Gay Marriage is a Constitutional right in Canada! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 10-15-2003, 10:21 AM

In response to someone's kind invitation to bring up some Canadian politics, let me sum up the most heated issue in Canada today.

I'm in a hurry here and don't have time to double-check my facts so, if there are any errors, please correct them!

Recently, some gay couples wanted to get married and thought it unfair that they can't do so, legally. They brought this up in court and it (independently) went to the supreme court of two different provinces (states) where they both found this restriction to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our constitution). This issue was brought upon the (federal) Supreme Court of Canada where, they too, found it a violation. Gay marriage is now legal in Canada and we're in the process of changing our laws, but the debate still rolls on!

The simple fact is that not allowing homosexual people to be legally married violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only way to resolve this is to:

A) Change the constitution to give homosexual people less rights than heterosexual people.

B) Don't allow anyone to get married in Canada.

C) Allow homosexual people to get married, as well.

Which do you think Canada will choose? What do the people who protest this expect?

eple · 10-15-2003, 10:28 AM

Wow, you can have the same rights as any other citzen even though you love someone of your own sex? You crazy liberal Canadians you.

2wolves · 10-15-2003, 10:59 AM

Goodness!! More stable homes for gay people? Having to pay divorce lawyers? Actually contributing to a community?

Nah, it'll never catch on.

/sarcasm

2Wolves

lurkette · 10-15-2003, 11:15 AM

w00t! Hooray for Canada. I hope the legalization of gay marriage in Canada will force the issue here in the U.S. Our system is so hypocritical.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-15-2003, 11:28 AM

I think its absurd that they aren't allowed to, but I think there are some legitimate concerns. Personally I'm not going to love my wife less because there are dudes who are happily married. Some have some concerns about how it may deem homosexuality as acceptable behavior, and it could be a slippery slope to leading to calling much more extreme behavior acceptable as well. What if I want to marry myself, or my sister, or my dog...etc. But these concerns can be hammered out if the issue is open to discussion by enough people. I don't really think that its a big deal. Gay adoption on the other hand is a concern too, and it would seem that children do develop better in a household that has a mommy and daddy. Still most of the population seems to be against it from most of the polls I've seen, so I don't see it catching on quite yet. Within the next 20 years it wouldn't surprise me though. Gays are a growing population and as they get bigger they will get more clout.

eple · 10-15-2003, 11:29 AM

sarcasm/
This is a really slippery slope, rights for gays today, black people tomorrow, and then what? Gypsies? No way dude, that just ain't right./sarcasm

mml · 10-15-2003, 11:29 AM

I gotta go with everyone else, Hooray for Canada! I blows me away that this is an issue. Now marriage as a religious service is completely different, but as a legal issue it is simple a contract between two adults and should be available to anyone, regardless of sex or sexual preference. Let's hope this is a growing trend.

Lebell · 10-15-2003, 11:43 AM

I'm pleased that our northern neighbors are on the cutting edge of what may be THE most importand social issue of our time.

filtherton · 10-15-2003, 12:07 PM

Can you be proud of someplace you don't live? I feel kind've proud that rational thought has finally won out somewhere in the americas on this issue.

The_Dude · 10-15-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
Can you be proud of someplace you don't live? I feel kind've proud that rational thought has finally won out somewhere in the americas on this issue.

yeah, kinda feel good. i'm still wondering what happens to the americans that get married there (ie whether or not it will be recognized in the US)

bonbonbox · 10-15-2003, 01:29 PM

Hooray for Canada! Big Ups! That being said, I still don't understand why any nations government is in the marriage business, short of religious reasons. Things like only two and of different genders, who cares? I am so sick of Jeebus and his like calling the shots.

seretogis · 10-15-2003, 01:58 PM

This is definitely a win for Canada, if you actually enjoy having the government decide who you can or cannot marry. All that this does is affirm the strangle-hold over social institutions (such as marriage) that the Canadian government has. Congratulations.

filtherton · 10-15-2003, 02:09 PM

^^^ I'd rather the goverment have a monopoly than the church.

mystmarimatt · 10-15-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Gay adoption on the other hand is a concern too, and it would seem that children do develop better in a household that has a mommy and daddy.

