Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 2, 2003 (edited) VANCOUVER (CP) -- Governments should change with the times and recognize gay marriage, the B.C. Appeal Court said Thursday when it joined two other provinces in clearing the way for same sex unions. The province's highest court overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. In its decision the court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon hasn't decided whether to appeal the B.C. judgment, he said Thursday outside the Commons. "It's an important social issue for Canada," Cauchon said. "When you look at the situation in Canada, people are divided." For the complete story here's the link: Globe & Mail I changed the link to the Globe & Mail because the Vancouver Sun link wasn't working any more. Edited May 2, 2003 by Takara_Soong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted May 2, 2003 (edited) I don't know the details of the ruling but will it open the way for polygamy too? It seems to me if a significant number of men opt for same sex marriages (and I believe there are more gay men than lesbians) that heterosexual women will need to double up. Don't think I'm a proponant - I'm just doing the math. Had to change a word Edited May 2, 2003 by TheUnicornHunter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 2, 2003 I don't know the details of the ruling but will it open the way for polygamy too? It seems to me if a significant number of men opt for same sex marriages (and I believe there are more gay men than lesbians) that heterosexual women will need to double up. Don't think I'm a proponant - I'm just doing the math. Had to change a word Definitely not. The ruling struck down the definition of marriage. The current definition is "the lawful union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others" and the ruling said it should be changed to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others". The person who brought the suit was a gay man who has been in a committed relationship for a number of years. I don't think any man that is in the closet will come out because of this ruling. I agree DSBS. Hopefully the government will have the guts to change the law and not appeal and drag it to the Supreme Court of Canada. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsbs 0 Posted May 2, 2003 We think we're so advanced, that we've progressed so far, and call ourselves accepting...and we STILL haven't legallised same sex marriges? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted May 2, 2003 My question wasn't meant to be offensive - there's a case going to the US Supreme Court as well, but they're basing their legal claim on the law of privacy which means governments can't really pick and choose between lifestyles. Besides I don't really see a difference - if there aren't enough heterosexual men then heterosexual women don't have much choice other than to be alone - that doesn't seem fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsbs 0 Posted May 2, 2003 Actually, I hadnt read your reply when I wrote that - don't think it was in response to you!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted May 2, 2003 While I am completely and fully against all forms of homosexuallity... I think it's wrong to say that one's lifestyle, no matter how much people might dissagree with it, should be illegal. I wouldn't help to make homosexual marriage legal, but I don't think it should be illegal either. Sounds like the government trying to control people to me. :angry: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Klingonmike 0 Posted May 2, 2003 Bravo to B.C. I've always thought if 2 people love each other then who are we to deny them that love.This is good news! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trekbabe 0 Posted May 2, 2003 I don't see anything wrong with same sex marriages. Like Klingonmike said as long as they love each other what's the problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 2, 2003 My question wasn't meant to be offensive - there's a case going to the US Supreme Court as well, but they're basing their legal claim on the law of privacy which means governments can't really pick and choose between lifestyles. Besides I don't really see a difference - if there aren't enough heterosexual men then heterosexual women don't have much choice other than to be alone - that doesn't seem fair. No offence taken. I'm sorry if my post sound as if I were offended by your question. It wasn't meant that way. And as Data said "Dr. Pulaski would most likely point out now "life isn't fair" :angry: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xeroc 0 Posted May 2, 2003 I agree that same-sex marriages should be legal. I don't know the details of the ruling but will it open the way for polygamy too? It seems to me if a significant number of men opt for same sex marriages (and I believe there are more gay men than lesbians) that heterosexual women will need to double up. Don't think I'm a proponant - I'm just doing the math. TheUnicornHunter, last I heard, the total homosexual population was somewhere around 1-2%! (Just do a search for something like "census homosexual") That is not a signifigant amount of the population to require polygamy to become neccessary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 2, 2003 I forgot to mention in my earlier post that 2 other provinces' Courts had also struck down the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman already as well. They are Ontario and Quebec. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted May 3, 2003 TheUnicornHunter, last I heard, the total homosexual population was somewhere around 1-2%! (Just do a search for something like "census homosexual") That is not a signifigant amount of the population to require polygamy to become neccessary. I did look at statistics and you're right. But even if they don't need to - what if they want to? Several years ago I got on the conversation of polygamy with some of my roommates. One rm's grandmother was there. Grandma was twice divorced. As we discussed the issue - most of us repulsed by it, Grandma chimed in..."she'd rather share a good man with thirteen women than have an S*B all to herself." We kind of sat there in stunned silence not knowing what to say but for some reason I have never forgotten that. I guess with all the debate going on in the public arena I can't see the moral or legal principal for allowing one alternative family structure but not the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 3, 2003 I don't know the statistics but the number of gay men and lesbian women would probably cancel each other out so it wouldn't effect the number of "available" men for heterosexual women. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
