Dispirited U.S. gays choosing Canada
 

An interesting twist on the topic from my earlier thread about Americans, allegedly "flocking" to the Canadian immigration website... found here:http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=75043


LINK

Dispirited U.S. gays choosing Canada

By MARINA JIMÉNEZ
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - Page A11


They're calling it the gay drain. Hundreds of well-heeled gay and lesbian lawyers, professors, educators and film directors from the U.S. are immigrating to Canada, drawn by the country's recognition of same-sex rights, unions and benefits.

Craig Lucas, who wrote the popular Hollywood movies Prelude to a Kiss and The Secret Lives of Dentists, contacted a Toronto immigration lawyer last week after the election victory of Republican President George W. Bush.

"Our rights are slowly being eroded," said the award-winning screenwriter, who plans to move to Vancouver with his partner, a set designer. "It happened in Nazi Germany, the incredible brain drain of artists, scientists and writers who fled to the U.S. Now it's happening here [in the United States]. The government wants gays to live outside the protection of the law."

Michael Battista, a Toronto immigration lawyer, said Mr. Lucas, like many of the gay Americans who have contacted him, has just the kind of skills Canada needs and will have no trouble qualifying to immigrate under the points system.

"I currently have more than 100 applications in the works on behalf of prospective gay American immigrants," he said. "These are highly skilled people with no dependents and substantial savings. Canada is benefiting enormously. They are not deterred by the fact that it can take as long as two years to process their applications."

While some gay Americans applied to immigrate before the Nov. 2 election, the results only reinforced their determination to leave. Mr. Bush has again indicated he would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Eleven states, including Ohio, Michigan and Oregon, voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage, in balloting held at the same time as the election. Ohio also banned civil unions.

That means gay couples in those states may not be able to apply for health coverage under their partner's plan and will have difficulty transferring property in the event of death, delegating power of attorney, and arranging hospital visitation rights or other rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Under U.S. federal immigration laws, gay Americans who are living with foreigners are unable to sponsor their partners, which means they must leave the country if they want to stay together.

Americans who immigrate to Canada may sponsor their same-sex partners under the family-class category and be processed on the same application.

The Globe and Mail received two dozen e-mails yesterday, through an organization called Immigration Equality, from gay Americans who have applied to immigrate to Canada and bring in their gay foreign partners as common-law spouses.

"It's clear that the U.S. is becoming a place that is hostile to the long-term health of same-sex relationships," said Phil Schwab, a 36-year-old research policy analyst with a PhD in agricultural genetics. He relocated to Ottawa from Washington with his Canadian partner three months before the election.

"We are the leading edge of the wave," he said. "More and more gays will come here, especially after 11 states voted to prohibit same-sex marriage in their constitution. Many of these changes will be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, so the battle is not over, but it becomes a struggle to get equality for same-sex relationships."

Tim Sally, a 47-year-old real-estate investor from the gay-friendly city of San Francisco, said he is tired of living in a country that won't accord him the same rights as heterosexuals. He worries that the U.S. conservative political discourse has no place for gay liberals, even wealthy and talented ones, who no longer feel welcome in their own country.

His exit plan? A move to Vancouver with his partner, a German schoolteacher who has been accepted as an immigrant. "It is a brain drain and a wealth drain. Canada is getting the cream of the crop," Mr. Sally said.

This is a basic fct of life throughout history. People are moving to a country where they think they'll be treated better. Nobody acts at all surprised until you tell them that the US is the one they're leaving.

Also, please post some sort of comment or bit of discussion instead of just an article.

It's interesting to see the brain drain switch directions so quickly. Seems like just the other day that the brain drain was taking all our best and brightest techies down to the US, now all the gay ones are coming back.

It's sad to see all these Americans leaving their country because they no longer feel welcome there and welcome to Canada. It will be interesting to see what the actual numbers are in a few months when the dust settles, I'd guess that the media is making this a much bigger thing than it really is.

Oops... I was having some cutting and pasting issues... must have accidentaly pasted over my comment... which was:

This is probably not a completely wide-spead occurance and while not blown out of proportion in the slightest is getting more attention than it deserves... That said, I find it interesting that when the US does have issues that cause potions of their population to leave (War of Independance, Vietnam, Bush) Canada tends to get these cream of the crop types...

We benefitted greatly from the Empire Loyalists, the (largely) University educated draft dodgers and now... wealthy and talented gays...

Bring 'em on indeed.

Just great.

It would be much more useful if these folks stayed to fight for their rights, which I believe very strongly in. Hopefully they will maintain duel citizenship so they can still contribute when necessary. Running away isn't the answer unless the situation becomes oppressive, which I do not think it is at the moment. It's currently just unfair.

What is not oppressive about it? I don't feel that the gay population here is being given any viable options for being treated as equally as heterosexuals. How much more fight should they do when it seems an entire government administration is against them and their right to marry?

It is sad to lose any population or demographic of peoploe from the U.S. because they are being oppressed. It goes against everything the U.S. stands for in the first place.

I hope they find what they are looking for in Canada.

When the going gets tough, the tough... quit?

I'm very pro-gay rights but I say fuck 'em if they want to leave. Blacks and women wouldn't have achieved their equality if they quit when it got hard. We need fighters not quitters.