There is no viable evidence, anywhere, to support that a platonic family is better or worse for a child that a gay family.

That being said, yay for canada!! I'm glad to see a country taking steps forward in an ever-evolving world to accomodate the legitimate concerns and issues for it's people, and truly trying to be a country based on equality.

Sledge · 10-15-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Some have some concerns about how it may deem homosexuality as acceptable behavior, and it could be a slippery slope to leading to calling much more extreme behavior acceptable as well.

As I see it, it DOES deem homosexuality as an acceptable orientation. Given that homosexuality isn't deviant, I don't see that opening up a new age of sexual deviancy.

I do see how it would pose a problem to a nation that sees homosexuality as deviant. My personal advice to that nation would be to grow up.

seretogis · 10-15-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
^^^ I'd rather the goverment have a monopoly than the church.

"The church" can be many things. Even though gay marriages are not recognized by the government in the US, guess what? Gay couples who want to be married, do so by whatever means necessary. The point that I am trying to make is that the government should have no say as to who is or is not married. Society should be left up to defining and governing marriage.

filtherton · 10-15-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

"The church" can be many things. Even though gay marriages are not recognized by the government in the US, guess what? Gay couples who want to be married, do so by whatever means necessary. The point that I am trying to make is that the government should have no say as to who is or is not married. Society should be left up to defining and governing marriage.

I realize that when two people have their hearts set on marriage, they will often do what it takes to get married. Unfortunately in many places that kind of marriage isn't recognized as being valid. In many instances a man will not be able to make medical decisions on behalf of his husband or recieve benefits under his husband's health plan(that is getting better). Right now the state is endorsing an antiquated notion of marriage based on the idea that only a man and a woman can love each other enough to make an eternal commitment before god.
Attributing this entirely to the church was somewhat inaccurate, and my mistake, because many nonreligious people are afraid of gay marriage too.

I agree, if the govenments stops recognizing marriage all together than i would have no problem with that. Currently the government grants special rights and privelidges to married couples, i just want my goverment to not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Lebell · 10-15-2003, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
"The church" can be many things. Even though gay marriages are not recognized by the government in the US, guess what? Gay couples who want to be married, do so by whatever means necessary. The point that I am trying to make is that the government should have no say as to who is or is not married. Society should be left up to defining and governing marriage.

Well, whether you like it or not, it is important for the government to be involved in the Marriage Biz simply because there are legal ramifications for being married.

If there were not, I would agree with you.

The_Dude · 10-15-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
This is definitely a win for Canada, if you actually enjoy having the government decide who you can or cannot marry. All that this does is affirm the strangle-hold over social institutions (such as marriage) that the Canadian government has. Congratulations.

wait a sec....it's the US govt that tells you who you can and cannot marry. the canadian govt says marry any human you want.

Lebell · 10-15-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
the canadian govt says marry any human you want.

Your sister? Your mother? Your daughter? A 10 yr old?

Careful when you make statements like that

MuadDib · 10-15-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

This is definitely a win for Canada, if you actually enjoy having the government decide who you can or cannot marry. All that this does is affirm the strangle-hold over social institutions (such as marriage) that the Canadian government has. Congratulations.

This is an issue I hear confused a lot so I'll let it slide. The important thing to realize is that when the government tells you who you CAN'T marry then it is involved in religious affairs. The way Canadian law is structured by making homosexual marriage a constitutional right, it is not saying that churchs have to sanction it, but that the government has to recognize it if they get a certificate from the state (which it would then not have the right to deny). Because of the double-negative manner the argument is structured, it is easy to think that the pro-homosexual marriage advocates are trying to bring the government into church affairs, but by not recognizing these sorts of marriages now they are already involved and by allowing recognition of them only then is the government out of church business.

filtherton · 10-15-2003, 07:09 PM

I don't have a problem with a religion denying its own worshippers the right of homosexual marriage. If you choose to believe something and it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself, more power to you. My problem is when they try to deny the rest of society that choice. I just want the gonverment to take a clear stand against that kind of nonsense.

The_Dude · 10-15-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Your sister? Your mother? Your daughter? A 10 yr old?

Careful when you make statements like that

doh! didnt cover all my bases huh...

what i meant was, thre are fewer restrictions in canada, compared to US.

