Canada Passes Same-sex Legislation

POSTED BY: SigmaNunki
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2005 23:24
VIEWED: 7261
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:07 AM

We are the third country in the world to do it! We legalized gay marrage!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html

The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."

Damn, I feel proud to be a Canadian. I mean, I've always been proud, but this just makes it shine.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Damn, I feel proud to be a Canadian. I mean, I've always been proud, but this just makes it shine.

In all the colors of the rainbow, you pinko-comie, flag-waiving Canadian.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

INDIGO

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Damn, I feel proud to be a Canadian. I mean, I've always been proud, but this just makes it shine.
In all the colors of the rainbow, you pinko-comie, flag-waiving Canadian.

Uhmm, clear this up for me; but are you being obtusely humourous Finn mac Cumhal, or snide?

Go Canada!

Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
Blessed are the Geeks for they shall internet the world.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Indigo:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Damn, I feel proud to be a Canadian. I mean, I've always been proud, but this just makes it shine.
In all the colors of the rainbow, you pinko-comie, flag-waiving Canadian.

Uhmm, clear this up for me; but are you being obtusely humourous Finn mac Cumhal, or snide?

Evidently, I’m being obtusely humorous. I thought I was being funny. It amused me that Sigma stated that he was proud of his country, being such a Left-wing dude.

I hope people aren’t posting to this thread because it is a hackneyed and tiresome topic and not because of my post. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, or derail the thread. If that’s the case, I apologize. I encourage people to share their thoughts on Canada’s new same-sex marriages.

In any event, while I personally couldn’t care less since it doesn’t affect me in the least, I’m happy that they did it if it’s what they wanted to do. Yay democracy.

As far as Sigma being proud of Canada, I think he has every reason to be. Canada is liberal democracy and a beautiful country and Canadians should be proud and even grateful to be living in Canadia. Yah, Canada.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

DARKJESTER

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:57 PM

Hooray for Canada! You go, eh?!

Of course, there are some religious groups in the US that will now refuse to acknowledge that Canada ever existed....... ("You are DEAD to me, Canada!! Do you hear?!?!")

50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. We (yes, me too) have already dispelled the idea of the sanctity of marriage. I don't see any problem in letting two people in a comitted relationship publicly declare their intention to spend the rest of their lives loving and caring for the other. I know this puts me in the minority in the US.

I have ancestors who were abolitionists before the Civil War. I have read their letters. And, echoing their sentiments, I think that in 100 years everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

INDIGO

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:37 AM

Quote:
Uhmm, clear this up for me; but are you being obtusely humourous Finn mac Cumhal, or snide?

Evidently, I’m being obtusely humorous. I thought I was being funny. It amused me that Sigma stated that he was proud of his country, being such a Left-wing dude.

As far as Sigma being proud of Canada, I think he has every reason to be. Canada is liberal democracy and a beautiful country and Canadians should be proud and even grateful to be living in Canadia. Yah, Canada.

Thank you Finn, I didn't mean to derail the thread either, but I do appreciate gentlemanly discourse.

The legislation affects me fairly minimally on one hand (being a US, Washington State resident, in a het marraige); on the other hand, a majority of my friends and some family are either gay, lesbian, or bi (including myself) -- and the fact that our nearest and dearest neighbor (wherin resides many other friends) has made this humane move, gives me and mine hope. I'm going to my brother and his lady fiancee's wedding this weekend, then on to two of my best guy friend's handfasting/wedding the week after: I'm undeniably happy for all of them!

So at the very real chance at being redundant: again, yay Cananda!

Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
Blessed are the Geeks for they shall internet the world.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Indigo:
Thank you Finn, I didn't mean to derail the thread either, but I do appreciate gentlemanly discourse.

I was being facetious, and it evidently came out the wrong way, but I got miles of amusement out of it. Isn’t that really what matters, though? It was really funny if you could have read my mind.

In any event, I’ve been in the gay marriage discussions before. I can’t promise it will be a gentlemanly discourse. Usually someone ends up being called a bigot, and frequently I seem to draw the short straw. I don’t know why these things happen.

Have fun at the wedding.

