polygamy

[Guest wattyjl]

this whole "don't edit the dictionary" thing is ridiculous. come on, you really care? do you care about ALL words as much as you care about the sacrosanct "marriage"? you've got to admit - it really sounds like a bad excuse so you can keep marriage limited to opposite-sex unions.

 

and as for your 3 points -

 

Now, for the 1st point, yes, marriage has a special significance, and part of that is that it is between a man and a women. If you mess with the definition then the ENTIRE meaning of the word has to start all over again... no more special significance..

 

no it doesn't start out over again, it is appended with same-sex couples now being able to 'enjoy' the significance of the word. anyway, what do you care if nobody else understands the 'significance' of your marriage from the use of the word alone, that's between you and your partner, and i'm sure you don't need a dicitonary to understand what being married means for you.

 

2) see above comment about the dictionary = who cares, change words as society wakes up and moves past intolerance

 

3) this is your worst argument. look into the future by using a (very tired) example from the past - women vote in canada now, when that was being change 70-80yrs ago or whatever, if it had been up to popular male opinion, this wouldn't have been allowed. however, as generations passed by, and people grew up in a society with women voting, and all the old people with their archaic views died off, hey, guess what, it became normal. i don't see why the same thing won't apply here. it's going to take a lot to purge homophobia from our society (i don't even know if it's possible??) but this is a step in the right direction. by recognizing that their committment in marriage is the same as yours to your wife, that should hopefully start to destigmatize their lifestyles to people who have problems with it.

 

as a questionably relevant side point - what exactly does marriage mean now anyway? some people see it as a joke, with a divorce rate that approaches 50%, and the legal battles that ensue over who gets the family cooking pots, the 'meaning' of marriage is quickly being destroyed anyway. should we ban divorce?

 

either the government recognizes same-sex marriage, or it totally gets out of the marriage business. if particular religious sects continue to exclude same-sex partnerships and individuals then i guess that will continue to be their special privledge.

 

inclusion, not exclusion, will get us past all this racism, genderism, sexualityism, etc.ism ©rap.

[Guest canmic]

I think you missed my point on #3. What I'm basically saying is that you cannot legislate attitudes.

 

I do agree that the only good solution to the whole mess is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and be done with it.

 

There really isn't any other way to be fair to everyone involved in the whole situation.

 

I do agree that the rights of the majority can't be used to trample on the rights of a minority, but, when there is a solution to the whole problem that doesn't treat anyone differently without upsetting anyone (at least it shouldn't) then isn't it the mandate of the government to try to go with that solution?

 

After all, when they decided to allow women to have equal rights, for example, they didn't change the definition of 'man' to include women, they replaced it all with 'person' or some other gender neutral term. And no, that isn't the same in this situation, where a specific word is being re-defined.

 

An interesting thing that I think a lot of people don't realize here is that the current law defining marriage was passed in 1992, not 100 years or more ago..

 

This is why the seperation of church and state has always been and will always be a good thing (we don't have it here in canada). You can't legislate this kind of thing equitably.

 

Another reason you can't compare the marriage situation with the situation of women voting is that, when you get down to it, a woman voter is the same thing as a man voter. Being female doesn't have anything to do with the ability to vote, and there is no fundamental difference.

 

To say that there is no fundamental difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple would be ignoring a great deal of things, such as the fundamental inability to procreate (yes I know SOME heterosexual couples can't procreate, but SOME male voters don't vote, does that mean we should grant the right to vote to a newborn, who can't vote either?)

 

And, I know that homosexual couples can adopt or bring in a 3rd person and make a baby, but the couple itself, can't do it on their own.

 

Also, it should be noted that some religions will not marry people who cannot have children, should the government make them do so? They don't at present..

[Guest VwDubber]

For 100s of years, heterosexuals have had marriage, and in those 100s of years, they have made the word 'marriage' into more than just a word and through their efforts and accomplishments they have given reverence and deeper meaning to the word. Homosexuals want to have a word like that too, but they aren't interested in putting in the effort over 100s of years to get it, so they just want to change the meaning of the existing word, and get the significance without the tradition behind it..

Hey Canmic,

 

Can you elaborate on what exactly these accomplishments are that heterosexuals have given to the word marriage. I found your "homosexuals aren't interested in putting in the effort" comment dogmatic and unnecessary.

To say that there is no fundamental difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple would be ignoring a great deal of things, such as the fundamental inability to procreate (yes I know SOME heterosexual couples can't procreate, but SOME male voters don't vote, does that mean we should grant the right to vote to a newborn, who can't vote either?)

Essentially what you are saying is that such a difference is anatomical but this does not strengthen your position on why the government's definition of marriage should not be changed ..... UNLESS .... you are implicitly bringing religion into this by implying that two people should not be "married" unless they have the ability to procreate or that procreation is a required element of marriage .....

 

Regarding your parallelism, here is how I interpreted it: some heterosexual couples cannot procreate but they can still get married but this is not the same as a homosexual couple because they can not procreate without a third party period. To let homosexuals get married, would be like comparing the two to a voting system between a competant voter (the heterosexual side) and a potential incompetent newborn voter (the rest of us non-heteros). Talk about segregation in deguise !!!! However, to give you the benefit of the doubt ... please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted your thoughts.

 

I want to add that my fiance and I are as much of a couple as you and your wife are and for you to explicitly say that homosexuals aren't willing to put the effort is just downright inappropriate.

 

I'm going to stop here for now.

[Guest Malikar]

and there is no "correct" answer, which makes this a beautiful one to debate.

 

There is only one constant in this crazy world of ours, and that is -change-. Public opinion, which is heavily influenced by the media in our modern society, decides what is right or wrong, normal or abnormal, atrocious or acceptable.

 

I would suggest that many of us who are married are perhaps hypocrites. Why? Well, marriage began as a religious institution, defined roughly as a "sacred union of man and women under God" (depending on the originating religion, and this opens a Pandora's Box-full of counter arguments on its own). I know a number of couples who are not religious at all who are married, and often government representatives perform the ceremonies. This breaks with the traditional (what used to be tradition, until it was violated repeatedly but gorvernments) definition of marriage in that it's not by-God or under-God. We've lived this way our entire lives thinking it is acceptable, although I'm certain at one point in time, most everyone would be appalled at the idea of marriage without religion. Public opinion changed, and here we are.

 

This, however would make those of us who aren't religious - and those of us who are but think marriage without religion is acceptable - flaming hypocrites, if we didn't allow for yet more change. I mean, clearly marriage isn't an unassailable fortress. Why relax a definition once (granted, minor changes are always being made) and then not relax it again. This reasoning holds especially true if the argument against doing so is shallow.

 

Following this logic (and I would, cause it's my logic ) there are two options I support:

 

1) Allowing for gay marriage, and the proverbial "sack of monkeys" it would open.

 

2) The more difficult option, but one I prefer, separating marriage-by-state from marriage-by-religion. I mean, I honestly think that when I get married, as I'm not religious, I'd feel better about being married purely by state and not religion. That way, the religious-right would be satisfied hopefully that they get to keep their institution, and indeed somewhat restore it, and the rest of us, gays and straights who aren't religious can be happy in that we have access to the word marriage. I mean... it is just a word when you really take a good look at it, just like Canada is only a word in the end, as much as I love the word and everything that is associated with it.

 

Notice I didn't dare touch the subject of discrimination, yet. This is 'cause I don't feel like delving too deeply. What I mean, is how calling gay unions "civil-unions" would be grounds for discrimination. This holds true any time we differentiate between anything by labelling them with different names. Why, when I was but a lad, I remember being in school in Surrey and being told "how dare white trash talk to us brown people" (I was the white boy). Thus I propose we stop calling each other by racial classifers, in fact, let us not call each other by any other name but "Bob". Wait, that wouldn't work! Damn, I guess discrimination has its uses. But I digress.

 

I had some more to say, but I forgot. Anyways, let me know what you all think, I love debate.

 

Mal

[Guest canmic]

I definately agree that the way to go is for the government to get out of 'marriage' and stick with 'civil union' for everyone.. Actually, technically speaking if you look through all the laws etc, you'll see that if a couple goes for a JP wedding and doesn't involve any sort of religion into it, they technically don't have a 'marriage', but they have a 'civil joining' or 'legal joining' that is 'legally equivalent to a marriage' depending on which law you're looking at...

 

I love when the laws are inconsistant, it's fun.

 

So, basically, by trying to change the legal definition of 'marriage' which was only defined in Canada in 1992 (So I guess no one in Canada was married before that?) The government is just playing politics, essentially.

 

I'd have to look over the entire law more carefully, but I think that the reason it defines 'marriage' is so that it can go on to say that various types of couples who aren't 'married' can gain the same legal status as those that are, and can't be discriminated against, etc... So we don't want to just 'dump' that law altogether..

 

But, what did we all do before 1992? There was no legal definition of marriage, we must have had riots in the streets and turmoil everywhere as no one knew what marriage was!!

 

See what happens when the government starts trying to 'define' the meaning of a word, instead of just making sure that everyone is being treated fairly in the first place (which was the idea behind the law).

 

I find it interesting that you say that "Marriage is just a word, so why not let everyone use it" and then draw the analogy that "Canada" is also just a word...

 

Would you let anyone use it? What if Iraq (or whoever lots of people hate at the moment, no, I don't hate Iraq, it's an example) decided that it wanted to be Canada too, and started calling itself Canada and saying that it should have all the same rights in the UN as Canada does (ie: no sanctions, seat on security council, etc etc) because it is Canada too... Hey, let's start sending them transfer payments, they're Canada!

