Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Sava]

That's a nice shiny new avatar there, Sava.

thanks!

I've got a few more offensive ones, but I don't feel the need to bring the wrath of Ming on me.

[blackice]

Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

We will see as it unfolds sava.

I simply came here because the topic caught my attention, I hope I have added a few legal realities.

Beyond that I personally could care less about the topic on hand.

Have at it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

ROTFL!

You've been practicing your sense of humour!

[Agathon]

Shouldn't it be "Her ass"?

[Sava]

We will see as it unfolds sava.

I simply came here because the topic caught my attention, I hope I have added a few legal realities.

What legal realities? How is allowing gay marriages going to prevent you from spewing your hate-mongering perversion of Christianity? You still have freedom of speech, no matter how stupid your beliefs are.

[Asher]

blackice makes glue for BASF.

The fumes get to him...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by blackice

Nice picture assher, is that your boyfriend?

Is that avatar one of the dogs you are going to set on the poofs and pinkos when the righteous seize power?

[Sava]

Asher

[mindseye]

First, my right not to have government distort the language.

Berzerker, your arguments about marriage being "traditionally" defined as being between a man and a woman carry the same weight as arguments that "voter" has "traditionally" been defined as "white landholder".

As has been pointed out ad nauseum in other gay marriage threads, the notion of "marriage" has varied wildly over western history. Marriage has "traditionally" included such concepts as marrying pre-pubescent girls, wife as property of husband, inability of women to divorce, etc.

It also ignores the liklihood that the early Christian church preformed same-sex marriages.

I'm just glad this specious "traditional definition" argument can never fly here in China, as Fujian province did, at one time, have gay marriages. (not to mention China's long tolerance of same-sex romance)

I am growing increasingly convinced that China will have gay marriage before the US, simply because religious bigots have no influence over gov't policy-making here.

But until that day arrives, for now I will shout HOORAY FOR CANADA!

[notyoueither]

Possibly of interest to some of the readers:

http://www.iht.com/articles/100029.html

The Canadian government's decision this week to open marriage to gay couples follows in the steps of the Netherlands and Belgium, but it could be of far greater significance in the United States.

Only a few American gay couples have taken advantage of expanded marriage laws in the Netherlands because of its long residency requirement, and Belgium will allow marriages of foreign couples only from countries that already allow such unions.

But Canada has no residency requirement for marriage.

"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York.

Gay activists in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional, heterosexual family life.

Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but now that the definition of marriage in the two countries diverges, legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian licenses seem certain in at least some states. Issues over adoption rights, inheritance, insurance benefits and matters as mundane as sharing health club memberships are likely to arise in courts and state legislatures.

"What we are in for is a long gradual struggle to win full equal recognition of these marriages," Soloway said.

...

Go to it!

Healthcare may be next.

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Is it defined solely as that? My dictionary also gives the definition as "Any close or intimate union." No man and woman specified.

No one is mentioned. If you read on in that definition, I believe you'll see context added - an example of inaminate objects that compliment each other so well, they are "married" to each other. Or another somewhat common phrase, "He's married to that car". These are of course not meant to be taken literally, but an explanation for them does appear in the dictionary.

At any rate, this is circular, as the debate is over what the definition of marriage should be.

Offering an accurate definition of "marriage" in a debate about what the word means (and how others want it changed) is relevant.

If Canadian society decides it should be between both men and women and other gender combination, that is what it will be.

And that determination will be made, I suppose, once people get to debate the matter. So why do you say the debate is over? Sounds like it's just beginning up there...

We don't know for certain when marriages originated or when, but there is nothing to indicate there was always such a strict definition.

Man and woman, men and women - hardly strict. Nevertheless, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that just happens to be the defintion. We wouldn't be seeing a fuss made about ackowledging that the word "book" usually means a literary device designed to convey information. So why complain about the meaning of "marriage"?

We have many examples of ancient same-sex marriages, and the Christians were performing same-sex marriage rites in Europe for centuries after the fall of Rome.

State sanctioned? Link? There have been people who commit mass murder in the name of freedom, that doesn't mean the word "freedom" should be changed to include a right to murder.

blackice -

Should the word "marriage" be used to describe thier union? Does this infringe on religious beliefs and rights protected under the constitution?

That could only be logical if those with the religious belief had some kind of copyright on the word, they don't. "Marriage" is just a word to describe an act, an ostensibly strong commitment men and women make to each other.

[Berzerker]

mindseye -

Berzerker, your arguments about marriage being "traditionally" defined as being between a man and a woman carry the same weight as arguments that "voter" has "traditionally" been defined as "white landholder".

Voting is as old as man, even when we were wandering around a wild world trying to decide which way the game was.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum in other gay marriage threads, the notion of "marriage" has varied wildly over western history. Marriage has "traditionally" included such concepts as marrying pre-pubescent girls, wife as property of husband, inability of women to divorce, etc.

The first concept was a carryover from a time when life expectancy was much lower and having babies quickly was a high priority. The last two (actually all 3) are problematic since these practices were largely eliminated by a christianised Europe where the word "marriage" and it's meaning comes from. If you can provide proof that earlier peoples employing these practices actually used the word "marriage" as an offical designation for their practices, I'd sure be surprised.

It also ignores the liklihood that the early Christian church preformed same-sex marriages.

A "liklihood" I can ignore, facts I cannot ignore.

I'm just glad this specious "traditional definition" argument can never fly here in China, as Fujian province did, at one time, have gay marriages. (not to mention China's long tolerance of same-sex romance)

"Marriage" is not a Chinese word.

I am growing increasingly convinced that China will have gay marriage before the US, simply because religious bigots have no influence over gov't policy-making here.

Yes, anti-religious bigots are in control there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Possibly of interest to some of the readers:

Not really. States are under no obligation to recognize such marriages made by American gays.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, at least Canada in suceeded in pissing you know who off....

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/jun2003/Canada_Sodomite_Whorehouse_6-13-2003.pdf

[MrFun]

Two questions -- how does an American such as myself, become a Canadian citizen?

If a country refuses to recognize legal unions between two people from another country, wouldn't this have any effect on foreign relations between them? Not in catastrophic ways, but to some extent?