[mac/dief]

I'm sorry that you had to go through a hard time as a teenager, I remember a few years ago what happened when I went back home to my old town and found out that one of my ex-girlfriends was now in a lesbian relationship. At the time I was disgusted and I was very rude to her, in hindsight a few years later I realized that that was wrong on my part, and that I acted like a complete jackass. So on behalf of all heterosexuals who have treated Gays and Lesbians badly, I apologize. <br /> <br />You're right there are still bad attitudes towards Gay people, but that's because those attitudes get passed down from generation to generation, in a lot of ways (I dont really blame my religion for this) I was raised to be a homophobe. But after meeting Gays and Lesbians who were really quite decent and good people it beca <br />me very hard for me to continue with that attitude. <br /> <br />I support Gay rights just as I support equal rights for all human beings, however to me marriage is not a political institution, it has very deep religious significance. I'm among those on the Christian "Right" who would prefer to see civic unions for homosexual couples with the same rights and privlegdes as heterosexual married couples, not because I am out to deny Gays equality, but because I believe in protecting marriage, plain and simple. <br /> <br />Anyway I applaud you for being able to see the opinions of those who oppose SSM, if formal debates like this are held on the issue, I think that some conclusion, hopefully a fair compromise can be reached which will prevent this issue from becoming explosive. <br /> <br />Originally like many opponents of SSM I wanted a referendum to be held on the issue, since a sizably large number of Canadians were either catious or outrightly opposed I believed that it was our best chance for victory, however now I realize that a referendum will only pit neighbour against neighbour like most referenda tend to do and would probably encourage violence against the Gay community, so now Im completely against it and would prefer some type of national debate instead. Hell even an unofficial Citizen's Assembly where the concerns of all Canadian groups (the Gay Community, Church's, provinces, ethnic groups, etc.) were all listened too would be better than nothing. <br /> <br /> <br />

[mac/dief]

Yeah and you're completely right about Mackenzie King, the fact that he described Hitler as being a man "whose skin was soft and had an effectionate look in his eyes" tips most Canadians off as to the general oddness of the man, <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> . <br /> <br />The idea that he is related to that great champion for the working class and Canadian patriot, William Lyon Mackenzie is beyond me <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> !!!

[cathou79]

[QUOTE BY= mac/dief] (...)I support Gay rights just as I support equal rights for all human beings, however to me marriage is not a political institution, it has very deep religious significance. (...)[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />i understand your point. however, marriage, like it or not is a political institution. Sure the ceremony at the church is religious, and i'm 100% agree with that. keep it like that, i wont object. but after the ceremony, just before you leave the church, what do you do ? you sign a legal contract. at this point, marriage become a political thing. most people dont understand that the contract that you sign, and the ceremony is two different thing. i could take that contract, go in front of any person abilitate to validate contracts (like a lawer for exemple) without any ceremony, and the marriage will be legal. <br /> <br />that's what we want. just the legal part of marriage. i wouldnt vote for a law that force church to pratice SSM. it's against their religion, and i'm fine with that. Yes we could call it a civil union. but marriage have a significance to us too. remember that we we're raise as heterosexuals. until i discover that i was homosexual, i've always thinked that when i would found the right person, that i love very much, i would married him, to express my love. i've thinked that for 16 years, and it's still meaning something for me.

[mac/dief]