OFKU0 · 10-15-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I'm pleased that our northern neighbors are on the cutting edge of what may be THE most importand social issue of our time.

Well just wait until we decriminalize marijuana. Then we will really be hip.

Ustwo · 10-15-2003, 08:52 PM

I could care less if a couple of guys like to say they are married and wear rings while holding each others hand. Thats hunky dory, but thats not what this is all about.

Its first about the 'benifits' of marriage, be it health care or higher taxes (thank you democrats, and yes I know we are talking about Canada) and also children.

Again, what you want to do is fine, but I don't think a homosexual home is a good place to bring up children. When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book. There is a benifit to a male and female influence in development, and while not every child can have that, I don't think the lack of it should be actively fostered by the state.

bonbonbox · 10-15-2003, 09:43 PM

The legal ramifications for being married is the government being in the marriage business. One can't logically use one to defend the other. Who cares who is with who and why is the question. I submit the answer lies in religion, which the government has no business legislating.

Ustwo · 10-15-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonbonbox
I submit the answer lies in religion, which the government has no business legislating.

There is some wisdom to be found in religion, otherwise we wouldn't keep them.

seretogis · 10-15-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Again, what you want to do is fine, but I don't think a homosexual home is a good place to bring up children. When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book.

Really. So, do you think that an orphanage would be a better place for a child to be raised, than with two loving homosexual parents? Would you prefer that the child be aborted rather than be born into a life with two homosexual parents? Feel free to make statements like you have above, as long as you don't pretend to be able to back them up with any facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by bonbonbox
The legal ramifications for being married is the government being in the marriage business. One can't logically use one to defend the other. Who cares who is with who and why is the question. I submit the answer lies in religion, which the government has no business legislating.

I agree that the government is the only thing keeping the government involved with marriage. Most major health-care providers offer "domestic partner" benefits, and the vast majority of the population gets its health care through their employer, which use said major health-care providers. As for taxes, simplify the tax code across the board and marriage will no longer need to be a factor in that either.

Ustwo · 10-16-2003, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Really. So, do you think that an orphanage would be a better place for a child to be raised, than with two loving homosexual parents? Would you prefer that the child be aborted rather than be born into a life with two homosexual parents? Feel free to make statements like you have above, as long as you don't pretend to be able to back them up with any facts.

I thought about this before I posted originally. I don't know what % of Children are in orphanages who won't be adopted. I've always read that they are normally black, older children, or children with disabilities. I assume this to be true. I also know that healthy white babies are being sold in some cases for upwards of $50,000, and the supply does not meet demand. Asian babies end up costing almost as much as parents travel to China and pay various 'fees' to get unwanted female babies.

I will also assume that most homosexuals are not much different then straight parents when it comes to preferences. Sure some will want to do their own version of 'different strokes', and such couples make nice human interest stories on slow news days, but they are not the norm. As such I don't see homosexual couples as being the savior of unwanted children, but just more competition in the limited pool of 'desirable' babies.

I wouldn't have a problem if it somehow was set up that the hierarchy of adoptions was straight > gay couples but I see something like that holding up in court less then a prohibition.

I can understand the desire for homosexuals wanting to have children like anyone else and I do feel for them. I also think the best interest of the child is served having a mother and father and that interest is what must be thought of first.

I currently don't know which states allow/do not allow homosexual adoption. This is not something you would see me fighting over, picketing, or the like, its just an opinion on a very tricky subject. On a scale of 1-10 I'd rate this a 2 on how it might influence my voting on a candidate.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-16-2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mystmarimatt
There is no viable evidence, anywhere, to support that a platonic family is better or worse for a child that a gay family.

Maybe not. I certainly don't have it. But I would first point to nature as a clue to how children develop. I'm sure studies will be done. I don't think that it would necessarily be harmful for child to be raised in a gay family. But the children may develop differently. Maybe not. Freud would probably have loved to study it. I still think that a mother and father have the healthiest home for kids, but everyone develops differently anyway. Its important for children to have a maternal figure in their lives as it is important for them to have a paternal figure in their lives. Healthy kids can develop almost anywhere, so I'm not too worried about it.

