Same sex marriage legal across Canada

[cormacobear]

Bill C-38 Has suvived it's last signifigant obstacle. Through pure political cunning the NDP and Liberals snuck passed Bill C-48 The NDP amendment to the federal budget, cancelling a corperate tax cut and providing 4.6 billion to Canadas poorest families. The conservatives and the Bloq both planned to defeat the government on this social spending preventing the Same Sex Marriage bill from being put to vote before an election. Late in the evening after several lazy conservatives had left early they called the vote. :lol:

And since the Bloq support the same sax marriage bill as do the NDP, Human rights in this country are about to take a huge step forward. :D

[Commie Girl]

:D When is the final vote? Do you know how long there will be debate?

I have been emailing like hell here to all MP's and the PM....looks like Martin is going to extend the House sitting until this passes into law!!

A victory for equality in Canada and a model for other countries!

EDIT: From Alberta

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Amazing step for Canada. Gotta love us!

(I'm in Toronto, where's the rest of ya Canadians from?)

[cormacobear]

The debate starts next week but it has to pas even if half the libs vote against it it cannot fail because most libs, the NDP, and the Bloq support it. the motion to extend parliment passed with the NDP bill

There's a new canadian thread in the Lounge forum

['Discourse Unlimited']

Fantastic!

Three cheers for our valiant Canadian buddies!

Seriously, this is a huge step forwards. Congratulations. Hopefully, this will inspire other nations to make similar moves, though I don't see it happening too soon in the UK... :-/

[JC1]

Pegcity Yall ! Canadian Beacon Yall !

[OleMarxco]

Hooray!!! :lol:

.....

Let's all celebrate this by shaggin' each-other like good queers we are! :P

[Xiao Banfa]

I'd want to have a mother and a father. Tolerate queerdom. But the kids right to have unique two-tiered maternal and paternal nurture means nothing nowadays.
Why should kids be forced into understanding such heavy questions as sexuality at the youngest possible age. This kind of law has happened in my country too, I even signed a petition supporting it and defended it in front of homophobes but after thinking about it I realised it was more complicated.
A gay relationship is not Immoral-it's fine, I'm not a fucking christian. But the yin and yang energy of a mother and father bringing up a kid is just better-I've seen it. Think about it without worrying about being considered homophobic.

[*Hippie*]

Can the above poster please be deleted? <_<


A proud Canadian here&#33; :) It is time for homosexuals to be liberated from the bourgeosie structure of "family"&#33; :)

[Hunter S. Thompson]

Oh my God&#33; I can&#39;t believe it&#33; Canada as we know it will cease to exist&#33; The evils of the world will come out of hiding now because..gasp..TWO MEN ARE MARRIED&#33; Look over there...on that park bench two women kissing in public&#33; Damn them...participating in society like human beings&#33; THEY ARE GAY&#33;

Look out America&#33; Its coming our way next, we cant seem to defeat the terrorists and the war on the gays just took a big step in the wrong direction&#33; Hide your kids, Nancy, the devil is on his way... :rolleyes:

maybe if we see that Canada doestn cease toe xist as a nation, America will wake up...did I say that? Im sorry, America will never wake up...

Congrats to the Canucks&#33;

[cormacobear]

Tino Rangatiratanga. I am a fucking christian, but the only way to ensure my freedoms are preotected is to preotect everyones. Yes it has been proven that what is called today the nuclear family is the best enviornment to raise a child, however this has largely to do with the stigma placed on homosexual families, and I&#39;m sure you&#39;d agree it would be wrong to take a persons children away because of there sexual orientation. Conflict or tolerance are the only options and conflict causes suffering.

[Sabocat]

It&#39;s about time that Canada caught up with Massachusetts&#33; :lol:

Hopefully it will pass there and put pressure on the rest of the backward states here in the U.S. that refuse to allow it.

