I am proud to proclaim [b]I AM CANADIAN!![/b]

[HappyCanuck]

The Supreme Court of Canada has JUST ruled that:

Is the Federal government correct in it's authority to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to redefine the terminology of 'civil marriage' to include same-sex couples: yes

Is the redefinition consistent with the premises of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: yes

Does the Supreme Court feel that the Federal Government shouldl not force the Church to marry same-sex couples if it is contradictory to the beliefs of the Church: yes; also, those autorities that DO NOT personally condone same-sex marriages within religious and civil circles that DO condone same-sex marriage - under the Chartered Right of Freedoms of Religion - will not be forced LEGALLY to marry those who they feel are outside their religious beliefs.

Is the current definition of opposite-sex comon law marriage constitutional: the Court has chosen NOT to answer that question, as it was not within their jurisdiction, and is, instead, in the rulings the individual provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has also deemed that ALL present Same-Sex Marriages in those provinces that have already legalised same-sex marriage (British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory and Nova Scotio) are, according to the Supreme Court, COMPLETELY LEGAL and binding.

The Federal Government is now drafting legistlation to have these new definition made law, and making same-sex marriages NATIONALLY recognised. This legistlation is scheduled to go into it's first Parliament reading either later in December, or early in the new year. It should also be noted that the Liberal Party was the one who first introduced this idea, and support it on all levels, and supported by the New Democrat Party (NDP) and the BlocQuebecois under the mantle of a human right's issue. Surprisingly, the Concervative Party went on the notion of 'we will not stop the process, and each member of Party is free to vote their own way, but we, as a Party, do object to the redefinition'. (indirect paraphrase of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper)

Only one provincial House of Legistlation (Alberta) has challenged this ruling, and the Supreme Court has ruled against them, and have told them that, once the legistlation is passed, Alberta will NOT be legally able to DENY same-sex marriage requests. In the mean time, they are free to choose who will be legally able to perform same-sex marriages (within the Civil circles) as they will, and they are working to rebuke this new order under the 'notwithstanding clause' for their province.

In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada agrees that SAME SEX MARRIAGES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL IN CANADA!!

[HappyCanuck]

Sorry, I got a bit happy with the formatting.

Also, to get my end of any forth-coming argument out of the way (also, as I'm sure Ben will remind us, any forth-coming arguments should be kept off list), I do understand there may be people on this list who disagree the concept of same-sex marriage - whether for religious or other reasons - , and I can respect that, and point no fingers. However, speaking on behalf of myself only (I do not claim to speak for anyone else), please understand that this ruling recognises myself - and every other homosexual in this country - as an equal citizen under the law.

okay, I'm done now...

[Mokole]

One of my fears is that, like the decision a few years ago about homosexual pornography (Little Sisters case or something like that, I believe), pedophiles will see their sexual preferences approved more by the courts in tag-along arguments.

Being a teacher I saw the changes. In 1994, before the decision on Little Sisters, pedophile writings were banned and sexual exploitation could easily be fought by us with the police and courts. In 2000, after the decision, we had a problem with pedophile art and writings being sent to two children in school and we could no nothing about it, it was "legal". That and the courts forcing of a Catholic publishing house to publish "Men loving boys loving men" pamphlets.

Who knows if this will have the same ripple effect?

Not my usual post subjects, though I teach law too.

[kozzi24]

OK...maybe I'm not as strange minded as I thought.
I am a property manager here in Providence, a "big" little guy, owning or managing four buildings in a condensed area (keeps me from being a slum lord.) I was on a committee to update the state's landlord tenant handbook when they were doing that. During that time, they had moved trangendered/trans-sexuals to the "protected status" anti-discrimination list.
I rent by WHO people are, not what they are. I don't care about color or religion or who someone sleeps with. That's not my business and as long as their cash is green and/or their checks always clear, they don't damage things and they show respect for other residents, I never will care.
But I cited pedophiles during that debate, because from my perspective, we've gone from gay/straight to accommodating every sexual taste and trying to make various sexual tastes a protected class of people.
My point is that I don't look for adam's apples on women when showing a vacant apartment, but the law kind of opens me or the owner of the other properties to the inconvenience and expense of a frivilous lawsuit if I choose a more financially stable tenant over someone who I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW USED TO BE/IS a different gender from the one I showed the apartment to.
I'm all for civil unions to allow people to pool money, health coverage, property ownership and deathbed or survivior benefits, but how far does this go down the line? Like I said, who someone else loves/sleeps with is none of my business unless they're in my bed.
To put all emotional debate or feeling on specifics aside, if we've gone to "breeder" couple to any couple, and some areas such as in Rhode Island progressing to other "tastes," in all fairness SHOULDN'T pedophiles or people into bestiality also be PROTECTED because their sexual tastes are just that, no matter how distasteful others may find it?
(No, I'm not into kids or four-legged animals. This is just one of the theoretical type issues that I like hearing other people's rational beliefs about, even if they don't agree with me.

