BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)

Subject: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,irishajo
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:15 PM

Canada leads the way in the fight for equal rights for all.   Pray/hope that the U.S. one day follows suit. This is one of my strongest beliefs, that consenting adults who love each other should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Thank you, Canada. (Well, most of Canada, anyway.)

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030619.ugay0618/BNStory/Nation

http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx062003.html

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:18 PM

I agree!! Some of our friends have been "partners" for so long...they are really excited about this.

Thanks, Canada, for lighting the way!

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 05:21 PM

Same sex marriages, nearly legal pot, socialized medicine...

What a great place this country is!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 06:21 PM

my view is that ANY form and combination of civil 'marriage' should be legal...but the details would have to be submitted for review... and notarized... and all signatories would be BOUND by the rules they propound. Those who choose religious forms would also have to sign the civil version of their choice.....

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Mudlark
Date: 20 Jun 03 - 11:08 PM

Another reason to run for the border. US looking less enlightened all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 04:00 AM

Sort of ties in with the brouhaha we have in the UK at the moment - the Bishop of Oxford has just appointed an openly gay (although by admission celebate, despite living with a partner for 27 years) Bishop to the see of Reading.

Personally, I think the Church of England is so short of decent bishops that anyone, male, female, part goat, Martian, gay, straight, celebate, or at it like rabbits, should be given a chance to take on the task. The judgement should be on what the man does, not what he is. Besides, with the amount of gay and lesbian priests in holy orders at the moment, it was only a matter of time before one of them, out or not, acheived a position of this elevation.

I know that the Bible teaches us that it is wrong to have sexual relations with the same sex, but it also teaches us it's wrong to covet, murder, steal, eat pork, not wear a hat (male), cut our hair (female), get married, not get married or suffer a witch to live - who's going to start enforcing all that?!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 04:19 AM

Fine for you Canadians; it was about time to follow the German example. There are even ministers who bless such unions of decent Christian people (in my Protestant Church of Hessen and Nassau), and I have no objections. If God has created man male, female, and homosexual, methinks all are entitled to pursuit their little bit of happiness.

Wilfried (hetero)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Peter T.
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 09:26 AM

Canada is a very strange country. It is full of what I would call tolerant bigots -- people who are deeply prejudiced against other people, but shrug their shoulders about interfering in other people's lives. It is the positive side of the introverted nature of the place. But the tolerance is very shallow -- I am afraid I put it down to things like respect for the laws, civil society, lack of guns, conformity, not a real embracing of other cultures or mores.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: mack/misophist
Date: 21 Jun 03 - 09:37 AM

Tolerant bigots or not, if you Canucks would just move your country to a place where it doesn't snow, your population would triple in no time. I'd be one of the first. PS. Most of the nicest people I've ever known were Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 06:21 AM

My friend and I are off to Banff National Park in the morning. Maybe I'll pop the question once we're north of the border. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: gnu
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 06:54 AM

misophist said :"...if you Canucks would just move your country to a place where it doesn't snow, your population would triple in no time." Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 06:28 PM

Ya... we live here where it DOES snow, to keep people who can't handle it away!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: *daylia*
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 06:47 PM

"...if you Canucks would just move your country to a place where it doesn't snow, your population would triple in no time."

Well, the percentage of natural-born Canadians would probably plummet -- we wouldn't have to do the wild-winter-monkey-dance so much, just to keep from freezing solid!

As to same-sex marriages, it's about time. But hey, I married the old goat once, right here in Canada -- was that legal?

;>) daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 30 Jun 03 - 07:39 PM

Pluses for Canada>

Perhaps legalizing Gay unions>
A medical system that some of us would love to have.>
Having the honor of being the homeland of Stan Rogers.>


Minuses for Canada>

That little problem you have dealing with the Mohawks>
Individualism not as accepted>
Having to practically mortgage the house to buy a few books!>

Anyway, I also have never met a Canadian that I didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Dáithí
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 05:32 AM

Further to LTS' post, the UK government is likely to introduce legislation allowing a civil "mariage" for same sex couples very shortly. Plans seem to include a registration ceremony (similar to existing register office civil weddings, and the requirement for a formal dissolution ( "divorce").
This should give same sex couples the same legal rights (regarding tax, pensions, probate, next-of-kin rights etc) as the rest of us. About bloody time too.
Dáithí
(not gay,as it happens)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:47 AM

I know a few people who are against gay couples, but when I ask them what real harm is being done, they can't say. They can quote Liviticus (part of it anyway) but they leave out the part about touching the skin of a dead animal.

