...’
> 
> J. H. P. Murray, Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Judicial Officer in Papua, Papua, or British New Guinea, Faber Unwin, 1912


http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/nguinea1.html


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> So if Jesus didn't teach you to hate gays and oppose same sex marriage... who did? Care to guess?


Care to point out where I said I hated gay people or are you just flappin your gums again? 

You guys take spin-doctoring to a whole new level. LOL!!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Wow touchy subject. I was reading most of the posts and I found many people seem to attack Christians. There are many Religions that "believe" gay/lesbian marriage is wrong. How come no one is attacking Muslims or Jews? 
http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/heaven.html

Interesting link regarding Jesus and how he never once talked about gays. Paul did talk about it somewhere in the Bible but that probably was Paul's opinion because Jesus didn't tell him according to what they wrote about Jesus. Jesus was all about love if you read the Bible. He was a great teacher and if everyone followed the principals of some Religions such as Buddhism etc the world would be a better place. Unfortunately it's full of greed and self centered people who care only about themselves. 
Christianity is not about pushing what you believe to be the truth, it's about "spreading the word of God" and giving people the option if they want to listen as far as I am concerned. 
Anyone who tries to push Religion down others throats usually ends up pissing a lot of people off. You make your own choices and you’re the one who has to live with it and if you’re wrong then oh well. You can't criticize others when you’re not perfect yourself. If in the end God is against Gay marriage then gays/lesbians will be just as guilty as the rest of us who make mistakes. 
I agree that people who want to get married to someone of the same sex should be legal. On the other hand for me, I am not gay and probably never will be. I think we all need to accept others for who and what they are and for what they believe. Who's to say that what I believe is the truth, or what others believe is the truth. 
When you point fingers at others for what there doing, remember that there are three are pointing at you. There seems to be many people who have had bad experiences with Religion. Probably with good reasons, Church, Religion is not perfect because people are not perfect. If you had a few bad experiences and you are against something then you are ignorant and arrogant and need to do some more research. Even being critical about someone’s belief is wrong in my opinion. Try keeping an open mind and see how wonderful it can be. Easier said then done though. 
Bashing what others do or believe is sadly distasteful and pathetic. Some people need to grow up in here and work on their anger issues. It seems to be a reoccurring theme on this message board. 
It is fine to disagree but when you start attacking people and making nasty comments about what they believe, then I think you are dead wrong period. 
People always expect Christians/Muslims/Jews etc to be perfect. Then they quickly point the finger at someone when they slip up. I believe in spirituality not Religion because books, Bibles and what ever else is written by imperfect men. Maybe they are divinely inspired but they are still written by men and they are not perfect. My father in law and brother in law are both Ministers. My wife is a Christian, my mother is a Christian. I accept that, it’s just not for me I am too much of a free thinker. If you eat live chickens, then hey maybe you like it but I sure am not going to try it. When you start attacking people for what they believe then you I truly believe you are a very sick person.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Care to point out where I said I hated gay people or are you just flappin your gums again?


For what other possible reason could you oppose same sex marriage then?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> For what other possible reason could you oppose same sex marriage then?


Because someone can be opposed to the change of definition of marriage?

Opposing a change in a definition and actually hating the specific individuals are two different worlds. You quite apparently can't see the difference.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Lars said:


> Because someone can be opposed to the change of definition of marriage?
> 
> Opposing a change in a definition and actually hating the specific individuals are two different worlds. You quite apparently can't see the difference.


There is no difference! Opposition to the change in definition is based on what? Don't you get it yet? Why do you oppose it? What is the grounds for your opposition?

It in NO way affects your life... so your opposition can only be based on some sort of predjudice.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> Because someone can be opposed to the change of definition of marriage?


Yep, you have every right to disagree with it, and not participate. However, given that 'marriage' is a legal definition, and that all laws must obey the Charter (that is, they may not discriminate on the basis of of sexual orientation), the legal definition must allow any consenting adults to be married. This is a no-brainer.

That doesn't mean you have to marry anyone you don't like, nor does it mean your church has to consecrate any marriage of which it doesn't approve (BTW, if the gays argue that your church must marry them, I'll side with you in that fight).

But if you try to legally discriminate against gays, or Jews, or short people, or any other group (inlcuding Christians), you're going to get crushed by the Charter. That's exactly what it's for. And that's exactly what has happened here.

I just can't understand why it took so long, or why there was any argument about it in the first place.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> For what other possible reason could you oppose same sex marriage then?


Many reasons but hatred is not among them. I know you oppose the war in Iraq, should I assume you oppose the war because you hate Americans?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It's worth pointing out that hatred is not a pre-requisite for discrimination.

But either way, discrimination is discrimination.


----------



## NewBill (May 29, 2005)

It is a proud moment for ourselves and our government. 

The politics of inclusion always leaves me with a feeling of hope. That the inclusion succeeded in a minority situation where almost moment to moment it seemed that the government would fold on just about any excuse makes me even more hopeful.

Exclusion bewilders me as an idea quite aside from politics. It declares a fundamental belief in a "lifeboat" philosophy where the more that are abandoned increases the chances of the survival of those who remain. If this works at all it is only during times of shortage and conflict and provides no template for advancing civilization.

In positive hopeful times the politics of exclusions would seem to inexorably lead to the extinction of those groups, institutions, or individuals who hold these values. 

That so many still hold these values is testament to the amount of conflict we have had in the the few millennia that we have existed in large enough groups to have the ambition to be civilized.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Carex said:


> When I was looking into summer camp opportunities for my little one this year, the thought didn't even cross my mind. I was just looking for participation and fun.... silly me for being so naive.


Well, I think the sort of thing that happened to me is less common now (my parents, and those of some of the other children, came down like a ton of bricks on the church that ran that camp, and other religious organizations have become more circumspect since then). But don't be too trusting. The camp I went to was advertised as being 'non-denominational' and wasn't explicitly a bible camp... during the hostilities that ensued after I was rescued, the representatives of the church denied that there was any intentional brain-washing, and argued that some of their counsellors were simply over zealous in their attempts to save the souls of those children who were clearly on a path straight-to-hell, and while their actions weren't condoned by the church, it was perfectly understandable.

So I'd look very closely into any religiously organized/funded camps, because, as I said, religions don't do anything that isn't in some way calculated to improve their chances of converting another heathen.

I think that's probably the reason there are now explicitly 'atheist' summer camps. That's about the only place you could send a child an be confident that they aren't being indoctrinated.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Many reasons but hatred is not among them. I know you oppose the war in Iraq, should I assume you oppose the war because you hate Americans?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well feel free to give me your reasons for opposing same sex marriage and I will give you my reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. (pppssssttt hating americans is not the reason) 

BTW... I have been working for US based software comapnies for the past 7 years... I love Americans (and their money)


----------



## NewBill (May 29, 2005)

Atheism is a doctrine too.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Well, I think the sort of thing that happened to me is less common now (my parents, and those of some of the other children, came down like a ton of bricks on the church that ran that camp, and other religious organizations have become more circumspect since then). But don't be too trusting. The camp I went to was advertised as being 'non-denominational' and wasn't explicitly a bible camp... during the hostilities that ensued after I was rescued, the representatives of the church denied that there was any intentional brain-washing, and argued that some of their counsellors were simply over zealous in their attempts to save the souls of those children who were clearly on a path straight-to-hell, and while their actions weren't condoned by the church, it was perfectly understandable.
> 
> So I'd look very closely into any religiously organized/funded camps, because, as I said, religions don't do anything that isn't in some way calculated to improve their chances of converting another heathen.
> 
> ...


I here Tim Horton's Camps are stuffing kids with timbits and double-doubles so they'll follow their artery clogged and highly caffinated parents to the Timmy's drive through window.
You've all been warned!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I here Tim Horton's Camps are stuffing kids with timbits and double-doubles so they'll follow their artery clogged and highly caffinated parents to the Timmy's drive through window.
> You've all been warned!
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Followed up with some cream filled, long john hot man on man monogamy... 

ha ha ha

BTW anyone notice you can't buy long john's at Timmies any more... You see another example of rampant homophobia in our society  (ps. that was sarcasm).


----------



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

Hey bryanc, maybe we should start a Science Summer camp and indoctrinate a few heathens into research? There seems to be a bit of a dearth of students (I wonder if that has anything to do with the pay and the funding prospects?).


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The funny thing about the NYT article about the athiest summer camp was that the kids were shown playing some kind of Darwinesque evolution game. All dressed up as dinosaurs and animals and such.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I think that the smug triumphalism expressed by some in this thread is dangerous and put the accomplishment at risk. I'm not convinced that the majority of Canadians support this move yet and the best way to inflame opposition is to act like an ass. Instead, this is the time to build bridges and address the concerns of all sides.


Thanks to Fink-Nottle for an excellent post. I'm rather disappointed at the amount of sheer arrogance being show in this thread as it has developed towards either side (predominantly anyone who has disagreed).

Are we to paint everyone with the same brush? Are we to say Sinc is going to go joy riding with a shotgun to get some gay scalps just because someone else who doesn't like same sex marriage is crazy enough to do it? Do we paint all gays as those who want to have the world run their way?

Sinc's posts were about the radicals. Radical as in extremist those who don't listen to reason but attempt to put their views onto the world.

The problem I see here in the immediate ripple effects of the decision are not adaptation but attacks centred around the idea of your rights are nowhere near as important as mine which is completely contradictory to the Charter.

It's all right to disagree but to attack someone on their disagreement is what so a few here have cried about yet they do it themselves. The double standard regardless of the side of the debate sickens me. Would it be possible to stop attacking each other rather then address the issue at hand?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Chealion said:


> Sinc's posts were about the radicals. Radical as in extremist those who don't listen to reason but attempt to put their views onto the world.
> 
> The problem I see here in the immediate ripple effects of the decision are not adaptation but attacks centred around the idea of your rights are nowhere near as important as mine which is completely contradictory to the Charter.
> 
> It's all right to disagree but to attack someone on their disagreement is what so a few here have cried about yet they do it themselves. The double standard regardless of the side of the debate sickens me. Would it be possible to stop attacking each other rather then address the issue at hand?


Thanks for recognizing that I was referring to the radical element only Chealion, but some here ignore I did recognize that I worked with many gays over the years who were fine people and I enjoyed their input and contributions.

Although I have tried not to attack anyone, I have been called a bigot for my views, something that depresses me, for I am not.

At the end of the day, when one considers the source of those kinds of name calling, I simply chalk it up to immaturity or ignorance. One thing I don't need is anyone's sympathies for my views. We're all big boys and girls here and sometimes we have to ignore the rantings of the overzealous or uninformed.

Again, thanks for defending me, but if people can't be civil, it is certainly not your fault Chealion.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Well said guys. I posted earlier about how disgusted I am with the Christian bashing, attacking and all the other shi*t. People need to grow up on this board. Free will means we all get to choose. No one here has the right to decide what they think others should believe regardless of how ridiculous you may think it is. It's funny how people that don't agree with the new legislation are labeled homophobic, give me a break. This forum I thought was supposed to be about having fun and debating, but it's turned into a nasty slug fest for the most part. Attacking people for what they believe in my opinion is wrong and can be hurtful. I guess some people just don't care about that. I'm not a Christian but I find the bashing offensive and juvenile. A lot of people seem to be very angry people. Maybe they should join the anger management group I co-facilitate. It's just a message board but were still real people behind our macs.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Chealion said:


> Are we to paint everyone with the same brush? Are we to say Sinc is going to go joy riding with a shotgun to get some gay scalps just because someone else who doesn't like same sex marriage is crazy enough to do it? Do we paint all gays as those who want to have the world run their way?


Hey you said it not us... Is the Joy riding with shotguns and Alberta thing?  




Chealion said:


> It's all right to disagree but to attack someone on their disagreement is what so a few here have cried about yet they do it themselves. The double standard regardless of the side of the debate sickens me. Would it be possible to stop attacking each other rather then address the issue at hand?


OK... I will address the issue at hand. Many of the arguements that others have put forth against same sex marriage have been based in the defense of straight peoples rights. Please give me an example of a right as defined in the Charter that same sex marriage violates. 

No name calling (yet)... lets hear an answer.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Thanks for recognizing that I was referring to the radical element only Chealion, but some here ignore I did recognize that I worked with many gays over the years who were fine people and I enjoyed their input and contributions.


Yes, but the problem is that your arguements on point out the most extreme cases of the most radical factions. 



SINC said:


> Although I have tried not to attack anyone, I have been called a bigot for my views, something that depresses me, for I am not.
> 
> At the end of the day, when one considers the source of those kinds of name calling, I simply chalk it up to immaturity or ignorance. One thing I don't need is anyone's sympathies for my views. We're all big boys and girls here and sometimes we have to ignore the rantings of the overzealous or uninformed.


Yo... Pot, this is the Kettle, Your Black (shoot, someone else already used this).

Funny that in your reply to Chealion, you would paint everyone who opposes your opinion with the same brush you claim to have been painted with. You chalk up the name calling to immatury or ignorance... but you pointing that out puts you in the same boat. Have a look in the mirror buddy.

If you can give me a reasonable arguement I will be happy to debate you on the subject.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

NewBill said:


> Atheism is a doctrine too.


Only in the loosest sense. 

'A'=='without'
'theism'=='belief(s) about god(s)'

So atheism is simply a lack of beliefs about god(s). There are, apparently, some people who subscribe to 'Strong Atheism' which is a belief in the non-existence of god(s), but I'm certainly not one of them, and I've never met one.

The beliefs of people I've talked to who describe themselves as 'atheists' are as idiosyncratic as the people themselves. There is no atheist dogma, or generally accepted world-view. There are many philosophers who's work is viewed as insightful by many atheists (and, indeed, many modern philosophers (not to mention scientists) are atheists themselves) but there are none who's positions are taken as 'definitive.'

So atheism is a doctrine only to the extent that lack of belief in Santa Clause is a docterine. It certainly is not a religion, if that's what you were trying to imply.



used to be jwoodget said:


> maybe we should start a Science Summer camp and indoctrinate a few heathens into research? There seems to be a bit of a dearth of students (I wonder if that has anything to do with the pay and the funding prospects?).


Yes, I'm always conflicted about getting young people excited about research while I'm so acutely aware of the bleak career prospects.

I know you were just joking above, but this is a serious issue. If society recognizes the value of science, it's got to put some serious money into it, if only to allow scientists to live well enough that at least a few people will want to pursue careers in research.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Clockwork said:


> Well said guys. I posted earlier about how disgusted I am with the Christian bashing, attacking and all the other shi*t. People need to grow up on this board. Free will means we all get to choose. No one here has the right to decide what they think others should believe regardless of how ridiculous you may think it is. It's funny how people that don't agree with the new legislation are labeled homophobic, give me a break. This forum I thought was supposed to be about having fun and debating, but it's turned into a nasty slug fest for the most part. Attacking people for what they believe in my opinion is wrong and can be hurtful. I guess some people just don't care about that. I'm not a Christian but I find the bashing offensive and juvenile. A lot of people seem to be very angry people. Maybe they should join the anger management group I co-facilitate. It's just a message board but were still real people behind our macs.