Kadath · 10-16-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I can understand the desire for homosexuals wanting to have children like anyone else and I do feel for them. I also think the best interest of the child is served having a mother and father and that interest is what must be thought of first.

Noted. No adoption for single parents, and children of divorced parents will be placed in orphanages. Now we have thought of that interest.
Honestly, do people who don't want gay marriage have anything to back it up besides prejudice?

prb · 10-16-2003, 05:43 AM

I guess we will just have to invade Canada.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-16-2003, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by prb
I guess we will just have to invade Canada.

BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!

South Park could have a field day with this.

Ustwo · 10-16-2003, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Noted. No adoption for single parents, and children of divorced parents will be placed in orphanages. Now we have thought of that interest.
Honestly, do people who don't want gay marriage have anything to back it up besides prejudice?

What do you have to back up your side? There isn't a lot of data on gay couple adoptions outside of anecdotal evidence because its a relatively new thing (at least openly). There is a lot of evidence that children from home with both a mother and father do better in school, health wise etc. I also have all of human recorded history which tends to favor a male/female set up in the family.

Sometimes whats best might not be whats PC.

chavos · 10-16-2003, 07:04 AM

SUMMARY

The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve. However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others.

Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning. Children whose parents divorce (regardless of sexual orientation) are better adjusted when their parents have high self-esteem, maintain a responsible and amicable relationship, and are currently living with a partner.22,31 Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother's homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother's lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.22,24 Parents and children have better outcomes when the daunting tasks of parenting are shared, and children seem to benefit from arrangements in which lesbian parents divide child care and other household tasks in an egalitarian manner28 as well as when conflict between partners is low. Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development.

That's the summary of http://www.aap.org/policy/020008t.html

Which is the special report made to the American Assocation of Pediatrics.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-16-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
SUMMARY

The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age...
That's the summary of http://www.aap.org/policy/020008t.html

Which is the special report made to the American Assocation of Pediatrics.

That is interesting. I don't doubt the findings of the AAP but I think that it will take years to get a good register of the effects. I'd like to see more psychologists and psychiatrists dig into this one. If it works, it works. I have a personal friend who's father divorced and came out when he was in his awkward Middle School days. Needless to say he was quite tormented by the whole ordeal. If he had known as a child it probably would not have been as damaging to him. Interesting study. Thanks for the link.

bonbonbox · 10-16-2003, 08:44 AM

Yes, there is wisdom to be found in religion, plenty. However, I submit that religion is none of governments business. That includes deciding what is and what is not a religion. Yes, that will drag us into the huge realm of individual rights, and God forbid that happen in the U.S.A. If I alone decide that swinging dead chicken parts in a paper bag above my head counterclockwise for a duration of 20 rotations, or any other such inane practice, is the only way to show homage to a deity, what business is it of government to say that religious practice is not valid? The wonderful idea we have here in the States is that one does not have to cater to any one religion, or better still, any religion. I like to call that "Freedom from religion". I ask for a valid reason for the government to be in the marriage business. What does it matter/who does it harm, who hitches up with who, or how they choose to do it? That legislation has been passed concerning marriage does not answer the question. I enjoy learning new things and am very curious if there is a reason for the government to legislate marriage, short of religious tradition.

KnifeMissile · 10-16-2003, 01:32 PM

Let me spice up the issue by mentioning that a legally married gay couple were denied entry to the US, as tourists, as long as they claimed to be married?
To enter the US, in case none of you have ever had to do this, you need to fill out a card declaring what items, if any, you are importing to the US (I'm in San Jose, right now! I'm on someone elses laptop, so I must make this short). Well, you only need to fill out one card per family...
Please look for the article and you might find a link to another article quoting the very eloquent objections to this course of action by some (non-trivial) government officials.
Needless to say, this upsets me. Should the US respect the marriages of other countries? Does the US have the right (or, perhaps more appropriately, an incentive) to enforce their beliefs onto citizens of other countries, even if they are visitng? Something to think about...

Kadath · 10-19-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
What do you have to back up your side? There isn't a lot of data on gay couple adoptions outside of anecdotal evidence because its a relatively new thing (at least openly). There is a lot of evidence that children from home with both a mother and father do better in school, health wise etc. I also have all of human recorded history which tends to favor a male/female set up in the family.

Sometimes whats best might not be whats PC.