Fact is, they prefer to live in the dark ages, and the light scares them to death. They also don't want to hear, "Your disapproval is hardly a basis for a law."

Bugger the lot of them, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:46 AM

The brits are about to legalize something like a relationship registry - wonder if they'll let heteros who don't want to marry use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 09:57 AM

What's the difference between a registration register, which I gather would be binding on the parties unless and until formally cancelled, and a registry office marriage anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: MAG
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:29 AM

During my conference in Toronto ending last week, a steady stream of gay couples headed off to city hall to tie the knot. A new revenue stream for this lovely city knocked around by SARS? (Citizens were embarassingly grateful to us for not cancelling our conference.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:55 AM

That's good news, of course, but I just have to share why I laughed out loud when reading the opening post:

This is one of my strongest beliefs, that consenting adults
who love each other should have the same rights as the rest of us. who don't love each other??

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:03 AM

'Fraid I have to agree with Peter's rather cynical evaluation, but it still allows for a less intense atmosphere than in the States, so I'll take it.

Folks are folks, no matter which side of the border they're on, but there's less public "hot button" pushing here.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 11:17 AM

My friend and I are off to Banff National Park in the morning. Maybe I'll pop the question once we're north of the border. :-)

Go to an east or west border as well -- Alberta (Dallas North) is still dragging its heels and won't issue a license for same-sex marriage yet.

As far as Canada being a country of bigots, with shallow tolerance -- shallow tolerance is better than none!

And yes, the rights of the individual here are not quite (but close) as sacred as they are in the US. American society is based on the social contract theories of John Locke, who held the individual as the highest value. Canadian society is based on the social contract theories of Edmund Burke, who held the individual as valuable, but recognized that the value of the individual cannot be more important than that of the society to which the individual belongs. There are pluses and minuses in both perspectives, but the Canadian one does make for a more peaceful society, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,irishajo
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 12:35 PM

Haha Wolfgang...I knew that sentence didn't sound right. Though I've known a few married couples that didn't love each other...or at least acted like they didn't.

At any rate, I am probably dreaming to think the US will follow suit anytime soon. The SCOTUS decision last week was quite a victory, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 01:00 PM

Yeah, well, thanks Canada! After many years of avoiding the pitfalls of conventional marriage, but falling into the pitfalls of heterosexual love relationships anyway (outside of marriage), I have finally realized that the only person suitable for fulltime living with me is...myself!

Now that this legislation has been passed, I am legally able as a male to marry myself. This is cool.

I am getting engaged to myself this week, having found a suitable ring and all that. I don't like wearing rings much, but I will carry it in my pocket or maybe wear it on a pendant. It will serve to makes others aware that I am no longer available, having pledged my troth to me alone.

I'll let y'all know when the marriage date is set. I'm gonna be my own best man too, just to simplify things.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 02:42 PM

Only thing is, Little Hawk, if it doesn't work out and you end up wanting a separation, you are really going to be in trouble...

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: kendall
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 07:37 PM

Spousal support could be a bag of rats too! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 08:35 PM

LH, maybe you should just marry your hand....at least you can uh "seperate" from that....

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:03 PM

LtS, your post just triggered something. The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a celibate gay to the Bishopric of Reading? Didn't Oscar Wilde do his time in Reading Gaol? Irony is still alive and well in England??

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 03 - 10:16 PM

Damn. I made a brilliant, witty post to this thread and it vanished. Blast. Well, I'll have to see if I can do it again.

Okay...

Lotsa good advice, folks! Thanks. Now which hand should I marry, the left or the right? And if I do that, will the other hand get jealous? Then what? Should I consider bigamy? Decisions, decisions...

Spousal support worries me. If I have to pay out too much to myself in alimony or housekeeping allowance, I may not have enough left to buy model kits!

The separation question does not worry me. I've already been beside myself on a few occasions with no lasting damage that I am aware of.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: stevetheORC
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 04:29 AM

Well done Canada and the UK about time we moved ahead with this, too many people are treated as social outcasts because of there sexuality.
Let's all try to be more tolerant:-)))

De Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Hrothgar
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 07:35 AM

LH, who are you having for bridesmaids?