I find this odd... People are so quick to point out "the Christian bashing" yet no one has been pointing out the gay bashing (well perhaps they have) that is rampant in society in general. 

Is this a nasty slug fest, well yes I think it is, and rightly so. This is a real issue for people who are gay. They are the ones who have lived as second class citizens. What would you expect people to do? What would you have expected minorities to do in the south in the 60's?


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

This is the perfect example of why church and state should never be mixed.

I don't like the "tone" of some peoples opinion. Che, you might say I'm mud slinging, but until you are faced with a group of people saying the EXACT same things AND wanting to beat your friend into the ground, you have no idea what "opinions" can do.

Regardless, this shouldn't be a discussion of church as much as a celebration of a minority achieving certain basic rights under the law. That is the point of this victory, not some church going people offended because "gays" can use A WORD, marriage, to describe their relationship.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Yes, but the problem is that your arguements on point out the most extreme cases of the most radical factions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, let's get one thing straight (pardon the pun) I am NOT your "buddy".

Second, name calling should be chalked up to immaturity or ignorance for that is what it truly is.

And last, please try to be civil. I certainly am.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> First, let's get one thing straight (pardon the pun) I am NOT your "buddy".
> 
> Second, name calling should be chalked up to immaturity or ignorance for that is what it truly is.
> 
> And last, please try to be civil. I certainly am.


Yeah you are right... you are not my buddy... that was meant in the most condescending way imaginable.

But this IS the issue... Your arguements are so weak and 2 dimensional that you can't even defend them. So in traditional conservative fashion (straight from the republican playbook you attack people who are trying to label you.

I've already said I would stop if you could give me a reasonable arguement as to your opposition to same sex marriage.

I quote you...



> I AM sick and tired of it all. From both sides. Let it rest is all I ask. Go about your lives in whatever manner pleases you. Just don't shove it at me.


and 



> That is just how I feel, except for that "we're here and we're queer" rant they use on gay pride day.
> 
> If gays would stop that behaviour, I could accept gay marriage. But until they do, I will continue to feel like a gun is being held to my head.


And here is the best one



> That's odd, because that is exactly what they have been doing to the straight community for years and years with their stupid gay pride BS. If they would just shut up about it, so would I. Live and let live, but they have to push it in my face every damn day.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I don't recall seeing any gay bashing; I didn't read all the posts only about 3/4 of them. Gay bashing, Religion bashing and political bashing I believe is wrong. We all have the right to believe what we want regardless of what others think. 
I agree with the legislation, we need to progress and people should have rights to do what they please as long as it is within the law and not physically hurting anyone (unfortunately, verbal and psychological abuse is not a crime or our jails would be full, but it causes a lot more problems). A Gay person getting married doesn’t hurt me at all, if it hurts a person then that’s their issue to deal with. If they do not like it, it is most likely because they want to impose their beliefs on others which is dead wrong in my opinion. 
I work with many gay/lesbian clients and they have made a choice to be gay (or born that way) depending on what you believe, and great if they want to marry. I'll even go to the wedding if it is someone I know. For me I am not gay and probably won't ever be. 
What I don't agree with is how some people are attacking others regarding what their Religions do. I just noticed there was a lot of Christian bashing and I think it is really Unnecessary and takes away from any proper argument. A phrase I heard somewhere that I like, "Keep your eyes on your own fries". Personally my own belief system is, it is wrong for "me" to sleep with another man, but what anyone else does is there choice and everyone makes their own decisions based on what they believe. I don't think any less of gay people. They are people like you and I. They are doctors and lawyers 
and nurses etc. What gives me the right to say that its wrong. If I said that then that would be arrogant of me to think that I know that much. The more I learn the less I know.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey you said it not us... Is the Joy riding with shotguns and Alberta thing?


Well it sounded as red neck and backwater as you could get. After all that's what most people in Ontario think about Alberta anyway don't they?  (Yes, that was tongue in cheek).



da_jonesy said:


> OK... I will address the issue at hand. Many of the arguements that others have put forth against same sex marriage have been based in the defense of straight peoples rights. Please give me an example of a right as defined in the Charter that same sex marriage violates.
> 
> No name calling (yet)... lets hear an answer.


From what I can gather the concerns are more not about granting legal rights to gay members but instead giving complete control to the the minority. By this I'm referring to the petition that churches being forced to marry same sex couples. (Which under the current provisions is not the case, but some radicals want to). This is also combined with the general idea that not agreeing with same sex marriage means you are immeadiatly a homophobe or a bigot which is not the case. Being attacked for one's beliefs is also covered by the Charter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah you are right... you are not my buddy... that was meant in the most condescending way imaginable.


Just another demonstration of your "tolerance". I rest my case.


----------



## _Outcast_ (Oct 17, 2003)

Give it up Sinc, you ain't gonna win with this crowd. They scream tolerance and understanding for all but whenever someone takes a contrary position the name calling starts. Funny how tolerance and understanding only seem to be allowed for those with viewpoints and sentiments that echo their own.

I wonder how all these open-minded liberal types will react when one of their sons in Scouts has to go on an overnight camping trip or other outing (no pun intended) with some Scout leader and his "life partner." I'll bet they won't be half as open-minded then.

All this legislation does is open the door for gays and lesbians to adopt children. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's what it's all been about anyway.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable barrage of insults to be hurled my way by the enlightened masses that purport to speak for the majority.

Jerry


----------



## Kendall (Jul 1, 2005)

I joined ehMac.ca today.

I just tried to post a reply on this thread and I got an error so I will try again...

Yesterday, I felt like it was the first day of my life that I was not a second-class citizen in my own country. Then I heard a survey on a local radio station that suggested that 88% of Saskatchewan people were against same-sex marriage. My heart sank. I wondered if I really was, indeed, still a second-class citizen.

When I saw this thread I was afraid to open it. I'm not sure I can handle too much more of the hatred I find myself surrounded with lately.

What a wonderful surprise! I find myself somewhat overwhelmed by the support I found in this thread. I truly do not know how to thank you all (well, almost all). You have made me feel so much better about myself.

I look forward to spending a lot of time in these forums. Thanks again, everyone.

Kendall (big gay Mac user)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

_Outcast_ said:


> Give it up Sinc, you ain't gonna win with this crowd. They scream tolerance and understanding for all but whenever someone takes a contrary position the name calling starts. Funny how tolerance and understanding only seem to be allowed for those with viewpoints and sentiments that echo their own.


What I have read is intolerance from Sinc. His stance has been one of that reflects xenophobia not only on the subject of same sex marriage. This is also echoed on the subject bilingualism. His views embody a narrow view and in an ironic way enforce the stereotype that I had hoped the West evolved out of.



_Outcast_ said:


> I wonder how all these open-minded liberal types will react when one of their sons in Scouts has to go on an overnight camping trip or other outing (no pun intended) with some Scout leader and his "life partner." I'll bet they won't be half as open-minded then.


This is not a liberal/conservative battle. I would have no problems with my kids learning about alternative lifestyles. Gay does not mean pedophile as you seem to imply. 



_Outcast_ said:


> All this legislation does is open the door for gays and lesbians to adopt children. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's what it's all been about anyway.


And what is the problem with gays and lesbians adopting children? If it's a loving family, I encourage it. It's not about adopting children but one of equality and tolerance.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Kendall - It's great to have you on ehMac! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Now, I'm off for the weekend


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Just another demonstration of your "tolerance". I rest my case.


And once again... You fail to step up to the plate and try to put forth a rational arguement to defend your position. 

Typical ploy to try and belittle your opposition rather than face their arguements.

C'mon lets see you do it again... Please give me a rational reason as to why you oppose same sex marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Please give me a rational reason as to why you oppose same sex marriage.


I oppose same sex marriage because it counters my belief as to the definition of the traditional family and in doing so erodes the values I have been taught all my life. I further believe the only real marriage is the union of one man and one woman. I have no opposition to same sex unions or whatever else one chooses to call them. Last time I checked, it is a free country and I am allowed to hold those beliefs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sinc, you have given an emotional reason why you oppose same sex marriage. I can respect your views - but your definitions are vague after that.
You have no opposition to same sex unions but oppose same sex marriage.
Semantics here - 
Are you perchance mixing your traditional Judaeo-Christian definitions and what is right?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

_Outcast_ said:


> I wonder how all these open-minded liberal types will react when one of their sons in Scouts has to go on an overnight camping trip or other outing (no pun intended) with some Scout leader and his "life partner." I'll bet they won't be half as open-minded then.
> 
> All this legislation does is open the door for gays and lesbians to adopt children. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's what it's all been about anyway.
> 
> ...


Well, most of what has been said here has been heated but with the respect. Myself included, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Sinc whether I agree with him or not. But thanks for lumping most of us in with the few who are a little passionate about their arguments. Interesting, I would draw a parallel here, but I'll leave that up to you.

As far as a Scout leader and "Husband" leading a camping trip. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that than him going with a Married straight spewing intolerence. Surely, you are not suggesting that Gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than any other sector of society. Particularely, when there is no evidence to support that fear. Simply inferring such is a sign of intolerence.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I oppose same sex marriage because it counters my belief as to the definition of the traditional family and in doing so erodes the values I have been taught all my life.


In what way does it erode your values? Since you are not participating in a same sex marriage, it in fact does not apply to you does it? Do your beliefs mean more than someone else's rights as defined under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 



SINC said:


> I further believe the only real marriage is the union of one man and one woman.


You have the right to believe what you want, however does that belief mean more than someone else rights?



SINC said:


> I have no opposition to same sex unions or whatever else one chooses to call them. Last time I checked, it is a free country and I am allowed to hold those beliefs.


Yes, yes you are, however a belief is just that. I can't make you believe the earth is round when in fact it is flat. Just because someone believes something doesn't make it so, does it? I am sure that many people in Nazi germany believed they were doing the right thing with "the final option"... history has shown that was clearly not the case. Now that is of course an extreme analogy. Up until the 1920's it was believed that women were not people and they were not afforded the same rights as men, that belief was clearly wrong (although I'm sure some men still unfortunately feel that way still). In the 1960's segregation was still in effect in some places (apartheid up until the 80/90's) so people *believed* that institutionalized racial bigotry was tolerable by some segments of society.

Now I can't stop you from believing any of that. It is your right to believe what you want, however your right to believe ends where someone else's right to marry someone of the same gender begins.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I oppose same sex marriage because it counters my belief as to the definition of the traditional family and in doing so erodes the values I have been taught all my life. I further believe the only real marriage is the union of one man and one woman. I have no opposition to same sex unions or whatever else one chooses to call them. Last time I checked, it is a free country and I am allowed to hold those beliefs.


In what way does this erode your values? Personally, I don't see how it takes anything away from traditional marriages.

I support your right to your beliefs and I accept that some religions reject same sex marriage. However, I really can't follow their logic. I don't agree with picking and chosing literal interpretations of the bible.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

I think next we should have a bill passed that allows us to marry computers because I want to marry mine. I'loves my dual xeon box.

Seriously, there is a reason why we are designed in a certain way, there is a reason why it takes a man and a woman to create a child - to create a family. Humans as other creatures have urges to have children and take care of them and to go forward. If being gay or lesbian is normal and correct, then hook up with your partner and make a child and continue your bloodline. Oh wait, its not possible. Its not possible because its not right. Ya ya now everyone is going to get upset but thats the way it is. Like it or not, being gay or lesbian is a deviation from the norm. May not be your fault but it is the fact...thats why people think the passing of this bill is sad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> In what way does this erode your values?


Because I believe it is wrong and unnatural. A marriage is a family unit consisting of a woman (mother), a man (father) and may or may not involve children. Nothing any government does will ever change that in my mind.

A union on the other hand can involve whatever genders the participants desire.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Because I believe it is wrong and unnatural. A marriage is a family unit consisting of a woman (mother), a man (father) and may or may not involve children. Nothing any government does will ever change that in my mind.


I don't think the government needs to change your mind. The point is that your beliefs cannot change the government from doing the right thing, and allowing same sex marriages.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> The point is that your beliefs cannot change the government from doing the right thing, and allowing same sex marriages.


That is of course your opinion and you are welcome to it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That is of course your opinion and you are welcome to it.


I love this... Total smugness. Sorry baby, it's the law!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

This is what annoys me... and for the record, I am for the bill, am barely religious in my own very-non-Christian belief system, and I do not believe in the traditional definition of marriage that SINC stated very clearly. (And it is a rare day that I state my beliefs so plainly here.)

Whenever the pro-same-sex marriage crowd asks the pro-traditional marriage crowd for a reason why they are against it, the same reason is given: the pro-traditional crowd believes that changing the definition of marriage--as they understand it--alters an institution that is very important to them. 

The same-sex marriage crowd reacts the same way. "That's irrational. That's emotional. It's just a word--who cares?" To me, this reaction is crappy.

Yes, there is a pragmatic, logical, equal legal rights issue here. I haven't read this whole thread, but whenever this issue comes up on this board, nobody is denies that and nobody disagrees with it. (This is a very good thing, BTW.)

But I believe it is unfair and very close-minded to simply dismiss the fact that there is an emotional component to marriage that is linked to this legal issue. On a day-to-day, individual level, people of any gender do not get married because they want to form a rational legal contract. They love each other, want to get married, share their lives, and therefore accept the social and legal rights and responsibilities that come along with that. It's largely an emotional decision.

Laws are developed to govern society. Our society places an emotional component on marriage. (e.g., As opposed to societies where marriages are arranged and the whole this is very business-like). It does not, in my opinion, serve our society to deny that there is an emotional component to all of this, regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

That said, I believe that the definition of marriage for many Canadians is changing, and the change in law reflects this. Not everyone accepts a new definition, however, and for those people, watching their elected government alter an institution that is important to them is painful. I may disagree with their definition, but I respect that this is upsetting. To me, however, being upset about this that is not necessarily bigoted or discriminatory.

Finally, I think the "it's just a word--who cares?" argument is complete BS. Words are important. If words weren't important, than no one on the pro-same-sex issue would care if you called them civil unions or whatever as long as the rights were the same. It's BECAUSE this is such an important word in our society that I don't believe that these lifelong partnerships, regardless of their nature, are truly equal until the same word applies to both. Again, though, changing anything of importance is going to bother people.

The funny part is that I have this same argument with my husband all the time--which is very weird, since we're both on the same side of the issue.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

So alll this backa nd forthing comes down to a single word.

