# Lets dispell this gay myth



## Trinity (15 Jun 2005)

We actually had a decent conversation until people decided to add opinion
not based on fact or experience.  So, before you post, stop and think if
what you're posting is relevant to the topic or just you feeling the need to add
your 2 cents only to cause trouble.  


So I'm 19 at Carleton University (no joke please), and walking through their tunnel
system and a man approaches me with and asks me for the time.  I reply its 4:20. He
nervously says, sorry?, I reply, its 4:20 looking at my watch.  He takes my watch hand
and sticks a note in it and the swiftly walks away.  The note says.....

For a good blow job, call phone number XXX-xxxx  anytime.

That was my first experience with gays.  

My next experience was worse.  A gay friend of the group (who incidently stuffed his pants)
after i passed him the salt at dinner thought we had 'locked eyes' and it was magic.. (right).
He said when he looked into my eyes he knew i was the one.. yadda yadda.  Needless to say,
he bugged me for weeks to date and offered to sleep with me.  It was annoying to say the least.

So... whats my opinion at age 19 about gays..  not good, thats for sure.

Carleton, 2nd year, age 20.  I'm at a FootPatrol training event.  We were addressed by the leader
of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual centre (GLB).  That was the first time I learned the problems of 
being gay, issues of the community, how and why someone is gay, etc...  I was confused cause
they guy seemed normal and contradicted my understanding of gays

SO...  one day I went to the GLB and spoke with him.  I told him about my experiences (mentioned above).
He told me a piece of advice that sticks in my head today.

There are always idiots in every race, creed, colour, denomination, sexual orientation,... etc....


I was judging the entire community off two events.  How narrow minded and naive of me.  I ended up 
being really good friends with him over the year and not once did I feel uncomfortable or did he
make a pass at me, etc.


I have since served with many gays and lesbians in the army, civiy side of life and university.
Have I been hit on since... YES.  But its a compliment more than its a hindrance.  SURE, its
uncomfortable or it can be depending.  But how hard is it to say, No thanks and move on drinking
your beer.  AND mostly, gay people leave straight people alone... its called GAYDAR.  
(NOT MY WORD OR TERM.... comes straight from my gay friends)
Apparently I register on people's gaydar so i get hit on more than most. 

Some of my best friends are gay.  They don't look at me like a piece of meat simply because I am
a guy.  We don't look at women and want to sleep with everyone of them so why do we assume a
gay person wants to sleep with everyone of the same sex.  Men at the best of time are either fat
or ugly so lets not flatter ourselves by thinking that every gay person wants to sleep with us. 

Gays can and have successfully raised children
Gay marriage has not erroded society - thats what they said about rock and roll - yet we still stand
Gays are not child molesters - thats mostly done by straight men
Gays do not choose to be gay - I know a lot of gays.. trust me... its not a choice


I don't know where to go without starting up the flame war of gay marriage which I'm trying
to avoid.  I think I'll end with a joke.. by Eddie Murphy.

I like gay people.  You can do lots of things with gay people.  I played tennis with a gay person
the other day.  The only difference is at the end I said I was going for a cold beer. He said, OK
I'm off to suck some .XXXX.  

The point of the joke is, the only difference we have from gay people, is their sexual preference.

They are human. They need to be loved. They have feelings and are hurt deeply by this hatred
by others simply because people do not know or understand what being gay is.  

I have received many PM's of personal stories since that last gay marriage thread of people telling
me they were anti gay until a friend or family member came out.  Then... it forces people to learn.
*From education comes informed opinions.  Informed opinions are better than the myths that we have
flying around.* 

The only way we will learn is to discuss, not flame, not insult, not blame, but discuss.
I have shared my experience.  And that is what I present it as. MY EXPERIENCE.
If I never talked about my initial 2 incidences, i would still have the same nasty opinion. Talking is the key.

*Would someone please be kind enough to share your experience.*


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2005)

> Would someone please be kind enough to share your experience


sure. Buddy of mine comes into a bar I used to frequent, after a long absence. Usual back-slapping, etc. Ask him where he's been, he gives the scoop, then he says "...and I got married". 
Long, pregnant pause.
"Uuuhhh, really. But, I thought...I mean...well, xxxx, buddy, I kinda always thought you were gay, dude." 

"I am. This is my husband, Butch."

I takes a look at ol' Butch and fall off my damn stool laughin'. 'Cause 'butch' he *AIN'T*! Made him take his driver's licence out an' everything. 

Okay, so it ain't all that profound. It *was* funny! 
Maybe you hadda be there.

"Butch". Heh. If only his folks coulda known...


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jun 2005)

I am just sick and tired of people fearing to offend everyone in this worsening PC world. Honestly, I don't care who anyone sleeps with, but just don't flaunt it in my face. I don't care what sex you prefer, just as long as you do your job effectively and without hinderance to others, as some types of 'behaviour' can be demoralising to a majority, and reflect the effectiveness at the basic level of command.

Too be honest ther seems too much of things flaunted in our faces these days, and its that I don't like one single bit. Yes I am not very PC at the best or worst of times, I tell it how it is, and I hope one day there will be a 180 degree turn on being PC and it will be in vogue to be honest and upfornt, maybe even direct, rather then approaching things weak and limp wristed (no pun intended) with a spinless attitude, and fearing to offend others.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## canadianblue (16 Jun 2005)

> I am just sick and tired of people fearing to offend everyone in this worsening PC world. Honestly, I don't care who anyone sleeps with, but just don't flaunt it in my face. I don't care what sex you prefer, just as long as you do your job effectively and without hinderance to others, as some types of 'behaviour' can be demoralising to a majority, and reflect the effectiveness at the basic level of command.
> 
> Too be honest ther seems too much of things flaunted in our faces these days, and its that I don't like one single bit. Yes I am not very PC at the best or worst of times, I tell it how it is, and I hope one day there will be a 180 degree turn on being PC and it will be in vogue to be honest and upfornt, maybe even direct, rather then approaching things weak and limp wristed (no pun intended) with a spinless attitude, and fearing to offend others.
> 
> ...



I agree with you, I don't give a shit what people do in their own homes as consenting adults. But for myself I don't want it flaunted towards me all the time. Personally I am against homosexaulity, but I don't hate the people who practice it, and I don't think I should be forced to believe it is an acceptable lifestyle. Should I force other people to agree with my beliefs, no. I recently heard that the Victoria Police Department is openly recruiting homosexauls, whose business is it what any applicant does with their sex life. Plus for me whenever I see the Toronto Gay Pride Parade on TV with half naked men and women walking down the street, some clad in bondage type of attire, I just think why in the hell is this Toronto's biggest parade, and I don't really want to see this. 

Thats my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Jordan411 (16 Jun 2005)

I feel like Trinity read my mind on a couple of the points brought up. Very well written.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Jun 2005)

Maybe someone with some gay friends can answer this;

WHY does so much of the Gay community feel the need to rub the public's face in the gay diaspora? WHY?

The resistance to gays that is encountered can, in many cases be traced to the publicity that gays demand (and recieve)

Why can't being gay be a quiet, personal lifestyle choice? Why do I have to tell my kids that the two gay bikers simulating sodomy on a carnival float on gay pride day are friends - just like mom and dad - kind of...

I enjoy scotch and metalwork, it does'nt mean I parade because of it though.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jun 2005)

I didn't ask any of my gay friends, but the answer is the same as any other group, be it ethnic, religious, or whatever, who have been, in the past subject to discrimination and violence. Makes sense to me. In any case, they've not oversteped their constitutional rights, so why would you have a problem with it any more than you'd have a problem with, say, a Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim religious proccesion? Presumably you are not Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim and they would all look strange and nonsensical to you.

So, to answer your question, 


> I enjoy scotch and metalwork, it does'nt mean I parade because of it though.



But you certainly CAN, if you were so inclined. And everyone should have the right to do so.

To dispell some more myth:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html


----------



## Korus (16 Jun 2005)

I've got a buddy who is gay, and he's not in your face attention and getting about it. In fact, you probably wouldn't discern him from any other nutty non-gay university types.

We've agreed that I won't talk about girls to him, and he won't talk about guys to me due to mutual discomfort.

Appart from that, he's just like all the other guys.

I think Trinity had it best in his post, with what he was told: 


> There are always idiots in every race, creed, colour, denomination, sexual orientation,... etc....


----------



## spenco (16 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> WHY does so much of the Gay community feel the need to rub the publics face in the gay diaspora? WHY?
> 
> I enjoy scotch and metalwork, it doesn't mean I parade because of it though.



I agree with this, it is none of my freakin business what someone else does in private but when people try to shove anything down my throat (be it sexuality, religion, math class, etc...) that is when I get pretty pissed.  I have seen this a lot at my school, if anyone says "gay" in a way that might possibly be construed as bad they are sent to the administrator.  We have also had several gay pride days in the school where guys put on dresses and all that lovely stuff.  One day they even put the gay flag up on the flag pole right underneath our flag.  That was the line for me, that REALLY pissed me off, the flag should never be used to make a political statement in any fashion.  There are also several obviously homosexual teachers at my school but they are descent enough not to talk about it in class or make a big deal of it.  This is the kind of attitude that needs to be more prevalent, nobody gives a flying rats ass what you do in your spare time, so people dont need to take it upon themselves to enlighten the rest of us.


----------



## Sheerin (16 Jun 2005)

I have a feeling this thread is going to downhill, sadly.  

Trinity, like always, you've said what you said extremely well.

I've been hit on many times, and its never bothered me.  Like you trinity, i took it as a compliment - though there were times when I wished that girls would be that forward but c'est la vie.  I've been in many gay bars with some of my friends and have never once felt uncomfortable.   

As for Gay pride, well, I love it.  Its one of the best parties I've ever been to.  And its not just a celebration of gay pride, its a celebration of life.  There are many heterosexual couples who go just because its one giant party.  It's great.  
And really, no one is trying to shove it down your throat, hell the vast majority of people who attend don't really care about you or what you think.


----------



## canadianblue (16 Jun 2005)

> As for Gay pride, well, I love it.   Its one of the best parties I've ever been to.   And its not just a celebration of gay pride, its a celebration of life.



Personally I don't really see how a bunch of naked men, some clad in bondage outfits and simulating anal sex is a celebration of life. In Edmonton the elected mayor didn't want a pride parade and was elected by the people, however was told he would be charged for human rights violations if he didn't. As well in BC a counsellor was fired for arguing against allowing gay pride magazines in schools which proclaimed the joys of S&M because it was contradictory to his beliefs, guess what he got fired, despite the fact he their was no proof he displayed hatred towards GLB youths. At a gay pride parade I remember seeing a parade float which mocked the pope and catholics, shouldn't they be considered hate. I think that if gays and lesbians expect us to be tolerant of their lifestyles, they should be tolerant of other peoples lifestyles as well. 

I remember reading on a seperate thread about how the Globe and Mail's first page was all about the huge gay pride parade in Toronto, then on the second page in the bottom corner a tiny heading and photo about the veterans who were remember the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. My problem is that it seems that all Canada's starting to become is a country that puts gay pride before tradition. I don't think that should be the case.


----------



## Slim (16 Jun 2005)

> My problem is that it seems that all Canada's starting to become is a country that puts gay pride before tradition.



Sadly its been quite some time since this spoiled country of ours has had to take any sort of serious responsability for itself. I hope one day that doesn't jump up and bite us all on the ass...

Slim


----------



## Joe Blow (16 Jun 2005)

With regard to GO's question:


> WHY does so much of the Gay community feel the need to rub the public's face in the gay diaspora?



I think that Britney Spear's answer is a good one:


> the answer is the same as any other group, be it ethnic, religious, or whatever, who have been, in the past subject to discrimination



...I'm guessing that it probably feels good to just 'let it all hang out' after feeling that you have had to 'keep it all in'.  I mean that specifically  ...meaning one's self (inner strugglel, or feeling self/social pressure to be straight), and also generally ...in the sense of 'one's people' (meaning historically). If you are a gay guy who view history predominantly as the interaction of groups of peoples (..not my preferred view of history to emphasize, but a legitimate one nonetheless), and feel that your group has been oppressed, then you would feel some catharsis in the antics of the gay pride parade.

So I suppose I have been inclined to be a little indulgent of overt (really inappropriate) public sexuality that we see in gay culture ..the gay pride parade included.  That said however I think that the culture has realized a level of acceptance, for a long enough period of time now that society should begin to expect the same level of restraint that we see in the braoder culture.

That would mean no simulated sodomy in parades to start with ..but then again how much worse is a Britney Spears video?  It's not in the streets but it is all over the air waves.  ...Maybe the difference is just that we are more comfortable explaining one rather than the other to our children.  ...Then again we have to option of turning off a music video...

Maybe this post is less opinion more just thinking out loud...  Sorry to ramble. I hope I have added to the discussion.

PS: For the record I think that Brittany Spears videos are pretty inappropriate too..


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2005)

Why anyone gives a fuck what goes on between two or more consenting adults is beyond me.


----------



## Sheerin (16 Jun 2005)

> Personally I don't really see how a bunch of naked men, some clad in bondage outfits and simulating anal sex is a celebration of life



Not everyone does that.  The majority at the festival don't.  You do get some who do but really, its not like they go up to and start grinding or whatever.  True there will be some idiots, but there are idiots everywhere.


----------



## DogOfWar (16 Jun 2005)

I dont like it but I dont care. it doesnt make them "nonhuman". I dont like people who speed or drink to much either. I also dont like guys that screw anything that walks. But none of that matters. If my neighbours were gay or my kids were gay it wouldnt change how I deal with them or treat them. I dont approve, but they probably dont approve of my horrible fashion sense.It all equals out. I do find it awkward when Im hit on by a gay man. And for the record my own "gaydar" works very well. I know someone is gay before they admidt it to me- I like the surprise when I say "I know". 

I like the Eddie murohy joke. 

However I dont believe the government should force a church to marry gay couples. They should be allowed to be married- but it should be done by a church/religion/denomination that agrees with it.


----------



## cgyflames01 (16 Jun 2005)

> *The resistance to gays that is encountered can, in many cases be traced to the publicity that gays demand (and recieve)*
> 
> Why can't being gay be a quiet, personal lifestyle choice? Why do I have to tell my kids that the two gay bikers simulating sodomy on a carnival float on gay pride day are friends - just like mom and dad - kind of...
> 
> I enjoy scotch and metalwork, it does'nt mean I parade because of it though.



I agree totally, I have the same problem with African, and Asian Culture's, Some people get so wrap up in what makes us different, that they forget, what makes us the same. The only real race is the Human Race, and it's time people realise it. The other thing that bothers me is, when people say their, African-Canadian, or Irish-Canadian. What ever happend to just being Canadian, no matter what your pigment or great-great-great grand parents ethnicity was.


----------



## Donut (16 Jun 2005)

I've known, over the years, a dozen or more queers.  From UBC to JLC (one of my section came out to me while scrubbing the shower...that was a little odd), childhood friends, from my patients on the ambulance service to people who I work beside, from the cop that comes when I holler for help to the big bruiser bouncing at the nightclub, and they are fundamentally the same as everyone else (my fiancee spent 5 years policing Vancouver's downtown east side.  Half her squad was female, almost all were married or in long-term relationships.  She was the only one who went home to a guy).  

I also know people in poly relationships, who practice S&M and all the other sex-related accronyms, same same, just a little more open to their desires then the average joe, and even more in the closet then just a couple of queer guys.

They raise well adjusted kids, worry about bills, take a couple of weeks off in the summer.  Same same.

I suspect that one of the reasons the pride parades and the gay-rights organizations make such a big deal of public displays of their relationships is, if you've been exposed to 500lbs of leather-dudes mock-humping on a float, maybe you'll accept them when you see two guys share a kiss or hold hands as they walk down the street.

They're not out molesting kids, they're not out to convert you, they don't care who you go home to and sleep with, why should we care what they do at home, or in their clubs?  It's all consenting adults.  It's their lives.



Now, I'm not a fan of pornography, but when three or more people are in love, someone should be taking pictures!   ;D


----------



## fir_na_tine (16 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Maybe someone with some gay friends can answer this;
> 
> WHY does so much of the Gay community feel the need to rub the publics face in the gay diaspora? WHY?
> 
> ...



I asked a few of my close gay friends on this one for you, so don't ding me on this matter, but at anyrate this is what they said to me when I brought it up:

"Everyday when we walk down a street we are subjected to public displays of affection, I have yet to be able to walk down the street holding my girlfriends hand without receiving catcalls from passing vehicles, threats from others walking around us, and I have yet to feel safe being who I am. That's why the pride parade is so important to me, and to others, it allows us to be who we are without having to worry about all of those things, For one day we are the ones giving out the pda's in public. We're proud of who we are but we cannot show it like heterosexuals do, it's not safe in society right now. One day of not having to hide who we are is a blessing... And I'm thankful for that, some people out in the parades give us a bad image sometimes, but you have to understand we're not all like that..."