[Snowblind]

I hate Canada now. God damn it, Gotta love Canada


Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 25 2005, 11:04 PM
I&#39;d want to have a mother and a father. Tolerate queerdom. But the kids right to have unique two-tiered maternal and paternal nurture means nothing nowadays.
Why should kids be forced into understanding such heavy questions as sexuality at the youngest possible age. This kind of law has happened in my country too, I even signed a petition supporting it and defended it in front of homophobes but after thinking about it I realised it was more complicated.
A gay relationship is not Immoral-it&#39;s fine, I&#39;m not a fucking christian. But the yin and yang energy of a mother and father bringing up a kid is just better-I&#39;ve seen it. Think about it without worrying about being considered homophobic.
You should probably know, that most homophobes or non-supporters of same-sex unions/marriages, which ever you want to call it, are doing it because they either just plain to like gay people(prejudice), or imagine them &#39;porking&#39; in the front yard. >.>

[Camarada]

-self-deleted-

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:59 AM
It&#39;s about time that Canada caught up with Massachusetts&#33; :lol:

Hopefully it will pass there and put pressure on the rest of the backward states here in the U.S. that refuse to allow it.
:) UMmmmm....Canada is a COUNTRY...most Provinces already accept gay marriage, This is the equivilent to the U&#036; legalizing gay marriage. I know here in Alberta, it has not yet been challenged in court so still is not "legal".

Ralph Klein was prepared to use the Not Withstanding Clause to keep Alberta "Pro-Family" :lol: He has since taken that option off the table.

[maoist_revolution]

That is great news for Canada a same sex bill has allready been introduced in New Zealand and we have the vatican breathing down our necks, Facists&#33;

[burn_ladiesagainstfeminism]

Exactly, HORRAYYY for Canada, I&#39;m in NZ too&#33;

[maoist_revolution]

are you a communist?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Commie Girl+Jun 27 2005, 01:52 AM--> (Commie Girl @ Jun 27 2005, 01:52 AM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 06:59 AM
It&#39;s about time that Canada caught up with Massachusetts&#33; :lol:

Hopefully it will pass there and put pressure on the rest of the backward states here in the U.S. that refuse to allow it.
:) UMmmmm....Canada is a COUNTRY...most Provinces already accept gay marriage, This is the equivilent to the U&#036; legalizing gay marriage. I know here in Alberta, it has not yet been challenged in court so still is not "legal".

Ralph Klein was prepared to use the Not Withstanding Clause to keep Alberta "Pro-Family" :lol: He has since taken that option off the table. [/b]
Wow....Canada is a country? When did that happen? ;)

Yes, I understand that it would be the equivalent of the entire U.S. legalizing same sex marriage. I was being facetious. :rolleyes:

The point I was trying to make, was that it was encouraging that Massachusetts was the first state in the U.S. (for over a year now) to have same sex marriage. Not civil unions or other milquetoast compromise measures, but actual same sex marriage with weddings, marriage licenses, etc, etc... absolute equality with heterosexual couples.

Hopefully with Canada on the verge of passing it, it will encourage other states here in the U.S. to follow suit.

[maoist_revolution]

Canada is alot more open than the states

[fox]

Tino Rangatiratanga. -- it sounds like you regret signing the same-sex petition? would you not do it again?

"But the kids right to have unique two-tiered maternal and paternal nurture means nothing nowadays." -- this reads like its from some nutter fundamentalist or right-wing group. it doesn&#39;t deserve an answer, not here.

To back up your claims, do you personally know any children of gay parents, or any gay couples with children? Mainstream statistics show that the gender combination of parents is a pretty insignificant contributor to a childs well-being, rather the parents love and care is far more important . I know young adults of queer couples and they are perfectly happy and sane, others that are depressed and insane -- just as with kids of straight couples.