Kendall, do you really think that "Bugger the lot of them, I say" is the mot juste in this thread?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 03 Jul 03 - 03:41 PM

Along another line, paws up for those who think that homophobics ( admitted or otherwise )would post to this thread? Not many paws up, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Marion
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 07:02 PM

Wilfried, what is the German example? The newspapers here are saying that Canada will be the third country to have gay marriage, after Belgium and the Netherlands.

Little Hawk, the newspapers are also saying that in the marriage legislation, "a man and a woman" will be replaced by "two persons". I'm afraid you'll have to live in sin with yourself a little longer.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 08:01 PM

Unfortunately, Canadian rwn's are hoping the Supreme Court will make gay marriage illegal. I'm sure they won't get away with it, as the concept has met a wide approval rating in Canada, but you never know.

Canadian conservatives and same-sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jul 03 - 08:13 PM

Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 03:01 AM

Marion - same-sex marriages are legal in Germany since last year.
The system here with all marrriages: legally important is the civil marriage in the Town Hall, afterwards you may have a ceremony in church.
With the handling of church ceremonies the churches are making differences: The Roman Catholics say strictly no, the protestants range from no to yes, including some levels of yes - but ... Here it depends on the parish and/or minister. Some do the real ceremony, some a slightly altered one.
Methinks, if a faithful couple asks for the Lord's blessing of their matrimony, it shouldn't be denied to them. This Christian attitude unfortunately is not agreed upon by all.

Wilfried

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:18 AM

I have a very conservative friend who can not tell me what rewal harm is being done by such unions. All she knows is that she does not approve, so, it should be illegal. I told her that her disapproval is no basis for a law.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:50 AM

Hee's a piece in today's Guardian - Canada gets interesting .

"Canadians can't quite believe it: suddenly, we're interesting. After months of making the news only with our various communicable diseases - Sars and West Nile - we are now getting world famous for our cutting-edge laws on gay marriage and legalised drugs. The Bush conservatives are repulsed by our depravity. My friends in New York and San Francisco have been quietly inquiring about applying for citizenship."

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Jimmy C
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 04:05 PM

I hate to rain on your PARADE but a union between man and man or woman and woman is NOT a marriage, and never will be, and it does not matter what the government says. Marriage pre-dates law, marriages existed before Canada was even discovwered by whitemen. AMarriage is a unique union between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of creating a family and of being the foundation of a stable society. I know also that many marriages fail for various reasons, and I know that many married couples are childless , some by choice, others not by choice but a society based of a family unit is the best foundation for a stable society that we have so far devised. Just because a number of our population want to change the definition of marriage is no reason for doing so. If two men an/or two women want to form a lifelong relationship with each other that is ok, I have no problem with that - but let's call it what it is - it is a legal union or a registered legal union or a government registered legal union or any number of names, with all the benefits accorded marries couples - there is no problem with that either, BUT IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A MARRIAGE. What we have in Canada is not a forward thinking government but a bunch of lily livered politicians who bend with whatever wind is blowing. When enough people let their feeling be known about this ruling then it will be reversed, if not by this government but by some future government. Lets just call it a legal union and everyone should be happy but do not call it a marriage because IT IS NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 05:18 PM

Says who, besides you?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 05:41 PM

Any congratulations to Canada are premature.

A parliamentary committee will study the action, no telling what the outcome in legislation will be. Remember, the governmemt itself has so far adopted a hands-off stance which will last until after the next election.

Alberta has declared its intention to opt out of any same-sex marriage legislation, which is its right under the Charter of Rights. Some other provinces may follow.

I tend to echo the feelings of Rick Fielding and Peter T. A great place to live, but by no means perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Jimmy C
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 06:01 PM

Guest Q - as per your " says who, besides you"

Well i'll tell you who, the majority of Canadians - thats who. You know there is really no need to have let this get this far, it's a legal, union, - legal-recognised with all the trimmings, there is no objection to that, the objection stems from the steps to redfine marriage, the government has no right to change the definition of an institution that pre-dates law and pre-dates governments. I am married - 35 years last Sunday , so don't try to tell me that what I have, married to the same woman who bore me two daughters and a son, or what my mother and father had, or what my grandfather and grandmother had or what every other married couple in Canada, U.s, or Europe has is the same as 2 men or 2 women forming a union, It is not, we have marriages, they have legal unions, period.

