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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

Careful when you make statements like that :)

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.

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.

doh! didnt cover all my bases huh...

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

I guess we will just have to invade Canada.

BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!

South Park could have a field day with this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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?

Flip a coin. If they are truly identical than it doesn't matter.

That’s where I think its wrong, they are not identical, having a mother and father is a good thing, and its better for the child development to have a male and female role model.

An interesting side note is how STABLE are homosexual marriages/unions. A quick google search seems to point to 'not very' as a rule. Should this be considered as well?

Heh.
All right then. Let's talk about stability. What's the divorce rate in the US? Near 50%, isn't it? Should we consider stability of straight marriages when a straight couple wants to adopt?
As to a child having a male and female role model, well, I don't know. Is is possible for a child to have role models aside from his or her parents?

Finally, why am I answering your questions? You couldn't be bothered to respond to mine.

In a time when most marriages end in divorce, I think its great that some one is still interested in getting married at all.

Can you find it in your heart to back this comment up with something. I always thought having healthy, caring, and functional parents was actually more important than having parents with a penis and a vagina.

This is the most sensible thing that I've seen you post for a while. I completely agree.

One thing that makes me laugh is when some "conservatives", including Limbaugh, talk about how gay couples getting married would somehow taint the institution of marriage, as if an over-50% divorce rate hadn't already done so. But, again, the definition of marriage should be left up to society (or perhaps the states, if for some reason it is absolutely necessary), not the federal government.

How about deciding whether a particular couple can adopt a child based on their individual merits rather than the merits of a subset of people to which they happen to belong? If that was too hard for you to parrse, here's a concrete example. Would you automatically refuse a black couple adoption because most black people have a low income? No, you would look at their income and decide, right? How about doing the same with homosexual couples?

Sadly, this is beside the point. It seems obvious to me that you have already decided you don't want homosexual people to raise children and are looking for reasons to back up a conclusion you've already made. This is called "rationalization" and it occurs far too much in society.

Oh yeah, one other thing. You once mentioned how not allowing homosexual parents was politically incorrect. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of the US is against homosexual rights of any kind, considering what a Bible thumping nation it is. How can an idea that the nation agrees on be considered politically incorrect?

Not at all, my point is I think there is a BENEFIT to having parents of the opposite sex. I am sorry but two, men, even gay men, do not equal a female influence on a child nor do two women equal a male.

As such it would be BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes. I didn't say that being in a gay household would be horrible, or turn them 'gay', or anything like that. I'm simply stating, in plain English, that when there is a choice between parents it is in the best interest of the child that the parents be straight.

I'm sure you could have loving homosexual parents and I would say that such an arrangement would be better then being a ward of the state.

I think the core of this is that I feel there is a benefit to the traditional family, that some of you either think is false or are to PC to admit to yourself.

I have yet to hear any proof from anywhere that children who grow up in families with parents of the same gender are at any kind of emotional or developmental disadvantage compared to children who grow up in heterosexually headed households.

There is no such thing as a traditional family anymore. Unless you refer to the new traditional single parent family, or the traditional both-parents-work-forty-plus-hours-a-week-to-put-food-on-the-table family.

Yes, I think that there is a benefit to being raised by a male and female role model because I believe that there is a benefit to diversity. What does a man, gay or not, know about women?
Note that I didn't mention this issue in my post? Please consider some of the other things that you've said, in other posts.

"When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book." What does this mean? There are plenty of heterosexual couples who desire children but have "left the gene pool." Shouldn't they raise children? Homosexual couples can choose to bear their own children so they haven't really left the gene pool, have they? Do you still think they "give up that right?"

When you say things like you wish for the "hierarchy of adoptions was straight > gay," and that you "think the best interest of the child is served having a mother and 8father and that interest is what must be thought of first," and that it is simply "BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes," you imply that it is so important that all other factors need not be considered, like being raised by heterosexual serial killers. While you do say, as part of a post that the last quote is from, that being in a good homosexual home is better than being a ward of the state (which isn't all bad, really), all these quotes have been unqualified and have not been taken out of context. I'm not Michael Moore, go back and read them, if you like.

"There is some wisdom to be found in religion, otherwise we wouldn't keep them." First of all, there being wisdom is not why they are still around. Obviously (I would hope that this is obvious) not all that is religious is wise. After all, there are a lot of disagreements among the different religions. They can't all be right?
You know, there is wisdom to be found in thought. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep thinking.