Marriage

Sad that one word can do so much harm.
Sinc, by allowing other religions into this country, does that not also 
erode the values you have been taught all your life?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nothing any government does will ever change that in my mind.


And that's the whole point... nobody is forcing you to change your mind.

This legislation doesn't take anything away from your opinions.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

robert said:


> Sinc, by allowing other religions into this country, does that not also
> erode the values you have been taught all your life?


That raises a very interesting argument. 13 years ago when I got married we had to have both a civil ceremony and a Hindu ceremony, because at the time the Hindu ceremony was not recognized by the government (we used the Hindu ceremony because there is no Jain ceremony, Jains just use the Hindu one, even though the religions are barely related) . Now it is recognized as are ceremonies from a variety of different faiths.

What changed? And the point is extremely valid in the context of the same sex marriage argument. Nothing changed except that people of different faiths were granted the same rights afforded to them (As defined by the Charter) that everyone else has enjoyed.

This is a direct parallel to the same sex debate. If the Hindu ceremony was only considered a "civil union" I would not stand for it. That directly impinges my rights. I completely understand how gays feel about their rights being impinged.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

robert said:


> So alll this backa nd forthing comes down to a single word.
> 
> Marriage
> 
> ...


To answer your question robert, no, not one bit. I respect everyone's right to follow or not to follow any religion. My choice is to follow no specific religion.

And Sonal has made an exceptional contribution to this discussion. The emotional component is the largest single factor for those of us who hold traditional marriage views. Thank you for recognizing that Sonal.

Perhaps now others will understand that just because we hold those views does not make us bigots nor does it mean we are trying to undermine anyone's rights.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

_Outcast_ said:


> I wonder how all these open-minded liberal types will react when one of their sons in Scouts has to go on an overnight camping trip or other outing (no pun intended) with some Scout leader and his "life partner." I'll bet they won't be half as open-minded then.


On the contrary, I'd be much more comfortable with my son going on a camping trip with a responsible gay couple than the kind of misanthropic freak my oh-so-very-Christian Scout leader was. In fact, one of the reasons I won't be encouraging my son to join Scouts is that they are a bigoted organization that expressly forbids homosexuals. I don't aprove of Scouts and won't support them.



> All this legislation does is open the door for gays and lesbians to adopt children. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's what it's all been about anyway.


And why should that bother anyone?



> Now I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable barrage of insults to be hurled my way


You won't get any intentional insults from me, although, in my experience, many neo-conservatives and religious people find my beliefs and expressions thereof insulting. However, I'm not intentionally insulting you, personally.



> by the enlightened masses that purport to speak for the majority.


The interesting thing here is that this is clearly a case of a _minority_ being spoken for and protected.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Perhaps now others will understand that just because we hold those views does not make us bigots nor does it mean we are trying to undermine anyone's rights.


But so long as you believe. Actually more correctly if you act on your beliefs, there is a difference. Act, that is in terms of trying to convince others that your position is right, that same sex marriage should NOT be allowed, you ARE trying to undermine other peoples rights.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

Its not even about marriage. Its about the basic fact of life. Same sex couples cannot create life therefore we can prove there is something un natural about it by assuming that if everyone in the world was a same sex couple and they were sexually committed to each other, well then how would new life be created? Human race would die off unless we bring science into the picture and artificially inseminate. See this is the law of nature and this cannot really be changed unless down the road we each are both male and female - like some snails and other creatures.

Man made laws are dictating now if its ok to have same sex marriage or not, but that doesnt change the fact that it is naturally not the norm... It may not be wrong in the eyes of the law but I think its still wrong. To me its like the law deciding that the colour blue is now green. Just because its illegal to call blue and green by their right names here doesnt mean we can ignore the fact that the colour is what it is..... blue is blue and green is green  Dont know where I was going with that by the way... analogy didnt work out the way I wanted. Basically saying law cannot change genetics and law of nature I guess.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kendall said:


> Yesterday, I felt like it was the first day of my life that I was not a second-class citizen in my own country.


Welcome, Kendall. I'm very happy that the ruling made you feel somewhat less persecuted. Sadly, I think the homosexual community is still going to suffer from a lot of intolerance for at least another few decades. But it's getting better and should continue to do so.

There are a lot of people who's belief systems are not very adaptable *cough*SINC*cough*. Many of them, to their credit, will bite their tongues and keep their bigotry under relatively good control. Others, especially in places like rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, will be more openly hostile.

While we can legislate fairness and equality in our laws, we can't legislate people's beliefs (and a good thing too!). So you'll just have to outlive the dinosaurs... hopefully the next generation of homosexuals will have a much better world to live in as the result of the changes we're making now.

Cheers


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy--you're Jain? I'm Jain. 

We had both a Vedic Hindu ceremony and a civil ceremony--the latter of which was the one that was meaningful to me. (My spouse is not Indian.) 

I believe there is a slight difference between the issue of allowing other faiths to marry, and allowing gays to marry. You were allowed to get married, even if it was not in a ceremony that was meaningful to you. Not so here.

The pro-traditional camp espouses a definition of marriage that consists of one man and one woman. A traditional Hindu wedding consists of the same view--one man, one woman. Most (though not all) religions hold a similar definition, either because it is stated somewhere or through religious tradition. 

So I fail to see how the idea that allowing different faiths to marry people, using the traditional view of marriage, changes anything for the traditionalist camp. Yes, arguments from that side frequently bring up one particular belief system, but on the whole, the traditional definition transcends religious boundaries.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

contoursvt said:


> Its not even about marriage. Its about the basic fact of life. Same sex couples cannot create life therefore we can prove there is something un natural about (...more incoherent dribbling deleted for brevity...)


So old people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Sterile couples are not really married? WTF are you thinking?!? Marriage is a legal institution that confers specific responsibilities and privileges. Lots of couples want this legal status and only some of those couples are fertile heterosexuals.



> Dont know where I was going with that by the way... analogy didnt work out the way I wanted.


No kidding. Here's a free clue: your analogy didn't work out because you are completely wrong.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> But so long as you believe. Actually more correctly if you act on your beliefs, there is a difference. Act, that is in terms of trying to convince others that your position is right, that same sex marriage should NOT be allowed, you ARE trying to undermine other peoples rights.


da_jonesy, I believe both you and SINC (and really, everyone on this thread) are acting very similarly. We are all presenting our own views--some more strongly than others, providing wo ents or questions, rebuttal, refutation, etc. We are all definitely trying to explain our views, some of us may be (one level or another) trying to convince others....

So either we're all trying to undermine each other's rights here, or we're all debating freely.

I have two personal rules for debate.
1) You cannot debate an issue if you don't agree to the definitions, and debating definitions is futile--at best, you can learn a lot and then agree to disagree.
2) Assume the other side's argument is as important to them as your side is to you--otherwise, they would have thrown in the towel earlier--and until you understand why, you'll be banging your head against the wall.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

contoursvt said:


> Its not even about marriage. Its about the basic fact of life. Same sex couples cannot create life therefore we can prove there is something un natural about it by assuming that if everyone in the world was a same sex couple and they were sexually committed to each other, well then how would new life be created?


The problem with the it's not natural argument is: IT IS NATURAL!

Homosexuality has been observed in many many different species. Dogs come to mind real fast but it has been routinly observed in monkeys, apes, goats, etc.

Only the blind could with any honesty put forward this argument.


As for the boyscout argument: the truth is most pederasts (men who have sex with boys) are otherwise straight not gay. 
I have to add that bringing up this old red herring (the boyscout argument) is in itself bigotry.

I agree that people are entitled to their own opinions but that doesn't mean they aren't prejudiced.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> da_jonesy--you're Jain? I'm Jain.
> 
> We had both a Vedic Hindu ceremony and a civil ceremony--the latter of which was the one that was meaningful to me. (My spouse is not Indian.)


I'm not Jain, but my wife is. So do you (or your family) ever go to the Jain temple down off of Queensway and Royal york? My in-laws are very involved with the temple and Jain society.



Sonal said:


> I believe there is a slight difference between the issue of allowing other faiths to marry, and allowing gays to marry. You were allowed to get married, even if it was not in a ceremony that was meaningful to you. Not so here.
> 
> The pro-traditional camp espouses a definition of marriage that consists of one man and one woman. A traditional Hindu wedding consists of the same view--one man, one woman. Most (though not all) religions hold a similar definition, either because it is stated somewhere or through religious tradition.
> 
> So I fail to see how the idea that allowing different faiths to marry people, using the traditional view of marriage, changes anything for the traditionalist camp. Yes, arguments from that side frequently bring up one particular belief system, but on the whole, the traditional definition transcends religious boundaries.


Not so... only modern moderate views and customs assume that one faith recognizes a marriage of another faith. If you look into the dogma and history of most major faiths a marriage of any kind is only sanctified by that own faith and any other "marriage" outside of that faith would be considered people "living in sin".

Even traditionalists in most western faiths believe that today.

But that again brings in the argument of religion and faith to what is in reality an argument about rights. Same sex marriage in no way impinges upon another faith, other than it "offends them". If someone brings up a "faith" based argument against same sex marriage, they must then defend their faith, otherwise it is not a valid defense is it?

But back to my original point. My wife and I feel very strongly about this issue because it very much has to do with how our relationship was defined at one point. And If your husband is white and you are east indian... you are in the exact same boat as us, 100 years ago, you two would not have been able to marry because interracial marriage was considered miscegenation and that was against the law. Thankfully society has matured, but I deeply sympathize with the plight of the gay and lesbian community in regards to same sex marriage for this very reason.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> da_jonesy, I believe both you and SINC (and really, everyone on this thread) are acting very similarly. We are all presenting our own views--some more strongly than others, providing wo ents or questions, rebuttal, refutation, etc. We are all definitely trying to explain our views, some of us may be (one level or another) trying to convince others....
> 
> So either we're all trying to undermine each other's rights here, or we're all debating freely.
> 
> ...


Ah but this is the Point I was trying to raise earlier. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, however when they act upon those opinions and try to convince others of them, they are now (in this case) very much trying to undermine the rights of those people. This is why we have laws against promoting things like "hate literature".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> So old people shouldn't be allowed to get married? Sterile couples are not really married? WTF are you thinking?!? Marriage is a legal institution that confers specific responsibilities and privileges. Lots of couples want this legal status and only some of those couples are fertile heterosexuals.
> 
> No kidding. Here's a free clue: your analogy didn't work out because you are completely wrong.


Not only is he completely wrong, by bringing biology into the argument his whole premise completely collapse because there are numerous examples of "homosexual" (for lack of a better term) behavior in the animal kingdom. dolphin's, chimpanzees, etc... all have been documented in same sex sexual play. Even male dogs will happily jump on another male dog when aroused (or you leg... so it is even inter-species).

Contoursvt's arguments have to have been the weakest to date... they make Sinc look like a nobel prize winner.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Not only is he completely wrong, by bringing biology into the argument his whole premise completely collapse because there are numerous examples of "homosexual" (for lack of a better term) behavior in the animal kingdom. dolphin's, chimpanzees, etc... all have been documented in same sex sexual play. Even male dogs will happily jump on another male dog when aroused (or you leg... so it is even inter-species).
> 
> Contoursvt's arguments have to have been the weakest to date... they make Sinc look like a nobel prize winner.


I just said that!


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

See the problem is here that nobody bothered to read what I wrote. 

Here is the basic fact. If you put two same sex couples one one planet with no other people, they would grow old together and die. If you put two different sex couples (like what should be) on one planet with no other people, they can potentially conceive children, raise them and when they gold old and die, the children have passed on... therefore human race is not lost. 

All I said is it is not natural because it is the nature of humans to get together and have children and want to take care of them..etc, just like other creatures and this is not possible in same sex couples unless someone goes outside the relationship. As for dogs humping other dogs, from what I've read its a show of dominance and nothing else. 

I think what I've said makes perfect sense. Same sex couples cannot create life together ever because its physically and biologically not possible, plain and simple. The whole point of any organism small or big is to continue - this is what is natural. Same sex couples cannot do this on their own. How much more basic does it have to be than this...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Biology 101 except it has nothing to do with marriage as a legal institution which this particular bill is about.

Shall we declare a pair of geese "married". 

They may be mated.......which is what you are talking about - they aren't married which is what the court is talking about.

THIS bill is not religious, biological or social.........it's a legal issue - equal is equal regardless of the genders involved.
It IS that simple.


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

If all we are "is about reproducing", then we wouldn't have the higher intellect over most species on the planet. There has to be more to it than that, one would hope.

BTW, is the term "marriage" a legal or religious term?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Both and also a sociological and anthropological term.....that's where the tension lies.

All the fields are getting intertwined.

THIS bill is about the legal definition. The other aspects are for individuals and groups to deal with amongst themselves.


----------



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

There seems to be a lot of misinformation being spread in this thread. AFAIK, it is legal for same-sex couples to adopt in this country in many provinces. In some provinces, same-sex couples can adopt but not act as foster parents. Alberta apparently fired its lesbian/gay/transgender staff from the child fostering department a few years ago so the playing field is not uniform.....

Same-sex couples have been able to adopt in Ontario for quite some time. However, before people start applauding Ontario for its progressive attitude, they might wish to remember that in 1999, a statute that gave same-sex couples the same rights as common-law, opposite sex couples also went on: "The rights and obligations that are unique to married couples are not being extended to same sex partners."

This double-talk was later over-turned in 2002. 

There is a very good web site with the facts on the history of the same-sex marriage movement at: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/

I'd also note that both sides of the argument should recognize that their freedom to each hold and express their views is actually a cornerstone of the reasoning behind the Charter of Rights which is the mechanism that ensures equality of rights and which brought recognition of sexual equality to marriage. Let's not pick and choose the elements of the Charter that we want to support. In this country, people are free to practice their faith and sexuality without fear of discrimination. It would be nice to see a greater level of respect for others views. You do not have to agree, but you should not judge.

Lastly, as has been noted, the biological reasoning for the institution of marriage as being limited to heterosexual couples is balony. Propagation of the species does not require marriage. Nor is the lesbian and gay community a burden or drain on society. Quite the contrary! The list of artists, writers, poets, inventors, politicians, scientists, etc. that are homosexual is remarkable (with respect to their representation in society). One wonders how much poorer we would be without such contributions.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

robert said:


> BTW, is the term "marriage" a legal or religious term?


Both, and that's what all the fuss is about. Religions are free to use their definitions of 'marriage' and only perform ceremonies that fit their definitions. But what has been a problem is that the legal system was using a gender specific definition of 'marriage' (because of our culture's religious history) and that is in violation of the Charter.

The legal definition has to be gender neutral, and now it is. This has no implications what so ever for the religious definition.

Of course, with people like contoursvt who are unable to distinguish between mating and marriage around, it's not surprising that these subtleties are causing confusion.

