Canadian Militiary's first gay marriage

[Stunt]

Canada Marks its first Gay Marriage in History today. I have no objections on the matter, I do however find it odd that the department felt the need to come forward with this. It's almost like it's being done to rub it in traditional marriage supporter's faces.

Canadian Militiary's first gay marriage

Cdn military marks first gay marriage
HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian military is marking its first gay wedding.

Two men, who do not want to be identified, exchanged vows in a small ceremony at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood in western Nova Scotia. It was the first time the military presided over a same-sex union after introducing guidelines in 2003 dealing with the contentious issue.

The two men, one a sergeant, the other a warrant officer, were married last month by a United Church minister because the base chaplain is Anglican and couldn't officiate.

But, Lt-Cmdr. David Greenwood helped arrange the service and preached at it.

He says it might encourage other gays and lesbians in the military to come forward and make their vows official.

A spokeswoman with National Defence confirmed it was the first wedding for a gay couple in the military's history.

The department's guidelines say same-sex couples must be treated like heterosexuals.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled last September that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

 

[StageLeft]

That means 1/6 of the Candian military is gay!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That means 1/6 of the Candian military is gay!

Ouch.

 

[yllus]

Cool.

 

[azazyel]

golf clap

 

[Zebo]

canada may go extinct. What with all they gays fromn USA wanting to move there, all the straights like Skoob and Micheal moving to USA they'll have negative population growth.

Well. there's always catholic Quebec, but they're not really Canada anyway.

 

[yllus]

Quebec has one of the worst negative birth trends in the country. Has a lot to do with the racism (some perceived, much real) endemic in the province.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: yllus
Quebec has one of the worst negative birth trends in the country. Has a lot to do with the racism (some perceived, much real) endemic in the province.

Proof? I heard just the opposite.. Quebec is huge drain on welfare system cause all them kids they having

 

[yllus]

Quebec birth rate continues decline

MONTREAL ? Quebec's birth rate continues to spiral downward, dropping by 1.7 per cent in 2002, or 1,200 fewer babies born in the province.

Statistics Canada said the birth rate across the country fell to an all-time low in 2002, dropping for the 11th time in 12 years.

Together, Quebec and Ontario account for almost 90 per cent of the birth rate's decline.

Except for a blip in 2000, the birth rate keeps dropping across Canada, for a total decline of more than 25 per cent over the past decade.

While Quebec has subsidized the cost of having children through no taxes on baby products and lower daycare costs, their independent immigration policy which is geared towards reinforcing the Francophone population is the major issue. I would provide more information, but this is all stuff I read in my daily paper (The Toronto Star) which only allows for 14-day searches online.

 

[Zebo]

Just because it's declined does'nt mean it's declined relative to other provinces. While true, Quebec may have gone down 1.7%, Nova Scotia may have gone down 1.8%.

 

[Stunt]

Birth rate is declining in all first world countries.

More gay people = more adoptions = hopefully less abortions

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Canada Marks its first Gay Marriage in History today. I have no objections on the matter, I do however find it odd that the department felt the need to come forward with this. It's almost like it's being done to rub it in traditional marriage supporter's faces.

Canadian Militiary's first gay marriage

Cdn military marks first gay marriage
HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian military is marking its first gay wedding.

Two men, who do not want to be identified, exchanged vows in a small ceremony at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood in western Nova Scotia. It was the first time the military presided over a same-sex union after introducing guidelines in 2003 dealing with the contentious issue.

The two men, one a sergeant, the other a warrant officer, were married last month by a United Church minister because the base chaplain is Anglican and couldn't officiate.

But, Lt-Cmdr. David Greenwood helped arrange the service and preached at it.

He says it might encourage other gays and lesbians in the military to come forward and make their vows official.

A spokeswoman with National Defence confirmed it was the first wedding for a gay couple in the military's history.

The department's guidelines say same-sex couples must be treated like heterosexuals.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled last September that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

This issue comes out of state recognition of marriage. Not because gays have any less rights than any other person. While i sympathize with their case as under today's current laws and system, the government should have no reason not to wed them. My problem is with why the state feels the need to recognize this term...it is very divisive with absolutely no benifits to society.

One interesting point, the US constitution has no mention of God, and our loyalty to him, whereas in Canada, our constitution is based on the word of God.

Right at the top of the Charter:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
My problem is with why the state feels the need to recognize this term...it is very divisive with absolutely no benifits to society.

