# Homosexual marriage (social & military implications, and related events)



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2005/01/19/903105-sun.html


A gay old time on base

New military policy allows chaplains to marry same-sex couples

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Parliamentary Bureau

GAY AND lesbian army couples can now get married on military bases. The Canadian Forces has quietly drafted a policy calling for military chaplains to formally bless same-sex weddings. Guidelines -- considered "interim" until the federal government passes a law redefining marriage -- outline the process for pre-nuptial counselling and using the base chapel for same-sex ceremonies. 

Col. Stan Johnstone, a military chaplain who helped draft the policy, said the guidelines reflect the primary role of ministering to all CF members and their families. 

NO EXPECTATIONS 

Johnstone said chaplains vary on personal convictions and theology, but don't discriminate against anyone in need of counsel. 

The guidelines are "essentially a statement of the way the law is going. We don't put any expectations on people -- we expect them to function as we always do, according to the tenets of their church, their own conscience and the laws of the province," he said. 

"No one is being put under any constraint to do something they wouldn't normally do." 

The roughly 150 military chaplains who work on bases across the country aren't required to perform same-sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs, but they have the responsibility to find a colleague to conduct the ceremony. 

Johnstone said the chaplaincy is taking a "leading edge" on the issue as there is not yet a known request for a gay wedding on a base. 

While documents obtained by the Sun under Access to Information refer to the need to "avoid embarrassment" to the Canadian Forces or the chaplain branch, Johnstone said the reference likely speaks to the necessity to keep superiors "in the know" on policy development. 

'SENSITIVE' STAND 

NDP MP Libby Davies applauded the military chaplains' progressive, "sensitive" stand. 

"This shows how while the Liberal government has dragged its feet for so long, every institution in the country is dealing with this. Gay marriage is a reality," she said. 

But Derek Rogusky, VP of family policy for Focus on the Family, raised concerns about the ability to protect religious freedom and worried how the policy might create stress on bases. 

"You already see the division across the country, and now you're going to bring that right on the base of a military, where cohesion and unity is a key aspect of their success," he said. 

kathleen.harris@tor.sunpub.com


----------



## Soleman (19 Jan 2005)

Wow,  This ought to raise some opinions.

Personally I have no problem with people that choose this lifestyle.  Whatever floats your boat just don't ask me to dance at your wedding.  The issue with this is will it undermine morale?  The army still hasn't gotten past the "gay soldier".  

I know a couple of traditional MSC that have deployed or been posted to the same unit and been under the microscope. My wife and I are a MSC, she is an Officer, myself a Jnco and in a request to extend my tour when we were deployed one comment actually made by the chain was MSC should not deploy together it will undermine the cohesion, morale and welfare of the troops.  If a traditional MSC can cause these problems, what would a gay MSC do?

You always have the career manager issue as well.  One half of the couple gets posted so the CM for the spouse has to find a position for them.  People always grumble about favourtism there, especially after soldiers have been told there is no postings for that yr.  I think a gay MSC will have twice the hardship.  Everyone knows there is policy in place about harassment, but it is still out there and people, higher ups included turn a blind eye.

I have known a couple of "gay soldiers" and they did there job better than most, but that didn't matter.  The rest of the soldiers couldn't get past that lifestyle.  They couldn't see the work the soldier was doing because their mind was filled with the stereo typical picture of "gay" and their mind was already made up.

IMHO though I doubt anyone involved in an alternate lifstyle would come forward in the military and marry.  How long did the sex change guy last?


----------



## chaos75 (19 Jan 2005)

Actually the "sex change guy" is still in, I just saw her this summer while passing through on a flight.  Its a free country and thats why the current government is respecting the charter and the rights of gays and lesbians to get married.  Since the military represents the government it is only natural that same sex marrige should be allowed here.  I think the answer is simlple, if your all for it fine, if your not fine, either way keep your opinions to yourself.  However, I dont believe that any minister can actually be forced to perform ceremonies or blessings if it goes against their beliefs, am I wrong on this?


----------



## GIJANE (19 Jan 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Actually the "sex change guy" is still in, I just saw her this summer while passing through on a flight.   Its a free country and thats why the current government is respecting the charter and the rights of gays and lesbians to get married.   Since the military represents the government it is only natural that same sex mamarriagehould be allowed here.   I think the answer is simsimplef your all for it fine, if your not fine, either way keep your opinions to yourself.   However, I dont believe that any minister can actually be forced to perform ceremonies or blessings if it goes against their beliefs, am I wrong on this?



Hmm i wonder if thats under the same line as the pharmacists who won't give out a perscription for birth control because she doesn't believe in it? IMHO if you wanted to do that specific job in the military or civilian life than do it and don't hurt other people because of "your beliefs", if it gets in the way of doing your job properly than i think it's time to seek out another job/career, as for gays in the military, who cares, they are people too, just as black, brown,white,catholic, protestant,Chinese, Japanese,Indian,  yadda yadda, it's time people realized we live in a world with many different "flavors", I have plenty gay friends in the military and they do the job just as well as anyone else.

JANE


----------



## Armymedic (19 Jan 2005)

GIJANE said:
			
		

> Hmm i wonder if thats under the same line as the pharmacists who won't give out a perscription for birth control because she doesn't believe in


No, if thats a CF Pharmacist, that could be considered inappropriate, and actions would be taken, due to the policies set down by CFMO's.