Incidentally, I have a sister in Portland.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

DARKJESTER

Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:16 AM

And now Spain makes it four in the club.....

http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=72564

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:49 AM

I'm for same-sex marriages. I'm for the protections and rights that come with same sex marriage and civil unions.

God forbid, love be something that is frowned upon.

This is less about the "sanctity" of marriage and more about Biblical age emphasis on procreation. I also believe it is also about big business and insurance companies. It's about limiting who "qualifies" for benefits IMHO.

Go Canada!

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:56 PM

Yah Spain

And I really think that this "justified" anger towards gay-marrage is based on a false assumption; that marrage is a religion institution. It isn't. Marriage hasn't been that way for a long time.

Here, anyone (including preists, etc) must be licensed by the gov to marry. Even one of the marriage commmissioners that we interviewed for our wedding stated that he's done many weddings where the preist said his thing, and after that he stepped forward to make it legal by doing his thing; the preist wasn't licensed.

I really don't think that these people know and/or acknowledge this difference; religious marriage and legal marriage.

Here, part of our law includes a "conscience" part. So, if a person (for whatever reason) doesn't want to marry a couple they are not forced to. It's the thing that allows Preists/Ministers/etc of any variety not to marry a couple if one or both of the couple is not there specific religion.

This has been extended to include gays as well with the extention that allows them to marry.

So, no-one is being forced to marry anyone if they aren't comfortable with it, regardless.

Even still, there are people that are still angry with gay marriage. Something that I really can't understand at this point, nor has any of these people explained even when asked. Someone should tell them that just stating something doesn't make it true; they must explain there justifications for what they think.

*sigh*

But again, yah Spain

*does the wave*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CONSCIENCE

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:20 PM

Some of you may find these links interesting!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/Gay-Conservative-Writer-Disgusted-By-Pri
de-Weekend-An-Interview-With-Steve-Yuhas.cfm

And to top it off, here's a quote from liberal Democrat President Clinton:

"I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." - The Advocate, June 1996

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJester:
Of course, there are some religious groups in the US that will now refuse to acknowledge that Canada ever existed.......

Ah, let 'em, those Shatner-stealing Mexico touchers!

(With apologies to the writing staff of The Simpsons.)

"Hermanos! The Devil is building a Robot! Andale!" -- Numero Cinco

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Friday, July 22, 2005 3:15 PM

Let's distinguish to elements of marriage: the legal and the covenantal.

There is a legal aspect to marriage, no question. That's why the civil servant in the afore-mentioned example had to get up and do his thing. The legal ramifications of marriage are huge: guardianship, inheritance, medical issues, not to mention dissolution and division of property. The legal implications of marriage necessitate the state to regulate so that there aren't flagrant abuses.

But to say that the civil/legal aspect of marriage is the sum total of marriage misses the point. The civil servant has his purpose, the priest his. The priest's purpose is to solemnize the marriage. The notion is that marriage is a commitment, a covenant between two people--hence to richer-poorer-death-do-us-part business. It's a commitment before God to do all that stuff you swore to.

The right wingers get all lathered up about gay-marriage, and mostly they say, "It'll destroy the institution of marriage." That argument doesn't hold water because with a 50% divorce rate, the institution of marriage seems to be in trouble all on its own.

So if that's not it, why can't homosexuals get married? I think it goes back to the question (which I'm not weighing in on, mind you) of the moral implications (if any) of homosexuality. It's not that they really think that the institution of marriage will be destroyed; it's that they think homosexuality is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

HERO

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
We are the third country in the world to do it! We legalized gay marrage!!!

Nice to know that all of Britain's allies are responding to the terror attacks in London.

You Canadians should be proud.

I for one am not sure any real men are left up there. I'm just sayin...

H

KELLAINA

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Nice to know that all of Britain's allies are responding to the terror attacks in London.

You Canadians should be proud.

I for one am not sure any real men are left up there. I'm just sayin...

So government's are only able to do one thing at a time? Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point - but what does one have to do with the other?

Edit: fixed quote

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

HERO

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:
[B Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.

You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.

But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.

H

CONSCIENCE

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Ah, let 'em, those Shatner-stealing Mexico touchers!

Kiss my American ass, you fuckin canuck.

I say the same to the rest of Soviet Canuckistan!

