Lost in Manitoba

If it made it easier for people to swallow, I could probably tolerate the term civil union, with the absolute understanding that civil union and marriage is exactly the same thing. (baby steps is the key) Neddy, I think you said you were a lawyer, can you tell me of any case in the US that involved the court ordering a priest to perform a religious ceremony? Someone brought up the fact that a Jew can't be married in a Catholic church (without approval of the priest or bishop). Why would gays be any different?

What if you discriminate against a group so small and unknown and there are no activists coming to the rescue with rallies and boycotts?

That's funny, never heard it before. Curious what they went for.... Craig, Their is no reason Canada's social healthcare cannot adopt the management and administrative practices of the American system, their just isn't the political will or the constituent pressure to do it. BTW, wondering where you got the $55k salary for doctors? This past year the local paper released the top 10 doctors and salaries in town. They ranged from about $150k to $300k. There's only about 50 doctors or so in town.

Interesting points brought up. The idea of the country and it's laws being founded on J-C beliefs is accurate. But are we limited to that? I mean by that, is are laws perfected and is there no room for any change or evolution? Look at the 20th century; how things were done at the beginning and at the end. Things change, not necasarily improve, but change. Medical treatment, treatment of the mentally ill or prisoners, the role of women in society, etc. Taking the last example, a womans role was also determined by J-C people, Back Then. I'm not saying we should give up our heritage, but we must be open minded enough to contemplate change. Not necasarily do it, but at least do it. Here's my stance: I don't think homosexuallity is a mental illness or a moral deviancy, I think it's just an attraction to members of the same sex, or a deep affinity to members of the opposite sex (transgender). Maybe its genetic, maybe hormonal, maybe just a choice, I don't know and ultimately don't care. Because I don't see anything wrong with homosexuallity, I don't see anything wrong with them being allowed to be legally married. I will say though I do think of marriage as a civil institution, not a religious one. I will give you that I'm not a religious person so the fear of my Religious beliefs being spit on is not there. I am for the protection of religious freedom and belief, however. The question of where it will end: I too am not willing to accept polygamy, no that is not the society I wish to live in. I do see the path of argument for polygamy and truthfully the letter of the law might favor them. Perhaps it is just an alien concept to me, a husband with multiple wives (or vice versa). Many people were raised in multi-generational homes where maybe Grandma and Mom shared tasks; or kids with remarried parents might have two different moms and dads. Would a child raised in a polygamist household be much different than that? I don't know. Is it a matter of time before we see and hear more of polygamy, and eventually we have the same debate then? Or will our cultural definition of a married couple being only two people stand, and perhaps become the universal cultural standard?

Look at other enduring conflicts to find a parallel: Ireland. It used to be played out as a religious conflict when really it is more like a imperialism vs. sovereignty issue, or even a class struggle (not trying to sound like Marx). Freedom and self-determination is the name of the game. All of N.America has gone through this. And Craig, sure you must respect the Jews as the most enduring and influential cultural force in history (good read is 'Gift of the Jews' by Thomas Cahill) but you can equally respect the people of the Arab world. Life is so hard but the culture is rich and I think the majority of people kind. (I know its set in Afganistan, but I watched the movie Kandahar the other night and it really did move me, the poverty and despair, and yet the searching hope)

Really good posts, especially KKid. I'm not so convinced the system is unfixable, though, and needs to be scrapped. It just needs to be run like a private company, in other words, more efficiently. Its not the system itself, its the managers and department heads. Like Craig said, over 50% of expenses goes to the administrators. What the hell? I have the (naive?) belief that we can have healthcare twice as good (or better) without increasing spending. No well run business would not do an overhaul if a department was as inefficient as our healthcare system. To get some answers on how to solve the problems, you just really got to ask the doctors and nurses for advice. They work within the system and see the redtape and waste everyday; chances are they also have ideas on how to fix it.

I don't know about that Hugo. You may be right, I'm definitely not claiming to be, but it would seem that Freedom of Ass. doesn't overrule the prohibition on discrimination. I don't understand the concept you mention of 'be within the rights' and 'doubt that anyone could get away with those acts'. And Gugsy. Like I say above, I am no expert, but I would say that if freedom of religion is a protected right, and religion is a choice of lifestyle and beliefs, than sexual orientation, which can also be said to be a choice of lifestyle and beliefs, should also be a protected right. Shouldn't it? I'm not sure but I really don't see a difference.

And the upper class prep school can stop white trash parents from attending their son's grad? Or, 'so sorry sir, we don't let coloured people eat at this resteraunt.' Rules of conduct may be a more acceptable way of approaching the situation, such as no public display of affection (kissing, grinding on the dance floor, etc.) Discriminate and judge on the behavior of the individual, not which class, gender, sexual orientation, or race he/she falls into.

You mentioned Mark Hall, Gugsy, and the Charter protecting his rights. Well I've also read where the Charter has protected the rights of prayer groups in public schools. Does 'equality' not eventualy 'equal' out? I mean that the Charter CAN equally protect liberal and conservative minded people.

Just to off-track this thread even further, if possible; if there is a gene that predisposes you for being gay, and society must accept that because it is natural, is there also a gene that predisposes you for being a bigot, AND should society not accept that as well because it is natural?

Damn good post Hugo. And suprising. You pretty much echo my own thoughts on the matter.

Perhaps its off topic but going along with that train of thought SirRiff; Should democratic nations allow trade to countries with no democratic process?