Maybe you should think about things like this, at the level of people&#39;s actual everyday lives, rather than basing your claims on invisible, mystical entities like "yin and yang", which nobody can see or know and which provide absolutely no rational basis for your argument whatsoever anymore than any god. I can only assume they are your own pseudo-justification or denial of your own insecurities around queer issues.

love,
fox

[Xiao Banfa]

A child is naturally a product of a man and a woman. This a constant required to produce children-biologically. I&#39;m not supporting a nuclear family or whatever.
What you will never be able to come up with is evidence gathered over a long period of time studying gay families and the resulting effects on children.
I&#39;m not saying "If your parents are queer you&#39;re going to turn out fucked up"
there are more elements which constitute someones development.
I do know one kid whose parents are gay and they live in a family set-up. I can&#39;t give an analysis on that coz I don&#39;t know him too well ( he seems fine ).
There are worse things than having gay parents. If your parents love you then thats brilliant and you will benefit from it.
I was brought up without a dad for most of childhood and all my formative years and it was difficult due to the unique contribution a father brings to a family.
My argument is not anti-gay it&#39;s more about saying biological parents (male and female), have different and important contributions to make to the upbringing of a child. It goes back to the bullshit postmodern belief of gender construction.
Men and women are equal but different. They are different in that they have different qualities- and these qualities are too vast maintain that cultural construction is responsible for ALL of them- they have different kinds of hormones for fucks sake.
The kind of politics I&#39;m writing off is derived from minoritarian lobby groups- those that scare the left into agreeing with a little-thought out policy, one that seems to take tolerance and solidarity with oppressed groups to extremes.
That kind of politics alienates the working class from the left when they see these policies that are irrelevant to the fundamentals of capitalism getting through.
And if we want to build up an alliance with our arab brothers and sisters as leftists
we will be told to fuck straight off if we bring our western ultra-liberalism to the picture coz judging from many leftists I&#39;ve talked to ,coalitions against imperialism
have all sorts of conditions.
One thing to point out also is when communism was a true force among the western proletariat this kind of politics did not exist in the movement in a serious way.
By the way- I&#39;m not a christian -I can&#39;t make that clear enough. I&#39;m more interested in Hinduism, Islam and Sufi Mysticism.

[Xiao Banfa]

Our indigenous bro&#39;s and sisters in New Zealand are joining fundamentalist shithead groups in their droves. These intolerant christian groups are gaining strength and represent muscular patriarchy and anti-communism. These bastards are draining traditional left-supporters into their shitstorm because the leftists are more worried about being labeled un-pc than grappling with the base concerns brought by capitalism . These grooups actually HATE gays; they think homosexuality is WRONG. I on the other hand do not think homosexuality is wrong, I have gay friends- I have consoled gay friends over the ordeal of coming to terms with sexuality. I even go as far as to NEVER talk to them about my views on gay child adoption lest they construe my opinions as homophobic.
I don&#39;t want to go on- but I didn&#39;t want to be seen as a gay-basher.

[fox]

T.R., don&#39;t be so quick to assume that I or others will think you "anti-gay" or homophobic. Usually, however, when people get overly-defensive there is something dodgy lurking. Patronizing claims like "There are worse things than having gay parents", and "I have plenty of gay friends" (who you admit do not know your full views on queer matters) do not help you either.

I do think (along with the vast majority of people from the whole spectrum of the left) that your ideas on this are deeply flawed and this leads you to an unjustly prejudicial position on this issue -- which isn&#39;t to say you hate gays necessarily -- just that you&#39;re ignorant -- sorry for the harshness but I&#39;m being quite charitable.

Biological or "natural" does not equate to moral. Toranadoes and diseases are natural, they must be good then? And please explain why we "will never be able to come up with evidence gathered over a long period of time studying gay families". Thats utterly baseless.

Look outside your own ingrained western patriarchal perspective for a second and you will see that various indigenous societies exhibit widely differing and diverse gender patterns that totally undermine your biological determinist arguements -- ie. that BIOLOGICAL males and females have essential or inherent SOCIAL or CULTURAL traits. Sticking your head in the sand and dismissing it as "postmodernism" is plain anti-intellectual reactionism; anthropologists have been describing this stuff long before postmodernism. Oh, by the way guess who the biological determinist arguments are most popular with? -- yep, the extreme right.

Queer equality in an oppressive and exploitative capitalist society isn&#39;t a goal for me, but certainly not one I oppose or deride much either. Its bizzare and a little disturbing how you can believe queers (and other "minoritarian groups" -- women and blacks, maybe?) "scared" or coerced the patriarchal state into granting them some of the rights that you quite obviously ALREADY HAVE AND BENEFIT FROM.

