Canadian Gay Marriage Thread

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
See, i think of civil unions as a new way to show the church and gays that the word marriage has been misused in the government, and can be used as a term for the state to recognize all couples no matter the sexual orientation.

I do however agree that it is being used to keep gays away from marriage...but the other side of the coin is: it is being used to protect religious freedoms.

If you look at my above posts, i am a huge advocate of equal rights. I think the only way it can be done is taking marriage out of government entirely. Any other solution creates problems with both sides of the issue.
Once marriage is not included in state affairs, it would then revert back to the way it was intended, a religious union of two beings with the blessings of god and the church.

I still don't understand marriage as an exclusively religious institution.

It just doesn't work for me - I don't need God's blessing to marry someone, especially considering I don't particularly believe in God (at least not any specific one).

I don't see it as 'protecting religious freedoms' because as far as I'm concerned, religious groups should be completely free to perform any marriage ceremony they wish, and not perform any marriage ceremony as they see fit. This doesn't require exclusive domain over marriage to be the case.

I suppose I could start an atheist or agnostic 'religion' to perform marriages for people like me, but that would seem pretty 'fake plastic' don't you think?

 

[Stunt]

new poll numbers

The same-sex marriage debate and an almost daily dose of AdScam could be having an effect on the fortunes of Canada's two main parties, a new poll suggests. Liberal voter support has slipped three points to 38% across the country, but they've lost a whopping 10% in vote-rich Ontario.

The Conservatives have gained three points nationally, rising to 29% and their support in Ontario has jumped six points to 32%.

Looks like the Conservatives are making significant gains in Ontario. I think we may have some serious competition come this next election. (which imho, will be soon)

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
See, i think of civil unions as a new way to show the church and gays that the word marriage has been misused in the government, and can be used as a term for the state to recognize all couples no matter the sexual orientation.

I do however agree that it is being used to keep gays away from marriage...but the other side of the coin is: it is being used to protect religious freedoms.

If you look at my above posts, i am a huge advocate of equal rights. I think the only way it can be done is taking marriage out of government entirely. Any other solution creates problems with both sides of the issue.
Once marriage is not included in state affairs, it would then revert back to the way it was intended, a religious union of two beings with the blessings of god and the church.

I still don't understand marriage as an exclusively religious institution.

It just doesn't work for me - I don't need God's blessing to marry someone, especially considering I don't particularly believe in God (at least not any specific one).

I don't see it as 'protecting religious freedoms' because as far as I'm concerned, religious groups should be completely free to perform any marriage ceremony they wish, and not perform any marriage ceremony as they see fit. This doesn't require exclusive domain over marriage to be the case.

I suppose I could start an atheist or agnostic 'religion' to perform marriages for people like me, but that would seem pretty 'fake plastic' don't you think?

Eh, but Stunt isn't saying (if I read this correctly) that only religious people will get married, or that only religious figures can marry couples, but that it's not the government's business who gets married. He says it is a religious issue rather than a governmental issue , but it would perhaps be better said as a personal issue rather than a governmental issue.

I could be completely misreading this thread, just yell at me if I am 🙂

The Liberal's bill sounds pretty reasonable as does the Conservative proposal. I think either one would do the trick.

Originally posted by: Stunt
new poll numbers

The same-sex marriage debate and an almost daily dose of AdScam could be having an effect on the fortunes of Canada's two main parties, a new poll suggests. Liberal voter support has slipped three points to 38% across the country, but they've lost a whopping 10% in vote-rich Ontario.

The Conservatives have gained three points nationally, rising to 29% and their support in Ontario has jumped six points to 32%.

Looks like the Conservatives are making significant gains in Ontario. I think we may have some serious competition come this next election. (which imho, will be soon)

I hope there isn't an election soon, and I hope the Liberals stay in power for some time yet. I'm a conservative -- I just want things to stay the way they are.

EDIT: thanks for the updates and polls Stunt

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: desy
Colt
People your age don't give a crap
Talk to your grandma or some older aunts and uncles, lots of the elderly do care and they happen to vote.
Harper has it right, the gov't should give a union with all the legalities that it implies and leave the term 'marriage' which is really what all the fighting is about, to churches and respect their right to 'marry' somebody or not.