You say that you "have all of human recorded history which tends to favor a male/female set up in the family." This may be presumptuous but I suspect that you've never read any piece of history that has even mentioned homosexual couples raising a child. If so, how can it favour heterosexual parents?
Or, do you mean that, because parents in the recorded past have been heterosexual, that this must be what makes the best parents? You're pretty hung up on this "past" thing, aren't you? If you can't see that what was done in the past isn't always a good thing and that things can improve over time, I fear I'm debating this with the wrong person. As it is, I think my words are falling on deaf ears, and I've shown you why, already.

These really sound like rationalizations. Combine this with some of the pious things that you've said or implied and I get the impression that you're really objectioning on religious grounds. Of course, you can't just come out and say this so you try to back up your position with some kind of evidence. The same thing happened when it became legal for women to be topless in public. Many people objected and made up some ridiculous arguments. They were so bad that I can only assume they were objectioning based on reasons they didn't feel would withstand debate, like their religious beliefs (although, to my knowledge, there's nothing in the bible against nudity).

I believe marriage is a religious blessing.
Forcing a religion to change what it believes is wrong.
The benefits in both provinces that gay marriage is legal (British Columbia and Ontario) are there for same sex couples WITHOUT having to be married.
Is it OK for governments to take over a religous ceremony?
To add in what they think is fair and right? Are they not supposed to be representing the "people", doesnit not matter that the majority of the people are against it, for may different reasons?

First of all, the Canadian government has explicitly stated that no religioin will be forced to perform marriages that are against their faith. This is a compromise between freedom of religion and freedom to equal rights. Obviously, homosexual marriages will be performed by the crown.

Second of all, yes, the government is supposed to represent the people, no colloquial quotes needed. In fact, they are supposed to represent the rights of all people, not just the majority. Does it make any sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have?
Consider this. Suppose you were to hold a US referendum on whether black people should be slaves or not. If all the white people said "yes" and all the black people said "no" then they would be slaves and that's all there is to it. The majority has spoken! Pretty fair, eh? Then again, you can just hold another referendum on whether black people should vote at all and you'd never have to hear from them again! Justice has been served....
This is called the "tyranny of the majority." Again, it doesn't make sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have, which is why some laws are determined by the people and other laws are determined by the government (individuals, basically).

The only fair way to make such a decision is the child's own preference. If the child is too young to register an opinion, or if such a meeting is impossible, the ethical thing to do would be to let chance decide. That's the one truly disinterested method of making decisions, and as such, no matter <i>what</i> kind of pair the prospective parents are, it is the correct choice for resolving your dilemma.

By the by, I am in the situation described by Conclamo Ludus, only it was my mother who came out, when I was 14. I feel that, though the initial experience was traumatic, the resulting friendships, events and experiences from then up until the present more than make up for the shock. I am fiercely proud of having two sets of loving parents, who are happy in their new partnerships (my father remarried). No complaints whatsoever.

All of the above was directed toward Ustwo.

I can understand where you are coming from, but why does the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?

And as far as the minority arguement, no offence but it lacks...

Let's say the minority of people are crack heads, we hold a referendum on building more crack houses, most the people say no, but to the "medical addiciton" of the crackheads, the government declares it is in the best interest.

I'm not saying it's all black and white but once in a while, the majority should rule.

First, what are you really complaining about when you question why "the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?"
I would be happy if there was no legal definition of marriage and it was something only recognized by the church. However, for whatever reasons, there are legal consequences to be married. As long as the law recognizes marriages, the law must be fair and allow anyone the right to marry.

Secondly, I will take offense to your ridiculous claim that my minority argument "lacks." This is such typical reactionary rhetoric that is all too prevalent in debates today and in the past.
At least you recognize that it's not all "black and white." Yes, often the majority does rule and I never said otherwise. Unless you mean that, sometimes, the majority should rule over the minority. I vehemently disagree (and, thank God, so does our government!) for reasons already stated.
Your example of the minority "crack heads" as a retort is specious. It relies on our current opinion of crack heads as unsympathetic characters in order to make their government sanction seem proposterous. What's the point of this, that if the government protects the rights of the minority then the majority might disagree? Yes, this can happen and we've already been over this.
If the government thinks it's in our best interest then the hope is that it is! If it's not then surely there will be a party you can elect that will introduce new policy more popular with the people. It's not a perfect system but, nothing is, and it's better than letting the majority rule with prejudice and triviality.

This is off topic but there is already plenty of legislature that is unpopular with the people but are upheld, nonetheless, because the government feels it's in our best interest. This is especially true when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you honestly protest this?

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

Simple. Who the FUCK are "we" to say who and who cannot get married. People should not be persecuted for doing something differently. Its just not fucking right.

Just grant them civil unions giving them the same rights under the law as those married by a Church. Christianity (and thats the issue here) has the right to refuse to marry gay people, the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though.