 

Not quite sure where you thought that was going, but I doubt you meant it that way?

[Guest canmic]

Speaking of laws.. I just realized something, wow.. this is interesting..

 

Ok, the law that they are all yelling back and forth about changing is one that was created to ensure that the various different types of relationships that were existing that were 'similar' to marriage would have the same legal rights etc as marriages.

 

So, if you are going to say that A is the same as B legally, you have to start out by saying what B is in the first place.

 

So, they put in a definition of marriage. Now, if you change that definition to include gay 'unions' then basically you are saying that gay marriages are legally equivalent to gay marriages... hmm, doesn't the defeat the purpose of the law in the first place?

 

This is one of the (many) problems with looking too closely at a given political agenda and focusing on too narrow an issue.

 

To be honest, I think the main reason the government is making such a big deal about it is to take headlines and attention away from the ongoing sponsorship scandal because that scandal makes them look bad.. It seems to be working, too.

 

That, and the fact that Paul Martin is desperately trying to be world famous. And it's working for that, too.

[Guest canmic]

Hmmm.

 

Vw, if your fiance and you are as much a couple as my wife and I, then why do you want to get married at all?

 

I also find it interesting that you feel that you can comment on the relationship I have with my wife when you have never met either of us and have no idea what sort of relationship we have. I wouldn't presume to guess what sort of relationship you have with your fiancee, except that by the nature of the word 'fiancee' I assume you are engaged. But, maybe you've changed the meaning of 'fiancee' so who knows what you mean by it...

 

Please don't presume to have a clue about my relationship with my wife, I'm sure you don't.

 

If there is no difference in your mind between a 'fiance' and a 'married spouse' then how can there be any difference to you between a common law or civil union relationship and a marriage, if they are all the same legally? And if there is no such difference to you, then why wouldn't you be happy to get a civil union and leave the whole marriage issue alone?

 

I think you are making the case for leaving the definition of marriage alone. Or are you saying that you care so little about marriage and don't put any value in it so you don't care what happens to it?

 

I am not 'trying to bring religion into marriage', I think that it has always been there, and I think the government trying to take it out (if they are?) is a bad idea. That's why I've been saying the government should get out of the 'marriage' business altogether, both for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

The main point I get from your post is that you think that marriage is basically nothing, and so why not change it.

 

If not, maybe you should try to re-state your argument, but please stick to things you know something about and don't try to tell me about my relationship with my wife, thanks..

[Guest VwDubber]

Canmic,

Vw, if your fiance and you are as much a couple as my wife and I, then why do you want to get married at all?

I don't get what you are trying to say here. If my fiance and I are as much of a couple as you and your wife, then why should we not want to get married (like you and your wife)?

I also find it interesting that you feel that you can comment on the nature of the relationship I have with my wife when you have never met either of us and have no idea what sort of relationship we have. I wouldn't presume to guess what sort of relationship you have with your fiancee, except that by the nature of the word 'fiancee' I assume you are engaged. But, maybe you've changed the meaning of 'fiancee' so who knows what you mean by it...

If you would please take a step back to self reflect at your own comments, you'd realize that it was precisely your own comment about the nature of the homosexual relationship I have with my fiance that brought me into this discussion. You specifically presumed an inaccurate judgment about my own relationship when you said that Homosexuals want to have a word like that too, but they aren't interested in putting in the effort over 100s of years to get it. With regards to my own comments, if you reread my original post which has not been edited, you'd see that I said that my partner and I are as much of a "couple" as you and your wife are. I have not presumed to know you or your relationship. I stated the obvious. You and your wife are a couple, and so are we. Not being able to procreate on our own does not make us any less or any more of a couple than you both (though you may feel otherwise).

If there is no difference in your mind between a 'fiance' and a 'married spouse' then how can there be any difference to you between a common law or civil union relationship and a marriage, if they are all the same legally? And if there is no such difference to you, then why wouldn't you be happy to get a civil union and leave the whole marriage issue alone?

Even if all of the above were the same legally, the mere fact that there are different categories implies that they are not all "truly" the same. If so, then why would you need to have all the different classifications?

I think you are making the case for leaving the definition of marriage alone. Or are you saying that you care so little about marriage and don't put any value in it so you don't care what happens to it?

Neither.

The main point I get from your post is that you think that marriage is basically nothing, and so why not change it.

I do not think it is essentially "nothing". If I did then there would be no reason for me to want to get married.

I am not 'trying to bring religion into marriage', I think that it has always been there, and I think the government trying to take it out (if they are?) is a bad idea. That's why I've been saying the government should get out of the 'marriage' business altogether, both for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

You say that religion has always been there and that the government should just get out of the whole marriage business altogether but yet you also state that you are all for equal rights. This seems contradicting to me because religion does not generally advocate "equality". If the government did get out and marriage were left alone, then who would do the advocating against inequality? Furthermore, through all this discussion you have yet to show me how redefining marriage impacts you or your wife negatively. Perhaps you are religious and so that is the root of your concerns but if that is the case then have you really stopped to question your own faith?

 

thanks,

[Guest canmic]

I think you missed a couple of the points I was making..

 

If you and your fiancee (not married by the nature of the word fiancee) are 'as much of a couple' as my wife and I (who are married), then why get married if you are already 'as much of a couple' without being married?

 

Personally, I think that my wife and I were not 'as much of a couple' before we got married as we are now. That is why I get the impression that you don't really see any difference between married and not married, and if you don't, why get married?

 

As far as 'equality' goes.. that word has been thrown around a lot in this debate, but, this has nothing to do with equality, as there is no legal (or other) discrimination between a married heterosexual couple and an unmarried homosexual couple. That is what the law that they are talking about changing was all about (if you have read all of it, and didn't just stop at the 'one man and one woman' part at the top).

 

Does a black person not have 'equality' because the law does not grant him the right to call himself 'white' and not be in error?

 

Do women not have equality because the law does not grant them the right to call themselves 'men' and not be in error? (I'm not talking about genetic women who say that they are men and not women, whole different issue).

 

In both cases, no one is saying that they don't have 'equality' for those reasons, because the law clearly states that men and women are to be treated equally, and that black and white (and whatever colour) people are all to be treated equally.

 

So, if the law says that 'civil unions' (I soooo wish they had come up with a better name for it, that one truely sucks. Anyone got any ideas?) are to be treated as equally to marriages under the law, then where is there discrimination? Where is there inequality?

 

I am 5'11" tall. Should they change the definition of a 'foot' so that I can be 6 feet tall? If they don't, am I being discriminated against because I can't say that I'm 6 feet tall and other people can?

 

As far as me commenting on your relationship, I would never do so for the simple reason that I don't know you, I don't know your partner and I didn't even know you were in a gay relationship, which makes it kind of hard for me to comment on something I didn't know existed.

 

What I was saying, that you seem to have missed, is that 'marriage' was created and built over many many years into an institution by various religious groups and heterosexual couples (because they were the ones who were married). So, instead of trying to force these groups and couples to change what the word means to them (and everyone), why not start a new word, and then show everyone that it means something?

 

Legally, you still have all the same rights and responsibilities, the only difference is that people would not know quite what the new word really means, until they were shown, by examples, what it meant.

 

Women didn't fight for the right to be called men, they fought for the CHANCE to show that they were just as good as men. They didn't expect (at least it doesn't look like they did, reading the histories and books they wrote) that everyone would just wake up one morning and say "Hey, women can do all these jobs just as well as men can!" But, they did demand to be given the chance to show everyone that they could, and they did.

 

The law has already been written that gives homosexual couples this chance. Unfortunately no one (that I know of) has come up with a smooth and attractive sounding word for it yet (at least that seems to be the general impression).

 

As far as the 'if they are the same, why have different words for them'. Well, men and women are equal under the law, but they didn't go back and change all the references to 'men' into references into 'people' they changed them to 'men and women'. So, instead of changing the word 'married' to 'person and person' why not change the references to 'married' to 'married or civilly unioned' (Ok they need a better word, but you get the idea). That is what that law did, at least that was the intent when they wrote it.

 

When the supreme court said that the federal government had the sole jurisdiction to define marriage in legal terms, they made it clear that this is NOT a discrimination or equality issue. If it had been a charter issue, they would have said that the government did NOT have the right to define it, because any definition that excluded anyone would be illegal. They also did not answer the question, is it legal if they don't change it, because they had already said that the government had the authority to define it. It would be kind of silly to say that they had the authority and then tell them but they are only allowed to do it one particular way...

 

As far as how changing the definition of marriage impacts anyone negatively, well, it's pretty simple.

 

As I've said, marriage is MORE than just a word, it means something beyond that to many people. It took a long time for that meaning to take form and become what it is today. Changing what it means puts things in a situation where it basically becomes a whole new word, with the same spelling. And people will no longer think it means the same thing. You may disagree, but here's an example to show what I mean.

 

Originally, waaaay back, there was no divorce. This was so true that the king of england had many of his wives beheaded because he couldn't divorce them. Now, I'm not saying that was a good thing, at all, but that's not my point.

 

The point is, a great many people today say things like "Marriage doesn't really mean all that much anymore" and "Look at all the divorce, marriage is no big deal now" etc etc and on and on...

 

So, the 'change' to marriage to allow divorce ended up redefining marriage and taking away from it in many people's eyes.

 

If you think that the same thing won't happen if they remove the 'one man one woman' part, well... think about it..