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

And by the way, you can have Alanis Morissette back.

ANARKO

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:57 PM

Here's a terrific article written by Jonah Goldberg in 2002:

Quote:

Bomb Canada: The case for war

It's quite possible that the greatest favor the United States could do for Canada is to declare war on it. No, this isn't a tribute to South Park, the TV cartoon that popularized a song -- "Blame Canada" -- calling for an outright invasion of our northern neighbor. A full-scale conquest is unnecessary; all Canada needs is to be slapped around a little bit, to be treated like a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man. We've done it more than once, and we've threatened it plenty of times. Thomas Jefferson told President Madison that conquering Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." Of course, that advice resulted in the burning of the White House in the War of 1812, but the U.S. still came out ahead. Why would a new war be necessary? The short answer is: to keep the Canadians from being conquered by the United States. In effect, it would be a war to keep Canada free. But first some background.

Five decades ago, historian Frank Underhill wrote that the Canadian is "the first anti-American, the model anti-American, the archetypal anti- American, the ideal anti-American as he exists in the mind of God." In a sense this isn't really true. Philosophically and politically, the New Soviet Man was a superior anti-American: He not only hated America but had a blueprint for its replacement. After all, the perfect anti- American must be pro-something else; he must offer a viable alternative to that which he detests.

Canadian anti-Americanism does none of this. It is anti-American by reflex, which is to say that when America goes about its business, Canada flinches and calls this tic "the Canadian way." It was ever thus: The very formation of the Canadian state was, quite literally, a flinch in response to America's muscle-flexing. Canada's 1867 confederation, according to most historians, was the direct result of Canada's not-unfounded fears that the battle-hardened Union Army would turn its sights on Canada the way a still-peckish lion lazily turns on a fat gazelle. The Canadian Mounties, perhaps the most enduring symbol of Canadian pride and rectitude, were created to restrain the tomfoolery of American whiskey traders. They chose their red tunics solely to distinguish themselves from the Union blues of the American cavalry. It may even have been Americans who came up with the Mounties' famous motto, "They always get their man."

Virtually all of Canada's public policies were born out of a studied contrariness to U.S. policies, real or perceived. Canada's disastrous health-care system survives because of three things: vast sums of (poorly spent) money, the limitless patience of Canadian citizens who are regularly willing to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries, and the widespread fear that any reform might constitute "Americanization." There's every reason to believe that Canadians would embrace at least a few market reforms -- which might, for example, reduce the wait for an MRI from a national median of 12.4 weeks -- if only it didn't seem like capitulation to "American-style" health care. But Canada won't even legalize private health insurance as long as this is perceived as Americanization. It is a matter of national pride to have a "different" -- i.e., worse-but-more- egalitarian -- health-care system than they do south of the border (I mean south of our border: Canada has fewer MRI machines per capita than Latin America).

The accusation of wanting to "Americanize" healthcare is a Medusa's head any politician can use to petrify opponents. Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, declared in a 2001 TV interview: "If we're going to have a universal system . . . we should not be afraid to say, 'Can the private sector run this hospital better? Can they provide this service better? If they can, why should we fear that?'" The reaction from editorialists and the health-care community was one of near-total condemnation -- including the charge of "Americanization."

At a conference spon

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:41 AM

@Kellaina:
You wrote:
"""
Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.
"""

Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war. You also might be interested that when our snipers went to Afghanistan, some US soldiers up them up for bronze stars.

So, please don't just assume stuff like this.

@Conscience:
I pitty you.

@Anarko:
Thank you for reminding me just how much people down there do not know anything about Canada.

But, I'm at a loss. What does all this have to do with gay marriage?... Anyone?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CONSCIENCE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war.

To quote from the webpage I linked to above:

"We invented Peacekeeping!" "HUH?!?!? I've actually heard this many times, so I'll address it. The idea of "inventing" peacekeeping is an absurd notion. That's like saying a guy from Peru invented generosity or that a guy from Zimbabwe invented creativity. You can't seriously look in the mirror and believe in your hearts that people engaged in disputes that almost led to wars, but didn't because of diplomacy, have Canada to thank regardless of whether the conflict was in 1980A.D. or 240 B.C.? If Canada invented anything, it's JEALOUSY."