master_q 0 Posted May 3, 2003 Same-sex marriages in my opinion should not be legal. I have nothing against people that are homosexual, but a marriage between two of them is not morally or ethically correct. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted May 3, 2003 Same-sex marriages in my opinion should not be legal. I have nothing against people that are homosexual, but a marriage between two of them is not morally or ethically correct. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com While I fully agree that it's not ethical nor moral. I do have to ask this: Who are we to control others? If a man wants to live a lifestyle that we know will lead him to chaos, we can try to help, but in the end, he will choose what he will choose. Like I said, I won't condone same sex marriages nor help it be legal, but I won't try to stop it either, as I see it as a means to control the fellow man. Who are we to stop the stupid from wanting to be stupid? I know that doesn't quite make sense, but I thought it might apply. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
master_q 0 Posted May 3, 2003 While I fully agree that it's not ethical nor moral. I do have to ask this: Who are we to control others? If a man wants to live a lifestyle that we know will lead him to chaos, we can try to help, but in the end, he will choose what he will choose. Like I said, I won't condone same sex marriages nor help it be legal, but I won't try to stop it either, as I see it as a means to control the fellow man. Who are we to stop the stupid from wanting to be stupid? I know that doesn't quite make sense, but I thought it might apply. I agree with that for the most part. And really even if we passed a law and it said same-sex marriages are illegal . . .they would / could still live together and all of that. And if they want to live togerther and all of that, thats fine with me, but I do have concerns making official marriages between those kinds of couples. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted May 3, 2003 While I fully agree that it's not ethical nor moral. I do have to ask this: Who are we to control others? If a man wants to live a lifestyle that we know will lead him to chaos, we can try to help, but in the end, he will choose what he will choose. Like I said, I won't condone same sex marriages nor help it be legal, but I won't try to stop it either, as I see it as a means to control the fellow man. Who are we to stop the stupid from wanting to be stupid? I know that doesn't quite make sense, but I thought it might apply. I agree with that for the most part. And really even if we passed a law and it said same-sex marriages are illegal . . .they would / could still live together and all of that. And if they want to live togerther and all of that, thats fine with me, but I do have concerns making official marriages between those kinds of couples. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com (I'm discussing American legal system because its the one I know) CJLP - you raise the concern that prohibiting same-sex marriages is an attempt to control others. Every law we have is an attempt to do that - from major crimes to minor regulations. The government's authority lies in its obligation to provide for public welfare. This requires maintaining a balance between individual freedoms and securing the general welfare. All of the laws regarding family and marriage such as the anti-sodomy law before the Supreme Court and anti-polygamy laws have been written to protect the public good. They were written at a time when moral behavior was seen as promoting the best interest of society. However, that is no longer the prevailing theory in America. One question to answer is whether moral or spiritual harm to an individual or society can be recognized as "harm" for legal purposes. The Supreme Court will be taking that up soon. master_q - I think your concerns are justified. The same sex issue has gone way beyond individual privacy. It has become an issue of in-your-face public behavior and active endorsement in public schools. This is interfering with the parents' rights to teach morality to their children. Further, there have been instances of a witch-hunt persecution of religious people for opposing homosexual activity. That seems hypocritical to me because true tolerance allows for differences of opinion. It's also frightening because taking away religious freedom is a giant leap towards tyranny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted May 3, 2003 While I fully agree that it's not ethical nor moral. I do have to ask this: Who are we to control others? If a man wants to live a lifestyle that we know will lead him to chaos, we can try to help, but in the end, he will choose what he will choose. Like I said, I won't condone same sex marriages nor help it be legal, but I won't try to stop it either, as I see it as a means to control the fellow man. Who are we to stop the stupid from wanting to be stupid? I know that doesn't quite make sense, but I thought it might apply. I agree with that for the most part. And really even if we passed