I respect you're feelings Cathou, and personally it doesn't bother me if either you or Lesouris, or any other homosexual lives in a relationship with another homosexual, its not any of my business whatsoever! I think the vast majority of social-conservatives do not want to make it their business and could care less what people do in private. <br /> <br />Im not sure what effect it will have on marriage to change the definition, but in a society where both marriage and family are declining, it's definately something to be cautious about as far as Im concerned. <br />I can understand that for you marriage is important, but one thing that you have to realize is that marriage has never been same sex, it has always been a heterosexual institutions. There are strong fears that changing the definition could lead to an even further slide in family values. <br /> <br />Im not saying I necassarily think that will happen, but it is definately something I worry about. Monogomy is no longer encouraged, we even have parisytes (I know its a strong word, but it fits) who advertise services that encourage adultery. Beyond that divorce rates are up, mothers are being left to raise families on their own without any support at an unprecedented rate, were even at a point now where forms of pornography which exploit children are actually flurishing as markets and most of the scum who pedel those services are not being brought to justice or even properly hunted down. Morality in the western hemisphere seems to be in a lot of trouble, so I've become really cautious about doing anything which can make it worse. <br /> <br />Its become political-suicide to even utter social-conservatism and morales, somehow it makes you unprogressive, so one thing that I've noticed is that many average Canadians who feel angry about these things are being silenced by waves of populist social-libertarianism. For example, its somehow wrong to oppose Abortion. <br /> <br />Now I don't want to get another debate started here, but it is technically the termination of a living human life, and as not only a Christian but as someone who values all human life I cannot condone that at all. It doesnt mean that I want abortion to be banned, than women would just go to "back alley clinics" and get unprofessional abortions, those are dangerous and in many cases fatal. But I do try and discourage it, but even I get shouted at too, as a "chauvinist" or "reactionary". Anyway I'll leave it at that since I don't want to get into a rant here, but you can see where some suspicion comes from. <br /> <br />

[mac/dief]

The sad thing is, is that Im far from being an orthodox Catholic, Im about as liberal as a Christian gets. But even I'm starting to worry about some of the strong trends and events that Im seeing.

[lesouris]

There was an article in the Toronto Star either yesterday or today that talked about the changing face of marriage. This professor from U of T was talking about how SSM isn't even in the top three changes to marriage in the past 50 years. He said that the biggest changes to marriage were that now you can chooses who you want to marry, it's easy to get a divorce, and married women have far more rights (until 1965 I believe, married women in Quebec [I'm not sure about other places] were considered minors and unable to open bank accounts, sign their children's medical documents, et cetera). <br /> <br />What is this traditional marriage social conservatives fight for anyway? Is it Biblical marriage - you know a polygamous relationship where the man owned the women and could buy and sell their daughters? Is it Midaeval Marriage - where women were sold to their husbands and stoned for adultery (apparently when they had twins, they were supposed to have slept with two men on the same night, and if it was identical twins, it was with their husband's brother)? Is it Victorian marriage - women were just baby-making machines forced to "lie back and think of England"? Is it early 20th Century marriage - where a man could beat his wife, divorce her and leave her with no financial support and inter-religious and racial marriage were unheard of? Is it late 20th Century marriage where men and women were equal and all races and religions could marry whomever they want, and divorce reasonably with child and financial support for the spouce who needs it? It's not really a matter of redefining tradtional marriage, it's about an evolving institution. <br /> <br />BTW There was just a new poll where 57% of Canadians said they support SSM. <br /> <br />As for your remarks on abortion mac/deif, I'm glad you see the importance of at least having the choice instead of resorting to back alley abortionists and I respect your views. I am Pro-Choice, and I believe that the foetus is not a human being, but it's all a matter of opinion I suppose, but as you said, let's not get into that issue.

[mac/dief]

Yeah, I've completely surrendered on the SSM fight, it's over, we lost <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> <br /> <br />I think Ralph Klein could use the not withstanding clause if he wants to, but Alberta cannot continue it for more than a few years. Now my energy is being focused on other issues, as it is (pretty much) a dead issue. Anyway in regards to abortion, thanks. I don't side with those who debate that it should be made illegal, instead I try and encourage those who discourage it and try to encourage other options, I think that that is far more productive. <br />

[lesouris]

I'm not so sure about Alberta being able to use the Notwithstanding clause because a province cannot invoke that clause in an issue that the constitution says is ultra vires to their government. If the federal government changes the definiition of marriage, the only way Alberta could get out of performing SSM would be to pass a provincial law that made liscensing SSM illegal. It could then invoke the notwithstanding clause, but it would only be in effect for 5 years. Alberta's justice minister said that he will probably not pursue this route and would probably accept SSM if it is made legal at the federal level, unless he finds an efective solution to the problem.

[KevinGagnon]

Forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been discussed. I honestly don't have the time to go through all the post on this topic. This seems to be a thread that is never ending with comments.

Being a NDP supporter myself only cause there is no other choice accept far right or far left. Wishing there was a centre. I would like to comment on the gay marriage issue.