Cheers


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Arguing basic biology on the "they can't mate" basis is a very narrow view. Why not expand to include a discussion of ecology and sexual relationships throughout nature. Altruism and fitness through your family or social group is a much discussed/researched topic. Many potentially fit individuals in nature never get to mate because they are 'looking after' the offspring of their mothers, sisters, aunts whatever. If they were people (think of the large family of yesteryear where the oldest sister basically became a second mother and went on to become a spinster because of her early duties), should they be allowed to marry. They are not having babies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

UJ- I agree in sentiment to a point BUT if the subject was race would you be so prepared to tolerate "vociferous dissent"??

Bigotry is a danger and needs be confronted in my mind.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Carex - good idea we'll just have Alpha Males and Females allowed to marry and if not fertile then......oops Atwood ...

Wonder if that book will be banned in the US soon.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

contoursvt said:


> See the problem is here that nobody bothered to read what I wrote.
> 
> Here is the basic fact. If you put two same sex couples one one planet with no other people, they would grow old together and die. If you put two different sex couples (like what should be) on one planet with no other people, they can potentially conceive children, raise them and when they gold old and die, the children have passed on... therefore human race is not lost.
> 
> ...


Two things:
1) I'm reminded of a Catholic couple who wanted to get married but were refused by their priest because he was a parapeligic and couldn't father a child. Eventually the Pope interviened and allowed the marriage. 

2)If you put a hetro couple on an island yes they may well be able to have children but their children's children will probably be very messed up. We are currently seeing this phenonminon with the Amish community. They are having problems with rampant deformities and developmnet dissorders because there is not enough varriance in the gene pool (everyone is related).

What exactly is your point? 
Perhaps you are endorsing fertility tests beofre a marriage liscense is granted?

Lesbians can and do often have children by the way.

What a narrow view of the world you have.


----------



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

MacDoc, that's why there is hate legislation. It is is not illegal to be a racist, but it is illegal to encourage racism or to practice racism. We cannot legislate what people think, but we can limit what they do. 

I think its unfortunate that the debate is so polarized because the only way to change sentiments and opinions is through discussion. Telling someone they are a bigot is not constructive, even if you believe it, as it is more likely to result in a hardening of position than telling that person that you respectfully disagree with their position for the following reasons..... We need to encourage openmindedness. The law has now protected rights. The challenge that remains is to help people appreciate that it is a question of equality and that, in fact, their personal rights are strengthened not threatened by this legislation.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I believe that telling a person they are a bigot in a forum like this is not for the beifit of the bigot but for those who are on the fence reading. You will never change the mind of the "Adam and Steve" crowd but you can expose them.
I wish that people were rational and a good argument could sway them but bigots are a lost cause. All you can do is point them out so others can more easliy see the problem.
www.godhatesfags.com


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW Yes I acknowledge that but how does it square with religious groups openly deriding gays even in sermons.
It's this larger issue of religion in conflict with secular laws that I think is where it's heading.

Few religious leaders openly promote racism these days but will promote anti gay sentiments quite freely......hiding bigotry behind religious dogma.

It comes down to the power of a religious organization as opposed to an individual and especially when that organization is indirectly funded by the public through tax breaks.

What would you call failure to hire on gay grounds - opinion or bigotry??


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

Ok well as far as legality, I think same sex couples should be able to marry... the whole reason I brought up the biological aspect of things is to explain why some people might have a problem with same sex marriage - they may be old fashioned and just see being gay or lesbian wrong (biology again...) I myself have some issues with it but I wont get in anyone's way when it comes to human rights.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

Hey martman. I dont think my view is very narrow. All I was saying is that biologically speaking, same sex couples cannot have children unless a 3rd party is involved somehow and so it is not a biologically natural thing. I used the 2 people on an island thing as an example of one generation to show there could be offspring, thats all. I didnt intend for anyone to literally imagine the world repopulated from the one couple 

Also how will a lesbian couple have sex without a man or a mans sperm by the way? I'm confused...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I'm not Jain, but my wife is. So do you (or your family) ever go to the Jain temple down off of Queensway and Royal york? My in-laws are very involved with the temple and Jain society.


I don't go, but my parents, particularly my mother, are EXTREMELY involved--I think they were part of the founding of the original temple. Your in-laws probably know my parents.



da_jonesy said:


> Not so... only modern moderate views and customs assume that one faith recognizes a marriage of another faith. If you look into the dogma and history of most major faiths a marriage of any kind is only sanctified by that own faith and any other "marriage" outside of that faith would be considered people "living in sin".
> 
> Even traditionalists in most western faiths believe that today.
> 
> But that again brings in the argument of religion and faith to what is in reality an argument about rights. Same sex marriage in no way impinges upon another faith, other than it "offends them". If someone brings up a "faith" based argument against same sex marriage, they must then defend their faith, otherwise it is not a valid defense is it?


I do agree with you from a historical perspective that there is a very strong parallel. 

My point in bringing up that many modern/moderate faiths espouse the same traditional view is simply to point out that trying to defeat a traditionalist-definition argument by saying asking if the existence of legal marriage under multiple faiths takes anything away from the definition is just silly. (Wow--run-on sentence.)

This is an issue that is largely about rights, but I disagree that it is solely about rights. If it were solely about rights, you could grant those legal rights without providing the official, societal recognition that calling all these partnerships a marriage provides. That recognition is the emotional component of the pro-side of this debate--it's truly equal because it is officially called the same thing. 

The traditionalist view does truly believe that this is a case of an elected government desecrating (for lack of an equally strong word without religious connotations) an important institution that is the basis of the family, which in turn is arguably the basis of society.

I think it's important to acknowledge that this is a much larger thing than merely offending some people. 

All that said, I still fully support this bill, because of the rights involved, and because I do think that overall, the Canadian view of marriage and family is changing. It hasn't changed for everyone. There are bigots on both sides of this debate. There are also people who genuinely support equal rights, but who are also believe that they do lose something by changing the definition.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yes I acknowledge that but how does it square with religious groups openly deriding gays even in sermons.
> It's this larger issue of religion in conflict with secular laws that I think is where it's heading.
> 
> Few religious leaders openly promote racism these days but will promote anti gay sentiments quite freely......hiding bigotry behind religious dogma.


I largly agree with what you post but I think you are unfair to Christians. Yes many sects are just an excuse for racism and homophobia but you never acknoledge the United and Anglican sects for their progressive stance on this and related issues. As for your reference to the Spanish Inquisition (made a while back)it is unfair to tack that on to non Catholics as Protestanism is a rejection of that very institution.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

contoursvt said:


> Ok well as far as legality, I think same sex couples should be able to marry...


Nice to hear. I wish you'd said that to start with.



> the whole reason I brought up the biological aspect of things is to explain why some people might have a problem with same sex marriage - they may be old fashioned and just see being gay or lesbian wrong (biology again...)


People can believe whatever they want, they just can't use those beliefs to justify interfering with other people's lives.

As an aside, I'm always amazed at how little biology the people who use this argument actually know. Biology certainly doesn't 'disapprove' of homosexuality, and it is common throughout the animal world. It usually turns out that these people who say "it's unnatural!" are simply offended by homosexuality (why this might be the case is an interesting exercise in psychology) and like to dress their bigotry up in pseudo-science. But that's their problem.

Cheers.


----------



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

Martman, don't give up on anyone! Nothing like a good debate to flush out ideas and opinions. But calling people bigots is like skinney dipping in a cold lake. Your dangly bits recede into the depths of your body before you know it (actually, you do, errr, know it...).

For example, SINC has deeply held views that are shared by many Canadians - views that far more people held a mere decade ago. It is important to understand those views and to counter them with reason. He also has the right to explain and defend his opinions with reason. Enligthenment emerges from reason, not from labelling.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

> BTW, is the term "marriage" a legal or religious term?
> 
> 
> > Both, and that's what all the fuss is about.


It's also a social/cultural term.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

contoursvt said:


> Also how will a lesbian couple have sex without a man or a mans sperm by the way? I'm confused...


I am talking about one (or both) of a couple having sex with a man or undrgoing artificial insemination.

That said parthenogenesis is now concievable.(albeit with much intervention) (yes no one has been completly sucessful yet but it will happen soon)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Ah but this is the Point I was trying to raise earlier. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion, however when they act upon those opinions and try to convince others of them, they are now (in this case) very much trying to undermine the rights of those people. This is why we have laws against promoting things like "hate literature".


See my point was that it can be equally perceived that you are trying to act on your opinions convince others of your own opinions. (Again, admitting that I haven't waded through this entire thread.) In fact, the same could probably be said of myself and others on this thread.

I'm sure you will tell me that you are not trying to convince anyone, you are expressing a view. I'm sure others from all sides will tell me the same. It is very fine and blurry line between stating your own views strongly and trying to convince others.

I cannot recall the legal definition of hate literature, but trying to convince others of your view does not, in my mind, necessarily qualify as hate literature or impinging on others rights. It's another fine line, but if we never tried to convince people of our opinions--especially with controversial issues such as this one--there would be no debate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martman don't assume. 

There are indeed numerous organizations - religious or not that are positive influences in reducing bigotry and hatred - the Quakers in particular have an amazing history. Slavery and the right for women to vote.

Remember also I clapped at ehMax's post.

That does NOT ameliorate the situation that does exist where anti gay messages ARE being promulgated and I don't care where the anti-gay message originates, it needs confrontation not passive acceptance.
And especially where tax breaks or other "privileged" position occurs.


----------



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

MacDoc said:


> What would you call failure to hire on gay grounds - opinion or bigotry??


Bigotry - as it is a consequence or act. Such behaviour is intolerable and is protected in law.

As for the anti-Christian sentiment being displayed, I'd point out that the Canadian Anglican church is currently under attack from the more conservative elements of the international Anglican organization of churches for their support of homosexual rights, annointing of female vicars, etc. Let's not paint all religious groups with the same brush (although I certainly recognize the blatant moral and ethical paradoxes of many religious organizations). I think it is simply hypocritical to argue for human rights and freedoms on one hand as it pertains to sexuality and to then chastize people for holding religious beliefs on the other. When religious organizations practise or espouse bigotry, that is a different matter. But don't attack people for holding particular beliefs because they may well be as equally against the same principles as you are.

BTW, the Mayor's contributions to this debate are a good example of the above.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Martman don't assume.
> 
> There are indeed numerous organizations - religious or not that are positive influences in reducing bigotry and hatred - the Quakers in particular have an amazing history. Slavery and the right for women to vote.
> 
> ...


As I said: I agree with almost everything you post in this thread...

Yes how could I have forgotten the Quakers? My mother and one of my brothers are Quakers.
 

Me? I'm an Athiest Unitarian/Universalist. (I love the oxymoronic sound of that!)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW it appears we were writing posts at the same time. I'm NOT taking a broad brush. See below.

••••

Also as beneficiaries of public funding religions need tread cautiously. As I said one thing for a person to speak - another for a Bishop or clergy representative of an organization.


----------



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

Yup, even to the point of bringing up the Mayor! Scary!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW an interesting twist on this - would a provincial theocracy be tolerable if voted for by the majority in a province ( then using the Not withstanding clause ) . 

It's a variation on Quebecs Bill 101 to "preserve culture"


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'd leave the province...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - that's the alternative and might allow greater comfort within a federation IF enclaves were available ( Amish for instance ).


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

{sarcasm}I suppose that is the whole point of Alberta{/sarcasm}


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> See my point was that it can be equally perceived that you are trying to act on your opinions convince others of your own opinions. (Again, admitting that I haven't waded through this entire thread.) In fact, the same could probably be said of myself and others on this thread.
> 
> I'm sure you will tell me that you are not trying to convince anyone, you are expressing a view. I'm sure others from all sides will tell me the same. It is very fine and blurry line between stating your own views strongly and trying to convince others.
> 
> I cannot recall the legal definition of hate literature, but trying to convince others of your view does not, in my mind, necessarily qualify as hate literature or impinging on others rights. It's another fine line, but if we never tried to convince people of our opinions--especially with controversial issues such as this one--there would be no debate.


Good point, however here is the important difference... I am not trying to make anyone marry some one of the same sex through my arguments. Those opposed to same sex marriage are in fact through their arguments trying to stop people of the same gender from marrying. 

That is the crucial difference, and why their beliefs are in fact impinging other peoples rights. 
 

PS. You should two should come to the Jain temple more often... sometimes I feel like I'm the only white guy in the community (and I know I'm not).

PPS. I talked with my wife and we think we know you two. We may have sat at the same table at a wedding reception couple of years ago in downtown Toronto. There was unique show put on by a classical Indian dancer and a Flamenco dancer... it was very cool. Does that ring a bell?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Good point, however here is the important difference... I am not trying to make anyone marry some one of the same sex through my arguments. Those opposed to same sex marriage are in fact through their arguments trying to stop people of the same gender from marrying.
> 
> That is the crucial difference, and why their beliefs are in fact impinging other peoples rights.


The other way to look at it is that you are actively seeking to support the defacement of an institution that is very sacred to a number of people. You are also dismissing another's views by calling them invalid, irrational, or hate-based, without acknowledging that this is a serious view or seeking to understand that it may not be based in intolerance, and arguably, telling people that they are welcome to have an opinion so long as they don't try to strongly express it. 

This is also an intolerance, and impinging on a right. I don't think either side of the issue owns the moral high ground here.



da_jonesy said:


> PS. You should two should come to the Jain temple more often... sometimes I feel like I'm the only white guy in the community (and I know I'm not).


Oh--you're that guy.  

Unlikely that you will see either of us at the Jain temple, since a) I avoid it, b) my spouse is Asatru, c) we're separating and d) my personal beliefs are not so much Jain, as Jain-inspired.

Though you might want to look up anekantvad (non-one-sidedness) and really think about what that means.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> The other way to look at it is that you are actively seeking to support the defacement of an institution that is very sacred to a number of people. You are also dismissing another's views by calling them invalid, irrational, or hate-based, without acknowledging that this is a serious view or seeking to understand that it may not be based in intolerance, and arguably, telling people that they are welcome to have an opinion so long as they don't try to strongly express it.
> 
> This is also an intolerance, and impinging on a right. I don't think either side of the issue owns the moral high ground here.


You know that is how I would expect someone brought up in a Jain tradition to respond. 

This is certainly a harder argument, however I will try. In this circumstance I am not saying that anyone has to like same sex marriage or marry some of the same gender. If I were to do that I would be impinging their rights, but in this case I am not. What I am saying is that their voicing of their intolerance so that it leads in some way to an outcome that does prevent people of the same gender from marrying is a violation their rights (their being people who are gay). Clearly the direct correlation we've seen in history are how visible minorities and women have been treated by our society over the past century.

If there is no difference then that would invalidate most of the "hate crimes" on the books as hate is the acting upon a belief. In this case society says very much so that you cannot voice your opinion when it is in fact spreading hatred.



