The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[Northern Touch]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb] Since when has marriage become a matter revolving around intercourse. How many people have gotten married for the sole purpose of breeding? I think affection goes beyond your simple, physiological explanation.
[/qb]

Yes of coarse marriage goes beyond and deals with things such as affection, love, intimacy, commitment, passion and a great deal many more things im sure, but i was merly pointing out a different view.

Intercoarse IS a part of marriage. Is that not a reason why it is tradition to consummate the marriage on the wedding night through intercoarse? (Consummate:To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.) Can you get that with a same sex couple?

 

[Infanteer]

Can you get that with a same sex couple?

You obviously haven‘t seen the porn that flys around the shacks....

So, if were baseing marriage strongly upon intercourse and procreation, are we to forbid infertile males or females from marrying? How about elderly people have moved beyond that stage of their life and are seeking a companion to end their lives with? Are we to deny them marriage on these grounds?

I think before we start commiting ourselves to forbidding same-sex marriage we should get a firm grasp on what marriage is first.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I know many have distorted this, but basically, this is what it comes down to.

 

[Eowyn]

Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
[qb] "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I know many have distorted this, but basically, this is what it comes down to. [/qb]

And that definition is discriminatory on one of the prohibitive grounds in the Charter.

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.

 

[Harris]

Not to put too fine a point on it but no one asked me if I agreed to all of the Charter‘s "rules". There are some I agree with, and some I don‘t. But all I see now are people using the Charter as a shield/weapon, rather than a guide for how we should be treated and live our lives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Whatever one chooses to believe about marriage, defining it as union between man and woman is not discriminatory on a Charter basis. Everyone has the identical privilege to marry one person of the opposite sex. Whether one cares to exercise a particular privilege or right is of no importance.

In order to develop the argument that the definitions is discriminatory, one must assume that the basis of marriage is to exercise sexuality. However, I suppose the basis of marriage is to provide a secure unit for the primary purpose of child-rearing, with the implication that the couple is capable of procreation. Procreation is of course not the only means of obtaining a child to raise. Nevertheless, if marriage were not exclusively valued for the purpose of child-rearing, I should think any one of a number of societies or civilizations which antedates our own and was not exclusively heterosexual might have implemented marriage for other purposes. Which societies did or do provide for that?

If Canadians want to redefine marriage as primarily an exercise in commitment to monogamous sexual practices or the establishment of a partnership which grants certain rights and privileges, then maybe that redefinition should be the first step. Or, maybe we can leave marriage to be decided by established religions and develop an irreligious alternative suitable for the political and civil area of influence. As an irreligious person, I am prepared to develop such an alternative rather than force state pseudo-religion down the throats of others.

 

[brin11]

Brad, isn‘t there already an alternative? Many marriages are secular in origin since the ceremony is overseen by a person with secular powers (marriage commissioner, captain of a ship). In my understanding people can certainly obtain a secular marriage if they choose or they may decide to marry in a religious setting where the person overseeing the marriage (clergy, etc.) has the power to cause a LEGAL marriage to take place. Can anyone explain if the powers of clergy to marry are automatic or if they need to become a marriage commissioner as well? If homosexuals were to be married only by non-religious persons would this make everyone feel better?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If there is an alternative, why all the fuss? It seems to me the alternative must not be entirely satisfactory.

I doubt everyone is going to feel better regardless of the solution(s). Some people are "for" or "against" quite viscerally.

Despite my lack of religious affiliation and my complete disinterest in being a member of any sort of exclusive club, I find myself progressively more annoyed at the continued assault on freedoms of religion and association under the guise of anti-discrimination.

 

[brin11]

Brad, I agree. Obviously, the alternative to religious marriage is not satisfactory and some homosexuals will want a religious marriage. I believe they should be entitled to a legal marriage just as heterosexuals are but, when it comes to religious marriages, its up to the church or religion itself to decide whether this would be offered. The problem is, not many places recognize homosexual marriages in the legal sense. Hopefully, as this changes many will be satisfied and be able to enjoy the same entitlements a legal marriage offers just like everyone else.

 

[Northern Touch]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb]

Can you get that with a same sex couple?

So, if were baseing marriage strongly upon intercourse and procreation, are we to forbid infertile males or females from marrying? How about elderly people have moved beyond that stage of their life and are seeking a companion to end their lives with? Are we to deny them marriage on these grounds?

I think before we start commiting ourselves to forbidding same-sex marriage we should get a firm grasp on what marriage is first. [/qb]

Never did I mention forbidding a marriage of any kind. I simply stated that I don‘t believe in same sex marriages. In fact, if you look at my first post I said "If they want to get married, fine, it doesn‘t affect me in anyway".