They aren't quitting... they are just starting elsewhere.

I really wouldn't mind moving to Canada.

At least they're open minded about shit we're not (yet are supposed to be) - like issues with gays, marijuana, etc.

People always say something smart like, "Oh, you'll enjoy it until you can't get a doctor," but, one minor inconvenience compared to this laundry list from this country... I think I'd take my chances with the "not-so-great" healthcare :thumbsup:

I'd have to sell my house, relocate, find a new job though.. pretty much all the nuisances one would have to deal with to move to another state of their choice.

It's kinda odd that Canada is more free than the US :D

I wouldn't listen too closely to those who say the healthcare system is not-so-great.

There are issues but when it comes down to it, if you are sick... they make you better. The doctors are top notch as is the equipment.

It's also a 30 minute drive from me, so it's not like I'd be moving to BFE, hmm..

Why not just "be?" Is it intolerance towards homosexuals or as it is backlash towards homosexual who act out the media's homosexual stereotypes? Swishy guys with Judy Garland voices and short-haired ladies who dress in mens clothes. What's real? How does wearing male-styled clothing complete a lesbian's self-image or waving a limp-wristed hand around calling people bitch compelte a gay man's self-image?

I'm not trying to bait people or be inflammatory, I just would like an answer.

Stereotypes are just not right. IMHO, using any media-prompted behavioral pattern is a fucked-up road to a surefire fucked up life.

Edit: BTW, heading off to canada because Bush won? Loser. Hehhe... In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny: "What a dolt! What a Maroon!" Don't let the turnstile hit you in the ass as you leave.

Discriminated against, not treated with equality, looked down upon through ignorant eyes yes, but outright systematic oppression from the Federal Government, not yet. For almost any demographic segment of the population you can find pockets of ignorance within this country where an an atmosphere of oppression is the norm. Since this discussion is regarding the position of the Federal Government I will not go that far yet.

You may call it oppression if you will, I choose to be a bit more realistic about the current situation.

If I understand your comment correctly, "why not just 'be?'", you are saying that we should live and let live? Not worry about what other people are doing with their personal time.

However, the rest of your post is outright contradictory to your position in that you are critisizing them for being themselves.

Am I missing something there?

I think what he means by just "be" and avoid acting out as stereotypes is: Just act like me and don't be different.

You can easily point to the lip-wristed lisping gay or the butch, plaid wearing lesbian as stereotypes... but who are you to say they aren't just "being"?

Do you pass the same judgment on those who fit any other stereotype? Have you looking the mirror lately?

I think what he meant by "just be" is people is sick of all the "in your face" crap the gay community spits out daily. You see it on television. You hear about it on the news. Kids go to school and are being taught that to be gay is wonderful. People want to be able to teach their morals to their children in their own home without the education system teaching them something completely different. Most people don't give a damn what sexual orientation someone might be. Just don't flaunt it. Probably what hurt the gay movement more then anything here in the States is when the mayor from California broke the law and married gay couples. The judge in Mass. didn't help anything. If you want to point a finger as to who riled up the "values" and the "religous right" voter, look no further. Bush just capitalized by accepting the issue as the national crisis the gay community wanted. Things might have been different if they had chosen another route other than the "all or nothing" route they chose. The votes are in and basically they got nothing.

On a personal level, I don't give a damn either way. If someone is "born to be gay" or chooses to be gay then so be it. Whatever, I personally don't give a hoot. What people do in the privacy of their home is none of my business. Just leave it at home when you leave like everyone else.

Hmm. I noticed that my 9 year old nephew has been bringing home a lot of "rainbow" pictures. Do you think this could be connected with the huge "You're gay; That's okay" movement penetrating the tight recesses of America's schools. I am appalled that these back door shenanigans have slipped by the corrupt caretakers of our beloved educational system.

In all seriousness, I beg to differ. About a week ago 11 states voted to ban gay marriage. That's just last week. Doesn't count the ones that already had simliar laws already on the books. If "most people" don't give a damn what sexual orientation someone might be, why are they working so hard to make sure these laws pass?

Oops. Forget that last question. I just hadn't made it down this far yet. So, it's okay to be gay as long as you don't "flaunt" your gayness. I'm not gay, but I get real tired of watching people flaunting their heterosexuality. Hitting on each other in front of me, holding hands, buying houses together and having children....right....next....door....ughh!

Again, I beg to differ. While activist judges (what the hell does that mean anyway? Don't we want independent thinkers on the bench?) certainly did their fair share to make this a national story, the finger of blame falls squarely on the folks you say merely capitalized on an already there story. They gave the anti-gay rights movement legitimacy when they mentioned their impending introduction of a gay marriage amendment to The Constitution. They got the ball rolling by mentioning not once, but several times on the campaign trail as a rallying cry to keep homosexuals in their place. The vote to discriminate against American citizens simply because of who they fancy is not a uphill battle to preserve the sanctity of marriage and maintain American moral values, it's bigotry. There is no other way to look at it.

Say what you will about the leftists in this country and there's plenty to be said, but they never once had the nerve to propose legislation like this. Legislation designed to single out one sect of American society and punish them simply because they don't like them and think they're wrong.