And you claim this greater (although still not complete) equality is "taking tolerance and solidarity with oppressed groups to extremes"?&#33;&#33; Equal rights, EXTREME? Who but the most rabid right-wingers spout such shit&#33;?

Nor do I care who I upset -- I&#39;ll extend solidarity with any oppressed group I can because I am against oppression PER SE, while i recognize all the "single-issue" oppresssions are interconnected, with class, race, sexism etc. But that is not to say they are not all reducible to capitalist social relations, although capitalism obviously plays the largest part.

You are worried that queer equality will alienate the working class -- like revolution or smashing capitalism dosn&#39;t alienate them&#33; The working-class arn&#39;t all the reactionary dipshits you take them for, trust me. You take the working class you for some homogenous, monolithic mass. Its too simplistic, not to mention insulting.

You also fear that your "arab brothers and sisters" will tell us to "fuck straight off if we bring our western ultra-liberalism to the picture" -- good, I&#39;ll tell them to fuck straight off with their fundamentalist anti-women/queer/cultural diversity/... culture. You yourself lamented that "Our indigenous bro&#39;s and sisters in New Zealand are joining shithead fundamentalist shitheads...[they] actually HATE gays; they think homosexuality is WRONG". But its ok if the fundies are ARABS? Because they are, what, less enlightented?

Possibly your most absurd and enraging claim is "One thing to point out also is when communism was a true force among the western proletariat this kind of politics did not exist in the movement in a serious way.". My god, homosexuals and other minorities have undermined the communist movement, purge them immediately&#33; Supress minority views, they alienate "the people"&#33; I wasn&#39;t aware the Stalinist inclined were found here.

Mate, I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t wish queers ill-will -- at least at a conscious level -- but the ideas stuck in your head contradict yourself and -- thankfully for me -- the vast majority of the left.

[Deutsche Ideologie]

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?&#33;

[Xiao Banfa]

Allright, this is going on a bit. But, I really can&#39;t stress how much the kind of a politics I&#39;m putting acrosss is the thin wedge between embracing whatever sounds the most uber-liberal and the politics of hatred. This hate-based politics could gain entry to parliament because the kind of laws that are being LOBBIED for (rather than STRUGGLED FOR BY THE MASSES) are making ordinary workers think- "fuck this, these social engineering pinkos have gone to far". This causes a backlash in the opposite direction.
In my country the religious right has never been a proper political force. There have been loonies spouting shite every know and again, but nothing like the US.
It&#39;s changing now- these guys can muster a demonstration the same size as an anti-war or an anti-genetic modification demo (both issues had 60% public support&#33;). So many ordinary people see these laws as liberalism ,which they mistakenly identify with leftism, gone fucking loopy.

But this is not the core argument. You mention natural disasters etc- they, believe it or not, have a place in the worlds&#39; ecosystem. Topsoil, which keeps our food growing, is natural. The earths&#39; systems work remarkably well and have been known to have disastrous effects when interfered with by humans. In other world this planet already has it set up for us. We think we know it all but primordial wisdom has it&#39;s roots billions of years ago. Now to argue against that would be distastefully anti-ecological.
You seemed to agree with the fact that biological families were "natural".
The earth usually usually sets these things up for us pretty well.

[LSD]

The earths&#39; systems work remarkably well and have been known to have disastrous effects when interfered with by humans.

You mean like agriculture?
or domestication?
or irrigation?
or civilization?
or medicine?

The "earth&#39;s systems" would have us living miserable lives and dying at 25. Since our evolution, humans have been making changes to the world to make ourselves more comfortable, almost exclusively these changes have been for the better.


We think we know it all but primordial wisdom has it&#39;s roots billions of years ago.

"primordial wisdom"?

Is that even a thing?

You&#39;re assuming some kind of "logic" to nature, perhaps even a concious "plan".

There is no natural "wisdom". The way that the natural world is arranged is not "wise", it&#39;s cance, or as Richard Dawkins put it "nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators".