> it's time people realized we live in a world with many different "flavors", I have plenty gay friends in the military and they do the job just as well as anyone else.



Exactly...but in the CF we are all wearing a flag on our left shoulder, or have a Canada tab on our uniform. Therefore, we are all equal (with the exception of rank) in they eyes of the world. We ARE Canada.

Personally, I think this is an excellent explanation of their arcs:



> The roughly 150 military chaplains who work on bases across the country aren't required to perform same-sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs, but they have the responsibility to find a colleague to conduct the ceremony.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Quote,
Hmm i wonder if thats under the same line as the pharmacists who won't give out a perscription for birth control because she doesn't believe in it? IMHO if you wanted to do that specific job in the military or civilian life than do it and don't hurt other people because of "your beliefs", if it gets in the way of doing your job properly than i think it's time to seek out another job/career, as for gays in the military, who cares, they are people too, just as black, brown,white,catholic, protestant,Chinese, Japanese,Indian,   yadda yadda, it's time people realized we live in a world with many different "flavors", I have plenty gay friends in the military and they do the job just as well as anyone else.

Well "Jane" when the 56 year old guy comes to pick up your 17 year-old daughter, just remember that statement,... just because someones line in the sand doesn't jive with your interpertation of where that line should be, doesn't give you the right to say they should quit their career.


----------



## GIJANE (19 Jan 2005)

And what does a 56 year old guy have to do with that statement?  What i meant was the world is full of different people, wether they are of different race or religion whatever, they are still capable of doing the same job as anyone else and we shouldn't think any different of them.

And what i mean about finding a different career is that if you can't do your job properly as it is suppossed to be done and your hurting other people while doing so (for example the pharmacist (who was civillian btw) who wouldn't hand out a perscription for BC because she "doesn't believe in it" is not doing her job)

It's a free country and i'm intitled to my opinion, thats all it is, no one has to agree with me, what did you expect posting this topic anyway?

Jane


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

No, what you suggested in your post is that the Padres/etc in the military should quit if they don't agree with your interpertation of marriage.

I think the reference to the 56 year old guy was obvious, remember when he is dating your 17 year old daughter its just a "different flavour"
[ your words].....so as not to hurt anybody you will just have to accept it.[or quit]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Just wanted to add,...lets keep this on the military side of things,ie. the article and how it applys to the CF.
Yes, I know my posts are drifting too! :-[
Bruce


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2005)

Three points:

1)   I think Armymedic clearly pointed out that no one was going to have to perform something that was against their religious doctrine, so don't worry about padres quitting in a huff:

*"The roughly 150 military chaplains who work on bases across the country aren't required to perform same-sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs, but they have the responsibility to find a colleague to conduct the ceremony."*

2)   The story is probably going to be such a non-issue that I don't think it is worth the effort to debate.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

What happened to # 3?......


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What happened to # 3?......



Shush....your gonna make infanteer look bad........


----------



## Armymedic (19 Jan 2005)

I want to put forth a motion to remove Bruce's s*** stirring paddle (At first I thought this was a spoon, but it must be much larger then that).


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I want to put forth a motion to remove Bruce's s*** stirring paddle (At first I thought this was a spoon, but it must be much larger then that).



No, let him keep it......i like it when he stirs the pot.....all kinds of things tend to come out then


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2005)

Ha...I wrote three and edited "2" out.  Funny, I was thinking "Ooohh, better change it from 2 to 3 so I don't look stupid....."  :dontpanic:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Quote from aesop,
.all kinds of things tend to come out then .................an apt choice of words,...no? ;D

Armymedic,....can't help it, those paddles are grafted on.


----------



## sigpig (19 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think the reference to the 56 year old guy was obvious, remember when he is dating your 17 year old daughter its just a "different flavour"
> [ your words].....so as not to hurt anybody you will just have to accept it.[or quit]



Bruce, are you a professional crap disturber or do you just play one on tv?

Being accepting of people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with 'accepting' a 56 year old dating your 17 year old daughter. You are trying a feint manoever!!!

Hey, who changed my post?!?! You can't say s*%t disturber? What kind of military people are we?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from aesop,
> .all kinds of things tend to come out then .................an apt choice of words,...no? ;D



wow....no shit !!


----------



## GIJANE (19 Jan 2005)

lol just got that...... ;D


Jane


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Quote,
Hey, who changed my post?!?! You can't say s*%t disturber? What kind of military people are we?

...it changes many words automaticily,   ..and we are the kind who know that ANYONE of any age might be reading. 

..and yes your right I was "manovering", but I'm not sure its fair to say someone should quit based on your interpertation of what is moral and what isn't.[remember if I'm not mistaken its not a written law yet.]
 Personally I could care less, its all rather tiring actually when so many in the world have REAL problems.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2005)

It's OK Bruce.....GIJane doesn't think Age Discrimination is in vogue anymore.