 

Also, and this is a REALLY big one, from a legal, concrete, solid standpoint:

 

Right now, if you get married in canada, it is recognized internationally. If you move to another country, you are given all the rights of someone who was married in that country. (citizenship and stuff is different, I mean rights as a couple).

 

Now, if we change the definition of marriage in Canada and make it incompatible with other countries, the USA in particular, there will definately be negative consequences. The americans would not be able to discriminate between different types of 'marriages' of Canadians, because then they would be discriminating against men, women, or gays (in one way or another). So, as they usually do, the americans would likely just refuse to recognize ALL canadian marriages. That would be a definate harm to many currently married couples.

 

Next, in Canada our laws are based on case law, ie: if you can show precedents that apply to a given situation, they are considered to be binding on the current judge, especially if they come from higher courts. If you legally make no distinction between the two types of couples (hetero/homo) then the courts will be forced to cross apply the precedents. This could have huge impacts on divorce and child custody cases, and they would not be good ones. Instead of a judge being able to decide what is best for the given couple (man/woman, man/man or woman/woman) whichever case hit the court system first would set the rule for all others to follow, it is hard to make a case for all 3 situations being equal given the way the courts have sided up until now.

 

I have said over and over again that I feel that any couple should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as any other couple. They should all be equal under the law. But to say that they should be indistinguishable and not have different words is not the way to go.

 

Basically what would happen, in the long run, is that the word 'marriage' would always be preceeded by some sort of adjective to say what kind of marriage it was. At that point, why not just have different words?

 

Otherwise, it would be like getting rid of the words 'man' and 'woman' and just using 'person' and then always having to specify 'male person' or 'female person' when you wanted to be specific.

[Guest canmic]

By the way, my wife and I are currently not a 'couple' we're a 'triple'. But I don't want to get into the whole 'is a fetus a person' debate

[Guest Yevgenydorn]

Canmic,

I don't mean to be an arse here, but your argument is so contradictory in so many places I don't even know where to start!

 

"What I was saying, that you seem to have missed, is that 'marriage' was created and built over many many years into an institution by various religious groups and heterosexual couples (because they were the ones who were married). So, instead of trying to force these groups and couples to change what the word means to them (and everyone), why not start a new word, and then show everyone that it means something?"

 

A point I tried to make in an earlier post is this:

I am heterosexual, therefore, should I choose to, I can legally marry a man. However, As of now (before my wedding) I, like any other unmarried person, hetero or homo, have done absolutely NO WORK to develop the word "marriage". Granted, neither has any unmarried homosexual person (though these people, unlike me, may not be unmarried by choice). Particularly if I am not religious (which I'm not) then I have absolutely no more special connection to the word marriage than any homosexual couple. So shouldn't I stop being lazy and make up a new word too? In fact, shouldn't every individual marriage really be called something different since none are exactly the same? We should at least have different names for different religions' marriages, shouldn't we?

Actually, while we're in the process of doing away with adjectives, (which you seem to find so messy) there are a lot of new words we should be creating, aren't there? Hmm...

 

A number of your other examples are also flawed... No, women didn't fight to be called men, but they did fight to be called "voters," "legal persons," "citizens," etc (all words whose defininitions, at least implicitly, had excluded them)... didn't they? So I'm not sure I see your point here.

 

To be perfectly honest, I've read through your posts carefully, and I haven't seen anything at all to convince me that your motivations are not purely homophobic.

You've avoided the question "what would same-sex marriage take away from your marriage" until now, and you finally answer it here, but your answer is pretty weak.

First of all, I don't think I understand your case law example about child custody ... what specific problems do you see with man/man, woman/woman, and man/woman marriages being treated the same way? That seems like a generally good thing to me... Perhaps I misunderstand.

And as for your other example, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that you're saying "leave the current Canadian defintion intact so hetero marriages don't get lumped in with gay marriages and **gasp** force heterosexual people to face discriminitation! That's no fair! It's their problem, we've already been fighting for 100s of years for our rights!" Or something along those lines... To me it seems like what's not fair is that the discrimination exists at all, but you only seem concerned with its effect on you. Anyway, at worst, your scenario would cause heteros the inconvenience of having to get remarried in the US, should they choose to move there. That doesn't seem so dire to me. (And we can't start making all our legal decisions based on compatibility with the US, Canada is a separate country after all).

 

Canmic, I think you are really just beating around the bush with all these weak arguments. I wish you would just say what you actually mean, instead of doing these illogical backflips.

Maybe you're scared to seem homophobic? I think subtle discrimination can be worse than the explicit kind. Now I'm not implying that you hate gay people, or that you don't think they deserve the same legal rights (generally) as you do, but you clearly think they are inherently different from you. So different that they can't even share your words. (I'm not even going to address your point about procreation because we both know all the arguments against it, you even raised the main one yourself). No, gay people need a completely new invented word to describe their loving, committed, monogamous relationships, because by sharing your word for loving, committed, monogamous relationships, they will taint and ruin your happy union with your wife, possibly cause you inconvenience if you travel, and make sure that they are treated the same way as other couples in child custody cases.

Oh, and by the way, don't we also need new words for gay "boyfriends" and gay "girlfriends"? And while we're at it, new words for gay parents (we can't taint "mother" and "father"! Generations of parents have worked for 100s of years to make those more than words, haven't they?)

 

And in the interest of calling a spade a spade, apples apples, oranges oranges, hetero marriages hetero marriages, civil unions civil unions, I think it's fair to call canmic.... HOMOPHOBIC.

 

I'm sorry for this descent into hyperbole and sarcasm... I just couldn't restrain it any longer. Under the circumstances, I think I've done well.

Yev

[Guest canmic]

I think it is very interesting that the fact that I feel that marriage is an important institution and that the government should leave it to the various religions who built it makes me 'homophobic'.

 

Maybe you have also changed the meaning of that word, and no one told me?

 

I have said all along that I believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight couples. I do not think that there should be any discrimination against them.

 

If your response to everyone whose point you can't seem to understand is to label them 'homophobic' then you certainly have changed the meaning of THAT word.

 

Also, women did not fight to be called 'voters' I'm not sure where on earth you got that one. The legislation does not say "A voter is a man or woman who can vote" it says that Men and women over the age of 18 can vote. It used to say that Men over the age of 18 can vote. (I'm not sure if colour was ever an issue in Canada for voting? I know it was in the US).

 

I also find it interesting when I answer the question that was asked me, ie: How does changing the meaning of the word cause any 'loss' or problem or whatever for heterosexual married couples, I am being told "Well that's too bad then, live with problems in the US and other countries". And then, after telling me that I have to live with it, you again say that it wouldn't cause me any problems??

 

I am not saying that ALL heterosexuals care if the meaning of the word is changed or not. Obviously they don't. But, the polls do show that a majority of them do, so don't point at me, and those who do and say that we are some sort of radical minority..

 

Also, just because YOU haven't invested anything into a marriage, that makes it ok to change the meaning of the word? What about those people who have? Are you so unable to see that you getting married to someone of the opposite sex won't cause a change in the meaning of the word marriage?

 

I guess it is the prerogative of the ignorant to sling personal insults at those whose arguments they cannot understand...

 

And, just for one example of the legal issues involved with custody. By law, if two people are married and one becomes pregnant, and they later divorce, she has the right to child support. Notice that the law does NOT require that the mother prove that her spouse is the father of the child. Now, what happens when the spouse is another woman? OOps..

 

That was just one example. There are many, but I doubt you would understand them from the sound of things..

 

As this thread has obviously degenerated to the point where anyone who disagrees with changing the definition of marriage is subject to personal attacks, I don't really see any point in continuing to discuss it. All I can say is that when I discuss the whole things with friends who are gay, and in long term happy monogamous relationships, they have never, ever, come anywhere near concluding that I was 'homophobic'..

 

Actually, most of them think that the whole idea of gay people wanting to involve themselves with religions who have professed absolutely no tolerance of them is quite bizarre.

 

After I read your post I asked one of them if he thought that my relationship was fundamentally different from his, and he said "Well ya, mine is with a guy and yours is with a woman, and men and women are fundamentally different, but we're both happy with who we are with, so different, but equally beneficial for each of us"

 

Why does 'different' always have to be labeled as 'not as good as'.

 

And, as I said before, by the way, if you think that all the words you refer to excluded women at the outset, you are incorrect. It was when the governments CHANGED THEIR MEANING to exclude women that all the problems started. The term 'citizen' dates back to ancient latin culture, and yes, women could be citizens just as men could.

 

The same applies to the americans specifically excluding blacks by saying they weren't persons under the law, but were instead property. Before the US was founded, back in England, blacks were people.

 

Anyway, I have learned long ago that there is no point in arguing with those who are so ignorant as to resort to name calling when they cannot understand someone's point.

[Guest certicom]

you can't change the definition of marriage, simply because it is not a word...it is a sentence (a life sentence)

[Guest eman05]

you can't change the definition of marriage, simply because it is not a word...it is a sentence (a life sentence)

 

Ha ha... best line I've EVER read on this forum!

[Guest studentz]

Yep, that's basically what I meant, but I was not saying that 'civil unions' would be only for homosexuals.. I was saying that the government would only confer civil unions and the churches would only confer marriages.

 

Marriages have been defined and performed by various religions for longer than any state has existed in its current form. I don't see a place for the Canadian government to be defining something that is supposed to be entirely outside its reach. At the end of the day, marriage has its basis in religion. The government cannot artificially separate the two. I've attended Christian, Muslim and Hindu weddings and what they have in common is the notion that what is taking place is more than than a union between people, it is a union before God. To remove that last part from the equation IS to debase the entire concept of marrriage for many.