I'm sorry, what are you saying here?
Given the previous sentence, when you say that "Christianity has the right to refuse to marry gay people," it's hard to tell whether this is an assertion or an opinion. As stated before, even though gay marriage is legal in Canada the church is not compelled to perform said marriages.
I simply cannot parse the sentence "the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though." To whom are you refering when you say "the same people."

I'm saying that like in Canada, Churches have the right to refuse to marry its both an assertion and an opinion. The government doesn't have the rights to refuse to gays the benefits of being married, so just grant civil unions and let them be seen as "married" under the law. Does that clear things up?

Mostly. I'm now confused by your use of the word "like." I mean, we're not talking about someplace like Canada, we are talking about Canada. Unless that was just a valley-girl use of the word "like," which is fine.

Yes, we're trying to just let them get married but there is still opposition by a bunch of bible thumping bigots who don't believe in freedom. Why do people like this exist!

Bible thumping bigots?
Interesting. You think only bible thumping bigots oppose the missuse of their ceremony? What about homophobic rednecks who can't read so don't even own a bible. What about the corporations and insurance companies that would rather sidestep the extra cash they'll have to spend on benefits. What about the insane citizens who don't see any benefit the "unions" will make to the country. What about.....
Oh hell, yeah, those old bible thumping bigots. Got to hate them for standing up for what they believe in.

Yes, there are other people, besides bible thumpers, who dislike this new law. However, the ones in Parliament and going to court are, well, the bible thumpers...

Sure, they can believe what they want, they just shouldn't be able to enforce their beliefs onto others. Here, in Canada, we believe in freedom!

But it's OK for advocates of same sex marriages? Interesting.

As far as a free country.... sorry to burst everyones bubble, it doesn't truly exist. Please do not CONFUSE RIGHTS with FREEDOM.

To love whoever you want is a freedom, not a right?

And are homosexuals really enforcing any beliefs? Are you saying that homosexuality is a belief and not a sexual orientation?

On behalf of one of my best friends and her girlfriend: Fuck that.

Ah, the pointless rhetoric continues...

Same sex advocates are not forcing their beliefs onto anyone. In what possible manner do you think this?

I'm sorry, I have no bubble to burst. If you're going to go on about how "we can't all have total freedom" because actions from one's freedom can infringe upon the freedoms of others, I'm sorry that I assumed we were all already over that. Yes, this is true so we try to give each and every one of us an equal amount of freedom. Your freedom to swing your arms about wildly ends at my nose.
What freedom of Christianity was robbed by allowing homosexual marriages?

Now, does anyone have anythng real to say or have all the reasonable people left this thread already?

I think all the reasonable ones left, just you and me now.

Don't flatter yourself prosequence, try responding to questions instead.

Well this is to satisfy EPLE....

They are lobying the governement to make them accept the change THEY want in a religious ceremony. Hence the lobyists, marches, debates etc.
The sacred meaning of marriage. Not just Christianity either, for all religions who use marriage as a blessing from God.

And Eple I'm sorry I left you out and didn't mention you.

Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion. The Canadian government is not going to demand any church perform same sex marriages. It's not lobbying the government that brought about this change, but rather a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. The supreme court made the ruling.


Again it's a civil marriage, not a church marriage with a blessing from god.

I don't see marriage as a religious ceremony, but that's just me.

The fact that the procedure of marriage sometimes takes place in a church doesn't change the fact that it is a legal procedure. Ever heard of a marriage licence? The religious proceedings involved in getting married are pure ritual and independent of actually getting married in any legal sense.

So a marriage would somehow be less sacred if two men could do it too? How so? All you have to do is look at the divorce rate(around 50% last i heard) to see how "sacred" christian marriages are.

Although I don't agree that "marriage" is not a religious ceremony, no fees (taxgrab) was mandatory centuries ago. However I do think homosexuals should have their own "union", "Blessing", or whatever. If they would just stop using the term "same sex marriges" I think that some (not all ) of the resistence would go away. Churches and their communities feel that it's imposing on their beliefs, keep it away from the church and the resistence will lessen.

Are we feeling pedantic today? Bickering over a name? Who cares if they call it marriage or union or blessing or flabmax? This is about Homosexual's right to earn the official status as married. Noone will force any homophobe priest into blessing gay people if taht is a great problem to him. It is possible to marry outside the church, you know. Or should my parents change their status to "union" or "blessing" because they aren't christian and didn't have a church wedding?

Two names lends itself to "separate but equal," which never is. As much as I'd love to see "Gary Franklin and Steve Watanabe were flabmaxed on Thursday"....