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jun 2005)

I agree with GO!! here: 





> Why can't being gay be a quiet, personal lifestyle choice? Why do I have to tell my kids that the two gay bikers simulating sodomy on a carnival float on gay pride day are friends - just like mom and dad - kind of...


 and I feel the same when I see hetero people behaving the same way in public. It's inappropriate, and kids don't need to see adults acting like that.

As for what two (or more) consenting, human, adults do out of the public eye, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else: who cares?


----------



## mover1 (16 Jun 2005)

Remeber when "gay" was being happy.
Everyone sing the Flinstones tune with me.....


Flintstones
Meet the Flintstones
They're the modern Stone Age Family
From the town of Bedrock
They're a page right out of history

Let's drove with the family
Down the street
Through the courtesy of Fred's
Two feet
When you're with the Flintstones
Have a
Yabba-dabba-doo time
A dabba-Doo time
We'll have a gay
Old time

Flintstones ...

Someday maybe Fred will
Win the fight
Then the cat
Will stay out
For the night
When you're with the Flintstones
Have a
Yabba-dabba-doo time
A dabba-doo time
We'll have a gay
Old time
We'll have a gay
Old time
Yeah

Flintstones ...


I didn't care if Fred and Barney were gay. I just thought they were good neighbours.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jun 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I agree with GO!! here:  and I feel the same when I see hetero people behaving the same way in public. It's inappropriate, and kids don't need to see adults acting like that.



"The OC" is just as bad as "Queer as Folk" - I was flipping through the channels the other night and Showcase had some fat lady in a leather suit sticking a dildo up a 60 year old man's ass.  There are plenty of things of an erotic nature that could be more discreet in my books.


----------



## canadianblue (16 Jun 2005)

> "The OC" is just as bad as "Queer as Folk" - I was flipping through the channels the other night and Showcase had some fat lady in a leather suit sticking a dildo up a 60 year old man's ***.  There are plenty of things of an erotic nature that could be more discreet in my books.



I'd have to agree with you, I don't much enjoy any of those shows and just think their trash, and I'd say that I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection like making out on a park bench what have you whether hetero or homo.


----------



## Jonny Boy (16 Jun 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> Personally I don't really see how a bunch of naked men, some clad in bondage outfits and simulating anal sex is a celebration of life. In Edmonton the elected mayor didn't want a pride parade and was elected by the people, however was told he would be charged for human rights violations if he didn't. As well in BC a counsellor was fired for arguing against allowing gay pride magazines in schools which proclaimed the joys of S&M because it was contradictory to his beliefs, guess what he got fired, despite the fact he their was no proof he displayed hatred towards GLB youths. At a gay pride parade I remember seeing a parade float which mocked the pope and catholics, shouldn't they be considered hate. I think that if gays and lesbians expect us to be tolerant of their lifestyles, they should be tolerant of other peoples lifestyles as well.
> 
> I remember reading on a seperate thread about how the Globe and Mail's first page was all about the huge gay pride parade in Toronto, then on the second page in the bottom corner a tiny heading and photo about the veterans who were remember the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. My problem is that it seems that all Canada's starting to become is a country that puts gay pride before tradition. I don't think that should be the case.



well said. 

gay people should not be going out and rubbing the fact they are gay in everyones faces. the gay pride parade, is to much, it is stupid and pointless. strait people do not go to a parade every year to celebrate strait pride day. strait people don't go around going " I'm strait and i am proud"  

this is my opinion but i have a strong feeling that if strait people were to have a strait pride parade, it would raise a hole lot of s***. the parade would be "Discriminatory" towards the gay community. it would not fly.

with the float that mocks the pope and catholics. that is complete and utter stupidity. if the catholic church were to create a float mocking gay people, well i am sure you can imagine what would happen.


----------



## dutchie (16 Jun 2005)

"Why do I have to tell my kids that the two gay bikers simulating sodomy on a carnival float..."

I think that these public displays of overtly homosexual behaviour began as a way of forcing an accepting society to address homosexuality as a real presence. People just didn't address it, unless you were gay of course. This kind of thing forced people to at least acknowledge their presence.Now, homosexuality is accepted by most as common, and not a perversion (in the same way that bestiality is for instance). Not all of us see it as 'normal' or 'right', but I think we can all agree that homosexuals are not 'sick' and don't require counselling. 

Now, because homosexuality has achieved this acceptance, there is no more need for these overt and outrageous displays. Just as I don't parade around saying " Look at me! I'm straight with a wife and kid! Accept me!" They are now part of mainstream society. Homosexuals should be glad that they no longer need to do this sort of thing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2005)

should we ban the Santa Claus Parade for fear of upsetting non-Christians, or maybe that huge Caribbean parade they have in T.O. every year.   If you don't want to see it don't bother watching it.   Its one day.   I do agree that the floats should be tasteful mind you and therefore fall under indecency laws.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jun 2005)

> well said.
> 
> gay people should not be going out and rubbing the fact they are gay in everyones faces. the gay pride parade, is to much, it is stupid and pointless. strait people do not go to a parade every year to celebrate strait pride day. strait people don't go around going " I'm strait and i am proud"
> 
> ...



Ok cadets, you're teenagers. You're at an age where you're insecure about sexuality, so you look for easy targets. You can't spell. We get it. Thanks for all the insight and contributions (or as we use to say without any hint of innuendo, thanks for coming out!).  :

My question is: Can I be a sniper if I'm openly gay? Will the course staff give me any funny looks?  Cuz u no I think being gay would really help with colour co-ordinating my ghillie suit, and thatz really important!!111

and I did a search already and couldnt find anything so plz help plz   :threat: :rage: :warstory:

Sorry, I can't even imitate their posting style if I tried. How long before this becomes another army.ca running joke?


----------



## Donut (16 Jun 2005)

Hutch, the Catholics don't need a parade.  The pope sticks his head out of his window every so often, tells the faithfull that all gays are sinners and they'll burn in hell, tells the third world not to use condoms, and then decries the loss of his faithful to attrition, HIV and AIDS.


The sacrament of Communion is to (sic) much.  It is stupid and pointless.  Agnostics don't go to church every week to celebrate the life of a mythical carpenter 2000 years ago, they don't go around saying "I'm not sure, and I'm proud".


Kids these days...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jun 2005)

MODERATOR NOTE

Paramedtech..........way too close to the line, put a leash on it!

...and out of curiousity, do you not think you sound kind of stupid preaching that gays are no different, etc..and then slamming another segment of the population?


----------



## Trinity (16 Jun 2005)

I'm glad to see productive conversation.. thank you

AS for the gay bikers....

PLEASE.. I've seen many gay pride parades  (I LIVE IN TORONTO!!! Don't get any ideas!)


The bikers guys.. that was one float out of 100?

ONE FLOAT...  the rest of the floats were pretty decent and family oriented even.

But which float makes it on every news channel and newspaper....  The naked gay bikers.
And thats what we think of being gay is.  Its not. Its a very very small segment of their
population that get 80% of the media.

And thats what i'm trying to say with my bad experiences early in life. All you need to do is see
the bad side once.. and its hard to realize the rest isn't like that.  Most gay people don't want
to be in your face, but just to be normal like everyone else. 

A float mocking the pope.. well, he denounces them openly daily and with world wide
media coverage.  I can see their point in being upset.  


Just remember try to see the whole picture of gay life, not one aspect.  Our combined stories
can show different parts that others don't see.  Thats how we learn.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> PLEASE.. I've seen many gay pride parades   (I LIVE IN TORONTO!!! Don't get any ideas!)



You aint seen nothing yet, until you have seen Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. It was a shocker for this prairie boy back in 95 let me tell ya! Its held ever autumn (March). Do a search for it. I have been to several with othert couples, as you can make an evening out of it and its truly an eye opener. Dikes on Bikes (100s upon 100s topless <from fat to flat and all between> women on motorcycles at that), the ADF's float, and the Police float, etc. Flesh is openely flashed by both sexes. the circus is really in town!

As much as I do NOT condone such activity or the lifestyle, well over 500,000 people line the streets, the majority of them straight (like me), and the partys are outragous to say the least. Infact insane enough to make most card carrying catholics (I am an RC, so I can say that) cringe and curl their toes to the 10th power. The police make very few arrests.

Sydney has a gay population the size of Regina (the largest gay concentrated population in the world), and entire suburbs are TOTALLY gay, and I mean TOTALLY! However, great cafes and trendy shops (and heaps of fettish/bizarre sex shops too if you are into that), and one feels totally safe in these areas. I really do, like a feeling of being safe, don't laugh. My 80 yr old Aunt out from the Bible Belt of central Saskatchewan (she never misses a Mass and even went to them while in Sydney) was in disbelief and TOTAL shock when she observed two men clad in leather and hotpants, chains sweying, Freddy Mercury clones, were pashing it up with their tongues (serious tonsil hockey, yes SERIOUS  ;D ) on Oxford Street. I'll never forget the look on her face for as long as I live ;D

This exposure to this culture at first disgusted me to no end (in fact beyond belief bringing my redneck Saskatchewan side out), but over time, it has allowed me to have much more tolerance than I ever thought I could muster. Now I just accept it (don't agree with it), and carry on.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Jonny Boy (16 Jun 2005)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Hutch, the Catholics don't need a parade.  The pope sticks his head out of his window every so often, tells the faithfull that all gays are sinners and they'll burn in heck, tells the third world not to use condoms, and then decries the loss of his faithful to attrition, HIV and AIDS.
> 
> 
> The sacrament of Communion is to (sic) much.  It is stupid and pointless.  Agnostics don't go to church every week to celebrate the life of a mythical carpenter 2000 years ago, they don't go around saying "I'm not sure, and I'm proud".
> ...



hey bud, since there has already been a warning for you i will not personally attack you, or what ever you believe in, i have more class than that.

1st point do not insult he pope. he does not stick his head out a window to say gays are sinners and will burn in hell. john Paul 2 was loved and respected by more than just the catholics. DON'T INSULT THE POPE.

2nd he does not tell 3rd world countries to not wear condoms. the catholic church believes that life is a sacride thing. the idea of sex is that you are giving yourself to the one you love, creating new life. in a 3rd world contry i don't think a rapist would put on a condom to rape a kid.

so just grow up



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Attack the idea Britney, not the man. Flaming is what turns things like these into what you like to call 'running jokes'. (I know, I do it too sometimes, we're all guilty of it, but still, when its not called for...).
> 
> Being a cadet does not necessarily make you stupid, neither does being a teenager. I'm 18 and an ex-cadet, does that make me sexually insecure and not capable of forming an opinion?
> 
> "There are idiots in every race etc...." applies to cadets...and by extension the CF as well.



thanks for stepping in there i may of said something that might get me in trouble. but like it was said, piper is 18 and in the reserves, i am 18 and in the cadets. since this topic has nothing to do with the military, why bring the fact that i am a cadet into it?


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jun 2005)

> Sydney has a gay population the size of Regina (the largest gay concentrated population in the world), and entire suburbs are TOTALLY gay. However, great cafes and trendy shops (and heaps of fettish shops too if you are into that), and one feels totally safe in these areas.



Good god, I know where I'm moving to now. The next time I come off a winter ex I'll probably say fuck it and go straight to the airport. Why even bother to unpack?


----------



## Jonny Boy (16 Jun 2005)

oh i know that the catholic church has its flaws. everything does. there are very few catholics that have not used birth control.


----------



## NavComm (16 Jun 2005)

My experiences:
I grew up in a pretty smalll town where no one talked about homosexuality. When I first came to Vancouver I worked at an accounting firm and there was a very 'out' guy there. I was a bit shocked at first but then once I got to know him I really liked him. He was in a long-term relationship and his partner was a great guy too.

Then I started a new job, I was invited to the Christmas lunch to get to know everyone. The other woman I would be working with directly was about 20 yrs older than me and seemed kinda mad at the world. She leaned over during the lunch and said to me: "I hope you know I'm gay. I hope that doesn't bother you" I said "oh, not at all, but I'm not and I hope that doesn't bother you".

Then in 1985 after a good friend was murdered, I attended the annual Take Back the Night March. I went with my sister and we had my daughter in a stroller while we marched along and chanted. That night as we watched the news looking to see ourselves we noticed that I was pushing the stroller and marching right behind a big banner that read: LESBIAN MOTHERS AGAINST VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN oooovey we got a giggle out of that.

Needless to say I've met plenty of gay people in my life and some I've liked and some I haven't. As far as the rights of gays and lesbians to be united officially in a ceremony before their friends and family, I have no problem with that at all. Why shouldn't they get the same benefits as anyone else if they are in a committed relationship? Some employers provide benefits to same sex couples, but it took a long time for that. In the meantime heterosexuals could switch 'spouses' annually and just put their latest girlfriend/boyfriend on their dental plans, etc. That drove costs up becauses the new 'spouse' would get thousands in dental work done, then the relationship fails and the next cavity ridden spouse comes along and sucks a few more thousand out of the plan....but I digress...

That's my $0.02, Trinity thank you for starting this thread.


----------



## Marty (16 Jun 2005)

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> hey bud, since there has already been a warning for you i will not personally attack you, or what ever you believe in, i have more class than that.
> 
> 1st point do not insult he pope. he does not stick his head out a window to say gays are sinners and will burn in heck. john Paul 2 was loved and respected by more than just the catholics. DON'T INSULT THE POPE.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sheerin (16 Jun 2005)

> 1st point do not insult he pope. he does not stick his head out a window to say gays are sinners and will burn in hell. john Paul 2 was loved and respected by more than just the catholics. DON'T INSULT THE POPE.
> 
> 2nd he does not tell 3rd world countries to not wear condoms. the catholic church believes that life is a sacride thing. the idea of sex is that you are giving yourself to the one you love, creating new life. in a 3rd world contry i don't think a rapist would put on a condom to rape a kid.



Well, in John Paul's book _ Memory and Identity _ he refers to homosexuality as ideology of evil.  He's also made many many strong statements against homosexuality over the years, with his first coming in '86 in which he refereed to it as a moral evil and an objective disorder (Cline 2005).  

As for Condom use, just do a google search, you'll find a tonne of websites about it.



Cline, Austin. 2005.  Pope John Paul II and Homosexuality.  http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/homosexuality.htm

edited for spelling


----------



## dutchie (16 Jun 2005)

Let's keep this on topic guys. So far this thread has generated some pretty good discussion. Flaming each other over religious beliefs will get us nowhere. If you want to start a thread on the Catholic Church and how it has impacted the 3rd World, be my guest, but please try and keep it out of this thread.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Jun 2005)

What exactly is the 'gay myth'?  There seems to be a great deal of presumption that being against same-sex marriage is necessarily anti-gay (though to be anti-gay _is _necessarily same-sex marriage, I suppose).

Honestly, I really don't have a horse in this race (for all I care, you can go right on ahead and marry your dog/horse/sheep/blowup doll), but the whole same-sex-marriage-thing will almost certainly have a direct impact on the Catholic Church (and others).  To contend otherwise {e.g., in an earlier thread Trinity said "_No one is going to force churches to marry anyone. ... No one is going to do anything they don't have to do._"} illustrates a misunderstanding of how the legal system works, rather than a weighing of the relative merits of the Rights involved.  The question is not necessarily the "morality" of the Church, but rather to what degree are we willing to allow the authority of the State intrude upon that of the Church?  Despite insinuation to the contrary, it *IS* possible to be against _Same-Sex Marriage_ without being _against _homosexuality.

Of course what do I know, it's not like I'm the Minister of Justice or anything:


> *Ottawa can't ensure religious protection in all same-sex fights: Cotler*
> 
> Sue Bailey
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1ba9d160-4ffd-4408-9660-50bdfe2abcb8


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2005)

I seem to recall that the Church of England took a radical split in the 16th cent in part because the pope refused to annual Henry 8th's marriage (divorce) thus bring about the new churh of England (Anglican).  I think it was because of this heritage in growing with the times that Anglican church's today accept woman priests.  I post this because it shows that at least in some Christian beliefs there is room for growth.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jun 2005)

IANAL*, I don't understand how it could be physically possible to "force churches to perform gay marriages".  The very act and ceremony is symbolic and meant to convey a spiritual/eccleisiastical affirmation of the union, and there isn't any way for the temporal goverment to force the priest to believe it, or believe anything he/she doesn't want to. Can you put a gun to the priests head and make him go through the motions? Sure, but what the heck is the point of that? How does that make the marriage any more acceptable/legitimate in the eyes of the priest? It's not like rainbows and kittens _actually_ fall from the sky when he says the magic words. No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The whole idea of marriage is a human construct, and if any of the people participating don't believe in it then it's just a bunch of people in suits and dresses standing around getting drunk. Iit becomes meaningless. What gay couple would possibly want to go thorugh with this absurdity, even if it DID some how come to pass legally?