Jimmy C

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 06:24 PM

I have merely stated the current situation. Nothing I said implies support for any viewpoint.

Now with cloning....?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Peter T.
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:12 PM

I hardly see how marriage predates laws and predates governments, unless you believe they are made in heaven. In which case, there can be no divorce, because God couldn't make a mistake, could He? (Well, He never married, so He maybe isn't too swift about it). Western marriages until very recently were dependent on church law and ratified by state law. Presumably, unless you were living together and never got officially married (Oh MIGOD!!!) being married for 35 years (in Jimmy's case) was a public act, carried out in front of witnesses, and enshrined in law. If the predating of laws is what counts, then presumably incest, multiple partners, and who knows what all are also valid. Monogamy is not exactly universal (to say the least) in so-called primitive societies "pre-dating law" (although all the so-called primitive societies I know have all kinds of socially sanctioned rules). It is a social artefact, and a nice one, built upon some impulses in human behaviour that are subjected to reinforcing rituals that our society finds valuable.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:43 PM

A marriage is a unique union between a man and a woman for the sole purpose of creating a family and of being the foundation of a stable society.

Incorrect. Numerous societies have and do still consider polyandry and polygamy valid forms of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:46 PM

oh come on...we all know how stable western society is....

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 07:52 PM

Calling it a "Civil Union", or something like that seems fair enough to me, and that's how it's going ahead in England.

Calling it "Marriage" means a change in the meaning of the word, and I think changes in the meaning of words ought to come from below rather than above.

Presumably terms like "husband and wife" or "man and wife" won't apply. Partner always sounds like Bridge or Golf or Business. For some reason the obvious word "Spouse" never seems too popular, whatever genders are involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:38 PM

A court in British Columbia ruled same-sex marriages legal today, and the first such union was accomplished. This is only the second province to have a court ruling.
The provincial legislatures and the Canadian Parliament have yet to prepare legislation and it will be a while before that happens.
I doubt that much will happen before the next federal election. As I noted before, Alberta will not recognize such marriages, and all provinces have the legal right to opt out.

The process is only beginning.

Alberta, and the other provinces, I believe, have provision for civil marriage. If same-sex unions are permitted, I presume that the process will be an extension of the regulations on civil contracts.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Jimmy C
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:46 PM

Nicole, that may be, but not Canada.

Websters dictionary defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I know many gay people who agree with me by the way. They do not see the need to redefine marriage - just call it a civil union with all the related benefits that heterosexual marriages enjoy. End of story and end of wasting taxpayer's money when it is all so unnecessary. I guarantee that a poll taken in the gay community will back me up, all most of them wanted was to be treated fairly and equally under the law, no one has a problem with that, I suspect it is a small number of radicals that are pushing for the marriage part.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:34 PM

My Websters gives definition #4 as "any close or intimate union."

Jimmy C, you only have a problem with the word 'marriage', but nothing else? Semantics? Folks want a ceremony, a ritual. Folks want and something they can invite friends and family to. Folks want social and legal recognition and the rights that such a committment should grant them. Call it 'official union', 'hand-fasting', 'Fred', or whatever. It's the rights that matter to the vast majority of people, not the word. (At least I think so. Now watch this thread go to 200 posts while people argue about the meaning of a word!)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:44 PM

Calling a legal same-sex union "marriage" enhances the union by granting it the same status that straight people can have. Calling a same-sex legal union "marriage" does not diminish in any way what straight married people have. Both represent commitment.

The current joke in Canada, by the way, is that the lawyers are rubbing their hands -- more opportunities for divorce fees!

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:07 PM

But you were the one insisting that marriages were above the law, even before there was a Canada. So all of the sudden you want to define marriage by Canada again? Many of those native tribes of Canada practiced polygamy as a practical solution to the problem of a chronic shortage of males.

Actually, my copy of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines marriage as, "the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or adopted children."

Since most laws regarding spousal relationships are written with the word "marriage" in them, to create a new type of union for same sex couples because you want to quibble over a particular Judeo-Christian interpretation of marriage would create numerous occassions where same sex couples were denied those priviledges you say you think they deserve, and unpteen successive lawsuits.