Sonal said:


> Oh--you're that guy.
> 
> Unlikely that you will see either of us at the Jain temple, since a) I avoid it, b) my spouse is Asatru, c) we're separating and d) my personal beliefs are not so much Jain, as Jain-inspired.
> 
> Though you might want to look up anekantvad (non-one-sidedness) and really think about what that means.


Sadly one of the reasons why I could never become a Jain myself, yet respect the basic philosophy so highly. We send our kids to the pashvara (spelling?) classes when the are held and they are being brought up in a Jain tradition.

The tolerance that Jainism shows, blows my mind. As for anekantvad, I have a small understanding of what it means, but I do not fully comprehend the notion of "full mindedness" that it implies.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> You know that is how I would expect someone brought up in a Jain tradition to respond.
> 
> This is certainly a harder argument, however I will try. In this circumstance I am not saying that anyone has to like same sex marriage or marry some of the same gender. If I were to do that I would be impinging their rights, but in this case I am not. What I am saying is that their voicing of their intolerance so that it leads in some way to an outcome that does prevent people of the same gender from marrying is a violation their rights (their being people who are gay). Clearly the direct correlation we've seen in history are how visible minorities and women have been treated by our society over the past century.
> 
> If there is no difference then that would invalidate most of the "hate crimes" on the books as hate is the acting upon a belief. In this case society says very much so that you cannot voice your opinion when it is in fact spreading hatred.


I think the crux of this is that you seem to hold an inherent assumption that voicing a traditional view of marriage necessarily implies intolerance, hatred and a denial of rights. Or in other words, an assumption that those who are against the bill are by definition against same-sex rights.

That is not necessarily the case. 

Many of those against the bill are against it because they are for preserving a belief and an institution that is very important to them. They feel the the bill asks them to lose something. The bill could be for changing the definition of marriage to be one man and one tree (for tree's rights) and I think they still feel that they are losing something. 

The traditionalist camp is not necessarily trying to trample same-sex rights--they are trying to preserve their rights. Many would like to find a way to give same-sex couples the same rights without having to face a change to the definition of marriage by their government. Is that really hatred and discrimination? I don't think so. 

Is there a way to do that? I don't think so, but perhaps if we all talk about it and take each other's view seriously we can find one.

However, when you are dealing with rights, there is always going to be some fuzziness and trampling going on. No one in our society has an absolute right to anything. I think for almost any right to something, you'll find that someone is being denied or limited in their rights in some way. The goal is to find a balance that society in general can agree to live with, though there will always be dissenters on each side. 

Though as I said, there are bigots on both sides. That can't be denied. There are homophobes on one side and people espousing religious intolerance on the other.

Among intelligent, thoughtful people, (which is not the majority of the population  ) I think it is important to talk about and understand alternate views--including intolerance--instead of making our ears deaf to it. You don't have to agree, but acknowledging that other views exist and attempting to understand it from the inside out furthers our ability to reach a compromise and grow.

This is, to my understanding, anekantvad.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Many of those against the bill are against it because they are for preserving a belief and an institution that is very important to them. They feel the the bill asks them to lose something. The bill could be for changing the definition of marriage to be one man and one tree (for tree's rights) and I think they still feel that they are losing something.
> 
> The traditionalist camp is not necessarily trying to trample same-sex rights--they are trying to preserve their rights. Many would like to find a way to give same-sex couples the same rights without having to face a change to the definition of marriage by their government. Is that really hatred and discrimination? I don't think so.


I can certainly see your point, however I am at a loss to understand how someone else getting married in any way affects the right of someone not involved in that marriage. 

I can't even think of an analogy that someone against same sex marriage can use to explain their position.



Sonal said:


> Is there a way to do that? I don't think so, but perhaps if we all talk about it and take each other's view seriously we can find one.
> 
> However, when you are dealing with rights, there is always going to be some fuzziness and trampling going on. No one in our society has an absolute right to anything. I think for almost any right to something, you'll find that someone is being denied or limited in their rights in some way. The goal is to find a balance that society in general can agree to live with, though there will always be dissenters on each side.


Well as I am starting to understand, your point is well argued, articulate and elegant. You are certainly putting me to the test. Talking about things IS the way solve them. I am certainly not suggesting that people of certain faiths perform or marry someone of the same gender... just as I would never suggest to a Jain to go out and have a steak. 

But, it boils down to choice. Many (if not most) of the people opposing same sex marriage would have preferred not to see bill c38 pass. If that were the case they would be preventing others from having the choice to marry someone of the same gender.

And now that I think about it, and from my limited understanding of Jain belief... that is what it is all about, that is the choice. People can do whatever they want, their choice is their freedom. To prevent someone from having that choice is wrong. I'm not sure of the correct term in Jainism but choice and Karma are interlocked are they not? And bad or negative Karma can be gained by preventing others to have a choice, just as much as making your own choices...

Whew I had to think about that one. Not bad for a layman in Jainism, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> they are trying to preserve their rights


......what "rights'" would those be????

To define marriage in a way that

a) suits them TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS
b) does not suit another minority seeking legal equality
c) breaches the Charter.

You may they say they are attempting to preserve their traditions and that's fine as long as it does not go so far as to IMPOSE restrictions on others.

The same argument was applied to women - well a judge has always been a man - so what.....it's over......a judge is non-gendered defined officer of the court.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I can certainly see your point, however I am at a loss to understand how someone else getting married in any way affects the right of someone not involved in that marriage.
> 
> I can't even think of an analogy that someone against same sex marriage can use to explain their position.


This is probably the trickiest thing to try and understand. For myself, I can see it intellectually, though it doesn't really hit me emotionally, as it does for many people in the traditionalist camp. The only way to do that is to take a deeply held belief of your own, and ask how you would feel if the law changed what it meant. 

The best analogy I can think of (which is by no means perfect) is a very silly one, but may serve the purpose for this board. (Apologies for irreverence--I really can't think of a better one.)

Imagine that clunky Intel machines ran OSX, and elegant Apple-built hardware ran buggy, insecure Windows. Now we are forced to question: what is the definition of a Mac? Is it the operating system and software, the hardware, or the smooth, elegantly designed integration of the two? Let's Apple proposed calling it anything you want.

Some people would not care--let people run whatever they want to run and call it whatever we want to call it, I'm just going to keep running OSX on Apple hardware. Others would rejoice--finally! I have the freedom to run my Windows apps on beautifully designed Apple hardware, and run the very secure OSX on a custom-built Intel box where I can choose every component. 

Others, the Mac traditionalists, would disagree. For years, owning a Mac meant something specific--an elegant, beautifully designed machine where the hardware and software worked together in harmony. And now, what? Clunky Windows crashing every five minutes on a pretty iMac? An elegant, intuitive OS on clunky, chunky ugly hardware? What happened to the beautiful design associated with Mac? Being a Mac owner used to mean something specific... what's all this? 

Sure, you could still use OSX on Apple hardware and call yourself a Mac owner, but does it still carry that meaning of elegant, integrated design if the person running OSX on Intel boxes and Windows on Apple hardware are also called Mac owners? You may still be running the same hardware and OS, but being a Mac owner no longer means the same thing. There is some loss. Many Apple/OSX owners may not care, but there are those who take being a "Mac owner", in the traditional sense of the definition, very seriously, and would be unhappy with this broadened definition of Mac.

As I said, it's a silly analogy. But I think it works.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> ......what "rights'" would those be????
> 
> To define marriage in a way that
> 
> ...


Just to reiterate--I'm for the same-sex marriage bill. I'm against refusing to try to understand the other side, even if I disagree with it.

But I believe that for many in the traditionalist camp, the hope is that there is an alternate solution that does not require them to lose the traditional definition of marriage--specifically, a separate term (civil union) with the same rights granted as for marriage. Or in other words, they are asking the gay community to gain equality in rights without having equality in name. From a strictly pragmatic, legal rights-only point of view, this is theoretically a solution. (In practice, separate-but-equal has not worked but in theory it is a possible solution to the legal rights issue.)

But as I maintain, this is not a strictly pragmatic, legal rights-only issue. Which is consequently why I believe that there must also be equality in name. This does require traditionalists to lose something. It may be an intangible something, but it is important to that group. 

Whether I agree with their definition or not, I acknowledge that there is a large group of Canadians that does feel a loss here, and I do not believe it helps anyone to deny that.

Why do I keep finding myself playing devil's advocate on the this issue?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Floundering...or foundering...take your pick

Seatbelts....it's the law now.....get used to it.

Marriage.....non gender specific......it's the law now...get used to it.

THIS law has less impact on the nay sayers than the seatbelt legislation.....it does not affect them at ALL legally.......too bad if they are not "used to it".!!!
Indefensible.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Floundering...or foundering...take your pick
> 
> Seatbelts....it's the law now.....get used to it.
> 
> ...


To use your favourite expression, perhaps it is you who should "get used to it" that traditionalists in this debate will oppose the idea to their graves.

While we in no way will try to deny any rights, and we will work to a goal of redefining the definition of marriage to reinstate it as that between one man and one woman in an orderly and legal fashion.

Bad definitions have been changed before and this one is no different.

If we lose, fine, but we will continue to oppose C38 and what is has done to our long held belief of marriage. And to do so is our right under the Charter.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Actually, Sonal has made his(her?) point very well.

An analogy I can think of that does work (for me) is with respect to the definition of 'science': I think of science as the empirical testing of falsifiable hypotheses, in an effort to understand natural phenomena. However, fields that are entirely non-empirical, like 'political-science', have co-opted the word 'science' and have forced me to adapt my definition of that word (which is very important to me). I certainly don't like the fact that they use the word 'science' to describe what they do, and I wish I could stop them from doing so. But I can't. So I live with it.

This certainly gives me some understanding of the traditionalist POV. I still disagree, but I have a better understanding now. Thanks, Sonal.

I think the traditionalists will have to be satisfied with pointedly describing their relationships as 'traditional marriages' in order to distinguish them from these newfangled anybody-can-marry-anybody marriages.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> This certainly gives me some understanding of the traditionalist POV. I still disagree, but I have a better understanding now. Thanks, Sonal.
> 
> I think the traditionalists will have to be satisfied with pointedly describing their relationships as 'traditional marriages' in order to distinguish them from these newfangled anybody-can-marry-anybody marriages.
> 
> Cheers


Bryanc, thanks for finding some room for understanding. I applaud Sonal for HER reasoned and thoughtful approach to this issue.

And I THANK YOU for the suggestion of using the term "traditional marriage" to describe the marriages of my friends and relatives. It is a compromise I had not thought of, but can live with to tell people what kind of relationship I and all of my friends and family are involved in.

It is particularly important to me right now as my youngest son is being married in August. Now I can say if asked, "he is having a traditional marriage", which ends any speculation.

So now forever in my mind marriage becomes "same-sex" and traditional marriage becomes "one man and one woman".

Well done both of you!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This certainly gives me some understanding of the traditionalist POV. I still disagree, but I have a better understanding now. Thanks, Sonal.


And promoting better understanding was the only thing I wanted to do here. Thanks bryanc. (And I'm a 'her', BTW.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems to me that Alberta was the last to "get it" with both seat belts and motorcycle helmets.



> According to a report released on September 25, 2002, by the Alberta Occupant Restraint Program, only 76 percent of Albertans buckle up. Rural Albertans and truck drivers are least likely to fasten their seat-belts. This may explain in part why the vast majority of motor vehicle fatalities in Alberta occur in the rural areas. In about 60 percent of fatal crashes in Alberta, the victims are not wearing seat-belts.
> Edmonton RCMP Staff Sgt. Steve MacDonald won the 2000 National Police Award for Traffic Safety. After finding that half of the vehicle occupants killed in collisions on RCMP patrolled highways were unbelted, he initiated a crusade to increase seat-belt use in rural Alberta, with the ambitious goal of 95 percent usage by 2010.
> 
> Major urban-based seat-belt surveys showed that 90 percent of Albertans were buckling up. MacDonald recognized, however, that 80 percent of Alberta's fatal crashes were on the province's rural highways and saw a need for a survey specific to these areas. He discovered that in rural areas, Alberta's seat-belt wearing rate was only 69 percent.
> ...


Something in the water maybe. 



> n 1999, 347 Albertans died in traffic crashes, 17,398 were injured, and 77,543 crashes resulted in property damage greater than $1,000. *Alberta had the highest injury rate per 10,000 population*


Courage of their conviction???s ......or just plain dumb ass stubborn.......????


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tell me something Sonal - would you be so accommodating if the issue was interracial marriage???


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macdoc, as I've mentioned, I'm in an interracial marriage. And I would behave the same, though admittedly, the issue strikes me much more personally. It would be a lot harder, but as da_jonesy alluded to, seeking to understand opposing views forms a major component of my own belief system.

I have had people tell me that they do not believe in interracial relationships. That is their view. I do not agree with it. I have not, however, had the opportunity to really delve into that view in an intelligent way, as some of the traditionalists have presented here in discussing same-sex marriage. 

What I have learned from this discussion is while many of the arguments against this bill are motivated by discrimination, that is not necessarily the case--that view most espoused here seems to be primarily motivated by a defense of a particular definition of marriage held by a particular group. I don't agree with that definition, but in learning about why this definition was so important to this group, I have come to realize that my own original arguments for the same-sex marriage were flawed and weak. Consequently, I have re-evaluated what I believe and why, and come out of this with a much stronger view and what I think are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage. 

While my parents like my spouse very much, they would have greatly, greatly preferred that I married someone from my own culture. As a teenager, I would accuse my parents of being discriminatory for saying this, and would refuse to listen. 

As I grew older, I listened and learned they strongly believe that someone of my own culture would understand me better and be a better able to participate with our family, culture and religion, as well as continue these traditions in a new country. That is their view, and I can see their point. I don't agree with it, but in learning about it, I have come to a better understanding of what the role of my family, culture and religion needs to be in my own life. I wouldn't have learned that if I simply shouted out "bigot" and refused to listen to why they believed what they did. Moreover, in discussing these issues and learning more about my parents' point of view, I am better able to discuss future issues with them in a way that allows me to get my point across without devolving into a lot of name calling and refusing to listen.

This forum is a relatively safe place to discuss highly controversial issues, and learn from them. In trying to take views that we disagree with seriously and making an honest effort to learn from them and understand them, we learn more about ourselves and why we believe what we believe. 

It's very easy to believe something if you don't allow that view to be challenged, but you don't grow or learn very much from it. I think that being dismissive or insulting of an opposing view--not matter how much you disagree with it--only makes the other side increasingly defensive, which forces people to diverge more, and get more and more vehement in their view, and then the debate goes nowhere and nothing happens. Both sides start telling the other to get over themselves. What good does this do? What does the name-calling accomplish?