I'm no god and I don't believe I or any government should be telling people what to do when it comes to marriage. However, I do have some questions which makes me skeptical about allowing gay as part of normal human behaviour. I have cousin's that are gay so understand that I respect that. I just have these questions.

* If gay is a normal human behaviour, what does that say about our civilization if gay became a norm in our society or even a majority in our society. Does this mean a decrease in population? Could it even mean a end of civilization over time? Dumb questions? Maybe.

* If gay people want to get married under God. Shouldn't they ask themselves why God didn't give them the ability to have children?

Don't get upset with my questions please. I have a open mind. Like I said I have family that are gay and I talk and have conversations with them all the time. I don't judge in a sense. I just have questions, which is also my right, right?

Kevin

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] <br />* If gay is a normal human behaviour, what does that say about our civilization if gay became a norm in our society or even a majority in our society. Does this mean a decrease in population? Could it even mean a end of civilization over time? Dumb questions? Maybe.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Homosexuality is not that widespread, 5% of the population maximum. Experts agree that homosexuality is a normal human behaviour for a minority of adults. In some ancient cultures bisexuality was the norm amongst men and sometimes women - look at Greece, the birthplace of democracy. I think the chances of homosexuality destroying our society is a serious threat at all considering we live in a world of pollution, nuclear weapons, overpopulation, and AIDS. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] <br />* If gay people want to get married under God. Shouldn't they ask themselves why God didn't give them the ability to have children?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I am a gay agnostic (since you didn't read the previous posts) so I don't really see how God fits intot the whole equation or if there is a God at all. As for why gay people can't have children, I've always thought that perhaps homosexuality was a way of keeping a sustainable birth rate (so we don't overpopulate). <br /> <br />There are many theories as to why homosexuality exists. One theory I read about that I find particularily interesting can be found <a href="http://http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/">here</a> (WARNING, you probably shouldn't visit this site if you share a computer with a person or persons who would think less of you if they found out that you were on a website devoted to the history of gay male love, it is a very interesting article though) <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] Don't get upset with my questions please. I have a open mind. Like I said I have family that are gay and I talk and have conversations with them all the time. I don't judge in a sense. I just have questions, which is also my right, right? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br />Kevin[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Certainly it's your right to ask questions! If we didn't ask questions and passed judgements based on ignorance, our judgements would be just that, ignorant. It's like back in school if you were ever like me and didn't listen to the teacher give instructions, and then later you felt to embarassed to ask for them again...you would usually screw up and get a really bad mark, wouldn't you? It's the same in a court room; questions are asked to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. So always ask questions, it is the best way to learn, and we always have more to learn, afterall the universe is an extraordinarily complex, yet wonderful, place.

[KevinGagnon]

I mentioned God not cause of any religious beliefs of my own. I asked cause of the recent movement for some gay people who wanted to marry through a church. That would mean they want to marry under God.

Kevin

[cathou79]

[QUOTE BY= KevinGagnon] <br /> <br />* If gay is a normal human behaviour, what does that say about our civilization if gay became a norm in our society or even a majority in our society. Does this mean a decrease in population? Could it even mean a end of civilization over time? Dumb questions? Maybe. <br /> <br />* If gay people want to get married under God. Shouldn't they ask themselves why God didn't give them the ability to have children? <br /> <br />Don't get upset with my questions please. I have a open mind. Like I said I have family that are gay and I talk and have conversations with them all the time. I don't judge in a sense. I just have questions, which is also my right, right? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br />Kevin[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You sure are free to ask questions, and we will be glad to respond. <br /> <br />Like Lesouris said, gays are a minority, and i dont think that will change. it's not because it's accepted that the number will increase. i dont think that an heterosexual would become gay just for the fun of it. we may experience an increase of bi-sexual but that's all. <br /> <br />Unlike Lesouris, i'm catholic. i'm not really praticing it, but i believe. why god didnt gave me the ability to have children ? honestly, i dont think it's a real issue for God. i'm physically capable of reproducing, but since i like other womens i cant do it with the person i love. Did god also hate people who are steril ? i dont think so. for me the message of god is to live in harmony with other people and not obeying strict laws. for catholic it's a sin to eat meat on friday, and if god send me to hell for that, god is pretty dumb... <br /> <br />but for me, if i ever get married it will be a civil marriage. i have repeated this several time, but i dont think we have the right to force churches to married us. they have the right to accept whoever they want in their churches, and if they dont want gay, well, just accept it.

