Same-Sex Marriage

[justcrowing]

And I don't plan on losing any sleep over this issue. When a man with a natural penis becomes pregnant by another man and gives birth to a baby, I will congratulate them on their "marriage". Same goes with two lesbians & ladies no cheating with artificial insemination. Have a nice day!!

[Melanie_]

But you miss my point religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony, is marrage not religion? It involves every asspect of religion. I am not saying you have to be christian I am simply stating that marrage has everything to do with religion.

Now I believe in seperation of church and state that is why I think that gays and lesbians should have stuck to cival unions, whats wrong with that? most non religious heterosexual couples chose to have a civil union also know as common law. Why cant gays stay away from religion by sticking to civil unions? I want to get married to a woman one day knowing that marrage still means somthing.

Alot of people in this forum agree with me on this, as the polls say.

PS. My bad on the not withstanding clause, I should have done research on my part for that one.

Many people are married without religion at all; friends of mine were married by a justice of the peace, and their union is just as much a marriage as any performed in a church. There is a difference between civil unions and common law as well - common law is living together without any ceremony.

I understand that you want your marriage someday to be meaningful, but ask yourself what will make it so. Marriage is about the committment you make to your wife; that will be between you and her. I've been married for 20 years; I don't see how someone else's committment to their partner cheapens the relationship I have with my husband.

[BubberMiley]

I'd take common-law (or same sex) marriage that lasts over a church marriage that doesn't any day. I think the proof of whether it is a real marriage or not is in its longevity.

[Jay]

But you miss my point religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony, is marrage not religion? It involves every asspect of religion. I am not saying you have to be christian I am simply stating that marrage has everything to do with religion.

PS. My bad on the not withstanding clause, I should have done research on my part for that one.

I've been married for 7 years now, we got married by a JP, and I'm offended that anyone would think that my marriage has anything to do with religion. We're raising our daughter with good morals and values, despite religion. I personally believe organized religion is responsible for more bloodshed, hatred and intolerance than any other factor.

How about worrying about yourself and your marriage and letting others do the same?

Jay

[BubberMiley]

It just helps to confirm my longstanding suspicion that most people are into religion for the opportunities it provides in making one feel somehow superior to others.

[sharkman]

How strange, Bubber, that you claim to have no religious ties and at the same time express comments showing that you feel superior to religious people, who 'join' religions so as to feel superior to others. You have some issues! Or maybe you're just bitter about the Tory win tonight. Nah, you have some issues.

[CCGirl]

Of course we should support equal marriage!

[normanchateau]

Looks like religious nut Harper, despite winning a plurality in this election, won't ever have the opportunity to overturn same sex marriage. With a mere 124 seats, Harper doesn't stand a chance of overturning the legislation. The Liberals and NDP with 132 seats between them can block Harper without resorting to BQ support. Of course the BQ is in favour of same sex marriage as well so Harper will remain as impotent and ineffective as ever. So we'll have a free vote on ssm and it won't pass, but at least Harper will finally shut up on this issue.

[geoffrey]

Looks like religious nut Harper, despite winning a plurality in this election, won't ever have the opportunity to overturn same sex marriage. With a mere 124 seats, Harper doesn't stand a chance of overturning the legislation. The Liberals and NDP with 132 seats between them can block Harper without resorting to BQ support. Of course the BQ is in favour of same sex marriage as well so Harper will remain as impotent and ineffective as ever. So we'll have a free vote on ssm and it won't pass, but at least Harper will finally shut up on this issue.

Remember that a large portion of Liberals dont' support it, and niether does a handful of Bloc Quebecois.

The NDP has already shown themselves intolerant of free-thought by what they did to Bev so you can be assured they will all support SSM, if only to retain their position.

[normanchateau]

Remember that a large portion of Liberals dont' support it, and niether does a handful of Bloc Quebecois.

The NDP has already shown themselves intolerant of free-thought by what they did to Bev so you can be assured they will all support SSM, if only to retain their position.