Oops, that's not really true either. In 726, Pope Gregory decreed that "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Numerous historical Jewish figures had multiple wives. Even Jesus recounted a parable in Matthew 25:1-13 which talks about multiple wives.

Polyandry is less common historically (there is rarely a shortage of women that would spur this behavior), but it's reasonably common in Tibet and not unknown in Asian or Africa and historically even wealthy Arabian widows were known to take multiple husbands.

What were you saying about:

the definition of an institution that pre-dates law and pre-dates governments

Which definition?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 11:58 PM

The dictionary definition has no legal status; that is determined by the Marriage Act regulations of the State or Province. I looked up the Act for Alberta to see what the requirments are here.
Alberta requires a "bride" and a "groom." I think this pretty well demands people of the opposite sex. There must be no lawful causes to prevent the marriage.
Furthermore, The two applicants must swear that "I am not marrying my grandmother, daughter, sister, son or brother who is related by whole blood, half blood or adoption"(!). Medical certificates are required that the applicants are of sound mind and neither is drunk or drugged.

Much fine print about the relationship, etc., most of which refers to "husband" or "wife." Here again, different sexes are implicit.

Ontario Act Regulations clearly state that a marriage between homosexuals is void. The Act goes on to state that "marriages have to be consummated by sexual intercourse between the couple and are voided if impotency..."

Clearly, each province has its own Act with requirements that must be changed to make same-sex marriage legal.

Looked at Texas for comparison. Their Act clearly states "Same sex marriage: No"

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: JedMarum
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:24 AM

why should a marriage be limited to two persons?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:25 AM

I reread this thread, and this post by Peter T seemed so strange that I want to discuss it.

"Canada is a very strange country. It is full of what I would call tolerant bigots -- people who are deeply prejudiced against other people, but shrug their shoulders about interfering in other people's lives. It is the positive side of the introverted nature of the place. But the tolerance is very shallow -- I am afraid I put it down to things like respect for the laws, civil society, lack of guns, conformity, not a real embracing of other cultures or mores."

If we shrug our shoulders about interfering, how do you know we are "deeply prejudiced" How do you know our tolerance is "very shallow"?

And if you don't like things like "respect for the laws, civil society, lack of guns" etc in a society, what DO you like?

One thing you must understand about Canada: we value the rights of the individual very highly, but never MORE than the rights of society. That's how we manage to live together without the violence that permeates other countries.

Finally -- "not a real embracing of other cultures or mores." I assume you are American, which has the "melting pot" culture which expects all immigrants to melt into the pot. In Canada, we have a "cultural mosaic," in which new cultures live side by side with the traditional Canadian culture, at least for the first generation. As each subsequent generation is born here, it brings with it some of the cultural aspects of the immigrant culture from in which they originated.

It's lovely -- it means our culture constantly adds nuances. On Canada Day this year I went to our annual Folk Fest, which is held in most cities, and which celebrates our diversity.

Got it?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 08:50 AM

Pdc: misunderstanding alert. You're pretty much agreeing with Peter, except for the 'deeply prejudiced' bit which is his own opinion. Maybe he has an anecdote or several about that. Frankly, all you have to do is talk to enough people to form an opinion.

Despite the fact we use 'melting pot' in the US, it never really has been a melting pot because people by nature want to hang onto their own cultures.

Jed, I think the only reason legal marriages are limited to two people is because it's traditional, and legality follows tradition. (Can you imagine divorces in multiple-partner marriages?)

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,an observer
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:08 PM

Why are there few or even no health risks from sex between two diease-free, monogamous HETEROS and yet all sorts of warnings about anal sex and so on? Why are there TV specials that attempt to give parents ways to calm and reassure their children that gay friends and gay "parents" are ok? Decent Christian families with truly monogamous Biblical standards for their married life don't seem to need any special help explaining their lifestyle... seems to me that there must be a reason for that...

