Real World Event Discussions

Canada Passes Same-sex Legislation

POSTED BY: SigmaNunki
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2005 23:24
VIEWED: 7233
PAGE 2 of 3

CONSCIENCE

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:20 PM

Some of you may find these links interesting!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/Gay-Conservative-Writer-Disgusted-By-Pri
de-Weekend-An-Interview-With-Steve-Yuhas.cfm

And to top it off, here's a quote from liberal Democrat President Clinton:

"I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." - The Advocate, June 1996

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJester:
Of course, there are some religious groups in the US that will now refuse to acknowledge that Canada ever existed.......

Ah, let 'em, those Shatner-stealing Mexico touchers!

(With apologies to the writing staff of The Simpsons.)

"Hermanos! The Devil is building a Robot! Andale!" -- Numero Cinco

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Friday, July 22, 2005 3:15 PM

Let's distinguish to elements of marriage: the legal and the covenantal.

There is a legal aspect to marriage, no question. That's why the civil servant in the afore-mentioned example had to get up and do his thing. The legal ramifications of marriage are huge: guardianship, inheritance, medical issues, not to mention dissolution and division of property. The legal implications of marriage necessitate the state to regulate so that there aren't flagrant abuses.

But to say that the civil/legal aspect of marriage is the sum total of marriage misses the point. The civil servant has his purpose, the priest his. The priest's purpose is to solemnize the marriage. The notion is that marriage is a commitment, a covenant between two people--hence to richer-poorer-death-do-us-part business. It's a commitment before God to do all that stuff you swore to.

The right wingers get all lathered up about gay-marriage, and mostly they say, "It'll destroy the institution of marriage." That argument doesn't hold water because with a 50% divorce rate, the institution of marriage seems to be in trouble all on its own.

So if that's not it, why can't homosexuals get married? I think it goes back to the question (which I'm not weighing in on, mind you) of the moral implications (if any) of homosexuality. It's not that they really think that the institution of marriage will be destroyed; it's that they think homosexuality is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

HERO

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
We are the third country in the world to do it! We legalized gay marrage!!!

Nice to know that all of Britain's allies are responding to the terror attacks in London.

You Canadians should be proud.

I for one am not sure any real men are left up there. I'm just sayin...

H

KELLAINA

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Nice to know that all of Britain's allies are responding to the terror attacks in London.

You Canadians should be proud.

I for one am not sure any real men are left up there. I'm just sayin...

So government's are only able to do one thing at a time? Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point - but what does one have to do with the other?

Edit: fixed quote

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

HERO

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:
[B Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.

You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.

But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.

H

CONSCIENCE

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Ah, let 'em, those Shatner-stealing Mexico touchers!

Kiss my American ass, you fuckin canuck.

I say the same to the rest of Soviet Canuckistan!

http://www.negativepositive.org/fuck-canada.html

And by the way, you can have Alanis Morissette back.

ANARKO

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:57 PM

Here's a terrific article written by Jonah Goldberg in 2002:

Quote:

Bomb Canada: The case for war

It's quite possible that the greatest favor the United States could do for Canada is to declare war on it. No, this isn't a tribute to South Park, the TV cartoon that popularized a song -- "Blame Canada" -- calling for an outright invasion of our northern neighbor. A full-scale conquest is unnecessary; all Canada needs is to be slapped around a little bit, to be treated like a whining kid who's got to start acting like a man. We've done it more than once, and we've threatened it plenty of times. Thomas Jefferson told President Madison that conquering Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." Of course, that advice resulted in the burning of the White House in the War of 1812, but the U.S. still came out ahead. Why would a new war be necessary? The short answer is: to keep the Canadians from being conquered by the United States. In effect, it would be a war to keep Canada free. But first some background.

Five decades ago, historian Frank Underhill wrote that the Canadian is "the first anti-American, the model anti-American, the archetypal anti- American, the ideal anti-American as he exists in the mind of God." In a sense this isn't really true. Philosophically and politically, the New Soviet Man was a superior anti-American: He not only hated America but had a blueprint for its replacement. After all, the perfect anti- American must be pro-something else; he must offer a viable alternative to that which he detests.

Canadian anti-Americanism does none of this. It is anti-American by reflex, which is to say that when America goes about its business, Canada flinches and calls this tic "the Canadian way." It was ever thus: The very formation of the Canadian state was, quite literally, a flinch in response to America's muscle-flexing. Canada's 1867 confederation, according to most historians, was the direct result of Canada's not-unfounded fears that the battle-hardened Union Army would turn its sights on Canada the way a still-peckish lion lazily turns on a fat gazelle. The Canadian Mounties, perhaps the most enduring symbol of Canadian pride and rectitude, were created to restrain the tomfoolery of American whiskey traders. They chose their red tunics solely to distinguish themselves from the Union blues of the American cavalry. It may even have been Americans who came up with the Mounties' famous motto, "They always get their man."

Virtually all of Canada's public policies were born out of a studied contrariness to U.S. policies, real or perceived. Canada's disastrous health-care system survives because of three things: vast sums of (poorly spent) money, the limitless patience of Canadian citizens who are regularly willing to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries, and the widespread fear that any reform might constitute "Americanization." There's every reason to believe that Canadians would embrace at least a few market reforms -- which might, for example, reduce the wait for an MRI from a national median of 12.4 weeks -- if only it didn't seem like capitulation to "American-style" health care. But Canada won't even legalize private health insurance as long as this is perceived as Americanization. It is a matter of national pride to have a "different" -- i.e., worse-but-more- egalitarian -- health-care system than they do south of the border (I mean south of our border: Canada has fewer MRI machines per capita than Latin America).

The accusation of wanting to "Americanize" healthcare is a Medusa's head any politician can use to petrify opponents. Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, declared in a 2001 TV interview: "If we're going to have a universal system . . . we should not be afraid to say, 'Can the private sector run this hospital better? Can they provide this service better? If they can, why should we fear that?'" The reaction from editorialists and the health-care community was one of near-total condemnation -- including the charge of "Americanization."

At a conference spon

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, July 24, 2005 6:41 AM

@Kellaina:
You wrote:
"""
Not that the Canadian parliament would be a whole lot of help in responding to the terror attacks - they're not military or security experts or anything like that.
"""

Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war. You also might be interested that when our snipers went to Afghanistan, some US soldiers up them up for bronze stars.

So, please don't just assume stuff like this.

@Conscience:
I pitty you.

@Anarko:
Thank you for reminding me just how much people down there do not know anything about Canada.

But, I'm at a loss. What does all this have to do with gay marriage?... Anyone?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

CONSCIENCE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war.

To quote from the webpage I linked to above:

"We invented Peacekeeping!" "HUH?!?!? I've actually heard this many times, so I'll address it. The idea of "inventing" peacekeeping is an absurd notion. That's like saying a guy from Peru invented generosity or that a guy from Zimbabwe invented creativity. You can't seriously look in the mirror and believe in your hearts that people engaged in disputes that almost led to wars, but didn't because of diplomacy, have Canada to thank regardless of whether the conflict was in 1980A.D. or 240 B.C.? If Canada invented anything, it's JEALOUSY."