Same-Sex Marriage: Canada, Europe and the United States

[Adalbertus]

A marriage not only of same sex but also of three (Canada, Europe and US)??

[KrazyHorse]

I'm proud of our courts...

Kicked the legislators in the ass. I hope they use Svend's bill (the one he's submitted every Valentine's Day for the last decade)...

[St Leo]

Important to note the decision in Canada was a LEGAL decision not a political one (ie it doesn't matter what the poll numbers say...).

It is also a political one. If the Liberals thought that polls opposed marriage for everyone, then they would have appealed the court's decision.

Instead, they saw the way the wind is blowing and decided to embrace the idea fully.

I am proud of Chretien. His last year in office is magnificent.

[mrmitchell]

I don't have time to skim the article, but whut's the issue? Who out there really seriously has an issue with gay marriage? I mean, aside from deranged lunatics.

[St Leo]

MrM, you'd be surprised at the number of deranged lunatics out there. After all, 90% of everyone is crud, 90% of crud is cruddy curd, 90% of cruddy crud is cruddy cruddy crud...:P

[Wezil]

"And despite what you might think, anyone who says gays should not be allowed to marry is being insulting, is acting somehow superior and giving gays less rights than straight couples get." - Asher

You prove my point. It is "insulting" if your point of view is not shared.

[mindseye]

Interesting that the article's author failed to mention another major impact Canadian gay marriage will have on the US psyche: when gay Candians get married and Canadian society fails to collapse, it will demonstrate pretty clearly that much of the "our society will be doomed" arguments are mere twaddle.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
You prove my point. It is "insulting" if your point of view is not shared.

It's not insulting that they don't share my point of view, it's insulting that they want to put me on a level below them for my sexuality.

[mindseye]

Wezil: What is the reaction in the gay community when THEIR point of view is not accepted (...)?

Evil Knevil: The gay rights movement musn't overplay its hand or appear shrill.

You wouldn't be outraged if someone told you that you couldn't get married - ever - because they didn't approve of the person you fell in love with??? Really? You wouldn’t be upset about being denied the right to marry???

A lot of straight people are amazingly cavalier on this point. They consider their wedding day to be one of - if not the single most - important event of their life, yet admonish gay people not to be "shrill" in demanding equal access to one of the most fundamental human social institutions.


yavoon asks:

u demand the tax benefits that badly?.

Is there some place in the US where there is a tax incentive to get married? Then what's with the arguments for getting rid of the "marriage penalty"? Besides, to frame the argument over gay marriage in terms of taxes is to utterly miss the point.


I can't believe no one has yet trotted out the tired old argument that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy, much the same way that giving the vote to women and blacks opened the door to multiple-voting. Oops, that didn’t happen.

[mrmitchell]

Are there any serious reasons against gay marriage? The only two I've ever been told is the "society will collapse" twaddle (see above) and the "God said no" twaddle (note: we never elected God as president.)

[mindseye]

Are there any serious reasons against gay marriage? The only two I've ever been told is the "society will collapse" twaddle (see above) and the "God said no" twaddle (note: we never elected God as president.)

Let's not forget these hoary chestnuts:

- Marriage should not be changed because it is an inalterable tradition, and has always been just exactly the way it was in the USA circa 1953.

- Marriage is about procreation (except for sterile or elderly straight couples), and gay people cannot make babies (raising them doesn't matter, only siring them)

- Straight people will be forced to support innumerable benefits for gay spouses (just like those gay people who have no choice in supporting the benefits of our spouses and offspring)

- Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they are promiscuous, always having sex outside of marriage.

- It would encourage young people to decide to change their sexual orientation.

- Granting gay people the right to marry will open the door to polygamy, just like giving the vote to women and blacks will inevitably lead to multiple-voting.

- Gay people don't want equal rights, they want special rights, like being able to get married to a guy.

- I, personally, could never fall in love with a person of the same gender, so we should not, as a society, condone it.

- Allowing gay people to get married will in some indefinable manner cheapen my own marriage.

- Gay people are incapable of forming permanent relationships. They won't respect marriage the way we straights with our 50% divorce rate do.

- It would send the the wrong message, that gay people are just as good as the rest of us.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye
[q]

yavoon asks:

Quote:

u demand the tax benefits that badly?.

Is there some place in the US where there is a tax incentive to get married? Then what's with the arguments for getting rid of the "marriage penalty"? Besides, to frame the argument over gay marriage in terms of taxes is to utterly miss the point.

there are lots of tax and healthcare benefits to getting married. I don't know exactly where u r from. but this is hardly a brand new idea or notion.

[mindseye]

there are lots of tax (...) benefits to getting married. I don't know exactly where u r from. but this is hardly a brand new idea or notion.

Tell that to the "marriage penalty" folks, not me! (Hint: do an internet search on "marriage penalty" and "tax" for further information. I found 173 sites using Vivisimo).