Okay, three things. First, given that there isn't a lot of data on children of gay households, what are children from a mother/father home better than? Single parent households? I've no doubt two parents are better than one, if only because it increases the chances the child will have a parent around for guidance and support more of the time.
Second, you're right, sometimes what's best might not be what's PC. It also might not be what's always been, i.e., all of human recorded history.
Last, you missed the main point of my statement. Why do you have to dress up your prejudice as a desire to help the children? Mrs. Lovejoy you're not. Why aren't you out campaigning tirelessly for the rights of abused children, or poor children, or undereducated children? Why do you only care about them when they might be raised in a household not fettered by ignorance and bigotry?

Ustwo · 10-19-2003, 04:04 PM

Ok here is a question for you.

Straight couple and Homosexual couple looking to adopt. Both are identical in all things except sexual orientation. They are both trying to adopt the same child.

Who should get the child?

10-15-2003, 10:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Gay Marriage is a Constitutional right in Canada! In response to someone's kind invitation to bring up some Canadian politics, let me sum up the most heated issue in Canada today. I'm in a hurry here and don't have time to double-check my facts so, if there are any errors, please correct them! Recently, some gay couples wanted to get married and thought it unfair that they can't do so, legally. They brought this up in court and it (independently) went to the supreme court of two different provinces (states) where they both found this restriction to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our constitution). This issue was brought upon the (federal) Supreme Court of Canada where, they too, found it a violation. Gay marriage is now legal in Canada and we're in the process of changing our laws, but the debate still rolls on! The simple fact is that not allowing homosexual people to be legally married violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only way to resolve this is to: A) Change the constitution to give homosexual people less rights than heterosexual people. B) Don't allow anyone to get married in Canada. C) Allow homosexual people to get married, as well. Which do you think Canada will choose? What do the people who protest this expect?

10-15-2003, 11:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	w00t! Hooray for Canada. I hope the legalization of gay marriage in Canada will force the issue here in the U.S. Our system is so hypocritical. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-15-2003, 11:28 AM	#5 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I think its absurd that they aren't allowed to, but I think there are some legitimate concerns. Personally I'm not going to love my wife less because there are dudes who are happily married. Some have some concerns about how it may deem homosexuality as acceptable behavior, and it could be a slippery slope to leading to calling much more extreme behavior acceptable as well. What if I want to marry myself, or my sister, or my dog...etc. But these concerns can be hammered out if the issue is open to discussion by enough people. I don't really think that its a big deal. Gay adoption on the other hand is a concern too, and it would seem that children do develop better in a household that has a mommy and daddy. Still most of the population seems to be against it from most of the polls I've seen, so I don't see it catching on quite yet. Within the next 20 years it wouldn't surprise me though. Gays are a growing population and as they get bigger they will get more clout. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-15-2003, 11:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I gotta go with everyone else, Hooray for Canada! I blows me away that this is an issue. Now marriage as a religious service is completely different, but as a legal issue it is simple a contract between two adults and should be available to anyone, regardless of sex or sexual preference. Let's hope this is a growing trend. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-15-2003, 11:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'm pleased that our northern neighbors are on the cutting edge of what may be THE most importand social issue of our time. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-15-2003, 10:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Wow, you can have the same rights as any other citzen even though you love someone of your own sex? You crazy liberal Canadians you.

10-15-2003, 10:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Goodness!! More stable homes for gay people? Having to pay divorce lawyers? Actually contributing to a community? Nah, it'll never catch on. /sarcasm 2Wolves

10-15-2003, 11:29 AM	#6 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	sarcasm/ This is a really slippery slope, rights for gays today, black people tomorrow, and then what? Gypsies? No way dude, that just ain't right./sarcasm

10-15-2003, 12:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Can you be proud of someplace you don't live? I feel kind've proud that rational thought has finally won out somewhere in the americas on this issue.

10-15-2003, 01:29 PM	#11 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	Hooray for Canada! Big Ups! That being said, I still don't understand why any nations government is in the marriage business, short of religious reasons. Things like only two and of different genders, who cares? I am so sick of Jeebus and his like calling the shots.