 

I agree with the basis of canmic's argument; any "union-type" ceremony performed according to some religious tradition should be called a marriage. Any civil-type union performed by the government that is not in accordance with any religion should be called a civil union, or whatever term you want to use other than marriage. The two should be given equal property, tax, surrogate decision making etc. powers and rights. If some religion decides to perform same-sex marriages, well that's for the religion/denomination to decide.

 

I've heard some equate this issue with that of ethnic minorities attempting to have their marriages recognized in various societies in the past. The two issues are not the same, for there is is no religious basis to differentiate between a White baptist and a Black baptist, for instance. For some, their is clearly a religious basis for differentiating between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple.

 

If I get into X university, and you get into Y, we'll both get an MD at the end and we can both practice medicine. However, the degree will have a different name on it and I won't be able to say that I'm a Y meds grad since I didn't go there and earn the MD under Y's curriculum. I don't think it's appropriate to call a union between two people, regardless of their orientation, a marriage if the ceremony is performed by a representative of the state.

[Guest Yevgenydorn]

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this issue canmic, even though I think we already agree on a solution... That is, like I've said (or at least I think I said this somewhere, it may have been in a post that I accidentally erased- I've been a bit out of it lately as I've had a fever all week), I agree that a fair solution is to leave marriage to religions and have the state perform only civil unions, with marriage having no legal significance, only various religious ones. This poses no problem for me, but I have found a lot of your arguments offensive and/or illogical. I'll just try to clarify a couple of things, then I'll drop it.

I think part of our problem is one of definition... all words have many different layers of meaning, and a word like marriage more than most. There is usually more than one dictionary definition, which have nothing to do with government or law (at least in English), as dictionaries change printed definitions to match the different ways a word is used. Most words have multiple meanings, or usages already, don't they? Even marriage can mean, simply "an intimate union" as in, "a marriage of true minds" already, not only a union between a man and a woman. I'm under the impression that we've been arguing about the legal definition of marriage since no one is lobbying Webster's or Oxford to make any changes, at least not as far as I know. The legal definition seems to be all we can argue about, I think, since neither of us (at least I don't) have any pull at the O.E.D.- and they will change their definition of marriage only if and when they want to.

I still hold that women did fight to be called voters etc, or at least for the term voter to included them in its legal definition. I'm not sure why we aren't agreeing here, I think it must be a question of terms again (i.e. what we mean by definition legal vs dictionary vs every speech?) And I'm not sure why this point has become so important, but I am about as certain as I can be, under the circumstances (i.e. not having been there myself)that in ancient Greece, the word for citizen (those with democratic rights) only included male landowners. It certainly did not include slaves or women. But there is not much point in debating this any further since neither of us has come up with proof.

 

And, for the record, I don't automatically equate "different" with "not as good as" at all. Like you, I think women are different but no better or worse than men, for example. But sometimes I do think that an insistence on having different labels for things that are, for all intents and purposes, the same (i.e. loving, committed, longterm relationships between two people that are granted certain tax benefits), is evidence of fear and an intent to exclude and discriminate against. This is particularly true when one of the two "types" in question has been discriminated against in the past and the other has not, when one is, more or less, "the norm" and othe other is not, and furthermore is considered inferior, sinful, evil, wrong, etc. by many. Even though you and I may think gay unions are equal but different, many others don't, so insisting that they be called by a special name for fear that they'll get mixed up with hetero marriages seems like discrimination to me. Legally, if the two types of unions have identical rights, then legally, aren't they identical?

 

I'm hurt that you think I'm ignorant, intellectually incapable of understanding your arguments and slinging personal insults, but I might point out that the insult I slung wasn't really all that personal- it was based only on your arguments here, as I understand them, and I think it was justified.

Why, specifically, are you clinging so tightly to the current definition of marriage? If you really aren't homophobic, which I am willing to believe, if you can explain it to me, then why are you so afraid of sharing a word? Maybe your motivations are religious ? You're right, I really don't understand, I just can't get my head around why someone would fight to stop a certain group of people from using a word (in a case where there will be very few, if any, practical/legal effects of the new usage) except for out of fear of being associated with that group of people. And that seems like homophobia to me... can you clarify? But if you'd rather discontinue the discussion at this point, that's fine too.

Yev

[Guest VwDubber]

ok this is going to be a long post!

I think you missed a couple of the points I was making..

 

If you and your fiancee (not married by the nature of the word fiancee) are 'as much of a couple' as my wife and I (who are married), then why get married if you are already 'as much of a couple' without being married?

 

Personally, I think that my wife and I were not 'as much of a couple' before we got married as we are now. That is why I get the impression that you don't really see any difference between married and not married, and if you don't, why get married?

What you have just told me is that if my partner and I are as much of a couple as you and your wife are now without getting married, then why bother getting “married”. I sense sarcasm in your question but I will give you the benefit of the doubt because the context doesn’t always come through online. I don’t view my relationship as an endpoint so what you say is in violation with my own outlook. You have said that you and your wife are more of a couple now than before you were married. Are you telling me that getting “married” instantly gave your relationship deeper meaning similar to an A-ha moment? It seems to me that you are downplaying the other more important factors such as the length of time you and your wife have been together since getting married, struggles, challenges, triumphs and so forth you have experienced together. These would have had a lot more to do with making you both more of a couple … rather then just the act of getting “married” which is what you seem to attribute this to.

As far as 'equality' goes.. that word has been thrown around a lot in this debate, but, this has nothing to do with equality, as there is no legal (or other) discrimination between a married heterosexual couple and an unmarried homosexual couple. That is what the law that they are talking about changing was all about (if you have read all of it, and didn't just stop at the 'one man and one woman' part at the top).

I don’t agree with you when you say that “this” has nothing to do with equality. You mention no discrimination between a married heterosexual couple and an unmarried homosexual couple but this is exactly where the inequality lies. Married heterosexual couples because they are allowed to get “married” are treated differently then homosexual couples because such couples were not allowed to get “married” and hence do not receive the same recognition under the law.

Does a black person not have 'equality' because the law does not grant him the right to call himself 'white' and not be in error?

 

Do women not have equality because the law does not grant them the right to call themselves 'men' and not be in error? (I'm not talking about genetic women who say that they are men and not women, whole different issue).

 

In both cases, no one is saying that they don't have 'equality' for those reasons, because the law clearly states that men and women are to be treated equally, and that black and white (and whatever colour) people are all to be treated equally.

I’m still not sure why you feel the need to bring in color into this discussion. I fail to see what you are trying to get at. Why would a black person claim inequality for something that they aren’t ? This makes absolutely no sense to me….

 

Again, I fail to see what you are trying to get at. Why would women want to call themselves “men” and then claim inequality for something they aren’t?

So, if the law says that 'civil unions' (I soooo wish they had come up with a better name for it, that one truely sucks. Anyone got any ideas?) are to be treated as equally to marriages under the law, then where is there discrimination? Where is there inequality?

As I mentioned earlier, the discrimination and inequality lies in the mere fact that different classifications exist and segregation continues. For example, you are straight you get to be married …. You are gay you get to be xyz. It’s important to remember that just because things are treated equally under the law doesn’t mean discrimination doesn’t exist. You have not been able to show that the costs associated with redefining marriage outweigh its benefits.

I am 5'11" tall. Should they change the definition of a 'foot' so that I can be 6 feet tall? If they don't, am I being discriminated against because I can't say that I'm 6 feet tall and other people can?

Canmic, I don’t see the relevance of your height example in our discussion. That would be like me bringing my weight into it.

As far as me commenting on your relationship, I would never do so for the simple reason that I don't know you, I don't know your partner and I didn't even know you were in a gay relationship, which makes it kind of hard for me to comment on something I didn't know existed.

 

What I was saying, that you seem to have missed, is that 'marriage' was created and built over many many years into an institution by various religious groups and heterosexual couples (because they were the ones who were married). So, instead of trying to force these groups and couples to change what the word means to them (and everyone), why not start a new word, and then show everyone that it means something?

I am fully aware of how marriage and its influences and I have not missed your point regarding this. You need to scroll back to your original post and compare the two tones. The latter in your last post was much different than in your original in which you unnecessarily went on further to cast judgment about a group of people’s type of relationship. To say that you would never comment on my relationship for the simple reason that you don’t know me is simply not true, Canmic. You have regardless of whether or not it was intentional. You need to accept responsibility for that.

Women didn't fight for the right to be called men, they fought for the CHANCE to show that they were just as good as men. They didn't expect (at least it doesn't look like they did, reading the histories and books they wrote) that everyone would just wake up one morning and say "Hey, women can do all these jobs just as well as men can!" But, they did demand to be given the chance to show everyone that they could, and they did.

You say that women didn’t fight for the right to be called men but how does this relate to this discussion. Homosexuals are not fighting to be called something that we aren’t. We’re also not fighting for the chance to show that we are as good as something we aren’t (ie. men).

As far as how changing the definition of marriage impacts anyone negatively, well, it's pretty simple.

 

As I've said, marriage is MORE than just a word, it means something beyond that to many people. It took a long time for that meaning to take form and become what it is today. Changing what it means puts things in a situation where it basically becomes a whole new word, with the same spelling. And people will no longer think it means the same thing. You may disagree, but here's an example to show what I mean.