What a can of worms this could open up.  A question I have asked jokingly years ago had to do with similar Laws being passed.  For instance, a couple only have to live together for a year and a half before the "Law" recognizes them as Common-Law.  With new anti-discrimination laws supporting the Gay and Lesbian lifestyles, there is no mention of Homosexuallity, just same sex.  Could not two "non-gay" members of the CF then scheme to use the "Common-Law" relationship laws to manipulate the system in the following example:

Two CF members have been sharing a room in the shacks for over three years.  One is posted to Toronto, and the other isn't, but thinks that Toronto would be a jammy posting.  Could that member, not go to the Career Mgr and say that they were "Common-Law" and demand a posting to Toronto?  Take in account the new laws, the new quality of life of the soldier policies, etc.  Who will the first Barrackroom Lawyer be?

GW


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's OK Bruce.....GIJane doesn't think Age Discrimination is in vogue anymore.
> 
> What a can of worms this could open up.   A question I have asked jokingly years ago had to do with similar Laws being passed.   For instance, a couple only have to live together for a year and a half before the "Law" recognizes them as Common-Law.   With new anti-discrimination laws supporting the Gay and Lesbian lifestyles, there is no mention of Homosexuallity, just same sex.   Could not two "non-gay" members of the CF then scheme to use the "Common-Law" relationship laws to manipulate the system in the following example:
> 
> ...



Now there's an interesting prospect. In typical fashion, the law will undoubtably be vague about all this. By i can definately see the day where someone will try pulling a stunt like this.


----------



## LowRider (19 Jan 2005)

> Being accepting of people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with 'accepting' a 56 year old dating your 17 year old daughter. You are trying a feint manoever!!!



Allow me to make it clearer for you sigpig!If sexual orientation is protected under the Charter of rights,thus setting precedent?Guess what buddy paedophiles cannot be disriminated against just because they like children.Is not Paedophilia also sexual orientation?Yes i believe it is,guess we gotta accept them as well.


----------



## onecat (19 Jan 2005)

"Could not two "non-gay" members of the CF then scheme to use the "Common-Law" relationship laws to manipulate the system in the following example:"

Well sure if someone or some people want to scheme the CF out of something, I'm sure they could do it.   BUt that's not reason, to discriminate based on   sexual orientation.   A couple is couple no matter what sex they.   In your example a male and female friend do that same thing, to get out of   shacks and get a PMQ.   If someone is going to scheme, then they'll find a way to do it.


----------



## camochick (19 Jan 2005)

I dont think common law is that easy. I'm prietty sure you have to file taxes together or do something that shows the government that you are a couple and not just two people living together. If that was the case, I would have been common law with my ex roomate and well i should be getting half of his sweet cd collection. As for the whole gay thing, my opinion is if it doesnt hurt you then its none of your business so just let people be. hehe >


----------



## Horse_Soldier (19 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> Allow me to make it clearer for you sigpig!If sexual orientation is protected under the Charter of rights,thus setting precedent?Guess what buddy paedophiles cannot be disriminated against just because they like children.Is not Paedophilia also sexual orientation?Yes i believe it is,guess we gotta accept them as well.



Sheesh - that tired and discredited argument.   Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - it is the predisposition to a criminal act, i.e. sexual abuse of minors.


----------



## onecat (19 Jan 2005)

"Allow me to make it clearer for you sigpig!If sexual orientation is protected under the Charter of rights,thus setting precedent?Guess what buddy paedophiles cannot be discriminated against just because they like children.Is not Paedophilia also sexual orientation?Yes i believe it is,guess we gotta accept them as well."

Being Gay and being a paedolhile are not that same thing....I get so tire of of hearing from closed mind people who think that being gay and likimg children is the same. Making a statment like that is the same as saying all RC preists are gay or are paedophiles.   Its not.   And the charter, doesn't protect paedophiles.   To say that it is, is just blowing crap.   Get over your homophobia and move on.


----------



## sigpig (19 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> Allow me to make it clearer for you sigpig!If sexual orientation is protected under the Charter of rights,thus setting precedent?Guess what buddy paedophiles cannot be disriminated against just because they like children.Is not Paedophilia also sexual orientation?Yes i believe it is,guess we gotta accept them as well.



Paedophilia, an adult preying upon and having sex with minor children is against the law in Canada I thought. A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults, or two consentiing minors for that matter, is not against the law.

Do you really want to be equating the two?


----------



## Gunner (19 Jan 2005)

I think this issue could very easily be solved by taking the word "marriage" out of government policy.   The federal/provincial government should provide guidelines and regulation over who and what can form unions that are recognized in a legal sense.   Marriage, in my mind, denotes religious affiliation "married in the eyes of the Lord".   Hence there is nothing wrong with a man and man, woman and woman or man and woman forming a lawful union.   Leave the religion out of the whole equation because, in my mind, the government has no business being involved in it anyway.   

Finally, the societal norms will dictate what a lawful union is (two 25 year old men or an 90 year man and a 17 year old girl).   If they love each other enough to make a commitment, all the power to them.   If a religious group wants to marry homosexual couples in accordance with their customs and beliefs, well done to them.   In the end, I hope we have moved beyond the entire homosexual debate and accepted it as is.   Can a man or woman do their job, that's what I worry about.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,


----------



## LowRider (19 Jan 2005)

> Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - it is the predisposition to a criminal act



So was Homosexuality 20 years ago,but i'm sure the comparison will escape you!Now everyone can flame me for being intolerant and un-Canadian because i don't agree with Liberal Social engineering.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Quote,
Sheesh - that tired and discredited argument.   Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - it is the predisposition to a criminal act, i.e. sexual abuse of minors.
....for how long, though?    I think that is what some people[myself included] are worried about...just how long before "anything goes at any age with anybody" because no one will eventually put their feet down?
Again, my problem is definetally not with gays,......my problem is the slippery slope we are on in regards to our children in the future.


