I'm just wondering, what does everyone think about the same-sex marriage ruling in Toronto today. Do you support same-sex unions, oppose them, or think that the court just overreached itself?
I support same-sex unions myself, but I was wondering what everyone thought.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the Nation. Agree with it not, I dont think the government should be holding people back from doing something they choose to do, so long as it dosent hurt anyone. And contrary to what some of the bible thumpers would like to portray, same sex marrige dosent really hurt anyone.

I dont know what the big deal is, Im married, and its not that big of a deal. If two guy or two women want to do it, I just hope they know what they are getting into, its not all its cracked up to be :D :o :D

Good, sensible (and conservative) reply, Aarondia, though I find it ironic that you quote Trudeau.

well, noone ever said Trudeau didnt have good speech writers and researchers. :P

He lifted it from Hayek who coined the phrase in 1960.

The A-G's lawyers in the Ontario case said marriage required fidelity and a will to procreate, necessitating a male-female union. But I find it odd that the government should consider it impossible that two people of the same sex could be faithful - after all, if they can't, then all contract law is pointless! And, with modern medicine and adoption, gays can have children. There seems to be little threat - I don't see why it would harm marriage (or why American legislatures feel the need to pass "Defense of Marriage" acts).
For the record, I am gay myself, though Ihave no intention of marrying anytime soon.

Im not gay, and although I personally think that is is ridiculous that gay couples cannot marry, I do see we're the governments of the world are coming from. Although gay relationships are certainly not new, this is one of the first time periods in history that it has been so openly displayed in society. There is bound to be a little fear at something that people who are not gay don't understand, and mostly are too ignorant to even want to understand. Just like how marijuana was once so feared that if people thought you smoked weed you were some sort of killer and you were going to start shooting herion the next day and harsh jail time was given out, we have dispelled those myths and now are on our way to making possessing weed only a ticketable offense. Soon, the stigma that gays are somehow evil, and how their actions are choice, not biological, will be dispelled and they will be able to enjoy all the rights that a straight person has.

If they want to get married. Let them. Its not like its going to kill the government to let them. Alberta is being stupid and not letting them. Ralph Klein is a Homophobic.

I agree, Klein is a homophobe. So is our fine Mayor, Mr. Smith. He just got forced, kicking and screaming the whole way, to hold a gay pride week in Edmonton. This is only after the gay community threatened legal action. I don't see what the big deal is. If everyone is equal under the charter of rights and freedoms, how can anyone justify the withholding of something as fundamental as mariage? The legal persecution of a group estimated at 11% of the world's population is not right, has never been right. Ontario is making a bold statement, let's hope the rest of the confederation catches on soon.
If someone is gay, who cares if they show it? Straights do all the time. And to all of you bible thumpers, I quote Romans 2:1 NIV
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemming yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things."

Regardless of the Homophobes bible thumpers ect the question of gays getting married raises a whole other legal issue of partner benefits and child custody rights that our legal system have no experience dealing with.

I think this is the real stall by the government. Just like pot laws they don't know what to do with the legality of it. I for one do not care but I think anytime you want to make a fundamental change in society you must first look at little things like these.

Is there a gay group putting forward amendments to the laws that would make it easier for judges to rule on these things? (I'm asking I really, don't know)

heywood

I mean really, what is the harm of gay people getting married? They are already allowed to raise children and have familes. As a straight person, gay people getting married would not offend me in the least. Anyone who can find happiness doing something that does not effect other people what-so-ever has my blessing.

I agree Headpiece. It always baffles me that people get so upset about who other people love or make love to. I can think of a million other reasons to hate somebody but the irony in hating a group because of who they love is bizarre to me. As long as the people are OF AGE it doesn't really matter.

heywood

Think of something that is impossible to do, but if it were possible, would improve the lives of everyone. Make that your ideal. Do gay rights improve the lives of everyone? I say yes they do. Is it possible to have absolute equality for our homosexual brethren? Not at this time and place. But some day, all humans will be looked at as equals, regardless of our differences. Then we will know peace.

B)

marraige should be extended to all people that wantt omarry another, same sex or not.

that way, everyone can declare their faithful love to their partner in legal terms, without seperating a group jsut because they aren't like the rest of us. taht is segregation!

I would give them full benefits as a married couple, and simply make amendments to more clearly define certain "Advantages" that may be construed to imply a man an d a woman, so no one can strip any married couple of their rights to teh priviledges of a state marriage license.

There's nothing wrong with gay marrige and if America keeps ignoring them they'll just come to Canada to get married like some already have.

This is why I'm against same-sex marriages.

In most divorce cases, the judge favours the woman, giving her all the kids, the house and all the money. This isn't the best system ever devised but it's the one we use and no one has suggested a better one.

So what happens when a couple that's two men or two women try to get a divorce?
The judge will be too confused to act.

If it's two guys, what's he going to do? Award the loot to the catcher? What if they take turns? Give it to the more effeminate one?

And what if it's two girls? The judge won't be able to decide which one to give it to because they're both qualified.

Divorce cases could take years to decide, and for what?

That is why I'm against same-sex marriages.

I am in support of same-sex marriages for several reasons. There are legal and financial benefits to marriage, and it is unfair to prevent a group of people from obtaining those benefits because of something they have no control over. There are no religious reasons as to why same-sex marriages should not be allowed. Marriage is no longer a solely religious event--it is primarily a legal right--And I thought we had something called "the separation of church and state".