 

Right now, if you get married in canada, it is recognized internationally. If you move to another country, you are given all the rights of someone who was married in that country. (citizenship and stuff is different, I mean rights as a couple).

 

Now, if we change the definition of marriage in Canada and make it incompatible with other countries, the USA in particular, there will definately be negative consequences. The americans would not be able to discriminate between different types of 'marriages' of Canadians, because then they would be discriminating against men, women, or gays (in one way or another). So, as they usually do, the americans would likely just refuse to recognize ALL canadian marriages. That would be a definate harm to many currently married couples.

You have not provided very convincing examples to show how changing the definition of marriage would impact everyone negatively. You mention that a definite harm to many currently married couples would be possibly incurred if they moved to other countries such as the USA because Americans would not be able to discriminate between the different types of marriages? Therefore they might refuse all marriages? With the exception of few ambiguous names, it is fairly obvious to tell the sex of the people involved. I would imagine that both you and your spouse would have to come in person to US immigration for paperwork. Also keep in mind that things in the US are also changing. Look at Mass and the recent court result in California. The potential harm you have listed is fairly far fetched in my opinion. Canada is its own country with our own autonomy.

Next, in Canada our laws are based on case law, ie: if you can show precedents that apply to a given situation, they are considered to be binding on the current judge, especially if they come from higher courts. If you legally make no distinction between the two types of couples (hetero/homo) then the courts will be forced to cross apply the precedents. This could have huge impacts on divorce and child custody cases, and they would not be good ones. Instead of a judge being able to decide what is best for the given couple (man/woman, man/man or woman/woman) whichever case hit the court system first would set the rule for all others to follow, it is hard to make a case for all 3 situations being equal given the way the courts have sided up until now.

You mentioned that if you legally make no distinction between the two types of couples then the courts will be forced to cross apply the precedents? So are you then implying that distinctions should be made legally between the types of couples? You’re confusing me. You keep advocating equality, equal rights and you go on to say that any couple should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as any other couple but yet you give examples that contradict what you say with regards to “they should all be equal under the law. But to say that they should be indistinguishable and not have different words is not the way to go.”

Basically what would happen, in the long run, is that the word 'marriage' would always be preceeded by some sort of adjective to say what kind of marriage it was. At that point, why not just have different words?

That’s not necessarily true. Sometimes, I still refer to my fiancé simply as my bf. My girlfriends refer to their boyfriends simply as their bf. Do you feel that I should change this to my gay bf or that they should change this to my str8 bf? Obviously not!

[Guest spring2]

1. I am pretty sure that women did have to fight for the right to vote. Actually, I am very sure of that.

 

2. I don't believe the sincerity in the previous statement made that said that someone believed homosexuals should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, but just not be able to use the term marriage (because heterosexuals have put SOO much effort into the meaning of that word over the past 100's of years???????). I don't believe that people on this forum are fighting/debating over the simple definition of a word. And that is why i can understand why people on this forum perceive their behaviour as homophobic. I do not understsand why can we not just let homosexuals be happy and marry their partners and share the same rights that heterosexuals have. Whether or not joe and joe are getting married next saturday or joe and jane are, have no direct impact on of my life, and i don't see why so many people think it has an impact on their life and are expending so much effort to try and stop it from happening.

[Guest spring2]

...sorry for rambling.. that is just my $0.02 and my opinion....

[Guest cmitchelca]

I completely agree with you spring2. Marriage is not about a man being with a woman or a man being with a man, etc., it's about two people proclaiming that they want to spend their lives together. That is what marriage is, not some exclusive club that only some members can join. I've just got two questions that I don't understand here and maybe someone can help me out:

1) Why does changing the word to incorporate gay couples give the word marriage any less meaning? If they are vowing to spend their lives together (just as straight people do) why do they need a different word?

Someone made the comment about the terms 'man' and 'woman' as a poor analogy. You know what, if there is a woman who feels as though she is a 'man' and would like to be considered a 'man', who cares. Does that make me any less of a man? No

 

2) If all people are allowed to "get married", why does one need to specify what type of marriage it is? It seems to me (and people can tell me if this isn't correct) that the only reason one would have to specify what type of marriage they are in, would be insecurity? They would tell someone that they are married, and then make sure to say that they are straightly married just so people know that they aren't gay.

 

This whole discussion is fascinating to me on a psychological level. We, as humans, come up with these labels because we think it makes life easier. The problem is that we become so identified with these labels, that they become who we are. We are students, and parents, and sons/daughters, and doctors, and homeowners. We allow these things to define who we are, and this is pretty funny for two reasons. (1) These were all categories that were made up in the first place, and (2) these things can be taken away in an instant.

Instead of playing the semantics game and fighting about what everyone should be called, why don't we work at finding out what we all have in common and who we really are.

[Guest canmic]

Ok, I wasn't going to continue in this thread, but it seems that soooo much of what I said was totally not understood, so I will make one last try... Maybe I haven't been explaining things as well as I thought. (not being sarcastic)

 

Firstly, I'm not sure where the comment that women fought for the right to vote came from, of course they did, and I never said that they didn't. Not sure what that comment was referring to, but anyway..

 

I'm also not quite sure how you can say that my examples of the black person and the woman aren't making sense..

 

Let me try again, using your own statements, maybe that will help a bit.

 

Quote:

 

Why would a black person claim inequality for something that they aren’t ? This makes absolutely no sense to me….

 

Again, I fail to see what you are trying to get at. Why would women want to call themselves “men” and then claim inequality for something they aren’t?

 

End Quote.

 

Now, I ask you, Why would homosexual couples want to call themselves "Married" and then claim inequality for something they aren't?

 

Currently, by law, and by the definition of married, homosexual couples aren't married, and can't get married (which is kinda the point of this discussion in the first place).

 

Now do you see my point there?

 

If it isn't discrimination for a black man to not be able to call himself white when he has all the same legal rights, and it isn't discrimination for a woman to not be able to call herself a man when she has all the same legal rights (and as I said, I'm not talking about the whole trans-gender issue) then why is it discrimination if a gay couple can't call themselves married if they have all the same legal rights?

 

As far as the legal issues, you also missed my point, I am not saying that the difference lies in the homo/hetero sexuality of the couple. I am saying that in family court, the rules ARE different for men and women currently. But, once you set a precedent, it applies to all. Now, if all types of couples are legally exactly the same (not just equal, but indistinguishable legally) then the precedents would also apply.

 

The same sort of thing applies to the USA example I gave. Legally, the US government is going to have 2 choices:

 

1) Recognize ALL canadian marriages, straight or not.

 

2) Recognize NO canadian marriages.

 

They won't legally be able to discriminate. I wasn't saying that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, they do have eyes. My point was that if they did discriminate, they would wind up in legal battles, so they will be forced to treat ALL canadian marriages in the same way, #1 or #2 above.

 

Now, do you really really think for one second that George W is going to sign a law that says #1? I don't..

 

Actually, they are working on legislation to make all of the state laws allowing gay marriage illegal, and it will probably pass.

 

Now, another thing that relates to all this is that I've been over the border a few times recently. Each time I've gone with a girl in the car, we have been asked "Are you two married to each other?" and when I was with my wife, the guy just waved us through, but one time when I was with another girl, and we said "no" to the same question, he gave us a paper and sent us inside and we had to fill out forms and show our passports (both born in canada) etc etc... and we were stuck there for about an hour.

 

I have NO idea why they are doing that, but obviously the 'married' vs 'not-married' is a big deal for some reason. So, I'd rather they continued to consider me as 'married' if that's ok?

 

Now, I'm sure someone is going to say "That didn't happen to me" Well, maybe it didn't, but I'm just saying what's happened the last dozen or so times I've gone down to the US, and strangely, it all started just after the whole gay marriage issue started being debated in parlament. Maybe they are asking gay couples the same question (how they would know I have no idea) for some reason, again, no idea. I don't ask US border guards why they do things, that can lead to cavity searches!

 

These are the guys who just passed a law saying that a baby is a baby, and called it anti-abortion legislation. (go figure)

 

As far as the 'having to specify what type of marriage a marriage is' being based on insecurity, you missed the point there. I am NOT talking about in casual conversation, that would be quite weird. I am talking about a legal type situation such as the whole USA mess. If this does go through, I bet that a GREAT MANY government, bank, etc forms will be changed so that instead of 'single, divorced, seperated, married, widow(er)' (did I forget any?) checkboxes, there would be all of those, but 'married' would be 'Married - Heterosexual' and 'Married - Homosexual' and I can already hear the uproar that would result. (don't blame me, I don't make those forms!!)

 

And as far as the comments made that this discussion isn't about the definition of a word, actually it is. Currently under Canadian law, a gay couple has all the same rights and responsibilities as a straight couple. The ONLY difference, legally, is that the straight couple is called 'married' and the gay couple isn't. So, basically it IS all about the definition of the word.

 

If the issue was something else, like legal guardianship rights or pension transfers or insurance benefits or whatever, then I would be saying that so long as the gay couple had legally registered themselves as a couple with the government in some way (ie: civil union or whatever) then they should have all the same rights. This is the same for straight couples, you have to register yourselves with the government as a couple in some way.

 

But, the issue, is the use/definition of the word 'marriage' in the context of a relationship between two people.