EDIT: and I can see I broke my own rule, staying on the article, lets keep it civil or down she goes, ladies and gents.....


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Now there's an interesting prospect. In typical fashion, the law will undoubtably be vague about all this. By i can definately see the day where someone will try pulling a stunt like this.



The answer is 'no'. There are more elements to a common law relationship than just living together.


----------



## LowRider (19 Jan 2005)

.





> Making a statment like that is the same as saying all RC preists are gay or are paedophiles.



No i believe that is stereotyping,which has absolutly nothing to do with anything i said.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Quote from Whiskey 601,
The answer is 'no'. There are more elements to a common law relationship than just living together.

Well now that can bring us back to the article, does anyone know what these "elements" are?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> So was Homosexuality 20 years ago,but i'm sure the comparison will escape you!Now everyone can flame me for being intolerant and un-Canadian because i don't agree with Liberal Social engineering.



So what are you saying...that in 20 years pedophilia will be legal !   What are you....on crack ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

I'm trying to keep this open but......


----------



## camochick (19 Jan 2005)

I dont think pedohilia will ever become legal. I'm prietty sure someone would step in I mean you're prietty worked up about it and its not even happening. You're not untolerant or un canadian because you dont agree with homosexuality. You dont have to agree with it, you just have to accept the fact that it is here and it will not go anywhere and that these people are going to get married(or have a union) and there is nothing you can do about it. You have every right to your opinion but as soon as that opinion becomes going in the streets and beating gays then its a problem.


----------



## onecat (19 Jan 2005)

There is nio slippy slope.   The law is very clear on having sex with kids, and that isn't going change.   And Canadian have always put their foot down on having sex with kids....   that's why they go jail.   If you honesty think that because we allow gays to marry, that we're going to aloow father's or mother's to have sex with their kids or that man down the street is going to allowed to picked up his next date at the playgound...   then you seriously need help.   They are not same.   If you think they are, then please explain it to me, because I don't see the link.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Then answer this, cause I really don't know, was homosexuality ever illegal in Canada?
...and if so, did people say the same thing about it that you just said?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm trying to keep this open but......



Bruce, i realize what you mean but :

When someone starts equating homosexuality and pedophilia and implying that pedophilia , like homosexuality will become acceptable if given enough time......he needs to have his headspace and timing adjusted.


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Jan 2005)

So, if 2 men or 2 women is fine, how can we say no to a polygamist? What "marital" rights do we offer to several wives? There are very committed polygamists and polyamorists in the world - surely, they have rights too? I think that this may be a more reasonable example than pedophiles...

I tend to agree with Gunner... to me "marriage" has a religious connotation. Insisting on gay marriage would be like me insisting on receiving communion at a mosque - apples and oranges. I do agree that somehow, someone has to come up with a reasonable set of guidelines for "civil unions" or some such thing. I'm as conservative as they come, but a gay person not being allowed to visit their sick partner in the hospital because their dire condition requires "family only" visits is ludicrous.


----------



## camochick (19 Jan 2005)

If gays have to have "civil unions" then why dont we call that for hetero's. What if a church wants to marry them, then it is a marriage but will it still have to be called a civil union. Why is it one thing for one group and another for the other. Why is a three thousand year old book dictating our world in 2005? I don't get the whole issue. People are people, they love each other, who cares what its called as long as its the same for everyone. Isnt that what we want, equality?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Why is a three thousand year old book dictating our world in 2005?  :....which book, cause I don't think all of them are that age.


----------



## Gunner (19 Jan 2005)

Every coupling should be a civil union.   A lawful union sanctioned by the state and taxed accordingly!   If a church wants to "marry" someone in the eyes of God, that is for the church to decide.   As I mentioned before, get the state and religion out of marriage for all people. People get hung up in the religious aspects of marriage, and they (and the government) shouldn't.   If Roman Catholics don't want to marry you as a gay couple, find another church or denomination.   Why should they change for you?   It's there beliefs.

Cheers,


----------



## LowRider (19 Jan 2005)

.





> They are not same.   If you think they are, then please explain it to me, because I don't see the link.


 Why bother?You have been fully indoctrinated by the Socialist MSM,thus it's a waste of my time because you have failed to see my point.


----------



## camochick (19 Jan 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why is a three thousand year old book dictating our world in 2005?   :....which book, cause I don't think all of them are that age.




You missed the point completely. I'm saying that most people who have a case against homosexuality use the bible and religion as their excuse. Well I'm prietty sure that texts from thousands of years ago have most definatley been changed to suit the needs of whatever person happened to be in power.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> . Why bother?You have been fully indoctrinated by the Socialist MSM,thus it's a waste of my time because you have failed to see my point.



What planet are you from.......not only did you make some rather screwed up statements but now you can defend them ?


----------



## sigpig (19 Jan 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with Gunner... to me "marriage" has a religious connotation.



