Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Sava]

That's a nice shiny new avatar there, Sava.

thanks!

I've got a few more offensive ones, but I don't feel the need to bring the wrath of Ming on me.

[blackice]

Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

We will see as it unfolds sava.

I simply came here because the topic caught my attention, I hope I have added a few legal realities.

Beyond that I personally could care less about the topic on hand.

Have at it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

ROTFL!

You've been practicing your sense of humour!

[Agathon]

Shouldn't it be "Her ass"?

[Sava]

We will see as it unfolds sava.

I simply came here because the topic caught my attention, I hope I have added a few legal realities.

What legal realities? How is allowing gay marriages going to prevent you from spewing your hate-mongering perversion of Christianity? You still have freedom of speech, no matter how stupid your beliefs are.

[Asher]

blackice makes glue for BASF.

The fumes get to him...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by blackice

Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

Is that avatar one of the dogs you are going to set on the poofs and pinkos when the righteous seize power?

[Sava]

Asher

[mindseye]

First, my right not to have government distort the language.

Berzerker, your arguments about marriage being "traditionally" defined as being between a man and a woman carry the same weight as arguments that "voter" has "traditionally" been defined as "white landholder".

As has been pointed out ad nauseum in other gay marriage threads, the notion of "marriage" has varied wildly over western history. Marriage has "traditionally" included such concepts as marrying pre-pubescent girls, wife as property of husband, inability of women to divorce, etc.

It also ignores the liklihood that the early Christian church preformed same-sex marriages.

I'm just glad this specious "traditional definition" argument can never fly here in China, as Fujian province did, at one time, have gay marriages. (not to mention China's long tolerance of same-sex romance)

I am growing increasingly convinced that China will have gay marriage before the US, simply because religious bigots have no influence over gov't policy-making here.

But until that day arrives, for now I will shout HOORAY FOR CANADA!

[notyoueither]

Possibly of interest to some of the readers:

http://www.iht.com/articles/100029.html

The Canadian government's decision this week to open marriage to gay couples follows in the steps of the Netherlands and Belgium, but it could be of far greater significance in the United States.

Only a few American gay couples have taken advantage of expanded marriage laws in the Netherlands because of its long residency requirement, and Belgium will allow marriages of foreign couples only from countries that already allow such unions.

But Canada has no residency requirement for marriage.

"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York.

Gay activists in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional, heterosexual family life.

Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but now that the definition of marriage in the two countries diverges, legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian licenses seem certain in at least some states. Issues over adoption rights, inheritance, insurance benefits and matters as mundane as sharing health club memberships are likely to arise in courts and state legislatures.

"What we are in for is a long gradual struggle to win full equal recognition of these marriages," Soloway said.

...

Go to it!

Healthcare may be next.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Is it defined solely as that? My dictionary also gives the definition as "Any close or intimate union." No man and woman specified.

No one is mentioned. If you read on in that definition, I believe you'll see context added - an example of inaminate objects that compliment each other so well, they are "married" to each other. Or another somewhat common phrase, "He's married to that car". These are of course not meant to be taken literally, but an explanation for them does appear in the dictionary.

At any rate, this is circular, as the debate is over what the definition of marriage should be.

Offering an accurate definition of "marriage" in a debate about what the word means (and how others want it changed) is relevant.

If Canadian society decides it should be between both men and women and other gender combination, that is what it will be.

And that determination will be made, I suppose, once people get to debate the matter. So why do you say the debate is over? Sounds like it's just beginning up there...

We don't know for certain when marriages originated or when, but there is nothing to indicate there was always such a strict definition.

Man and woman, men and women - hardly strict. Nevertheless, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that just happens to be the defintion. We wouldn't be seeing a fuss made about ackowledging that the word "book" usually means a literary device designed to convey information. So why complain about the meaning of "marriage"?

We have many examples of ancient same-sex marriages, and the Christians were performing same-sex marriage rites in Europe for centuries after the fall of Rome.

State sanctioned? Link? There have been people who commit mass murder in the name of freedom, that doesn't mean the word "freedom" should be changed to include a right to murder.

blackice -

Should the word "marriage" be used to describe thier union? Does this infringe on religious beliefs and rights protected under the constitution?

That could only be logical if those with the religious belief had some kind of copyright on the word, they don't. "Marriage" is just a word to describe an act, an ostensibly strong commitment men and women make to each other.