 

As far as having to use different terms for 'boyfriend' and 'girlfriend' nope, they still work just fine for straight and gay couples. Your 'boyfriend' is a boy. A girl's 'boyfriend' is also a boy, it works. Now, if you started calling him your 'girlfriend' then it would probably be confusing and a bad idea, but that leads into the whole trans-gender issue which, as I said, isn't the point of this discussion. (We could start a new thread about the fairness of trans-gendered athletes in the olympics? Is an XX taking testosterone and competing as a man cheating? If an XY took testosterone he'd be cheating.. What about an XY who competes as a woman, is that fair? Who knows?)

 

Another reason I decided to post this is that I had a long chat with a friend of mine, who is gay and in a long term relationship with someone about all this, and here is what he said. Now, remember, he's openly gay, so he can't really be homophobic, can he?

 

He said that a big part of this whole mess is that the entire gay community is paying the price for those members of that community who have always been openly sexually active with random strangers over the past 20-30 years. He said that the worst thing that has ever happened to gay rights were all the 'bath houses' and what went on in them. Also, he told me that there was an interview on a TV talk show with some big-shot gay activist about the whole issue, and that man said that he felt that his 'committed relationship' with his partner should be called marriage. But he also said that his relationship was very very far from monogamous and that he was having sex with 100s of different men every year, but he said that doing so didn't lessen the commitment of his relationship, so it should be a marriage.

 

Those kind of statements aren't helping things at all.

 

Another thing he brought up is that it is quite bizarre that the people most strongly against gay marriage are priests, and a great many of them, are gay. Does that mean they are all homophobic, self-loathing and disturbed? Maybe it means that they believe in the 'sanctity of marriage' and that it isn't something that should be changed, at all. They are all against divorce, after all.

 

Now, this is what a gay man told me was his opinion of the whole mess, so don't go calling me homophobic over it again!

 

Similarly, I think that those of us who are NOT 'homophobic' and who do believe in equal rights for all etc.. are being painted with the same brush as those who say things like "Gays shouldn't get married because they are evil" or similar comments that have been made recently.

 

Is it so hard to believe that I am both for equal rights and against changing the definition of marriage? Remember that I said that the government should get right out of marriage altogeher and give everyone a 'civil union' or whatever.

 

Also, I read in the news that a recent poll has shown that somewhere around 40% of Canadians feel that this whole marriage debate has worsened the feelings of straight people towards gay people, and only 10% said it has improved things.

 

Another poll also showed that 5% more people admitted to pollsters that they were homosexual or bisexual than said that they were in favour of changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

 

So that means that a large number of homosexual or bisexual people are against changing the definition. Maybe they also feel that it will make things worse, not better, for them.

 

Also, it was mentioned that women were not given rights in ancient latin civilization. This is not really the case at all. While women were not usually allowed to be soldiers (except for Sparta, where women were extremely effective archers) most if not all of the distinctions in terms of human rights were class based and not sex based. There were female members of the 'royal court' type class, who had male slaves and servants, just as there were male members of the ruling class who had female slaves and servants. While rome never had a female emperor, the wife of the emperor was often the most powerful person in the empire. There is also strong evidence that there were female members of the senate, and it is known that the wives of senators would often place their proxy votes and speak on their behalf when they weren't available. Now it might not be complete perfect equality, but it certainly is better than what existed in north america 100 years ago. And no one can argue that 100s of years ago in europe women had more equality than they did in north america 100 years ago, there were, after all, many european Queens, who were far more than 'equal' to anyone else in their country. Things were far more class based than sex based there as well. It could be argued that there were more men than women in the upper classes, but that isn't the point.

 

So, to summarize my position once again, hopefully it is clear now..

 

1) Equal rights for all couples - YES

 

2) Discrimination against gays under the law - NO

 

3) Changing the definition of Marriage - NO

 

4) Government using the whole issue to take attention away from sponsorship scandal - YES

 

5) Paul Martin trying desperately to be world famous (most people in the world still think Pierre Trudeau is our prime minister) - YES

 

6) Changing the definition of marriage a good thing for anyone (straight or gay) - Probably not.

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for anyone to actually look up the definition of discrimination or equality in legal terms and explain how the current law is discriminatory or violating the principles of equality. The supreme court didn't say it was, so I'd be quite interested in hearing such an explanation rather than just a statement that not allowing gays to get married is discrimination because other people can and they can't. Life is full of situations where some people can do something and others can't, they aren't all discrimination.

[Guest VwDubber]

Let me try again, using your own statements, maybe that will help a bit.

 

Now, I ask you, Why would homosexual couples want to call themselves "Married" and then claim inequality for something they aren't?

 

Currently, by law, and by the definition of married, homosexual couples aren't married, and can't get married (which is kinda the point of this discussion in the first place).

 

Now do you see my point there?

Regarding your examples about a black person wanting to declare him/herself as white and a woman wanting to declare herself as a man, you’re essentially bringing factors such as race and gender into this discussion and then raising the following question: why should a homosexual couple be allowed to get married because this is something they aren’t (not a man and a woman) when we are denying someone’s wishes to refer to themselves as whatever race or gender they wish to identify themselves as …. (even though they aren’t). In the case of “marriage”, we both agree that marriage is a relationship that involves many aspects such as monogamy etc. between two people. With the exception of procreation which we said was not a requirement of “marriage” .. this relationship in my opinion is not simply one that can only be experienced exclusively between a man and a woman. This is one of the many reasons why I feel that the definition of marriage should not be limited to between a man and a woman. Would you like me to go on and explain why this is different from the examples you gave regarding race and gender.

If it isn't discrimination for a black man to not be able to call himself white when he has all the same legal rights, and it isn't discrimination for a woman to not be able to call herself a man when she has all the same legal rights (and as I said, I'm not talking about the whole trans-gender issue) then why is it discrimination if a gay couple can't call themselves married if they have all the same legal rights?

 

And as far as the comments made that this discussion isn't about the definition of a word, actually it is. Currently under Canadian law, a gay couple has all the same rights and responsibilities as a straight couple. The ONLY difference, legally, is that the straight couple is called 'married' and the gay couple isn't. So, basically it IS all about the definition of the word.

So what you’re saying is that if the current definition of marriage were retained … there would be no discrimination against gay couples because we already have all the same legal rights as str8 married couples (before this whole changing the definition of marriage ordeal)? This is simply not true Canmic. Many companies to this day require “marriage” in order for one to receive spousal benefits … even simple things as dental benefits ..…. nothing else is recognized .. plain and simple.

As far as the legal issues, you also missed my point, I am not saying that the difference lies in the homo/hetero sexuality of the couple. I am saying that in family court, the rules ARE different for men and women currently. But, once you set a precedent, it applies to all. Now, if all types of couples are legally exactly the same (not just equal, but indistinguishable legally) then the precedents would also apply.

I am not familiar with how women and men are treated in family court but if you say they are treated differently under the law then I will assume this to be true. However, you also said in your previous post that if all types of couples were legally exactly the same that this could have huge impacts on divorce and child custody cases, and they would not be good ones. I am assuming that “not be good ones” means you feel this would lead to some non desirable results. Maybe you can provide me with some examples because I can think of at least one example off the top of my mind that would lead to desirable results.

The same sort of thing applies to the USA example I gave. Legally, the US government is going to have 2 choices:

 

1) Recognize ALL canadian marriages, straight or not.

 

2) Recognize NO canadian marriages.

 

They won't legally be able to discriminate. I wasn't saying that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, they do have eyes. My point was that if they did discriminate, they would wind up in legal battles, so they will be forced to treat ALL canadian marriages in the same way, #1 or #2 above.

 

Now, do you really really think for one second that George W is going to sign a law that says #1? I don't..

That is perhaps a far fetched possibility but something you haven’t acknowledged is that either way, legal battles are going to ensue. This is still not a very compelling reason to show how redefining marriage will negatively affect Canadians b/c of several reasons:

 

1.        What about the Canadians that choose to stay in Canada … such a change has not affected them negatively. A true negative change acquired as the result of a change in the definition of marriage should be felt by all Canadians not just a simple minority who may potentially move.

2.        The situation you state is strictly hypothetical and as of yet .. there has been no such talk between Canada and the USA regarding the recognition of Canadian marriages.

3.        You have to remember that Canada will be the third country to legalize same sex marriages. If what you’re saying is true, then marriages from other prior countries such as Belgium should not be recognized in the US but this is simply not true. What you state may be your own personal belief but you have not provided solid evidence to show that this is a realistic possibility in the near future.

Actually, they are working on legislation to make all of the state laws allowing gay marriage illegal, and it will probably pass.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite. Some of these include the recent ruling in which the Court invalidated California's ban on same-sex marriage. Same sex couples are also allowed to get married in NYC and Massachusetts. I also want to add that California was also the first state to legalize inter racial marriage. Massachusetts is the state with the highest average IQ. Times are changing.

Now, another thing that relates to all this is that I've been over the border a few times recently. Each time I've gone with a girl in the car, we have been asked "Are you two married to each other?" and when I was with my wife, the guy just waved us through, but one time when I was with another girl, and we said "no" to the same question, he gave us a paper and sent us inside and we had to fill out forms and show our passports (both born in canada) etc etc... and we were stuck there for about an hour.

 

I have NO idea why they are doing that, but obviously the 'married' vs 'not-married' is a big deal for some reason. So, I'd rather they continued to consider me as 'married' if that's ok?

You mention that each time you’ve been across the border and your response to “are you two married” has been “yes” .. that it’s been smooth sailing. And one time when you were with another girl … and answered “no” that you were sent inside. Could this one time just be coincidental on a variety of other factors such as time of the day, month of travel, type of car driven, race of the passengers (sad but true)? I don’t think it’s fair for you to make a generalization such as “married vs. not-married” is a big deal … especially when you say that this only happened “one time” when you were with another girl … I’ve been to the states several times this year as I have had interviews at US schools and each time, it’s taken me less than 5 mins at the border. But then again, I have a very innocent look and who knows .. maybe a celeb has crossed each time shortly before I did and so that’s why their efforts were preoccupied elsewhere.

