Poll on Gay Marriage

[Argus]

The homosexual minority is an odd one. It is very small. But it pops up intimately among all families. Witness Cheney.

BD, you've raised an interesting question. My first response is to say that people are fearful of anything different.

First of all, homosexuality is not common enough to pop up in "all" families, unless you mean large, extended families. I have a gay cousin somewhere. I met him once. That's it for me.

I don't think "different" quite covers it, either. Nor do I think the word "fear" is at all accurate. I think we see in others what we see in ourselves. Men in this culture - esp English culture - are not comfortable with any kind of close physical contact with men. Also, we are instinctively grossed out at the thought of having sex with men. If it grosses us out to think of having sex with men why would we not be grossed out by men who enjoy having sex with men? I mean, we can, most of us, ignore it in our everyday contact with homosexuals. But that doesn't mean we think it's "normal" - gut level. Hands up all those men who want to see two hairy assed guys have sex! Blech!

It's interesting that in other cultures, notably Arab culture, it's perfectly normal for men to hold hands, hug and kiss, and be physically close. Yet at the same time there is an extreme prohibition against homosexuality.

[Argus]

. It¡¦s common to read opponents of same sex marriage (those who argue anything but ¡§marriage¡¨ for homosexuals) argued that they are appalled and ashamed that their marriage is considered equal to gay relationships. Civil Union is constructed on the foundation of inferiority, and that¡¦s how I interpreted it and I am adamantly opposed to that. t.

It's hard not to place it on an inferior level. The foundation of marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman to live together as one. Why? In order to bear and raise children. You can make all the excuses you want about people in old age getting married or people who are barren. It doesn't matter. The foundation of marriage is two people commiting to the raising of children. And clearly gay marriage has no such intent or plan. Gay people want to get married more as a symbolic thing than anything else.

[ndpnic]

You are aware, aren't you, that virtually all our laws are based on Christian beliefs? So is our parole system (repentance and forgiveness). If this offends you you might want to find another country to live in

Yes, I am aware.

I also happen to believe that is the fundemental problem within Canadian government and Canadian society!

[Black Dog]

That's not what I said. I did not say "child molester", I said "paedophile". They are not the same thing. Paedophiles are those who are aroused and sexually atracted to children. Most such people resist their urges and never molest children.

So if no one should be ashamed of what they are, as August said, that would include paedophiles, wouldn't it?

There's a world of differnce between someone who has a disorde rthat cause sthem to violate non-consenting minors and someone who engages in consesual sexual and emotional relationships with members of the same sex.

That does not mean homosexuals ought to be getting married. I don't, frankly, even see the point of people who have no intention of having children getting married.

Because marriage is not simply about having kids. It may have been at one time, but that is no longer the case: society has moved on.

I think all this BS about demanding the right to marriage is really little more than a demand that we all accord homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle the same level of respect as heterosexuality. And frankly, society isn't ready for that

Who gives a shit? Really, what people decide to do with their lives is none of your business and you certainly have no business promoting discriminatory legal practices because you are uncomfortable with a lifestyle that has no affect on you whatsoever.

Let me put in this way: if you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't marry a homosexual.

[Newfie Canadian]

Is marriage entirely exclusive to religious ceremonies and practice?

I believe you can get "married" by a Justice of the Peace, or a Mayor, hell even a ship's Captain (don't know if that one still applies.)

Heterosexual couples that go those routes are still married, so "marriage" has already fallen outside the domain of religion, hasn't it? They aren't "unions" or anything like that.

If so, why cite religion as a reason for not allowing homosexual couples to "marry"?

Let same sex couples marry, and divorce, like everyone else.

My interest in this comes from what the politicals are going to do, as I personally have no problem with the concept.

You have at least one cabinet minister saying he may not be able to vote for it and may have to quit (Efford); Klein is stabbing Harper in the back over the 'Notwithstanding Clause"; Harper is shooting himself in the foot for the same reason; and you've got Paul Martin complementing Klein for his "honesty" for his comments concerning Harper.

This is why I love Canadian politics.

[realwannabe]

. It¡¦s  common to read opponents of same sex marriage (those who argue anything but ¡§marriage¡¨ for homosexuals) argued that they are appalled and ashamed that their marriage is considered equal to gay relationships. Civil Union is constructed on the foundation of inferiority, and that¡¦s how I interpreted it and I am adamantly opposed to that. t.