*I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jun 2005)

> I seem to recall that the Church of England took a radical split in the 16th cent in part because the pope refused to annual Henry 8th's marriage (divorce) thus bring about the new churh of England (Anglican).  I think it was because of this heritage in growing with the times that Anglican church's today accept woman priests.  I post this because it shows that at least in some Christian beliefs there is room for growth.



IIRC, the Anglican church was a political construct built by Henry VIII partly due to his need for a divorce, and mostly due to England's then antipathy with Catholic Europe (i.e. France and Spain). As such, they are "Protestant" only in the sense that they are not Catholic and not controlled from Rome. THere wasn't an actual doctrinal schism(apart from that divorce thing) like there was with the German and French Protestant movements.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2005)

Its my understanding that were gay weddings are currently legal is that it is up to the church and pastor as to whether they will marry whoever they want.   I believe that is the way the gov't wants to make it permanently.

Next thing you know you'll be telling everyone that Jedi can't get married because it may make them go bad.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jun 2005)

Why are we even talking about the Church - the debate about marriage is, and should, focus only on the relationship of married couples and the state.


----------



## Greywolf (16 Jun 2005)

spenco said:
			
		

> There are also several obviously homosexual teachers at my school but they are descent enough not to talk about it in class or make a big deal of it.   This is the kind of attitude that needs to be more prevalent, nobody gives a flying rats *** what you do in your spare time, so people dont need to take it upon themselves to enlighten the rest of us.



Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".   I don't think they are fine with it.   It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...   What is flaunting exactly?   Holding hands and kissing in public?   Heterosexuals do it all the time.   But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality.   

As to not talking about homosexuality in the classroom, I think that's what leads to bigotry and hatred.   Young people are especially impressionable, and their beliefs and attitudes are influenced by the environment.   A lot of young people have negative opinions towards gays and if there happens to be a homosexual teacher who can tell students what being gay is actually about, I think it's a good thing.   And people who think gay teachers will be out promoting homosexuality...I doubt that's going to happen since being gay is still generally regarded as taboo.   The gay teachers wouldn't want to draw that much attention to themselves or invite violence against them (hey, let's face it, it happens).   

There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.   I wonder why?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2005)

Regardless of what his intent was it has grown into one of the most flexible offshoots of religion out there.

Infanteer we talk about the Church because some wish to state that this is a battle that lost will severly undermine peoples beliefs in their relgion.

I agree with you.   Couples can be married at city hall with a justice of the peace with no religious double speek or trappings.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jun 2005)

> Why are we even talking about the Church - the debate about marriage is, and should, focus only on the relationship of married couples and the state.



Agreed, but many worldwide leaders of religions have addressed their dissaproval of Canada's descision on gay marriage, and this has had a great influence on peoples' opinon of Homosexuality in general.

Therefore talk of the church is very relevent in this discussion.

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jun 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".   I don't think they are fine with it.   It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...   What is flaunting exactly?   Holding hands and kissing in public?   Heterosexuals do it all the time.   But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality...There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.   I wonder why?


well, I for one (uneducated redneck hill-billy that I am, without the benefit of a degree, poor thick bastard) have gone on record as saying that I expect the same sense of decorum in public affection, public nudity, and general carryin's on from BOTH hetero- and homosexuals. That's what my Grade 9 educated hill-billy, redneck daddy and Grade 8 educated half-breed hill-billy Mother taught me. And that seems, to me, to be the gist of the over-all theme.
I dunno, but expecting the same behaviour from everyone sounds a lot like equality to me.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (16 Jun 2005)

Greywolf said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".   I don't think they are fine with it.   It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...   What is flaunting exactly?   Holding hands and kissing in public?   Heterosexuals do it all the time.   But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality.
> There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.   I wonder why?



     When I was a student at Douglas College in the 80's, our student paper was called the Other Press.  In one memorable issue, they used our student levy to produce a special issue that was covered with pictures and descriptions of gay sex (oral, anal, other), both graphicly portrayed and described.  This paper is distributed free in stands in all common areas of the college, including several that are frequented by children.  When several students (myself amongst them) protested this, we were called homophobes and hate-mongers.  If this paper had produced pictures and descriptions of heterosexual intercourse, and placed them where they could be accessed at will by minors (because free porn attracts pre-teen boys like unattended firearms), then the makers could expect to be shut down, and possibly charged.  As this paper was "celebrating the beauty of gay love", somehow that makes it uncivilized to object.  Now I am an educated man, with a BSc in Developmental Genetics (UBC),  I am well studied in history and philosophy, but I admit that I respond like any other father and soldier to people who want to put porn into the hands of children, I bloody well object.  There is a segment of the gay community that seems to think they have the right to do anything they want in public, including activities that would land a heterosexul in jail.  I think the double standard that doubtless exists, may be shared just as much in the minds of the gay's as the straights, and its about time they cleaned up their own house, before troubling us about ours.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> IANAL*, I don't understand how it could be physically possible to "force churches to perform gay marriages".  The very act and ceremony is symbolic and meant to convey a spiritual/eccleisiastical affirmation of the union, and there isn't any way for the temporal goverment to force the priest to believe it, or believe anything he/she doesn't want to. Can you put a gun to the priests head and make him go through the motions? Sure, but what the heck is the point of that? How does that make the marriage any more acceptable/legitimate in the eyes of the priest? It's not like rainbows and kittens _actually_ fall from the sky when he says the magic words. No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer.



Not literally a "gun to the head" but certainly legally obligated (and one would suspect subject to fine or imprisonment): how does s/he square that with the edicts of the Pope/Church/whatever (not to mention with freedom of religion and his/her conscience)?  Do the Catholic Priests wind-up with the choice of Imprionsment or Ex-communication?  What happens when the Supreme Court tells the RC Church of Canada that they no longer can follow the edicts of the Pope and the Federal Government throws up their hands and says: "don't look at us, it's the Supreme Court's decison" (sound familliar?)?  I'm not saying that this is _necessarily_ all going to come to pass, but the possibility of these and other "complications" _have not even been discussed as advocates have been framing it strictly as a 'gay vs. anti-gay' issue_.




> The whole idea of marriage is a human construct, and if any of the people participating don't believe in it then it's just a bunch of people in suits and dresses standing around getting drunk. Iit becomes meaningless. What gay couple would possibly want to go thorugh with this absurdity, even if it DID some how come to pass legally?



Don't kid yourself: you could've said that females in the _Boy_ Scouts would be an absurdity for many of the same reasons, but it happened, didn't it?  Personally, I don't think I'd want to be a part of a religious (or any other) organization with which I had fundamental disagreements regarding morality (then again Grucho(?) Marx said: "I wouldn't want to be a part of any club that would have me," either), but not everyone's like that: people will challenge the Church (or whatever other instutions) simply to stir-up sh*t.  Why do people challenge the Church's authority on anything?  They could leave at any time (i.e., Henry VIII) ... or, nowadays with ever-encroaching powers of the state, they are instead using the power of the state to change the Church to suit _them_.  The "flexibility" of the Protestant Church was mentioned above, but I think the bigger point is that there is a HUGE difference between a Church evolving to suit the needs of it's membership/parishioners and a Church being forced to change because of what some politicians think will get them elected. {Does that last part sound cynical?   }

FWIW, I don't think the state has ANY right to define marriage in any form, or to maintain a tax and legal system that discriminates against people based upon their marital/non-marital status.  Clearly a case of bad laws creating the need for more bad laws.


----------



## Trinity (17 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer.



I'm not?

[me=Trinity]takes off blonde wig and puts down the wooden stakes[/me]

Seriously...  Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

And the supreme court would never rule that the RC's or any church would have to
marry anyone.  The RC church turns down many straight couples.  Many churches
turn down many straight couples for marriage because they do not fall within the
religious values or belief of the church. So how can they force them to marry gay
people when straight people don't match up to the requirments half the time.

The Church will be left out of it UNLESS its wants to do it.

BTW - CHURCH means a group of people gathering together to worship god.
Leadership - are the people in rome, ordained ministers, bishops, deacons etc.

When people throw the word church around.. its really the people, not the leadership.
Just an FYI.

And someone asked WHAT is the myth.. good question.. what is this myth.. and its my thread.

Basically anyone who has any misconceptions or concerns ... to bring them forward.. is what i meant
while others share their stories.

Thanks to all who particpate.


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Seriously...   Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.



Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another _person_, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well. 

What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another _person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.
> 
> What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?
> _


_

This is the most senesible post so far,  excellent Caesar.  I could not have agreed more.

dileas

tess
_


----------



## Thirstyson (17 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another _person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.
> 
> What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?
> _


_

I thought you guys were against changing the definition of marriage? Don't tell my wife that we're not married, it won't go over well._


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Well, if my plan (wow, I have a plan?) was implemented, there would be a grace (no pun intended) period of say 1 year. During that time, you take your Marriage Certificate to a Church (or whatever), and have a priest (or whatever) certify you as Married. On the expiry of the grace period, everyone not converted to 'Marriage' (only if they were not originally married in a Church) will be automatically Unioned, not Married.

I think this is a good compromise. Gay marriages WILL occur, as the United Church (in Canada anyway) has already stated that they condone same-sex marriage. Everyone will have the same rights under the law, as we all will be Unioned. And religious groups can do as they like regarding acceptance of gay marriage without fear of having their hand forced by the government.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> [me=Trinity]takes off blonde wig and ...[/me]


Well, I suppose this is the appropriate forum (hah-hah   )



> Seriously...  Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.
> 
> And the supreme court would never rule that the RC's or any church would have to
> marry anyone.  The RC church turns down many straight couples.  Many churches
> ...


Do you really think that the Supreme Court would rule _against _a same-sex couple claiming that their rights had been violated when Parliament had just determined that Same-Sex Marriages are legal Right under the Charter?  Has any straight couple turned-down by a Church ever challenged it as a Rights violation?  What would happen if they did?  I think that the presumption that the Supreme Court (particularly an unelected and practically unaccountable one) would _never _do anything is dangerous ...



> BTW - CHURCH means a group of people gathering together to worship god.
> Leadership - are the people in rome, ordained ministers, bishops, deacons etc.
> 
> When people throw the word church around.. its really the people, not the leadership.
> Just an FYI.


Absolutely, but why can't that group of people determine for themselves what they want to call a marriage in their minds?




			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another _person_, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.
> 
> What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?



Awesome post, Caesar:  I was hoping somebody would say something like that ...


----------



## Thirstyson (17 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Well, if my plan (wow, I have a plan?) was implemented, there would be a grace (no pun intended) period of say 1 year. During that time, you take your Marriage Certificate to a Church (or whatever), and have a priest (or whatever) certify you as Married. On the expiry of the grace period, everyone not converted to 'Marriage' (only if they were not originally married in a Church) will be automatically Unioned, not Married.
> 
> I think this is a good compromise. Gay marriages WILL occur, as the United Church (in Canada anyway) has already stated that they condone same-sex marriage. Everyone will have the same rights under the law, as we all will be Unioned. And religious groups can do as they like regarding acceptance of gay marriage without fear of having their hand forced by the government.



I'm an atheist and have no wish to enter a church to keep my marriage license valid. How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

I agree that your proposal would not stop gay marriage (good! let them be wed by any willing priest), but I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.


The government legislation is for _recognizing_ same sex marriages, not forcing them to be performed by unwilling churches.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Jun 2005)

Out of curiosity since you are an atheist do your consider your marriage a religious experience or a something to ensure you and your spouse are legally entitled to all the benefits a married couple are entitled too?


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.



Well, what DO you have?

1- You are unioned legally, life partners, 'soul mates' if you want. You're bound to this person based on your love for her, and your commitment to remain faithful for the rest of your life, etc. ( You took the vows, you know what I'm driving at).

2-All of the above PLUS: you are joined together not solely by legal means, but PRIMARILY by spiritual means. You are joined by God, 'made one flesh' as it were. Your union is bound by God himself - it is God (through the Priest) that bound you to your wife, not a legal document. You believe that since God has joined you, no mortal man can destroy your marriage ('what God has brought together, let no man put asunder'). 

If you belong to 'Camp #1', you are Unioned. If you are Camp #2, you are Married.

So to answer this: 





			
				Thirstyson said:
			
		

> I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.


 You have lost nothing. What's in a name if you view marriage as a 'Love Contract'? I view it as a covenant between me, God, and my wife. 



			
				Thirstyson said:
			
		

> The government legislation is for _recognizing_ same sex marriages, not forcing them to be performed by unwilling churches.


Bill C-48 proposes to REDEFINE marriage to read 'two persons' rather than the current 'one man and one woman'. I'm not sure where you got the idea it had something to do with 'recognizing'. Further, if this passes, if you think that religious groups will be able to exclude homosexuals from marrying without repercussions, you're fooling yourself, but not me.


----------



## Sheerin (17 Jun 2005)

Well there are provisions in the bill which allow religious institutions to not perform the marriage if they feel its against their religion.

As for your two-tiered system, well, thats exactly what it is, a two tiered system.  Why not just abolish the word marriage once and for all and make everything a civil union?


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (17 Jun 2005)

As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.

As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game.


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Well there are provisions in the bill which allow religious institutions to not perform the marriage if they feel its against their religion.



That is a matter of much debate. I find it funny that the Justice Minister refuses to confirm that the Bill will allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals. The provision of which you speak of is perhaps the most vague part in the whole Bill. Even if the Government's intent was to allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals, it does not stop someone from launching ANOTHER Charter challenge to it. How could a SECULAR Court stop a Church from excluding Homosexuals from marriage when the definition of marriage includes Homosexuals? The short answer, I believe, is they cannot. One Charter challenge is all it wil take.



			
				Pte. Gaisford said:
			
		

> As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game.



Boy, that was intelligent. Why don't you go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children?


----------



## Sheerin (17 Jun 2005)

> That is a matter of much debate. I find it funny that the Justice Minister refuses to confirm that the Bill will allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals. The provision of which you speak of is perhaps the most vague part in the whole Bill. Even if the Government's intent was to allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals, it does not stop someone from launching ANOTHER Charter challenge to it. How could a SECULAR Court stop a Church from excluding Homosexuals from marriage when the definition of marriage includes Homosexuals? The short answer, I believe, is they cannot. One Charter challenge is all it wil take.



Section 33 of the Charter.   
But I would also hope that the Human Rights Commisions would be able to balance the two freedoms effectivley. 

 And as Trinity has already mentioned, churches already turn away a large number pf people for whatever reason.  No one has filled a HR complaint against that yet.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Boy, that was intelligent. Why don't you go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children?



+1 on that one.

If you have nothing to contribute, don't be an idiot and put stupid and inane posts up.

Now, as for Caesar's idea, I'm not really liking it.  My aunt and uncle never got married in a church, but they've been married for 26 years.  I'm not going to tell them that, since they avoided a religious ceremony, they are "unionized" rather than married and that they are not husband and wife.

Marriage is defined in the dictionary as "legal union".  The State has the authority to issue and recognize marriage licenses to those who wish to become (I like the term) a "household".  What the Church does is up to them, and they can call it whatever they want, but the state should offer the "household" to whomever can accept the responsibility of it.


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Now, as for Caesar's idea, I'm not really liking it.   My aunt and uncle never got married in a church, but they've been married for 26 years.   I'm not going to tell them that, since they avoided a religious ceremony, they are "unionized" rather than married and that they are not husband and wife.



Neither would I. That is why you could visit a church to have your marriage 'certified' if your original wedding was done by a JP. Were talking about a formality here, not a new ceremony. To avoid sticky hassles like this, we could also 'Grandfather' in existing marriages (pun intended).



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> What the Church does is up to them, and they can call it whatever they want, but the state should offer the "household" to whomever can accept the responsibility of it.



A State cerified 'houshold' is a Union, and Church certified 'household' is both a Union and a Marriage.


----------



## Sheerin (17 Jun 2005)

> Neither would I. That is why you could visit a church to have your marriage 'certified' if your original wedding was done by a JP. Were talking about a formality here, not a new ceremony. To avoid sticky hassles like this, we could also 'Grandfather' in existing marriages (pun intended).



So why can't I get married?  I'm agnostic and no a big fan of organized religion.  Why must me union be just a union rather than a marriage?  I know its all a name, but my point is you're creating a divide when there really shouldn't be one; you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions.


----------



## dutchie (17 Jun 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> So why can't I get married?   I'm agnostic...



You just answered your own question.