Can't a Justice of the Peace or a judge perform marriages? Doesn't sound too religious to me. In line with what camochick was saying, this separate but equal stuff smacks of the treatment of blacks in schools in the US before desegregation. 

No, churches wouldn't have to perform a gay marriage ceremony but why shouldn't they be able to married outside of a church? It's not like heterosexuals have done such a great job with the institution. How many marriages have Larry King and Liz Taylor had? How easy was it for Britney to get plastered, get married, then unmarried? What is the percentage of hetero marriages in North America that end in divorce? Please, it's not like gays can do any worse.


----------



## sigpig (19 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> . Why bother?You have been fully indoctrinated by the Socialist MSM,thus it's a waste of my time because you have failed to see my point.



What is this Socialist MSM that you refer to? If I've been indoctrinated, I'd like to know by what.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2005)

In some countries, such as Germany, a couple have two weddings; one Civil and one Church.   In Canada you have a choice of one or the other, Civil or Church weddings.

Did not our law about marriage come into effect many years ago to condone the marriage of one man to one woman, in order to put a stop to polygamy?   If that is the case, we still have a choice of what type of wedding we want.   Does a Civil Union between two same sex people have to be called a "Marriage"?

If the Government has stayed out of the business of the Church; why is it now dictating what happens in CF Chapels?   Are CF Chaplains not recognized by the state as being ordained members of the Church?

Getting back to pedophilia; how did we get off on that tangent to begin with?   What is the legal age of conscent in this country?   Perhaps Bruce should have said "21 year old spinster daughter".

GW


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Getting back to pedophilia; how did we get off on that tangent to begin with.   What is the legal age of conscent in this country?
> 
> GW



We got on that subject because someone decided to equate pedophilia to homosexuality.His contention was that the charter protects then as well because pedophilia is a "sexual orientation". I guess with this guy " the lights are on but nobody's home"

At ay rate....like JTF threads....this has gone to shits....Mods ?


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Jan 2005)

Exactly Gunner.   

camochick, I guess what Gunner and I are saying is to reverse or change the semantics already in place. My wife and I were married (unioned   ???) in a courthouse. In the eyes of the "state" we are legally married, or - fast forward - we have formed a "legally recognized civil union". Now, if we want to be "married", as in a Christian marriage - we have to get our Union blessed in the Church. Which would be voluntary on our part.



> Can't a Justice of the Peace or a judge perform marriages?


 sigpig - in a roundabout way, we agree...  What we (Gunner and I) are saying is that (as far as I know) marriage, in the beginning, was a Christian/religious principle, which over time, the Governments chose to recognize. If Government wants to change the definition of marriage, then they should probably change the name of it too....

George hit it on the head.....


----------



## GIJANE (19 Jan 2005)

My husband and i got married in the JRC by a marriage commissioner, not very religious  


Jane


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

GIJANE said:
			
		

> My husband and i got married in the JRC by a marriage commissioner, not very religious
> 
> 
> Jane



Same here..........and then separated legaly by a mediator payed by the military !!........mmmm.....wait, i see a patern forming.........


----------



## sigpig (19 Jan 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is the legal age of conscent in this country?GW



Horribly worded part of section 151 of Criminal Code:

Sexual Offences

Consent no defence


150.1 (1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.

Exception

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused

(a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years;

(b) is less than two years older than the complainant; and

(c) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency.


Much clearer wording from the Interpol site:

Canada - CanadÃƒÂ¡
Ottawa


I. Ages for legal purposes

Age of simple majority

    There is no set age of majority throughout Canada. The age of majority is generally fixed by each province. According to section 1 of the 'Age of Majority and Accountability Act' in Ontario and to section 153 f the Quebec Civil Code, the age of majority is of eighteen (18) years. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba, the age of majority is also eighteen (18) years. In Newfoundland, the age of majority is seventeen (17) years and in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Northwest territories and Yukon, the age of majority is nineteen (19).

Age of consent for sexual activity

    According to section 151 of the Criminal Code, the legal age for consenting to a sexual activity is fourteen (14) years

    'Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body a person under the age of fourteen (14) years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.'

Age of consent for marriage

    The age of consent for marriage can differ from one province to another. In Ontario, according to subsection 5(1) of the 'Marriage Act', any person who is eighteen (18) years or older can obtain a licence or be married under the authority of the publication of banns. Furthermore, subsection 5(2) maintains that a minor cannot be married except if the minor is of the age of sixteen (16) years or more and has the consent in writing of both parents. The federal 'Marriage Act' was repealed.



I am surprised to see the age of consent for sexual activity is 14. Would have thought it was 16.


----------



## kapyong (19 Jan 2005)

The armed forces has to reflect the social values of the nation it is sworn to defend. If the Canadian people, by and large, support gay and lesbian unions, then the CF will have to adapt. Just like women in the combat arms(which I happen to strongly disagree with) or on board ship, or anywhere else women were excluded. Thats the nice thing about the CF, its a play army, not terribly capable, so we can endevour in these social engineering experiments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Locked while we decide what to do with that last post, .....   kapyong we will talk.

EDIT ...unlocking as I have to go away for an hour ...mods..?