Respectfully, I beg to differ. There was no talk about any amendment until the mayor and the judge took the law into their own hands. One broke the law, the other modified it to suit his personal opinions. Before you go off on some long tangent, I agree that most judges intrepetation of the law is biased by their personal opinion so in reality while it's nothing new, it still shocked the nation.

I really doubt anyone had to work very hard to get these laws passed. Passing laws that ban gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean people give a damn what sexual orientation someone might be. It merely means most Americans agree that marriage should be reserved for the "traditional" couple of one male and one female. I believe the gay community would have been better served to push for some sort of legal union giving them the same rights as the traditional "marriage". The only state that outright banned legal unions was Ohio.

HAHA I see your point, hopefully you seen mine.

While I agree it is bigotry, I don't believe or agree it's in anyway shape or form an uphill battle. The uphill battle is what the gay community now finds it has on it's hands.

Obviously typed by someone with no children in school.

That's not necessarily true either. Rather than go into some long spill and derail the thread with another argument altogether, I will just mention two words ...... gun control.

Whoa, there...

Nazggul and Charlatan, a stereotype (in my definition) is the media-mind characterization of a group. Is that sort of how you define it, too? A characterization being a gathering of the most blantant and prominent features of at least one member of that group without regard as to whether or not that characterization applies to the entire group.

Yes? No?

So, then, Nazggul, you are saying that all of the guys with wobbly wrists who call each other "bitch" in their best judy garland voices are being themselves? No, I disagree, my viewpoint is that they've seen this image for so many years and have sadly become that image because they think that is how a homosexual man is "supposed" to be. That is a falsehood, nothing more that acting.

A person should simply be. A person who acts out a stereotype to define themself is a truly sad individual. A person is a collection of traits and ideas, the least of which is who they sleep with. When someone uses a stereotype as their role model, they've lost the major portion of their being. It doesn't matter what that stereotype is. It makes that person little more a poser who is acting a role to move through life, not living life.

Look at myself in the mirror? Sure. Beats the hell out of me what's reflected there. I enjoy woodworking and carpentry, electrical wiring, reading, writing books, websurfing, programming, 3d graphics, anime and cartoons (sailor moon, cowboy bebop, card captor sakura, Rugrats, Steel Angel Karumi), cutting the grass, baking, doo-wop and led zeppelin, 50's girl groups, I don't do anything with my hair, shaving is optional, I like the taste of listerine, I don't drink, I have scars and arthritis, I don't care much about clothes and am happy buying a dozen of the same shirt and slacks because I can't be bothered deciding what to wear, I drink diet coke, I dust fanatically, I scrub the drain board everyday, I wash the inside of my washer, I spend 15 minutes ironing every shirt and 12 minutes on every pair of paints, I think bush is a blithering idiot, I think kerry is still the same phony dickhead he was 30 years ago, I like fine hand-painted bone china teacups, I watch DeGrassi and reruns of Xena.

Beats me. I sure don't think I'm acting out anyone's stereotype. Maybe, but I don't think I've seen it anywhere. It may not be the best life, but it's what I have and I'm managing okay.

Love it! :icare:

1) the media doesn't pull a stereotype out of thin air.
2) people who base their life around a stereotype are perhaps, from one point of view to be pitied... I know I get my knickers in a twist whenever I see guys who look like Tim "the toolman" Taylor grunting and looking stupidly at their Overachieving but sweetly underappreciated wives... However, there are a multitude of reasons why someone might cling to a media image and even emulate it... Why do you think so many girls in the 80s dressed like Madonna or even Boy George? Why do so many boys wear the jersey of their favourite sports hereo?

In my mind there are a lot of things that could be going on here... empowerment, by emulating someone with aparent power you then take on some of that power; irony, Dorothy is chock full of irony; personal enjoyment, they just like doing these things... it is how they "be"


In the end, the only thing I take away from the arguement why can people just be when it is used in the context of gay people who are "in our face" is that the only problem is that they aren't like me... they are different and I don't like it... I don't care that they sleep with people of the same sex I just wish they wouldn't be so "gay".

You know I have no problem with people who like sports... I just wish they wouldn't hold their matches in public. Damn everytime I see them painting their faces and screaming their team's name... I just hate it. And then they all get together and scream their heads off in bars... They actually cheer and yell at the television. Why can't they just enjoy their beer and go home and watch the game there where I don't have to have them in my face...

Right, they use characterature (sp?) like the artist who drew Jimmy Durante always emphasizing his nose, which really wasn't as huge as he joked about.
But when a person adopts this stereotype, or characterature, it suffers from the copy machine effect - it gets bigger and more distorted.

---

As I said, its sad.

----

As long as they don't assemble into a mob that fucks up traffic, I don't mind. I think they're kinda funny in the paint and shit.

Yes, that may in fact be a steriotype by your definition. It is however, your steriotype. The media does not define a steriotype, you do. The media presents you with images and opinions that are a reflection of reality. Different media outlets have different points of view. You have chosen media outlets that you are most comfortable with, that you most associate with, that you are most entertained by. Those outlets define you as much as your point of view.