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions.



No. I'm redefining (he-he) marriage to it's original and less confusing meaning. Marriage is religous, like it or not. A State certified marriage is a hanger-on from the days where there was no seperation between Church and State. I am proposing we continue to seperate Church and State by removing marriage from the State's domain, where it doesn't belong. This should have been done hundreds of years ago. Do you hear of State certified Baptisms? Of course not, but marriage is no less a religous 'rite' than baptism.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jun 2005)

Quote,
_So why can't I get married?   I'm agnostic and no a big fan of organized religion.   Why must me union be just a union rather than a marriage?   I know its all a name, but my point is you're creating a divide when there really shouldn't be one; you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions_.

Isn't that what it is now if you do it in front of a JP, we just let people call it marriage.....listen, if you think calling it something else will hurt your " together years" [ maybe we should call it that] you   probably should reconsider.
We are discussing a way to separate it from the church, which you have already nixed[ or you would just be a hypocrite], so it should be easy for you.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jun 2005)

You are going to have to go far to prove that marriage was invented by the [insert your faith here].   I don't feel I have to justify my marriage in the future to a sanctioned religious figure.   Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jun 2005)

Haven't we done this in about 30 other pages in another thread.
We turned another thread into he/she said, he/he said, she,/she said, etc......


----------



## Sheerin (17 Jun 2005)

Or we could, you know, just scarp the word marriage all together and call everything a union. 

I understand what your saying, but I don't agree with it for reasons I've previously stated.  I really don't like the idea of creating a two-tired marriage system; in my mind it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from institutionalized religious apartheid  



> Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".



Actually the idea of a nuclear family (ie: husband/wife etc) is not the norm, really.  The majority of cultures out there practice some other form marriage be it polygamy, polyandry, etc.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jun 2005)

I guess your right Bruce - I just want someone to give a perfectly good reason why it is necessary for the Church to put the stamp on someone so they can be married.   I'm not talking about gays or anything, just the concept of marriage in general.


----------



## Polish Possy (17 Jun 2005)

I don't care what your sexuaility is and I am not bothered by people that choose different lifestyles, they aren't affecting me in any way,  I think if a person loves some one enough to make a commitment to get married or have a child thats great I don't care if it is a man and a women or a man and a man or a women and a women

Everyone deserves the respect and right to be who they are and what the stand for ......except for Polish people ....they deserve nothing..... :

Edited*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jun 2005)

Polish,
 Inane sweeping comments like yours are what drives someone like myself insane, think about what you just spouted off . Here I'll quote you _" I think that every one should just be given the same rights as every one else and if you have nothing better to do then complain and stamp your feet about what is going on around you maybe you should take your hands of your ears and come into the 21st century."_
 Now I just got back from driving my 12 year old to karate class, but wait why should I have to do that, she should have the same rights as me to drive,...this is the 21st century isn't it?

As Steve Martin said " Heres an idea, when you speak, have a point, it makes it so much easier for the listener"


----------



## Tpr.Orange (17 Jun 2005)

the americans say it best...


"DONT ASK DONT TELL"


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (17 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?


     Not bad.  What vows are sworn between people (marriage), before such gods as they honour, are for them alone.  Matters of honour have little to do with courts, honour and lawyers are seldom found in close association.  The property rights, pension and benefits eligibility, etc are best left to the courts (union).


----------



## Trinity (17 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I guess your right Bruce - I just want someone to give a perfectly good reason why it is necessary for the Church to put the stamp on someone so they can be married.   I'm not talking about gays or anything, just the concept of marriage in general.



Why?  Would you marry two people under God, if you felt they couldn't handle the commitment and
contract they are submitting to under God?  The minister is kinda spiritually on the hook on that one.  I wont
marry two people if I think they have problems. Let me tell you, the people who approach ministers to get
married have so many weird problems that they need to fix before getting married it isn't funny. (well it is)


from Caesar





> No. I'm redefining (he-he) marriage to it's original and less confusing meaning. Marriage is religous, like it or not. A State certified marriage is a hanger-on from the days where there was no seperation between Church and State. I am proposing we continue to seperate Church and State by removing marriage from the State's domain, where it doesn't belong. This should have been done hundreds of years ago. Do you hear of State certified Baptisms? Of course not, but marriage is no less a religous 'rite' than baptism.



Acutally, I just finished a sacramental theology class.  Marriage only became a real sacrament of the church around the 1600's.  Marriage
up until then did not involve a minister performing the ceremony, but would sit in the crowd if one was in attendance.  It was a civil union between two people. You could ask the minister to bless the marriage.. but thats about all the role he took.

We already re-defined what marriage is by including it into a religious sacrament.  I don't disagree with it as I quite enjoy the sacrament
of marriage.  However, marriage was a contract between two people.  Granted, it was a man and a woman, but it was still two people.




> You are going to have to go far to prove that marriage was invented by the [insert your faith here].  I don't feel I have to justify my marriage in the future to a sanctioned religious figure.  Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".



I think I answered your question here.  It wasn't invented by faith per say.  It is now claimed by faith groups, but most faith
groups do not know the history of their own denomination which leads to mis-informed opinions.

Hope this helps clarify some points and helps steer the conversation a little neater.

Please guys..  you've been good.... but no knucklehead comments... this has been very enlightening
for some people.  

but if they wished to have their marriage blessed, then the minister


----------



## atticus (17 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Acutally, I just finished a sacramental theology class.  Marriage only became a real sacrament of the church around the 1600's.  Marriage
> up until then did not involve a minister performing the ceremony, but would sit in the crowd if one was in attendance.  It was a civil union between two people. You could ask the minister to bless the marriage.. but thats about all the role he took.



Wouldn't that depend on the culture and religion?

I went a googled the history of mariage and I found this which provided some insite:

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

It seems that I gather from this that marriage being a sacrament and a contract is traced back to Paul who was around about 1550 years before the 1600's.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jun 2005)

I just got divorced from a hetero marriage, and got royally hosed.  Why shouldn't my gay brethren and sistren get an equal oportunity to get screwed?  Just think, the divorce lawyers income potential just doubled! 

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Trinity (18 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that depend on the culture and religion?



um

the religion is Christianity...  culture.. doesn't matter... cause its all part of the same history.  

Do you mean Denomination (as opposed to religion) which doesn't matter cause its still Christian

You could mean religion as in other religions.. but.. I'm was talking about Christianity cause thats what
I studied.  I have no idea of who else has claimed marriage at what time/date in history.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> um
> 
> the religion is Christianity...   culture.. doesn't matter... cause its all part of the same history.
> 
> ...



      I am a practicing Asatru, or Norse pagan, and we had marriage long before we bumped into the Celts and Romans and entered recorded history.  Come to think of it, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Summerians, Babalonians, Chinese all seem to have had legal marriage long before the Jews stumbled out of the desert with the seeds for later Christianity.  Marriage predates Christianity, and should remain independant of it.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2005)

Yeah, your right - I remember studying the legal system surrounding Roman marriage in university.  Interesting topic - sure, there was ceremony and ritual, but Rome's religion was a State one and marriages in Rome (IIRC) were largely legal affairs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jun 2005)

> As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.



That is so idiotic.I bet you get the crap kicked out of you a lot with an attitude like that, if not you should. Word of warning...if you do that against another service member I would be expecting a harassment complaint filed tout suite which could affect you career. Grow a brain.



> As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game.


 :


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (20 Jun 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> So walking up to someone and calling them a 'fag' is perfectly acceptable?
> 
> And by extension of that, calling someone 'the n-word', 'kike', or 'chink' is perfectly acceptable in your book too, because its something thats different about them from you, and thats 'fair game' too I assume? Hey, its differnent, lets make rude and 'funny' comments about it.
> 
> ...



I didn't say it was there, did I? None of what you are talking about is remotly funny or even related to the spirit of the coment I was making. There is a line between teasing and mean-spirited harrasment. But hey, let's crucify me because jumping to conclusions is easy.

To address the rest of the coments I have been rcieveing along these same lines, there was a very real point about the hardon everyone seams to have for political corectness these days. As far as limits go, SHARP works fine, and I am perfectly happy to abide by it. There is, however, a huge difference between randomly harrasing anyone, and teasing people you know.  I was reffering to the latter.


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jun 2005)

> I didn't say it was there, did I. None of what you are talking about is remotly funny or even related to the spirit of the coment I was making. There is a line between teasing and mean-spirited harrasment. But hey, let's crucify me because jumping to conclusions is easy.



[qote] As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.

As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game. 
What conclusions did you expect us to draw?  and from what you say it sounds like its acceptable to go up to anyone and make fun of them.  Do honestly except people to take you seriously after saying something like that?  God, grow up.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (20 Jun 2005)

It was worded badley and probably not the best way to make the point I was intending to make, and that's my problem. Feel free to make it yours too though. I was wrong, there I said it.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2005)

It's not that people are "PC", it is that the internet is a hideous forum for making your point - when it is simply written dialogue by someone who is not known by others on a Bulletin Board, you have to tread a little lightly because the chance of someone else misunderstanding you is high (which is the case).


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (20 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's not that people are "PC", it is that the internet is a hideous forum for making your point - when it is simply written dialogue by someone who is not known by others on a Bulletin Board, you have to tread a little lightly because the chance of someone else misunderstanding you is high (which is the case).



I agree, and I probably should apologise for the s***-storm this created. Initially my reaction to the hostility I was drawing on that comment was to be equally hostile, but then upon re-reading it, I became aware that it was not the most well-considered comment. Anyhow, I hope this clears things up. I don't harass people. I don't have a problem with people's differences, but I do have a problem with having third parties tell me I can't poke fun at my friends and cohorts in crime because the subject is not politically correct. As far as I am concerned If I am OK with it, and so is the other guy/gal, then there is no problem.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Acutally, I just finished a sacramental theology class.  Marriage only became a real sacrament of the church around the 1600's.  Marriage
> up until then did not involve a minister performing the ceremony, but would sit in the crowd if one was in attendance.  It was a civil union between two people. You could ask the minister to bless the marriage.. but thats about all the role he took.
> 
> We already re-defined what marriage is by including it into a religious sacrament.  I don't disagree with it as I quite enjoy the sacrament
> ...





			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I am a practicing Asatru, or Norse pagan, and we had marriage long before we bumped into the Celts and Romans and entered recorded history.  Come to think of it, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Summerians, Babalonians, Chinese all seem to have had legal marriage long before the Jews stumbled out of the desert with the seeds for later Christianity.  Marriage predates Christianity, and should remain independant of it.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yeah, your right - I remember studying the legal system surrounding Roman marriage in university.  Interesting topic - sure, there was ceremony and ritual, but Rome's religion was a State one and marriages in Rome (IIRC) were largely legal affairs.



And yet the claim is made that the Supreme Court would rule that a Church/Minister refusing to perform a same sex marriage was somehow _not _a case of blatant (illegal) discrimination ... how does that logic work?


----------



## c4th (20 Jun 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> ..... a Church/Minister refusing to perform a same sex marriage was somehow _not _a case of blatant (illegal) discrimination ... how does that logic work?



The Canadian legal system cannot force a minister to perform any marriage.  Because there is a right to marriage, it does not follow that every official legally able to perform a marriage service is legally obligated to.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> The Canadian legal system cannot force a minister to perform any marriage.  Because there is a right to marriage, it does not follow that every official legally able to perform a marriage service is legally obligated to.



I'd be tempted to believe you if the Justice Minister wasn't directly contradicting you (quoted on page 3 of this thread) ...


----------



## Trinity (20 Jun 2005)

> Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.
> 
> But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded Wednesday.




This is from your article

Churches WONT be forced to perform gay marriages

Provincial Marriage councilors might.. hell, they should since its not on religious grounds, but civil.

I would like to see someone come after the church in a civilian court for discrimination.
I say again,* the church turns away STRAIGHT couples for not meeting the the values of
the church.  So, gay or straight, if you fail to meet the values of the church, you aren't getting married.*

So its NOT DISCRIMINATION...

PLUS... you CANT force me to marry you if I DONT THINK you aren't ready to get married.  It would
be irresponsible on my part to do so.

So.. yeah.. you have a point..  we could be sued.. so ... bring it on.. We're going to win that argument


----------



## Trinity (20 Jun 2005)

btw... lets examine what the supreme court would do if they tried to force same sex marriage on churches

Marriage in a church = blessings of God onto a marriage

Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.

Essentially, the court would be telling God that he/she (yes.. god as male/female) must do bless.

Last time I checked, no court in the land had authority over god.


Sorry.. thought of that one right now...  it makes for a very interesting point if someone thinks that
the courts could actually impose gay marriages on churches.  I know the government thinks its all powerful
but I think it would be stepping out of its league on this one.  

(yes, I recognized you conceded the point on being forced to marry... just had an afterthought)


----------



## dutchie (20 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Marriage in a church = blessings of God onto a marriage
> 
> Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll suspend my common sense for a moment. To push this scenario to the next logical step....

The Supreme Court may not be able to force a Church to marry someone, fine. But could the Government (Provincial or Federal) not take away the authority to marry from the Churches that 'discriminate' based on sexual orientation? 

'I can't force your God to abide by The Rules, so I will not allow him/her to break The Rules.'


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Jun 2005)

Look at the two statements: 

1. {*PAUL MARTIN BOLD HEADLINE*}the federal government _won't_ pass a law that says that Churches won't be compelled to perform same-sex marriages; however,
2. {ssshhh! we don't want to talk about this part} if the _Supreme Court decides_ that Churches are compelled to perform same-sex marriages, the federal government is powerless (as in not even Notwithstanding) to protect the Churches.

The Churches are essentially being told to cross their fingers and trust that the Supreme Court won't decide that same-sex marriage is included in the new definition of marriage, should someone decide to sue them over it.

According to the Justice Minister, these are the consequences of the proposed legislation.  I'm not claiming that they are good or bad or the relative value of one good over another.  I just think we are confusing what we want and the way things 'should' be with how our political & legal system works.

Just saw your next post ...


			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.
> 
> Essentially, the court would be telling God that he/she (yes.. god as male/female) must do bless.


Yes.



> Last time I checked, no court in the land had authority over god.


This is a theological argument, not a _legal _one.  Even so (for the sake of argument), why wouldn't the Supreme Court rule that the inherent (God-given) Rights of the individual (i.e., to have their marriage blessed by the Church, a practise accepted as 'normal' part of getting married) outweigh the traditions of the Church? 



> I know the government thinks its all powerful but I think it would be stepping out of its league on this one.


They would be, but then that's the crux of the argument.


----------



## dutchie (20 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Provincial Marriage councilors might.. heck, they should since its not on religious grounds, but civil.



I think you might see some legal challenges to any Government that forces it's JP's to marry same-sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs. How that would pan out, I don't know, I can see it going either way.


----------



## DogOfWar (20 Jun 2005)

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 
a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
d) freedom of association.

I can get together with my buddy the minister and all my friends and marry the lamp and the couch. I dont care what the "legal" definition of marriage is. I dont care what the mooks in Ottawa think about my married appliances. If my "god" is cool with them being married and I believe he has blessed the union I dont care what Paul Martin says. 

Freedom of Conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. THe supreme court cant argue with a religion who does not endorse homosexual marriage. They are entitled to think that way. Gays can find a church that doesnt disagree or can have a civil ceremony. I cant go get married by a catholic priest- because Im not catholic. It doesnt matter if its to a man or women. The supreme court answers to the people and the Charter. Not the other way around.

But as far as the government recognizing gay marriage for benefits and taxes- yes. I dont care if I believe the lifestyle is wrong. These people tie there finances together and are dependant on each other.


----------



## childs56 (20 Jun 2005)

What i am seeing is what is called reverse discrimination by those who feel it is their right to enforce their beliefs on others. to marry means to   unite man and women in a church under the eyes of God this is the definition, and has been for many years. If a person's beliefs are such then they are entitled to that right. Now if two members whom are male and male   or female and female want to unite themselves then by all means they have that right. But should it be called marriage? Many millions of people through out time have held sacred their beliefs of their religion and the sacred ceremony of marriage between husband and wife. Now for us to infringe upon those peoples lives is as bad if not worse then the discrimination towards Gays and lesbians that is perceived. It is wrong to force a person against their beliefs of what they define as marriage to appease another person. This is what discrimination is. We have gone so far to one side that we have forgotten about the rights and privileges of those whom we deam as the ones that are discriminating.   Is this right. Then as one person mentioned above, how about the government removing the right of a priest or such to marry people if they do not treat gays and straights the same. Why would you do this. Once again you are now forcing another person into a point of discriminating against them. Should the term marriage be used, not sure, does it infringe upon another's rights if you do, not sure of that one. Should we use the term united, or some other term? My opinion. i am neither for or against this. I do feel thought that trying to force a way of living upon a person that goes against their beliefs is wrong and this is what we are trying to fight for.