a law and it said same-sex marriages are illegal . . .they would / could still live together and all of that. And if they want to live togerther and all of that, thats fine with me, but I do have concerns making official marriages between those kinds of couples. Master Q StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com (I'm discussing American legal system because its the one I know) CJLP - you raise the concern that prohibiting same-sex marriages is an attempt to control others. Every law we have is an attempt to do that - from major crimes to minor regulations. The government's authority lies in its obligation to provide for public welfare. This requires maintaining a balance between individual freedoms and securing the general welfare. All of the laws regarding family and marriage such as the anti-sodomy law before the Supreme Court and anti-polygamy laws have been written to protect the public good. They were written at a time when moral behavior was seen as promoting the best interest of society. However, that is no longer the prevailing theory in America. One question to answer is whether moral or spiritual harm to an individual or society can be recognized as "harm" for legal purposes. The Supreme Court will be taking that up soon. master_q - I think your concerns are justified. The same sex issue has gone way beyond individual privacy. It has become an issue of in-your-face public behavior and active endorsement in public schools. This is interfering with the parents' rights to teach morality to their children. Further, there have been instances of a witch-hunt persecution of religious people for opposing homosexual activity. That seems hypocritical to me because true tolerance allows for differences of opinion. It's also frightening because taking away religious freedom is a giant leap towards tyranny. I fully agree with you both! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted May 3, 2003 I think your concerns are justified. The same sex issue has gone way beyond individual privacy. It has become an issue of in-your-face public behavior and active endorsement in public schools. This is interfering with the parents' rights to teach morality to their children. When it comes to in-your-face public behaviour I believe heterosexuals are far worse than anything the gay community does. There are some gay pride parades that feature some people in outlandish costumes. Compare that to spring break and Mardi Gras and it's pretty tame. There are times when you can't go anywhere without seeing a male/female couple making out (I'm talking touchy-feely-kissy stuff - not actual sex). I think more needs to be done in schools to teach tolerance of others. I'm not talking about a "how to" manuals for any type of sexual behaviour. When was the last time you heard of a person being assaulted or killed for being straight. How many teenagers have killed themselves because they were being bullied because they were either gay or others thought they were gay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted May 4, 2003 I think your concerns are justified. The same sex issue has gone way beyond individual privacy. It has become an issue of in-your-face public behavior and active endorsement in public schools. This is interfering with the parents' rights to teach morality to their children. When it comes to in-your-face public behaviour I believe heterosexuals are far worse than anything the gay community does. There are some gay pride parades that feature some people in outlandish costumes. Compare that to spring break and Mardi Gras and it's pretty tame. There are times when you can't go anywhere without seeing a male/female couple making out (I'm talking touchy-feely-kissy stuff - not actual sex). I think more needs to be done in schools to teach tolerance of others. I'm not talking about a "how to" manuals for any type of sexual behaviour. When was the last time you heard of a person being assaulted or killed for being straight. How many teenagers have killed themselves because they were being bullied because they were either gay or others thought they were gay. A lot of kids are bullied, or picked on, or called geeks for various reasons. I think all of that is wrong. That's why schools should teach "tolerance" not mandate a specific moral philosophy. IMO - Tolerance would be teaching children that you don't have the right to abuse or harm, physically or mentally another human being whether you agree with them or not. Rather than teaching children it is wrong to harm people whatever you think of them, many US schools have taken the approach of mandating approval of homosexual activity. Not only is this a direct violation of our First Amendment it also fails to protect children that are different for other reasons - such as being poor, fat, homely, disabled, a computer geek or the wrong religion among many others. As for suicide statistics. Statistics can only show that these teenagers commited suicide. . To assume it was because they were bullied is an inference - it is quite possible there were other factors that led to their decision. And until health officials are free to research those factors these kids aren't going to get the right kind of help. In fact suicide rates are rising for all teens As for public displays - I can choose not to go to the beach during spring break or go to Mardi Gras; but parents should feel free to attend a basketball game or other public function without having to go home and explain sex (gay or hetero) to an eight year old. (which was an incident that happened in the US) I've been hated by people. I agree it is a terrible feeling. The goal should be to stop that treatment of all people not just selected groups. I also maintain that parents have the right to teach their children that homosexual behavior is wrong if that is what their faith teaches. This is not the same as condoning violence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