Alas it is true, I must truly live in a bubble. Where are you from Tropple? You must not be exposed to a good number of GLBT people. I happen to live in a very liberal city with a large population of GLBT people. I am interacting with these people every single day. Some are flamboyant artistic designers, etc. as you describe, some are professional white collar, some are construction workers, some are ditch diggers, some ride Harley's and would sooner knock you on your ass than look at you funny. My point is simple, if you were a bit more exposed to the culture you would know that they are not acting and that they are in fact being themselves.

The bottom line here is that you think it is ok to "be" anyone you want to "be" as long as you "be" someone like "me." That's sad. When you ask that the flambouant gay person be "normal" in public, you are asking them to "act" normal, just like you. You're key complaint is the key faw in your argument and it is based on your lack of understanding, some would say ignorance, on the subject.

Yes, I can steriotype you based on my own opinions. Are you acting it? I doubt it, we all think we are who we are and that we are simply being normal, but others will always judge us.

...

I really don't know where everybody is getting this spin on our healthcare system. Last I heard it was the best around. I've never had a problem getting to my doctor. They get the best training and education and equipment. The hospitals are numerous. I've had to go to hospital in Columbia SC just to get an anti biotic, (Providence i think it was called) after a 4 hour wait and a $182 (US) bill, I finally got my amoxocillin prescription, then i had to have it filled.

I've never waited that long in 1) a walk in clinic, 2) hospital emerge or 3) my doctor's office in Toronto. Or had to pay that kind of money.

I think that whenever there's peak flows, it gets lots of press, and so waiting times go up. People need toknow when to go to emerge.

My father had a stroke last winter, and was in the hospital and rehab care immediately. They also fixed his teeth, and operated on a stenosis of his aorta. later in the summer he went in for cateract surgery. the only thing that I paid for was the tv in his room. There was no waiting. And I would think that this is fairly common in Toronto.

Yeah, that's why I put "not-so-great" in quotes ;)

I know Canada's healthcare system is good! I don't understand why people speak of it like it's this hole-in-the-wall third country healthcare system.

The healthcare system HERE blows. I have firsthand experience with it.

The first time I had a panic attack.. had weird chest pains, dizziness, feeling of impending doom.. so I went to the ER. They wanted to charge me $600 for an EKG and 10 xanax! Haha, yeah right. (I never paid it, and it isn't on my credit report). My insurance should've paid for that.

Twice last year I had incidents where I wasn't sure if I broke something, so I wanted to go get an X-Ray. The insurance I have is recognized as one of the best, yet each urgent care center (note: not ER) told me, "We can't guarantee you won't be charged for the xrays". Again, insurance should've covered that!

Uhhh... wtf is the point in having insurance then if shit isn't covered or is partially covered? Insurance is "in case shit happens, you're covered." Yet, shit happens and... it turns out that's not the case! Covered, to me, means "pay nothing" or little to nothing. Otherwise, why is my employer (and myself) dumping money into this? It's a scam compared to what it SHOULD be.

The only perks it has is free dental cleanings twice a year, once per year eye exam and a certain % of frames covered (free if you only need new lens), $10 copay on checkups, etc... but that's trivial. That should be a given, it's the important stuff (xrays, urgent care) that should matter! Oh, if I had kids, they would be covered too.

It wouldn't surprise me if I had cancer and ended up having to foot this outrageous bill... as if it's my fault I had cancer :rolleyes: Yeah, people will say, "How do you expect the docs to get paid then?" Well, it seems to work well in Canada, that and society should look out for its own when it comes to emergencies like that.

That, to me, is why Canada is so appealing (amongst other reasons).

Bush got 23% of the gay vote.

Much to a friend of mines surprise, he found out his gay partner was a Republican who voted for Bush. He was a little pissed too.

I don't expect a 'gay exedous' anytime soon.

Ustwo... Not that I think there is going to be any mass exodous either...

However, there is a BIG difference between voting Republican and choosing to ban gay marriage. Of that 23% how many of them would have supported that kind of ban in a referendum... I don't have the answer but I can't believe it would be all that great a number.

Oh I doubt any but a very small % would have, it just means that to them gay marriage was not their main issue of the election. Even the log cabin republicans did not endorce Bush this election.

I can agree that for 23% of Gay Americans (those who apparently voted Republican) may have had other things on their mind than Same Sex Marriage...

There were a lot of issues at stake in this election. I see no reason why one in particular should force them to change their party affiliations.

Somethings are more important than others...

That's probably quite true. If the movement, for lack a better word, hadn't attached the word marriage to it, it wouldn't have scared the bejeebus out of folks and probably wouldn't have been as big a deal as it is. However, we've been through this seperate but equal crap before and re-hashed the same argument in any number of threads here. Suffice it to say, seperate but equal, in my eyes at least, is nothing more than patronizing bigotry. Now look here, son. We gave you seperate bathrooms, diners and water fountains. Wasn't that nice of us?

Again, I hate to keep trying to drive this point home, but the fact is they do care what your sexual preference is. You can harp all day long about tradition and what defines a traditional couple, but the fact of the matter is there are only two sexes. (I know...I know...) either your heterosexual or homosexual. I think we can all agree that marrying animals is out of the question, right? So, really what does that leave us. They're not protecting marriage for traditional heterosexual couples, they're protecting it against non-traditional homosexual couples. So, where exactly is it where they don't care who you're snorking?

