Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

I think it's a good thing. The religious zealots can sit on a lemon as far as I'm concerned. There is supposed to be a thing called Seperation of the Church and State. Thats why police can't interfere with religious proceedings, so why should a church be able to interfere with a political thing.

As for the argument of marriage being sacred I have one name for you: Britney Spears. A 55 hour marriage because she felt like it. Marriage is about as sacred as sex is now days.

As for the idea of a gay couple adopting a child I don't see why not.

This whole paragraph is a little inaccurate. As a child you are subject to prejudice no matter what. Am I the only one who remembers being a child and being picked on and picking on others. It doesn't matter what kind of family you come from.

The thing is that the Liberals didn't sell out from the beliefs of their constituants. It's not the Conservative party that voted to pass this legistration, it was the Liberal party and the Bloc.

For a country that prides it self on being multi cultural it's about time we accepted all cultures. Even the gay culture. It's also about time that Canada stepped up and did something for it's people without having to follow the U.S.A's lead.

 

This used to be the case in the US with mixed-race marriages. The South used to have "miscegenation" laws prohibiting marriage or even intercourse between people of different races, and I'm sure one of the arguments was "think of the stigma the children will face." Today, however, mixed race dating is perfectly accepted in most of the US (perhaps backwoods red states excepted), and the idea that mixed race children will be tormented at school is laughable.

Similarly, children adopted by gay parents might be teased in some parts of the country, but certainly not in all parts. In fact, wouldn't really be a big deal in most urban centers in the US and Canada. And how much sense does it make to legislate against something simply because one group of people are prejudiced and might become insulting or violent?

 

Wasn't something once said about the children of divorcees? Benan's got the right of it - kids will always find something to pick on each other about.

Funny, I look at that same insistence and come to exactly the opposite conclusion. How could two people who love children so incredibly much that they're willing to cross all the extra hurdles and societal obstacles that gay adoption faces be considered selfish?

"Normal" as of what period in history? Wet nursing and fostering used to be "normal" but have gone out of fashion, so why not the closed-minded attitude about same-sex adoptive parents? If you seriously want to make sure that every child has an equal right to a "normal childhood", maybe there had better be a litmus test for prospective biological parents too. Where would you like to start with that, Tal?

 

Bzzzt! Sorry wrong answer! Being placed with a family who cares for, and deeply loves a child, is the best thing they can hope for. A foster home is not the same thing.

In addition, it *helps* if said family doesn't have the alterior-motive of a monthly income from the state, with little-to-no supervision from an overworked social services department, of how said family spends said money!

Disclaimer, I have no idea how social services/foster homes/orphans/whatever work in Canada, in the U.S., though, it can be pretty poor.

 

Where?

A point I gladly concede, and in fact, I thought I did concede that in my post.

More importantly though, an open question to any adults participating in this discussion:

a) Were you ever picked on in school?
b) Are you ok?

[ June 30, 2005, 22:19: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

@ArtEChoke

a) Yes
b) Yes

I don't see a single thing wrong with the legalization of same-sex marriages. I am happy for everyone this affects. And I believe that connected to that, same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Saying that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt on the basis of 'teasing' is a cop-out answer. Like it has been said, everyone gets teased. Of course there are degrees to this, but this doesn't mean that it will be based on family status.

Example:

In my school, there was a child who was raised by two gay men, one who was his father, the other, the father's life partner. He was popular, he excelled at sports, and he was never teased beyond the initial stages that everyone endures. In fact, he teased other students more then they teased him. From elementry to high school, he never had it anymore difficult then anyone else. In fact, he had it easier then most. I was bothered more then him.

I don't see how having same-sex parents can affect you more then having a mother and a father, just a mother, just a father, grandparents, an uncle, or any other sort of family structure, other then giving the child a little different perspective on life.

 

Refresh my memory, Tal, how many children have you raised? The fact is, since I am not a gay parent nor do I know any, my horizons regarding child welfare are likely broader than those regarding parent-rights.