I do remember exactly which Liberal MPs and BQ voted against SSM, including those who were not re-elected yesterday. I also remember which CPC MPs voted for SSM and noted that a number of CPC MPs elected in Ontario and Quebec for the first time yesterday are also pro-SSM.

No matter how you slice or dice or analyze the numbers, Harper doesn't have the numbers to reverse SSM

unless many of those who previously voted for it don't next time. And that seems highly unlikely since politicians are more reluctant to take away rights already granted than they are to grant new rights.

[scribblet]

Looks like religious nut Harper, despite winning a plurality in this election, won't ever have the opportunity to overturn same sex marriage. With a mere 124 seats, Harper doesn't stand a chance of overturning the legislation. The Liberals and NDP with 132 seats between them can block Harper without resorting to BQ support. Of course the BQ is in favour of same sex marriage as well so Harper will remain as impotent and ineffective as ever. So we'll have a free vote on ssm and it won't pass, but at least Harper will finally shut up on this issue.

Remember that a large portion of Liberals dont' support it, and niether does a handful of Bloc Quebecois.

The NDP has already shown themselves intolerant of free-thought by what they did to Bev so you can be assured they will all support SSM, if only to retain their position.

One doesn't need to be religious to have morals or be for/against SSM, these can be based on reason alone. As someone in another thread said, there will be a free vote on the issue of whether or not to have another vote on SSM, and it will die, and that will be that.

As for Harper being a 'religious nut' I don't get it, he has never to my knowledge worn his religion (whatever it is) on his sleeve, or made much comment (if at all ) about it, so how does one define 'religion nut' - is it anyone who goes to church or what? Scarborough re-elected Liberal Tom Wappel, he's a guarranteed vote against SSM. I don't think these slurs and innuendo will carry much weight next time around, they are allready a weakened position.

[YankAbroad]

Now, I'm a libertarian (blasted as right-wing by American liberals), and I must admit I completely don't understand the supposed "conservative" position on same sex marriage.

Conservatives are all about supposedly getting government OUT of people's lives, letting people live their lives as they choose, etc. -- but most support this big, huge, unwieldy intrusion into private life called "government marriage licenses." It would make the craziest socialist central planner grin from ear to ear.

Quite simply, my dear conservative friends, you may not like gays getting together and living as they see fit -- but lots of them don't like how you live either. If they could get a majority with other people who don't like how you live and ban you, would you be in favour of that? I don't think so.

Finally, the argument that it will cause society to collapse is especially ludicrous coming from supposed free marketeers. Are you genuinely arguing that people wouldn't enter committed relationships and raise families if it wasn't for a giant government registration and welfare program? Seems pretty unconservative to me.

[Black Dog]

I never said you had to except my religion, but the church has no business in interfeing with marrage. You guys say that there is legislation that protects religious rights but where was this piece in are charter that said the government wouldnt interfere with marrage? Where will it be when it changes again to say that churches have to marry homos? The charter can be changed at any times you know as we saw when SSM was passed and included with the not withstanding clause in are charter.

The Charter is part of the Constitution and can't be changed without the approval 2/3 of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces), representing at least 50% of the population. The Charter was not changed to include gay marriage. Rather, the federal Civil Marriage ACt was amended to conform to the Charter.

But you miss my point religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony, is marrage not religion? It involves every asspect of religion. I am not saying you have to be christian I am simply stating that marrage has everything to do with religion.

Regardless of whether marriage originated as a religious instiution or not (and I'd like to see soem evidence that it did: it seems far more probable it came about as a civil instution to signify the exchange of property), there's simply no denying the state has had a hand in marriage for centuries. So marriage can quite easily be separated from the religious aspects: in fact, we've been doing so for years.

No matter how you slice or dice or analyze the numbers, Harper doesn't have the numbers to reverse SSM

unless many of those who previously voted for it don't next time. And that seems highly unlikely since politicians are more reluctant to take away rights already granted than they are to grant new rights.

Agreed. Even if Harper did get a majority, his promise of a free vote was pretty disingeneous. As far as I know, he can't force any other party to abide by a free vote, so the othe rparties could simpkly whip their members to vote against teh Conservatives. Harper just wanted to take a mulligan on behalf of his so-con base.