[Berzerker]

mindseye -

Berzerker, your arguments about marriage being "traditionally" defined as being between a man and a woman carry the same weight as arguments that "voter" has "traditionally" been defined as "white landholder".

Voting is as old as man, even when we were wandering around a wild world trying to decide which way the game was.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum in other gay marriage threads, the notion of "marriage" has varied wildly over western history. Marriage has "traditionally" included such concepts as marrying pre-pubescent girls, wife as property of husband, inability of women to divorce, etc.

The first concept was a carryover from a time when life expectancy was much lower and having babies quickly was a high priority. The last two (actually all 3) are problematic since these practices were largely eliminated by a christianised Europe where the word "marriage" and it's meaning comes from. If you can provide proof that earlier peoples employing these practices actually used the word "marriage" as an offical designation for their practices, I'd sure be surprised.

It also ignores the liklihood that the early Christian church preformed same-sex marriages.

A "liklihood" I can ignore, facts I cannot ignore.

I'm just glad this specious "traditional definition" argument can never fly here in China, as Fujian province did, at one time, have gay marriages. (not to mention China's long tolerance of same-sex romance)

"Marriage" is not a Chinese word.

I am growing increasingly convinced that China will have gay marriage before the US, simply because religious bigots have no influence over gov't policy-making here.

Yes, anti-religious bigots are in control there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Possibly of interest to some of the readers:

Not really. States are under no obligation to recognize such marriages made by American gays.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, at least Canada in suceeded in pissing you know who off....

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/j..._6-13-2003.pdf

[MrFun]

Two questions -- how does an American such as myself, become a Canadian citizen?

If a country refuses to recognize legal unions between two people from another country, wouldn't this have any effect on foreign relations between them? Not in catastrophic ways, but to some extent?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not really. States are under no obligation to recognize such marriages made by American gays.

I think that the gist of the article is that people will use marriages in Canada to bring pressure on the governments of American states.

Originally posted by MrFun
Two questions -- how does an American such as myself, become a Canadian citizen?

If a country refuses to recognize legal unions between two people from another country, wouldn't this have any effect on foreign relations between them? Not in catastrophic ways, but to some extent?

First question: it isn't too hard. Many Yanks come up for visits, and just stay. I'm not sure of the mechanics (taxes, healthcare and what-not) of that, but it is quite common. Citizenship is a little more complicated. You apply for Landed Immigrant Status, and then after a period of time living here you apply for citizenship. The Canadian government is usually eager to encourage immigration. Big country, not enough people.

Second question: I don't think the government of Canada would care about the status of foreign nationals who got married in Canada. It's not our business. I don't think the government of Canada would even care that much about the status of Canadians who moved out of the country as far as marriage goes. If Canadians want to live elsewhere they better be prepared to observe and tolerate local laws and customs. The government of Canada would begin to pay attention if a Canadian citizen was physically mistreated by local authorities or groups.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I think that the gist of the article is that people will use marriages in Canada to bring pressure on the governments of American states.

First question: it isn't too hard. Many Yanks come up for visits, and just stay. I'm not sure of the mechanics (taxes, healthcare and what-not) of that, but it is quite common. Citizenship is a little more complicated. You apply for Landed Immigrant Status, and then after a period of time living here you apply for citizenship. The Canadian government is usually eager to encourage immigration. Big country, not enough people.

Second question: I don't think the government of Canada would care about the status of foreign nationals who got married in Canada. It's not our business. I don't think the government of Canada would even care that much about the status of Canadians who moved out of the country as far as marriage goes. If Canadians want to live elsewhere they better be prepared to observe and tolerate local laws and customs. The government of Canada would begin to pay attention if a Canadian citizen was physically mistreated by local authorities or groups.

thanks for the answers

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm just curious. French is the official language of part of Canada, Quebec. As you know, in the French language all objects have a gender, male or female. If the government of Canada forces Quebec to recognize gays, the third sex, will the French Canadians be forced to assign the homosexual gender to some objects? Which article will be used to signify the homosexual gender, and which objects will be assigned to the gender?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm just curious. French is the official language of part of Canada, Quebec. As you know, in the French language all objects have a gender, male or female. If the government of Canada forces Quebec to recognize gays, the third sex, will the French Canadians be forced to assign the homosexual gender to some objects? Which article will be used to signify the homosexual gender, and which objects will be assigned to the gender?