I edited out "and healthcare" from your post because your earlier comments were about taxes, not healthcare.

Hey, I'll be the first to agree that there are many, many benefits to getting married - healthcare, legal, and otherwise (how about visiting your spouse in hospital emergency room?). I guess the point where we disagree is that I don't think these rights should be unequally distributed on the basis of your spouse's gender.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

there are lots of tax and healthcare benefits to getting married. I don't know exactly where u r from. but this is hardly a brand new idea or notion.

Tell that to the "marriage penalty" folks, not me! (Hint: do an internet search on "marriage penalty" and "tax" for further information. I found 173 sites using Vivisimo).

Hey, I'll be the first to agree that there are many, many benefits to getting married, healthcare, legal, and otherwise (how about visiting your spouse in hospital emergency room?). I guess the point where we disagree is that I don't think these rights should be unequally distributed on the basis of the gender of your spouse.

well first they aren't rights. they're tax benefits. and while congress can distribute them to gay couples, they don't have to. It is also worth noting that the reason that society encourages people to get and stay married. so that children can grow up w/ both a mother and a father. doesn't translate at all, or nearly as efficiently to gay couples.

[mindseye]

well first they aren't rights.

If you re-read my post, you'll see I was not simply referring to taxes (quote: "there are many, many benefits to getting married, healthcare, legal, and otherwise "). These benefits include such rights as hospital emergency room visitation rights, control over funerals, etc.

they're tax benefits. and while congress can distribute them to gay couples, they don't have to.

Agreed! My point is that I think they should distribute any such benefits to gay couples. I argue that such benefits should be distributed equally, without discrimination. Perhaps I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that they should or should not be granted to gay couples?

It is also worth noting that the reason that society encourages people to get and stay married. so that children can grow up w/ both a mother and a father.

If that is true, then where do you think society should be focusing that concern: on families where children are raised by two loving parents of the same gender, or families with one heterosexual parent? The latter seems to me to be a far, far larger problem, at least in in terms of sheer numbers. What you are talking about is more of an issue of heterosexual divorce rates, not gay marriage.

The point being that, given the enormous number of single parent families, it does not strike me that two-parent same-sex families in any way adds to the problem. In fact, studies to date of the thousands of gay couples successfully raising children have found such concerns to be ill-founded.

[mindseye]

Forgot to clarify:

I don't know exactly where u r from

Yankee = American

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

well first they aren't rights.

If you re-read my post, you'll see I was not simply referring to taxes (quote: "there are many, many benefits to getting married, healthcare, legal, and otherwise "). These benefits include such rights as hospital emergency room visitation rights, control over funerals, etc.

Quote:

they're tax benefits. and while congress can distribute them to gay couples, they don't have to.

Agreed! My point is that I think they should distribute any such benefits to gay couples. I argue that such benefits should be distributed equally, without discrimination. Perhaps I'm not clear on the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that they should or should not be granted to gay couples?

Quote:

It is also worth noting that the reason that society encourages people to get and stay married. so that children can grow up w/ both a mother and a father.

If that is true, then where do you think society should be focusing that concern: on families where children are raised by two loving parents of the same gender, or families with one heterosexual parent? The latter seems to me to be a far, far larger problem, at least in in terms of sheer numbers. What you are talking about is more of an issue of heterosexual divorce rates, not gay marriage.

The point being that, given the enormous number of single parent families, it does not strike me that two-parent same-sex families in any way adds to the problem. In fact, studies to date of the thousands of gay couples successfully raising children have found such concerns to be ill-founded.

its not discrimination if there is a reason to discern. ie. we are giving the benefits in order to efficiently fulfill this societal need. we have reason to believe that handing out benefits in this manner to other people would not effectively handle this need therefore we do not need to hand them out.

and I have never talked about denying gay ppl the right to goto divorce court or sign prenuptial agreements or bury their spouses or whatever. u keep trying to broaden this.

[Asher]

its not discrimination if there is a reason to discern. ie. we are giving the benefits in order to efficiently fulfill this societal need.

We need a redneck smilie.

[mindseye]

its not discrimination if there is a reason to discern.

Quite so. My argument is that there is no reason to discern. Question: do you think there is?

and I have never talked about denying gay ppl the right to goto divorce court or sign prenuptial agreements or bury their spouses or whatever. u keep trying to broaden this.

I thought you broadened it when you said "there are lots of tax and healthcare benefits to getting married." Aren't hospital emergency room visitation rights a healthcare matter?

I think you did not understand my reference to divorce. You brought up parenting issues, I think that topic needs to include single parent families, don't you?

These are at any rate moot points, because as I said before, to restrict the argument to a matter of tax benefits is to utterly miss the point of equal access to marriage, unless you are arguing that marriage is solely a matter of taxes benefits.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

its not discrimination if there is a reason to discern.

Quite so. My argument is that there is no reason to discern. Question: do you think there is?