----------



## larry Strong (20 Jun 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> should we ban the Santa Claus Parade for fear of upsetting non-Christians, or maybe that huge Caribbean parade they have in T.O. every year.   If you don't want to see it don't bother watching it.   Its one day.   I do agree that the floats should be tasteful mind you and therefore fall under indecency laws.



Jezzus where do you live....it's already been happening for years now. "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" on cards. Many big stores don't even mention Christmas, Schools hold Christmas events without mentioning the religious side of it.

As for the religious provission, it will only last to the first court challenge. If you don't believe me look at the history, religious schools taken to court, Halls and camp grounds taken to court on a regular basis, How many of those court challenges were in favor of the Groups....JP's in I believe Manitoba and Sask have already been fired or forced to resign because of their religious beliefs.

Also could anyone te4ll me exactly what right's Gays are loosing by not being able to use the term "Marriage"

And as for pride parades, what do you think the reaction would be if I went to City Hall and asked for a permit to hold a White Pride or a Staight Family Parade.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> What i am seeing is what is called reverse discrimination by those who feel it is their right to enforce their beliefs on others.



Why, is somebody forcing you to get married to another guy or something?


----------



## larry Strong (20 Jun 2005)

Close to my heart....not really. If the Lord dosen't like what I said He will sort me out all in due time. I dont have a problem with what they call it, I asked what right's were denied to gays if we don't call it marriage. RTFQ!!!


----------



## childs56 (20 Jun 2005)

Infanter, no one is forceing me to get married or other. But the fundemental of the term marraige is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beleifs. That is discrimination to wards those people.  I personally dont care. I am tired of wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars through my taxes to keep these topics alive and open for debate. Really we have gone no further other then to tell peopel whom do not beleive in the term gay marraige that they are wrong and they had better toll the line or be labeled as a sexist, rascist  or other. We in our our own way are discriminating agaisnt those people.


----------



## childs56 (20 Jun 2005)

sorry about the spelling i hit the post button before the spell check


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (20 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> This is from your article
> 
> Churches WONT be forced to perform gay marriages
> 
> ...


         Churches (Christian or other) cannot, and should not be compelled to marry anyone.   Civil authorities, on the other hand, are bound by provincial laws to grant marriages to anyone who qualifies under the laws of their province.   For civil authorities to deny marriage to those (gay/straight) who are legally entitled to wed under the laws of their province and nation would be discrimination.   Churches can exercize freedom of association, and not obligated to serve those anyone they do not choose to.


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jun 2005)

> ...but the fundamental (sic) of the term marriage (sic) is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beliefs (sic). That is discrimination to wards (sic) those people.



Have you read the language in the bill?  Section 3 of bill C-38 specifically say: 





> It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.


 and section 3.1 states: 





> 3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.



http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4381&List=toc-1


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> I asked what right's were denied to gays if we don't call it marriage. RTFQ!!!



What right are you being denied if we do?

I would venture that the answer would be yes if the Canadian state recognizes gay couples as they do straight couples.   In this thread we've shown "marriage", as a social construct, to be slippery in terms of prerequisites (love, nope - children, nope) as well as being far from traditionally Christian (ie: Roman marriage laws prior to the rise of Christianity, polygamist traditions).   If the Canadian Charter enshrines the rights of gays and recognizes them as legitimate "households" (or whatever you want to call it) than there is no reason for us to not apply our laws recognizing monogamous relationships to them - especially when nobody can give me a really compelling reason why marriage should legally remain the domain of "man and woman".

Did Black's really lose out in the South when they were given "equal but different status" under segregation laws?   They had to sit at the back of the bus, but hey, they got to ride the bus, didn't they? 



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> But the fundemental of the term marraige is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beleifs.



If you would have bothered to read the thread, you'd notice that nobody has advocated forcing a Church to marry gays - for the umpteenth time we are referring to marriages as a state-recognized, legal concept.   Read mainerjohnthomas's post - it represents the view of most on this thread.

Thanks for the link Sheerin - helps to dispel alot of fear-mongering.


----------



## larry Strong (20 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What right are you being denied if we do?



Did I say I was going to be denied some rights???? Everyone up to and including mr dithers says that its a "Rights" thing. So instead of trying to turn the question onto me tell me,   What rights do gay people lose if they don't get to use the word "Marriage"


----------



## Sheerin (20 Jun 2005)

Well it would create a two-tiered marriage system, and thus violate their right to be treated equally.  

How does it violate your rights if two guys get married?


----------



## Trinity (21 Jun 2005)

For the record

If i had a same sex couple ask me to marry them...
under the blessings of god
and i felt they were compatable for eachother with no major issues
and they met the values of the church

then.. Game on...

I don't think I'll see it much.. and my church doesn't allow 
for it anyways right now.  So I'm not really worried about it.


What do gays lose if we don't call a marriage a marriage..
A word..  thats it...

Can we call it a WEDDING?!  instead of marriage...
*
Wedding for church..  civil union for legal way*
*
BOTH are considered forms of MARRIAGE*

HEY.........  I think i'm onto something


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2005)

I like that, Trinity.


----------



## atticus (21 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What right are you being denied if we do?



I don't think people are afraid of loosing their rights if you do so much as being afraid of what could happen; what this could open the doors to.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2005)

What exactly could it open the doors to?  As I discussed elsewhere, it is fairly clear that marriage needs to be consensual - thus eliminating animals, children and innanimate objects (although arranged marriages border on this idea with social pressure - but ultimately the paired couple sign the documents).  Incestuous marriage?  Well, that notion was never really included in the definition of "man and woman" anyways, so it is another debate altogether.

The only debatable issue is polygamy, however if we are defining marriage as a monogamous relationship forming a co-dependent household, I think the case can be made for drawing a firm line at "two people".  I am not to sure the State is legally obligated to recognize the harem (maintaining consistency with the line of argument, religion X is free to do what it wants, as long as it doesn't violate the Criminal Code).


----------



## jmacleod (21 Jun 2005)

Support for the homosexual community in the Liberal Party of Canada has nothing to do with
human rights, lifestyles, same-sex marriage or anything of consequence except, that the Party
knows the gay community votes as a bloc - which fits neatly into the Liberal's strategy of providing
goverance to Canada on a permanent, for life basis, forever. They will easily win another Federal
election, which is now focused on early 2006. MacLeod


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2005)

Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Liberal Party, I'm not going to be that cynical - it is a big party, and I am sure there are many in it who ground their politics in the Charter of Trudeau.


----------



## dutchie (21 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Support for the homosexual community in the Liberal Party of Canada has nothing to do with
> human rights, lifestyles, same-sex marriage or anything of consequence except, that the Party
> knows the gay community votes as a bloc - which fits neatly into the Liberal's strategy of providing
> goverance to Canada on a permanent, for life basis, forever. They will easily win another Federal
> election, which is now focused on early 2006. MacLeod



Like Infanteer, I am no fan of the Federal Liberals, however, I think you might be a little off here. The majority of Canadians don't support same-sex marriage, and most people feel fairly strongly about it on both sides (IMHO). So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda. 

Why they are doing this, well, I don't know.


----------



## c4th (21 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda.
> 
> Why they are doing this, well, I don't know.



Remindes me of a quote:

The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. - Larry Flynt


----------



## Sheerin (21 Jun 2005)

> Like Infanteer, I am no fan of the Federal Liberals, however, I think you might be a little off here. The majority of Canadians don't support same-sex marriage, and most people feel fairly strongly about it on both sides (IMHO). So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda.



what are you basing that on?  All the polls I've seen have shown that both camps had roughly equal support and the differences were generally aways within the margin of error.  These polls have also shown that younger Canadians are almost overwhelmingly in favour of it while older (ie: those of retirement age) are against it..  

And why are they doing it?  I would like to say because they feel that current policies are discriminatory.  However I suspect it has more to do with the fact that younger Canadians support it, and are thus more likely to vote liberal.  

But all this talk about polls reminds me of a Benjamin Disraeli quote - There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics 



> I don't think people are afraid of loosing their rights if you do so much as being afraid of what could happen; what this could open the doors to.



I've never understood this argument by opponents of same sex marriage.  I know they always say that the next 'logical' step is for the government to legalize polygamy.  Personally, I have nothing against it, assuming of course everyone consents to it.  You also have to remember, that our western notion of marriage, that is marriage  between two people to the exclusion of everyone else is not what is practiced by most cultures throughout the world.


----------



## neuromancer (21 Jun 2005)

I know this was discussed early on in the thread.

Q: Why do gays flaunt it so much when doing parades (i.e. bondage, chaps, other stuff)

A: Because its their right to do so.

Well.. I would like to just take a little exception to that, what does parading around the street half naked with your
ass hanging out of a pair of chaps have to do with same-sex relations??? I've never understood that.

Someone mentioned that if you love scotch you could go have a parade about it because thats your right, well if your parade
involved midgets in chaps I would have to question how much this parade is really about scotch and how much of it
is just trying to bring attention to yourself by shocking people by presenting material that has little or nothing
to do with the actual theme of the event. I think that in itself is wrong.

All Im saying is that there should be some censor board for parades and other marketing, for example what do breasts have 
to do with beer? But what do we see in 99% of beer comercials, breasts.

I dont agree with those types of advertising. 

Freedom of speech is one thing, but when it becomes a matter of false advertising I think we need to draw a line.
Thats all Im going to say.


----------



## dutchie (21 Jun 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I've never understood this argument by opponents of same sex marriage.   I know they always say that the next 'logical' step is for the government to legalize polygamy.   Personally, I have nothing against it, assuming of course everyone consents to it.   You also have to remember, that our western notion of marriage, that is marriage   between two people to the exclusion of everyone else is not what is practiced by most cultures throughout the world.



Most cultures? Really? Well, we live in the Western World, so really in order to compare, you should compare us to other Western nations. Name one Western society (not cult) that supports polygamy? I realize some African and Middle Eastern cultures do have polygamy, but they also have other 'customs' that we would find very abhorrent. Stoning of a woman for alleged adultery, the raping of children to 'cure AIDS', the list goes on. Shall we base our laws/beliefs on what is 'normal' in cultures we share little in common with?

Further, most polygamist 'marriages' in North America are of the Fundamentalist Mormon variety (ie, Bountiful BC, Utah, etc.). It is debatable whether this is consentual or not. There is immense pressure on the young women (or children) in these communes to marry much older men who already have 1 or more wives. IIRC, they beleive that men may enter heaven only if they have 7 wives. Again, if you feel that this C-48 will lead to legalized polygamy, then you should be informed on what it actually is. Whether it actually will lead to it is a whole other matter, and certainly up for debate.


----------



## Sheerin (21 Jun 2005)

> Most cultures? Really? Well, we live in the Western World, so really in order to compare, you should compare us to other Western nations. Name one Western society (not cult) that supports polygamy? I realize some African and Middle Eastern cultures do have polygamy, but they also have other 'customs' that we would find very abhorrent. Stoning of a woman for alleged adultery, the raping of children to 'cure AIDS', the list goes on. Shall we base our laws/beliefs on what is 'normal' in cultures we share little in common with?
> 
> Further, most polygamist 'marriages' in North America are of the Fundamentalist Mormon variety (ie, Bountiful BC, Utah, etc.). It is debatable whether this is consentual or not. There is immense pressure on the young women (or children) in these communes to marry much older men who already have 1 or more wives. IIRC, they beleive that men may enter heaven only if they have 7 wives. Again, if you feel that this C-48 will lead to legalized polygamy, then you should be informed on what it actually is. Whether it actually will lead to it is a whole other matter, and certainly up for debate.



First of all, i never said that bill C-38 would lead to polygamy.  I suggest you reread what I wrote.  
As for your _ extreme _ examples... yeah, so what?   Why don't we look at our culture.  Up till relatively recently it was believed by many western governments that we need to sterilize those members of society who were defective in  some way.  Our neighbours to the south feel/felt it was acceptable to execute people who committed crimes as minors.  Again, till relatively recently, it was believed that women who enjoyed sex were mentally ill.  I could go on with extreme examples from our culture, but I suspect you get the point.

As for your example of the Mormons, well, it goes show that marriage is a social construct.  You were brought up in a culture that dictated that marriage is between two people, a man and a woman.  One can even say that you were indoctrinated with that believe.  Whereas people brought up in Mormon communities are indoctrinated with the notion that marriage is between one many and several wives.  Then there are cultures out there than practice polyandry where one woman has several husbands.  It may seem wrong to us, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is.


----------



## Donut (21 Jun 2005)

2332 Piper, it's a good question, but in asking it you're imposing a bias already.

You're assuming that utilitarian philisophy is somehow superior, and asking the reader to decide between "Rule" utilitarianism and "Act" utilitarianism.

If the objective is the best outcome for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism), is that best achieved by taking each example on a case by case basis (Act Utilitarianism) or by coming up with a workable set of rules which will, the majority of the time, result in the best outcome (Rule Utilitarianism) for the people involved?

I think there's also some fundamental differences between what people mean by the term "Right".  

IIRC from Philosophy 220...

When you create a right, you create a positive obligation on every member of the state to allow you to achieve that right.  I have the right to vote, being 18 years of age, a Cdn citizen, not serving time in a fed pen (and I think that's gone as a disqualifier, too).  That means that my boss HAS to give me time to vote, the government HAS to establish polling stations, HAS to allow absentee ballots.

Now, I used to be a strict constructionist wrt rights, but I've been forced to abandon that as a philosophy as my arguments have fallen in reasoned discourse with others.

This is a great discussion, it's great to see.

DF


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Who should decide what is 'right and wrong'? Or is what is 'right' whatever you (as an individual) think is right? Which then leads into the question of whether or not such marriage laws are useful anymore.



Since utilitarianism was brought up with regards to this question, I'd suggest looking into Rawls for an interesting take on this - it definately coincides with a rights-based Charter approach to justice and "right" that we will most likely see.   Look at *"The Original Position"* and the *"Veil of Ignorance"*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

PS: This is interesting and touches many important issues, so it is going to Politics - I'm impressed by the fact that there has been a 9 page serious discussion on the topic without things getting out of hand.


----------



## atticus (21 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What exactly could it open the doors to?  As I discussed elsewhere, it is fairly clear that marriage needs to be consensual - thus eliminating animals, children and innanimate objects (although arranged marriages border on this idea with social pressure - but ultimately the paired couple sign the documents).  Incestuous marriage?  Well, that notion was never really included in the definition of "man and woman" anyways, so it is another debate altogether.



I didn't mean so much as people wanting to marry an animal or a vehicle but stuff like, for example, in BC there was a church that would rent out its hall for marriages and the such. There was a gay couple who rented this hall without saying that they were renting it for a gay marriage and when the church found out they said that they cannot use the hall for that use. Of course the gay couple was mad and decided to sue the church over it. I'm not sure if the lawsuite was succesful or not but I think this is alot of what people are afraid of happening (gay rights over religious rights).

In Bountiful BC I think it would be important to note that it was a "breakaway" mormon group and not your average Church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints (who do not practice polygamy) mormon group.


----------



## DogOfWar (21 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> In Bountiful BC I think it would be important to note that it was a "breakaway" mormon group and not your average Church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints (who do not practice polygamy) mormon group.



They did until a hundred years ago right around the same time that black people were'nt allowed to be Mormons.   : Thats not that long ago.

There was polygamy on our doorstop in the last 200 years. Although by the line of reasoning applying- opening up marriage to consenting adults also applies to polygamists and even consenting incestuous adults right? I cant see how you can exclude those people.....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> for example, in BC there was a church that would rent out its hall for marriages and the such. There was a gay couple who rented this hall without saying that they were renting it for a gay marriage and when the church found out they said that they cannot use the hall for that use. Of course the gay couple was mad and decided to sue the church over it. I'm not sure if the lawsuite was succesful or not but I think this is alot of what people are afraid of happening (gay rights over religious rights).



It was in Port Coquitlam in 2003, it was the Knights of Columbus (Roman Catholic), was heard in front of the Human Rights Tribunal back in February (of this year) and a decision has not been reached yet (I can't image what they'd be waiting for).  As it is already starting to happen, I find it extremely difficult to accept that no-one would ever challenge the Church's traditional perogative to choose whom they decide to marry (or not).

The Charter of Rights grants/recognizes individuals the right to choose whatever religion they want: it does not necessarily follow that Religions are free to practice however/whatever they want.

There is a fundamental moral/religious/Rights issue, but there is also the (conflicting, depending on your point of view) issue of creeping Statism and Supreme Court Activism/Interventionism (specifically WRT what consitutes a Right and what that means for us unwashed masses).