You did a neat job of skirting the issue of how historical perspective changes over time by invoking biology. Nice to see someone find a tool other than the Bible for not answering a question. Don't worry, I won't bring it up again.

 

Aha! A new reason not to allow gay men to adopt children: the kids grow up to be jocks and bullies!

 

Yes, Spain jumped to the wagon too...
We also had letters from the Pope...
Just the minute after politicians announced the new law, we had marching people against it: from 'family asociations' to religious people; when the Pope sent the letter, the local bishop said that homosexual peole 'is sick', 'they are mutations' (sic). Church is offended because they say that 2 people of the same sex can't be married, that union CAN'T be called marriage, because that word is used for a normal family. Other organizations uses children as excuse for protesting: they even take kids to manifestation, they say that couples of the same sex not only can't educate kids but also they are corrupted.
Today the law was approved; until yesterday we had the church pushing around worried about the use of the word 'marriage' and the education kids may get if they are fostered by gay/lesbians; I just wonder this: where is the church when there are kids fighting guerrilla in Colombia, Congo, and many other countries; where is the church when in Africa there are millions of kids starving; everyday I see kids growing with 'normal' families that aren't much of good examples, so I don't see that kids growing with 'not normal' families could be worst than them.
Also, I think that church can't get into political matters like they are trying to do here saying to the Spanish King that they are catholics so they have to get they hands to stop the government from doing what they are doing. Ridiculous.

 

Well -- my 2 cents worth:

I think a child raised by a homosexual couple would have many more difficulties than other children. We all pretty much know that being a kid isn't easy...there's enough struggles and issues a child has to deal with. I see this being just one more added to the pile.

Our society, as it is, still doesn't recognize same sex marriages as the norm -- not yet anyways...so bringing up a child under those conditions already forces the child to live in a quasi-abnormal environment. Adjustments will have to be made. Questions will arise when he sees his playmates coming from an extremely different homelife.

And I can't help but wonder....what is there to keep the parents from forcing their own sexuality choice on the unassuming child? Will the child be allowed to make his or her own choice? Will the child feel awkward if he doesn't feel like he has the same sexual base as the parents? There are so many issues that this child will have to face.

I also can't help thinking that the 2 people who know more than anyone else the difficulties and hardships that this child will go through are the parents themselves. So to knowingly incur this hardship on their child -- well, it does seem a bit selfish to me. Why would you want to put your child through that? Out of love?? Or out of making a personal statement that "we're the same as everyone else".

 

I personally don't have a problem whatsoever with gay marriage, and I think anyone that does, needs a bang on the head. I think gay couples raising children is a touchy subject. I don't really know what my feelings are on this.

 

I agree with the people who say that kids get picked on and teased for plenty of other reasons. When I was at school some poor kid was always getting a hard time because his Mum featured in a really cheesey TV commercial. Should we ban TV commercial actors from raising kids?

Unless, your countries are far more intolerant than the one I live in, I see no more issues with having homosexual couples raise children than I do with any other type of couple. I see so many heterosexual couples who shouldn't be allowed within a mile of any child.

 

I think that that argument could work the other way as well. Many young gay people could feel pressured to follow the same sexuality as their hetro-sexual parents. It could be that homo-sexual parents might be a little more encouraging about the child finding their own path, as they have experience in knowing what pressures a child can face when it comes to sexuality.

 

For the first time ever, I invoke: ROTFLMAO! I took some classes, so I'm intimate?

Yeah, Rally's experience as a parent means nothing compared to your classes.

Classic.

 

It is the definition of marriage that has been undermined. When I do marry the woman of my choice and father children with her, I plan to teach my children the definition of Marriage issued by my church, not by the government. I am offended that the school my children will attend will likely teach a different definition of marriage.

The law cannot protect Christians from being forced to legitimize and accept them. When a minister/priest/bishop refuse, they can be taken to court and accused of discrimination, which is also against the law. It’s only a matter of time before that happens…

A horror I cannot bear to imagine. To have children taught that it is normal and acceptable, when it clearly is not, is an offence to all sensibility.