Seeking to understand, even if you do not agree, brings people together, creates more knowledge and allows everyone to grow and learn and change. The discussion can go somewhere, new ideas or new solutions can occur.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sonal : disapproval and discomfort with social customs and cultural practices ( I detest RAP and most country music ) is one thing. Our multicultural society is built on it.

If your marriage was *prevented* from being a marriage in law - if you were deprived of the benefits others had - in other words if you were denied your rights under the Charter - not just subject to social ostracism but denied the ability to marry your chosen........I doubt very much you would be so tolerant.

I suspect that if the issue was the ability to vote as a women, or being denied access to your chosen profession because of your gender or race you'd be less accommodating.

You had the strength to buck tradition and resistance from your family so I suspect highly you'd be very outspoken when real chips are down on fundamental rights.

It's not like there haven't been detailed and patient explanations of this as a legal decision based on the Charter.

If people are actively supporting the denial of a fundamental right.......to work, to vote, to marry, to be employed, to live somewhere they choose and discrimated against and denied equality on the basis of race, or religion or gender.......it's bigotry.

No putting bows and spangles on it and dressing it up as a "disagreement". It's tribalism and xenophobia at it's worst and the "unspoken" gentile sort is often the worst of all.

Glass ceiling come to mind....??

It needs being called out - constructively I agree and with reasoned arguments attached, but confronted nonetheless.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Sonal : disapproval and discomfort with social customs and cultural practices ( I detest RAP and most country music ) is one thing. Our multicultural society is built on it.
> 
> If your marriage was *prevented* from being a marriage in law - if you were deprived of the benefits others had - in other words if you were denied your rights under the Charter - not just subject to social ostracism but denied the ability to marry your chosen........I doubt very much you would be so tolerant.


My ability to be tolerant would absolutely be tested, yes. 

But I maintain nothing is gained by refusing to understand. I firmly believe that there are always multiple sides to every issue, and no side is necessarily better than any other--every side of the issue must be considered with an open mind. And then, with a more full and complete understanding, you can make up your own mind.

Now, from what I've read, you appear to believe that not speaking out against inequality condones it, and therefore, the moment you see a possible violation of minority rights, you jump up and speak against it. This is also a good thing, You are absolutely right that if people did not speak up, inequality and injustices would continue.

I would ask you to consider this: if you understood the other side better, if you took a moment to examine exactly why they present views that you see as bigoted from their point of view, wouldn't you be in a better position to present your side of things more convincingly? 



MacDoc said:


> You had the strength to buck tradition and resistance from your family so I suspect highly you'd be very outspoken when real chips are down on fundamental rights.


Actually no. I had strength to get off my high horse and stop for a moment to listen to what they had to say and weigh it carefully. Once I understood their point of view, I was in a much better position to explain mine without the whole thing devolving into a lot of yelling. Once they saw that I was willing to listen to their side and trying to understand my point of view, they calmed to and listened to mine. So when I did marry, there was no resistance, but instead full support. 



MacDoc said:


> It's not like there haven't been detailed and patient explanations of this as a legal decision based on the Charter.


Very true. And I've noticed that throughout this debate, you have looked about this issue primarily as a legal decision, and yes, that is a big part of it. But for the other side, the issue is much larger than just a legal decision. The legal rights part of has not been disputed in this thread--the social implications of that legal decision have been disputed.

Any change in rights creates change in society--usually far more dramatic changes than it appears in the beginning. Therefore, I firmly believe that is very important to understand these all sides of the issues before changing the rights.



MacDoc said:


> It needs being called out - constructively I agree and with reasoned arguments attached, but confronted nonetheless.


This is partially my point. The majority of people on this thread are for same-sex marriage. A vocal few are against it (at least as stated this bill), and that has been called out. But for the the most part, it has NOT been confronted constructively with reasoned arguments. 

It instead has been confronted with religious intolerance, name-calling, and declaration that the deeply held views of that vocal few are invalid, irrational, and irrelevant, and that this group should just shut up and get used it. 

And I have a big problem with that. That's not constructive. And it very naturally makes that vocal few very defensive, who in turn also resort to dismissive behaviour and name-calling, which is also not constructive. Now no one is listening to anyone because they're all too busy calling each other names and ignoring each other.

Which is why I jumped into the thread in the first place.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> The majority of people on this thread are for same-sex marriage. A vocal few are against it (at least as stated this bill), and that has been called out. But for the the most part, it has NOT been confronted constructively with reasoned arguments.
> 
> It instead has been confronted with religious intolerance, name-calling, and declaration that the deeply held views of that vocal few are invalid, irrational, and irrelevant, and that this group should just shut up and get used it.


Well put Sonal.

I recognize that some people seem to live by the creedo, "I'm right and you're wrong" and if you don't like that, "get over it". In far too many discussions, that behaviour comes through time and time again.

Perhaps you have given them some food for thought in being just a bit more understanding of why others hold different views and rather than "bully" them into submission, or name calling, grasp the reasons for their position.

You are wise beyond your tender years.


----------



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

SINC, I'm pleased you've found a personal compromise. For someone like me who has no problem with same-sex marriage, the term "traditional marriage" is not offensive as long as, in the eyes of the law, it is the word marriage that defines the legal union. Indeed, I much prefer your term to things like "conservative marriage" (which is has all sorts of connotations including an arranged marriage based on a lie), or "liberal marriage" (which implies the exchange of wads of money in exchange for flying the Canadian flag). 

I, personally, hope that the polemics dissipate and that people move on. In my view, it was abundantly the right thing to do for Canada and my hope is that it not only extended rights to a minority, but that it gave us all cause to think positively about what the term marriage implies and is based upon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You say tom*eh*to I say tom*ah*to....I have no problem with us both enjoying our fruits.

YOU try and keep ME or others from tomatoes......I get very gnarly.

Socially, culturally, religiously celebrate the DIFFERENCES...it's what this country is about. 

Legally under OUR Charter....a person is a person period full stop.
Equality is equality full stop.
It's ALSO what this country is about.

Happy CANADA Day......tho a day belated.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news...d=20050630JJ818&ewp=ewp_news_0705gay_marriage

Spain has now legalized same sex marriage. Im not sure if this was posted, maybe this is the start of many countries following suit. good thing I believe.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Found this article from ten years ago in the 'The Economist' and I'm in complete agreement... including the emphasis on consensual politics over court orders.

The Economist - "Let them Wed" (from Jan. 1996)

---
Let them wed
Jan 4th 1996 
From The Economist print edition


There is no compelling reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, and several compelling reasons to include them

MARRIAGE may be for the ages—but it changes by the year. And never, perhaps, has it changed as quickly as since the 1960s. In western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted both in statute and in society; marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds for a split. With change, alas, has come strain. In the 25 years from 1960, divorce rates soared throughout the west—more than sextupled in Britain, where divorce appears inevitable for the world's most celebrated marriage, that of Charles and Diana Windsor. Struggling to keep law apace with reality, Britain's Tory government is even now advancing another marriage reform, seeking, on the whole sensibly, to make quick or impulsive divorce harder but no-fault divorce easier.

That, however, is not the kind of reform which some decidedly un-Tory people are seeking—and have begun to achieve. Denmark, Norway and Sweden now allow homosexual partners to register with the state and to claim many (though not all) of the prerogatives of marriage. The Dutch are moving in the same direction. In France and Belgium, cities and local governments have begun recognising gay partnerships. And, in the American state of Hawaii, a court case may legalise homosexual marriage itself.

As of today, however, there is no country which gives homosexuals the full right of marriage. And that is what gay activists in more and more places are seeking. Marriage, one might think, is in turbulent enough waters already. Can gay marriage be a good idea—now?


Home, hearth and health
To understand why the answer is yes, first set aside a view whose appealing simplicity is its undoing. “Governments are not elected to arrange nuptial liaisons, much less to untangle them,” writes Joe Rogaly in the Financial Times. “It is a purely private matter.” On this libertarian view, the terms of a marriage contract should be the partners' business, not the state's. With the help of lawyers and sympathetic churchmen, homosexuals can create for themselves what is in all practical respects a marriage; if they lack a government licence, so what?

The government-limiting impulse motivating this view is admirable. But, in truth, the state's involvement in marriage is both inevitable and indispensable. Although many kinds of human pairings are possible, state-sanctioned marriage is, tautologically, the only one which binds couples together in the eyes of the law. By doing so it confers upon partners unique rights to make life-or-death medical decisions, rights to inheritance, rights to share pensions and medical benefits; just as important, it confers upon each the legal responsibilities of guardianship and care of the other. Far from being frills, these benefits and duties go to the very core of the marriage contract; no church or employer or “commitment ceremony” can bestow them at one blow. If marriage is to do all the things that society demands of it, then the state must set some rules.

Just so, say traditionalists: and those rules should exclude homosexuals. Gay marriage, goes the argument, is both frivolous and dangerous: frivolous because it blesses unions in which society has no particular interest; dangerous because anything which trivialises marriage undermines this most basic of institutions. Traditionalists are right about the importance of marriage. But they are wrong to see gay marriage as trivial or frivolous.

It is true that the single most important reason society cares about marriage is for the sake of children. But society's stake in stable, long-term partnerships hardly ends there. Marriage remains an economic bulwark. Single people (especially women) are economically vulnerable, and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. Furthermore, they call sooner upon public support when they need care—and, indeed, are likelier to fall ill (married people, the numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier). Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser of men.

Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals—and society surely benefits when they have it. “Then let them 'unchoose' homosexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex,” was the old answer. Today that reply is untenable. Homosexuals do not choose their condition; indeed, they often try desperately hard, sometimes to the point of suicide, to avoid it. However, they are less and less willing either to hide or to lead lives of celibacy. For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No social interest is served by choosing the latter.

To this principle of social policy, add a principle of government. Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. No one but a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex than the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating—especially when handing out something as important as a marriage licence. Thus the question becomes: is there a compelling reason to bar homosexuals from marriage?

One objection is simply that both would-be spouses are of the same sex. That is no answer; it merely repeats the question. Perhaps, then, once homosexuals can marry, marital anarchy will follow? That might be true if homosexual unions were arbitrary configurations, mere parodies of “real” marriage. But the truth is that countless homosexual couples, especially lesbian ones, have shown that they are as capable of fidelity, responsibility and devotion as are heterosexual couples—and this despite having to keep their unions secret, at least until recently. Would gay marriage weaken the standard variety? There is little reason to think so. Indeed, the opposite seems at least as likely: permitting gay marriage could reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions.

The question of children in homosexual households—adoption, especially—is thorny. That question, however, is mainly separate from the matter of marriage as such. In settling a child with guardians who are not the natural parents, the courts and adoption agencies will consider a variety of factors, just as they do now; a couple's homosexuality may be one such factor (though it need not, by itself, be decisive).

In the end, leaving aside (as secular governments should) objections that may be held by particular religions, the case against homosexual marriage is this: people are unaccustomed to it. It is strange and radical. That is a sound argument for not pushing change along precipitously. Certainly it is an argument for legalising homosexual marriage through consensual politics (as in Denmark), rather than by court order (as may happen in America). But the direction of change is clear. If marriage is to fulfill its aspirations, it must be defined by the commitment of one to another for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health—not by the people it excludes.


----------



## MacBro (May 14, 2005)

I remember, just after high school, being on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on a gray overcast day. I watched overhead, as the Snowbirds screeched across the skyline, as Mr. Trudeau, in his finest hour, next to Mr. Chretien and the Queen, signed the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I must have been maybe 200 feet or so from them. I have never forgotten that moment.

I have never forgotten food thrown at me in the cafeteria at school. I have never forgotten how the school administration tried to transfer me to another school because they didn't have to tools or knowledge to prevent the name calling and assaults that I endured as I passed from classroom to classroom. I remember the school calling up my parents and "outing" me to my parents and my dad who was a cop.

I will never forget being punched in the face at my high school prom. I will never forget what it feels like to be different in society and how those who feel that their way must be, the right way, because their God says so.

I am proud of my country. I work hard and pay taxes that hopefully go to building a greater society that is inclusive. I smile at parents as they play and interact with their children, knowing that I will never be able to share that feeling of raising a child. I am proud that my taxes will go to their schools and playgrounds and dream of a country filled with those very same children, hoping that they will celebrate everyones uniqueness. There is great value in all cultures, values, faiths and communities.

I thank all of you who supported the principle of equality and who dream of a better place for everyone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: That's a wonderful post MacBro

••••••

FN that's almost 10 years ago and minority rights are not a "negotiable" item in my mind.
Should we have consensual politics on race, women's rights, etc......no.

Consensual politics on going to war ( unattacked of course ), a national childcare program, the nature of healthcare, provincial versus federal powers.....fine .....bring it on.

Some things, under the Charter.....are not negotiable........It's there exactly for the protection of the minority from the occasional foolishness of the masses.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

MacBro,

Growing up gay in the west of Scotland was no picnic, but it was a walk in the park compared to your experience ... you should be proud that you made it through that (and, to digress for a moment, that, to me, is what "gay pride" means - I'm not proud of being gay, but I AM proud that I have been able to reach a point on my life where my sexuality is no longer an issue - for ME - despite all the bull**** I grew up with) ...

Your post perfectly encapsulates what this debate is really all about - if you haven't lived that (and too many of us have) you really cannot imagine what it's like.

I've stayed out of this "debate" until now, though I have participated in similar discussions on this board in the past. In my opinion - and this is not a deliberate flame - people who promote the "equal but different" marriage vs. civil union "compromise" are, at heart, homophobic, despite protestations to the contrary. Yes, it's a sensitive issue, and very close to people's hearts, but that's no excuse ... as I have pointed out in the past, church-sanctioned marriage is not something that has existed for many hundreds of years (it has certainly NOT been around since biblical times, contrary to popular belief) - until just a few hundred years ago churches would have nothing to do with marriage, and, ultimately, had to be forced to perform them (!) ... of course, most "christians" have no knowledge of that, wifully or otherwise ...

... tired of the seemingly never-ending fight ...

Mike McHugh


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MacDoc,

In a democracy, everything should be negotiable. That is the safeguard and the challenge. Or do you fancy Paul Martin as your philosopher king? 

Although most of us Torontonians support same-sex marriage, the polls suggest the same is not true of a majority of Canadians. My concern is that the achievement of passing this bill will be at risk after the next election, whereas a more consensual approach (a civil partnership for example) would have had much broader support.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mikemchugh said:


> I've stayed out of this "debate" until now, though I have participated in similar discussions on this board in the past. In my opinion - and this is not a deliberate flame - people who promote the "equal but different" marriage vs. civil union "compromise" are, at heart, homophobic, despite protestations to the contrary. Yes, it's a sensitive issue, and very close to people's hearts, but that's no excuse ...


