Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

But is that a legitimate reason to prevent homosexuals from raising children?

I'm pretty sure the first blacks at desegregated schools had to deal with some bullying. In fac, they were guarded while in school by soldiers of the Airborne, so things must've been bad for them.

So I guess blacks shouldn't have gone to formerly all-white schools. Because, y'know, it was hard on them. Better to keep the schools segregated. For the children.

*cough*

[/sarcasm]

 

The Church does not have a monopoly over the definition of marriage or marriage as a ceremony.

If the minister/priest/bishop is not outright stupid and plainly insult the couple it won't happen. Not that I would know Canadian law that well but I imagine it works the same way as in Finland. The Church can choose freely who they choose to marry and who not and they have no obligation to state any reasons to why they decline from marrying some couple.

The horror that I can't bear to imagine is that you're actually saying stuff like this.

Or perhaps they just figured that the homosexual rights are more important than religious dogmatism. In which I feel they were correct of course.

About gay adoption. I'm not really sure what would have happened if we would have had a kid in our school with gay parents, I know that he would have not been my friend at the time though. I consider gay adoption to be a last resort and I do feel that a kid should get heterosexual parents if possible, but a loving gay couple is of course a better option than a couple of heterosexual alcoholics.

 

Maybe not a reason to prevent them doing so, but maybe they should, as another poster noted, not be so selfish in choosing to raise one.

Of course, that would require them to realise that no, they are not 'equal' to everyone else, but different, and need to choose accordingly - and good luck with that happening, seeing that everyone seems to see the perfect goal for society as perfect equality between everyone rather than acknowledging differences. Struggle towards being equal despite it being an impossible goal ... then just pretend everyone's equal anyway

Hmm, that's going to get misinterpreted ... but what the hell.

Isn't there also a big psychology thing about needing both male and female role models? I don't see a homosexual couple providing that...

 

Time to discuss homosexuality again? The seasons and cycles of the Alleys demand it, aye?

Gay marriage in Canada - good on them. Granting equality and freedom of making decisions to citizens is worthy of enlightened nations. The churches, of course, jump on the chance to emphasize they rather decend into insignificance then making a step towards the 21st century.
On that note: A friend of mine who is gay is a strong supporter and has great faith in the catholic church (so much so that it freaks me out at times). When I had the nerve to inquire how he gets past the fact that the church shunnes what he is, he said: I love my religion, and the church despite its flaws. And stopped me ranting with that notion.
How some of those 'morally depraved' homos can be more true to the ideal of love and acceptance than the fine organisations charged with that task... I think its noteworthy.

As for same sex couples raising children - let them, I say. Two people strong enough to face societies' ignorance certainly got what it takes to raise a child and give it a stable and supportive home (how many children dont have that luck). I bet they will also pass some of their strength (and fashion sense ) onto their child. Strong (and well-dressed) children are not the primary targets of the class bullies.

edit - oops them typos

[ July 01, 2005, 12:35: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

The question now is that 'Should the church be forced to marry homosexuals?'

I don't think its discrimination of the church decides not to, as its against its way, however I feel that homosexuls should have the freedom to marry in any way they choose, as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others.

As for homosexual weddings ruining marriage, well thats , I would say adultry is the primary cause of this.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

In other words, congrats Canada!

 

Er - Chimera, there's absolutely nothing hypocritical about what Tal said - where are you getting 'Pot, meet kettle' from...?

 

I'd have thought abuse would be a lot less likely with a child of a different gender, but then I'm only an engineer, not a psychologist.

Can anyone offer any statistics on bullying of children with Gay parents? I have my doubts, and until anyone can provide evidence then I'm afraid it's all hearsay. It's all very well to state "and what would the children want?" if they grow up in that environment they probably won't have a problem with it, unlike some people on here. Perhaps some research (and it would have to be unsponsored by any religious or Gay rights groups) might be done on adults who grew up in such situations before condemning it out of hand.
On the grounds that lesbian couples can easily circumvent adoption and have their own children via the "Turkey Baster" method, I fail to see why they shouldn't be able to adopt. Interestingly enough, a lesbian couple from Baldock did that exact thing recently.

This discusion is certainly AoDA not AoLS and has drifted well off topic.

Back on Topic.

I believe gay couples should be allowed the same legal rights as heterosexual "married" ones. Actually, I think it should be extended to non-married heterosexual ones (Common-law wife is a term that no longer exists legally).
I don't care what they call it, be it a Civil Partnership or Marriage. I can see why religious groups may have a problem with the use of the word "marriage" but unfortunately for them it ceased being a purely religious term many years ago, and is now used to represent a legal one.