[Canucklehead]

One of my fears is that, like the decision a few years ago about homosexual pornography (Little Sisters case or something like that, I believe), pedophiles will see their sexual preferences approved more by the courts in tag along arguments.

Being a teacher I saw the changes. In 1994, before the decision on Little Sisters, pedophile writings were banned and sexual exploitation could easily be fought by us with the police and courts. in 2000, after the decision, we hada problem with pedophile arta nd writings being sent to two children in school and we could no nothing abnout it, it was "legal". That and the courts forcing of a Catholic publishing house to publish "Men loving boys loving men" pamphlets.

Who knows if this will have the same ripple effect?

Not my usual post subjects, though I teach law too.

I'm not farmiliar with the "Little Sisters Case" or this area of Canadian Law in general, but surely the courts will recognize that there is at least an age range that is not acceptable, being same sex renderings or oposite sex. Pedofilia doesn't effect one gender alone. I'd image like anything there would be some grey area, but hopefully it won't create any additional problems. I hope so anyway.

Off topic, I know, and I'll probably get slammed for this, and I don't mean to offend any religious people here, but I've always wondered why, in this day and age with all of the incidents that have happened, why keep priests from marrying, like ministers do? Their "solitude" is clearly a reason for releasing any "frustrations" with innocents around them. I only bring this up because I've personally had uncomfortable dealings with a local priest. Nothing serious, far from it, but definitly uncomfotable situations. This might seem like a major change to Christian beliefs, but I mean, come on.

D.

[Mokole]

Ah, well, I wade in once more.

I think most religions these days are either insular (we go to Heaven, poor you) or or globalist (be good, follow God's teachings, we all win). I'm fortunate to be within the globalists, not the insularists.

If my religion doesn't endorse homosexual marriage, so be it. They don't endorse many things that impinge on family growth and societal development, fine. At least we don't burn houses, throw bricks, shoot the 'enemy', lay land mines, harbour suicide bombers, endorse war for profit, and so on. Are we persecuted? Sure, Sudan is just the most obvious recent example but in my Church we often have our head in the sand when it comes to how we're persecuted because we live in a safe country. Once in a while something comes up that shows how much we overlook persecution to our religious group but I'm glad we don't take up arms to stop it. We sure do write a lot of letters and have tons of meetings and public activities, though.

Ah, what to do? Not a big question. Must plan for tomorrow's lessons.

[kozzi24]

Hey Canucklehead, I agree with you about the priests. There are some hard core pedophiles who want children and would prefer to only sleep with children, but many pedophiles are actually oportunists who "can't" have sex for whatever reason. So they "prey" on children, who they believe are less likely to tell (or more easily manipulated into not telling.) This is also very often the case of stepfather/boyfriends of the mother who attack children in the family.
In Providence, there was a case going back maybe 7 years. A priest had charitably given a stranger a ride somewhere on a cold day. The priest ended up attacked and thrown into the Port of Providence. The attacker was found and incarcerated. While awaiting trial, the hitchhiker presented a bit more of the truth. He was a hustler (rent-boy as Phil, Del and our other English friends would call them) and just saw the opportunity to rob his John and steal a Caddilac. If I got the story right, he revealed this in a letter to the prist of the Church Dioces (sp) as means of trying to get the charges dropped (yeah, via extortion and blackmail).
If the priest wasn't watching over his shoulder enough, maybe he just could have walked into a gay bar and met someone who wouldn't roll him before/during/after?
The Catholic Church really needs to rethink this. As much as people are supposed to believe otherwise, priests are HUMAN, not mystical channels direct to God. Being told they can't marry, have sex (with others or alone) is a recipe for all sorts of problems. I'm under the impression that the ban on Catholic marriages come from a Pope of the 5th century, not the bible. The Church is also decrying its shortage of priests, yet ignore the fact that they loose many who leave to get married.

[ladymako71]

Not only did Canada just approve Same Sex Unions as legal, but New Zealand did too. Same day even. lol I personally am thrilled by the changes and hope the rest of the world will come too and find out that it's not the end of the world.

[Legerd]

But I cited pedophiles during that debate, because from my perspective, we've gone from gay/straight to accommodating every sexual taste and trying to make various sexual tastes a protected class of people.

Homosexuality isn't a "taste" but something as intrinsic to a gay person as heterosexuality is to a straight person. And it's not about being "accomodating" it's about everyone being treated as equal in our society.

To put all emotional debate or feeling on specifics aside, if we've gone to "breeder" couple to any couple, and some areas such as in Rhode Island progressing to other "tastes," in all fairness SHOULDN'T pedophiles or people into bestiality also be PROTECTED because their sexual tastes are just that, no matter how distasteful others may find it?

Homosexuality between consenting adults can not be compared with acts of abuse forced upon non-consenting parties. Being gay is not a mental illness or an aberration, it is perfectly natural and occurs in other animals other than humans. What it comes down to is there is no legal or moral reasons for homosexual couples to be denied the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Well said, Legerd. Gay people are people like anybody else.