Now to argue against that would be distastefully anti-ecological.

And to argue for it is shcokingly superstitious.

As humans we have an obligation to look out for human society and the members of that society. Worrying about whether our actions fit into a "natural plan" is straight out supernaturalism.


You seemed to agree with the fact that biological families were "natural".

Damn straight.

There is absolutely no historical or anthropological evidence that the current definition of a "traditional" family is at all traditional&#33;

Indeed for most of human history children were raised communaly by groups of women while men played little role in their upbrining and largely only came in late in childhood to impart skills.

But, on this subjkect, why should we even care what&#39;s "natural"?

For most of our histroy, we&#39;ve been ruled by despots of one kind of another, does that make authoritarianism "natural"?

Animals, and humans, have been killing each other for billions of years ...is muder "natural"?

More importantly, does it matter?


The earth usually usually sets these things up for us pretty well.

You mean like smallpox, AIDS, and cancer?

Fuck the earth&#39;s "set up". Our obligation isn&#39;t to any "plan", it&#39;s to humanity.

[Xiao Banfa]

Bro, must say that you misquoted me. I said that you wont be able to come up with evidence based on long term studies of many queer families. There just isn&#39;t enough of precedent for it.
Another thing- even the most modern muslim arabs have traditionalist opinions.
And they are good people with a sense of dignity and pride.
I think we should stand with the arabs against imperialism and not force views on them as a condition for solidarity.

[Xvall]

The "earth&#39;s systems" would have us living miserable lives and dying at 25. Since our evolution, humans have been making changes to the world to make ourselves more comfortable, almost exclusively these changes have been for the better.

Better for us, not necessarilly better for the rest of the rest of the planet. Dying at 25 was, at the time, quite natural. Now it isn&#39;t. How long should we live for? Should we aim to expand our lives to be as long as possible? If we discovered immortality, should everyone use it? Why are we talking about the ecosystem in a same-sex marriage thread?


As humans we have an obligation to look out for human society and the members of that society. Worrying about whether our actions fit into a "natural plan" is straight out supernaturalism.

Of course, it&#39;s quite irrational to chastize human beings for looking out for their own species, however, humans should indeed worry if their actions fit in; not to a "natural plan", but to the capacity of the environment. Human beings need the planet they live on to continue surviving, and if they want to remain alive, it is in their best interests to make sure that they do not destroy it.

[Xiao Banfa]

LSD- agriculture, civilisation, domestication and many pharmaceutical medicines have bastardised nature. Agriculture takes more out of the soil than it puts back in -concentrated, homogenised agriculture overhauls the ecosystem for the worse.
Cows use to be wily intelligent creatures- now they are imbecillic meat-vegetables.
Civilisation has meant than humans don&#39;t move with the seasons. Hunter gatherers are of very little consequence to the environment.
But civilisation has happened and we have to live with it. So I wouldn&#39;t call myself a primitivist even some of their ideas are quite logical.
Biological norms are a guideline for balanced living.
I think the intricacy of ecosystems seems to prove there is a ryme and reason for how nature works. And I&#39;m not suggesting creation (by the way-if you happen to be a yank)

[LSD]

Should we aim to expand our lives to be as long as possible?

Yes.


Why are we talking about the ecosystem in a same-sex marriage thread?

No fucking idea.


agriculture, civilisation, domestication and many pharmaceutical medicines have bastardised nature.

:lol:

So you&#39;re against agriculture? :P

Why don&#39;t you say that to the 6 billion people it&#39;s keeping alive (by the way, that includes you).

What you call "bastardizing nature" I call progress. These things have improved human life immeasurably and are indispensible developments.

You are opposing progress for being progressive&#33;


Civilisation has meant than humans don&#39;t move with the seasons.

Who cares?

We&#39;re better off for living in civilization. The fact that we no longer must seasonally migrate is a good thing. It has allowed us to develop infastructure and technololgy that otherwise would have been impossible.

You seem to have a romantisized view of "primitive" living. What you seem to ignore is that people are living better today. Civilization has improved lives dramatically. Period.