----------



## jmacleod (21 Jun 2005)

The "philosophy" of the Liberal Party of Canada is to win the election, period. Liberal strategists only
pay attention to their own polls, and they focus on numbers - the idea being "who has the most numbers, signified by the familier "x" on the ballot, wins". They analyse constituencies, focused on
the Liberal street people, the poll workers, enumerators, the candidate's resources, friends and
supporters, traditional Liberal families, previous voter trends, etc., etc. If one wants an academic
perspective with highly literate points of view, focused differences of opinion, the world according to Garp, or whatever, stick with the NDP (who have already sold out to the Liberals for a few coins;
what a surprise!") The Federal Conservatives cannot beat the Liberals this time, they have made the fatal political mistake of forcing the Government into an election mode, which will cost
them dearly - is this good for the Country?- of course not, but there it is. MacLeod


----------



## Baloo (21 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> The "philosophy" of the Liberal Party of Canada is to win the election, period.



As much as I despise the Liberals, so far, no other party has convinced me that they are not sharing the same goals.

You think the Conservatives CARE? Give me a break, they are all the same in this respect.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Jun 2005)

Good then. It's settled. 

You Jim, can now marry Harry.

I in turn will marry Jen, Leanne and Lindsay.

I expect  the support of half the nation - especially the "progressives" - after all - it's my right - RIGHT!

Oh - and I want the baby bonus, spousal dependant tax exemption (x3) paternity leave every time one gets pregnant (I can't wait) and free health care. 

Tell me why this is an implausible "slippery slope" argument?


----------



## Donut (21 Jun 2005)

Piper, 

We had a post mod philosophy student in my last SHARP class, he had the poor moderator tearing his hair out by the end of it!

It seems to me that, in order to effectively separate faith and politics, we do need to recognize that the church has a roll in expounding it's moral code, and in educating people in it's teachings, but it does not have a roll in DIRECTLY shaping national policy.  I know that there's members of just about every faith on the planet on either side of this debate; when did the United Church ordain women and homosexuals?  When did the Anglicans (here and abroad), the RC's, the Ba'hai (sp?), Buddhists, Shinto, etc.  Inasmuch as these faith groups (broad definition working from the same liturgy) are unable to internally reconcile their positions, we cannot treat them as a coherent block of believers. 

If I like kiddy porn, and we can agree the harm comes from the exploitation of the child whose image is being captured, is it still wrong for me to find a young-looking 19 year old, dress her in a kilt and pigtails, and take pictures of it?  If I get off torturing people, there's lots of clubs I can join that are full of masochists just waiting for a guy to step up and slap them around.  If there's no harm to the individual, and everyone consents, is it still â Å“wrongâ ??  I can't see that it is, unless you can demonstrate a harm to society as a whole that this occurs, which is an argument that some will make.

I think the slippery slope argument is very apt here, but it does seem to be resolved by the reasonable limits clause; your right to wave your fists around ends when it connects with my nose. Now, granted, that implies a necessary balance between individual rights, and that seems to be the crux of this whole argument.

I fully agree that we need to redefine both â Å“moralâ ? and â Å“rightâ ? with regards to social interactions in this country in order to resolve this issue.  Utilitarianism has given us such great policies as eugenics and by extension nationalism and Nazism , and therefore shouldn't be trusted, but the Judeo-Christian traditions have also been the cause of a huge amount of suffering in the world, too, and are to be, from my left-coast libertarian position, questioned.

Baloo, my CPC riding association just nominated a fundamentalist Christian lawyer as our local candidate.  I'm pretty pissed at the conflict, and I doubt ANY party will get my vote this time around, since I will not help send her to Ottawa, but the alternatives are just as bad for a fiscal and politically conservative civil libertarian.

DF


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2005)

When you dispel a gay myth, does it go *poof*?

The original purpose of marriage seems to have been to tie men to their obligations (ie. children).  It appears now people want the defining purpose to be companionship.  So be it.  Those of you concerned about polygamy shouldn't assume it must follow, but I doubt there will be any arguments sufficiently strong to stop it if anyone does care to take up its cause.

The attack on churches is indirect.  The idea isn't to force believers to participate in rituals to which they object; the idea is to marginalize religions and reduce their political clout.

Fundamental issues of morality and rights are absolutes which do not have the properties of being mutable or negotiable.  If this is not so, then there must be no preferred position, so that the concept of morality is merely an unnecessarily complex expression of "my friends and I won't let you do that" - a veil of tyranny of the majority drawn over the natural law of the jungle - and thus everyone should feel free to do whatever he thinks he can get away with.  But we presume the existence of a good in order to define what is moral, which is a contradiction.

In simpler terms, if nothing matters, then neither does the opinion that nothing matters, and any attempt at relativism must falsify itself.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Jun 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> In simpler terms, if nothing matters, then neither does the opinion that nothing matters, and any attempt at relativism must falsify itself.



Brings to mind a quote Sartre never made: "_Existentialism: why bother?_"


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jun 2005)

What gay myth do you wish to dispel ?
To me there is only one issue where gay's are concerned - gay's in the military. At present the US military has a dont ask dont tell policy. Once a soldier/anchor clanker/jarhead or zoomie indicates they are gay then they are in violation of the UCMJ and are seperated from the service. What the gay community does in the civilian world is of little concern to me.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The original purpose of marriage seems to have been to tie men to their obligations (ie. children).




From a purely legal perspective, for Christian British subjects in North America, marriage was originally a solemn contract to cement the transfer of a portion of wealth between families, in either form of a dowry or woman as a form of property. If the wealth didn't transfer, the marriage was never legal because the contract was not performed. A marriage could be annulled because of a false material representation of the status of the health of the woman or the size of the dowry, in other words a breach of contract.  

Just for the heck of it, go into a law library sometime and flip through the musty pages of family law decisions in Upper and Lower Canada, especially the 4 decades prior to Confederation. Truly awful stuff- marriage was predominately a contractual financial relationship that was as politicized then as it is now.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> well, it's nice to see we've come a long way, huh? We will probably have conflict over some aspect of marriage as long as it forms such a critical role in Canadian society. It's just too important not to argue about, I guess.



I guess what I was getting that is that while marriage may no longer be solely fuelled by property and assets, divorce proceedings certainly are!! One would have to have their head deep in the sand if one fails to see the politics behind support and custody law. I am especially interested to see if same sex marriage is going to steer gender based arguments away from the current state of bias to a more neutral position in family law.   Is a judge really going to ask "which one of you two gentlemen is the woman of the household, because I need to know which of you was truly at the mercy of the other"?


----------



## Acorn (23 Jun 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Fundamental issues of morality and rights are absolutes which do not have the properties of being mutable or negotiable.   If this is not so, then there must be no preferred position, so that the concept of morality is merely an unnecessarily complex expression of "my friends and I won't let you do that" - a veil of tyranny of the majority drawn over the natural law of the jungle - and thus everyone should feel free to do whatever he thinks he can get away with.   But we presume the existence of a good in order to define what is moral, which is a contradiction.



The problem, though, is defining the true, absolute, fundamentals of morality and rights. To some permitting homosexuality is immoral, and they cannot be budged off of that position. To them it is an absolute, though it conflicts with the rights entrenched in our Charter. 

The fact of the real world is that each culture acts exactly as you describe. Mankind doesn't have a hardwired "morality gene," so societies accept the tyrrany of the majority. Sure, it's not that easy - some "traditional" practices are consistently resisted to varying degrees - oppression of women being one example. That being said, I defy you to draw a clear line of immutable morality and rights.

Acorn


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What gay myth do you wish to dispel ?
> To me there is only one issue where gay's are concerned - gay's in the military. At present the US military has a dont ask dont tell policy. Once a soldier/anchor clanker/jarhead or zoomie indicates they are gay then they are in violation of the UCMJ and are seperated from the service. What the gay community does in the civilian world is of little concern to me.



ok.. then a loaded question for you...

What makes a Gay person unfit for service?


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jun 2005)

Nothing makes Gays unfit for service - except for the adverse reaction that those around them have.

Yes, I know, all your friends are gay, you are all in units with 10-50% gays, so is the OC and you work fine together. But I would venture that a light/Parachute infantry unit with a gay and proud member would be a disaster. 

My 2cents.


----------



## c4th (23 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> a light/Parachute infantry unit with a gay and proud member would be a disaster.



 I've heard of only one "member" who came out on tour in an Inf Coy.   From his Pl Comd none of the lads had a problem with it.   However, It was well into the tour and not the first day of pre-training.   By that point he had obviously proved himself as a capable soldier.     I reckon that since no one was getting any anyway, his lifestyle had little relevance to his section mates.

No one should mistake this one antidotal story as an acceptance of gays in the infantry.   Soldiers, in my experience, are merciless towards those they even suspect of playing for the other team.     I can't say if one gay male member would be a disaster for any light unit. I can say that if he is gay and proud, his life particularly in garrison will be much harder.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Jun 2005)

An interesting twist (although I'm not sure this would be unique to same sex couples) ...



> *Kids in legal gray area when gay couples split*
> 
> By Richard Willing, USA TODAY Tue Jun 21, 7:19 AM ET
> 
> ...


 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050621/ts_usatoday/kidsinlegalgrayareawhengaycouplessplit


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

Wow, that is quite the twist.

However, biology can't be considered the only claim to parenthood - otherwise we'd be tracking down the sperm donor for this lesbian couple's child and tagging him with the bill, would we not?

Perhaps, since it remains related to our discussion of marriage, that any redefinition of the legal idea of marriage should include, with the formation of a "household", a clause that obligates both members of the household to responsibility for children produced by it, be they straight or gay, be it that the child was conceived (through copulation or other means) or adopted.  I'm sure that is alot of legal wrangling, but I believe that it should be one of the obligations of marriage.

This seems to be a bit of an odd case because the couple was only together for 18 months, however, I'm inclined to agree with, _"Courtney Joslin, the lawyer for Emily B., says in all three cases, the children's "birth into the world came about because of the intentional conduct of two people" - the partners."_  Since this seems to be the case, I'd argue that being gay doesn't give one the right to be a dead-beat...err...lesbian.


----------



## atticus (23 Jun 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> UCMJ



This may be really off topic but whats the UCMJ? Is it like the QR&O's?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

Yes.  Uniform Code of Military Justice.


----------



## Dogboy (23 Jun 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What gay myth do you wish to dispel ?
> To me there is only one issue where gay's are concerned - gay's in the military. At present the US military has a dont ask dont tell policy. Once a soldier/anchor clanker/jarhead or zoomie indicates they are gay then they are in violation of the UCMJ and are seperated from the service. What the gay community does in the civilian world is of little concern to me.



so as long as you hide your true self your OK? thats a dumb law 
so as long as you don't say your Scottish your OK?

but thats the US for you

we had a Lesbean in my BMQ there was no problem with it at all.
and if there was a gay guy I would not have a problem with it ether 
the rules say no relashonships with people you train with, so there should not be a Issue at all.


----------



## kincanucks (23 Jun 2005)

_no relashonships_

Perhaps a little bondage though?


----------



## GO!!! (23 Jun 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> we had a Lesbean in my BMQ there was no problem with it at all.
> and if there was a gay guy I would not have a problem with it ether



Good. I expect that you will be the first to hop into a sleeping bag with him when he falls through the ice on an exercise, perform CPR on him if he needs it, and bump elbows with him while showering in those $%#@ canadian field showers. How about getting in the rear guard for him when you are practicing grappling? And when he gets killed somewhere, you can go home with his body and hug his boyfriend. 

Sound harsh? 

We are in the profession of arms. Close physical contact is often required. Homosexuals are not the problem, the rest of the army's reaction to them is. BUT we should not sacrifice the cohesiveness of our units on the altar of forcing some sort of social engineering agenda. The US has it just right. Dont ask, dont tell. 

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

> Good. I expect that you will be the first to hop into a sleeping bag with him when he falls through the ice on an exercise, perform CPR on him if he needs it, and bump elbows with him while showering in those $%#@ canadian field showers. How about getting in the rear guard for him when you are practicing grappling? And when he gets killed somewhere, you can go home with his body and hug his boyfriend.



There are females in the Army - do you feel this way everytime you interact with one of them?  Is it possible that a gay man might not be as impulsive as you seem to worry about?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2005)

Are you trying to tell me a gay guy is going to get off if some other guy had to give him CPR.  Give me a break.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _no relashonships_
> 
> Perhaps a little bondage though?



WTF?


----------



## kincanucks (23 Jun 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> WTF?



re lash on ships.

Maybe naval bondage?  I mean after 154 dribbling (no pun intended) "I hate gays or I love gays" posts there has to be a little humour somewhere.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jun 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> re lash on ships.
> 
> Maybe naval bondage?  I mean after 154 dribbling (no pun intended) "I hate gays or I love gays" posts there has to be a little humour somewhere.



You need to get out more my friend.


----------



## kincanucks (23 Jun 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You need to get out more my friend.



Perhaps a sense of humour would help?


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

I've been pretty hesitant to weight in on this subject
since its too easy to make a mistake.

Honestly though, I still feel uncomfortable about showering
with gay men.

If I was forced to shower with female co-workers I am not sure
that I could stop myself from looking, and If I did look
I'm pretty sure I would like what I saw. (please imagine
a passing glance, not a psychotic drooling stare)

Please don't take that the wrong way!! I would never hit 
on any of the women in the shower with me, I have tones 
of respect for military women! 

Actually, I'm a married man! I'm only trying to admit in 
a tactful way that I do find women attractive, and just because
I'm married to a wonderful/beautiful/loving partner my appreciation
for the female form has not died. Its in my genes.

So now, if there are gay men in the shower with me, well... would they
react the same way towards me and other guys?

This is only a tiny issue, the army is full of far more complicated 
higher risk situations than just having a darn shower.

Perhaps the "don't ask, don't tell" idea does hold some water.

I might feel better not knowing.

If gay men are entitled to their feelings, shouldn't I be entitled to 
my feelings as well?


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2005)

Neuromancer, don't worry, your point is, like GO's, correct in many respects.  It is a foggy issue, and one that will probably become an issue at some point in time.  

However, I was being the devil's advocate because, having worked in close proximity with females, the privacy is slim to none and almost all male soldiers I know can keep a grip on themselves.  As mentioned, there will probably be certain privacy issues with some gays, but I don't think it is fair to make the assumption that a gay soldier is going to turn flaming gay the minute you and him occupy a trench.

Basically, I'm basing the call on professionalism here - it seems to have worked up to now.


----------



## Dogboy (24 Jun 2005)

why are so many men seem to be afraid of Gay men?


----------



## Fry (24 Jun 2005)

They could be homophobic. Why? You would probably have to ask them yourself. 

I think everyone knows where I stand on this one. I don't agree with it one single bit. --BUT--I don't agree with discrimination because of their sexual choice, but like many have said in this thread, I don't want it flaunted in my face. 

I know that when you don't like something or agree with it, for some reason it's real easy to spot it everywhere you go, and it's real easy to find it's flaws over the good things. 

What people do in the their own privacy is their own business. This goes for heterosexual people as well. I don't like seeing two people suck the face off each other, regardless of their sexual preference. Just don't shove it down my throats. I mean, I turned on the television when I was about to eat dinner, and on the guide were the following shows. "My fabulous gay wedding", "Queer as folk", "Queer eye for the straight guy", just to name a few. I know there are many hetero shows, but for someone who opposes homosexuality, these shows come off as flaunting it.

If I make the selection process and get through all the training and have to work with gays or lesbians, then so be it. As long as they're as reliable as the next person to do their MOC with 110%, then that's fine with me.

I don't agree with homosexual marriage(Christianity), which goes against my morals. One thing I really don't agree with is the fact that gays and lesbians can adopt children. Don't jump down my thoat here, this concern is mainly for the child, and how it would fare growing up in school and such. We all know that kids can be very cruel and whatnot, and I would think that the child would have a hard social life. I'm not attacking the fact that they could or could not be good parents in providing advice and the necessities, but you all know yourselves, that if a little boy or girl had two dads or two moms, then he/she would be made fun of. This would be viewed as 'different' from the 'norm' and we can all recall going to grammar school, when something wasn't normal, or ordinary, kids poked fun. Kids look for the smallest things to use as an excuse to pick on other kids... especially when it involves a sensitive topic such as this.

Really, what I think many are just saying, is not to shove the whole "homosexuality bit" down everybody's throats.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Jun 2005)

Hey bud, I find ignorance and homophobia to be offensive and I don't want  it flaunted in my face or shoved down my throat. Maybe you should just quit while you're ahead?