----------



## GIJANE (19 Jan 2005)

kapyong said:
			
		

> The armed forces has to reflect the social values of the nation it is sworn to defend. If the Canadian people, by and large, support gay and lesbian unions, then the CF will have to adapt. Just like women in the combat arms(which I happen to strongly disagree with) or on board ship, or anywhere else women were excluded. Thats the nice thing about the CF, its a play army, not terribly capable, so we can endevour in these social engineering experiments.




ohhhhh boy i wish these were unedited boards right now.  

Jane


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

GIJANE said:
			
		

> ohhhhh boy i wish these were unedited boards right now.
> 
> Jane



Realx Jane, don't waste the energy, this guy isn't worth it.


----------



## LowRider (19 Jan 2005)

What is this Socialist MSM that you refer to? If I've been indoctrinated, I'd like to know by what.

Mainstream media-ie:Television,movies,music etc.The catalyst for societal norms and pop culture,such as it is.Violence and crime is glorified in movies,Gangster rap&video games,and youth violence is rapidly climbing ,just one example,the point in all this is that society is changing.What is considered a horrible atrocity by todays standards may be the norm in a decade.Not convinced?How did Hitler steer a nation down the path to genocide.


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Jan 2005)

I think about all the possible points have been made, that relate to the original post. If someone thinks of a related comment, maybe a new thread can start.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2005)

Thanks Muskrat, sorry I had to bail, but duty called.[and they pay the bills]


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2005)

> Harper warns of 'radical' marriages
> Globe and Mail Update with Canadian Press
> 20 Jan 05
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050120.wharp0120/BNStory/National/


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (25 Jan 2005)

A rather odd article from the Peoples Republic Of British Columbia, comments?



B.C. lesbians fight to hold wedding reception in Catholic hall
Last Updated Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:32:23 EST 
CBC News
VANCOUVER - A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men's group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday. 

The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them. 

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003. 

They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple. 

The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it. 

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday. 

The couple's lawyer, Barbara Findlay, said they didn't realize a Catholic group operated the hall when they rented it. 

She said that after the women paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations, the Knights of Columbus backed out. 

"They got a call saying they had learned the celebration was in relation to a same-sex marriage and they couldn't countenance that, so they cancelled the booking," said Findlay. 

The head of the Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, Elemer Lazar, declined a CBC News request for an interview. But he has said in the past that he doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility. 

The hearing is expected to last four days. 

Court decisions in six provinces and one territory have already paved the way for same-sex marriages. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the federal government will proceed with legislation early in 2005 legalizing same-sex marriage across the country.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jan 2005)

Yeah right...  They did not know the KOC operated the hall... :

More carpet munchng deviant bullshit trying to inflame Christians and to garner sympathy for their pathetic lifestyle.  Same sort of people trying to ban the Bible as a hate book.


YMMV


Kevin


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Yeah right...   They did not know the KOC operated the hall... :
> 
> More carpet munchng deviant bullshit trying to inflame Christians and to garner sympathy for their pathetic lifestyle.   Same sort of people trying to ban the Bible as a hate book.
> 
> ...




Although I dont agree with forcing a catholic hall to rent to lesbians, I also don't agree with your hateful post. Maybe instead of posting here you should just go pick up your little white hood from the dry cleaners. Maybe burn a few crosses in someones yard. It's 2005, and gays and lesbians are here whether you like it or not. You don't have to accept them, but throwing around slurs shows ignorance and a lack of understanding. Shame on you.


----------



## rcr (25 Jan 2005)

Homosexuality is definately here to stay, however there should be boundaries in place to protect the rights of those who do not want their holy buildings or properties involved with same-sex marriages.  Christianity, Catholicism especially, is very sensitive to something the bible does not deem appropriate, and it is wrong for a government or rights institution to force them to accept something they are not willing to accept themselves.  However I am sure if the legislation passes and same-sex marriage is legalized that many inner-city churches and non-denominational churches will open their doors.  Many new churches ma even rise to welcome it. After all same-sex marriage involves two humans.  But if the church (KOC is affiliated with the Catholic church - read properties above) does not want any part of it, that is their right. 

I believe KevinB, like many, is just fed up with the media-borne attacts many, homosexual or not, use on institutions that have not opened their doors to current movements or idealogies in Canada.  The Canada that does have many instances of those climbing on the backs of many to get to the heights of few.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2005)

This is definitely an attempt to attack a "traditional" institution. It seems odd that the very people who are agitating so loudly for acceptance and tolerance fail to show any themselves.....


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2005)

archer said:
			
		

> Homosexuality is definately here to stay, however there should be boundaries in place to protect the rights of those who do not want their holy buildings or properties involved with same-sex marriages. Christianity, Catholicism especially, is very sensitive to something the bible does not deem appropriate, and it is wrong for a government or rights institution to force them to accept something they are not willing to accept themselves. However I am sure if the legislation passes and same-sex marriage is legalized that many inner-city churches and non-denominational churches will open their doors. Many new churches ma even rise to welcome it. After all same-sex marriage involves two humans. But if the church (KOC is affiliated with the Catholic church - read properties above) does not want any part of it, that is their right.
> 
> I believe KevinB, like many, is just fed up with the media-borne attacts many, homosexual or not, use on institutions that have not opened their doors to current movements or idealogies in Canada. The Canada that does have many instances of those climbing on the backs of many to get to the heights of few.