There need to be rules about who gets to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, who inherits a spouse's property, property division and child care if a married couple separate, etc. If these rules did not exist, our relationships with people would be much more chaotic and traumatic. In order to apply these rules, the state needs to be able to recognize who is and isn't married. I have no objection to state recognition (or constitution) of marriage, actually, I think it is a desirable situation. There really is no feasible alternative.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a "substantial rights movement".

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a substantial rights movement.

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

the analogy is reasonable - but certainly the rights movement of homosexuals is quite diff than for a racial minority or wormen b/c a gay can hide (some much more easily than others) the fact that he's gay in everyday life and avoid a lot of the prejudice and hate. a black person or a woman on the other hand is going to have a tough time pulling this one off - they have to live with the prejudice in a more "in your face" kind of way on a daily basis.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Canada Marks its first Gay Marriage in History today. I have no objections on the matter, I do however find it odd that the department felt the need to come forward with this. It's almost like it's being done to rub it in traditional marriage supporter's faces.

Military organizations have a reputation for homophobia. I'd guess the leaders of Canada's military want to fight that stereotype, or maybe send a message to the military and the general public that gay people are accorded respect within the military in the same way that heterosexual people are accorded respect within the military.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a substantial rights movement.

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

the analogy is reasonable

Yes, it is a reasonable analogy, and Stunt's objection to it seems rather odd, to me.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
- but certainly the rights movement of homosexuals is quite diff than for a racial minority or wormen b/c a gay can hide (some much more easily than others) the fact that he's gay in everyday life and avoid a lot of the prejudice and hate. a black person or a woman on the other hand is going to have a tough time pulling this one off - they have to live with the prejudice in a more "in your face" kind of way on a daily basis.

A black kid has his black parents and his black family for support. A gay individual is born amongst the ememy (homophobic heterosexuals) with no one for support, no one to confide in. What is required for survival is a psychologically and emotionally damaging supression of thoughts and feelings (being in "the closet"). Gay people have limited access to gay role models, because of the erasure of gay individuals from history books, etc. The disadvantage faced by blacks in the usa is generational and associated with entrenched poverty. A gay person could be born into great poverty or great privilege.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
That means 1/6 of the Candian military is gay!

haha

 

[Horus]

lol, go figure that the air force zoomies in Greenwood would be gay.

Naw, good on 'em. I'm proud to say I'm a member of the CF, and I'm proud of my institution. Not only has the CF realized that by opening it's doors to people of all callings (turbans are approved headdress in the CF now) the country will be all the stronger for it. Not to mention it helps make a positive influence overseas...

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a substantial rights movement.

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

the analogy is reasonable

Yes, it is a reasonable analogy, and Stunt's objection to it seems rather odd, to me.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
- but certainly the rights movement of homosexuals is quite diff than for a racial minority or wormen b/c a gay can hide (some much more easily than others) the fact that he's gay in everyday life and avoid a lot of the prejudice and hate. a black person or a woman on the other hand is going to have a tough time pulling this one off - they have to live with the prejudice in a more "in your face" kind of way on a daily basis.

A black kid has his black parents and his black family for support. A gay individual is born amongst the ememy (homophobic heterosexuals) with no one for support, no one to confide in. What is required for survival is a psychologically and emotionally damaging supression of thoughts and feelings (being in "the closet"). Gay people have limited access to gay role models, because of the erasure of gay individuals from history books, etc. The disadvantage faced by blacks in the usa is generational and associated with entrenched poverty. A gay person could be born into great poverty or great privilege.

not all parents are going to be unsupportive - but my point remains that the kind of prejudice that a homosexual deals with is different than most other minorities. a stranger won't be making generalizations based on your sexuality when he sees you walking down the street b/c he doesn't know you are gay (unless of course you make it a point for everyone to know - although i might find this strange as i wouldn't walk around making sure everyone knew i was straight).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a substantial rights movement.

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

the analogy is reasonable

Yes, it is a reasonable analogy, and Stunt's objection to it seems rather odd, to me.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
- but certainly the rights movement of homosexuals is quite diff than for a racial minority or wormen b/c a gay can hide (some much more easily than others) the fact that he's gay in everyday life and avoid a lot of the prejudice and hate. a black person or a woman on the other hand is going to have a tough time pulling this one off - they have to live with the prejudice in a more "in your face" kind of way on a daily basis.