As far as the 'having to specify what type of marriage a marriage is' being based on insecurity, you missed the point there. I am NOT talking about in casual conversation, that would be quite weird. I am talking about a legal type situation such as the whole USA mess. If this does go through, I bet that a GREAT MANY government, bank, etc forms will be changed so that instead of 'single, divorced, seperated, married, widow(er)' (did I forget any?) checkboxes, there would be all of those, but 'married' would be 'Married - Heterosexual' and 'Married - Homosexual' and I can already hear the uproar that would result. (don't blame me, I don't make those forms!!)

You mention that an uproar would result and I don’t agree but let’s say that one did occur. I don’t think that this would necessarily be a bad thing because it would teach society one very important lesson. Not to assume. Doctors, lawyers, professionals etc are taught not to assume.

Another reason I decided to post this is that I had a long chat with a friend of mine, who is gay and in a long term relationship with someone about all this, and here is what he said. Now, remember, he's openly gay, so he can't really be homophobic, can he?

 

He said that a big part of this whole mess is that the entire gay community is paying the price for those members of that community who have always been openly sexually active with random strangers over the past 20-30 years. He said that the worst thing that has ever happened to gay rights were all the 'bath houses' and what went on in them. Also, he told me that there was an interview on a TV talk show with some big-shot gay activist about the whole issue, and that man said that he felt that his 'committed relationship' with his partner should be called marriage. But he also said that his relationship was very very far from monogamous and that he was having sex with 100s of different men every year, but he said that doing so didn't lessen the commitment of his relationship, so it should be a marriage.

 

Those kind of statements aren't helping things at all.

I’m not sure why you felt the need to bring in your discussion with your friend who happens to be gay. Perhaps you felt that this would somehow help show that your attitude is contrary to what some others have claimed ….. but yet you post all of that and then end with a comment like “those kind of statements aren’t helping things at all.” So then why did you post this for everyone to read? I think it’s actually mean of you to do this! You’ve basically perpetuated stereotypes and then gone on to tell everyone on the board that your friend feels that his “committed relationship” with his partner should be called marriage but yet he still has sex with lots of other guys as if to try to imply that “committed relationship” to non-str8 couples has a different meaning. Again I think it’s unfair of you do to this because I have str8 friends that are married and their spouses claim that they are in committed relationships but unfortunately I know one or both of the people involved aren't monogamous. You don't however, see me exploiting this in the same manner that you have. In my opinion what goes on between them is even worse than what your gay friend listed b/c this deception goes on behind the other person’s back .... while it’s implied that these people feel that their behavior didn’t lessen the commitment of their relationship …. Your friend mentioned bathhouses but how is this any different then those sites that have been created simply for the pleasures of cheating straight husbands and wives. In the case of gay men, at least most are single and not married.

Also, I read in the news that a recent poll has shown that somewhere around 40% of Canadians feel that this whole marriage debate has worsened the feelings of straight people towards gay people, and only 10% said it has improved things.

Can you tell me what poll this was? I’d be interested in knowing what the avg. age group was .. and the demographics etc.

Another poll also showed that 5% more people admitted to pollsters that they were homosexual or bisexual than said that they were in favour of changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

 

So that means that a large number of homosexual or bisexual people are against changing the definition. Maybe they also feel that it will make things worse, not better, for them.

So in another poll 5% more people admitted they were homo or bi and then said that they were in favor of changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples. How then does this mean that a large number of homosexual or bisexual people are themselves against changing the definition? I’m not seeing it.

By the way, I'm still waiting for anyone to actually look up the definition of discrimination or equality in legal terms and explain how the current law is discriminatory or violating the principles of equality. The supreme court didn't say it was, so I'd be quite interested in hearing such an explanation rather than just a statement that not allowing gays to get married is discrimination because other people can and they can't. Life is full of situations where some people can do something and others can't, they aren't all discrimination.

I asked some friends of mine so we’ll see what they can find .. and then I’ll get back to you.

Another thing he brought up is that it is quite bizarre that the people most strongly against gay marriage are priests, and a great many of them, are gay. Does that mean they are all homophobic, self-loathing and disturbed? Maybe it means that they believe in the 'sanctity of marriage' and that it isn't something that should be changed, at all. They are all against divorce, after all.

Ok .. this is another issue that also bothers me. If what you say is true regarding the ‘sanctity of marriage’, then something that needs to be addressed are the abundant same sex molestation cases that surround priests. If they hold the sanctity of marriage so strongly between a man and a woman, then I don’t understand why they wouldn’t also uphold what has been written in the Old testament regarding homosexuality. I find it very hard to give them credit when they selectively choose what to practice and preach.

[Guest canmic]

Ok, for the first point, I was making the examples that none of the 3 things were discrimination.

 

Note: I have never said that gay people should not have a right to a relationship together that is whatever they want it to be, marriage-like or otherwise. I am saying that calling it 'marriage' is incorrect (currently it is, no arguing that one) and I am saying that this is not discrimination.

 

My whole point there was that it isn't discrimination to not call it marriage.

 

For your next point, if a company is not recognizing gay unions then they are BREAKING the law that the government is talking about changing. They are not legally allowed to 'only recognize marriage' so, what they are doing is illegal, period. Changing the definition of marriage will not make what they are doing more illegal than it already is, and what they are doing IS discrimination, under the law.

 

For the family court stuff, I'll have to dig a bit, I got the info from a woman's rights group (that is not anti-gay marriage, but was scared about the legal impacts). I'll read up on it more and get back to you. I do know that the courts tend to favor women at the moment, so it probably has to do with women losing that.

 

As far as a change vis a vis US law, I can think of the example of a couple where one person is an american and the other is a canadian, currently living in canada. If they weren't recognized as married it would be a huge issue if they ever went to the states.

 

I don't think it is very far fetched at all, by the way, the US has already refused to recognize marriages from many other countries, Canada is on the list of countries that they do currently recognize marriage from. Several US lawmakers have already said that we're risking being taken off that list on american talk shows and news programs. I'll check if any of the countries who have legalized gay marriage (and are not calling it something different) are on the americans recognized list.

 

Don't forget that france, for example, did NOT legalize gay marriage, they created civil unions and left marriage to the churches (or synagogues or mosques or whatever). Americans do NOT recognize french civil unions as marriages for either straight or gay couples (that was the example I was thinking of).

 

Do you honestly, for one second, thing that George W will ever sign any law legalizing gay marriages? Remember that US laws have to be signed by the president. He always has a veto power. They can over-ride him eventually, but that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses, which won't happen as both houses are currently controlled by the right wing, not the left.

 

Some states, and some state courts have allowed gay marriage, but, the federal gov't in the US is clearly very much against it, and is considering what they're going to do. Keep in mind that Bush can sign an executive order in his last couple weeks in office that would ban gay marriage, that order would then require a 2/3 majority of the legislature to overturn, but would expire in some time period (I think a couple years, not positive on that one). Clinton made a huge mess by signing something like 1500 such orders in his last couple weeks in office.

 

I don't pretend to have a clue what happened at the border, or why they are now asking me every single time. I know it wasn't the car (same car) or day or time of day or race or any of those things because they weren't different. I am definately curious what's going to happen the next time I go accross. Note that each time has been by car, not by plane and I was with a girl each time. Maybe it means nothing, but I am really getting curious why they keep asking.

 

As far as the 'uproar' I was referring to gays that would then be 'married' and would object to having a different box to check than straight people.

 

I think you should re-read the part about my conversation with my friend. You lost track of who was who in there.

 

As far as why I mentionned it, maybe I didn't give enough context.

 

We were discussing why 80% of Canadians (in a poll) said that changing marriage to include gay couples would have a negative effect on the perception of marriage as an institution. He brought up those examples, and said that gays were now paying the price for them.

 

My point, at the time, was that if 80% of people would see marriage is being something less than it was before, then that would have a negative effect on the perception of marriage. Ultimately, the value of an institution like marriage is based on the public's perception of that institution, as well as its legal status.

 

My point on the comments not helping, was referring to the comments made by the gay activist on television that he felt that he should be allowed to be married, but that he had no desire whatsoever to be monogamous. That is not going to help people to think that changing marriage to include gays isn't going to hurt the perception of marriage.

 

I'll check on the demographics of the poll, but I believe it was one of those polls that was expected to predict the opinions of those of voting age, 19 times out of 20 etc.. I'll check and see what I can find (the media doesn't always give the stats details)

 

For the 5% thing, taking arbitrary numbers to explain the math, if you have 15% of the pop saying that they are gay or bi, and only 10% of the same pop saying they are in favour of gay marriage, then your best case is that 33% of those who were gay or bi weren't in favour of gay marriage (which assumes that everyone who wasn't gay or bi wasn't in favour, which isn't likely).

 

For me, 33% (minimum) would be a large number. Note that the numbers I used were just for an example, I don't remember the exact ones, just the 5% difference. But the math always holds true, even if it's 20% and 15% or whatever, it's always a significant portion.

 

I don't think it's fair to paint all priests with the molestation brush, although I have no sympathy or understanding of the priests who were involved in the molestation cases. I do honestly believe that there are many gay priests who have remained celebate, because, as you say, they believe strongly that homosexuality (even their own) is wrong. Maybe that is why they became priests? I have no idea.