10-15-2003, 01:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	This is definitely a win for Canada, if you actually enjoy having the government decide who you can or cannot marry. All that this does is affirm the strangle-hold over social institutions (such as marriage) that the Canadian government has. Congratulations. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-15-2003, 02:09 PM	#13 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	^^^ I'd rather the goverment have a monopoly than the church.

10-15-2003, 07:09 PM	#22 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't have a problem with a religion denying its own worshippers the right of homosexual marriage. If you choose to believe something and it doesn't hurt anyone but yourself, more power to you. My problem is when they try to deny the rest of society that choice. I just want the gonverment to take a clear stand against that kind of nonsense.

10-15-2003, 08:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I could care less if a couple of guys like to say they are married and wear rings while holding each others hand. Thats hunky dory, but thats not what this is all about. Its first about the 'benifits' of marriage, be it health care or higher taxes (thank you democrats, and yes I know we are talking about Canada) and also children. Again, what you want to do is fine, but I don't think a homosexual home is a good place to bring up children. When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book. There is a benifit to a male and female influence in development, and while not every child can have that, I don't think the lack of it should be actively fostered by the state. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-15-2003, 09:43 PM	#26 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	The legal ramifications for being married is the government being in the marriage business. One can't logically use one to defend the other. Who cares who is with who and why is the question. I submit the answer lies in religion, which the government has no business legislating.

10-16-2003, 05:43 AM	#32 (permalink)
prb Psycho	I guess we will just have to invade Canada.

10-16-2003, 07:04 AM	#35 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	SUMMARY The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve. However, the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Some among the vast variety of family forms, histories, and relationships may prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others. Research exploring the diversity of parental relationships among gay and lesbian parents is just beginning. Children whose parents divorce (regardless of sexual orientation) are better adjusted when their parents have high self-esteem, maintain a responsible and amicable relationship, and are currently living with a partner.22,31 Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother's homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother's lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.22,24 Parents and children have better outcomes when the daunting tasks of parenting are shared, and children seem to benefit from arrangements in which lesbian parents divide child care and other household tasks in an egalitarian manner28 as well as when conflict between partners is low. Although gay and lesbian parents may not, despite their best efforts, be able to protect their children fully from the effects of stigmatization and discrimination, parents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development. That's the summary of http://www.aap.org/policy/020008t.html Which is the special report made to the American Assocation of Pediatrics.

10-16-2003, 08:44 AM	#37 (permalink)
bonbonbox Banned	Yes, there is wisdom to be found in religion, plenty. However, I submit that religion is none of governments business. That includes deciding what is and what is not a religion. Yes, that will drag us into the huge realm of individual rights, and God forbid that happen in the U.S.A. If I alone decide that swinging dead chicken parts in a paper bag above my head counterclockwise for a duration of 20 rotations, or any other such inane practice, is the only way to show homage to a deity, what business is it of government to say that religious practice is not valid? The wonderful idea we have here in the States is that one does not have to cater to any one religion, or better still, any religion. I like to call that "Freedom from religion". I ask for a valid reason for the government to be in the marriage business. What does it matter/who does it harm, who hitches up with who, or how they choose to do it? That legislation has been passed concerning marriage does not answer the question. I enjoy learning new things and am very curious if there is a reason for the government to legislate marriage, short of religious tradition. Last edited by bonbonbox; 10-16-2003 at 08:48 AM..

10-16-2003, 01:32 PM	#38 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Let me spice up the issue by mentioning that a legally married gay couple were denied entry to the US, as tourists, as long as they claimed to be married? To enter the US, in case none of you have ever had to do this, you need to fill out a card declaring what items, if any, you are importing to the US (I'm in San Jose, right now! I'm on someone elses laptop, so I must make this short). Well, you only need to fill out one card per family... Please look for the article and you might find a link to another article quoting the very eloquent objections to this course of action by some (non-trivial) government officials. Needless to say, this upsets me. Should the US respect the marriages of other countries? Does the US have the right (or, perhaps more appropriately, an incentive) to enforce their beliefs onto citizens of other countries, even if they are visitng? Something to think about...

10-19-2003, 04:04 PM	#40 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ok here is a question for you. Straight couple and Homosexual couple looking to adopt. Both are identical in all things except sexual orientation. They are both trying to adopt the same child. Who should get the child? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.