[YankAbroad]

religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony

My church marries gays and has done so for many decades now.

What's the basis for a religious argument again?

Ohhhhh. . . that a majority of religious organizations don't marry gays. Does that mean they have the right to infringe on the rights of those which do?

If so, why isn't there a right for the majority of agnostic/atheist/secular Canadians to infringe on the rights of churches?

Slippery slopes. . .

[YankAbroad]

Harper just wanted to take a mulligan on behalf of his so-con base.

Exactly, he'll shrug after losing and say "Well guys, I tried."

[Leafless]

scriblett

You wrote- " How does one define a religious nut"

If that is the type of terminology normanchateau uses, so be it as I guess up until recently a lot of Quebecers were kicking their butts for being so religious and not more actively involved in politics up until recently.

But with a name like normanchateau which = French with a home province like Quebec which has the highest population of Roman Catholics in Canada, I wouldn't really be calling anyone else a religious nut unless of course that person has a personal vendetta against religion in general which is certaintly a tragic situation.

[tml12]

scriblett

You wrote- " How does one define a religious nut"

If that is the type of terminology normanchateau uses, so be it as I guess up until recently a lot of Quebecers were kicking their butts for being so religious and not more actively involved in politics up until recently.

But with a name like normanchateau which = French with a home province like Quebec which has the highest population of Roman Catholics in Canada, I wouldn't really be calling anyone else a religious nut unless of course that person has a personal vendetta against religion in general which is certaintly a tragic situation.

I agree but norman once said he lived in BC.

[YankAbroad]

Engh, while I refuse to bash religionists, I also refuse to accord the "respect" they demand for irrational mysticism based simply on a demand that people. . . respect irrational mysticism.

A priori declarations of "moral superiority" and people who are "immoral" or "crazy" may make the demogogue uttering them feel important and elevated above those he scorns, but they're rarely based on a logical appraisal of the situation.

A logical appraisal of the situation would automatically conclude that the problem isn't religious beliefs, irreligious beliefs, gays, or straights, but rather the idea that government should be the final and exclusive authority on whether someone is married or not -- rather than the two people who voluntarily enter into the marriage.

[Drea]

But you miss my point religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony, is marrage not religion? It involves every asspect of religion. I am not saying you have to be christian I am simply stating that marrage has everything to do with religion

Hubby and I are getting married next year. Not in a church, not by a pastor or priest but by a justice of the peace or marriage commissioner, or heck if we're on a ship, the captain.

Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It's a contract between two people.

And I don't plan on losing any sleep over this issue. When a man with a natural penis becomes pregnant by another man and gives birth to a baby, I will congratulate them on their "marriage". Same goes with two lesbians & ladies no cheating with artificial insemination. Have a nice day

Barren couples should not be allowed to marry either in this case.

[Black Dog]

YankAbroad: I like your style.

[tml12]

Engh, while I refuse to bash religionists, I also refuse to accord the "respect" they demand for irrational mysticism based simply on a demand that people. . . respect irrational mysticism.

A priori declarations of "moral superiority" and people who are "immoral" or "crazy" may make the demogogue uttering them feel important and elevated above those he scorns, but they're rarely based on a logical appraisal of the situation.

A logical appraisal of the situation would automatically conclude that the problem isn't religious beliefs, irreligious beliefs, gays, or straights, but rather the idea that government should be the final and exclusive authority on whether someone is married or not -- rather than the two people who voluntarily enter into the marriage.

"A logical appraisal of the situation would automatically conclude that the problem isn't religious beliefs, irreligious beliefs, gays, or straights, but rather the idea that government should be the final and exclusive authority on whether someone is married or not -- rather than the two people who voluntarily enter into the marriage."

You know, I consider myself quite moderate, a bit right-leaning though. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state and I believe that all religions should feel well at home in a democratic society.

I believe that most Western societies (Canada, U.S., U.K., etc.) are Christian-based. For that reason, I think we should still be able to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays."

