Canada Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Socializing and general posts on wide-ranging topics. Remember, it's Poststructural!
susnfx
Posts: 4245
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Salt Lake City

Post by susnfx »

emmline wrote:(btw, is the point of this exercise to start an enormous flamer the minute some hapless person picks oppose?)
I don't know. Let's see.

Oppose - and I won't go into the reasons why, but it has nothing to do with religion since I'm not a religious person.

Susan
Jack
Posts: 15580
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA

Post by Jack »

Lots of Christian denominations/groups marry gay people. I'm pretty sure some more "liberal" Jewish sects do as well, but I don't know about Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc...
User avatar
StevieJ
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu May 17, 2001 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Old hand, active in the early 2000s. Less active in recent years but still lurking from time to time.
Location: Montreal

Post by StevieJ »

OTM, I'm curious to know what you thought of Stephen Harper's remarks to the effect that since the bill was likely to be passed only because of the support of the splittists, our friends Duceppe and co., its legitimacy for the whole of federal Canada would somehow be questionable.

Personally I was very surprised. I mean this a guy who was hoping to bring down the Martin government... with the support of the Bloc, as I recall.
User avatar
Jerry Freeman
Posts: 6074
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
Contact:

Post by Jerry Freeman »

Here's an interview that aired recently. I thought it fascinating. It seems the definition of marriage has changed continually over the millenia and any ideas we may have about "traditional" marriage may be rooted only in very recent conventions:

Stephanie Coontz: "Marriage, A History" (Viking)

Best wishes,
Jerry
User avatar
MarkB
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by MarkB »

Harper and his party the Canadian Alliance Reform Party has lost all credibility in Quebec with his statements, and shown his true colours as a right wing neo conservative western party with a very narrow agenda and absolutely no grasp of politics and the political life in Ottawa. A big L loser!

Never had any use for the man or his party!

MarkB
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.
User avatar
OnTheMoor
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:40 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by OnTheMoor »

StevieJ wrote:OTM, I'm curious to know what you thought of Stephen Harper's remarks to the effect that since the bill was likely to be passed only because of the support of the splittists, our friends Duceppe and co., its legitimacy for the whole of federal Canada would somehow be questionable.

Personally I was very surprised. I mean this a guy who was hoping to bring down the Martin government... with the support of the Bloc, as I recall.
politics politics. CPC was so off base on this, and to actually consider bringing the government down over it was insane. The geniuses at UofC at work. :roll:

Cran, most of the Provincial High Courts pronounced the current definition of marriage to be unconstitutional. So it was left to the government to either create a new definition or go around the courts by one of the fun little things you find in the Canadian System. The government tried to pass it off to THE Supreme Court of Canada, not wanting to have to make a decision (although it is clear, and they eventually figured it out, that Canadians are in favour of same-sex marriage, under the law that is) and the SCC threw it right back, telling them to do their own dirty work. The House of Commons is the Canadian Lower House, our elected members of the Federal Government. It now goes on to various Committees to hammer out something workable and to the Upper House, the appointed Senate, who will almost certainly pass it. Then Canada has a new definition of marriage. The next step is to see whether people start to call for the government to take on the various Churches for human rights violations... but that won't happen for some time. Short of it is that Canada is the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.
User avatar
djm
Posts: 17853
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 5:47 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Canadia
Contact:

Post by djm »

Oooo, Moor is gonna bite your bum for that! :o

djm
I'd rather be atop the foothills than beneath them.
User avatar
Unseen122
Posts: 3542
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 7:21 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Of course I'm not a bot; I've been here for years... Apparently that isn't enough to pass muster though!
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by Unseen122 »

Cranberry wrote: ...I'm pretty sure some more "liberal" Jewish sects do as well...
Liberal to the point of praying in English as a Conservative Jew (the only area where I am right wing and conservative Judaisim is more in the middle but I actually do lean to the right) I am sometimes affended by these reconstructionists (sect of Judaisim which is very left wing it would inclue things like Jews for Jesus more left wing than Reform). Back to my point if they want to be wrong they should be able to know I have nothing against gays and they should have the right to marry someone of the same sex. I can't see why it is such a big deal people have the right to do things like get Drunk when alcohol can make some people raging maniacs now which would you rather have a drunken maniac or two men kissing I mean which is more dangerous? The answer is obvious right wingers try to mend society to be "perfect" now we all know that, that will not work.
User avatar
Joseph E. Smith
Posts: 13780
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:40 pm
antispam: No
Location: ... who cares?...
Contact:

Post by Joseph E. Smith »

Favor.
Image
User avatar
Cynth
Posts: 6703
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:58 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Iowa, USA

Post by Cynth »

I'd definitely rather have two men kissing, thank you. :lol: I think this law is good. Homosexuality has always been practiced. It has been persecuted more at some times than others. I don't see the point of forcing people to live unhappy lives or unfulfilled lives. We are all the same.
User avatar
dapple
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:58 am

Post by dapple »

Favor.
~ David
Jack
Posts: 15580
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA

Post by Jack »

In regards to religion and gay marriage, here are two really interesting (and lengthy) essays with opposing viewpoints:

http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
User avatar
MarkB
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Post by MarkB »

Married, living together, shacked up or whatever! The arrangement that you find that suits you and your partner in a loving, caring and honest way is not the business of the community, the state or the church. There are just to many other things in the world that need our attention, than what goes on between two consenting adults in their bedroom and their lives. Life is short as it is to deny two people the love they want to share together REGARDLESS OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION...I DON'T CARE AND NEITHER SHOULD ANYONE ELSE!

Call yourself married or whatever, hetro or homo, happy or gay, legal or illegally, I think a great mark of a civilization is in the tolerance of it's citizens to let life happen within the just laws of the state as governed by its citizens.

MarkB
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.
Jack
Posts: 15580
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA

Post by Jack »

MarkB wrote:Married, living together, shacked up or whatever! The arrangement that you find that suits you and your partner in a loving, caring and honest way is not the business of the community, the state or the church.
I think I disagree with that, at least a little bit. People don't live in a vacuum (except for Bloomfield). We all live in a community or family system of some sort or another, and everything we are and everything we do affects the other people.
I think a great mark of a civilization is in the tolerance of it's citizens to let life happen within the just laws of the state as governed by its citizens.
Would you disagree that the laws of the state have to be based on something?

Yes, I'm sort of playing "devil's-advocate" here, but I'm interesting to hear your thoughts...
User avatar
gonzo914
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 6:00 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Near the squiggly part of Kansas

Post by gonzo914 »

Wanderer wrote:Being a heterosexual American guy, I have no dog in this fight, really.
Yes, you do have a dog in this fight. When it comes to any issue that involves the government meddling in our personal affairs, we all have a dog in that fight.

My take on this is that marriage should be a religious rite to be carried out with whatever arcane mumbo-jumbo strikes the participants' fancy. The goverment should only be interested in the civil aspects of the union -- taxation, property rights, inheritance and other isues such as the rights of next-of-kin, etc. Let's outlaw marriage and have the law recognize only civil unions. Existing marriages can be grandfathered as civil unions.
Crazy for the blue white and red
Crazy for the blue white and red
And yellow fringe
Crazy for the blue white red and yellow
Post Reply