I can accept that. The law is the law. Even when it is a bad one, it is still the law.

On the other hand, if common law relationships get some recognition under the law, then that should apply to same sex couples, but that they should be denied legal and lawful marriage…

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think about what a little boy with two male parents would endure in a locker room as he gets older…

Get some cult of nut cases that starts sacrificing humans and see what the police can do in that case. The Law trumps worship. That’s my biggest beef with the new law. The fact is that it cannot protect religious leaders from being forced to use the name of God to legitimize something that is considered an abomination.

Marriage is still sacred, it is just that people like Britney Spears defile it with such antics. Sex is sacred too, but people defile it by having sex outside of legal and lawful marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. It is an insult that sex and marriage are defiled like they are.

But the one that’s really different is subject to the worst of the torment. I grew up with Tourette Syndrome, and didn’t receive a diagnosis until I was 16. West Lorne is a small town, so someone different sticks out like a sore thumb. I got it worse than anyone because I was different. I would imagine that a child raised by a gay couple would get picked on fiercely…

A member of Parliament has to represent all the people in his riding, regardless of who they voted for. Thus, the Liberals and Bloc abandoned the religious people in their ridings to push a controversial legislation through.

They also could have beaten the Americans to the punch by outlawing that crap too, and that would be doing something for a greater number of its people. Gay culture is a creation. It is created to give a group of deviants their own identity and let them legitimize their sins, rather then struggle with the temptations they face and repent when they fall short.

Exactly, Homosexuality is not natural. It is a choice, not a naturally occurring phenomenon. As long as there is a segment that is taught that Homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality will never be truly accepted.

So has morality, but you don’t see it totally abandoned. If I understand correctly, wet nursing and fostering are morally required of parents. It is disgusting that morality is cast aside because some people don’t like it.

And what about a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and keeps the child because mother’s allowance pays more than welfare? Then, rather than taking care of the child’s needs, she blows the money on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. How is that any better to the foster homes you describe?

Even in Ancient Greece, where some thinkers considered Homosexual relations preferable to heterosexual relations, the law required men of position to marry and father children…

First, yes, I was, and rather viciously. Second, I’m not sure. I am still not comfortable being me in some circumstances. I haven’t quite learned to live with my disorder because I stand out. I still feel self conscious of my tics.

So in order to cope, he learned to pick on other people to deflect the attention away from himself. Just the kind of attitude we want in the next generation…

Evidently it can be pushed a lot farther than that…

And I’d be inclined to believe that is a knock against Christianity. Our beliefs teach us that homosexuality is a sin, and we ought to oppose any attempt to legitimize sin whenever possible.

I’m not so sure there either. Some Homosexuals believe that their ways are superior to those of heterosexuals, and may not look kindly to their offspring getting involved with a member of the opposite sex…

 

Those who think that having gay parents wouldn't be a big flashing neon sign over a kid's head saying 'Pick on me!' are being ignorant. I go to a pretty tame school, and there's a huge amount of bullying already (a lot of it - most of it, even - being about people being 'gay') - I can only imagine what it might be like at one of the state schools. Of course, the kid would no doubt find out how 'wrong' his parent's relationship is in primary school - primary school kids are arseholes, I assure you.

Popular kids with plenty of charisma can get out of being bullied about anything. Most people don't have that protection. Being associated with 'gayness' is a social stigma worse that being fat, being lame, ect.

Oh, and yes, I would say that if Tal has studied that matter, he is more familiar with it than Rally who hasn't - because having a nice fine heterosexual relationship has jack all to do with this. She might be more familiar with young children - but I don't think they're of an age to have come up against any serious bullying yet anyway (right?).

I don't care about gay marriages - I don't even see why it's an issue - but adopting children (young children especially, who don't know what they're being signed up for) is, IMO, a Bad Idea.

 

I wouldn't know if homosexuality is natural or not but I disagree that it is a choice. I have many gay friends. While they may have chosen to accept even embrace that they are gay, they certainly didn't choose to be so.