It's hard not to place it on an inferior level. The foundation of marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman to live together as one. Why? In order to bear and raise children. You can make all the excuses you want about people in old age getting married or people who are barren. It doesn't matter. The foundation of marriage is two people commiting to the raising of children. And clearly gay marriage has no such intent or plan. Gay people want to get married more as a symbolic thing than anything else.

Marriage is alot of different things for alot of different people, one thing we can agree on is that it is about love and gay couples can be as loving and as committed as any heterosexual couples.

[Hugo]

What I am concerned with is the precedent this may be setting. The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade.

I don't think that "Judeo-Christian" is a good term. They have common origins, but so does everything if you go back far enough. As bodies of law, the two faiths are very different. Jewish law is very concerned with cultural integrity and the preservation of religious and ethnic identity. Christian law, however, is not concerned with creed or race but focuses strictly on ethics.

Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women. Oh, and by the way, I own these women and oh yeah, my religion allows me to beat my property.

There's not really much of a difference between forming a marriage between several people and forming a company between several people. As to your second remark, human beings cannot be property, because to be property is to relinquish free will and free will cannot be set aside. Even if one consented to be "property", the act of consent is itself an act of free will.

I don't, frankly, even see the point of people who have no intention of having children getting married.

It doesn't matter if you don't see the point. They do. Perhaps I want to start a company whose stated goal is putting things on top of other things (if anyone remembers that Monty Python sketch). Perhaps you don't see the point. Does that give you the right to stop me doing it?

I think all this BS about demanding the right to marriage is really little more than a demand that we all accord homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle the same level of respect as heterosexuality. And frankly, society isn't ready for that.

Society is not capable of being, feeling or doing anything. It's an aggregate. What you mean is that some individuals are not ready for that, and that is to their shame, because it means that they have not yet come to accept that their will is of no greater importance or power than that of another human being. My youngest son, who is two, tends to think that way. It is disappointing that there are so many people who have the attitudes of two-year-olds.

The foundation of marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman to live together as one.

Marriage is a cultural institution. Such institutions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they reflect the people who enter into them and do not dictate to them. The physical laws are prescriptive. You can't fly, no matter what you do. The laws of men are descriptive, because they reflect mutable values and ideas.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Argus Wrote:

I did not say "child molester", I said "paedophile". They are not the same thing. Paedophiles are those who are aroused and sexually atracted to children. Most such people resist their urges and never molest children.

So if no one should be ashamed of what they are, as August said, that would include paedophiles, wouldn't it?

People who have an urge to molest children but who never indulge the urge are legally innocent. Just like people who have an urge to kill puppies and never indulge it. The laws of Canada address the realm of action, not conjecture.

You are aware, aren't you, that virtually all our laws are based on Christian beliefs? So is our parole system (repentance and forgiveness). If this offends you you might want to find another country to live in.

That whole statement depends significantly on what you mean by 'based on'. If you take it as far as I think you mean, then it is not correct to say our laws are 'based on' Christianity or Judeo-Christianity. Taken historically, Canadian law is an amalgam of a variety of inter-connecting sources of law including in various proportions: Roman, Anglo-Saxon, medieval (mostly Norman) French, Danish, Hebrew, Christian ecclesiastic, and a dash of Scots and Danish Viking.

Taken as a rational decision-making method it's influences include: ancient Greek, classical liberal, and monarchist parliamentarianism. Because of the common law system of precedent, Canadian law is no doubt also substantially affected by historically imperfect division between church and state, such as the judeo-Christian beliefs of judges and law-makers and the influence of Christian orthodoxy's socio-political preponderance.

As a regime claiming a legitimate authority to make law and determine legal outcomes, Canadian law places no reliance on any religious belief or heirarchy.

[Black Dog]

Just to say I can't really add anything more, but will henceforth refer to Hugo's post above as the definitive one on this issue.

Marriage is a cultural institution. Such institutions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they reflect the people who enter into them and do not dictate to them. The physical laws are prescriptive. You can't fly, no matter what you do. The laws of men are descriptive, because they reflect mutable values and ideas.

Bravo!

[August1991]

Marriage is a cultural institution. Such institutions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they reflect the people who enter into them and do not dictate to them. The physical laws are prescriptive. You can't fly, no matter what you do. The laws of men are descriptive, because they reflect mutable values and ideas.

Marriage? Cultural institution? Not a bad description.

Yes, I too would say that the quote is very good, Hugo.

Except for a point of usage.

Physical laws are descriptive. They describe the universe as it is. You will die if you jump off a cliff.

The laws of men are prescriptive. They tell other people what some people hope society should be. You will die if you push your rich uncle off a cliff.