This matter is further complicated by the various levels of Government, Federal and Provincial, drawing up conflicting legislations.   Even differences of interpretation of legislations between different Departments within Government further cloud the matter.   

For instance, the CF Chaplaincy has been ordered to accommodate Same Sex Marriages, yet that is in conflict with the rules laid out for the Church elsewhere in Canadian Legislation.   Why would a Church on a Military Base be different from a Church on Civie Street?

GW


----------



## onecat (25 Jan 2005)

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003. 

They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple. 

The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

I can see both sides of this debate here, but lets remember this is a hall not a church and is open to public rental by anyone.   No one if forcing the KOC to marry them, they just want to use there space.   I doubt anyone here would support the KOC if they had decided to not to rent a black couple who wanted to have their there wedding RECEPTION in their Hall.   remember it was for their RECEPTION only, not the wedding.


----------



## 735_winnipeg (25 Jan 2005)

lesbians?!  where's my invite...for that matter where's my vid cam?


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

735_winnipeg said:
			
		

> lesbians?!   where's my invite...for that matter where's my vid cam?



Wow I am seeing so much intelligence on the board today.  :


----------



## 735_winnipeg (25 Jan 2005)

hey gimme a break here, it's my day off from work


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This is definitely an attempt to attack a "traditional" institution. It seems odd that the very people who are agitating so loudly for acceptance and tolerance fail to show any themselves.....



Have to agree with the Majoor on this one.

I have no Prob with them getting into a Common union with the same rights as marrage but i don't think marriage should be the tittle given to them.   It may not be the "most intellegent postion" but it is mine. It is the rights they are after here correct not the tittle.


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

Day off or not, you're being obnoxious. These women are lesbians, I am sure even if they were straight they wouldnt want anything to do with you. 

To get back to the argument, I don't think that any religion should be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages if it is against their beliefs. I think some people take things to the extremes and that there has to be a limit on who can whine or sue   about what. Look at how many men have had their careers ruined because some woman couldnt take a compliment about her clothes. There is working towards equal rights and then there is taking it to the extreme. I think these women should have known better and that they should have just book some place else.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

But in today's media age if you don't continue to press the buttons of society your issue will die.

But camochick i agree it is all matter of posturing, and who can gain what or make money off of someones ill doing or opression.  People tend to forget what the real issue is. EQUAL RIGHTS, and get stuck in verbal barbs or bull s*** issues that have little or nothing to do with the real point.


----------



## LowRider (25 Jan 2005)

.





> I doubt anyone here would support the KOC if they had decided to not to rent a black couple who wanted to have their there wedding RECEPTION in their Hall.



True,but that would be a "racial" issue SSM is not.


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> .
> 
> True,but that would be a "racial" issue SSM is not.



But what is the difference really? 50 years ago blacks couldnt go to the same stores as whites, or use the same bathrooms, or sit at the front of the bus. Now we are telling gays that they can't get married. It's the same thing. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If you are not gay how is it going to affect you. It won't. Who cares if its called a union or a marriage. What does it really matter? Will the world stop turning? I highly doubt it. I don't get why this is such an issue.


----------



## GIJANE (25 Jan 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> But what is the difference really? 50 years ago blacks couldnt go to the same stores as whites, or use the same bathrooms, or sit at the front of the bus. Now we are telling gays that they can't get married. It's the same thing. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If you are not gay how is it going to affect you. It won't. Who cares if its called a union or a marriage. What does it really matter? Will the world stop turning? I highly doubt it. I don't get why this is such an issue.




Ditto.....

Jane


----------



## Recce41 (25 Jan 2005)

Fellas
 Read Camochick sig?


----------



## onecat (25 Jan 2005)

"True,but that would be a "racial" issue SSM is not."

being prejudice, is still being prejudice doesn't want the issue is. Being Racist or homohoplic its still based on the same intolerances; its just easier to being intolerant to gays but there is no difference to me.   And remember these women are taking them to court because they barred their reception, not their marriage.   So the whole gay marriage thing has no place in this debate, as they were already married at that point.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

It is such an issue because you are trying to attach a religious term to process that the religions do not support.   If the government got out of the marriage business all together and only performed civil unions then there would be no issue.   The fight has turned from the important EQUAL RIGHTS issue to the use of a tittle.   

I personal don't think marriage should be a term given to SSC (same sex couples) but i feel that in a civil union they should have the same rights as though given to a Married Couple.   

The Government both Federal and Provincial should not be in the marriage business at all they should only be allowed to perform civil unions.   

The term marriage should be saved for religious ceremonies.   

There issue is solved.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Fellas
> Read Camochick sig?



So. Does that lessen her opinion, or make unvaluable?

In fact i think it makes it that much more valuable, A sig is not based on fact read Bradswallows, or Apes or mine does that determine who i am?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2005)

The "race" remarks can't be taken in context either.   How does a Black Man fighting for equal rights of a White Man, and Black Woman fighting for equal rights to a White Woman fifty years ago, equate to two men (or two women) trying to have the same legal status as a man and woman?   When do we allow "the Cowboy the rights to marry his horse"?   (A couple of cases have been put before the courts before of cowboys and their horses.)