Sexual orientation and gender are two different things smart ass.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Offering an accurate definition of "marriage" in a debate about what the word means (and how others want it changed) is relevant.

Government n. - the right of the King and the nobles and clergy appointed by the said King elected parliament to give orders and be obeyed by the serfs, burghers, and merchants pass just laws with the consent of the governed that is given by God and primogeniture the people

[Berzerker]

government: noun [C/U]
the offices, departments, and groups of people that control a country, state, city, or other political unit

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

You asked me for a personal response, how I personally feel about the issue. I gave you the honest answer, how this ruling makes me feel. If you can't deal with the answer perhaps you should stop asking personal questions.

Your religion is not the government. Get over it.

No, but to myself and other religious people marriage and religion are intertwined.

There is more to this world than your crutch of religion, and stop using it to oppress people.

Again, where do I say that everyone else should feel what I do? You asked me personally, so I answered personally. For society, I agree with common-law status as the best route to go.

As for the laughably stupid idea that it somehow devalues marriage...do you guys think marriage licenses are run like a stock market, or what?

We see marriage as a commitment, a promise between two people who love each other, and a promise to God to uphold the standard he has ordained.

Deviations from the standard corrupt the meaning of marriage.

Just because men and women can love someone of the same sex and marry them doesn't "devalue" marriage. People get married because they love eachother, period.

I love my grandmother but that doesn't mean I want to marry her.

A far more accurate analogy is you and other religious nutcases hold gays' heads underwater because you fear them devaluing your air...

So you will die if you don't get married?

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Jesus never rebuked homosexuality,

Just because he does not single out homosexuals, does not mean that he says nothing. Jesus edifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman here:

Matthew 19:4-5

"Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not seperate."

but the others are being discriminated against too.

So you are in favour of changing the definition to allow incestuous relationships and for polygamy?

So if a law said only men can marry men and women can marry women, you'd say that law didn't discriminate against heterosexuals?

Yes, for the same reason.

There are other things wrong with that law, such as the basis for the restriction.

Asher, again

The better, and more relevant question, is why can't you just let homosexuals be and let them get married if they want to?

You can leave them alone in a relationship, as for common law, but you cannot leave them alone in a marriage. Marriage requires the recognition of the state.

How about you answer the question rather than your usual artful dodge?

[notyoueither]

obiwan, why should the religion of a few determine the law for many? There are sects and clergy who approve of gay marriage, are there not?

Why is an orthodox view of marriage the one and only true religious view on the issue? What about civil marriages? What place has the view of one or more churches in that?

Isn't it enough that religious organisations are going to be allowed to determine if they themselves will sanction such unions or not? No one is to be forced to go along. They are just not being allowed to get in the way.

[St Leo]

No, but to myself and other religious people marriage and religion are intertwined.

At every point, the Liberals have indicated that the bill will not force the religions with odd beliefs to perform their kind of marriage ceremony on this kind of couple. The law will only apply to city hall marriages and those done by religious outfits that opt in on the idea.

You are perfectly free to go around with your hands over your ears chanting "la la la, I can hear, see, and say no evil".

[mindseye]

There's far too much twaddle to respond to in this thread, but this one stood out above the others:

The law does not treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals, in marrying someone of the opposite sex.

The argument is no different from saying "The law does not treat Negroes any differently than Caucasians. If your skin is white you can vote. The same law applies equally to everyone.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hell, you're already less religious than your parents, no?

Perhaps someday you'll evolve into something better.

I'm still waiting for you to evolve into a proper poet. Someone who can manage powerful analogies. You had such good material to work with.

What do you think about this?


Your reasons for opposing
our equality in store
are ridiculous to reason
and religious to the core,
Can't you see that's why your way of life
is going out the door?

Waking up to old religion,
Brittle pots of hollow brass
Exposing white sepulchres
Bewailing hearts of glass
How can you see the light that shines
When you show so little class?

[Ben Kenobi]

If your skin is white you can vote. The same law applies equally to everyone.

mindseye:

People can change skin colours can't they?

Seriously, you have no evidence in favour of a fixed sexual orientation determined at birth, the way that we know about skin colour.

Therefore, it makes sense to seperate the person from their actions.

At every point, the Liberals have indicated that the bill will not force the religions with odd beliefs to perform their kind of marriage ceremony on this kind of couple.