----

Argus:

I didn't suggest gays should be ashamed of being gay. So your statement is meaningless.

If gays can't marry as straights, they will feel ashamed.

I think all this BS about demanding the right to marriage is really little more than a demand that we all accord homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle the same level of respect as heterosexuality. And frankly, society isn't ready for that.

I agree. I don't know if society is ready for two guys openly shacking up or sitting on a park bench. Depends where and when.

Men in this culture - esp English culture - are not comfortable with any kind of close physical contact with men. Also, we are instinctively grossed out at the thought of having sex with men.

English? A country of gays? But I agree with you.

It's interesting that in other cultures, notably Arab culture, it's perfectly normal for men to hold hands, hug and kiss, and be physically close. Yet at the same time there is an extreme prohibition against homosexuality.

Argus, that comment deserves another thread. I am curious how the Arab "street" will respond to Canadian gay marriage. I suspect the Arab Revolt is sexual in nature but certainly not gay.

The foundation of marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman to live together as one. Why? In order to bear and raise children.

So, what about the "pill"?

[caesar]

Men in this culture - esp English culture - are not comfortable with any kind of close physical contact with men. Also, we are instinctively grossed out at the thought of having sex with men.

Yup; sometimes we women feel the same about having sex with men.

[Hugo]

Yes, I too would say that the quote is very good, Hugo.

Except for a point of usage.

I don't think you're correct. You're just playing word games. Physical laws might appear to describe the universe, but actually, they prescribe to the universe (and to men). The universe does not set the physical laws, it acts according to the physical laws. The physical laws set out by men are descriptions - but they describe the underlying, immutable rules of the universe.

The laws of men are only prescriptive to some men i.e. those who don't get to make them. To lawmakers, law is descriptive.

Yes, I too would say that the quote is very good, Hugo.

Thanks. I'm glad you guys appreciated it. Don't forget to mention me in the "favourite political quote" thread!

[fellowtraveller]

Yes, the court really threw a monkey wrench into my prefered option: government civil unions (only) for everybody, and marriage a matter of private choice.

Not really. The fed government still retains the responsibility of defining the WHO of marriage, and each province may define the HOW of marriage. I don't think the Suprreme Court did anything to change that in their ruling.

Perhaps a compromise is best since Canadians are split pretty much 50-50 on this issue. Every province could allow the civil union of two people, but reserve the term marriage for those who have a religious ceremony within their church.

Really, it's just semantics but it will address the freedom of religion issues as well as allow same-sex partnerships to be fully recognized under the law.

[takeanumber]

Where the public stands is irrelevant.

It's about an equal right. Not a 'special right', you know, the kind that conservatives have such hard times with, but a real equal right.

Rights are not subject to majoritarian whims.

[ontariogal22]

I would like to add my two cents...

Firstly, I 100% agree that same-sex unions should be welcomed without discrimination.

However, I do feel they should be categorized under a different name "civil union"...

For one, aren't homosexuals proud of their "differences" and proud of their unique sexuality? If so, why wouldn't you want your own "title"? I don't see this new title as being degrading or any less sacred then normal marriage. It's just plain and simple- different.

I think it shows more indepence and pride to start a new title to welcome those into this union rather than jumping into the traditional title of marriage.

Plus I personally feel it would be beneficial to see the difference in divorce rate statistics of heterosexual and homosexual relationships....

If it just so happens that same-sex unions end up having a lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriage I think that would be a wonderful way to show those in doubt to be more accepting and understanding that same-sex unions are far superior in commitment over regular marriage.

[realwannabe]

no i dont feel proud that my sexuality is more distinct than others. I dont think theres anything to be proud of, i dont think my homosexuality is that unique or special that it would require another set of insititution to recognise it. I also dont think i am in any way more superior or inferior than heterosexual.

[ontariogal22]

well I have alot of gay friends who are proud of being different.

I really don't care if marriage includes same-sex, I just want people to be happy.

I just don't see why we can't compromise and give same-sex marriage their own title.. why does it matter what title of "marriage" one has? It could be the EXACT same definition as marriage- except to differentiate that the two persons involved are the same sex.

[RB]

Throughout history we have seen changes for the inclusion of others. And I believe that the gays are one of those current struggles that required attention and needs to be included.

The feminist movement is an example of “rights” for inclusion. While our charter clearly seeks to protect the rights of individuals – (these are liberal values). I am not seeing how it works to protect every man especially those wanting a relation with another man.