Just an observer... my opinions only... do with them what you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: JedMarum
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:32 PM

The issue really isn;t about the sexual partner boy/girl, boy/boy, girl/girl ... it is a small minority of ignorant folks who have a beef with the less mainstream variations of that ... the argument is; if we are redefine the legal status given to all types of human relatinships, where do we draw the line? How do we define them? Mind you; many of the legal status issues of non-mainstream relationships can be reslved via other means (living wills, powers of attorney, etc) but I agree these issues are not completely resolved (health insurance, for example) and may be uncessarily difficult to resolve. So some form of legal status ought to be resolved ... so called "same sex marriage" could solve the problem for many non-mainstream relationships. But what about folks who are dead serious about polygamy? Why is open minded to accept homsexual marriage and not polygamy? Or plural marriages (multiple mongamous, short-term marriages)? And there will be others too ... I don;t say don't solve it - I say dig deeper and resolve the whole issue of relationship status. Marriage is only one of those - granted it may be the commonest - but others deserve consideration too.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:28 PM

Someone estimated that there are some 60,000 polygamists in the southwestern states. Old style Mormons, I don't know the proper name. I don't know the proper numbers either, but there are enough of them that they come up in the newspapers from time to time.

Their unions are illegal under current laws in all states and Canadian provinces. The Mormon Church leaders had to renounce polygamy as part of the conditions for admitting Utah to the union, but the practice has persisted among a small group.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 09:43 AM

Actually, I am a Canadian, and pretty proud of our weird country. I have known Canadians from all walks of life, lived with them, buried them, and I was speaking from personal experience, such as it is. I stand by what I said -- there is a deep suspicion of neighbours, immigrants, people who speak French/English, Catholics/Protestants, you name it. We have a long proud tradition of bigotry and narrow mindedness: the Orange Parade used to be the biggest parade of the year in Ontario. Within the last 10 years, this country was within a hair's breadth of breaking up over the French/English struggle, which is based on that long tradition, and is characterized by ignorance, prejudice, and mutual suspicion. Almost every week, some province or other is threatening some other province, or proposing to leave the country because some other part of the country is benefitting, or doing it down or something. Easterners vs. Westerners, Ontario fat cats versus downhome Maritimers, bitch, bitch, bitch.

Up tot this point, the difference, over time, is that rather than kill each other, we have ignored each other, kept to ourselves, and were reasonably lawabiding, except we bitch a lot. We seem to think that peace is better than fighting over creeds and colours, which is just fine by me. I am very happy with the cultural mosaic notion, it is better to believe in that than in killing people for race, colour, or creed. For one thing, the food on offer in Canada has improved drastically. When I was growing up, there was one Italian restaurant in Toronto, and the Chinese restaurants served "Canadian and Chinese Food", which mostly meant chicken chow mein.

"Embracing" does not mean "melting".

I have still to be convinced that the glories of the mosaic would survive a serious depression -- Canadians have enjoyed, throughout the period of massive immigration, a great deal of prosperity (much of it generated by the need to feed, clothe, and house all these arrivals). If the economy goes into the tank, and unemployment goes up, the arms open to the world will fold up pretty quickly.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:41 AM

Peter T:

I agree with parts of your post and disagree with others, and it occurs to me that we may have regional differences. I grew up in Ontario, and well remember the Orange Parade - it was the only time my father ever remembered he was of Irish stock.

I now live in BC, yeah, Lotus Land, and honestly, the people here are so much more laid back about issues like "foreigners," immigration, race, creed, colour. Live and let live is cheerful here.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:51 AM

Well, I suppose. I wonder what the Japanese Canadians and the First Nations people think about good old BC laidback tolerance. Still, we can agree to disagree (CANADIAN!!)

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 01:33 PM

"Calling a legal same-sex union "marriage" enhances the union by granting it the same status that straight people can have."

One interesting thing is that as soon a the Government here in the UK said they were going to introduce Civil Registration for single-sex partnerships, there were protests that since this wouldn't be open to mixed sex partnerships, it discriminated against these.

In other words for some people the idea of a Civil Registration which was not "marriage" was seen as a more attractive option.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

Now wait just a danged minute here, Peter T.! You said "God couldn't make a mistake, could He?" suggesting that if God made marriages then there could perforce be no divorces...

Hardly, Peter, hardly. Are you suggesting that a Supreme Being cannot change his or her mind about something???? It's not much use bloody well being omnipotent if you can't change your mind now and then! That would be like denying yourself the use of free will. Ridiculous!