Eh, don't blacklist a whole demographic -- be easy on us youngin's 🙂

Young people deeply care about our nation. I think we sometimes are sometimes reluctant to judge, which can be interpreted as apathy. But the difference in reasoning behind each characteristic is large. For example: Harper and Martin put forth two different solutions to the issue discussed in this thread, but each solution will have nearly an identical effect on the end user. I see the difference in each proposal as certainly not great enough to split the nation apart, warrant an election, or even argue with my neighbor about it.

Perhaps this is apathy, but perhaps this is holding the unity of our nation and our communities in higher regard than a miniscule difference in rhetoric.

I sometimes worry that Canada will one day become like the States, what people now call a nation divided, where relationships have been ruined by a difference in political preference. But this worry is, for the most part, unfounded: I have faith that Canada will continue to be a place where people of many different beliefs and cultures can share ideas and exchange customs without fear of conflict.

 

[Stunt]

hey stratman...he's an article i wrote a little while back, you will get my ideas from that.
post if you want clarification. A gay marriage proposal

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
See, i think of civil unions as a new way to show the church and gays that the word marriage has been misused in the government, and can be used as a term for the state to recognize all couples no matter the sexual orientation.

I do however agree that it is being used to keep gays away from marriage...but the other side of the coin is: it is being used to protect religious freedoms.

If you look at my above posts, i am a huge advocate of equal rights. I think the only way it can be done is taking marriage out of government entirely. Any other solution creates problems with both sides of the issue.
Once marriage is not included in state affairs, it would then revert back to the way it was intended, a religious union of two beings with the blessings of god and the church.

It is not a religious right or freedom to keep gay people out of CIVIL marriage.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
new poll numbers

The same-sex marriage debate and an almost daily dose of AdScam could be having an effect on the fortunes of Canada's two main parties, a new poll suggests. Liberal voter support has slipped three points to 38% across the country, but they've lost a whopping 10% in vote-rich Ontario.

The Conservatives have gained three points nationally, rising to 29% and their support in Ontario has jumped six points to 32%.

Looks like the Conservatives are making significant gains in Ontario. I think we may have some serious competition come this next election. (which imho, will be soon)

I think you are overstating the case. The government is not expected to lose on this issue. And even if they do, marriage will still be legal for same-sex couples in most parts of Canada.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: stratman
Harper and Martin put forth two different solutions to the issue discussed in this thread, but each solution will have nearly an identical effect on the end user.

Each bill will have no effect on the daily lives of heterosexuals (other than those to choose to obsess and angry) but the bills will have markedly different effects on same-sex couples and gay people.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
hey stratman...he's an article i wrote a little while back, you will get my ideas from that.
post if you want clarification. A gay marriage proposal

Why are you trying to redefine marriage as a solely religious institution?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
It is not a religious right or freedom to keep gay people out of CIVIL marriage.

Well you see, im not religious in the least...i mean im agnostic, but do not follow any rules relating to that. But that's a whole other story. Basically i'm accepting of all religious beliefs, people and lifestyles within our society, and i think it is important for the state to uphold these values.

Now, going back to the begining of our government, there was a need for the state to recognize couples and relationships, this still applies today and holds great merit. But back then they had no idea there was such a thing as homosexual tendancies and all serious couples got married. This was indeed a religious joining of two people in the presence of god. I think out of convenience and ignorance, they implemented the religious term into the state. This was a huge mistake (church has no business in state).

Now i will conceed that today it is not a religious term in legal terms, but at the same time there are those who still do think of it as such (half the population according to the poll above). By implementing gay marriage we are inadvertantly supporting the actions of our ancestors to combine church and state. It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now.

I feel we must fix their mistake and let state recognize the union a couple shares, but not start changing what marriage means...again.
The crazyiness developed by this is staggering, we have "common-law marriage" now, it just never stops, there isn't any sacredness to the word anymore, and it's disappointing for many people who are religious, and i respect that: most should.