And as far as I am concern marriage is a right for all of us: man:woman, man:man. I mean the principals we charish are so embedded in our values that we even allow every person to pursue their own interest. And we went about to set up the charter to give the same opportunity to all people unequivocally, like same rights and privileges without compromise. And the expected outcomes we all agree ... must be fair.

The slant that I take here, stems from a fact that each person must be able to make their way successfully into this society based on the conditions we provide them. So I am going to support gay marriage.

I wanted to parallel what is happening with the gays and the path women took for inclusion. (well the traditional marriage definition was about men and women) and I like talking about women.

So in terms of early freedom for women it was about rights over their body. Hence legislation, I won’t speak of coverture. The idea of legislature was a legal protection for women.

Funny thing about regulation is that the government tries its bestest to impose what they define as good morality and pronounce it as “right”.

So enters, religious and moralist people. It is my believe that folks who generally speak out and oppose gays and the gay ways are mostly religious folks or pretentious moralist. And how ironic, because it is the sad moralist who cast their eyes aside for the very people who show up for marriage license whether it be a rapist or a murder regardless. These folks are not denied a right get marry. What I meant is that even people with no alignment to god, and no good moral values are still entitled to a right to get married - yes

Anyway, about the woman and marriage and an angle the gays can favourable work with.

Women had to reconstruct marriage,

- from “ownership”, (that women were men possession)

- from prostitution, (mercantile marriage market rendered marriage equal as prostitution)

- from slavery, (unpaid household chores, and sexual slave)

- from free union,

- from an ideal,

to regulation and have won some legal battles such as the right to retain their wages, and capital etc. rather than giving it all over to men.

But good for women, now they are inspired for the ideal of marriage, to promote equality and a relationship to the highest "morality".

What I wanted to draw out is that in terms of equality, there is no struggle for power between 2 men, nor the prostitution, or slavery etc.

Now here we are playing semantics on how to discriminate with “marriage”. So, we are at some standstill and asking pointed questions what to do with a group of people, like recognise them, compromise, or not recognise. And here we are also taking the same right given to us under the charter and also violating the same right we mean to protect with those very initial survey questions.

Ok since I brought up the semantics of marriage. First lets talk about the tradition of marriage for population growth, or to fused 2 people together where they become one (i.e. the man usually emerge as one .

Anyway, I wanted to ask how about the sterile people who will never have children or those couple whom genuinely fess-up and declare they do not want children. Should we still allow them to marry?

So I wonder why we should discrimination against 2 men who actually decided they do not want to have children.

Well, also why can't men claim some discrimination in terms of not having rights over their bodies. We keep assuming that all men are a willing participant in procreation.

Now should the gay relax on this a hysterical outcry of unfairness?

Ok well that's it for now, but to me this marriage is more like a social sanction for women. Oh man, if they did not get married it is a taboo.

Marriage for a man, well they are a good catch when they eventually get married, being unmarried is never a bad thing

Its all a hype and social construct and plays in the imagination

But, what I can say is not give a right of marriage to all people violates their liberal principles, their freedom of expression and goes against our charter.

In that sense the word marriage becomes useless and affirms some artificial social construct for everyone

[realwannabe]

well I have alot of gay friends who are proud of being different.

I really don't care if marriage includes same-sex, I just want people to be happy.

I just don't see why we can't compromise and give same-sex marriage their own title.. why does it matter what title of "marriage" one has?  It could be the EXACT same definition as marriage- except to differentiate that the two persons involved are the same sex.

the exact definition of marriage is marriage. Any kind of compromise is not debatable , just like anyone should be recognised as a person, you dont go find another name to describe a "person"

marriage is the ultimate to me, any thing other than marriage is NOT marriage and is NOT equal. it is really as simple as that.

[ontariogal22]

the exact definition of marriage is marriage. Any kind of compromise is not debatable , just like anyone should be recognised as a person, you dont go find another name to describe a "person"

Well we sort of do? Handicapped person, persons with disabilities, etc.... No one has ever said these people are any less but they are different.

I just don't see anything wrong with categorizing. I'm an organized person.

But I do agree marriage is marriage.. And I really am not against the idea... It wouldn't upset me... because I do feel same-sex marriages deserve to have the right that everyone does. Mind you, there is the issue of pro-creation and I personally don't feel same-sex couples should be allowed to have heterosexual children.

But that's another issue on it's own that doesn't have to go with marriage.

[realwannabe]

yes, ' we ' have had the right to adoption for a long time. It has nothing to do with marriage. Persons with disabilities are still persons.