Personalities who are incapable of changing their minds are deeply ill personalities, and if the Creator is deeply ill then we are all in very deep shit here, my friend... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 01:53 PM

And here's another good reason for God to "make" a marriage, which then becomes a divorce: You've got two people who stand to learn something useful from courting each other, from marrying each other, from living together, from finding out eventually that they can't live together, and from divorcing, and experiencing all that that entails. Through the process they gain some further understanding about themselves and life. Simple.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 02:06 PM

GUEST,an observer- There are absolutely no risks from sexual relations between two disease-free persons of the same gender. Conventional sexual intercourse between two heterosexual persons, on the other hand, risks an unwanted pregnancy, should procreation not be the intent of the act. As to why only gays need to be explained as "ok", where heterosexual relationships are accepted, it is purely an artifact of Western societal norms.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 02:32 PM

I thought only the Roman and Greek gods (in western European religions) had human failings. Not sure about the Norse gods, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 04:28 PM

Why is changing your mind considered a "failing"? :-) For that matter, why does divorce have to be considered a failing? These are subjective judgements, methinks.

And hey, Forum Lurker, what about the emotional risks of same-sex pairings? From what I've seen, those can be considerable.

Not trying to be difficult, just tossing more ideas in the pot...

We incarnate here in order to live out Earthly dramas that allow us to test our favourite spiritual theories in the realms of physical limitation. Those dramas allow for every eventuality, including same-sex pairings and divorce. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's not. That makes for a good drama. A drama in which nothing ever goes wrong is no drama at all, and no one would be interested in paying the price of admission.

Needless to say, the Canadian government has no notion whatsoever about such matters, being occupied in playing just its own rather limited and oh-so-serious and stuffy role in the ongoing drama. Still, I much prefer it to the American government's role!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 02:06 PM

Uh-oh. Looks like this thread might fall off the board. Can't have that... :-) I am still waiting for a response from Peter.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Jul 03 - 06:05 PM

Even MORE well-spoken the second time, Peter.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,An observer, refreshing this thing...
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 06:27 PM

I never said that hetero sex without marriage was ok, either... The problem here is that God instituted the covenant of marriage and it is a heterosexual union. Entering into this covenant before God and man is supposed to cause us to be aware that we are held accountable for the gifts God has given us, like sexual pleasure and procreation. The idea that we can throw the rules out where marriage is concerned is stupid. Maybe you same-sex-union advocates don't realize that to open the door to that sort of thing is, by extension, opening the door to legalizing every other thing that God tells us not to do. If your choices about same sex relationships are to be founded on your logic that "it's what we want, and it's ok", then lynching, rape, pedophilia, wife-beating, and the legalizing of drugs are not far behind. If there is no rule but your own for you, then there is no rule but their own for anyone.

An observer

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 06:39 PM

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,An observer, one more thing...
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 06:45 PM

Another thing... why is it that those of us who are conservative Christians who see these issues as wrong are labeled intolerant, bigoted and ignorant. I dare say that I am as intelligent as anyone posting to this forum. I am an accomplished musician, a father and a hard worker for my family. I am a member of a church where my wife, daughter and I are the ONLY Caucasian people, pastors included.
   
    I see the issue here as rather simple: There were laws, spiritual and otheriwse, banning this sort of garbage for many years in this and other countries. When we started getting lax about guns, they wound up in schoolkids hands. When we got lax about porn, now our regular TV antenna brings us prime-time news about under-dressed whores and their fornications. When we got lax about same-sex relationships, now we have school systems where children are taught the benefits of man-boy love and shown how to use a condom in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL! Why is it that there was no such thing as an AIDS epedemic before the drug users and gays started proliferating in this country? Of course, there have been straight people with AIDS, but hey, now we are forced to welcome and legitimize practices that are more likely to expose people to such things!

    I know! Let's all smack ourselves in the skull with hammers! Of course, their will be death and brain damage and suffering, but we DEMAND our right to do something stupid as long as we're happy!

An observer

P.S. To all of you who want me to volunteer with the hammer first, just remember that I am seeing this issue from the outside and much clearer than you are. I do not have any gay relatives or friends, no one in my family is on drugs or stricken with any of those tragic consequences of these liberal and idiotic actions. I am free of all that because I have a rule and a standard that is good for me and for mankind that keeps me safe from all of that trash. I have no secret vendetta here; I am simply trying to call sin and degredation what it is. Get out from under those liberal sinful lies while you still can.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 06:52 PM

We each attempt to understand God in our own way, GUEST, assuming we believe in God at all, and I certainly do. If our understanding is different, then what? Do I have the right to force you, by civil law, to be in accord with my understanding of God? I don't think so.