But that itself should be based on tradition, not on government imposition. Government should not impose marriage laws and abortion laws. On abortion, a person needs to make a value judgement--is it against what they believe or not? As for marriage, the state can give civil unions. And by all means, the state should be able to unite heterosexuals and homosexuals. Again, this is perfectly acceptable.

But then there is marriage. YankAbroad, you say what I believe. That government being the final authority on marriage IS the problem. That is correct. I believe that government should not define marriage. Religious institutions should define marriage and, you know what, if someone wants to get married in their apartment or in their backyard and call that "marriage," then I will accept that as their interpretation of marriage, whether or not I personally believe it is marriage.

As a final thought, the state should define its values. Various religious institutions should define their values. The two should be separate...

[fixer1]

I am undecided as to what to do with the SSM problem. I really do not care myself about whethere gay couples are officially recognized, and treated as equalls to mainstream married couples. I just do not see why they need to have the word marriage in their union to reflect that. My position is that as long as everything else is equal, then why the need for the definition of marriage to be changed to include them. It is not as if they are saying that they are so alike you can not see the difference.

The fact is they are different then the mainstream, and it was not that long ago just being gay was a crime punishable by law. So I do believe we have come a long way, and I am not sure I can say I want the definition of marriage to change, just to include them. But I also do not want them to be denied any rights that married couples have, as that would not be right. I guess what it comes down to is children grow up thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman, and they go on to have child and raise a feamily. The gay marriage is not of the same make up, and any family raised in these unions will not be of the mainstrean ways and means. So there are differences to these unions.

Religion plays a lot into how we see marriage and I do believe that if it were not for religions we would not even have marriages, defined by the present state. I was married by a Justice of the peace and I find it no problem to say I had a Civil Marriage or union. I wonder at just how much of this is political posturing and how much is demands by the gay community. Does it matter if the word marriage is used or Union is used as long as everything else is the same?

I guess if someone can convince me that it is really a large difference, and show me why, in pratical terms I would say fine change the definition. But to change it for something of so little consequence is not something I would want to start doing.

[YankAbroad]

the state should define its values. Various religious institutions should define their values. The two should be separate

This is absolutely correct. The sad part is that this is something which people aren't objecting.

As a Quaker homosexual, the idea that the government has a "right" to impose its view of marriage on me is likely as horrifying as it is to a Baptist heterosexual.

The irony is that in my country, the United States, marriage was a private religious and social institution with no standing under the law -- other than contract law -- until the early 20th century. The "marriage license" grew up out of a "need" to "protect morality" by preventing white people from marrying black people and vice-versa.

Ironically, many of the laws today which restrict homosexuals from getting married, even in places where marriage is permitted, such as Massachusetts, are simply the old "anti-miscegenation" laws from 1913 which were dusted off and reactivated.

One would think that a legal precedent with such a dubious history would receive critical scrutiny, but no, we fragile sheep all baaaaaaa in lines waiting for the government to pat us on the head and "allow" us to get married. Egads.

like your style

It's good to know SOMEONE does. I'm not crazy after all, everyone ELSE is.

[YankAbroad]

I just do not see why they need to have the word marriage in their union to reflect that.

And that matters. . . why?

My position is that as long as everything else is equal, then why the need for the definition of marriage to be changed to include them.

Of course, there is no real definition of marriage per se -- unless you're citing the government's licensing criteria (which lack a rational basis).

It is not as if they are saying that they are so alike you can not see the difference.

They, they, they. Have you not realized how often you've used that term?

Now tell me -- as an American, I am used to Canadians from across the political spectrum lecturing me on what a diverse communitarian society Canada is. Integrated, disparate, but always communitarian. But suddenly, when people talk about gays in Canadian politics, it's almost as though they're Gays -- not Canadians.

Now I'm one of Them as well, but I'm not quite sure where to get my Gay passport. Although I am sure that Gaylandia is clean, low-crime, and tastefully decorated, I have no clue as to where the consulate is.

The fact is they are different then the mainstream

So are Asians, blacks, Catholics, NDPers, and First Nations.

it was not that long ago just being gay was a crime punishable by law.