----------



## Trinity (24 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Good. I expect that you will be the first to hop into a sleeping bag with him when he falls through the ice on an exercise, perform CPR on him if he needs it, and bump elbows with him while showering in those $%#@ canadian field showers. How about getting in the rear guard for him when you are practicing grappling? And when he gets killed somewhere, you can go home with his body and hug his boyfriend.



Yes... I will

And I will do it for you and anyone who needs it.

Gay or not, military or not, enemy or not.  A human life is precious.  YOU are precious.
Life is fragile and special and too easily forgetten.  How can you forsake a life simply
because he/she is gay.  

OH WAIT.. you said HE all through your post.  So you wouldn't mind getting into a sleeping
bag with a lesbian.. right.  Because that wouldn't offend her at all having someone save her life.
I bet she'd rather die than have a straight man in her sleeping bag.  

Sounds stupid.. cause it is.  If anyone is that ignorant not to save a life of another simply because
they are gay, then that person is very weak minded.  

I've served 12 years with the combat arms AND with gays.  There are NO problems in the showers.
They already realize you are uncomfortable so why do you think they would hit on you?  



			
				Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hey bud, I find ignorance and homophobia to be offensive and I don't want  it flaunted in my face or shoved down my throat. Maybe you should just quit while you're ahead?



Britney - we know fry isn't the best with his words.  I'm sure his tone isn't as we might read it.  Still, he might want
to trim his posts a bit...


----------



## Fry (24 Jun 2005)

I'm not a homophobe, and there was no ignorance in my post... I think for most, the issue of homosexuality is a morals issue. But, as Trinity has pm'ed me a while ago, prehaps down the road myself, like many others, may probably even make good friends out of em... 



When you're 16, you think you know it all, but then when you're 20, you look back and say, man what an ass I was back then. Then when you're 25 you look back at 20, and so on. I think the same goes for a lot of us on the board when we comment on this issue. <-- (Trinity's writing once again, lol) 

Some of us may be totally against everything, but may come to realize a few things and learn a few things down the road.

and Britney Spears,

That post wasn't homophobic, nor ignorance. The only thing that you may not have liked, was the fact that I think children adopted by gay or lesbian couples would lead a tough social life, not how they're raised, but by how some of their peers would treat them.


It's exhausting trying to explain myself, lol.


----------



## 043 (24 Jun 2005)

So.................in some barracks your not allowed to drink alchohol but you're allowed to  [edited by moderator]

That is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong!!!!!!!


----------



## Island Ryhno (24 Jun 2005)

For all the guys worried about being in a shower with gay guys; have any of you been to a public gym? I go to the Y here in St.John's and I know there are gay guys that go there. They shower when I do, they go to the sauna when I do, and they lift the same weights as I do. I've never had a problem. I've never seen a gay guy chasing another guy around the gym drooling all over the place, I do see lots of guys with their tongues hanging out over some girl, chasing them around like little puppies! Homosexuality is part of our society, I think it has to be accepted, grudgingly or not. It's just another think that humans do, if you don't accept it, that doesn't make it wrong. Just let people be people. Also the gay pride parades etc, it is unfortunate when a couple of idiots make it bad for everybody, I'm sure that like anything it is a very small percentage.


----------



## Fry (24 Jun 2005)

????  (In regard to 2023's post)


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hey bud, I find ignorance and homophobia to be offensive and I don't want   it flaunted in my face or shoved down my throat. Maybe you should just quit while you're ahead?



Priceless.

Come to think of it, I've lived quite close to one of the largest gay communities in Canada and went to a huge university and I've never had it _"shoved down my throat_."  Why does everybody think they are going to get a Queer as Fold T-Shirt thrown into their face if they meet someone who is gay?


----------



## c4th (24 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> We are in the profession of arms. Close physical contact is often required*. Homosexuals are not the problem, the rest of the army's reaction to them is. * BUT we should not sacrifice the cohesiveness of our units on the altar of forcing some sort of social engineering agenda. The US has it just right. Dont ask, don't tell.



Regardless of DAOD 5012-0 or the number of pages of discusion this thread generates the above paragraph will remain true.   Possibly, social engineering or evolution will run it's course over the next generation or two and this will cease being an issue.   Then again, the gay community and christian right keep bringing it up, so maybe the issue will never truly go away.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

Anyone who fears what will happen if they have to shower with gays should realize that it is already a reality. Do you honestly think that all of your Section/Platoon mates are straight? Give your head a shake. And if you think there is nothing sexier to a gay man than a homophobe in a shower, you're flattering yourself. 

Now, if burying your head in the sand and ignoring the obvious suits you, have at 'er. However, if you want to soldier in this Army, you must accept that you will be soldiering with some homosexuals, whether you know it or not.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> And if you think there is nothing sexier to a gay man than a homophobe in a shower, you're flattering yourself.



Lol....as by buddy said to a guy who looked shocked when he walked into a party where a couple gay men were "Don't worry man, you're not that hot anyways...."


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

So what I see the majority of men implying is that if a homosexual is in close proximity to another man, he will be completely incapable of restraining himself and will attack or molest the first male that gets in path, no matter what the orientation of the person? Would you also say that a heterosexual man, when in same close proximity to a woman, he will immediately lose all self-control and discipline, rip off her clothes and rape her on the spot?

What ridiculous tripe. I have personally known some homosexuals in the military, and they are far more controlled and tactful about their sexuality than the average heterosexual male I have encountered in the CF. 

Furthermore, the argument of "sacrificing the cohesiveness of our units" has been used as an excuse for centuries to keep out people of colour, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, women, and gays from the military. When the first Sikhs were allowed to wear their turbans in the CF, it was argued that it would ruin the cohesiveness of the CF.... and here we are, and the End Times have not come because a few people wear a different headdress. What a shock!


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> So what I see the majority of men implying is that if a homosexual is in close proximity to another man, he will be completely incapable of restraining himself and will attack or molest the first male that gets in path, no matter what the orientation of the person? Would you also say that a heterosexual man, when in same close proximity to a woman, he will immediately lose all self-control and discipline, rip off her clothes and rape her on the spot?



Nobody is saying that, lets not do strawmen arguments shall we?

<sarcasm>Why dont we have co-ed showers? Oh! Woment feel uncomfortable?? What?? Thats outrageous, do they think
we are animals and we are just going to rape them on the spot? What rediculous tripe.</sarcasm>

Clearly this issue is more complecated than you seem to asume.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> What ridiculous tripe. I have personally known some homosexuals in the military, and they are far more controlled and tactful about their sexuality than the average heterosexual male I have encountered in the CF.



Thats good to know, personally I really dont have much experience with gays or lesbians. 



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the argument of "sacrificing the cohesiveness of our units" has been used as an excuse for centuries to keep out people of colour, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, women, and gays from the military. When the first Sikhs were allowed to wear their turbans in the CF, it was argued that it would ruin the cohesiveness of the CF.... and here we are, and the End Times have not come because a few people wear a different headdress. What a shock!



Sikhs dont have to wear helmets? I didnt realise that. Boy, that sounds rather unsafe to me.


----------



## Canadian Sig (24 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> <sarcasm>Why dont we have co-ed showers? Oh! Woment feel uncomfortable?? What?? Thats outrageous, do they think
> we are animals and we are just going to rape them on the spot? What rediculous tripe.</sarcasm>



   While I have never had a homosexual member of the forces make me feel uncomfortable (and I serve with a few), I wish the same could be said by my (serving member) wife in regards to hetrosexual members. They seem to feel the need to make their sexuality known in juvinile ways as often as posible.


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> While I have never had a homosexual member of the forces make me feel uncomfortable (and I serve with a few), I wish the same could be said by my (serving member) wife in regards to hetrosexual members. They seem to feel the need to make their sexuality known in juvinile ways as often as posible.



Thats very sad to hear, but I dont think it really surprises me. 

Men are quite often ignorant and childish pigs.

It seems to take a heck of a lot of self discipline, training and self-control 
to make us otherwise.

If you are a man, and you are not a pig (Im not). Then dont be offended,
and try to help other men not to be that way either.

If you see it, tell them to grow up or just stop them.


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

Neuromancer: Sikhs do have to wear helmets, they just have most of the guts removed from it so it will fit over a turban.


----------



## Fry (24 Jun 2005)

Yeah, I kinda understand where some of you guys would be upset over the whole shower thing. No, I'm sure that gay men that shower with straight men wouldn't take the first chance to molest anyone, but as mentioned in a previous post, if I were showering with females, I wouldn't be able to help notice them, glance maybe. I'm a man, I'm attracted to women. I guess this issue will never be resolved... but I do understand the conflict.


----------



## Acorn (24 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> Sikhs dont have to wear helmets? I didnt realise that. Boy, that sounds rather unsafe to me.



Where in this:


> When the first Sikhs were allowed to wear their turbans in the CF, it was argued that it would ruin the cohesiveness of the CF....


Does it say anything about not having to wear helmets?

Check your work.

Acorn


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Neuromancer: Sikhs do have to wear helmets, they just have most of the guts removed from it so it will fit over a turban.



Ah, fewf. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was like.. wtf?!?


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> What amazes me is that people are willing to waltz into a combat zone with bullets flying and landmines going off, but are scared poo-less of the idea of taking a shower with someone who might be attracted to men (not necessarily you).



Maybe its sort of like the irrational fear of bayonets? 

Its just psychological.


----------



## canadianblue (24 Jun 2005)

For some reason all this talk about getting coed showers makes me want to rent Starship Troopers!!!


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2005)

Futuretrooper said:
			
		

> For some reason all this talk about getting coed showers makes me want to rent Starship Troopers!!!



Just bare in mind that *ANYONE* could come marching through the shower doors...Notjust the pretty female medics down the hall in MIR! 

Slim


----------



## GO!!! (24 Jun 2005)

Just to clear a few things up...

No one said they were scared of gays, only uncomfortable with them and their lifestyle. Since every other group demands and is accomodated in terms of their comfort levels and preferences (Turbans, kosher meals,vegetarians, religion) why are my preferences to be run roughshod over?

Are not my preferences as important as theirs? Evidently not.

An excellent point was brought up with the use of co-ed showers. Why not? If we allow homosexuals in the shower, why not members of the opposite sex? Because it makes people very uncomfortable, that's why. Show the same consideration to me that you would anyone else.

As for operational effectiveness, I can personally attest that even the suspicion of a gay man in an infantry unit immediately divides the unit into groups divided over how they will react to this individual. The standard seems to be merciless harassment until that person "chooses" another job. Needless to say, this is not the behaviour often associated with a cohesive, effective team. 

We don't work in an office environment. Our job is intensely physical and demanding. I'm not worried that I'm going to get raped in the shower, I'm worried that my team will not be able to do it's job well, and possibly keep us alive because they don't trust/don't understand/hate another member of the team.

Like I said before, the problem is not the homosexual, it is the reaction of the unit to them. And the members of that unit have just as much right to feel uncomfortable working (which includes showering and grappling) with a homosexual as women do showering with men.

Also as I said before, a "dont ask, dont tell policy" mitigates many of these problems. 

If anyone can provide an example of a regular Canadian infantry unit with an openly homosexual member who was successfully deployed on a demanding tour - I'm listening.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Just to clear a few things up...
> 
> No one said they were scared of gays, only uncomfortable with them and their lifestyle. Since every other group demands and is accomodated in terms of their comfort levels and preferences (Turbans, kosher meals,vegetarians, religion) why are my preferences to be run roughshod over?
> 
> ...



Good point.


----------



## combat_medic (25 Jun 2005)

The problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is that it forces people to live in secrecy - demands them to suppress who they are in order for a few homophobes to feel more comfortable with themselves. As a woman in the military, I spent my basic training sharing a mod tent with 10 men and 3 other women. I had to change in front of them every day, and have been in some pretty close quarters, both in garrison, and in the field, having to use the washroom in front of men, get changed, and do all sorts of "personal" stuff. 

Have you ever been to a swimming pool in Europe (most parts)? You'll find that, very often, the shower facilities are co-ed. Also, the prevalence of nude and topless beaches throughout Europe show that they are not nearly as repressed with regards to nudity as North Americans are. Heck, Janet Jackson showed part of a breast for a fraction of a second on television and it made worldwide news (I still can't figure out why - they're fake anyway). If North American society were as liberal and open with nudity, I would be able to accept the idea of co-ed showers. If North American men were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around. 

Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it.


----------



## neuromancer (25 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is that it forces people to live in secrecy - demands them to suppress who they are in order for a few homophobes to feel more comfortable with themselves. As a woman in the military, I spent my basic training sharing a mod tent with 10 men and 3 other women. I had to change in front of them every day, and have been in some pretty close quarters, both in garrison, and in the field, having to use the washroom in front of men, get changed, and do all sorts of "personal" stuff.
> 
> Have you ever been to a swimming pool in Europe (most parts)? You'll find that, very often, the shower facilities are co-ed. Also, the prevalence of nude and topless beaches throughout Europe show that they are not nearly as repressed with regards to nudity as North Americans are. Heck, Janet Jackson showed part of a breast for a fraction of a second on television and it made worldwide news (I still can't figure out why - they're fake anyway). If North American society were as liberal and open with nudity, I would be able to accept the idea of co-ed showers. If North American men were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.
> 
> Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it.



Well said!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (25 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is that it forces people to live in secrecy - demands them to suppress who they are in order for a few homophobes to feel more comfortable with themselves. As a woman in the military, I spent my basic training sharing a mod tent with 10 men and 3 other women. I had to change in front of them every day, and have been in some pretty close quarters, both in garrison, and in the field, having to use the washroom in front of men, get changed, and do all sorts of "personal" stuff.
> 
> Have you ever been to a swimming pool in Europe (most parts)? You'll find that, very often, the shower facilities are co-ed. Also, the prevalence of nude and topless beaches throughout Europe show that they are not nearly as repressed with regards to nudity as North Americans are. Heck, Janet Jackson showed part of a breast for a fraction of a second on television and it made worldwide news (I still can't figure out why - they're fake anyway). If North American society were as liberal and open with nudity, I would be able to accept the idea of co-ed showers. If North American men were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.
> 
> Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it.


   According to statistics, several of the men I served with were gay (if you go by percentages).  Since I managed to go through several years of close quarters without it becoming an issue, then I guess the "don't ask, don't tell" works.  If they don't make an issue of their sexuality, then why should I?  As far as that goes, I served along side many women, in fact, on one memorable exercize, I had an all female detatchment (my favorite, actually).  As we living in quite close quarters in the field, with the usual (non-existant) body modesty, it was only professionalism that kept our heterosexuallty from becoming an issue.  Sexual harassment is unprofessional reguardless of orientation.  If you respect each others boundries, then sexuality is a non-issue.  If a guy is gay in the showers, its none of my business.  If I guy is making a point about oggling someone, then I guess he's going to get his a$$ kicked.  If I made an a$$ of myself oggling any of the women I served with, I would expect them to call me on it, and bring my butt up on charges, because that is unprofessional.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2005)

Quote from Combat Medic,
_Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem. If people's attitudes are to change (and make no mistake that this is a form of discrimination as real and dangerous as racism and sexism) - shutting them out or forcing their beliefs under wraps is not the way to solve it. You seem to defend perpetuating the problem instead of solving it. _ 

Nice thoughts, I wish that you hadn't blown any credibility you had with it when you spouted this one.

_ If North American men  were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around._


----------



## Trinity (25 Jun 2005)

easily enough fixed

 If North American VALUES were able to divorce the idea of nudity and sex, I think it would be a pretty huge leap for our society in general, and would also do a great deal to kill off a lot of the homophobia going around.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jun 2005)

The phrase is fixed but not the attitude that is prevalent there........


----------



## c4th (25 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Perpetuating a status quo that attempts to segregate minorities does nothing to help the problem.



The CF and by extension the combat arms is not a social experiment.   Nowhere in our mission statement does it state (I double checked):

The Canadian Forces will promote the Canadian Governments perceived and stated social agendas in order to bring about change to the status quo.

Group dynamics force conformity onto the members of the group.  Walk into any mess in the country.  Those who talk the same, dress the same, drink the same are sitting together.  The one guy who is different will probably be sitting alone.  Since it is unlikely that the homosexual member is going to suddenly change his orientation in order to conform to the group it is more likely that he is going to be the one guy alone.  

As far as I can see here we are talking only about gay men (not women) in close quarters or the combat arms.  If I'm right, we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of soldiers.  The frequently used statistic of 10% of the population being homosexual does not correlate to 10% of the combat arms being homosexual.  If this were the case, of the hundreds of soldiers I have personally known, I would probably have known more gays than I do.  From my personal experience 0% is a much more accurate statistic.  To parallel GO!, if someone can give any reason owing to operational requirements why the status quo of don't ask don't tell should change, lets hear it.  Even better if someone can tell us for certain that there is anything to tell, lets hear that too


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> The CF and by extension the combat arms is not a social experiment.   Nowhere in our mission statement does it state (I double checked):
> 
> The Canadian Forces will promote the Canadian Governments perceived and stated social agendas in order to bring about change to the status quo.