It seems to me your views on marriage are driven by the same kind of emotions that drive our views, but I choose not to label people who believe your interpretation. You on the other hand choose to label people like us "homophobic".

If live and let live and equal rights are homophobic, you must use a very different dictionary than I do. While I accept the term marriage now to be same-sex, I still hold traditional marriage as what it has meant and always will mean to me and many Canadians, as that of the union of one man and one woman.

Attitudes of confrontation by either side serve no purpose. Understanding the fundamental difference between the two types of marriage does.


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

... exactly the response I expected, SINC. 

My point is that YOUR views are hardly "live and let live"; if they were, there would be no "confrontation". The mere FACT that you do not think that the term "marriage" should apply to MY relationship, only to yours, says it all. In my opinion, that means that you do not think that my relationship is fit to be called marriage; everything else is semantics ...

YOU chose to label my relationship "not marriage" ...

Rationalise away your homophobia to your heart's content ... 

Mike McHugh


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

PS

"Understanding the fundamental difference between the two types of marriage does" ... 

Call me thick, but could you clarify these "fundamental differences" ?

Mike McHugh


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sure, marriage is between two people of the same sex. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What's wrong with defining marriage is a union of two _people_? It doesn't blatantly push the "gay agenda" in the face of reglious or over-sensitive "traditionalists", nor does it exclude people of specific backgrounds (be it race, gender, sexual preference, beliefs, or religion.)

I think one of society's problems today is that they inadvertantly divide, rather unite by defining things to minute specifics that it leaves no room for individual interpretation. Language, words, and the meanings behind them are malleable... it evolves and changes.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Funny...I tend to think of a "traditional" marriage as more of a pre-60's-style one, with the subservient wife at home cooking and cleaning, and the man coming home, after a tough day at work, putting up his feet and being served a beer while the wife keeps the kids quiet so as not to disturb his "hard-earned" rest. And on and on...you all know how it goes.

I don't really know where I'm going with this except that I don't really think a traditional marriage (by my definition) is all that appealing anyway! 

However, if one is going to define a "traditional" marriage as one which consists of a man and a woman, then I say it's time to change the definition!


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

MacBro, nobody deserves to be treated the way you were and it must have been tough to have to deal with that, especially throughout your school years...which can be such difficult years anyway.

Thanks for sharing your story. There are far too many similar stories out there.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

*Marriage...*



SINC said:


> ...I still hold traditional marriage as what it has meant and always will mean to me and many Canadians, as that of the union of one man and one woman.


Define "traditional", because history does not.

Polygamy is still accepted in many African and Islamic countries. The Qur'an says you can have up to four wives in some situations.
China only outlawed polygamy in 1953. But men can still take concubines.

Is "traditional" marriage "till death do us part"? Not with a 40% divorce rate in Western culture.

Does the traditional marriage mean monogamy? The adultery rate in western culture is about 40% as well.

It wasn't until the 12th century that the Catholic church stated marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

It gets worse! How about a woman having multiple husbands? Canadian Inuit used to do it.

Maybe it's about love between a man and a woman...unless of course it is an arranged marriage.

The modern "traditional" marriage is something that has evolved from the Catholic church. It is religious based. Are we not supposed to live in society that separates church and state?

What is it about the union between a man and a woman that people seem to cling to so desparately? That's all it is! A union between a man and a woman!

It's not about reproduction. Lots of married people never have kids, or just plain can't.

It's not about fidelity. Otherwise adulterers would not be allowed to marry again.

It's not about a life-long commitment, or else divorce would be illegal.

The ONLY thing that defines the so-called "traditional" marriage is that it is between a man and a woman.

Maybe we should just rename it a "Catholic" marriage. "Christian" marriage? How about the "Heterosexual" marriage? But please don't use the word "traditional".

The only thing traditional about marriage is that it is an ever evolving societal-sanctioned union between people. The day that the definition of marriage stops evolving is the day it no longer becomes "traditional".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> The day that the definition of marriage stops evolving is the day it no longer becomes "traditional".


The day the definition of marriage changed, it became "traditional" for one man and one woman.

And according to Dictionary.com:

tra·di·tion·al Pronunciation Key (tr-dsh-nl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or in accord with tradition: a traditional wedding ceremony.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

*Change?*



SINC said:


> The day the definition of marriage changed, it became "traditional" for one man and one woman.
> 
> And according to Dictionary.com:
> 
> ...


So, the day it changes again to allow same-sex marriages, that will be considered "traditional"? A union between two people?

And if your definition of "traditional" marriage includes a high divorce and infidelity rate, you can keep it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> So, the day it changes again to allow same-sex marriages, that will be considered "traditional"? A union between two people?


No, I refer to the passing of the bill to change the definition of marriage which is now before the senate and will become law. When it does, traditional becomes between one man and one woman.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> No, I refer to the passing of the bill to change the definition of marriage which is now before the senate and will become law. When it does, traditional becomes between one man and one woman.


 And then after that.. when we can marry beings from another planet... "Traditional Marriage" will be the union of "a Man and Woman" and/or "a Man and Man" and/or "a Woman and Woman."

The fight then will be Marriage of Aliens & Human beings.

I mean.. not to rain on any one's Parade. (so to speak) But it could happen.

Cannabalism - same fight (I would never do it. But.. I wouldn't oppose it just because I think it's wrong. Many cultures used it as religious ceremony when someone passes on. Who's to say that's wrong?)

In many cultures.. it's ok to eat Cats and Dogs. Is that wrong?

There are so many cultures in this world.. and I whole heartedly accept each and every one of them. I'm not going to say one is right or one is wrong. Culture is the thing that defines this planet... No one should be hindered in believing what they believe. 

I also don't think anyone has the right to say they are better than anyone else. 

I am not gay.. I am a being on this planet.. as is everyone else. I lived with 2 women who were homosexual for 3 years as a roommate. The love and compassion they expressed to and for each other was undeniably real and humbling. If only everyone could have that opportunity to LOVE another being.. this planet would be a better place. Let me tell you.. if they ran a camp, your children would be coming home to you with more love and compassion for you then you could imagine. It's all about love and respect, no matter which "being" you are partners with.

All in all. I am all for anything which brightens the future of this planet.

But hey.. what do I know? I'm a white male.. living on a small rock in a place where unemployment outweighs employment, there's a Pool of Tar (Read: [1]Sydney Tar Ponds), in the center of the city where I live which contributes to one of the highest rates of Cancer, birth defects and miscarriages in Canada.

I have a lot more to worry about than PEOPLE who actually LOVE each other getting married.

[1]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tarponds/
http://tntn.essortment.com/tarpondssydney_rhxq.htm


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vexel said:


> In many cultures.. it's ok to eat Cats and Dogs. Is that wrong?


Not at all. It's all meat.

Cannabalism is another issue. Isn't that what lead to Mad Cow Disease?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I think for one.. it would cause "Glad Cow Disease!"


----------



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

SINC is personally defining a marriage between a man and a woman as traditional. If that pulls his chain, so be it. He is not forcing it on those of us who think that marriage is self-explanatory as a recognized bond between two individuals. I very much doubt the notion of "traditional" marriage as defined by SINC will catch on for all of the reasons enunciated in the above posts but it seems to provide some level of comfort for SINC (and likely many others). I don't think its fair to call SINC homophobic because of his view on this one aspect - its just his way of dealing with the issue. Likewise, I would not like to be called heterophobic for being a proponent of same-sex marriage.

Acceptance of sexual preferences takes some people time. If we honestly believe (as I do) that humans are not genetically averse to homosexuality as an aspect of humanity, then as society develops, these issues will simply evaporate. 

I personally appreciate SINC's honesty in admitting he finds it difficult to "un-learn" what he has held to be true for his entire life. His acceptance of gays is conditional on the point of marriage. It shouldn't be, but he has declared his reasoning. I much prefer that honesty to someone who says they agree in public but in private continue to reject the decision (and possibly discriminate in practice).

Just my POV.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I just hope you don't think I'm a tool for bringing up aliens lmao.  

It wasn't the medium so much as the message.

I DO agree that there are a lot of people who have their own POV's.. but they must know.. that they will be challenged many times in their lives because of it. Without it.. there wouldn't be flavour in culture. I DON'T think it's right when these opinions are pressed on others that simply don't believe or want to believe in them. (I believe SINC truely displayed how things should be dealt with.. he expressed his opinion.. but never ever forced it on anyone.) (For the record, So did everyone else in this thread).

I just hope.. we can all forget this soon.. and LIVE


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> If we honestly believe (as I do) that humans are not genetically averse to homosexuality as an aspect of humanity, then as society develops, these issues will simply evaporate.


Exactly.

I know it's been said before here, but I believe we will look back at this in several years and find it hard to believe that there was ever an issue about it, such as has been the case with every single advancement to human rights.

I'm proud that Canada is in the forefront of this and predict that now we will see a race for countries not to be one of the last to continue discriminating based on sexual orientation. 

3 guesses about which country is likely to be one of the last ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"genetically adverse" - interesting choice of phrase.

I'd say there IS an adversion as it's polar opposite of hetero attraction and only the upper brain functions can override the old brain adversions.

I suspect the same goes on with racism is we continually fight adversion to "different" - not my tribe etc.

I DO believe a strong social acceptance over comes both but I suspect as with Lord of the Flies it will never be innate, the social acceptance must be strongly and vigilantely guarded adn reinforced.

It's somewhat like the pernicious anti Semitic meme that has proven so hard to stamp out......must be guarded against and acceptance fought for each generation.


----------



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

I hope not macdoc. Very young kids are not racists. They are totally blind to skin colour and sex. But our society is saturated with peer pressure, parental pressure, cultural pressure. From a genetic standpoint, diversity is good and in other species "intercrossing" between minor variations or breeds is very healthy. Look at purebreed dogs. 

Ditto for homosexuality. It is not, as widely professed by some, a drag on a species (insinuation not intended), but is not only tolerated in a genetic sense but is selected for. We are all 99.9% identical to everyone else on the planet - the difference is very significant and contributes to concepts of race and sexuality. But of that 0.1% difference (3 million different nucleotides), the contributions of those traits are truly insignificant compared to the whole. In other words, you may find some genetic similarities among people from a given ethnic background, but they will share far more similarities with others than the specific similarities with their ethnic group. Race is an artificial construct that reflects transient commonalities that are truly genetically insignificant. There is a bit of a debate right now about a drug that has been approved by the FDA for a particular ethnic group. Although it is more effective in that group, the group is not homogeneous and people not within the group can also harbour the predisposition.

Even if there is some primitive instinct associated with some of these biases, they are irrelevant in the absence of powerful nurturing pressures. This isn't my field so I may be off base on some of the details but I think nurture plays a lot more of a role than nature in how we perceive our neighbours.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Isn't homosexuality determined in the main by inutero hormones??

Gang/tribe I'm not 100% sure is entirely learned - I would suggest variety of factors that the "my kind" group/tribe is instinctive and at a young age discernment equals "everyone around me is my tribe".

I'd say only later with wider exposure does the "not my tribe" consciousness arise and with it discrimination and then if culture does not damp it....bigotry.

Heck the Belgums managed to manufacture two races in Rwanda based on height and lighter skin 
So I'd say the tribal tendency is inherently there and culture focuses the differentiation.


----------



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

If the "tribe" is mixed, then that becomes the tribe to the child. What I'm saying is that the child does not question her friends based on, say colour, but on proximity/familiarity. Therefore, there is nothing inherent/genetic in a persons view of others - it is acquired.

As for in utero hormones and homosexuality, I've no idea. That smacks of epigenetics which may be closer to the answer than we might think.

Rwanda - yes, we have no problem creating races. But they are artificial constructs of our deluded minds. We are human. Period.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Very young kids are not racists. They are totally blind to skin colour and sex.


Unfortunately, this is not true. When children fight with each other, they will often pick on the most noticeable difference - skin colour, sex, accent, whatever. It's our jobs as parents to correct these behaviors. We need to stress that for all their differences, people are all the same.

Uncorrected behavior often leads to life long attitudes and behaviors.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes - the "not like me" is there.

I think the "young' aspect is critical.
In a number of species young animals of DIFFERENT species will actually be adopted and nurtured.

There is a Russia girl who was indeed raised and cared for by a dog pack and still sometimes reverts to dog behaviour ( literally scary to watch ) and has much difficulty with language skills.

There was another case in the Ukraine of a child but he was "rescued" at a younger age and generally has "adapted".

My point is tht up to a certain point differences are "acceptable" even cross species depending on circumstance and age.

After that tipping point the bonding is gone and there is a focus on not my kind or not my tribe and that tends to grow stronger as kids grow older and indeed does require careful guidance.

A little kid might not trigger a not my kind response in say a teenage gang but a pre teen might.

So I would still maintain there is a combination of factors both inherent and cultural at play and that the strength and responses vary over time ( age of person ).

An inherently communal accepting person might be radicalized into bigotry by evens or peer pressure. In another setting that same person may become an integrator or negotiator between warring factions being empathic to both.

A person with a strong tendency to "suspicion of difference" may even under the best circumstances have difficulty and might join say a military organization with a strong group bonding and be an effective soldier suspicious of "other".


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

I'm proud of Canada for this. I think that allowing two adults to marry, regardless of gender is a good thing.

Just a question though, I'm just curious:

If marriage had absolutely no legal benefits would anyone have cared about this? What I mean is that if prior to the passing of this law, that the law stated that being married simply meant that a man and a woman were committed to each other to the exclusion of all others (or something of that sort), and that's it, would anyone have cared had society expanded that definition to included two men or two woment in a similar relationship? Think about this. In this scenerio marriage does NOT grant you any legal rights or advantages at all: no changes for tax purposes, no "advantage" in being able to adopt children, no power in making medical decisions for your spouse, no access to a spouse's employee benefits, etc. 

I'm curious because some have raised arguments suggesting that extending the privilege of marriage to homosexuals is important for financial/legal reasons, or reasons based upon equality, whereas others suggest that it is the word marriage itself that is important. Is it the word? Is the the rights that are associated with the word? Or it is the relationship that is the foundation of the word?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

smilecentral said:


> Or it is the relationship that is the foundation of the word?


Yep, exactly. One man, one woman, traditional relationship and traditional marriage.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep, exactly. One man, one woman, traditional relationship and traditional marriage.


It is quite sad that you keep trying to use the word "traditional" to exclude same sex couples, as though their relationship is somehow less worthy than yours.

Sigh...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is no less worthy, just different.

You can't compare two apples to an apple and an orange, or two oranges, as being the same.

They are distinct and different, just like a man and a woman, compared to two women or to two men. Specific relationships call for specific definitions. 

It in no way implies any one of the combinations is less worthy than the other. After all, each couple is married.


----------



## surfwaxer (Jul 9, 2005)

SINC said:


> You can't compare two apples to an apple and an orange, or two oranges, as being the same.