My friends refer to this as THE "rights issue of our generation", comparing it to slavery or a woman's right to vote, this is absolutely foolish, all sides of this debate whether it be ndp, liberal, conservative; they all want state recognition for gays. No exceptions, that's the platform. The only difference is the word marriage that has been thrown around and ripped to threads. Look at these ppl who have been married 2-3....7 times, there's nothing sacred about that. And to project this into the future, i know this is a stretch, but lets say the newest thing to do is wed multiple people or animals (i hear they sign now 😉). I know it seems out there now, but so did homosexuality back when this all started. Why continue the mistakes of our past and allow a snowball effect?

Also just so you know, my best friend from highschool is gay, i have a couple gay friends, two close lesbian aunts; trust me, i am all over gay rights, if there was ever a person you would expect to support gay marriage, it'd be me. But i think this can all be resolved, allowing both sides to come to a comprimise. We have to the country is split 50/50.

What a stupid thing to fight over this day in age, when all the parties are proposing in effect the same legislation.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe those whose support gay marriage, as I do, need to recognize that society as whole in most places around the world are simply not ready yet to accept gay unions concecrated by a government? If the relatively liberal Canada is not ready for it, what does that say about other places?

Face it folks. This tea needs some time to steep. It's weak right now. It's a slow process too, but one whose flavor has improved over time and will improve further. Eventually the acceptance will happen. We may even see it in our lifetimes.

But that time is not now.

Patience.

Just chill out and wait y'alls turn for equal rights and privelidge under the law? I dunno seems to be asking a lot.

Good guns&roses song BTW..

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
[Now, going back to the begining of our government, there was a need for the state to recognize couples and relationships, this still applies today and holds great merit. But back then they had no idea there was such a thing as homosexual tendancies and all serious couples got married. This was indeed a religious joining of two people in the presence of god. I think out of convenience and ignorance, they implemented the religious term into the state. This was a huge mistake (church has no business in state).

Now i will conceed that today it is not a religious term in legal terms, but at the same time there are those who still do think of it as such (half the population according to the poll above). By implementing gay marriage we are inadvertantly supporting the actions of our ancestors to combine church and state. It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now.

I feel we must fix their mistake and let state recognize the union a couple shares, but not start changing what marriage means...again.
The crazyiness developed by this is staggering, we have "common-law marriage" now, it just never stops, there isn't any sacredness to the word anymore, and it's disappointing for many people who are religious, and i respect that: most should.

This understandable argument seems to be the cornerstone to many people's opposition to the idea of gay marriage; that marriage was originally a christian institution - a sacrament, and that government has been wrong to adopt it and dilute its christian nature - that if government wants to change it, then it should call it something else.

As I say, it is an understandable argument, but not true - marriage was not originally a religious institution - it was not that government "implemented the religious term into the state" but that the churuch adopted a civil institution. It was not until the Council of Trent, in the mid 1500s, that the Christian church codified Marriage as a religious institution, saying that it was only valid if witnessed by a priest.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dpm

This understandable argument seems to be the cornerstone to many people's opposition to the idea of gay marriage; that marriage was originally a christian institution - a sacrament, and that government has been wrong to adopt it and dilute its christian nature - that if government wants to change it, then it should call it something else.

As I say, it is an understandable argument, but not true - marriage was not originally a religious institution - it was not that government "implemented the religious term into the state" but that the churuch adopted a civil institution. It was not until the Council of Trent, in the mid 1500s, that the Christian church codified Marriage as a religious institution, saying that it was only valid if witnessed by a priest.

:beer:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dpm
This understandable argument seems to be the cornerstone to many people's opposition to the idea of gay marriage; that marriage was originally a christian institution - a sacrament, and that government has been wrong to adopt it and dilute its christian nature - that if government wants to change it, then it should call it something else.

As I say, it is an understandable argument, but not true - marriage was not originally a religious institution - it was not that government "implemented the religious term into the state" but that the churuch adopted a civil institution. It was not until the Council of Trent, in the mid 1500s, that the Christian church codified Marriage as a religious institution, saying that it was only valid if witnessed by a priest.

When marriage was created as a civil institution, it was commonly polygamous and were only used to expand land, and goods in the merging of families or clans.
It wasnt until the church deemed it between one man and one woman that the state then took the church's definition of the term. Modern day marriage was developed from the church's view of the union.
If you are going to go way back to the initial civil union also called marriage, you must also accept pologamous relationships.