I'm afraid I don't understand. You agree that it's bigotry and still support it? Am I mixed up? Did I misread something? If not, I have to ask, how exactly can you support legalized bigotry?



Sort of wrong. I have several nieces and nephews that go to school, not to mention my little brother. Now, they aren't "my kids," but I know more about what goes on in their classrooms than their parents do. Does that count?

I forgot to ask this in the last run through. Why isn't it okay to be gay? I kind of ran with a joke there, but really, what isn't it okay to teach kids a little tolerance maybe even acceptance?



Ah, I knew this one would come up. Gun control is based around the idea that some guns are too dangerous to just let the public have access to them willy nilly. Regardless of how you feel about them, and I don't agree with them, the intent behind the law was to protect the people of America. What exactly are we protecting the public from in banning gay marriage? Hot man-on-man love? Uber-hot love trysts between some desperate co-eds? I joke, but really most of the gay community just wants what everyone else has. They want to marry, they want to buy a house, live the American dream, right? So what exactly are we "protecting" the people from as it pertains to gay marriage?


Edit: Averett, Oh stop, I'm blushing.. :p

No, they are quitting. Moving to another country so that you don't have to fight for what you deserve IS quitting.

The gay community needs to look at the civil rights struggles during recent history and set reasonable goals. Their problem is that they asked for too much and now many are butthurt because *surprise* the majority voted againt them.

How long ago did the gay rights movement actually pick up steam? 10, 15 years? Look at where gays were in 1990 and compare them to now. Have things improved? Absolutely. Are things perfect? No, but in the long run America always gets shit figured out.

Blacks and Women both had major backlashes and their movements too. It took Black people hundreds of years to reach a semi equal status and they STILL aren't all the way there. Women have been second rate for millenia and only now are they on an almost even playing field. Gays have not been openly fighting for very long in comparison and they have made a hell of a lot more progress than any other civil rights movement during the time that they have been fighting. It's hard to ask, but they need patience and they also need to realize that we can't FORCE people to accept the morals of their lifestyle.

They should have pushed civil unions.

I don't think "quitting" is the word for it. Quitting what, exactly? It's not like we're still in the middle of the 1700's where freedom didn't exist. It's not like freedom and the practice of "everyone is equal" is restricted to JUST the US these days.

If, in this day and age, you STILL have battles to fight for equality, then something is wrong. Not with the SYSTEM, but with the people. Perhaps the country deserves to decay in its own ignorance..

I'm not gonna up and move there Canada anytime soon, but I can see how it's a pretty attractive alternative seeing as how they're just as free and more open-minded than the US.

I don't live in Canada, so I don't know how important or pressing these issues are to them, but are these things even problems over there? From my perspective, it seems people over there are more open minded and that this shit doesn't even bother them. Gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, alcohol, guns, so on.. All of their laws regarding this seem more lienient than ours! (Correct me if I'm wrong) Sounds like they got the better deal.

This thread is amusing. Americans are not going to care if gays would move to Canada. It's just stupid that this is happening because Bush got reelected. Here's one thing I can guaranfuckingtee. In four years America will still be the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Glad we got that cleared up. Now we know what all the Americans care about.

sorry Stompy, i didn't mean to stomp (hehe) all over you. I guess I'm just being overly sensitive. I'm having cramps too. (oops, did I say the quiet part loud?) :D

Maybe i should pop by my doctors for some pain relief! Oh, I just got my flu shot at work, they emailed out a schedule, and I just went before lunch.

Dude they are leaving the country that they grew up in because they don't want to fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs. Despite the Marriage Bans you'd have to be blind not to see that things are better for them now than they were 10 years ago.

It's a civil rights movement. No civil rights movement has even been accomplished without struggle. If you care about your country you stick it out. To make matters worse for them fundies can legitimately claim that the behavior is immoral and therefore detrimental to society. Since the evidence as to whether being gay is a choice or not is conflicting to say the least, they don't have science on their side either.

Ultimately they will have to accept that, just like blacks and women, parts of the population will always see them as being something less. Although I think that is a fucked up way to think of gay people, those people have the right to think that way.

kutulu... I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the "quitting" thing...

(damn this text based forum)... I tend to agree that one should stay and fight for what you believe in... especially in a country like the US or Canada. While the system is slow to move it can and does move.

Women have the vote and blacks are no longer property... those are examples of the the system "moving"... Are things perfectly peachy with Women and Blacks... not exactly but the struggle continues...

That said, I would welcome anyone who wants to skip the struggle and just come to Canada... :thumbsup:

lol. That's the 'internets' for you! I'll gladly send anyone who doesn't want to try. They are of no use to this country or their movement. They are not as likely to see progress in the form of making compromises and want it all or nothing right now. Looks like they got stuck with nothing.

Just keep fighting for your rights and you will get them.

