|
Gay marriage officially legal in Canada! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Endlesswave |
| True but with first steps like this one and maybe the decriminalization of marijuana it will lead to that...;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
At this risk of being politically incorrect I will say the following.
I dont care about gay marriage at all. Let people do what they want to do. But i DO NOT think a child should have 2 mommies or two daddies or a mommy and no daddy or a daddy and no mommy. It is my belief that whatever the arrangement, it is essential for a child to have both a stable male and female role model in their life.
Would I allow gays to adopt? yes but i would add the condition that it be a three way adoption. If they had a member of the opposite sex agree to be a stable role model for the child then id be all for it.
I am aware that the family is not always man woman and child however i do think that there has to be as much effort as possible to ensure that a child has the positive influences of both sexes. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
True but with first steps like this one and maybe the decriminalization of marijuana it will lead to that...;) |
Another stupid thing about our country. On one hand they are decriminalizing marijuana and on the other they are trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco.
Make up your minds. Its one or the other. Personally i think allowing people to do what they want after providing them with the right education is the way to go instead of our current course which is basically government sponsored behavioural modification. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| I agree w you on the education part of things. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Another stupid thing about our country. On one hand they are decriminalizing marijuana and on the other they are trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco. |
You just can't stop thinking about your nicotine addiction, can you? AFAIK the government doesn't have any plans to make cigarettes illegal, and I'm sure that if marijuana does get decriminalized it will still be subject to all the same smoke-free by-laws that cigarettes are subject to. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| The decline of Canada continues.... |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
It is great to live in a country that respects personal choice and freedom and chooses to be inclusive in respect to such. |
WERD! :)
I've always been amazed, in this era of single parent households, that so many people still say stupid things like "there should be a mommy and a daddy, not a daddy and a daddy (or two moms). Sure, a male AND female influence is ideal, IMHO...but that doesn't have to mean a legal parent. I'm gay...I have a couple of very close female friends and family members who would be very involved in my child's life if I ever choose to adopt (highly doubtful I will choose to do so).
I also laugh at the position of how gay marriage will destroy the "sacred institution" of marriage...you know, the one that has a 50+% divorce rate :rolleyes: :stongue:
I'm surprised too that so few people realize that this is as much about legal rights and obligations (property rights, spousal benefits, survivorship rights, division of assets upon separation, etc.) as it is about societal recognition or acceptance. Adding some "legitimacy" to same-sex relationships might also add some stability to what is still perceived as a 2nd class or casual relationship.
Financial benefits to having kids...LMFAO...um, raising a kid is exponentially more expensive than any gov't allowances or tax breaks provide, LOL. What a ludicrous argument, hahahaha...
All in all, given that religious organizations are under NO obligation to perform same sex marriages if doing so is in contradiction to their dogma, I'm honestly not too sure what good reason anyone has to fiercely oppose legalizing same-sex marriages, other than their own moral disapproval (which is their own issue to reconcile). |
|
|
| dallastar |
i guess just in case - this is great for all! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I also laugh at the position of how gay marriage will destroy the "sacred institution" of marriage...you know, the one that has a 50+% divorce rate :rolleyes: :stongue:
I'm surprised too that so few people realize that this is as much about legal rights and obligations (property rights, spousal benefits, survivorship rights, division of assets upon separation, etc.) as it is about societal recognition or acceptance. Adding some "legitimacy" to same-sex relationships might also add some stability to what is still perceived as a 2nd class or casual relationship. |
Those two paragraphs are the most important. IMHO, right idea, wrong conclusion. I'm not going to get into the whole lengthy debate because it's exasperating to hear the kind of emotional rhetoric that gets put out (not from you, but from many). But essentially there are two points driving my reasoning:
1. Marriage isn't a "right" by any legal definition - for gays OR heterosexuals. Thus it must be looked at under the context of point #2...
2. All signs point to the fact that state marriages in the 21st century are a failure and should be done away with completely. Many marital "benefits" can and should be accomplished with contracts between individuals and their partners, not between individuals and the State. We should be doing what we can to cut state-sanctioned marriage out of the picture; bolting on little upgrades to it only serves to exacerbate the fundamental problem, which is that the institution of marriage has gone and is still going downhill, fast.
I've argued about this at length on the political forum and my "objections" are really not based on morals at all. But as I said, most of them have to do with the fact that I consider it a move in the wrong direction to try and attach an antiquated and outmoded religious institution to a set of postmodern values and theories. We need to recognize that state marriage is obsolete and replace it with something that works - not try and adapt that obsolete system to new requirements that are almost fundamentally incompatible.