Do you?...if not you are taking the church's definition (which of course brings in the sacred ceremony side)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dpm
This understandable argument seems to be the cornerstone to many people's opposition to the idea of gay marriage; that marriage was originally a christian institution - a sacrament, and that government has been wrong to adopt it and dilute its christian nature - that if government wants to change it, then it should call it something else.

As I say, it is an understandable argument, but not true - marriage was not originally a religious institution - it was not that government "implemented the religious term into the state" but that the churuch adopted a civil institution. It was not until the Council of Trent, in the mid 1500s, that the Christian church codified Marriage as a religious institution, saying that it was only valid if witnessed by a priest.

When marriage was created as a civil institution, it was commonly polygamous and were only used to expand land, and goods in the merging of families or clans.
It wasnt until the church deemed it between one man and one woman that the state then took the church's definition of the term. Modern day marriage was developed from the church's view of the union.
If you are going to go way back to the initial civil union also called marriage, you must also accept pologamous relationships.

Do you?...if not you are taking the church's definition (which of course brings in the sacred ceremony side)

I don't recall Roman marriages being polygamous, or religious... this argument can be regressed ad nauseum, but the definite conclusion is that marriage is not an exclusively religious institution.

 

[Stunt]

**UPDATE**

hey guys, for those who have been following this thread i appreciate it as the majority of you guys are american, although this issue does hit close to home for you as well.
If you guys recall i sent an email to the Conservative Party of Canada.
Here is the email: (sent January 25th)

I am a fiscal conservative concerned with this party's stance on the same-sex marriage bill. I am an advocate of gay rights but an election over such small differences is ridiculous. I am urging the Conservative party to make a comprimise to satisfy both gays and religious beliefs. By implementing unions we again create an inequality and the bikkering continues. If the Conservative party would like to step up as a national party and shed its image of losing its progressive roots, i suggest the following solution. Take marriage completely out of government. Do not have an inequality and separate church and state (a fundamental conservative belief). Allow all couples to register as a union and reserve "marriage" as a religious ceremony not to be confused with the state recognized union. Thank you for reading. Don't turn your back on progressive conservatives and the youth with this bill.

The response came from Stephen Harper: the leader of the opposition (effectively getting a response from say a kerry figure)

Dear Mr. Whitelaw:

Thank you for your recent message regarding the same-sex marriage
debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address your concerns.

I appreciate your input and views on this issue. This is an important
matter of social policy and the Supreme Court has asked Parliament to
legislate. I believe that a reasonable compromise can be reached which
upholds the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time
ensuring equal rights and privileges for same-sex partners.

I do recognize that the definition of marriage is a matter of conscience
and as such, votes on this issue will be free votes for Conservative
Party Members.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,


Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

So nothing groundbreaking here...but it was more flattering to receive a letter from such a prestigious government figure.

 

[Stunt]

Anti-gay-bill rally set

Anti-gay-bill rally set
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, OTTAWA BUREAU, SUN MEDIA

Foes of same-sex marriage will converge in Canada's capital Saturday for a rally billed as the biggest in a decade. MPs, church leaders and ethnic representatives are lined up to speak to the thousands expected to gather on Parliament Hill. While most busloads will come in from Toronto and across Ontario, demonstrators from coast-to-coast will also make the trek.

London Liberal MP Pat O'Brien will be among the federal politicians speaking to the crowd. The mass demonstration takes place just three days before a critical vote on a Conservative motion to retain the traditional definition of marriage, and O'Brien expects the protest will have some influence on MPs.

"This has been a court-driven process, which is wrong," he said. "There needs to be the political will in this country to have the last word on this, and that means the government ... should be stepping up and defining marriage in law as the union between a man and woman."

Smaller rallies in communities across Canada have been taking place for months -- many of them outside the constituency offices of MPs who favour gay marriage.

But John Cheung, of Vancouver's chapter of Defend Marriage Coalition, hopes the mass rally will make the fence sitters take note. "We hope we can sway at least a few undecided Liberal MPs to our cause," he said.

Gwen Landolt, spokesman for Real Women, said the rally will be like "spontaneous combustion" for the same-sex marriage bill.