But, calling everyone stupid fascist doesn't work. Did MLK call whites stupid fascist, no he wanted everyone to come together and be equal. It just seems that the progressive mvmnt is attacking everyone who doesn't agree, and that is the fastest way to build oppisition (SP?). Bystaders are taking flak for this. I have seen too many gay people and supporters attack and be just as big of a biggot to straight people; straight people who would help them if treated fairly. This has made the public dislike all of this talk. Why should they support those who are attacking them.
And, I know some gay guys, good guys too. There just isn't a kicker that none can argue against for gay union


Edit: It's hard for me to make my point in words, I tried my best. :thumbsup:

Exactly my point.


Last I checked it's legal to be gay or lead a gay lifestyle. The only thing outlawed in several states now is to get married in the traditional sense.



Life is bigoted. Everyone is bigoted in some sense of the word. What's wrong with a few moral constraints on society? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why can't we all just live together in peace and obey the laws, even the ones we don't agree with. There's a time and place for all things under the sun. To break existing laws to get what you want is not the proper way get said laws changed or make anyone particularly sympathic to your situation. I personally don't agree with some speed limit laws, does that mean it's ok and I shouldn't have to obey the laws I don't agree with? No, it means I should lobby my representives to get the laws changed.

I think everyone should be tolerant of other views. Teaching kids to be tolerant is perfectly fine. Teaching acceptance is something totally different.
Teaching acceptance is teaching kids moral values their parents might not agree with. What's wrong with parents teaching their moral values to their children? Why does moral values have to be taught in school? One can be tolerant and still not accept someones chosen lifestyle as being morally healthy. I live near and work in the city gays proudly call the "gay capitol of the midwest". I have to be tolerant, tolerance which I most happily extend. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to morally agree nor morally support their lifestyle decisions. From what I understand it isn't necessarily marriage most of them want anyway, they merely want the same rights as married couples. This can be accomplished by legal civil unions, unless you live in Ohio. So be it then, if that's what they want then do what every other law abiding citizen does and get the laws changed. Don't you think it's a bit ironic that gays made this huge political statement, basically said "fuck you" to the system and society and now that the system and society has said "no fuck you", their leaving?

If we did that nothing would change. Some moral constraints are patently bad (i.e. Blacks not being able to marry whites, laws banning anal and oral sex, etc). If people had followed your reasoning and just obeyed the law there would be no impetus to change a pointless law.


I disagree. Breaking the law... especially one that is rather pointless brings attention to said pointlessness. It underscores the need to change the law. It is a form of protest. These people breaking the law, it should be noted, are also willing to do the time to see that change it made...

To get a bit hyperbolic... Do you remember someone named Rosa Parks? Or someone else named Nelson Mandela? What about Steven Biko?

These are all people who broke the law to stand up for something they believed in. There were definate consequences to their actions.

(And please don't anyone jump on me because I am hauling out some of the most exrtreme examples of this... They are, as I said above, hyperbole meant to underscore a point of view).

Oh, fardles. You've pulled out the "some of my best friends are..." arguement, I'm left totally beaten. I bow to your youthful exuberance and surety.

Actually, "media" encompasses quite a bit more that your narrow definition.
Media is all of that, as well as printed matter.

I'm done with this thread. I don't see any point in trying to discuss this with you. You've obviously set your mind fixed that I can not have more knowledge or experience and I am not going to waste any more lunch breaks trying to convince you.

But have a nice whatever, no hard feelings.

Maybe a little off topic, but has anyone noticed all of the republican doctor ads about the doctors having to leave their state or the practice because the laws that favor them don't favor them enough? The Hollywood far left started publicly talking about moving in 2000 if Bush won, but none of them did. More and more of them talked about it this time aroud. Now this thread is about gays leaving the country over same sex marriage, which, by the way Kerry was against. Bush winning didn't change anything there.

I say the movie stars, doctors, and angry gays can all leave if they want to.

Bet you almost no one does.

My point is that you clearly are not exposed to the population in question since your steriotype is so pathetically typical. There, you forced me to say it so you could understand me.

All of what? Maybe you need to read what I wrote again because you assume too much. All I said was "outlet," you assumed the narrow definition all on your own.

Yes, please crawl back into your hole. You obviously don't have a reasonable argument to back up your point of view so you resort to sophomoric banter.

Ah, the idealistic outrage of youth.
Nazggul, go back in time to the point where I asked about gays who act out the media stereotype. Now think real hard. Why did your response drift off to gays who do not act out the media stereotype?

Let's just drop the media outlets portion. It's seems beyond you to imagine me wayching anything more than SPIKE or Comedy Central. I'm not going to try and dissuade you. Nor am I going to argue with you.

What does GLBT stand for?

Gay Lesbian Bi-sexual Transgender

Even though both were opposed to same sex marriage they were very far apart in how much they opposed it.

Ultimately, I don't think this is about Bush being re-elected. It is about the referenda to ban gay marriage in 11 states (not to mention those that already ban them)... and the perceived notion that the moral right is driving the agenda at the white house (note: I said "percieved notion").

Tropple, your ageism and droll commentary is more humorous than productive at this point. I can’t maintain a decent conversation with someone who makes such blatant assumptions beyond what I post. I'm not even sure what SPIKE is, and coming from you I'm quite sure I don't care.