[Guest VwDubber]

Note: I have never said that gay people should not have a right to a relationship together that is whatever they want it to be, marriage-like or otherwise. I am saying that calling it 'marriage' is incorrect (currently it is, no arguing that one) and I am saying that this is not discrimination.

I wasn't trying to imply that you felt gay people shouldn’t have the right to a relationship together. You’ve clearly indicated that you are for this. What this whole discussion is about is why you feel that calling a same sex union a “marriage” is incorrect and you have given a few reasons in your posts such as possible non-recognition of Canadian marriages in countries like the US but what I am saying is that the cons you have listed do not outweigh the pros of redefining marriage. This is why I can’t understand why you feel it is “incorrect”. I truly sense that there is a lot more to this issue with regards to your own personal beliefs (that you are not telling us).

For your next point, if a company is not recognizing gay unions then they are BREAKING the law that the government is talking about changing. They are not legally allowed to 'only recognize marriage' so, what they are doing is illegal, period. Changing the definition of marriage will not make what they are doing more illegal than it already is, and what they are doing IS discrimination, under the law.

I am not arguing whether or not these companies are breaking the law, because I don’t know enough about the law to comment. What I’m saying is that this actually happens still. Changing the definition of marriage will not make what they are doing more illegal but it will help reduce discrimination, in this case .. against gay couples! And you said so yourself that you are against discrimination .. right?

Don't forget that france, for example, did NOT legalize gay marriage, they created civil unions and left marriage to the churches (or synagogues or mosques or whatever). Americans do NOT recognize french civil unions as marriages for either straight or gay couples (that was the example I was thinking of).

I haven’t written anything regarding “civil unions” and to comment on your point I don’t find it surprising that Americans do NOT recognize French civil unions as marriages because … quite simply they are not. This is yet another reason to add to my growing list behind why I feel the definition should be redefined rather than “calling it something else”.

Do you honestly, for one second, thing that George W will ever sign any law legalizing gay marriages? Remember that US laws have to be signed by the president. He always has a veto power. They can over-ride him eventually, but that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses, which won't happen as both houses are currently controlled by the right wing, not the left.

 

Some states, and some state courts have allowed gay marriage, but, the federal gov't in the US is clearly very much against it, and is considering what they're going to do. Keep in mind that Bush can sign an executive order in his last couple weeks in office that would ban gay marriage, that order would then require a 2/3 majority of the legislature to overturn, but would expire in some time period (I think a couple years, not positive on that one). Clinton made a huge mess by signing something like 1500 such orders in his last couple weeks in office.

The specifics of US politics is something I’m not very familiar with so I’m going to forward your thoughts to some of my American friends and get back to you.

As far as the 'uproar' I was referring to gays that would then be 'married' and would object to having a different box to check than straight people.

Do you really think that gays would be uptight about this? I really don’t think it would be a big deal. Most of my friends are gay and I ran this by them and they didn’t seem to mind at all. They seemed to be more concerned with not having the ability to be able to check such a box.

I think you should re-read the part about my conversation with my friend. You lost track of who was who in there.

 

As far as why I mentionned it, maybe I didn't give enough context.

 

We were discussing why 80% of Canadians (in a poll) said that changing marriage to include gay couples would have a negative effect on the perception of marriage as an institution. He brought up those examples, and said that gays were now paying the price for them.

 

My point, at the time, was that if 80% of people would see marriage is being something less than it was before, then that would have a negative effect on the perception of marriage. Ultimately, the value of an institution like marriage is based on the public's perception of that institution, as well as its legal status.

Ok .. so you’ve brought in another poll and this time around it’s 80% of Canadians who feel that changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples would have a negative effect on the perception of marriage. I have never seen such a poll so again, I don’t know where your source is. Did the poll go on to elaborate about these “negative effects”? One of the best courses I have taken is a course called communication process and we learned that change is something that really scares people to the point of making them retreat in fear. Change makes people physically sick ….. and the bigger the change generally .. the more resistance you’ll get. Unless there is more info. about what exactly such negative effects are … then it’s pretty hard for me to take such a statistic seriously.

My point on the comments not helping, was referring to the comments made by the gay activist on television that he felt that he should be allowed to be married, but that he had no desire whatsoever to be monogamous. That is not going to help people to think that changing marriage to include gays isn't going to hurt the perception of marriage.

Thanks for clarifying!

For the 5% thing, taking arbitrary numbers to explain the math, if you have 15% of the pop saying that they are gay or bi, and only 10% of the same pop saying they are in favour of gay marriage, then your best case is that 33% of those who were gay or bi weren't in favour of gay marriage (which assumes that everyone who wasn't gay or bi wasn't in favour, which isn't likely).

 

For me, 33% (minimum) would be a large number. Note that the numbers I used were just for an example, I don't remember the exact ones, just the 5% difference. But the math always holds true, even if it's 20% and 15% or whatever, it's always a significant portion.

I now see what you are trying to say but you really can not look at it that way because if I apply your reasoning …. then the math is not always going to be a significant portion. For example, if I am conducting a poll among random voters and among these voters 10% of them are gay (more realistic estimates have indicated that 5-10% of the population is gay). According to what you are saying, of the 10% of the voters who are gay, I would have 7.5% who would support gay marriage and 2.5% who are gay but don’t support gay marriage. Then according to your math, the best case is that 25% of those who are gay aren’t in favor of gay marriage. A 75% majority is still a lot!!! If you continue this type of reasoning and I pick a sample size that consists of the lower end of the estimates for the number of gay people, then essentially your results are going to be 5% support gay marriage, 0% who are gay don’t support gay marriage. In this case, I would have all of the gay voters supporting gay marriage.

I don't think it's fair to paint all priests with the molestation brush, although I have no sympathy or understanding of the priests who were involved in the molestation cases. I do honestly believe that there are many gay priests who have remained celebate, because, as you say, they believe strongly that homosexuality (even their own) is wrong. Maybe that is why they became priests? I have no idea.

Definitely not trying to generalize here .. but you bring up the classic argument. One should not engage in homosexuality because it is “wrong”. My question to you or anyone who feels this way is “why is homosexuality wrong (either morally or whatever)? Is it wrong because the Bible says it’s wrong?” If it is wrong because the bible says it is wrong .. then how does one justify this to both religious and non-religious people?

[Guest canmic]

VwDubber, remember that I'm replying to all the posts in the thread, so some of my comments will refer to things other people said about what they think I'm saying or thinking or whatever.

 

There is nothing that I'm 'hiding', nope, nada, zip.

 

Basically we disagree over whether the benefits outweigh the problems, but there is a deeper issue too. In cases where the benefits do outweigh the problems, you also have to look at who gets the benefits and who gets the problems. If they aren't the same people, then you have to take a more critical look at things. For example, in the case of capital punishment, the 'benefits' clearly outweigh the 'problems', BUT the person getting all of the 'problems' gets non of the benefits. I'm not saying it's the same thing, just showing that who gets what is relevant too, not just the balance sheet.

 

Do you really really really think that a company that is breaking the law now, by discriminating against gay couples, will stop discriminating against them if they are called 'married' ? Remember the 2 different checkboxes?

 

That brings up my next point, do you think that there would not be an uproar if, for example, a bank loan application had a 'gay marriage' and 'straight marriage' box? I think a lot of people would object to having to specify if they were gay or straight to apply for a bank loan. I think if it was me, I would object too.

 

As far as US politics, all I can say is that George Bush and his friends make most homophobes look like the good guys in all this. I remember a statement by a US congressman a year or two ago on the whole gay marriage issue, he actually said "Those homosexuals are never happy, we gave them the right to be homosexual and now they want to be married too!"

 

I believe the poll question was "Do you believe that changing the definition of marriage to include man/man and woman/woman couples would be detrimental to the institution of marriage" but I might not remember it word for word.

 

All these polls are in the daily news releases from AP and CP. Pretty easy to get the results, but unfortunately they often don't publish all the specific demographics etc.. But they are done by reputable polling companies (leger & leger etc) and not by lobby groups.

 

I never put any stock in a poll that isn't done by a reputable polling company, and those companies wouldn't dare skew results or show bias, their entire business depends on producing reliable repeatable results.

 

For the other poll, I think that including the bi-sexuals boosted the number way above 10%, and even using your numbers, I think that if 25% of gays don't think the definition of marriage should be changed, that's pretty significant (not a majority, true). Consider this, as you said yourself, 5-10% of the population is gay, so clearly the straight population is a huge majority, does that mean that 5-10% is 'insignificant' ? It is still over a million people, that's a lot of people to me.

 

I certainly don't confuse morals (defined by church dogma) with ethics (what is right and what is wrong). I don't think that being gay is 'wrong'. Morals can only define what is in keeping with or against a given moral code. Many people confuse the two, that is true, but I don't. As I've said before, people who label things they don't understand as 'wrong' or 'evil' (or homophobic) are just being ignorant.

 

That would have been a good interview question, "Explain the difference between ethics and morals". If I ever interview candidates, I'm gonna ask that one make them sweat a bit!

 

By the way, one argument often used in the past (and maybe still used, I dunno) by those who say that homosexuality is 'wrong' is that it is an evolutionary dead-end. I'm not saying I agree with it, just showing a non-religion based argument. Which it must be because the church doesn't agree with evolution either.

 

But, I don't think that anything that doesn't hurt anyone either directly or indirectly is 'wrong'.