Quote:

and I have never talked about denying gay ppl the right to goto divorce court or sign prenuptial agreements or bury their spouses or whatever. u keep trying to broaden this.

I thought you broadened it when you said "there are lots of tax and healthcare benefits to getting married." Aren't hospital emergency room visitation rights a healthcare matter?

I think you did not understand my reference to divorce. You brought up parenting issues, I think that topic needs to include single parent families, don't you?

These are at any rate moot points, because as I said before, to restrict the argument to a matter of tax benefits is to utterly miss the point of equal access to marriage, unless you are arguing that marriage is solely a matter of taxes benefits.

I'm not restricting it. there are many other issues here. not all of them I care to argue. ur just gna have to deal w/ that.

[mindseye]

I'm not restricting it. there are many other issues here. not all of them I care to argue. ur just gna have to deal w/ that.

Fine. Then how come you keep dodging my tax benefits question: do you think tax benefits should or should not be equally distributed? Can you answer this please? I've asked twice already, I'm still waiting for your response.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

I'm not restricting it. there are many other issues here. not all of them I care to argue. ur just gna have to deal w/ that.

Fine. Then how come you keep dodging my tax benefits question: do you think tax benefits should or should not be equally distributed? Can you answer this please? I've asked twice already, I'm still waiting for your response.

tax benefits have never been equally distributed. they've always been incentivized. do I think thats a great idea? I'm meh about the idea. but thats how it works. the government wants a certain result out of the population and they give u tax benefits or tax hikes in order to perpetuate it.

I don't think u read my posts cuz I've already explained in fairly good detail what my stance is.

[mindseye]

do I think thats a great idea? I'm meh about the idea.

Does "meh" mean you don't care one way or the other? If you have no opinion on whether or not the government should distribute tax benefits equally in terms of same-sex marriage, why are you posting in a thread about same-sex marriage?

I don't think u read my posts cuz I've already explained in fairly good detail what my stance is.

Well, if I understand you correctly, the point of all your posts seems to boil down to "I'm meh about the idea." Not much to read, in that case.

I'll be glad to respond later to anyone who actually has an opinion to discuss, for now I must go to work (it's 7:30 a.m. China time).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Interesting that the article's author failed to mention another major impact Canadian gay marriage will have on the US psyche:

Being from a site dedicated to issues of international law, he was probably more interested in the legal aspects of the issue. Besides European countries that blazed the trail Canada is following now haven't had that effect, why would it happen now?

[blackice]

Shi Huangdi yes here is your poll results, they do compare with Fed and others as far as accuracy:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm

Intersting to note Asher, in your beloved Alberta people are mostly opposed to it. Could this have something to do with the grip of your dictator? I mean on the average this is quite a jump, on the other hand you do live in our bible belt.

Adults in Alberta 56% opposed quite a step considering the average is 44%...

As far as tax benifits go for marrage, the government plans on dropping them. The feds want out and have wanted out of tax benifits for marriage for some time now. This fast track to the change of the law endorses this and opens the door wide open for the change.

No Assher I am not saying I blame same sex marriages for this, nice try....

Tax benifits for couples with children, IE: Child tax benifits will still be delivered. It just gives the government the out without the public backlash, politics...

[mindseye]

Being from a site dedicated to issues of international law, he was probably more interested in the legal aspects of the issue.

Oh, sorry, I had no idea what kind of site it was from, I only read the article. The URL didn't give any indication.

. Besides European countries that blazed the trail Canada is following now haven't had that effect, why would it happen now?

Because Americans usually perceive Canadian culture as being much more like their own than that of any European country such as Belgium.

Off to work!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Because Americans usually perceive Canadian culture as being much more like their own than that of any continental European country.

I don't see why that would be especially considering the vast difference in the politics of the two countries.

Off to work!

Liar!

[mindseye]

I don't see why that would be especially considering the vast difference in the politics of the two countries.

Well, you may not see why, but I think in general most Americans feel Canadian culture is more similar to America's than that of, say Belgium. In general, I think most Americans are not too aware of Canadian political life, but they have a general idea of Canadian culture.

I really must go to work now, bye!

(sorry,I edited my previous post as you were replying)

[TCO]

If we are going to expand marriage to mean man with man, why not expand it to include larger groupings? What is magic with the concept of 2? heck, why even have marriage? What is magic about a married couple over a relationship?

[Asher]

Intersting to note Asher, in your beloved Alberta people are mostly opposed to it.

WOW THANKS FOR OPENING MY EYES TO THE BLOODY OBVIOUS.

A true hero.

Could this have something to do with the grip of your dictator

Yeah, if it wasn't for Klein in power the province would instantly become socially liberal.

GP:
few posts ago:

I can't believe no one has yet trotted out the tired old argument that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy, much the same way that giving the vote to women and blacks opened the door to multiple-voting. Oops, that didn’t happen.