A black kid has his black parents and his black family for support. A gay individual is born amongst the ememy (homophobic heterosexuals) with no one for support, no one to confide in. What is required for survival is a psychologically and emotionally damaging supression of thoughts and feelings (being in "the closet"). Gay people have limited access to gay role models, because of the erasure of gay individuals from history books, etc. The disadvantage faced by blacks in the usa is generational and associated with entrenched poverty. A gay person could be born into great poverty or great privilege.

not all parents are going to be unsupportive - but my point remains that the kind of prejudice that a homosexual deals with is different than most other minorities.

the discrimination faced by a working class women is different to the discrimination faced by a wealthy/ middle class woman. The discrimination faced by a working class black man is going to be different to the discrimination faced by a disabled asian woman. etc.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
a stranger won't be making generalizations based on your sexuality when he sees you walking down the street

bullsh1t.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
b/c he doesn't know you are gay

in many cases the homophobe does know you are gay, because of the way you look (clothes, hair, etc), the way you speak (vocal inflections), or the people you are with (other gay men, boyfriend, etc.)

Originally posted by: Tommunist
(unless of course you make it a point for everyone to know - although i might find this strange as i wouldn't walk around making sure everyone knew i was straight).

When you are walking down the street with your girl friend in your ugly clothes with your poorly styled hair, are you making sure everyone knows you are straight?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's not about rubbing it in, it's about celebrating a new aspect of Freedom. Much like Martin Luther King day isn't meant to rub Equality in the faces of Southern US Whites.

I really don't like it when people compare gay marriage to slavery or other substantial rights movements in the past.

The gay rights movement including the same-sex marriage movement is in my opinion a substantial rights movement.

I think it is quite reasonable to look for historical parallels to the present day gay rights movement (when seeking to explain some point), and the civil rights struggle in the US is one of the historical scenarios that comes to mind. In the above case, sandorski's analogy is perfectly reasonable, in fact he does a fine job of getting his point across by employing that analogy.

the analogy is reasonable

Yes, it is a reasonable analogy, and Stunt's objection to it seems rather odd, to me.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
- but certainly the rights movement of homosexuals is quite diff than for a racial minority or wormen b/c a gay can hide (some much more easily than others) the fact that he's gay in everyday life and avoid a lot of the prejudice and hate. a black person or a woman on the other hand is going to have a tough time pulling this one off - they have to live with the prejudice in a more "in your face" kind of way on a daily basis.

A black kid has his black parents and his black family for support. A gay individual is born amongst the ememy (homophobic heterosexuals) with no one for support, no one to confide in. What is required for survival is a psychologically and emotionally damaging supression of thoughts and feelings (being in "the closet"). Gay people have limited access to gay role models, because of the erasure of gay individuals from history books, etc. The disadvantage faced by blacks in the usa is generational and associated with entrenched poverty. A gay person could be born into great poverty or great privilege.

not all parents are going to be unsupportive - but my point remains that the kind of prejudice that a homosexual deals with is different than most other minorities.

oh for fvck's sake. why are you stating the obvious? the discrimination faced by a working class women is different to the discrimination faced by a wealthy/ middle class woman. The discrimination faced by a working class black man is going to be different to the discrimination faced by a disabled asian woman.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
a stranger won't be making generalizations based on your sexuality when he sees you walking down the street

bullsh1t.

Originally posted by: Tommunist
b/c he doesn't know you are gay

in many cases the homophobe does know you are gay, because of the way you look (clothes, hair, etc), the way you speak (vocal inflections), or the people you are with (other gay men, boyfriend, etc.)

Originally posted by: Tommunist
(unless of course you make it a point for everyone to know - although i might find this strange as i wouldn't walk around making sure everyone knew i was straight).

When you are walking down the street with your girl friend in your ugly clothes with your poorly styled hair, are you making sure everyone knows you are straight?

actually i fulfill most of the gay stereotypes that don't relate directly sexuality. how can you assume all gays dress well? that seems kind of far fetched.

you missed my entire point. if it's obvious you are gay - sure people will make judgements but in a lot of cases it won't be obvious right off.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
actually i fulfill most of the gay stereotypes that don't relate directly sexuality. how can you assume all gays dress well? that seems kind of far fetched.

you missed my entire point. if it's obvious you are gay - sure people will make judgements but in a lot of cases it won't be obvious right off.

and why is that a point you feel the need to make? you are merely stating the obvious.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist
actually i fulfill most of the gay stereotypes that don't relate directly sexuality. how can you assume all gays dress well? that seems kind of far fetched.

you missed my entire point. if it's obvious you are gay - sure people will make judgements but in a lot of cases it won't be obvious right off.

and why is that a point you feel the need to make? you are merely stating the obvious.

to make a direct comparison to the civil rights movement of the past in my mind belittles that movement b/c the hardships of the current-day homosexual pale in comparison to the hardships of the black person of the past. you seemed to be arguing the contrary earlier.