In theory, no. In practice, the CF has been a petri dish for social engineering for a very long time. SHARP and son-of-SHARP told us one thing: All soldiers are equal, but some soldiers are more equal than others.  As soon as we allowed identifiable groups to modify dress, speech or behavior, the word "uniform", in all of its definitions, became irrelevant.  Beginning to ramble here, BAAAAD hangover, but I hope my point sticks....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2005)

> Group dynamics force conformity onto the members of the group.   Walk into any mess in the country.   Those who talk the same, dress the same, drink the same are sitting together.   The one guy who is different will probably be sitting alone.   Since it is unlikely that the homosexual member is going to suddenly change his orientation in order to conform to the group it is more likely that he is going to be the one guy alone.



I know that it has been mentioned before and that the circumstances are a bit different due to the issue being one of sexual preference rather than gender or race, but these were the exact things said about letting Blacks and women into the working ranks of the US Military.

Look now, the US is ably served (and better off) with Black Generals and women doing their share (and dieing) in Iraq (although not in Combat Arms MOS, but that is irrelevent these days).

The "Cohesion"/"Social Experiement" arguement just falls short - sometimes the Military has to roll with the times, whether the ranks like it or not, and it seems to come off better for it.



> As far as I can see here we are talking only about gay men (not women) in close quarters or the combat arms.   If I'm right, we are talking about an incredibly small percentage of soldiers.   The frequently used statistic of 10% of the population being homosexual does not correlate to 10% of the combat arms being homosexual.   If this were the case, of the hundreds of soldiers I have personally known, I would probably have known more gays than I do.   From my personal experience 0% is a much more accurate statistic.



This I agree with - the statistics make this a real non-issue.   The combination of self-selection factors involved in becoming a soldier will most likely mean a very small percentage of gay soldiers in the Combat Arms where contact is up-close and personal.   For those that do, a serving solder who happens to be gay is probably going to recognize the circumstances and be discreet about his/her preference, knowing that it will more than likely create issues in our current society.   Notice the story that touched this debate off, the two soldiers getting married - they kept their name private because they just wanted to live their lives and do their job.



> To parallel GO!, if someone can give any reason owing to operational requirements why the status quo of don't ask don't tell should change, lets hear it.   Even better if someone can tell us for certain that there is anything to tell, lets hear that too



"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not a Canadian policy - it is a US one (I'm sure you know that, just clarifying).   Anyways, here is an article from the Journal Parameters concerning the subject (if anyone is interested):

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/belkin.pdf


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Jun 2005)

> Look now, the US is ably served (and better off) with Black Generals and women doing their share (and dieing) in Iraq (although not in Combat Arms MOS, but that is irrelevent these days).



<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732282843.html?oneclick=true>Gay ones too</a>


----------



## c4th (25 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I know that it has been mentioned before and that the circumstances are a bit different due to the issue being one of sexual preference rather than gender or race, but these were the exact things said about letting Blacks ...working ranks of the US Military.



Turns out that Canadian CO's used the same arguments in WW1 until the reinforcements were needed.  Operational requirements eventually dictated.



> The "Cohesion"/"Social Experiment" argument just falls short - sometimes the Military has to roll with the times, whether the ranks like it or not, and it seems to come off better for it.



I think the military will roll with the times whether it wants to or not, and from what I see it is leaps and bounds ahead of the private sector in terms of employment equity do to the rules we have in place and the fact the we more than any other business or government body is concerned about the well being of our people at the lowest level.  Unit cohesion is every commanders concern.  Thinking that the CF can be utilized as some social experiment or driving force representing a cross section of society is foolish.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Jun 2005)

No where in the CF rules (QR+O, CSD et al) does it say that you will be entitled to air your preferences and not be ostracised by your peers for them. (note: ostrasized â â€œ not harassed)

â Å“A few homophobesâ ? is not the issue, nor is fear â â€œ that's what the â Å“phobeâ ? suffix means. It is my right not to feel uncomfortable at work, and knowing that I can rely on the remainder of my team to work well together.

I think that you are also confused as to the definitions of â Å“repressedâ ? and â Å“progressiveâ ? as well. Because  I do not wish to shower with members of the opposite sex, I am repressed? How about modest â â€œ or even shy? Because we do not allow pornography to be used in mainstream advertising (like those â Å“progressiveâ ? Europeans)? Acceptance of alternative lifestyles is not an indicator of any sort of advance â â€œ it is an indicator of the power of the special interest group that represents them.

Homophobia does not need to be â Å“killed offâ ?, just as homosexuals are not a persecuted minority. If you make it known to your peers that you are indeed gay â â€œ that was your choice â â€œ no one chose for you â â€œ as is the case for women and visible minorities. Once again (I think this is #3) Don't ask â â€œ don't tell.

Also, as has been pointed out here â â€œ there are very few homosexuals in the Cbt Arms, and to be quite blunt â â€œ they are not needed â â€œ no operational requirement. There is no law that gives gays an inaliable right to serve in any portion of the army they choose to. And if they do, they are never asked and forced to answer any questions about their sexual orientation. Don't ask â â€œ don't tell.

And as I stated before â â€œ is there any precedence for a regular western infantry unit deployed with openly gay members? I'm listening.


----------



## 48Highlander (25 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> There is no law that gives gays an inaliable right to serve in any portion of the army they choose to. And if they do, they are never asked and forced to answer any questions about their sexual orientation. Don't ask â â€œ don't tell.



Well, it's not a law per-say, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

As for the ol' don't ask don't tell argument, that's right out of 'er.  What if I'm offended by Jews or Muslims?  Does that mean you shouldn't discuss your religion either, or wear any religious symbols?  What happens when I start cracking racist or religious jokes around you?  Make light of the holocaust in front of a jewish member of the CF?  In the end it's the same thing - either you're open minded and accepting of the beleifs and preferences of others, or you're not.  I don't care if you descriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual preference, none of them should be allowed, and all of them will tarnish the proffesional image we try to display.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well, it's not a law per-say, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
> 
> "15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."



That's what I was looking for.

GO!!!, it's funny that you would mix:



> It is my right not to feel uncomfortable at work



and....



> No where in the CF rules (QR+O, CSD et al) does it say that you will be entitled to air your preferences and not be ostracised by your peers for them. (note: ostrasized â â€œ not harassed)



Soooo...which is it?

Contradictory, don't you think?   Or is it only the hetero soldiers that deserve the right not to feel uncomfortable at work?

Personally, I think that Section 15.1 of the Charter overrides your _"right not to feel uncomfortable"._   _"Right not to feel uncomfortable"_ in the military sounds quite ridiculous - it can probably be extended to demanding a tent, hot water, and three meals a day while in the field.

I agree with you on ostracism - there is a natural order to fighting units which attracts alpha males and there are major links between violence and sexual selection (see Ghiglieri, The Dark Side of Man) - gays and women may find this a tough nut to crack into and tight male groups centered around aggresive bonding aren't required to open up socially (as opposed to professionally) with outsiders.   However, this social idea doesn't allow us to override professional obligations that the CF requires us to uphold.

Your raising a good issue, but in my opinion the line of your argument sucks.


----------



## Fry (25 Jun 2005)

I don't think this thread will ever end.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And as I stated before â â€œ is there any precedence for a regular western infantry unit deployed with openly gay members? I'm listening.



I didn't mean to engage on this thread and will back off after this post.  However, I had to add (since it sounded like a challenge) that I can name at least three without thinking about it...two in the Canadian Regular Army (one infantry), one in the NZ Army.  I also know - from first hand experience - that both the Dutch and the Danes have gay members in their combat units.

And before anyone asks for "evidence" or "proof", I'm not saying who or providing any more details.  On this one, you'll have to take my word for it.  Suffice it to say that it wasn't (and isn't) an issue for me, including on operations.

TR


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> I don't think this thread will ever end.



And thats not a bad thing Fry... not in the least

So GO... what about lesbians..  So you don't shower with them...
And they still serve in many roles including infantry.  Are we allowed
lesbians but not gay males because it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable?


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jun 2005)

Aw, stop with the showering argument.   The large majority of new recruits are UNcomfortable to be using group showers around straigt men even, but they stil have to do it - so comfort obviously isn't a factor for men.

On the other hand women generaly not only shower away from the men, but in their washrooms they have seperate shower stalls because of their "needs" - which really just means we want to make them more comfortable.

Really, we shoulda done it the way the Brits did when they allowed women into the combat arms, and made everyone shower together.   Sure maybe the guys would get excited at first, but they'd get used to it fast, and as soon as one of the women got to "that time", most guys would lose all interest in looking at them again


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Aw, stop with the showering argument.  The large majority of new recruits are comfortable to be using group showers around straigt men even, but they stil have to do it - so comfort obviously isn't a factor for men.



The shower defense seems to be the biggest argument of the opposed side yet it really
doesn't seem to hold water... (pardon the pun).... but they still cling to it 14 pages later.


----------



## Fry (26 Jun 2005)

Yep, the showering bit is a big arguement, but what can ya do? Yes, the sexes were divided and supposed to shower seperatly and stuff, but what can you do about the situation now? The only thing I can see, is to brand everyone'[s sexual orientation on their forehead, and make them walk into showers with peers they aren't attracted to, lol. Totally stupid, and illogical. 

What I'm saying, is that I've realized that we can argue over who's right and who's wrong... but the problem will never be resolved. We'll all just have to go on living our lives, treat everyone with the respect they deserve... despite on what some of us may believe.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

As I mentioned to 48th, you're all probably uglier than me, so I don't want to see any of you in the shower, gay or straight.


----------



## neuromancer (27 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I mentioned to 48th, you're all probably uglier than me, so I don't want to see any of you in the shower, gay or straight.



and as a spokesman for all the ugly hairy neanderthals out there... we dont want to see you either!  ;D


----------



## GO!!! (27 Jun 2005)

Well, I think we are hitting the flogging a dead horse stage, but I feel compelled to point out a few more things before leaving.

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Equal protection and benefit of the law, and race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability â â€œ soooo â â€œ since sexual preference is not covered â â€œ I assume that you see gays as â â€œ disabled? Even I don't' say that! And it states "protection of the law" Not "employment in any capacity they see fit"

Words twice â â€œ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â â€œ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF. 

Trinity â â€œ I don't care about lesbians â â€œ I have been using the terms â Å“gayâ ? and â Å“homosexualsâ ? interchangeably.

IMHO â â€œ there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway â â€œ but that's another thread

Also â â€œ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

As for the units with gay members â â€œ I would be curious to know just which positions that these individuals occupied (Platoon leaders down is what I should have specified) This is where the â Å“teamâ ? becomes the most important.


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> IMHO - there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway - but thatâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢s another thread



Hmm.. THis is gonna make a few people angry, lol... Here we go again!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on that, I'd just like to see what reasons you have for saying that?


----------



## Drummie (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also â â€œ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.



I think Padres are a very imprtant part of any unit, and the CF in general. And since when do you get to pick 'who's on the team'?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Well, I think we are hitting the flogging a dead horse stage



That's for sure.



> Equal protection and benefit of the law, and race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability â â€œ soooo â â€œ since sexual preference is not covered â â€œ I assume that you see gays as â â€œ disabled? Even I don't' say that! And it states "protection of the law" Not "employment in any capacity they see fit"



Read the passage from the Charter again:

_"15. (1) *Every individual* is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law *without discrimination* and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."_

Notice what I highlighted -   kinda like a Section 129, eh?   "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which you brought up) would not fly, period (I'm basing this on the current interpretive trend - that's what Charter politics are about).   The military cannot discriminate on someone's suitability based upon sexual preference (and I haven't seen any real compelling reason in this thread convincing me why they should).   If you think you can, you're free to take up a Charter Challenge, but try and guess how that would fly in the Supreme Court.



> Words twice â â€œ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â â€œ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF.



I wasn't comparing "rights not to be offended", I was saying that the Charter Rights of Canadian citizens (the one that states that discrimination is not kosher) easily trumps your personal notion of "personal offence".

A) You should have realized by now that in our military, you don't get to pick and choose your teammates.

B) Quit talking about being offended in an Infantry unit, you're starting to sound like a SHARP student.



> IMHO â â€œ there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway â â€œ but that's another thread



You think?



> Also â â€œ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.



I'll let the Padre deal with this one, but I suspect you might be selling him short (considering he was an Infantry NCO).

Anyways, the fingers are starting to point, so this one is getting close to expiration.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also â â€œ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.


Close Infanteer.... but thanks for the support until I could post.

Yeah... thanks for that GO.  I spent 10 years with the infantry as an NCO but as a Medic.  I have experienced
all aspects of the infantry including leadership roles.  I was no doubt part of the team.  And don't come back
and spew some garbage that I wasn't because I was a medic because there are enough members of my old
unit here to disagree with you. What they did, I did.  

Quite possibly it is because I've had this much time with the infantry and experienced gays in the military is why
I felt the issue needed to be dispelled.  Incidently.. you keep pushing the INFANTRY side of it.  What about all
the other trades who don't have the same need of tight knit association.



> Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you



How belittling is that!!  Important to me? Even if I had no previous experience, who gives you the
right to speak on behalf of all combat arms?  By saying signifcant to you, you are implying that its not
significant to the rest of the troops. By saying that you make me sound like some narcissistic who thinks
he's important when he's not.  Just because you don't see the necesity for a padre or our input
in said environment doesn't mean it isn't important.

You asked for proof of gays serving in combat units - Teddy Ruxpin gave it.
You claimed it was your right not to be serving with them - you were proven wrong by the Charter of rights.
Now you resorting to personal attacks - because i'm not infanty I can't weigh in on the topic because i'm skewed?

At this point, I think you are talking less from fact and more out your Alpha Sierra Sierra.  

Address the issues and facts of the argument.  Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument and bear
no weight on the issue. Infanteer has already threatened to close this thread if it becomes personal, which would
be a shame.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Words twice â â€œ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â â€œ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF.



I do not understand why the mere presence of gays in your unit might offend you. Are you afraid they will hit on you? Or perhaps that they won't find you any more attractive than the women who don't? Or are you afraid that you will actually be seduced by one?

What exactly is the point where you get to be offensive towards gays simply because they exist and may wish to be in your line of work, yet you want the Charter to protect you from them?


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also â â€œ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â â€œ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.



As has been pointed out, padres in general are pretty damn important to many of your "tight-knit" teammates.  This man in particular though was a very important part of our team before he became a padre, so don't go making assumptions about his experience.

All the rest of your points have been adressed by others already so I'll refrain from commenting.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Jun 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I do not understand why the mere presence of gays in your unit might offend you. Are you afraid they will hit on you? Or perhaps that they won't find you any more attractive than the women who don't? Or are you afraid that you will actually be seduced by one?
> 
> What exactly is the point where you get to be offensive towards gays simply because they exist and may wish to be in your line of work, yet you want the Charter to protect you from them?


     I think conduct, not orientation is the important factor.  If specific gay's behaviour is causing problems in unit cohesion then that should be addressed on a case by case basis, just as other cases of objectionable and unprofessional conduct between members of whatever orientation is dealt with.  I was in when women were intergrated to the combat arms, and while I can recall one or two instances where the women were the problem, by in large, the "conduct unbecoming" was comming from a few dinosaurs who confused their own personal prejudice with the good  of the regiment, and the forces that they serve.  I have a feeling that it is the same with the gays.  If you are good enough to meet the same standards that I do, and share the same commitment that I do, I could care less if you like men, women, or goats, as long as your conduct in uniform remains professional.


----------



## GO!!! (27 Jun 2005)

My references to the Infantry are due to the fact that that is where my experience lies, and I would'nt want to overstep my bounds - now would I? 

The charter does not defend gays - period - no where is "sexual preference" covered.

At the risk of sounding unpopular - I will stick to my guns in regards to the experience of attachments to Inf. Coys and Pls. My opinion, based on experience. Attachments are always there when the going is good, and sometimes when it's not. 

And since when do we get to pick who's on the team - we don't - but the rest of the team can sure as hell influence it. 

And finally - why does the gay myth need to be addressed at all?


----------



## c4th (27 Jun 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And finally - why does the gay myth need to be addressed at all?



Yup, the horse is dead.   Anyone out there want tp lock this one up?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> Yup, the horse is dead.   Anyone out there want tp lock this one up?



What he said, but LoudeR!


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

Du...du...du - another one bites the dust!

Wait, wasn't Freddy Mercury gay!


----------