[KevinGagnon]

I find it funny how the same people who may be opposed to gay marriages in the church. Are the same people who don't even practice the religion fully.

I don't practice any religion myself. I also don't intend to marry in a church. I'm thinking of just a private marriage on a beach with one witness that can be anyone. Doesn't have to be a priest. It may even just be a family member. It may not be a legal marriage, but that's not what I would look for. A union between two people who love eachother doesn't have to be infront of a priest or the justice of the peace. It can just be a union agreed between the two infront of their own God that they believe exist outside of the church. I know the society system would want a church or justice of peace marriage in order to be legal, but I really don't care.

I also find it funny how many people marry in a church out of tradition only, and not ever having any religious beliefs in the church. I never understood that.

Kevin

[mac/dief]

Well the issue of SSM is pretty much over, it wasn't passed with wide public consent (at the most there is only a little over 50% currently supporting it), but it will still be passed none the less and as time goes on most people, including myself will just have to learn to live with the fact that marriage will be changed. <br /> <br />I never like to give up on a fight, but even I know when something becomes such a lost cause that its only a waste of time, energy and resources to keep fighting it. I do not blame all of the important opponents of SSM (like Stephen Harper of the Conservatives, Pat O'Brien of the Liberals and that one New Democrat) for opposing a referendum, it would be stupid. Yes there is a significant chance that our side would win, but even if we did beat it, it will most likely come back as an issue in 10 or 20 years to haunt us again. As Im sure it will in Australia. <br /> <br />Im not among those who thinks that it will lead to a destruction of society's norms, Lesouris is right Gays and Lesbians are a small minority, I've heard 2%, you say 5%, whatever. The point is, Im not worried about straight kids turning Gay, or heterosexuals becoming a minority, or our population decreasing or something ridiculous like that, I just do not believe that marriage was intended to be for individuals of the same sex! <br /> <br />I do feel sorry for the Liberal cabinet ministers who have no choice but to vote for the proposal, Paul Martin would still win even if the 2 or 3 Cabinet Ministers opposed to SSM where allowed to vote with their conscience, it's only putting elected representatives in an unfair position, choosing between you're political career and you're convictions. Anyway with the way that Jean Chretien skillfully dogded the issue during the years while it was still highly controversial and allowed the courts to handle it, I think it was only inevitable. The federal government simply waited for the fire to die down, smart on their part! <br /> <br />Anyway I think this thread will probably start to die out soon as we begin focusing on other issues, because as I said before, it's over, marriage has been changed, and a federal government, even a socially-conservative one would most likely only be able to change marriage back under the reign of Queen Dick. Meaning it will never happen. <br /> <br />Here in Ontario for example all three major parties (as well as all of the major parties in Quebec) are completely supportive of SSM, so even on a provincial level outside of Alberta I do not see any possibility for a reversal. And Lesouris you're right, Klein can only delay it, there is no way he can stop it. Even if he passed a law saying that SSM was illegal it would violate the Charter and he would open a whole new can of worms, as churches that practise same sex marriage like the Anglican church and the United church would complain about their religious freedoms being persecuted. <br /> <br />

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= mac/dief] I never like to give up on a fight, but even I know when something becomes such a lost cause that its only a waste of time, energy and resources to keep fighting it. I do not blame all of the important opponents of SSM (like Stephen Harper of the Conservatives, Pat O'Brien of the Liberals and that one New Democrat) for opposing a referendum, it would be stupid. Yes there is a significant chance that our side would win, but even if we did beat it, it will most likely come back as an issue in 10 or 20 years to haunt us again. As Im sure it will in Australia. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I think a referendum would have had major reprecussions for Canadian unity anyway. I mean, we have one province (Quebec) that is overwhelmingly pro-SSM, and one province (Alberta) that is overwhelmingly anti-SSM. Since both these provinces claim to be the most alienated most often, whoever wins, we would all loose. I think it was a very good idea to avoid a referendum for this reason alone, not to mention the whole tyranny of the majority thing. I mean, it would've been nice to know that my country supported me and my relationships as as legitimate as any straight relationship, but if the majority of Candians don't, I don't care, it's my life and my choice.