In Britain, I don't believe a priest/vicar has to give a reason for refusing to marry people. In fact I understand it can actually be quite difficult to get permission - you have to have a history of attendance at that church and unless you get a special dispensation you have to live in the local area.

I would more than happily see it enshrined in law that churchs could not be forced to marry people they didn't want to.

 

There's a big difference between claiming that everyone is the same, and that all groups of different people who should have the same rights.

 

I don't understand what wrong could do to kid grow up with a gay/lesbian couple; I read around the 'bullying' thing and that's all? We had 8 dead kids (8 to 12 years old) here for bullying just this year; we have 'Lating kings' gangs (kids from 14 to 21), 3 years old kids who incinerate a 'normal catholic' house, Catalunian bands who go around rioting and hitting another kids just because they are latin or 'non-catalunian'; I think using children as excuse is just dumb, we don't know what a kid with homosexual parents can become because we didn't see it yet and I don't think that they would be homosexual because if every kid becomes what their parents are, well, the world such as we know wouldn't exist.

 

Well, I have no problems with homosexuals, I know a good lot of them, thanks to my work. And geez, we'll have Cologne's CSD this weekend. Living in Cologne one can't ignore gays anyway.

Among gays, despite the common stereotype that they are all about as polygamous as rabbits (some are indeed, but they aren't going to, let's call it 'marry' anyway - because humping around wild will screw up their relationship as fast as in heterosexual relationships), there is indeed a desire to get something like a legally regulated for of a binding relationship, much similar in form to marriage.

Legally that's advantageous because there are interdependencies and inheritance problems involved with not regulating it, and till now the solution was contracting, which caused more trouble than it solved. So there is a need for a better solution, too.

However, traditional marriage between man and wife is a different thing entirely, as it is aimed on becoming a family, childless couples nonwithstanding.

Gay couples are a reality. To offer a lifelong legal form to homosexual couples is sensible. There is a need for regulation, so regulate sais the lawyer in me.

No need to call it marriage though - my catholic stomach can't quite digest that, marriage is something much different - or to grant them the tax benefits (or other direct and indirect subsidies) families bet because of the financial burdens of having children. There is a degree of ambivalence in me on that issue.

IMO there is a clear difference between making everything equal and non-discrimination.

What I find so ridiculous is all the near panic among concervatives, especially shrill in the U.S., about gays in general. Since gays are per se a minority the idea of them stampeding to the wedding offices and overrunning the straight society around them is preposterous. It's just a blunt scare tactic.

 

Tell that to whiptail lizards.

 

Its off-topic, but something just resurfaced...

I am not sure if that is correct, Tal. Or it is, but only in the immediate sense of it.

The task of every member of a given species is to ensure that its genetic traits are passed down to the next generation, NOT procreation. There are more ways than one to that end. One way is to have offspring. Or, just like how its done by other species, helping the offspring of close relatives survive. Like with them hive insects, whose social model is of course not suitable for us.

However, some time ago I saw a documentary dealing with the way homosexuality is utilized by some species for the purpose of keeping the genetic line alive. There the example of a birds was given, of which the homosexual specimen of course do not breed themselves, but assist their parents, siblings, other family members raise their brood. Thus their genetic make-up was passed along, as the nest they helped to protect etc contained close relatives.

Humans are another highly evolved and complex species. Couldnt it be possible the homosexuals are intented to have a similar purpose in our society? Obviously they do care for children, child rearing. They also are a constructive lot as can be seen in their above average income and education. I think there are at least indications towards them having a place in the schemes of nature.

 

One could argue that if homosexuality was a quirk, it would be shown as unproductive and therefore useless, and it would be wrong to have it appear in any future generation, especially as genes that could lead to homosexuality would not be passed down to any future generation. Furthermore, even if such quirk was possible, it would be only that -- a quirk, and would definitely not be seen as anything even close to common.
Furthermore, if it would be a quirk, it would be seen as abnormal, and not be given anything resembling social acceptance. Plus, specimens affected by that quirk would recognise it as an illness. And you don't see schizophreniacs or people affected by tuberculosis consider themselves healthy. Saying that cancer is not an illness does not automatically make the person suffering from it perfectly healthy.

One could agree with this statement.

You weren't the one paying attention in your biology class, were you? Genetic makeup is completely decided in the moment of conception and never again. Environment can influence what genes become apparent or dulled, but not the genetic makeup.

The only way is to have offspring.

This helps the best genes survive, but the only genes that can be passed down are the heterosexual ones, if there were any. In fact, you have to accept the fact that there is absolutely no reason to prefer homosexuals in favour of heterosexuals for any given task.