I may not be done with this topic, but I am certainly done with you.

I have this discussion with my friends quite often: what is the definition of gay? is it purely sexual (i.e. physical) or is it in the mind or a sliding scale of both?

for example, a guy who cross-dresses, is not essentially gay because he may still partake in sex with women. But if he is transgendered, is he gay if he continues to have sex with women? Or is the transgendered gay when he partakes in sex with men, because physically he is male (XY chromosome) but otherwise has adopted a female perspective?

Further, what are lesbians trying to do when there is a butch partner in a couple? does that mean that they are not really gay (mentally) while gay physically?

A guy who cross dresses may or may not be gay or bi-sexual. It all depends on what gender he prefers to have sex with. In fact, I understand that many (if not most) crossdressers are hetero... they just like dressing in women's clothes.

A transgendered person is not neccessarily homosexual. They are people who feel they were born into the wrong gender and wish to alter that with an operation. Their homosexuality is a seperate issue.

Lesbian with a butch partner... what about Gays with a "queen" partner? If they are gender MM or FF they are homosexual, regardless of how they externalize themselves.

(no study on this just listening to my gay and lesbian friends and my own observations... feel free to correct me if I am off base here).

okay, so it comes down to the pure physicality of it all. if we define M = XY (genetically) and F = XX, then regardless of how they externalize themselves, i.e. transgendering, cross-dressing, Queening, Butching, as long as you have an XX & XX pairing, or XY & XY pairing for sexual reasons, they are defined as gay.

In the case of communal living, they would not be defined as gay, because there is no physical relationship. what about remote relationships? eg, internet lovers, where there is no physical contact?

Wow, we are getting a bit off topic... oh well.

If I am I guy who loves men and when I think about being in a relationship with someone and that someone is a man... I am gay.

If I am that same guy and a can also see myself in relationships with women... that would make me bisexual.

If I am I woman who loves women and when I think about being in a relationship with someone and that someone is a woman... I am a lesbian.

If I am that same woman and a can also see myself in relationships with men... that would make me bisexual.


As for a post op transgendered male who likes to sleep with women... is that transgendered individual a lesbian or a heterosexual? Good question. My first instinct is to say they are hetero.

Yes, it's legal to be gay. I would like to point out, however, that in the 60's it was legal to be black as well. You just couldn't sit at the same table as I nor use the same bathroom. I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights movement and segregation, but this is the perfect analogy. "We" don't like black people, but see there's no real way to get rid of them, so, "We" magnanimously "give" them seperate, but equal. Except when concerning homosexuals, we haven't even done that. So, they can't even get married in the non-traditional sense.

To compare speed limits and gay marriage....well, let's not finish that sentence. Like Charlatan pointed out to break a blatantly stupid law is to point out that it's blatantly stupid. How is it not blatantly stupid to award half of society something and not all of society. How is it not blatantly stupid to say it's okay for you guys, but you fuckers, no way!?! Not to mention basing that decision on something as blantantly stupid as who you like hanging round in your bed.

There's nothing wrong with a few moral constraints on society. Can't walk around naked, can't beat it at the supermarket out in the open, can't marry animals, aren't supposed to have sex with them and the list goes on. The point I'm trying to make....We are all citizens of the United States. We vote, we work, we pay our taxes and pay our bills. Why do we deserve the right to be joined with someone we love and they don't? They're not trying to marry other animals, vegetables or minerals, right? Just another human being. Another citizen of the United States. I'm no better than them. I don't possess some super gene that makes me superior to them, do I? Why am I afforded the right and they aren't?

If this is about God, then make it about God. The government has no business legislating the will of the Almighty. It has no business legislating articles of faith, even if that faith is the majority. The purpose of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To speak for the littlest man and allow his voice to be heard just as well as the biggest. The government has no business in fulfilling articles of faith.



Why do you need to accept anyone elses chosen lifestyle? This particular lifestyle choice hurts no one. That being said, I fail to see how who I'm banging is any business of yours and your acceptance is both unwarranted and unwanted.

You don't have to be tolerant. People don't have to be tolerant. That's the beauty of America and free speech. Anyone can be a loud mouthed, homophobic shithead. And thanks to the size of the country, chances are they can find people just like them. However, it's a helluva a lot easier to spread intolerance as long as you appear to be tolerant. It's a lot easier to defend your position while dressed in a nice dark suit rather than cut off jean jackets with anti-gay pins and holding signs that say such charming things as "God hates fags" and "Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell."

Intolerance is intolerance no matter the source. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig...or one of my ex-girlfriends.... The methods may have changed, but the message remains the same.

You say you "happily extend" tolerance because you "have" to. If you didn't "have" to, would you "happily extend" that same tolerance?

I don't care a bit about what you want to call it. Marriage, Civil Unions, Civil Marriage Unions. I couldn't possibly care less. The point is make it the same for everyone or no one. I read online (it was a while ago and I have no idea where it might have been, I apologize) a modest proposal to make all unions as far as the government was concerned civil unions and let churches issue marriage licenses. If you wanted to be joined, you'd get a civil union. If you wanted to get the blessings of the church then you'd also have to get married. You'd have both. As far as the government was concerned joined couples would be in a civil union and equal under the eyes of the law. Marriage would be a superfluous add-on for those who wanted to have the church recognize their union. I don't know why I mentioned it, but it sounded pretty reasonable, so there it is....