Paul Martins comments that homosexual relationships are legal and polygamy is not, would therefore fall into this category.   Homosexual relations were illegal not so many years ago.   What is to say polygamy doesn't also go through the same 'developmental stages' in the courts and becomes legal in another twenty years.   We already have Muslim clerics stating that they see nothing wrong with polygamy.   Some Mormon Sects already practice it.   Where do we stop?   Everyone and everything cannot be equal.   Some lines must be drawn and well defined.   Perhaps Marriage should be considered only a Church matter between a man and a woman, as it is in some countries, and Civil Unions be the Civil equivalent of two consenting non-gender specific human adults.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

george you are a wise man


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

It is the same thing as race discrimination. It's denying the rights of one group to another. Polygamy is not something people are born with. You don't think when you are a kid that hey, I have this feeling in me that makes me want to marry more than one woman. We in our society are not sapposed to discriminate against handicapped people cause they are born that way, so why is it alright to discriminate against gays. Who cares if it's called marriage or a civil union. Heterosexuals have had the market on marriage for how long, wow, look what they have done with it. If they are marrying in the eyes of the lord and calling it a marriage, isn't it a sin to break those vows, isn't it wrong to get divorced. What a hypocrisy. You cant call it marriage cause you are gay but I can get married in the eyes of my lord and then go screw someone else and get a divorce.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (25 Jan 2005)

If they are marrying in the eyes of the lord and calling it a marriage, isn't it a sin to break those vows,   YES  isn't it wrong to get divorced. YES  What a hypocrisy. You cant call it marriage cause you are gay but I can get married in the eyes of my lord and then go screw someone else and get a divorce.

Again divorce is not a religious institution.

What about the lesbian couple who got married when it was made legal in Ont and then got divorced last month?  

I am not saying that only straight couples can be married i am saying that we make it a religious term that way straight couples who do want to have a civil union but are not religious can have it done by the government.  This is not discrimination as the rights for all would be the same.  Is that not the real issue.  

What one chooses to do after they are married will have to be answered to at one point, be it to a higher power or not


----------



## beach_bum (25 Jan 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> It is the same thing as race discrimination. It's denying the rights of one group to another. Polygamy is not something people are born with. You don't think when you are a kid that hey, I have this feeling in me that makes me want to marry more than one woman. We in our society are not sapposed to discriminate against handicapped people cause they are born that way, so why is it alright to discriminate against gays. Who cares if it's called marriage or a civil union. Heterosexuals have had the market on marriage for how long, wow, look what they have done with it. If they are marrying in the eyes of the lord and calling it a marriage, isn't it a sin to break those vows, isn't it wrong to get divorced. What a hypocrisy. You cant call it marriage cause you are gay but I can get married in the eyes of my lord and then go screw someone else and get a divorce.



In the eyes of the Catholic church, being gay is a sin.   I do not have a problem with civil unions or SSC's receiving the same benefits as anyone else, but I do have a problem with their union being called a marriage.   Marriage is a religious based union, and should remain within the church.   As for divorce, the catholic church does not recognize divorces either.   Someone who does get a divorce is not allowed to marry again within the Church based on that fact.   Also, adultery.....read the ten commandments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jan 2005)

That, in my opinion, is correct, good post ,Beach.

Quote,
_Polygamy is not something people are born with. You don't think when you are a kid that hey, I have this feeling in me that makes me want to marry more than one woman_
...actually Camochick, I challenge you on this, I think that is exactly what most men are born with and society changes that.


----------



## rcr (25 Jan 2005)

I think you are taking this a little too far bringing divorce into the matter.   I don't know about you, but I have witnessed my parents divorcing and if it is not something you've gone through, do not even try to bring it into perspective here.   Divorce is not condoned by religion either.   Divorce is a personal matter against religious values.   What will the opinion be when a Same sex couple married by a Pastor decides to break their values?

What is trying to be tabled here by other members is that the term Marriage traditionally belongs to the church.   What is trying to be applied through legislation is that this term can be applied to the union between two people of the same sex.   What the Church is trying to defend itself from is having this union now incorporate same sex couples, while homosexuality is something traditionally frowned upon by the Church.   There is nothing wrong with a civil union, but when the Church is being forced or if will be forced to allow Marriage between to people of the same sex, I think it has the right to defend itself.   Do you not think there is pressure or discrimination against churches as well in this matter?   

I understand you're trying to defend your opinion, but do not forget there are two sides to this issue and two parties trying to put through their opinion as well.


----------



## camochick (25 Jan 2005)

But why does it really matter whether its called marriage, or a civil union, shouldnt it be called the same thing for everyone. I don't have any religous beliefs but if i get married to a man can I still call what I have a marriage. OF course, cause i am marrying a man. But if i marry a woman then I have to call it a civil union. Where is the logic in that. Why does it matter to religious people if gays get married or what they call it. They are not gay, they are not getting married. When did it become their business?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jan 2005)

Folks,
 Do any of us think we will change anyones mind here?  If this issue bothers either side this much, my suggestion would be to go find a website that caters to this discussion and vent to your hearts content.
Unless a new story/development comes up I'm going to lock this down as we are just repeating ourselves.
Thanks,
Bruce


----------