When marriage goes from being the legal union of a man and women as husband and wife, to the legal union of two persons, then no one will be able to forbide it since two persons can be of the same sex. Of coarse, people will always be able to disagree.

 

[Sask HCAO]

Air base hosts 1st military gay wedding
Last Updated Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:40:02 EDT
CBC News

Two men were married in the chapel at Nova Scotia's Greenwood air base in May, in what's being called the Canadian military's first gay wedding.

Lt.-Cmdr. David Greenwood, the base's head chaplain, said a sergeant and a warrant officer were married May 3 in front of about 45 guests.

"This couple had been waiting a very long, long time," said Greenwood, declining to give their names because he hadn't asked for permission.

Last September, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, effectively changing the definition of marriage in the province to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."
The military has said it's willing to host gay weddings in jurisdictions where it's legal.

Greenwood, an Anglican, did not perform the marriage in May, making the arrangements for the service while a United Church minister from nearby Wolfville performed the vows.

"I looked after the co-ordination in accordance with our military policy of receiving the couple with dignity and respect," said Greenwood.

"I was there to preach and welcome the community on behalf of the base chaplaincy."

While most Anglican dioceses in Canada do not perform same-sex marriages, the Canadian church has postponed its official decision until 2007.

Greenwood said the ceremony was relaxed and low-key, and there wasn't a dry eye in sight when the couple signed the marriage documents.

Greenwood said he has been told that a second same-sex marriage may be in the works at CFB Valcartier in Quebec later in the year.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country, but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

Federal politicians are now considering a same-sex marriage bill.

Currently, same-sex marriages performed in seven provinces and one territory are legal and must be recognized. Same-sex marriages are not performed in Alberta, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but the Nunavut government will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

 

[Hunter]

Seems ironic to me, considering the study that was published calling us a bunch of violent thugs and rednecks, that the CF policy on the subject is enacted before the federal policy is put into law.  I wonder what the lefties think about that.

 

[mover1]

Actually the CF had recognised same sex couples for year. I say YAY to that. Let them get married and have the same benefits that I do.  Let them live and love and be happy. Then get separated and divorced. Then we will see the courts have to balance out their thinking  and treat people as human beings and not as bad man, poor  woman. Even though she ran off with your sponser while you were on tour. finding yourself as a single paret and then when the baloon goes up And your on another tour. You find out that they are posted and taking your kids with you. Not that I am bitter or anything.

Seriously though. Gay marrage is ok in my books. 

 

[dutchie]

I prefer the term 'Psuedo-Marriages' when referring to same-sex 'marriages', but hey, that's just me.

 

[Gunner]

I think this is a non-issue with most CF members. As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I believe the government should stay away from the term marriage and concentrate on the civil union requirements.  Marriage is religious in nature (in my book) and should be left to the various religiouis leaders and their communities whether they will perform them for same sex couples.

 

[dutchie]

I think this is a non-issue with most CF members. As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I believe the government should stay away from the term marriage and concentrate on the civil union requirements.   Marriage is religious in nature (in my book) and should be left to the various religiouis leaders and their communities whether they will perform them for same sex couples.

Here, here.

As well, does anybody else find it funny that the Government is so determined to push through something that is not supported by the vast majority of Canadians?

 

[c4th]

Hasn't everyone had enough of this topic during sharp training?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not gay and I'm not married, so I could care less what these guys (or gals) are doing.

Seriously, is this something that will have any real affect on anyone?

 

[dutchie]

Hasn't everyone had enough of this topic during sharp training?

Now that you mentioned it, yeah, I have.

To try and steer this into a new and 'safe' direction.....

What about padres? A Catholic padre will be bound by his beliefs to not recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. However, as a Federal Government employee liscenced to perform weddings, he would be required to perform them (IIRC).

How is that resolved?

note: I will refrain from injecting my personal opinion of same-sex marriage and I hope that those that respond will do the same.

 

[Bartok5]

The only new development that I see here is the actual marriage/union ceremony.  As others have already pointed out, the CF has been recognizing same-sex "marriage" for years now.  I administered my first statutory declaration of common-law "marriage" between two males (one serviceman, one civilian) back in 1999.  I must admit that although I have no particularly strong opinions either for or against the notion, it did strike me (at the time) as being rather surreal having to sit two men down and question them on the duration of their relationship, the extent of their commitment to one another, then counsel them regarding the legal and financial implications of their decision.  At the end of the day, I simply shrugged my shoulders and witnessed the "union".  No skin off my nose.  Each to their own tends to be my personal philosophy.  

If nothing else, the CF's position on same-sex marriage clearly demonstrates the socially progressive nature of the institution.  Assuming that such initiatives do not negatively impact upon operational capability, such policies are not necessarily a bad thing IMO.  Perception is everything.....