I myself think I am a moral AND a spiritual person, though I definitely don't go for superstition and dogma. I find organized religion more of cultural and historical significance, rather than of moral or social significance. I can definitely say I find religious ceremony beautiful, though. I buy more into the philosophical approach to life, including the social contract, democracy, and, to an extent, utilitarianism. I believe that any form of society or government is legitamite as long as it has been adopted by a democratic process, and as long as it can be brought down or changed by that same process. To me, I cannot believe in the absolute truth of the WORD OF GOD.

Nothing really to add except friend s of mine went tree planting in Prince George,BC about 10yrs ago and on the way back they passed through a resteraunt in Vancouver where they supposedly served dog. (They declined, being tree huggers and all)

Scotchneat, The arguments against gay marriage do have some merit. The idea that it MAY end up trivializing marriage, for instance, may have a basis of truth. That is if it becomes a novelty for gay couples to get married just because they can, and then a few months later get divorced. I'd argue against this by looking at divorce rates now, or taking a look at commonlaw marriage which seems to be an apathetic process. If looked at from a sociological and philisophical, long range perspective, the arguments against MAY actually be on to something. The against side though typically though attacks homosexuallity itself calling it unnatural, deviant, and mentally disturbed. This stems mostly from deeply ingrained religious thought. These people seem to be still in a Victorian mindset when it comes to sexual freedom and expression. These are the arguments that cannot be taken seriously, and these are the arguments that we most hear.

I think its interesting to note that when gay marriage is being debated, or even when homosexuallity is discussed, it all seems to be focussing on gay men. There are posts on here with references to the dangers of anal sex, the creeps from NAMBLA, how gay men raise gay babies, etc. Is it homophobia? I mean, does a man resent or find more repulsive the intrusive act of two men having anal sex, as compared to two women touching each other?

Thanks Pell. After midnight I guess my brain shuts down.

I don't consider myself an environmentalist or an activist of any sort. I occasionally litter, I don't go out of my way to recycle, I sometimes leave the lights on when I leave, and I drive a lot and let the car idle when I go into the store. Despite this, one of my chief concerns is the state of the environment. Is global warming real or is it a matter of 400yr weather cycles? And really, even if global warming is ficticious, wouldn't it be nice not to have smog alerts? With environmentalism also comes sustainabillity. As in electricity (solar/wind). As in no longer depleting natural resources (fish stocks). As in smarter farming, not slash/burn/fertilize. As in not worrying about E.coli or feces in your tap water. I have plenty of concerns about the environment and the lawmakers and business that affect it. Do you?

The Charter of Rights has been questioned a few times on this site. Just curious on what everyone thought.

His vision for Canada may have been different than yours but I doubt you can argue that he did what he thought was best for Canada. The Just Society wasn't concieved to bring Canada down.

I disagree with much of what you say Ronda including the sweeping generalization of: 'In heterosexual couples, generally, one spouse is at home and the other, therefore, is at a definite financial disadvantage. This is also a factor in marriage law. Gay couples very rarely have anything close to this type of dynamic' Do most families actually have a stay at home parent these days? I think not. And to say that gay couples rarely do, well I think you must be making that up. Where did you find that little statistic. Rather than being snide, let me agree with you on the issue of no-fault divorce and argue against common-law marriage. The marriage contract IS one of the most important parts of our society. Neither should it be entered into lightly or be easy to get out of. I do think people should be made to see a counselor and have a mandatory waiting time for the divorce of at least a year, if only to provide enough hassle to give future couples pause to think. I like the idea of the wrongdoer of a failed marriage losing half their assets. If the person is calculating enough, they may actually try a little harder to make things work. And where did the idea of prenuptuals come from and do we have them in Canada? If so, scrap them. The idea of protecting yourself in the case of future adultery seems to me a little cold hearted. Common-law marriage, to me, and I hope I don't offend anyone, is the stuff of trailer park trash. Too busy drinking your beer and watching wrestling to get married and legitimize your children? C'mon. I meet so many people who call their boyfriend/girlfriend their husband/wife. No, you're not married. They have no committment to you and they can leave at anytime. This is how I see it. Fear of committment. Or perhaps just general apathy. Why should common-law marriage get any aproval from society or the gov't? If it's a matter of not being religious, just go to the courthouse and sign a form. It boggles the mind how two people can be declared (commonlaw) married by doing absolutely nothing. (anyway thats my rant)

About media coverage on Afganistan, this past week I've read quite a bit in the different papers. As for conmmand I believe it's ISAF, which as far as I'm aware is a UN operation(anyone correct me if I'm wrong). Just wondered about the opinion of the Yank's. Your comment of the UN and Europeans being in bed with terrorists sounds a little biased considering the American penchant for doing the same, but the ultimate condemnation is fair. From what I've seen and heard so far, I am expecting some good(hate to say that) from the UN attack. Even former NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin(??) was on the radio tonight pleading for Canada to get really involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.

Neal, wondering what your response to my last post might be. In short: In our Judeo-Christian society, if a Church(denomination) decides to accept and perform same-sex marriages, should they be upheld by the gov't/courts as legal.

As for the Canadian pressence in Kabul, what is the general sentiment on that in your neck of the woods Neddy? How about the UN slaughter in Iraq? I think that this one incident will mobilize the world, in opinion at least, into supporting the building of the new Iraq.

Canada is an adolescent country Craig. I think, to a point, this is an advantage to our growth. With technology advancing so fast right now, it is important to think that we aren't so entrenched in the old ways that we cannot jump to the next level. (an example would be broadband: to find T1/T2, DSL/Cable in the city of Houston,TX is all but impossible, due to the fact they've spent billions in the last 20yrs on a system that will be obsolete in the next decade) I believe that politics, philosophy and religion fits into this adolescent angst as well. The 20-something generation will be less likely to blindly follow traditional ways of doing things. This is where I have a lot of hope for the future.