Sure you can. They are both fruits. We no longer make a distinction between a marriage of two people of the same race vs two people of different race.

Thankfully none of this matters in Canada. What does matter is that Canada is a secular state. We have separation of church and state. Religious people are free to practice their religion, or not, and human rights in this country are unhampered by religious dogma.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)




----------



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

surfwaxer said:


> Sure you can. They are both fruits. We no longer make a distinction between a marriage of two people of the same race vs two people of different race.
> 
> Thankfully none of this matters in Canada. What does matter is that Canada is a secular state. We have separation of church and state. Religious people are free to practice their religion, or not, and human rights in this country are unhampered by religious dogma.


Great first post surfwaxer! Welcome to EhMac (a reflection of Canadian diversity - in both opinions and politics as well as the place to discuss anything Apple).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

surfwaxer said:


> Sure you can. They are both fruits. We no longer make a distinction between a marriage of two people of the same race vs two people of different race.
> 
> Thankfully none of this matters in Canada. What does matter is that Canada is a secular state. We have separation of church and state. Religious people are free to practice their religion, or not, and human rights in this country are unhampered by religious dogma.



Fortunately or Unfortunately that is not exactly the case as there are clear definitions in the Charter and Constitution which mandate the existence of a separate catholic school system. This was clearly an answer to mollify certain demographic needs in Quebec. That being said, Canada for the most part is secular, however there are provisions made specifically for Catholicism.

I've been staying out of this conversation for two reasons...

1/. Introspection as a result of some things that Sonal had to say.

2/. Sinc has come half way on this by admitting that there could be things thought of marriages and traditional marriages. That IMHO shows a degree of tolerance which is exactly where in solving this issue, we need to start.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> They are distinct and different, just like a man and a woman, compared to two women or to two men. Specific relationships call for specific definitions.


You permit a distinction based on sex. Is this fair?

Should we permit a distinction based on colour or race? Could a black man and white woman get married and have it considered "traditional"?

Could a Jewish man marry a Catholic woman and have it considered "traditional"?

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Should we ever make a distinction between man and woman? If we cannot in another circumstance, why should we be allowed to under the definition of marriage.

It should be one person marrying one person. No matter what sex, colour, religion, or ethnic origin.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> You permit a distinction based on sex. Is this fair?
> 
> Should we permit a distinction based on colour or race? Could a black man and white woman get married and have it considered "traditional"?
> 
> ...


Actually, Section 28 goes even further...

_ 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons._

And I've already gone down the path with interracial / interfaith relationships.

At this point I think we should be happy with "traditional" as an adjective to marriage. It is a small step forward, but a step nevertheless.


----------



## surfwaxer (Jul 9, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Fortunately or Unfortunately that is not exactly the case as there are clear definitions in the Charter and Constitution which mandate the existence of a separate catholic school system.


That is true. However, that we have a secular government has been tested and the courts have left no doubt to the fact:



> In the case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, 1985 SCC 15 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to hear an appeal of an acquittal of the drug store on a charge of unlawfully selling goods on Sunday in violation of the Lord's Day Act, 1906.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of section 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, deciding that there was no true secular basis for the legislation and its only purpose was, in effect, to establish a state religious-based requirement, and was therefore invalid.


Here's a good read:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1985/vol1/html/1985scr1_0295.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

surfwaxer said:


> That is true. However, that we have a secular government has been tested and the courts have left no doubt to the fact:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great precedent... thanks for that one, I will keep it in my arsenal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This can go on forever, but you will never change my mind, nor I yours.

I will live out my days being "traditional" and you can be genderless.

I'll tolerate you and I guess you will have to do the same for me and about half of Canadians.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Can someone tell me exactly the benefits for gays of having the government acknowledge them as being married. In the US the big one is so they can get their spouse coverage through employee health benefits. But that shouldn't be a problem in Canada. 

My thinking is as usual here for me. We don't need the government telling us who is and isn't married. You should be getting rid of the marriage thing. No one is considered married under the law. You enter contracts saying what happens in case of divorce, illness, death, etc. and that contract should be protected.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> Can someone tell me exactly the benefits for gays of having the government acknowledge them as being married. In the US the big one is so they can get their spouse coverage through employee health benefits. But that shouldn't be a problem in Canada.


There are a lot of other legal issues that are greatly simplified by being married. Getting your spouses' pension after they die, being allowed to decide what should/should not be done with them if they're unconscious in the hospital, how applications for working visas and so-forth are handled, etc.



> My thinking is as usual here for me. We don't need the government telling us who is and isn't married. You should be getting rid of the marriage thing.


I agree with you completely, however, I've come to realize that this is unrealistic. Most people _like_ the public formalization and the legal recognition of their relationships by the state and the community. Marriage has such a long legal history that it's basically impossible to get rid of in the short term. My hope is that the continued dilution of the legal meaning of 'marriage' will eventually result in it's demise. But it won't be any time soon.

Cheers


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> Can someone tell me exactly the benefits for gays of having the government acknowledge them as being married.


One word:
Equality


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Sweet pic Elmer


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

surfwaxer said:


> Sure you can. They are both fruits.


Sorry, but that is an unfortunate choice of words.

Call it a bad comparison by me since it never crossed my mind, but there it is.

My apologies.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vexel said:


> Sweet pic Elmer


Anyone care to explain the significance of that photo? It is lost on me.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

SINC said:


> Anyone care to explain the significance of that photo? It is lost on me.


The previous comment mentioned the idea of separation of church and state, so I thought this was a good illustration / caricature. A church and the Empire State Building, pointed at the sky in concert like a bristling anti-aircraft gun. When I took the picture on July 1st weekend in Manhattan, I thought it expressed well my feeling that aligning church and state is dangerous because of how powerful it is.
It seemed fitting that both buildings have pointy ends, are physically near each other, and each one visually looks like the concept it is named for. The ESB is physically larger, like the state is physically more powerful, but the church in balance is more forward in the picture despite it's smaller physical size, just like the Church has less worldy authority but is more vocal and captivating than the State.
The buildings are not straight up and down. I did this either because of the wrongness of "church and state", or because it made it look more dynamic and therefore more dangerous.

[apologies to those subscribing to this thread by email, I edited this message multiple times]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yesterday marked the first marriage licenses issued in Alberta to same sex couples.

Thank goodness the Alberta government complied with the new federal law.

And thank goodness they did it the right way.

Alberta now has two marriage licenses.

One for person one and person two.

And one for Bride and Groom.

Well done Ralph!

Kicking!


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Interesting - what is the thinking behind this? (the two licenses)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

elmer said:


> Interesting - what is the thinking behind this? (the two licenses)


Simply to show that there are indeed two kinds of marriage. Traditional and same sex. Legal definition is required in many people's minds.


----------



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

Sinc, it was 10 years ago on July 28th that my wife and I obtained our single Alberta marriage license. We were married by a Justice of the Peace, with the wedding taking place at the home of her sister. We are still married to this day, and celebrate our 10th anniversary on the 29th of July. I don't think we would have gone with the Bride and Groom license, in that we both believe in the equality of all people. We would have opted for Person #1 and #2 marriage license, and then flipped for who would be #1...............even though Deborah is #1 in my heart even today.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*It's going to take time for approval in Alberta*

Albertans reject same-sex marriage
Poll shows attitudes unchanged despite new federal law
*
Jason Markusoff
The Edmonton Journal

Monday, August 08, 2005

EDMONTON -- Most Albertans still disapprove of same-sex marriage, a new poll shows.
The level of opposition remains virtually unchanged from two years ago, even as court rulings and eventually Parliament legalized gay unions in every province, including Alberta, where the Klein government stood alone nationally in its failed attempt to prevent it.
In an Ipsos-Reid poll provided to CanWest Global, 56 per cent of Albertans say they disapprove of the federal legislation that redefined marriage to include two men or two women, which took effect July 20. Two years ago, Ipsos-Reid found 57 per cent of respondents did not want gays or lesbians to marry in Alberta.
"It's quite surprising that it hasn't moved at all," said Peter Weylie, the pollster's Alberta vice-president for public affairs. "You would think that after all that's happened in two years, it would."
The survey also paints a rather stereotypical picture of the Albertan who is most likely to be against gay marriage.
Half of women are likely to support the federal law, while one-third of men are.
Nearly half of residents of Alberta's two big cities -- which both boast sizable gay populations and communities -- approve, but only one-third in the rest of the province approve.
A solid majority of 18-to-34-year-olds approve, but only 29 per cent of those 55 and older do.
Most university-educated Albertans approve, while those with less academic experience overwhelmingly do not.
Tanya Wald, a Grande Prairie resident who will marry her partner Myrna Rutledge, argued that the stereotypes are nowhere near constant.
"I think I've found supporters of gay marriage in areas I didn't expect, and I've found people who oppose it I thought wouldn't," she said.
She sees little difference in the reception she gets as a lesbian in Grande Prairie or Edmonton, although she admits that many gay youths she works with move to a bigger city.
In May, Wald set up the Gay and Lesbian Association of the Peace, which offers support and resources to homosexuals as far north as High Level or Fort St. John, B.C. The group has seen no signs of protest or vocal criticism to date.
The poll of 800 randomly selected Albertans was conducted between July 18 and July 24, straddling the period when gay marriage became legal in the province. The poll is considered statistically accurate within 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Subsections of the survey, such as age or sex, will be less accurate.
National surveys show that Canadians are roughly split on same-sex marriage, while in Alberta only 42 per cent said in the July poll they would endorse it.
The province's Conservative government has staunchly defended the traditional definition of marriage.
In fact, every province but Alberta and Prince Edward Island had legalized same-sex marriage by the time Ottawa made it law last month. In each of the other eight, courts had ruled that keeping marriage as a heterosexual practice alone was unconstitutional -- and no government challenged it.
The Klein Tories long threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marriages, but that was exposed as a hollow ploy when the Supreme Court last year ruled that only Ottawa can define who can or cannot wed.
As Parliament came close to passing the Civil Marriage Act in July, Klein quashed any caucus discussions of getting out of the marriage business altogether or pursuing a constitutional amendment and announced Alberta will, "much to our chagrin," hand out marriage licences that said "Partner 1" and "Partner 2."
Provincial registries awarded 59 licences to gay couples as of last Friday and registered 36 gay marriages, a Government Services spokeswoman said.
[email protected]
THE BREAKDOWN
Do you generally approve or disapprove of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act?
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 56%
Men
Approve: 35%
Disapprove: 63%
Women
Approve: 48%
Disapprove: 49%
Age 18-34
Approve: 55%
Disapprove: 43%
Age 35-54
Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 59%
Age 55+
Approve: 29%
Disapprove: 68%
Education
High school or less
Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 63%
Post-secondary
Approve: 37%
Disapprove: 61%
University
Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 47%
URBAN/RURAL
Edmonton
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 51%
Calgary
Approve: 44%
Disapprove: 53%
Rest of Alberta
Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 64%


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Two licenses is fine, as long as gays can use either one. Otherwise it's just continuing discrimination.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Now this doesn't surprise me:

_Age 55+
Approve: 29%
Disapprove: 68%_

Oddly enough it's similar to another group:

_High school or less
Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 63%_

Things that make you go Hmmm.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Now this doesn't surprise me:
> 
> _Age 55+
> Approve: 29%
> ...


Well the first number is pretty clear. The second number is just because that age group hasn't reached the level of maturity needed to deal with the subject.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yesterday marked the first marriage licenses issued in Alberta to same sex couples.
> 
> Thank goodness the Alberta government complied with the new federal law.
> 
> ...



Totally off topic, but did you 

plan the gentle slope of 

the progessively 

shorter 

lines?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Well the first number is pretty clear. The second number is just because that age group hasn't reached the level of maturity needed to deal with the subject.


Not necessarily... It's not unheard of people of the 55+ age group who have never even attended highschool (left school between grades 6-9) There are far more people of that age level whom never completed their highschool than today (per capita*.) It's relative to where one lives (urban, city, country, etc.) of course but given that it's in Alberta... well, draw your own conclusions.

To simply believe the poll assumes people who have a highschool or less education is age-related (ie kids) is shortsighted. Unless you mean mental maturity... but that's a whole different ball game.

_* If you want sources, you can find them here._


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Not necessarily... It's not unheard of people of the 55+ age group who have never even attended highschool (left school between grades 6-9) There are far more people of that age level whom never completed their highschool than today (per capita*.) It's relative to where one lives (urban, city, country, etc.) of course but given that it's in Alberta... well, draw your own conclusions.
> 
> To simply believe the poll assumes people who have a highschool or less education is age-related (ie kids) is shortsighted. Unless you mean mental maturity... but that's a whole different ball game.
> 
> _* If you want sources, you can find them here._



Sorry I took that second number as age based (ie. those people still in school) and not education based. Nevermind what I said... my mistake.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummmm DJ that number is education level achieved not age.
In other words those with just high school or less education have the same view as those over 55.

Hence Manny's sarcasm.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Indeed, our fine premier, is in the 55+ and 'high school or less' categories, and is a great example of someone who opposes gay marriage.

With all due respect to SINC and others who may not be bigots, but oppose this equality anyway (let's not re-ignite that debate), Klein is definitely a close-minded bigot (not to mention an ignorant buffoon), and his continued bloviating on this topic disgusts me.

This was a no-brainer from the start: there is no way the government can restrict who is entitled to federal services on the basis of sexual preference without violating the Charter, and Klein's continued objections are nothing more than pandering to his knuckle-dragging supporters.

I sincerely hope this egregious waste of tax money comes back to haunt his party in the next election. Of course, that's not likely, with so many Albertans, regardless of their formal education, being completely unable to think rationally about any issue.

Cheers


----------



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

The data indicate that Albertan males over the age of 55 who didn't go to university are the most unlikely people to marry each other. It must be kinda lonely being in that category and gay. However, the likelihood of dying in any given year (according to life insurance tables) is statistically greater for males, those who did not attend university and, more obviously, people who are older. Therefore, assuming those who are for same-sex marriage don't change their minds as they get older, over time, the survey statistics will change towards acceptance.....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yup, *even in Alberta*, people will one day wonder what all the fuss was about, just as they do now for so many things championed by liberals and denounced by conservatives of the time.

Face it, I can hardly think of one issue that conservatives-minded types were not on the wrong side of, at one time. Note, I am using liberal and conservative in their small "l" and "c" variants.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

free trade? (oh yeah, they switched positions)

While I essentially agree, the definitions of small-l liberals and small-c conservatives are as fluid as the big-L and big-C definitions.

For instance, the word "liberal" has so many definitions, almost everyone could be considered a liberal (since "liberal" and "democrat" are almost synonymous). On the other hand, if the meaning were construed narrowly, almost no one today could be considered a liberal.


----------