You will have a very hard time finding people who think that rape is okay. You will have less difficulty finding people who think lynching is okay, and many of them in the past professed a very strong belief in the God you allude to even while they lynched people. How did that happen? Was it God's fault? No. It was because people tend to decide for themselves what God's will is, according to their own innate prejudices and in the heat of the action...even if they do go straight to the Bible for their authority.

It so happens that my view of marriage and its responsibilities pretty well dovetails with yours, but I don't think that gives me the right to legislate against gay relationships when those relationships are conducted in a harmless manner by consenting adults who have a right to their own privacy. I'm not sure I'd legislate for them either. I'd just let gays be together freely if they so desire (because it's none of my business)...and the fact is, they are going to do that anyway, regardless of what you or I think.

Who is God? Tell me what you think about that. And what does God require?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 07:09 PM

Oh, LittleHawk, you are such a refreshingly intelligent, reasonable person. I watch for your posts, and every time I read them I wish that more people had your attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:58 PM

"To all of you who want me to volunteer with the hammer first, just remember that I am seeing this issue from the outside and much clearer than you are. I do not have any gay relatives or friends, no one in my family is on drugs or stricken with any of those tragic consequences of these liberal and idiotic actions. I am free of all that because I have a rule and a standard that is good for me and for mankind that keeps me safe from all of that trash. "

Guest/an Observer, keep those blinders on, or one day you'll get a shock...

By the way, what do you think of Jesus consorting with prostitutes, thieves and street people?

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 03:27 AM

Guest, observer -

You say: God instituted the cvenant of marriage. Where, please?
In both the mythical reports about creation (Genesis I and II) I can't find any hint.
In Gen. I he created man as male and female and commanded them to multiply and procreate (like the animals created before).
In Gen. II he created Adam (male) alone. Later on he stated (don't have my King James version with me here) it isn't good that Adam is alone and decided to give him a companion - not a wife! Marriage as an institution is not mentioned here.
Before uttering unproved allegations you should verify it in the Scripture (Dr. Martin Luther's approach).
Do you really want to deny a homosexual person the right to have a companion? What would Jesus say to that? (Thanks, Ebbie, you hit the mark.)
The first time I was confronted with this problem was when a homosexual companion in our Volunteer Fire Department married her friend. She was a reliable companion in fighting, and so she still is. I wish her all the luck in this covenant she is entitled to.
Then one of my daughters confessed to have the same problem. Shall I love her no more? And if she won't bring home a son-in-law, I have to be content with the companion she choose as my daughter in law, a nice and beautiful blonde I hold in high esteem.

Wilfried

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 03:36 AM

Well said, Ebhie and Wilfried!

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: Sam L
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 09:38 AM

Guest, observer, you may think certain things are wrong, and live according to your beliefs as best you can. But it's both nasty and childishly stupid to propose these moral links to a disease. Medically, God likes lesbians better than gay men or heteros. Stop being a jackass. Grow up. Stop using other people's suffering and death as a handy occasion to kiss your own moral butt.

A lot of people like to view health and death as a report card, when it seems to suit them, but I happen to think it's morally wrong. Despite that there are causal links and risks in actions and diets and stuff, I think using that information to judge people in their misfortunes is sick, across the board. I don't sky-dive, but I don't get all puffed up about it when a sky-diver dies.

So, congratulations on your anniversary.

   When Mother Teresa's plane skidded into a crowd of well-wishers, a journalist asked her how she could explain it, how something like that could happen. She said it was probably a tie rod in the landing gear. I've met people who don't get that joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Thank you, Canada (Same-Sex Marriage)
From: JennyO
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:07 PM

Guest Observer, we had a politician in Australia a couple of years ago that you remind me of. Her name was Pauline Hanson. She didn't last long.

It was people with the kind of judgmental attitude that you have, who were the cause of my leaving the Christian church a long time ago.

You said you are looking from the outside, and that is the whole trouble. Instead of showing compassion and tolerance, and allowing for people's differences, you would rather pass judgment on what you don't understand.

To me, that is the opposite of what true Christianity is supposed to be about. You say you are a Christian? Why don't you walk your talk?

Jenny