Ditto for being black, Catholic, etc.

I do believe we have come a long way

So you're OK with the filthy fags not being imprisoned, but you're just not keen on letting them into the marriage welfare club.

I am not sure I can say I want the definition of marriage to change

Whose definition of marriage?

Are you Catholic? If not, you cannot get married in a Catholic church, because the Catholics' definition of marriage is different from Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Reform Jews, or atheists who go down to the justice of the peace.

I guess what it comes down to is children grow up thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman, and they go on to have child and raise a feamily.

They get that from the existing view of marriage today?

Could've fooled me. When I was growing up, most of what I saw was a bunch of loud, hypocritical married people getting married "for love," leaving each other "when the magic was gone," maybe having kids, maybe not.

The gay marriage is not of the same make up, and any family raised in these unions will not be of the mainstrean ways and means. So there are differences to these unions.

Again, what's "mainstream?"

If you accept that the majority has the right to tell gays how to raise their kids, do you accept that the majority has the right to tell you how to raise your kids, or punish you for conveying views to them which aren't "mainstream?" That way be dragons.

Religion plays a lot into how we see marriage

Again, who is this "we," and what makes its pronouncements of "them" valid?

I wonder at just how much of this is political posturing and how much is demands by the gay community.

Speaking as a gay man, my observation is that the people who talk and think most about gay marriages are the people who think and talk the most about gay sex -- social conservatives.

to change it for something of so little consequence is not something I would want to start doing.

Well, then, I expect you'll be accepting the marriage definition of whatever religious belief happens to come along then, right? And have it imposed uniformly?

No divorces, for instance, without annullments? No marriages of virgins to nonvirgins, or Catholics to non-Catholics who refuse to accept pre-marriage counselling first?

[CCGirl]

I am undecided as to what to do with the SSM problem. I really do not care myself about whethere gay couples are officially recognized, and treated as equalls to mainstream married couples. I just do not see why they need to have the word marriage in their union to reflect that. My position is that as long as everything else is equal, then why the need for the definition of marriage to be changed to include them. It is not as if they are saying that they are so alike you can not see the difference.

They? Their? Sorry, Separate but Equal is NOT equality. Remember segregation? Why do you feel religion has a monopoly on the word marriage?

The fact is they are different then the mainstream, and it was not that long ago just being gay was a crime punishable by law.

So we should legislate away equality if people are different? you are okay with this?

So I do believe we have come a long way, and I am not sure I can say I want the definition of marriage to change, just to include them

Them? The "definition" of marriage has evolved over the ages. It has absoltuely nothing to do with religion. It was originally practiced to secure property rights, ensure bloodlines, etc. Women were included as property. Was it okay to change the definition of marriage to give equality to women?

But I also do not want them to be denied any rights that married couples have, as that would not be right.

But you want to deny them the right to get married, thus denying then the same rights as a "married couple". I am confused

I guess what it comes down to is children grow up thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman, and they go on to have child and raise a feamily. The gay marriage is not of the same make up, and any family raised in these unions will not be of the mainstrean ways and means. So there are differences to these unions.

Children grow up seeing what is around them as the norm. Hate and prejudice have to be taught.

Religion plays a lot into how we see marriage and I do believe that if it were not for religions we would not even have marriages, defined by the present state.

Agreed.

I was married by a Justice of the peace and I find it no problem to say I had a Civil Marriage or union. I wonder at just how much of this is political posturing and how much is demands by the gay community. Does it matter if the word marriage is used or Union is used as long as everything else is the same?

I too was married in a civil ceremony. I am just as married as the couple who married in a church by a priest/pastor. Apparently it does matter to some people that the word marriage is used!

I guess if someone can convince me that it is really a large difference, and show me why, in pratical terms I would say fine change the definition. But to change it for something of so little consequence is not something I would want to start doing.

There is NO difference , that's the point! All couples wishing to marry are entering into a contract. Whether it is done in a church, synogogue, city hall, or the beach, marriage is marriage. People opposed to Equal Marriage need to mind their own business and wonder why 1/2 of all "straight" marriages are ending in divorce!