This is simply untrue. Queen bees secrete fluids which prevent sexual maturity in other specimens, they are not some 'heterosexual bees' as opposed to 'homosexual ones.' Once the queen dies, another bee becomes mature and becomes the next queen.

This is a gross oversimplification without any basis as observed. Pray tell what birds those were. Eusociality is not homosexuality in service of the rest of the species, it's simply a way of helping rear the siblings in order to further the line. The correct analogy would be celibacy, not homosexuality.

The choice of not breeding is of course not made based on their sexual preference, but on the fact that the perceived advantages of helping rear the siblings (with very similar genetic code) is greater than trying to have the specimen's own offspring.

If they actually were homosexual, you would see that the gene that is responsible for homosexuality is wiped out with that specimen. Plus, it would be very unwise to have a homosexual specimen, and would be much better to have a 'celibacy gene' which, in case there were no more specimens of the same sex, would become deactivated and its role would be taken by (=its priority would be lower than) a gene responsible for the drive to have offspring.

Could you perhaps quote the figures? Seeing the 'equality parades', I begin to think that if there are educated homosexuals, they do not get out into the streets. Plus, you're repeating stereotypes. Additionally, one could argue that if the predisposition was factual, you could reverse it, and say that, as well off people tend to be homosexual, it might be a trend, it might be in vogue, and it is only a fad, not a genetic inclination.

 

Homosexuals who show up on parades are not people who differ from heterosexual males or females in that they prefer males or females respectively. There is always BDSM kind of clothing and toys. Guys in skimpy thongs. Guys wearing make up or ladies clothes. Masulinised women. Let's face it: the problem with people on parades is not just what you're attracted to. It's a matter of overall pathological self-identification and hormonal disorders.

Are there other kinds of homosexuals? Maybe. But not on parades. Gay pride parades are a show of perversion and a challenge against normalcy. This clearly shows that homosexuality is no neutral alternative to heterosexuality but a perversion of sexual drive. It shouldn't be called homosexuality but homophilia, more in consistency with proper classification. Thankfully, we aren't talking about paedosexuality, zoosexuality or necrosexuality yet but we already have organisations of people affected by those -philias and demanding protection of their "rights". Their most important right is to treatment.

 

This will be tedious for sure... Oh well.

Perhaps, and just perhaps, you would find it harder to surmise, in that tone of yours, at what classes I have been attentive, if you would not take that quote out of context, yes? I am not sure fair minded conduct can be expected on some topics by certain people though. Too much at stake? Too important to prove your side of the world is right?

I was theorizing about how nature seems to have diverse ways of ensuring that both the individual urge of every creature to have its genes passed on, as well as the need of sufficient numbers of surviving offspring per species can be satisfied.

On the level of the entire species it goes without saying that there must be offspring to pass genes onto. I dont see why that has to be mentioned. However, on the individual level there are other options available. Choices not necessarily made by the individual, but for it. I was angling at that individual level.

The survival of the best genes has nothing to do with it. Its about genes that are to survive as they are common to a group of specimen. As all who share said genes have an interest in seeing their bloodline prolonged beyond their death. Homosexuality, in this theory, is a way - one of an abundance of possibilities - of making that task easier. The homosexual specimen has, due to its orientation, no easy alternative of creating offspring, the need to have the own genes survive leads it to the group it has a genetic bond with. A situation a heterosexual is not pressured into, which does not always bring about the right to have offspring. See wolves here.
Thus the homosexual stays with the family, investing energies in the offspring of relatives. Offspring which is carrying genes into the world they have in common.

This solution seems not very far spread. It might be an dead end of evolution, as Tal suggested, but apparently it exists.

When I referred to hive insects the point was to give an example of species that chose a different way then having all of its individuals start breeding. Mother Nature has many tricks up her sleeve when it comes to handling the egoism of genes.

Btw, who again hasnt paid attention during biology classes? Not a worker becomes fertile – rather new queens are raised from the immature larvae.

Right. I guess I am to fault I dont know what birds those were. Its only been… some four years or so since I saw the documentary.
Seems like you will just have to take my word on it, hmm? Btw, said documentary wasnt about eusocial arrangements, nor about celibacy among birds – homosexuality and its uses were the objective. One would think I was clear enough in my above post. Makes me wonder who saw that bit.

Regarding the rest. Blah. I cant be bothered.

Go in search of figures and statistics yourself. And while you are at it try to extend your perspective on gays beyond what you observe on them frilly parades, will ya. As would befit an oh so smart aleck. Anything else reeks of gross oversimplification. Or mere gay bashing?

 

I have to make one little comment.

I too saw the documentary. I think but am not sure that it was sea gulls.

That is it.