St. Leo:

Your argument makes no sense. Look at the Brockie case and the Marc Hall case. There is absolutely no reason to assume that churches will be protected if they disagree with marrying two people who are homosexual.

What will happen, is that they will file a suit against the church for discrimination on the basis of their section 15 rights. They'd win.

It's a problem with Canada, that we don't have equitable freedom of association. It's a problem stemming from the courts ruling that section 15 applies to sexual orientation.

[Whaleboy]

This is why the bible should not be taken literally. If it was, we'd all be talking aramaric, washing our hands heaven knows how many times a day, praying literally hundreds of times a day, suppressing women and keeping slaves.

It is clearly a human book written by human hands, and if there is the word of God in there, it has clearly been interpreted by contemporary human minds. It is far more powerful as a metaphor than a literal text, and the sooner this religious zealots realise that, the sooner they can stop justifying hatred and intolerance under the name of a perfectly respectable religion (a contradiction in terms that may be, but as far as they go, some people already tar all christians with the same brush).

In that sense the biblical justification for discrimination is wholly flawed. If two people love each other, then why the hell not?

Canada seems to be way ahead of the world on this one

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
No, but to myself and other religious people marriage and religion are intertwined.

So tell the government to f*ck off WRT marriage altogether.

If the government is going to be involved with marriage, you cannot discriminate against gay couples. Deal with that.

You have two rational options before you: You can protest this ruling, and advocate the government get out of marriage altogether and grant only civil unions, or you can accept this ruling because it doesn't force any churches to provide gay marriages.

If you thought about it the least bit rationally, you'd realize how incredibly stupid it is to protest the rights for gays to marry. It infringes on zero of your rights, it helps a minority which is just now finally getting equal rights under the law.

Quite frankly, anyone who opposes equal rights for gays under the law is by far most worthy of hell, especially when compared to people who happen to love others of the same sex. Which is worse?

The religious nuts will insist same sex marriage is absolutely terrible (armageddon, etc.), while everyone else will insist the morons trying to keep gays as second-class citizens are the ones who would end up in hell (if it exists).

Again, where do I say that everyone else should feel what I do? You asked me personally

Where are you getting this from?

I asked what you had to lose by allowing gays to marriage, and you compare it to masturbating with a crucifix and now you're rationalizing by saying I asked for your personal opinion?

I don't give a f*ck for your religious opinion. I never asked for it.

What rights do you lose by allowing gay marriage? Why should the government deny gays the right to marriage? You do realize your opinion about masturbation and crucifixes is completely invalid as an answer to this question, unless you believe the government should only legalize the beliefs of your religion...

We see marriage as a commitment, a promise between two people who love each other, and a promise to God to uphold the standard he has ordained.

Gays are incapable of this, how?

I love my grandmother but that doesn't mean I want to marry her.

What does this have to do with anything?

You're comparing homosexuality to incestuous relationships with elderly relatives?

So you will die if you don't get married?

No, it's simply the fact that there's plenty of air for everyone. Allowing gays to breathe the same air doesn't devalue your air, and allowing gays to marry doesn't devalue your marriage certificate.

The most harmful thing to society right now, IMO, is religion. But you don't see me wanting to deny religious people's rights because I find their beliefs disturbing, hateful, and disgusting.

They're free to believe the aliens are coming to pick them up, they're free to drink their koolaid, they're free to think homosexual relationships are so inherently evil we need to pretend like they don't exist, they're free to believe sex in tires is the only way to produce a true child...whatever whacko ideas they have, it's their own.

You can leave them alone in a relationship, as for common law, but you cannot leave them alone in a marriage. Marriage requires the recognition of the state.

Simple logic, obiwan, try to bear with it.

First of all, common law relationships certainly do not entail the same rights as marriage right now. Have you tried to rent a car lately? An unmarried 21-year old male can't rent a car. If he's married, he can. Civil unions don't count. If he's unmarried and under 25, he's forced to pay insane insurance on it. Many insurance policies (like mine) explicitly have clauses in there discussing marriage as a condition for many things, including insurance rates.

Next, if marriage requires the recognition of the state, and the state is here telling us that gay marriage is fine, what are you trying to argue for?

If you're going to restrict marriage to religious grounds, and at the same time use it as a legal condition, it's simply wrong. Either rewrite all those laws and cut marriage from government completely, or allow gays to marry as well.

How about you answer the question rather than your usual artful dodge?

Your question has been answered a dozen times in this thread, but you're not listening very well.