Dana

[kozzi24]

Don't get me wrong, Legend. The above bits were exchange of debates and ideas.

My personal view on things sexual is real simple: what other people do and who they love is really none of my business.

On subject, I use the word taste because in comparing most other things to "sex" when "generally perceived" as "the coital act of love/intended conception between a man and wife (don't bombard me with semantics here) I see little difference between a guy who can't do the act without a woman's high heeled shoes, a guy who loves another guy or someone who likes sheep when compared to the base. They're all "tastes" for want of a better word.

Yes, the act should only be between consenting adults that are mentally competant to give reasonable consent. In general theoretical debate, who decides what is aberrent or just off center?

[HappyCanuck]

First, let me say a big 'thank you' to Legerd for his summation - you said it better than I could have - or did have - done. And one to Dana for summarising it up so neatly.

As to Kozzi, as much as I can understand your overall message, I feel I must protest your use of the word 'taste' and the analogies you used to demonstrate your point. Speaking for only myself here, the fact that I'm naturally attracted to my own gender is not analogous to sheep-shagging or preferences in how the act is done. Maybe I'm misconstruing what you are saying (been known to happen from time to time), and if I am I do apologise in advance, but it still sounds like you comparing homosexuality with sexual deviancy. As I said, my sleeping with men is not a 'taste' anymore than you (if I may make an assumption) sleeping with women. A 'taste' would be the fact I like leather, and might change sometime down the line. But my attraction to men is as much apart of me as my skin colour or the size of my head: something I can't change.

I hope you see the distinction here (I know I'm not the most profound of speakers, so I'll understand if you are confused at some point).

[kozzi24]

I see the distinction, no harm no foul. Can't think of how to put it to get the thoughts across.
all generalities here, and I'm sure anyone with vested interest in the topic can find pleanty of contrary examples. Generalities, not specifics
wild animals mate. they mount from rear, for purpose of having children. Many times, pheremones are involeved. Application of these pheremones can attract the animals with a sexual bent to other things. Not just mammals, but that's how those old gypsy-moth capture bags worked...and was quite humorous for DAYS when a friend of mins got some of the bait on his leg. The animals keep it to direct acts of reproduction.
I take that analogy, and would call that "natural sex"...again, don't jump on me for word choice, just remember that specific words are best coming to me at the moment for the abstract behind the words.
Anything that deviates from the reproductive act I deem a "taste". Simple, really. Yes, there might be better words. No, there's no slam on anyone's specific life, and this isn't the forum to start saying what does things for us or get defensive about it.
Use taste or even fetish as ANYTHING other than the "natural" act
guy can't perform coital, only oral, guy on guy, on child, sheep, with high heels...classification here, not judgment.
I am all for people's private business being private. They should not be judged on that unless they make it fair game by violating their own privacy.
I am all for equal rights for everybody
The sole issue I had thrown out remains, HOW DO WE JUDGE WHAT IS 'TOO FAR' OFF CENTER. The most staunch conservative would take away gay rights, and the most staunch pedophile would say "I want to be protected too."
My issue comes from the gay right protection expanding to provide protection for transvestites and transsexuals, and question where it's going.
Peace, last words on topic from me

[Legerd]

Don't get me wrong, Legend. The above bits were exchange of debates and ideas.

No sweat Kozzi, wasn't dumping on you just taking up the debate.

wild animals mate. they mount from rear, for purpose of having children.

True, but there have also been recorded instances of gay and lesbian sex occuring between various animals outside of the mating season. In fact there are animals (bottlenose dolphin being one) that form gay relationships for life. How much more natural can you get?

The sole issue I had thrown out remains, HOW DO WE JUDGE WHAT IS 'TOO FAR' OFF CENTER. The most staunch conservative would take away gay rights, and the most staunch pedophile would say "I want to be protected too."

Again, IMO, you can't compare homosexuality with a non-consentual, abusive act, they are two entirely different things. But to look at it in a different way, it's not that gays are getting special rights tacked onto what they already have as Canadian citizens, they are finally getting all the rights they should always have had.

My issue comes from the gay right protection expanding to provide protection for transvestites and transsexuals, and question where it's going.

What's wrong with that? Transvestites are people who recieve sexual gratification from dressing up in the clothes of the opposite sex and aren't neccesarily gay. Transsexuals, as I understand it, don't consider themselves gay but the wrong gender from what they feel they should be. Once they've had the operation they are the other gender and should be considered straight. In any case it's about respecting people for who they are and being tolerant of their differences.

Peace, last words on topic from me

I hope you didn't feel that you were under attack, my posts were only meant as debate.

[kozzi24]

No attack perceived, not signing off on it publicly for having nose twisted, just because it's a tightrope act that can turn bad so fast I'd rather limit it rather than leaving it open for an explosion into things inappropriate for the forum.