What I find ironic is that the federal government, which is supposed to be about bringing folks together and inclusion for all, of the United States, a country founded on the principle that we're all equal under the law and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is giving anyone the big "fuck you." That's what I find ironic.

Nope. Wait. I find that sad.

I feel very sorry for Americans. It seems everyone over there spends so much of their time trying to show pride in their libery and freedom. I've never seen so many flags as in the US on 4th of July. I reckon you've all been ripped off.

It *is* one of the great ironies in this world... a colossal example of double-think.

Well, yes it is a bit off topic, but these are conversations rather than debates aren't they? Can't they evolve as normal convesations do?

But I gather from your points that the mere thought of relationships with same gender (eg, desire without acting on it) will define one as gay. I think that what I am striving to discover is if it is a purely physical act, versus an emotional commitment.

I believe it's an emotional or mental state...

In order to be defined as "straight" I don't have to consummate my straightness... I simply have to understand that my lustful or intimate thoughts are for women rather than men.

I see nothing wrong if people want to go to Canada. The U.S.A. has a long tradition of people immigrating here instead of staying in the country of their birth to try and make things better.

I don't think the brain drain will amount to much. I doubt the states will even notice that they are gone.

Yes, because we all know how progressive Canada really is. :rolleyes:

http://tinyurl.com/4xose

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty encouraged Muslim parents today to allow their children to attend public school classes that include the teaching of tolerance toward gays and lesbians.
McGuinty and Education Minister Gerard Kennedy both reached out to Muslim parents who are upset about what the Toronto District School Board calls “anti-homophobia education” at a downtown school.

“I think it’s important that all our children have the opportunity to learn about those things that distinguish one of us from the other, and that they learn to respect those differences,” McGuinty said.

“I think the kind of society that we should all aspire to is one where we respect each other’s differences.”

Controversy erupted after students at Market Lane Public School were shown videos that depicted the feelings of children who get taunted at school because their own parents are homosexuals.

Angry Muslim parents complained that their religious beliefs were getting less respect from the board than gay rights and demanded that their children be excluded on religious grounds from similar presentations in the future.

The board rejected their request last night on the grounds that allowing some students to be excluded from discussions about gay families would violate the rights of those children with same-sex parents.

“Ultimately, our civil values include respect for sexual orientation,” Kennedy said before a cabinet meeting today.

“I don’t think there’s any harm done to parents who find their children exposed to ideas that are different than the ones they teach at home.”

Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry said it’s not just Muslim parents that are concerned because students are learning lessons about family values that differ from what they might learn at home.

“Teaching tolerance at a young age is a must,” said Elmasry, who’s also a professor at the University of Waterloo. “But you have to balance that with the appearance that you are not promoting certain values, in this case homosexual families.”

Elmasry has himself been at the centre of controversy after suggesting in an interview that all Israelis over the age of 18 were legitimate targets for Palestinian militants — comments for which he has since apologized.

Conservative Leader John Tory said parents ought to have been told about the videos ahead of time. He said there are ways to ensure everyone gets the message of tolerance without running afoul of anyone’s religious beliefs.

“We should be able to find ways to teach that kind of mutual respect for one another without forcing people to feel they’re in a position where they have to take their children out,” Tory said.

Kennedy said schools have always been good at teaching diversity and must continue to play a major role in building a tolerant, multi-cultural society.

“I would like to encourage parents not to undermine that.”

Ontario’s New Democrats echoed the government’s position.

“I believe that human rights come above religious rights,” said NDP critic Michael Prue.

“I would hope Muslim parents would understand that they have chosen to move to a pluralistic society, and it goes along that that we have respect for everyone, including them.”

Kennedy urged the board to work with the Muslim parents to address their concerns, noting that it’s vitally important for all children to learn that some of their friends may have parents who are homosexuals.

“There are ways to teach respect that may not be offensive and still essentially accomplish the objective,” he said.

“But respect is something we’re not prepared to stand down on. . .and our schools are an important place of learning it.”

My problem with the Ministry's and the TDSB's postion is that they took it upon themselves to narrow the focus of teaching about anti-bullying to that of the very narrow segment of population which may be homosexual. And they expect parents to accept this which further re-inforces the validity of the alternative lifestyle to children in their formative years.

What they could have done to make the programme palatable to the majority of parents, is to grandfather in the homosexual parent group with the over all concern about bullying. taunting and bullying in the school yard is by no means restricted to kids with homosexual parents. My first day in a Canadian schoolyard (being born in Trinidad, of chinese parents) was in Grade 6, where some girls immediately called me a chink and said that I should go home to where i came from. !!! My sisters and I took to walking home together so that we wouldn't get picked on. And it didn't stop at the kids. Even Teachers automatically assigned me to ESL classes, even tho I was brought up with a British Education in Trinidad. Just because i was chinese looking.

So. Bullying has to be addressed as a whole. Enough of the breaking it out into its sub-divisions. This way we get buy-in from the parents of all segtments of society.