Canada Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

[Wormdiet]

This is important. Although the government is widening the definition of marriage to include gays, the SCC is at the same time clarifying and upholding freedom of religion.

I hope the latter pans out in the long run, and doesn't get swept out in the name of tolerance at some later point.

I object to the whole "defense of marriage" movement almost more on the grounds of the establishment clause (US constitution) than on the grounds of equal rights for gays. But both aspects are significant.

In the U.S. anyway, I seriously doubt the day will come when a minister will be forced by the state to perform a marriage service for a couple against his/her conscience. That has "unconstitutional" written all over it.

To open another can of worms, what does the forum think about polygamy between consenting adults? SHould it be legal or no?

[Flyingcursor]

I object to the whole "defense of marriage" movement almost more on the grounds of the establishment clause (US constitution) than on the grounds of equal rights for gays. But both aspects are significant.

Though many have spouted how gay marriage will destroy straight marriage, I haven't seen a single line of thought can prove it. I've noticed lately that some opponents are now saying they are defending the "definition" of marriage. I'd hope it's because they see how the first argument doesn't fly.

[Walden]

To open another can of worms, what does the forum think about polygamy between consenting adults? SHould it be legal or no?

I remain opposed to it, on moral grounds, and yes, I am well aware of its common historic practice, even in the Bible.

[mukade]

Favour. I'd be even more in favour of it here in the UK. I don't see why my eldest son should have less rights than the other two.

Is there anyone who could argue with this logic?

Mukade

[susnfx]

I don't have any problem with polygamy if it's between adults, not the child polygamy some groups practice. I suppose people in Utah are more used to the idea than some others are.

And I could argue that idea, mukade, but choose not to on this forum as I don't wish to be flamed into oblivion.

Susan

[Wanderer]

I don't have any problem with polygamy if it's between adults, not the child polygamy some groups practice. I suppose people in Utah are more used to the idea than some others are.

And I could argue that idea, mukade, but choose not to on this forum as I don't wish to be flamed into oblivion.

Susan

So the population is roughly 50% men/women ratio.

That means there's nearly exactly one gal for every guy.

And then some guys end up with 2, 3, or more wives.

Who are all the left-out men supposed to turn to, if not each other?

(ok..that was a fairly lame attempt at humor)

On a more serious note, I suppose there's a lot to be said for the "what ideas you're used to" reasoning. I grew up in Houston, which I read at one time had the 2nd largest gay population in the US (though how they measure that, I'm not sure). So, I suppose I'm more used to the idea of gays deserving the same rights as straights than polygamy.

[dwinterfield]

Canada and Spain have done the right thing and made it possible for a lot of men and women to make honest men and women of their partners.

But I live in Massachusetts, so it's old news here. The 1 year anniversery was a few weeks back and it got some modest attention. One thing we saw was data that indicated that after the first few months, the number of marriages dropped. Probably most of the long term couples have now married. I do look at the Boston Sunday Globe and always see a few gay wedding announcements, but so far no gay engagement announcements. Women are marrying at a much higher rate than men. When asked about this, one gay man said - well, we're men. Are you surprised that two men might be a little marriage phobic? Maybe we all have a little more in common than some would suggest.

On a related topic, what about civil unions? Is this an institution that will disappear? How many levels of commitment should a society have? Single? Married? Civil Unioned? I think several years ago in France, they created civil unions rather than allow gay marrige and discovered many straight couples opting for civil unions because it was simpler than marriage.

On very breif reflection I think having more than two levels - single and married - would be a bad and very confusing idea.

[djm]

Wanderer, you left out female homosexuals, of which I am told there are more than males. That would leave even less choice for straight males.

If you can get enough consenting anythings together to perform polygamy, I say go for it. But why stop even there? What about bestiality? Shouldn't this be legal too? Consenting dogs, cats, sheep, water buffalo, what have you ...

My concern with making this stuff legal is that I now have to pay more taxes to cover all these freaks' social services and government old age pension costs. That is the real implication of all this, and why they so desparately want a legal standing. If any of this was to do only with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom it would not be an issue. I'm agin anybuddy meks them taxes gon higher.

djm

[dwinterfield]

My concern with making this stuff legal is that I now have to pay more taxes to cover all these freaks' social services and government old age pension costs. That is the real implication of all this, and why they so desparately want a legal standing. If any of this was to do only with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom it would not be an issue. I'm agin anybuddy meks them taxes gon higher.

djm

I wouldn't know about Canada, but I think gay couples tend to be higher income than average and probably pay more taxes. Also wouldn't old gay people get pensions, married or not?

[djm]

gay couples tend to be higher income than average

Homosexuality makes one smarter?

wouldn't old gay people get pensions, married or not?

As a legal spouse and dependant, they can get additional support when one partner dies.

djm

[Cynth]

I guess, djm, that if you regard homosexual men and women as freaks, probably there is not much more to say. But these people are considered to be human beings by governments, at least yours and mine, and get the same government benefits as any single person does, as dwinterfield pointed out.

You will not be surprised to read that I find your use of the word "freak" to be utterly shocking and abhorent.

[Denny]

Homosexuality makes one smarter?

Ya know... I was wondering about that at the end of the first marriage.

Maybe the smarter ones are just more likely to admit it to themselves.

[dwinterfield]

Homosexuality makes one smarter?

Oh I don't think so. However, being male makes a significant contribution to higher income. Two men avoid the statistical drag of a lower income woman spouse. I suspect it doesn't work out so well for women. Also until recently, gay couple almost never had kids, so the amount of disposalble income was usually higher.

[djm]

if you regard homosexual men and women as freaks, probably there is not much more to say

There is so much moral rectitude and agreement in this thread that I felt compelled to object in some manner.

Also, since we are talking about something less than 1% of the population, and since modern psychologists say they have close to a 70% cure rate for homosexuality, I think freak is an apt term. No-one is lobbying for pyromaniacs to get special dispensation, so why would we get so upset about the feelings of every microminority who want to legitimize themselves?


djm

[Wanderer]

There is so much moral rectitude and agreement in this thread that I felt compelled to object in some manner.

Also, since we are talking about something less than 1% of the population, and since modern psychologists say they have close to a 70% cure rate for homosexuality, I think freak is an apt term. No-one is lobbying for pyromaniacs to get special dispensation, so why would we get so upset about the feelings of every microminority who want to legitimize themselves?


djm

By contrast, the Canadians had .181% of their population in the military in 2000. If we etrapolate those numbers to today (which is generous, since Canada's military has shrunk 30% between 1985 to 2000), that means gays outnumber the military about 5 to 1.

Lets hope they never feel too "illegitimate" a minority, eh?