That, and I believe that when I get older and fall in love, I should have the right to marry whatever man or woman I fall in love with.
And same-sex marriages aren't legalized by that time...well, Canada is nice, right?

And EmperorBezo, you seem to be assuming that most judges have the approximate intelligence of a grapefruit. :)

In response to Bezo: That's probably the most offensive thing I've ever read on these forums...

Canadiiya: I know, it's eerily accurate.

Bweezy: Offense wasn't my goal, merely representation of my personal and well-founded opinion. :D

And how much personal experience, exactly, do you have with divorce cases?
Unless you happen to be a divorce lawyer, in which case I withdraw my question and allow that fact to speak for itself.

Well founded my ass.

Firstly, in Canada, the judge cannot favour one party over another. Division of assets is mandated as being 50% of the accrued value of shared assets over the life of the marriage. There is no favouring either side - the law demands a 50-50 split. Ideas of "women getting everything" is a concept found only in the United States, where division of assets can be something other than 50-50.

As for custody of kids, nowadays, the vast majority of the time the parents get joint custody.

What will happen when two men or two women will ask for a divorce? The same thing as now. 50-50 division of assets, and joint custody.

Once the value of joint assets are determined, divorce cases are amongst the quickest judicial processes in this country. That won't change with same sex marriage.

I also take offense to the fact you called the judge "he". Women also are judges, and in Manitoba's family court division, they nearly make up half of the judiciary.

Also, same-sex couples tend to stay together longer. Which means less divorce :)

if complicating judicial matters is a substantial reason not to allow same sex marriage, there should be a whole lot of other stuff we shouldn't be allowed to do

He, she, it. I support same sex judges.

If you take me seriously, it's not my fault. I don't.

how aggravating :wacko:


on a side note, bweezy, are you a lawyer?...I vaguely remember reading that somewhere, but I can't really remember

Guilty as charged...

Take everything I saw with a grain of salt. I'm a very cranky old coot who's set in his ways and of the opinion that I'm always right. But I understand when other people don't agree.

Well, I'm a "rebellious teenager" (rather far from the truth, but whatever), so expect me to voice my disagreement :)

me too.
I don't think I can keep my mouth shut when it comes to things like these

I probably won't open my mouth too much, but I do have strong beliefs on the topic of same-sex marriage.

I don't object to same-sex marriage nearly as much as I object to the term life partner. :P

If you're a dude and you marry another dude, fine, one of you gets to be the husband and one of you gets to be the wife. But life-partner...oy.

People have said I'm not so much politically incorrect as politically inexcusable, but hey, it's my opinion and until someone like me siezes power and says otherwise, I have the right to express it.

After someone like me siezes power, you won't have the right to do anything, really.

You love to stereotype, don't you?

The part of stereotypes that people always seem to forget is that they came from somewhere. Sure, they don't describe everybody, but there has to be a reason they were thought of at all.

Every stereotype has a basis in fact.

A basis which is, as often as not, based on a sole example or a very small sample.

No "sole example" ever became a stereotype.

Do you know why I'm not afraid of blacks but I am afraid of natives? Because drunken blacks have never attempted to beat me up when I had no pocket change to give them. Drunken natives have. Are they all bad? No. Are all the drunken ones bad? YES.

Every single one without exception?

And you would use that stereotype to say "we should restrict the rights of every drunken native"?

Nope, that's not true. I've come across many drunks in downtown Winnipeg who were not bad. Just nice people who took a wrong turn in life, got addicted, and now live on the streets. Some need help. Some, sadly, are beyond help. Does this make them bad? Not necessarily.

I'd rather hang out with a drunk than with Bezo, for instance...

(note, I don't want to use the term "drunken native", because race has nothing to do with this - there are drunks of several races. The way Bezo is going on, I suspect he too is drunk as we speek).

I would never drink alcohol. It's nothing but poison for the masses.

While I whole-heartedly support killing the masses, I'd prefer something quicker.

And bweezy, you don't know me. You don't know if you'd like hanging out with me. You just know your incorrect perceptions of my ideals.

You don't know most natives - yet you've pretty much stated that an entire class of them is evil.

When you learn to stop prejudging others, I'll stop prejudging you.

And, to be fair, I'm not prejudging you. I'm coming to my conclusion based on your own words. Lets be frank - in your numerous posts you've shown me absolutely no reason to like you.

You've simply spouted homophobic and racist vitriol, supported stereotyping people, and shown an admiration of Adolf Hitler. Not the sort of qualities I find endearing in a human.

Hence, I'll take my chances hanging out with a drunken homeless person instead of you.

I AM Native. :P

I didn't say I admired Hitler, I just said he wasn't so bad. And he wasn't. Stalin was worse.

Just because you claim to be native doesn't mean that stereotyping is any more acceptable.

Just because Stalin was arguably worse than Hitler (to be fair, Stalin arguably was responsible for far more many million deaths than Hitler) does not mean Hitler "wasn't that bad". If it were not for him, several million lives would not have been cut short. For you to go around and say "he wasn't that bad" is disturbing.

A man who had a hand in the deaths of roughly 6 million jews and 6 million slavs is plenty horrible, in my opinion. I can't imagine a circumstance where someone could suggest "he wasn't that bad". Unless your name is Ernst Zundel, I suppose.