Biological norms are a guideline for balanced living.

Again, murder is a "biological norm", so is rape and theft.

Should we consider those "guidelines for balanced living"?


I think the intricacy of ecosystems seems to prove there is a ryme and reason for how nature works.

No it doesn&#39;t.

It just shows that nature is complex. It&#39;s a grosse fallacy to assume that complexity requires design.

Natural ecosystems are what they are. They persist because they work. There have been many more natural systems that have failed than have succeded, we simply only have experience with the ones that have succeded because the ones that failed ...aren&#39;t around any more.

This can, I suppose, lead to the mistaken impression that nature "always works". Well, it doesn&#39;t, and when it does work, it&#39;s by chance. There simply is no plan or design or organizing principle to the natural world.

More importantly, for this discussion, the fact that something is organized in a particular way in nature in no way means that we should organize our society along the same lines.

Patriarchy and matriarchy are both found among many animals, does that mean that we should build a sexist society?

Rape, murder, assault, etc... are found in nearly all animal societies. Should they be acceptable?

And, on the subject, homosexuality has been found among many other animals. It&#39;s just as "natural" as anything else. But, again, the point here is that whether it&#39;s natural or not doesn&#39;t matter.

Many things that are natural are not desirable, many things that are desirable are not "natural".

Our only concern should be whether or not the thing in question is a good idea. "Naturalness" or a lack thereof is irrelevent.


So I wouldn&#39;t call myself a primitivist even some of their ideas are quite logical.

Like what?

[Xiao Banfa]

This is getting a wee bit tiresome. But I feel I should do justice to these ideas.
You forgot to include that I said we have to live with the developments of civilisation. We can remove the structure of civilisation- that would cause a calamity. Even Ted Kaczyinski reckons we would need a catastrophe to bring down civilisation. The end of agriculture is impractical.
The technology we use currently should be scaled down at some stage but basically most people prefer the current status quo (vis a vis technology).
But lets not continue adopt more non biological structures for existence ad bloody nauseum for the benefit of a minority in a minority. Many queer folk probably wouldn&#39;t give a shit about having kids anyway. I thought that that lifestyle was supposed to be extra-family

[Xiao Banfa]

By the way HOMOSEXUALITY ISN"T "UNNATURAL". Queers don&#39;t have kids
THATS THE POINT.

[LSD]

Even Ted Kaczyinski reckons we would need a catastrophe to bring down civilisation. The end of agriculture is impractical.

Really?

"Even" Ted Kaczinski "reckons" this?

As I remember he also "reckons" that blowing people is a jolly good idea, so I kind of don&#39;t give a fuck.


the technology we use currently should be scaled down at some stage

No it shouldn&#39;t.


But lets not continue adopt more non biological structures for existence ad bloody nauseum for the benefit of a minority in a minority.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Society must allow as much freedom as possible for every member of it, if that means challanging traditionalist "biological structures" all the better.


Many queer folk probably wouldn&#39;t give a shit about having kids anyway.

Many heterosexual people don&#39;t either.

The answer is easy, don&#39;t have any.


Queers don&#39;t have kids

Not with each other, no.

That&#39;s why they adopt&#33;


THATS THE POINT.

Why is this in all caps? :huh:

[Anarcho-Communist]

I think that it would be great for same sex marriages across Canada. Firstly because I think that everyone has to learn to accept somebody&#39;s choice in sexual relationships. Some people might think that it&#39;s not "Normal" but tell me, what is normal. :D I bid a good day to you all :D :D

[che-Rabbi]

When the Jews were liberated from the camps after WW2, they invited the soldiers who freed them to stay for a hebrew mass at the remaning synagogues to show the breach of religious barrier, so i say we all have a big gay orgy to welcome our new friends right in Washington.

But to be serious now, the whole gay marriage thing is a big distraction from the fact that the Tories have fuck all to offer Canada so they keep the faith of the homophobes by creating policies that spawn from a thought that derived from the most narrow halls of theyre minds and then they follow a train of thoughts to the logical yet irrational conclusion wich is the right wing of politics.