Also, this is more of a side issue, but I stand by assertions I've made before that the courts have no business meddling in this affair - it is a legislative issue, not a constitutional one, and judges should recognize their roles as those who uphold the law, not rewrite it. This sets a kind of disturbing precedent that should make many Canadians wonder what their laws are really for. |
|
|
| torontobarfly |
in an effort to ad some humour to the thread...an oldie but a goldie;)
Wedding Etiquette
1) On the day of a gay wedding, it's bad luck for the two grooms to see each other at the gym.
2) Superstition suggests that for good luck the couple should have: Something bold, something fierce, Something trashy, something dirty.
3) It's customary at gay and lesbian nuptials for the parents to have an open bar during the ceremony.
4) Gay wedding tradition dictates that both grooms refrain from eating wedding cake because it's all carbs.
5) It's considered bad luck for either of the grooms to have dated the priest.
6) During the first dance, it's considered unlucky to use glow sticks, flags, whistles or handheld lasers.
7) For good luck at the union of a drag queen, the bouquet is always thrown in the face of a hated rival drag queen.
8) A local saying from colonial Northampton: A lesbian who owns a horse will never tell a lie, But a lesbian who votes Republican will leave you for a guy.
9) The wedding singer is not allowed to play/sing Let's hear it for the boy, YMCA or I will Survive.
10) The father of the Bottom pays for everything! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
A win on the Liberal front but we might be all paying for it in the end if this trend (see below) in the States continues to here in Canada...
| quote: |
Massachusetts firms drop domestic-partner benefits
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
To some major Massachusetts employers, this year's advent of same-sex "marriage" means the end of their domestic-partnership benefit programs.
The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex "marriage" as of May 17, "leveled the playing field," said Candace Quinn, vice president of Baystate Health System, which employs 90,000 people.
Years ago, she said, Baystate started offering domestic-partner benefits to its homosexual employees, because "they had no other option to cover their life partners."
The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them.
"So we are going back to the policy that we only supply benefits to married couples," said Ms. Quinn, adding that the policy change was announced in the summer so Baystate's 50 affected employees could make plans — including wedding arrangements.
These decisions show that "corporate America is taking a step toward equality," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director at the Human Rights Campaign. "Equalizing benefits, responsibilities and rights for individuals by corporations was exactly what this [Goodridge] case was all about. It was about fair and equal treatment."
Other homosexual rights groups, however, have expressed concerns that such policy changes could have unintended consequences.
"There is no reason to terminate domestic-partnership policies immediately," Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) said in a report.
Many homosexual couples have good reasons not to "marry" — tax liabilities, potential job losses if they are in the military, potential rejection as adoptive parents — said GLAD, whose lawyers won the landmark Goodridge case.
"Without careful thought, employers could inadvertently harm their employees' families and children," the group said.
Massachusetts companies are making logical decisions in changing their policies, said Peter Sprigg, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Marriage and Family Studies. What's striking, he said, is that groups such as GLAD "are complaining about it."
"If homosexual activists were sincere in wanting to participate in the institution of marriage, they should have no problem with the abolition of domestic-partner benefits once they earn the right to marry," said Mr. Sprigg, the author of "Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage."
The fact that some homosexual activists want to keep their options open shows that they are more interested in a "smorgasbord of relationship choices" with financial benefits, not marriage, he said.
According to a Boston Globe story this week, major employers who are phasing out their domestic-partner health benefits include: IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center and the New York Times Co., which owns the Globe.
Some companies, such as the Times Co., are dropping domestic-partner benefits only for nonunion employees because union employees have their benefits set by collective-bargaining agreements, the Globe story said.
Brad Salavich, global program manager for work force diversity at IBM, told the Globe that its domestic-partner benefit — which will be phased out by January 2006 — was intended to "equalize benefits" for homosexual couples.
"If [employees] choose not to continue to receive the benefits, that is a personal choice," he said.
"It's sad and unnecessary" that any company would drop health benefits to couples, said Marshall Miller, co-founder of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, which in June joined leading homosexual rights groups in urging Massachusetts employers to retain their domestic-partnership plans.
"As a society, we all benefit from having more people insured. And it certainly doesn't help the institution of marriage to force people to marry in order to get health insurance," he said.
Squabbling over benefits "is not surprising," said Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which supports traditional marriage and opposes benefits for unmarried people.
"There's a lot of confusion here as to which way we are going, as a culture. We're in sinking sand right now ... and we need to get back on solid footing," he said.
|
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You just can't stop thinking about your nicotine addiction, can you? AFAIK the government doesn't have any plans to make cigarettes illegal, and I'm sure that if marijuana does get decriminalized it will still be subject to all the same smoke-free by-laws that cigarettes are subject to. |
Actually I dont smoke but smokers do pay my salary. |
|
|
|
|