DIETCOKE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:25 PM

Well, my brother is gay and he voted AGAINST gay marriages in Montana but is pro civil unions. I guess that early Catholic upbringing is still deeply rooted in there somewhere.

And you thought your family was disfunctional!

NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, July 25, 2005 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war.

To quote from the webpage I linked to above:

"We invented Peacekeeping!" "HUH?!?!? I've actually heard this many times, so I'll address it. The idea of "inventing" peacekeeping is an absurd notion. That's like saying a guy from Peru invented generosity or that a guy from Zimbabwe invented creativity. You can't seriously look in the mirror and believe in your hearts that people engaged in disputes that almost led to wars, but didn't because of diplomacy, have Canada to thank regardless of whether the conflict was in 1980A.D. or 240 B.C.? If Canada invented anything, it's JEALOUSY."

You didn't read my post. I said we came up with the idea of peacekeeping; which we did. We were the ones that came up and presented the idea of the blue hat.

ie There is a difference between the idea existing and formalizing and intitutinalizing the idea; which we did, which is all we take credit for.

It happened, we did it, deal with it.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

KELLAINA

Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.

But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.

This will teach me not to tone down the snark.

That is not what I meant to say.

I was referring to the implication in your statement that the Canadian government was focusing on the same-sex legislation instead of helping Britain. My point was that the government should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time since I doubt Paul Martin is over in England personally hunting terrorists. I did not mean to imply that Canada knows nothing of security or terrorism.

I should have just ignored the poli threads like I usually do

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

KELLAINA

Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war. You also might be interested that when our snipers went to Afghanistan, some US soldiers up them up for bronze stars.

So, please don't just assume stuff like this.

Most of what I'm going to say on this I've said in the post above to Hero. In toning down my snarky response to him, I seem to have lost my point (baby out with the bathwater, I guess). I am quite aware (and proud) of Canada's peacekeeping history and the recent actions by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

I wasn't assuming anything, other than that the original post I was responding to was lacking logic (what does same-sex legislation have to do with Canada's supporting Britain?).

My statement about the parliament not being much help, was meant literally - as in the MPs do not personally carry out peacekeeping actions, terrorism investigations, etc, and therefore have the capacity to legislate in more than one area at a time.

Apparently it sounded like a much better comeback in my head.

My apologies for the misunderstanding, and for the delayed response bringing this back up, but I just couldn't let this go without clarifying.

Quote:
But, I'm at a loss. What does all this have to do with gay marriage?... Anyone?

I think that was the point I was originally trying to make - but what I was thinking wasn't really appropriate for posting, so I toned it down and well, here we are.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

HERO

Friday, July 29, 2005 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.

But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.

This will teach me not to tone down the snark.

That is not what I meant to say.

I was referring to the implication in your statement that the Canadian government was focusing on the same-sex legislation instead of helping Britain. My point was that the government should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time since I doubt Paul Martin is over in England personally hunting terrorists. I did not mean to imply that Canada knows nothing of security or terrorism.

I know, I was just poking a bit. Can't resist it sometimes, liberals are just so cute with the narrow world view and naive opinions...

For the record I was also not implying that Canada knows nothing about security and terrorism. Why, after drugs, porn, wannabe Frenchman, fishing, hockey, lax immegration, open borders, and expensive cigarettes; I think Canada I think security.

H

0REAVER0

Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:37 AM

...And canada is located were from Kansas

0Reaver0

SIMONWHO

Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:14 PM

I didn't realise London needed any help from Canada with regards to the bombers. I think most of us are quite happy for them to continue their normal, liberal lives while we catch the bad guys and, you know, prosecute them through the proper channels.

Good for you Canada. Wouldn't want either of our countries to turn into one of those nasty religious de facto dictatorships where they base most of their decisions around narrow minded translations of ancient texts and make the spewing of hatred a key part of government tactics. That would be just terrible.

And anyone who uses Bill Clinton's views on any sort of marriage really needs to have read at least one newspaper from 1996-2000.

CONSCIENCE

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 8:41 PM

SPINLAND

Friday, August 12, 2005 11:24 PM

Heh. Heaven forbid two loving adults might want society to respect their desire to solemnize a committed relationship. That way lie all sorts of badness.